Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- Mimio0
Tell your friends they've been railroaded by xtian propaganda.
- ********0
501
- ********0
anywayz, I just like the science, even the inconsisency in it.
cool out...
I'm out
- mrdobolina0
I doubt you have many friends that disagree with you, Discipler.
Having a one-track mind and a defective turntable and all.
- balboa0
Conflating ID with Punk Rock.
That's a regretful line you just crossed, my unevolved friend.
;)
- KuzIII0
evolution of the flagella
- flagellum0
here's the bottom line (again), you can keep spouting nonsense about ID being a religious / political conspiracy, etc... etc... but it doesn't change the scientific facts:
- Digital code in DNA
- Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
- Human Consciousness
- The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record
- The physical constants fine-tuning
...Just a few of the things that Darwinism has failed to explain sufficiently, but which ID explains perfectly.
- flagellum0
wooops, kuzz is back and missed my posts above which have long since refuted the co-option/homology drivel from Wikipedia.
- Anarchitect0
omfg
please tell me he didn't unleashed
TEH PUNK ROCK MANEUVER©!
- ********0
Joey Ramone is spinning in his grave. A fossil in his own right.
:O
- mrdobolina0
seriously, can anything really be irreducibly complex?
Or is it just limited by current science?
- flagellum0
I'm afraid so, the analogy to ID theorists as punk rockers works extremely well.
Down with the establishment.
- KuzIII0
evolution of the flagella:
"Testable outlines exist for the origin of each of the three motility systems, and avenues for further research are clear; for prokaryotes, these avenues include the study of secretion systems in free-living, nonvirulent prokaryotes. In eukaryotes, the mechanisms of both mitosis and cilial construction, including the key role of the centriole, need to be much better understood. A detailed survey of the various nonmotile appendages found in eukaryotes is also necessary. Finally, the study of the origin of all of these systems would benefit greatly from a resolution of the questions surrounding deep phylogeny—what are the most deeply branching organisms in each domain, and what are the interrelationships between the domains?"
- flagellum0
dobs, if you remove any one component from an irreducibly complex molecular machine, it fails completely. It requires all parts at once, to function, or not at all. Something Natural Selection cannot acheive. So, yes they are irreducible.
Somebody forgot to tell Wikipedia that co-opting existing components of an IC machine for other molecular machine doesn't provide an adequate explanation of how it was built in the first place by a gradualistic mechanism.
- ********0
Have you guys even been to a born again church lately - I mean they use hiphop and punk rock as youth outreach programs. Not that Hiphop and rap are really anything I'd peg as actually rebellious these days.
Look - a key to the survival of christianity has been it's ability to co-opt popular things and make them seem like they were all part of the plan to begin with. The fact that it has co-opted popular forms of entertainment let alone now attempting to co-opt science yet again only shows you the methodology behind the madness...
- flagellum0
Read what i just wrote kuz and then read what Dr. William Dembski says about co-option from other systems. It's an old attempt at rebuttal, kuzz an it fails:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/wd…
You see, wikipedia (not a good source for current or accurate scientific data) must have been consulting with Ken Miller. ;)
- flagellum0
Kuz, more on the co-option canard:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
It's common knowledge that there has never been a tested biochemical pathway from some other system to the flagellum. Only hand-waving stories. And even if they did, they would then have to show how the system that co-opted components was created via Darwinian gradualism. ;)
- mrdobolina0
dobs, if you remove any one component from an irreducibly complex molecular machine, it fails completely. It requires all parts at once, to function, or not at all. Something Natural Selection cannot acheive. So, yes they are irreducible.
---
But, what if these molecules arent the farthest down that it goes?
- flagellum0
"Darwin's theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If the biological community had even an inkling of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms, Miller would not -- a full six years after the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe -- be lamely gesturing at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum."
- Mimio0
"Irreducible Complexity" is the opinion of one living biochemist. Most scientists thinks he's flat out wrong, and not very punk rock.