BEHE CONCEDES IC SYSTEMS CAN EVOLVE
Here I present a theory first published in 2003 by Nicholas Matzke. For more details one can view his work at
http://www.talkdesign.org/f...
This theory is d...
BEHE CONCEDES IC SYSTEMS CAN EVOLVE
Here I present a theory first published in 2003 by Nicholas Matzke. For more details one can view his work at
This theory is derived from a wealth of data regarding protein homologies. It shows that a fully functional flagellum could evolve through multiple functional intermediates. Each step involves the modification of only a single protein. For more discussion on the actual proteins involved and their homologues see the link above.
When ID proponents ask what good is half a flagellum, well, ¾ a flagellum is good for dispersion, ½ a flagellum is good for attachment to substrates, ¼ a flagellum is good for regulated protein secretion.
This model based on a wealth of evidence shows that the flagellum could evolve. Since 2003 many experiments have confirmed what initially were only predictions or weak assumptions. Still, many fine details remain to be worked out regarding function, not origin. For example, how does the ATP synthase derived components impart the motion of active transport, or how does the Tol-Pal derived components actually spine the flagellum.
Behe in the Dover trial concedes that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve.
Lawyer -- "You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex and thus could not have been produced directly, however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route, right? Behe -- "Yes." Lawyer -- "And by indirect, you mean evolution from a pre-cursor with a different function than the system being studied?" Behe -- "Yes, different function, perhaps different number of parts, and so on."
To be fair, however, Behe claims that at a certain point of complexity an indirect route is impossible. But he gives no evidence to support this caveat.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
This video has been removed from your Favorites. (Undo)
Like to Favorite videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Wow, so, in other words, you didn't read the paper. And you don't understand valence and polarity, or you'd know the chances are actually much higher. Nice try though.
I understand valence and polarity well enough to know that they could be used by an intelligence but can not substitute for intelligence. Are you aware of the incredible amount of information needed for the simplest form of life. There is also the tiny little problem that DNA relies proteins for its production, and proteins rely on DNA for their production. Which came first, one must already be in existence for the other to be made. Nice try.
Ahh.. who said DNA was in the first life-forms? Most scientists (in the field) think RNA came first. So the probability thing is out the window. The odds of amino acids combining to form a protein. So, the odds of a 400 peptide (amino-acid) sequence long protein forming are about one in (assuming we have all the amino acids avail) 3000 (ish). Wow, that's really unlikely, dunno how that could ever work out.
That's ok Notte, when you can't come back with proof, resort to the pithy and baseless. Extant, I know that my calculation did not include functional equivalents.. partly because it was way easier to do a hand-cranked calc and cross-check it with current papers and second, cause I have no clue how to algebraically formulate such and equation-set. I supposed it could be done with horse-power via some bioinformatics algorithms (maybe?). That's a wicked challenge though.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
The creationists are going to hate it.
-
And you don't understand valence and polarity, or you'd know the chances are actually much higher. Nice try though.
So the probability thing is out the window. The odds of amino acids combining to form a protein. So, the odds of a 400 peptide (amino-acid) sequence long protein forming are about one in (assuming we have all the amino acids avail) 3000 (ish). Wow, that's really unlikely, dunno how that could ever work out.
Extant, I know that my calculation did not include functional equivalents.. partly because it was way easier to do a hand-cranked calc and cross-check it with current papers and second, cause I have no clue how to algebraically formulate such and equation-set.
I supposed it could be done with horse-power via some bioinformatics algorithms (maybe?). That's a wicked challenge though.