Chemical evolution:

[paddoboy]

Behe points

Behe and whatever he has pointed out, along with Tour, your other hero, has been well and truly debunked, and shown in Tour's case anyway, to be nothing more then a crusade against science, in favour of his literal interpretation of an obscure book, written by obscure men, in an obscure age. Why even our other religious fanatics on this forum don't actually take the bible so literally.

 

[Q-reeus]

Behe and whatever he has pointed out, along with Tour, your other hero, has been well and truly debunked, and shown in Tour's case anyway, to be nothing more then a crusade against science, in favour of his literal interpretation of an obscure book, written by obscure men, in an obscure age. Why even our other religious fanatics on this forum don't actually take the bible so literally.

Worthless innuendo. Tackle the details of my post - i.e. show how 'inevitably' gradual and aimless random genetic alterations can go from naught to a fully working flagellum - or shut up.
And I'm betting your missus takes the bible very literally. In keeping with the Christianized pacific islander tradition.

 

[Write4U]

Worthless innuendo. Tackle the details of my post - i.e. show how 'inevitably' gradual and aimless random genetic alterations can go from naught to a fully working flagellum - or shut up.
And I'm betting your missus takes the bible very literally. In keeping with the Christianized pacific islander tradition.

What you completely seem to miss is the presence of a cytoskeleton before any of the more complex working flagella.

You may want to familiarize yourself with "microtubules".

The evolution of the cytoskeleton
https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201102065
Standard View

• PDF LinkPDF

The cytoskeleton is a system of intracellular filaments crucial for cell shape, division, and function in all three domains of life. The simple cytoskeletons of prokaryotes show surprising plasticity in composition, with none of the core filament-forming proteins conserved in all lineages. In contrast, eukaryotic cytoskeletal function has been hugely elaborated by the addition of accessory proteins and extensive gene duplication and specialization. Much of this complexity evolved before the last common ancestor of eukaryotes. The distribution of cytoskeletal filaments puts constraints on the likely prokaryotic line that made this leap of eukaryogenesis.

https://rupress.org/jcb/article/194/4/513/54654/The-evolution-of-the-cytoskeletonThe-evolution-of

IMO, there can be no lesser complexity than the self-organizing microtubules which consists of a dimer of two bio-chemical tubulin.
OTOH, MT offer an astounding range of complexity in function, long before any more complex organelles are formed and functionally supported by microtubules.

For more information, see :
Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?
Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Sep 7, 2018.

And we have come full circle.........

 

[Q-reeus]

What you completely seem to miss is the presence of a cytoskeleton before any of the more complex working flagella.

You may want to familiarize yourself with "microtubules".

Ah yes your #1 obsession. So having implied microtubules will come to the rescue - actually detail just how microtubules can give rise to flagella - from scratch, via totally unguided evolution.

 

[Write4U]

Ah yes your #1 obsession. So having implied microtubules will come to the rescue - actually detail just how microtubules can give rise to flagella - from scratch, via totally unguided evolution.

They self-assemble!
No ID is required! Read on and learn!

p.s. your obsession with Tour and Behe is unhealthy.... borders on religious fanaticism....

 

[iceaura]

Nobody has attempted to explain how a flagellum could gradually evolve.

That is false.

Having acknowledged the aimlessness of Darwinian evolutionary theory, you will be at a total loss to explain how even a Type III secretory system could have evolved step-by-aimless-step when all intermediatory steps will manifest as a useless structure.

Darwinian theory is not at all "aimless", and nothing in my posts claims that it is.

Common sense dictates such intermediate steps would have been weeded out at the earliest stages given their unfitness for any useful purpose.

The assumption that they would be "unfit for any useful purpose" is not common sense.

Your assumption that the structures of intermediary steps are "useless" is utterly ignorant (and begs all questions). In Darwinian theory they would almost certainly (high probability) have been selected for - which implies great usefulness and benefits large enough to outweigh their costs. (There is also the possibility - which has been observed - that the genetics were dormant and passed on for a while by chance, simply because they cost little and so were difficult to select against).

