Re: Lack of evolution in computers and living things

On 6/15/2008 11:45 AM, Ron O went clickity clack on the keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
On Jun 15, 1:32 pm, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.-

detectingdesign is Sean's bogus site. You can go there to see what
he's got on the subject, but as you indicate the name of the site
pretty much tells it all.

Sean doesn't have a viable alternative, he knows that he doesn't have
the science to back up intelligent design, so all he can do is blow
smoke. Smoke is all you are going to find at the site.

Just ask him for his alternative to the scientific explanation and the
scientific evidence to back up that alternative. You get a big fat
zero from Sean.

Sean has claimed that he has an alternative to common descent, and the
evidence to back it up that is just as good as the scientific evidence
for common descent, but he keeps running and pretending instead of
putting up what he claimed to have. He claimed to have the science of
intelligent design to teach to school kids, but the name of his site
must be bogus because he just runs and pretends from that claim too.
No viable alternative, and no scientific evidence backing up
intelligent design. Nothing to do but blow smoke and pretend to be
doing something constructive. That is all Sean is.

Sean sounds like an articulate Ray in this regard.

--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain. But what if the Earl of Essex doesn't like burlap pantaloons?"

.

Relevant Pages