Re: Lack of evolution in computers and living things

On 6/15/2008 10:40 AM, Seanpit went clickity clack on the keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
On Jun 15, 9:04 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For example, a bacterial flagellum requires that all of its protein
parts be specifically arranged with each other at the same time in
order for the flagellar motility function to be realized (totaling
over 10,000 specifically coded amino acid residue positions or codons
of DNA). Statistically, it is much much harder to achieve this degree
of sequence specificity for a given number of structural building
blocks in a given pool of options than it is to achieve an equal
number of parts where such specificity of arrangement of all parts is
not required.
I would say, "I hate to say this," but I don't hate what I'm about to
say. This particular argument in favor of design due to irreducible
complexity was debunked a long time ago. It was used in the trial
/Kitzmiller v Dover/ and was successfully shown that that flagellum
could be simplified even further to a structure which shot out a stinger
to obtain food. It didn't require that the stinger move around in a
mode with which to propel the organism. The structures are similar
enough to each other, but the stinger is less complex than flagella and
is shown to be the evolutionarily ancestor of flagella.

The argument you give has been proven wrong time and time again.

Ah yes, the famous TTSS toxin injector that only uses around 10 of the
50 or so flagellar proteins. You do realize that the flagellar
motility function is indeed irreducibly complex. You reduce the part
requirement below the minimum threshold of around 30 proteins and the
motility function disappears. It doesn't matter if a different
subsystem with a different function still remains intact. That has
absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the flagellar system
itself requires a higher-level minimum specified part requirement.

Beyond this, many scientists believe that the TTSS system evolved from
the flagellar motility system, not the other way around. Also, none
of the proposed steppingstones for flagellar motility evolution have
ever been shown to evolve in observable time - not one step.

Good try though. For more information on this whole scenario see:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html

Considering that I do not agree with any of the assertions made by those who promote intelligent design or creationism, based on the URLs alone I'm not going to be going to those sites since they're already biased in favor of a concept that's not even scientific, much less a theory. Try something less biased, grounded in science and I'll look at it. Or perhaps you have scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design? If so, you'd be the first to come up with any.

--
Chuck Noris' tears are worth more than diamonds due to their rarity. One is still yet to be found.

.

Quantcast