Your responses reveal - once again - that you have essentially no idea how Darwinian evolution works in theory or in practice. In this respect you are typical of your fellow travelers - the phenomenon of someone understanding Darwinian theory and rejecting it is very, very rare.

 

[paddoboy]

Worthless innuendo. Tackle the details of my post - i.e. show how 'inevitably' gradual and aimless random genetic alterations can go from naught to a fully working flagellum - or shut up.

I don't have to show anything. I have given plenty of links debunking this fanatical bible basher as well as yourself. Plus of course Abiogenesis still stands as the only scientific answer to how life arose.

And I'm betting your missus takes the bible very literally. In keeping with the Christianized pacific islander tradition.

Yeah but my Mrs aint on a white charger preaching nonsense and claims against science, as you and your heroes are.

 

[Q-reeus]

They self-assemble!
No ID is required! Read on and learn!

p.s. your obsession with Tour and Behe is unhealthy.... borders on religious fanaticism....

Your link is useless. Again, actually try to detail how flagellum can arise via blind genetic changes. Each primitive step somehow imbuing an additive 'advantage' to the bacterium.
I say it's pure fantasy. One needs everything to come together at once for survival functionality i.e. a working flagellum.

 

[Q-reeus]

Your assumption that the structures of intermediary steps are "useless" is utterly ignorant (and begs all questions). In Darwinian theory they would almost certainly (high probability) have been selected for - which implies great usefulness and benefits large enough to outweigh their costs.

Really? And where is this notion worked out with some rigor in the literature? Selection from random genetic changes that inexorably give rise to a working flagellum, starting with nothing but a 'bare' bacterium. Point to where some rudimentary initial change, on the long unguided path to a working flagellum, can be shown to confer any advantage.

 

[Write4U]

Your link is useless. Again, actually try to detail how flagellum can arise via blind genetic changes. Each primitive step somehow imbuing an additive 'advantage' to the bacterium.
I say it's pure fantasy. One needs everything to come together at once for survival functionality i.e. a working flagellum.

The link I provided is useless? Based on what knowledge do you make this assertion?

If you do not read you will never learn the details how flagella evolved and any assertions trying to debunk any evolutionary processes without knowing that flagella did in fact evolve and provided a survival advantage to archaea and later Eukaryota is worthless drivel on your part.

Archaeal origin of tubulin
Abstract

Tubulins are a family of GTPases that are key components of the cytoskeleton in all eukaryotes and are distantly related to the FtsZ GTPase that is involved in cell division in most bacteria and many archaea. Among prokaryotes, bona fide tubulins have been identified only in bacteria of the genus Prosthecobacter. These bacterial tubulin genes appear to have been horizontally transferred from eukaryotes.

Here we describe tubulins encoded in the genomes of thaumarchaeota of the genus Nitrosoarchaeum that we denote artubulins Phylogenetic analysis results are compatible with the origin of eukaryotic tubulins from artubulins. These findings expand the emerging picture of the origin of key components of eukaryotic functional systems from ancestral forms that are scattered among the extant archaea.

Findings

Tubulins comprise a distinct family of GTPases that are highly conserved among eukaryotes and are the major components of microtubules, an essential part of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton [1, 2]. All eukaryotes encode multiple, paralogous tubulins that evolved through a series of gene duplications at early stages of eukaryote evolution as well as many subsequent, lineage-specific duplications [3]. Among prokaryotes, the only bona fide tubulins have been identified in several bacteria of the genus Prosthecobacter [4] in which they form microtubule-like sturctures closely resembling eukaryotic microtubulues [5]. The tubulins of Prosthecobacteria show high sequence and structural similarity to eukaryotic homologs, and given their extremely narrow distribution among prokaryotes, are thought to have evolved via horizontal transfer of a eukaryotic tubulin gene to an ancestor of this group of bacteria [6, 7]....more

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-10

Read some 90 pages on the subject of MT evolution and function in the thread on microtubules.

