I made it very clear since the beginning that I would only debate with someone who would pick a naturalistic hypothesis
I am a theist arguing for a naturalistic hypothesis as the natural process of Creation. I believe you have totally failed to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific that demonstrates the natural evolution of the eye and the flagellum, by arguing from an illogical not scientific religious agenda of a phony arguing from ignorance. You cannot falsify the hypothesis of the claim that something cannot happen naturally.
The scientific evidence for evolution has been widely published in many journals over the years, and you refuse to acknowledge it. You demand others 'prove' it, and you are not willing to read and study the material yourself.
A few scientist? with a religious agenda does not represent a coherent argument against natural evolution. The fundamentalist Christian scientists? have not presented a falsifiable hypothesis to disprove evolution, because all their arguments are for the negative which cannot be falsified by legitimate scientific methods.
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
LIFE 16 April 2008
By
Michael Le Page
Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex
It is a highly complex molecular machine. Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that drive their rotation. The only way
the flagellum could have arisen, some claim, is by design.
Each flagellum is made of around 40 different protein components. The proponents of an offshoot of creationism known as
intelligent design argue that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so such a structure could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection. It must have been created instead.
In reality, the term “the bacterial flagellum” is misleading. While much remains to be discovered, we now know there are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, which vary considerably in form and even function.
Different strokes
The best studied flagellum, of the
E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
Changing zooms
It has
been proposed that the flagellum
originated from a protein export system. Over time, this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor. Rotating any asymmetrical filament would propel a cell and give it a huge advantage over non-motile bacteria even before more
spiral filaments evolved.
Finally, in some bacteria flagella became linked to an existing system for
directing movement in response to the environment. In
E. coli, it works by changing flagella rotation from anticlockwise to clockwise and back again, causing a cell to tumble and then head off in a new direction.
Without a time machine it may never be possible to prove that this is
how the flagellum evolved. However, what has been discovered so far – that flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells – show that they are not “irreducibly complex”.
More generally, the fact that today’s biologists cannot provide a definitive account of how every single structure or organism evolved proves nothing about design versus evolution. Biology is still in its infancy, and even when our understanding of life and its history is far more complete, our ability to reconstruct what happened billions of years ago will still be limited.
Think of a stone archway: hundreds of years after the event, how do you prove how it was built? It might not be possible to prove that the builders used wooden scaffolding to support the arch when it was built, but this does not mean they levitated the stone blocks into place. In such cases
Orgel’s Second Rule should be kept in mind: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”
Read more:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...agellum-is-irreducibly-complex/#ixzz692OmkP6a
Do you have the education and background to understand the science, chemistry, and genetics involved in the scientific research that supports this article?
As before, still waiting . . .
