Posted on 10/11/2005 7:27:16 AM PDT by Valin
> Should you teach that the bacterial flagellum evolved?
Since by all evidence it did, yes. The IDers have been flacking the notion that it could not have, but they've been debunked.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave_flagella.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
> You want me to dig up your evidence?
Nope. You should dig up your own. It's readily available.
> Is evolution testable?
Yep. Many tests have been proposed... and successfully tested.
> Live ones, of course, not just more fossils.
Yes, because the fossil record should be ignored. Otherwise, questions unanswerable except via evolution woudl be raised.
> If you wish to play games by redefining terms, have fun
You are the one doing that. "Law" and "theory" have clear meaning to scientists. And "theory" does not equate to "guess." Only to the scientifically illiterate is that so.
As for "many tests", references, please?
If evolution is indeed viable, it should still be going on, right?
The continents are still drifting, the sun keeps pooting out energy, water still runs down hill. What, are the critters taking the epoch off?
Interesting that the only defense you have is to deem me a scientific illiterate because I do not believe as you do. How liberal of you. You purport to have evidence, produce it.
"Perhaps you shoudl back up your claim."
According to Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, the Mexican Annals of Cuauhtitlan records an extended night, and there is a New Zealand legend from the same time that speaks of Maui preventing the sun from rising. The Greeks have a legend of Phaethon stopping the sun in the sky for a day.
"None of the cultures that were around 3000 years ago and that kept good records, such as the Indians and the Chinese, who recorded every odd thign in the sky, make any mention of such."
King Yao (Chinese) declared that in his reign the sun stood still for an extended period. This was the same time as Joshua.
Other information about this event is here:
http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences/7longday.html
"No, they don't."
Yes, they do. Many flood stories from different parts of the world even have the right number of people on the ark. Likewise, they all deal with having a large boat to save a special family from catastrophe. If these were independent stories, why all the similarities?
Theories can never, ever be proven. All you can do is attempt to disprove them. Theories are called laws because they have stood the test of time, but even laws are unproven. Newton's Laws, by your definition, are no longer laws because they have been successfully disproven by facts supporting relativity. You need to get your money back if you were not taught that in college. Even in your field of geology, the theories are unproven. Where is the proof for plate techtonics, for example? That branch of science is analagous to evolution and it is in your own field.
took a year of paleontology as an undergrad, a very good course (two courses, actually), geared toward the evolutionary development of the phyla, not just taxonomy, and taught by an avowed atheist. The theory is as full of holes as the rock in this oil reservoir we are drilling.
So on what basis are you finding 'holes' in these theories? I suppose you already did graduate level work and research to back up this assertation? Or are these 'holes' the same type of 'holes' that exist in EVERY branch of science? The areas where further research is needed inorder to get a better understanding of the subject? Or do you believe that a scientific theory must be perfect and have no unaswered questions (i.e. holes) to be acceptable? If so, your understading of science is even worse than I imagined. Please dig holes in rocks and leave scientific research to those who know what science is.
Did you read your links? They don't really offer evidence. It's mostly speculation. For instance:
A possible scenario for the evolution of the eubacterial flagella is as follows: a secretory system arose first, based around the SMC rod pore forming complex, which was the common ancestor of the type III secretory system, and the flagellar system.
The proto-flagellar filament arose next as part of the protein secretion structure (cf the Pseudomonas pilus, the Salmonella filamentous apendages and the E coli filamentous structures), finally (as suggested by the presence of at least two, if not three, indpendent motors) an ion pump which was doing something else [see note] became associated with this structure and motility (presumably weak) occured fortuitosly. Even today MotAB can freely dissociate and re-associate with the flagellar structure. This early, limited motility was later refined into the more compentent system we see today. Alternatively, the ion pumps became linked to the proto-flagella to provide extra "power" to pump proteins out of the complex, and flagella motion occured via fortuitous mutations in the linkers Fli G,N,M later on. Regulation and switching can be added on later as there are modern eubacteria that lack these and function well in their environments.
Do you really think that is science?