And what's you got...huh? And you are claiming knowledge? Yea... knowledge like "gnosticism".....

What is Religious Knowledge?

Religious knowledge is one that is based on a dogma, a belief accepted without rationing or scientific discussion.
In religious knowledge the person and the reality that surrounds him, related to something higher, a divinity, is conceived. This allows people to faithfully believe in something that can not be verified.

https://www.lifepersona.com/what-is-religious-knowledge#

And which has now been acknowledged as supporting Evolutionary processes by the Papal Academy of Sciences.
But of course that's science and does not count as "knowledge"...........and round'n round we go.

 

[Q-reeus]

T
The link I provided is useless? Based on what knowledge do you make this assertion?

The link in question was originally in the email notification version and led just to your home page. Rather stupid. You since must have realized that and deleted it as edit.

If you do not read you will never learn the details how flagella evolved and any assertions trying to debunk any evolutionary processes without knowing that flagella in fact evolved and provided a survival advantage to archaea is worthless drivel on your part.

Refresh your memory of how complex and specialized is the flagellum (Don't fret, just 3 minutes long.):

Now, you claim to understand how it all could happen bit-by-bit. So explain it here. Explain how self-assembling MTs figured out how to get all that complexity to come together finally, but bit by blind evolutionary bit. No teleology allowed! But you will have to resort to teleology, and that will be hilarious to see unfold.

 

[Write4U]

The link in question was originally in the email notification version and led just to your home page. Rather stupid. You since must have realized that and deleted it as edit.

If I deleted it I must have found the error, no. In bookkeeping a corrected error is no longer an error.

Refresh your memory of how complex and specialized is the flagellum (Don't fret, just 3 minutes long.):

Oh yes, that refreshed my memory alright. I believe I covered this some years ago when I started reading the Kitzmiller trial, where Behe made that claim and was corrected by a cadre of authoritative scientists.

Now, you claim to understand how it all could happen bit-by-bit. So explain it here. Explain how self-assembling MTs figured out how to get all that complexity to come together finally, but bit by blind evolutionary bit. No teleology allowed! But you will have to resort to teleology, and that will be hilarious to see unfold.

I need not explain anything to you. I have an entire thread devoted to the evolution and function of microtubules and just one of their several evolutionary adaptations to motility. (90 pages). Don't tell me that my posts lack evidentiary support. But the fact is you refuse to learn, as religious people are wont to do, in favor of a vague understanding of the metaphorical nature of scripture as told by holy rollers.

btw. bacteria like the Paramecium have a variation of the flagella , but are short and numerous . They're called cilia and in addition to the more powerful flagella are just one of the many functions MT perform, including muscle contraction in animals.
,

Cilia and flagella are cell organelles that are structurally similar but are differentiated based on their function and/or length. Cilia are short and there are usually many (hundreds) cilia per cell. On the other hand, flagella are longer and there are fewer flagella per cell (usually one to eight). Though eukaryotic flagella and motile cilia are structurally identical, the beating pattern of the two organelles can be different. The motion of flagella is often undulating and wave-like, whereas the motile cilia often perform a more complicated 3D motion with a power and recovery stroke.

Cilia and Flagella

Cilia and flagella are motile cellular appendages found in most microorganisms and animals, but not in higher plants. In multicellular organisms, cilia function to move a cell or group of cells or to help transport fluid or materials past them. The respiratory tract in humans is lined with cilia that keep inhaled dust, smog, and potentially harmful microorganisms from entering the lungs. Among other tasks, cilia also generate water currents to carry food and oxygen past the gills of clams and transport food through the digestive systems of snails.

