Mystery Of Life Part 3 - 7

End of Darwinism

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Evolution
• Creation
• Darwin
• Atheist
• Christian
• Science
• God
• Intelligent
• Design
• Church
• Jehovah
• Jesus
• Christ
• DNA

[BornIntoDarkness]

well Darwin, I think it just absolutely broke down

[massivereader]

Dr. Miller tore this argument apart in court, well enough to convince even a conservative Republican judge appointed by Bush. He clearly identified the sub components of the flagelum as having other uses in bacteria. So the Darwin quote does not apply since Behe's arguement was invalidated.

[arshsingh1984]

"In fact, it's just irreduceably complex all the way down"

I once heard a phrase similar to that:

"It's just turtles all the way down"

[jbooth002]

I have already given you some information pertaining to the evolution of the flagellum. The genes for separate components exhibit sequence homology and likely arose through gene duplication. The flagellum has a modular architecture with proteins that are also seen in other structures. The gene for the flagellin protein is very conserved indicating its importance to the cell. There has been a lot of research done into evolution of the flagellum. Read some it before posting!

[jbooth002]

"If you begin to take certain parts away so that it still works, it's easy to dicount IC." That is exactly how IC has been disproved. That destroys the whole concept. Why would I give you my email address if you are the one who doesn't even seem to know your own argument.

Why would I need to explain where life started in order to disprove IC?

[swayne64]

If you begin to take certain parts away so that it still works, it's easy to dicount IC. To explain it as starting from nothing and suddenly growing into the complex part it is today well, not so easy now. You need to first explain where life started and then how it got to where it is today. If you still don't understand, PM me your email so I can type it more specifically. Comments on youtube only allow so many characters.

[jbooth002]

"Also, how would this complex part have evolved without starting as a simple non-functional appendage. You have yet to answer this. It's easy to take parts away but not to add them."

I don't really understand what you are trying to say with this. Can you explain it further. I'm missing your point.

[jbooth002]

Sorry I posted so many times, for some reason it wasn't appearing so I kept re-posting.

As for the flagellum, it can be broken down into components that carry out functions on their own, i.e. the motor and the hook basal body. So the irreducible complexity argument just doesn't hold up against the scientific evidence. Thanks to DNA sequencing and bioinformatics, arguments like the irreducible complexity one can be quickly refuted.

[jbooth002]

Actually the tail, or filament portion of the flagellum that extends past the hook basal body proteins is composed of repeating subunits of the same protein, flagellin. The flagellin protein is highly conserved within the domain of Bacteria, but tends to have variation within the domain Archaea. In addition, the motor proteins, known as Mot proteins, are homologous to other proton Mot complexes. So hopefully you can see how this proves irreducible complexity wrong.

[jbooth002]

Actually the tail, or filament portion of the flagellum that extends past the hook basal body proteins is composed of repeating subunits of the same protein, flagellin. The flagellin protein is highly conserved within the domain of Bacteria, but tends to have variation within the domain Archaea. In addition, the motor proteins, known as Mot proteins, are homologous to other proton Mot complexes. So hopefully you can see how this proves irreducible complexity wrong.