Miller's piece is more of a diatribe than a debunking. Because the flagellum has some proteins homologous to the TTSS how does that show the evolution of the flagellum or disprove IC? Where did the propeller come from?
Talkorigins, of course, is not a science site & should not be taken seriously.
> I never said "theory" equated to "guess", your words, not mine.
Actually, those are Creationist words. You're taking their side, so there ya go.
> If evolution is indeed viable, it should still be going on, right?
As indeed it is.
> What, are the critters taking the epoch off?
Waht, do you expect evolution to occur as fast as it does in Hollywood movies?
> deem me a scientific illiterate because I do not believe as you do.
No, I deem you scientifically illiterate because of your demonstrated lack of understanding of basic scientific concepts such as "law" and "theory" and, importantly, "proof."
> Do you really think that is science?
Coming up with viable hypotheses? You bet. Or did you think science was doen by Laws and Theorems beign handed to men by God ona silver platter?
> Talkorigins, of course, is not a science site & should not be taken seriously.
OK. Then please point to a science site that backs up the notion that God said ZAP and suddenly bacteria had flagella.
I'll wait.
> King Yao (Chinese) declared that in his reign the sun stood still for an extended period. This was the same time as Joshua.
Will have to look this up.
> Many flood stories from different parts of the world even have the right number of people on the ark. Likewise, they all deal with having a large boat to save a special family from catastrophe. If these were independent stories, why all the similarities?
Because you can put a single family on a boat, and those on a boat might survive. And they would likely think of themselves as special if they were superstitious enough to see a flood as an act of some god or other. The "arguement from incredulity" doesn;t help you here.
But why is it this particular claim any more viable than "God did it"?
Or did you think science was doen by Laws and Theorems beign handed to men by God ona silver platter?
Of course not. But one should not teach the speculation as established.
OK. Then please point to a science site that backs up the notion that God said ZAP and suddenly bacteria had flagella.
That's the point. Talkorigins is no different. It's a religious site. It argues from the point that God couldn't have done it so any such claim is ridiculous -- not that "we really don't know so maybe God did do it. Let's investigate further."
You could equally postulate they were developed in a lab by aliens and dropped off here to see if they would form a viable ecosystem in the existing chemical environment, as a package. What leftovers survived from the last faunal assemblage are just germs in the petri dish. Go ahead, disprove it.
Okay, say we accept the missing transitional and ancestral forms as permissable "holes". Lots of roads, but the intersections are only implied, not documented.
If this is a viable and natural process, it should be occuring now, today. But the damning point is that there are no modern examples. Evolution involves more than killing off the unfit, there must be something new arise from all the fracas. Unless I am wrong, there have been no documented newly formed species. Simple as that. If you assert that there have been, please provide me a reference.
At that point aliens seem more probable for those who are willing to believe. (I choose not to.)
Yes, you can cut yourself on Occam's razor.
Plate Tectonics is far, far better substantiated--simply because continental drift is occuring on a daily basis. Those data exist. The plates jostle and grind, and we have earthquakes, subduction zones, ongoing crustal deformation, volcanoes, fault movement, new islands and volcanoes, new crustal formation at the ocean ridges, and even the occasional tsunami to show for it. Seismic data show what is down there. It can be measured, with repeatability.
The movement of the plates and their boundaries are measurable, again, with repeatability. The process can be observed.
Or do you believe that a scientific theory must be perfect and have no unaswered questions (i.e. holes) to be acceptable?
Like I told the other guy, don't put words in my mouth. A theory is a theory. Until you prove it, don't market it as fact. I have no problem with it being presented as a theory, a set of working assumptions, but not a fact.
Of course scientific theories have holes, without them, there would be nothing to research and the grants would dry up.
I notice you, too have this thing with asserting the correctness of your position by attempting to insult me.
How professional, how scientific.
If that is the state of scientific research, no wonder we are saddled with wailing about anthropogenic global warming and secondhand smoke.
I said that the theory of evolution is just that: a theory, unproven. You say :Theories can never, ever be proven.
So just what is there for you to take issue with?
Or would you rather decry one who provides the essential element of well conducted scientific inquiry, that of doubt?