Flagella are found primarily on gametes, but create the water currents necessary for respiration and circulation in sponges and coelenterates as well. For single-celled eukaryotes, cilia and flagella are essential for the locomotion of individual organisms. Protozoans belonging to the phylum Ciliophora are covered with cilia, while flagella are a characteristic of the protozoan group Mastigophora.

https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/ciliaandflagella/ciliaandflagella.html#:

The variety of locomotive organelles speaks of evolutionary processes, each type adapted for their specific environment and efficient survival strategy.


THE TRIAL OF KITZMILLER V. DOVER
..........

Ignoring such statements, the defense asserted that intelligent design is rooted in science, frequently citing Dr. Michael Behe's work.

In what often sounded like an advanced biology course, expert witness Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, said that, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community."

Note; If a hypothesis is not testable, it cannot be used as proof of anything. Behe's hypothesis is not testable hence it is not admissible. It is just an incorrect interpretation of the evolutionary facts, which have been tested and verified by fossil remains and more recently by E

Defense witness Dr. Scott Minnich conceded as much. When testifying about how it was a risk in his field to come out as an intelligent design proponent, Pepper Hamilton attorney Steve Harvey replied, "That's because the entire scientific community rejects intelligent design, doesn't it?" Minnich answered, "That's correct."

In addition, to Forrest, Haught and Miller, expert witnesses for the plaintiffs included Robert T. Pennock, Ph..D., associate professor of science and technology, Michigan State University and associate professor of philosophy, MSU; Brian Alters, Ph.D., associate professor of education, McGill University, Montreal; and Kevin Padian, Ph.D., professor of integrative biology, University of California, Berkeley and curator, Museum of Paleontology at UC, Berkeley.

https://www.aclu.org/other/trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

And all these scientists did come up with testable proofs and therefore had scientific standing, whereas Behe and cohorts did not. They had just speculation, clever to be sure, but wrong nevertheless.

Therefore if Behe has no scientific standing, how can you claim any scientific knowledge at all? You have belief...

Large or small, there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" that's religious creationism.

 

[Write4U]

Antenna (biology)

Large antennae on a longhorn beetle
Antennae (singular: antenna), sometimes referred to as "feelers", are paired appendages used for sensing in arthropods.


Structure[edit]

Electron micrograph of antenna surface detail of a wasp (Vespula vulgaris)

The three basic segments of the typical insect antenna are the scape or scapus (base), the pedicel or pedicellus (stem), and finally the flagellum, which often comprises many units known as flagellomeres.[9] The pedicel (the second segment) contains the Johnston's organ which is a collection of sensory cells.

The scape is mounted in a socket in a more or less ring-shaped sclerotised region called the torulus, often a raised portion of the insect's head capsule. The socket is closed off by the membrane into which the base of the scape is set. However, the antenna does not hang free on the membrane, but pivots on a rigidly sprung projection from the rim of the torulus. That projection on which the antenna pivots is called the antennifer. The whole structure enables the insect to move the antenna as a whole by applying internal muscles connected to the scape. The pedicel is flexibly connected to the distal end of the scape and its movements in turn can be controlled by muscular connections between the scape and pedicel. The number of flagellomeres can vary greatly between insect species, and often is of diagnostic importance.

True flagellomeres are connected by membranous linkage that permits movement, though the flagellum of "true" insects does not have any intrinsic muscles. Some other Arthropoda do however have intrinsic muscles throughout the flagellum. Such groups include the Symphyla, Collembola and Diplura.

In many true insects, especially the more primitive groups such as Thysanura and Blattodea, the flagellum partly or entirely consists of a flexibly connected string of small ring-shaped annuli. The annuli are not true flagellomeres, and in a given insect species the number of annuli generally is not as consistent as the number of flagellomeres in most species.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(biology)#

 

[Q-reeus]

If I deleted it I must have found the error, no. In bookkeeping a corrected error is no longer an error.
Oh yes, that refreshed my memory alright. I believe I covered this some years ago when I started reading the Kitzmiller trial, where Behe made that claim and was corrected by a cadre of authoritative scientists.

