What Takes More Faith????

[anonemouse 1]

Ron, go read this thread. I've already debated evolution with Gadgetlady, who quite frankly knows more about what she is trying to debate than you do. She, at least, knows the difference between natural selection and evolution.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Sorry about the moderator thing, but nevertheless, if I called someone stupid, the outrage would go on for days!

Ron, I am not a moderator. I don't know where you got the idea that I am!

Ron, there is a difference between evolution and natural selection. Yes, evolution is the obvious end point of natural selection, but they are two different theories!

I know they are two seperate theory's that are interwoven and dependant on each other. For the "flagellum moter" to have evolved through natural selection, it would have had to evolve from something similar and be an improvement on it. Scientists, even those who once subscribe to natural selection can find no logical way that the flagellum motor could have ever function without it being exactly as it now is. If you want a more scientific explanation, check out the article. There is plenty more date where that came from.

[anonemouse 1]

Natural selection is not dependent on evolution. The "flagellum motor" example is based on the idea of irreducible complexity (i.e., the idea that something won't function if you remove one part of it).

And since you obviously didn't read the link I posted, I'll post the info here.

Claim CB200.1:

Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design. Source:

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.

Response:

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the Proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to Proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.
   
   One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
   1. 
      
   2. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.
      
   3. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).
      
   4. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a Protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
      
   5. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.
      
   6. The binding of a signal transduction Protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
      
   7. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

[*] The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

[*] Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

Links:

Matzke, N. J. 2003. Evolution in (brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html or http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flag.pdf (see also 'Background to "Evolution in (Brownian) space"', http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html or http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagback.cfm)

Dunkelberg, Pete. 2003. Irreducible complexity demystified http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Musgrave, Ian. 2000. Evolution of the bacterial flagella. http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm References:

1. Blocker, Ariel, Kaoru Komoriya, and Shin-Ichi Aizawa. 2003. Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(6): 3027-3030. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/6/3027
   
2. Cavalier-Smith, T. 1987. The origin of eukaryote and archaebacterial cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 503: 17-54.
   
3. Cavalier-Smith, T. 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52: 297-354.
   
4. Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
   
5. Hueck, C. J. 1998. Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62: 379-433.
   
6. Kuwajima, G. 1988. Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology 170: 3305-3309.
   
7. Matzke, N. J. 2003. (see above)
   
8. Miller, K. 2003. Answering the biochemical argument from design. in: Manson, N. (Ed.), God and design: the teleological argument and modern science, Routledge, London, pp. 292-307. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
   
9. Miller, K. 2004. The flagellum unspun. In Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, 81-97, eds. Dembski, W., and M. Ruse, New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
   
10. Ussery, D. 1999. (see below)

Further Reading:

Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

Here is a debunking of the idea of "irreducible complexity":

Claim CI102:

Systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity in organisms indicates they were designed. Source:

Behe, Michael J., 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.

Response:

1. Irreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
   
2. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000).

References:

1. Steele, Diana. 2000. Scientists search for secrets of robust systems. Dallas Morning News, 18 Sep. 2000, Science section, http://nasw.org/users/dsteele/Stories/Robust.html

[Ron Cusano 0]

She most likely does, and I have read many of the posts there. And, as I prev iously mentioned, I most certainly do know the difference between the two theorys. But, you still have not answered the points I raised. Have you discussed the "flagellum motor" on that thread?? If so, please point it out!!

Ron, go read this thread. I've already debated evolution with Gadgetlady, who quite frankly knows more about what she is trying to debate than you do. She, at least, knows the difference between natural selection and evolution.

[anonemouse 1]

No, we didn't. But I have posted my response to the "flagellum motor" here. Read it, why don't you?

[Ron Cusano 0]

I am not going to claim I understand all of the scientific lingo, and I am guessing that you don't either, but the way I heard it explained in films and interviews from national reknowned scientists on the subject was awlful convincing. Of course, there is always someone to try to explain it away!

Natural selection is not dependent on evolution. The "flagellum motor" example is based on the idea of irreducible complexity (i.e., the idea that something won't function if you remove one part of it).

And since you obviously didn't read the link I posted, I'll post the info here.

Here is a debunking of the idea of "irreducible complexity":

[anonemouse 1]

More on irreducible complexity. You might want to read the second point under #4, Ron, the one that says:

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many Proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.

[anonemouse 1]

I am not going to claim I understand all of the scientific lingo, and I am guessing that you don't either,

Sweetie, I understand it. It's what I do. I am getting a Master's in biology, and will be going on to get a Ph.D.

[Ron Cusano 0]

"Sweetie" . . . another condesending remark?? How come if I said something like that it would be taken as me being insensitive, rude and all the other hogwash that people thew around!

So you're getting a Master's in Biology! How impressive! Let me guess that your professors are all ultra liberal evolutionists, right!! Of course they are!

Sweetie, I understand it. It's what I do. I am getting a Master's in biology, and will be going on to get a Ph.D.

[Ron Cusano 0]

As I said, all the scientific talk is Greek to me and I don't care much about the details. There are always going to be scientists on both sides of the issue.

The point of the thread was "which requires more faith?" I believe that evolution, and the accidential creation of life, requires a whole lot more faith that creation does!

More on irreducible complexity. You might want to read the second point under #4, Ron, the one that says:

[Time2live 0]

I'm sure we can all see where this thread is going.

[Ron Cusano 0]

And where is that, pray tell!!

I'm sure we can all see where this thread is going.

[anonemouse 1]

"Sweetie" . . . another condesending remark?? How come if I said something like that it would be taken as me being insensitive, rude and all the other hogwash that people thew around!

Guess what? It's a habit I did pick up from you! If you can say it and say that you didn't mean to be condescending, I can too.

[anonemouse 1]

The point of the thread was "which requires more faith?"

Yes, that was the point of the thread. But in your original post, you stated an incorrect fact about evolution and/or natural selection that was blatantly false. How can you expect people to make a decision when they are supplied with false statements?

[girlinnyc 0]

As I said, all the scientific talk is Greek to me

and that is why you can't understand a credible, scientific explanation.

and I don't care much about the details.

no wonder you like "simple" explanations that sound "awfully good", even if they make no sense at all.

There are always going to be scientists on both sides of the issue.

name some of these scientists, why don't you? and don't forget to include where they were educated.

The point of the thread was "which requires more faith?" I believe that evolution, and the accidential creation of life, requires a whole lot more faith that creation does!

faith is nice--but proven, scientific facts are what make the world go 'round.

also--why is this "faith" thing even brought up on this board? this is a board related to laparoscopic band surgery---perhaps ron, you should go elsewhere to have these discussions.