Change the subject, shout them down?
Without doubt, any wild eyed assertion can be waved about as fact. Without doubt, there is no need to even attempt to develop proof, (which you say cannot be done). It is doubt which holds all scientific inquiry to higher standards, including that of peer review. Without some form of proof, empirical, repeatable, and documented, you only substitute a godless catechism for reason.
> But why is it this particular claim any more viable than "God did it"?
Because it has evidence backing it up. The chemistry is not based on handwaving or superstition; each step described is a physically possible one.
Tell me: what do you think about the theory that those young men in Aruba kidnapped and/or murdered that girl (name escapes me)? How would you rate that theory against "God did it?"
> one should not teach the speculation as established.
Sure. That's why we should teach evolution and not creationism in science class. One has evidence and makes successful predictions, the other is creationism.
> It argues from the point that God couldn't have done it
Incorrect. It argues from the standpoint of "ok, what has *positive* evidence?"
> The holes are simple enough in "evolution": No transitional forms.
If only you realized just how ridiculous that claim is. It's one of the more blatantly dishonest ones that the more blatantly dishonest creationists tend to make.
> Plate Tectonics is far, far better substantiated--simply because continental drift is occuring on a daily basis.
By your analysis, no, it doesn't. You only have evidence from when readings are made. You have no evidence of *transitional* locations of the continents between readings. You cannot prove that when nobody is looking, the continents don't just quantum tunnel those few parts of a millimeter before the next reading.
When you look at the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination, you have no evidence that the car actually moves between one frame and the next... there are no *transitional* frames.
So what? It's a theory!
You are really hurting for arguments when you equate a series of hypothetical biological ancestors with the movement of billions of tons of rock.
What kind of engineer are you, anyway?
This is actually fun, here I am arguing that if you cannot measure it it isn't fact, and an engineer is contending otherwise. Thanks for the laugh.
Have a nice day.
OK, without giving me a cut & past or a link what is it?
Incorrect. It argues from the standpoint of "ok, what has *positive* evidence?"
Why is evidence from homology any more positive than evidence from design?
> here I am arguing that if you cannot measure it it isn't fact, and an engineer is contending otherwise
Uh... no. The fact that *you* don't know how to quantify genetic change over time does not mean that nobody else does. Or in fac tthat nobody *has* (here's a hint: they have).
Again, arguements from incredulity are at best laughable.
> OK, without giving me a cut & past or a link what is it?
"The chemistry is not based on handwaving or superstition; each step described is a physically possible one."
> Why is evidence from homology any more positive than evidence from design?
Because a logical inference can be easily drawn, and not easily refuted. The fossil record is in many parts sufficiently clear, long and full that the transition from one distinct species to another can be followed like a film. Whereas the evidence of "design" is wholly lacking. The evidence *for* creationism is entirely bound up in attempts at finding holes in the evidence *for* evolution. It's an intellectual loser of a proposition.
God exist. Which means it physically possible for Him to form a flagellum from scratch, right?
And maybe more to the point, if the steps describe are true evolution has been shown to be false. Think about it. What is the purpose of the TTSS?
Why is evidence from homology any more positive than evidence from design? . . / Because a logical inference can be easily drawn, and not easily refuted.
I think you're referring to design, here. If you come across a clay pot will you assume it is a created artifact or an evolved one?
The fossil record is in many parts sufficiently clear, long and full that the transition from one distinct species to another can be followed like a film.
You have too much faith in the fossil record. The most famous dinosaur of all time -- the brontosaurus -- never existed.
> God exist. Which means it physically possible for Him to form a flagellum from scratch, right?
Your first sentence there is not a verifiable one. Thus your second sentence is meaningless.
> If you come across a clay pot will you assume it is a created artifact or an evolved one?
This is irrelevant, since clay pots are incapable of reproduction and mutation.
> The most famous dinosaur of all time -- the brontosaurus -- never existed.
{boggle}
Watever you say, Chief. If you want to assume that an error with some bones means that the bones themselves never existed... well, ahve fun with those shadows on your cave wall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.