I need not explain anything to you. I have an entire thread devoted to the evolution and function of microtubules and just one of their several evolutionary adaptations to motility. (90 pages). Don't tell me that my posts lack evidentiary support. But the fact is you refuse to learn, as religious people are wont to do, in favor of a vague understanding of the metaphorical nature of scripture as told by holy rollers.

btw. bacteria like the Paramecium have a variation of the flagella , but are short and numerous . They're called cilia and in addition to the more powerful flagella are just one of the many functions MT perform, including muscle contraction in animals.
,

Cilia and flagella are cell organelles that are structurally similar but are differentiated based on their function and/or length. Cilia are short and there are usually many (hundreds) cilia per cell. On the other hand, flagella are longer and there are fewer flagella per cell (usually one to eight). Though eukaryotic flagella and motile cilia are structurally identical, the beating pattern of the two organelles can be different. The motion of flagella is often undulating and wave-like, whereas the motile cilia often perform a more complicated 3D motion with a power and recovery stroke.

Cilia and Flagella

https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/ciliaandflagella/ciliaandflagella.html#:

The variety of locomotive organelles speaks of evolutionary processes, each type adapted for their specific environment and efficient survival strategy.


THE TRIAL OF KITZMILLER V. DOVER
.......... Note; If a hypothesis is not testable, it cannot be used as proof of anything. Behe's hypothesis is not testable hence it is not admissible. It is just an incorrect interpretation of the evolutionary facts, which have been tested and verified by fossil remains and more recently by E https://www.aclu.org/other/trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

And all these scientists did come up with testable proofs and therefore had scientific standing, whereas Behe and cohorts did not. They had just speculation, clever to be sure, but wrong nevertheless.

Therefore if Behe has no scientific standing, how can you claim any scientific knowledge at all? You have belief...

Large or small, there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" that's religious creationism.

I covered this in earlier posts. Kenneth Miller's 'refutation' consisted in pointing to the similarities between some components of a flagellum and type III secretory system, and then merely asserting the former appeared by sequestering the latter on it's way to evolving into a working flagellum. No details. No step-by-step processes worked out. No explanation of how the type III secretory apparatus itself came about (and as posted earlier, it's now known the flagellum came first). Enough of a half-baked argument though to satisfy those who want to believe such a fantasy was possible. Scientific naturalism by definition cannot allow an IDer so it's no surprise all those scientists opposed ID. To not do so amounts to career suicide.

 

[Write4U]

Evolution of flagella

Bacterial flagellum

There is good evidence that the bacterial flagellum has evolved from a Type III secretory and transport system, given the similarity of proteins in both systems.

All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of exporting (injecting) toxin into eukaryotic cells. Similarly, flagella grow by exporting flagellin through the flagellar machinery. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system.

For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells.

The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6]

As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

 

[Write4U]

I covered this in earlier posts. Kenneth Miller's 'refutation' consisted in pointing to the similarities between some components of a flagellum and type III secretory system, and then merely asserting the former appeared by sequestering the latter on it's way to evolving into a working flagellum. No details. No step-by-step processes worked out. No explanation of how the type III secretory apparatus itself came about (and as posted earlier, it's now known the flagellum came first). Enough of a half-baked argument though to satisfy those who want to believe such a fantasy was possible. Scientific naturalism by definition cannot allow an IDer so it's no surprise all those scientists opposed ID. To not do so amounts to career suicide.

And therefore Behe and Troup are proven correct and the rest of science is proved wrong. Do you see how far you are straying from any kind of scientific method, in favor of a nice "feel good" fantasy.
And for Behe and Troup to not do as they do would amount to financial suicide......

 

[iceaura]

And where is this notion worked out with some rigor in the literature?

Throughout it - beginning with "On The Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin.

Selection from random genetic changes that inexorably give rise to a working flagellum, starting with nothing but a 'bare' bacterium.

"Inexorably"? "Random genetic changes"? A "bare" bacterium?

Point to where some rudimentary initial change, on the long unguided path to a working flagellum, can be shown to confer any advantage.

Ok: a rudimentary molecular arrangement that creates or abets a pore in the cell membrane or wall or both of a bacterium. Bacteria benefit by having pores, only a small and simplified fraction of the modern flag's structural molecules is needed for a pore. *

Done.
The third or fourth such demand from you I've met - none acknowledged so far. So you have plenty to deal with before changing the subject again.

*(You have made an impossibility claim - it is refuted by any reference to possibility, no establishment of existence is necessary. As the actual path followed is unknown (as far as I know), any Just So story will do - that suits my sloth: how about the observation that bacteria gain advantages by having various kinds of pores or openings in their walls through which substances can be imported and exported, and even rudimentary versions of the flagellum's wall structure - without the flagellum itself, without the "motor" setup, without the sophistication of control and precision of arrangement, etc etc - will do that. So I'll just point to them.)

Also, since the current structure is apparently singular - the tens of thousands of flagellated species of bacteria share this one basic setup, its evolution something that may have happened exactly once - we are permitted fairly large probability jumps: something that has to happen only once in a half a billion years, somewhere on the surface of an entire planet, among trillions of relevant situations (trillions? gross underestimate), can be quite unlikely as an individual event and yet reasonably postulated as a step on an evolutionary path. It's different from the situation we face with eyes, where the dozens of radically different setups imply dozens of discrete evolutionary origins, knocking on to generally high probability of the category of event and most of its means.

 

[Q-reeus]

...Ok: a rudimentary molecular arrangement that creates or abets a pore in the cell membrane or wall or both of a bacterium. Bacteria benefit by having pores, only a small and simplified fraction of the modern flag's structural molecules is needed for a pore. *Done....

The whole problem with your rudimentary pore claim is that even that much is dubious. Recall that the sole plausible evolutionist blind chance way a cell wall can initially come about is via an accidental enveloping of a rudimentary self-replicating assemblage by a lipid bilayer. A miraculous event in itself, it would leave the cell wall i.e. lipid bilayer genetically isolated from the enclosed reproduction part. The newly acquired cell wall is a foreign invasion and unable to respond to a hoped for cell division process. But unless that division happens, the miraculous cell dies a lonely death. That dilemma and many others are ignored totally or at best hand-waved away by the unguided abiogenesis 'experts' and enthusiasts alike.

 

[paddoboy]

That dilemma and many others are ignored totally or at best hand-waved away by the unguided abiogenesis 'experts' and enthusiasts alike.

As a previous exchemist said......

There is no reason to treat Tour as an authority with any credibility on the subject of abiogenesis.

Adding of course even less reason to treat yourself with any such authority on Abiogenesis, particularly when so many links and references, have rebuked his bible bashing oriented opinions/claims.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman:

 

[Write4U]

That dilemma and many others are ignored totally or at best hand-waved away by the unguided abiogenesis 'experts' and enthusiasts alike.

What possessed me? An Intelligent Designer is so much more credible than an "unguided" abiogenesis event ! Instead of handwaving away the dilemma, let us enthusiastically embrace the guiding comfort and security of a motivated supernatural being who can conjure irreducibly complex miracles for his own (and of course human) pleasure.

Chemical evolution consists of Oxidation reduction, Hydration/Dehydration reaction, Acid base reaction, Polymerization/Depolymerization reaction. Add the Table of Elements and the Electromagnetic spectrum and the Universe becomes the greatest laboratory imaginable.

No Intelligent Designer is necessary and does unneccesarily complicate demonstrable fundamental Natural Evolutionary processes.

Stop making it so complicated, there is no irreducible complexity.
You cannot prove it, ever...., so do not try to replace real science with it.

Of course you can pray for it, for eternity as far as that is concerned. I wouldn't hold my breath though.....