Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[buffalo]

Paste this into Google:

the bacterial flagellar motor and the evolution of molecular machines - Biochemist e-volution

Quotes and responses from the paper you claim supports your claim we have clear evo pathways. Uh - no we don’t as the paper clearly shows.

Molecular machines

The flagellar motor self-assembles using an integral self-assembly machinery called a ‘type III secretion system’ that assembles itself by pumping building blocks up through a channel through the hollow flagellum to assemble on the growing distal tip. (self assembly - are there instructions or does it just pop together?) (Here we see the reason the modern synthesis is being shelved and being replaced by the EES)

No such fossil record exists for molecular machines, meaning that evolutionary inferences must be based on sequence comparison alone. (Yup, we knew this, perhaps some here did not)

Nevertheless, how these proteins were co-opted into the first flagellar ancestor remains unclear. (design is a much better explanation but this author dare not go there)

ll motors have a conserved structural core (what I have been saying for years - design)

scaffold structures (scaffolds? rotfl - evolution has no foresight - smacks of design)

effectively, motors have evolved alternative ‘gearings ’. Intriguingly, this has happened multiple times independently (we call this adaptation, and design)

on inferring an evolutionary pathway (inferring? - so this paper does not support Bradski’s claim)

This motor was, then, naively ‘irreducibly complex’,
despite clear evidence from sequence homology that it had evolved from a common simpler ancestor. How then, had this more complex motor evolved without passing through a non-functional – and therefore selectively detrimental – intermediate? (missing links? More missing links? Design fits better)

while others had only the outer membrane-associated scaffold proteins, with no clear trail of breadcrumbs leading back along an evolutionary pathway to a simpler ancestral state. (yup - no evidence)

and outer membrane-associated structures have convergently evolved
multiple times (smacks of design)

We see recurring themes in molecular evolution of the flagellar motor, either in terms of convergent evolution of similar forms or functions, or more
abstract recurrences, suggesting a limited number of solutions to a given evolutionary challenge, albeit one that can be achieved with different building blocks (yup - design used existing building blocks over and over)

we see repeated co-optation of pre-existing machinery (LOL - more design - author must be closet ID guy)

---

This is a design paper - although he uses the term evolution so many times.

 

[buffalo]

aka Evolution.

aka micro-evolution

 

[edwest211]

See. Easy answer that doesn’t solve the issue.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t worry random mutations figured it all out.

@rossum will chime in it was natural selection that didddit.

 

[Techno2000]

See. Easy answer that doesn’t solve the issue.

Well… I forgot to say random mutations + natural selection .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

buffalo:

LeafByNiggle:

Think about the “minimum irreducible complexity” arguement.

I have yet to see …

Thank you, buffalo, for proving my point that all anti-evolution arguments are of the form "I don’t see… "

I have yet to see how an “I have yet to see…” remark constitutes an anti-evolution argument.

There is nothing wrong with presenting an anti-evolution argument. Arguments and debates in general are good things. So I am not criticizing anyone merely by addressing their anti-evolution argument. You are clearly calling into question something that you believe is not adequately addressed by evolutionary science. Why not just own up to it like buffalo and everyone else here who is skeptical of evolutionary science?

In fact, any diligent evolution advocate or scientist ought to be formulating just these kinds of questions or potential problems in attempting to prove evolution true.

You would not be raising this point if you believed that evolutionary scientists were not already formulating these questions. The fact that you believe they are not formulating the right questions is your argument against evolution.

“I have yet to understand why…” or “This is a serious unanswered question…” ought to be integral to the process of arriving at any well-thought out position, no?

The search for such answers is an integral part of developing the science. But drawing conclusions from the inability to find those answers is not always valid. That is the step I was criticizing. There is a difference between “a question it would be nice to answer” and “a question that absolutely must be answered before a theory can be accepted.” I suggest that too many questions have been unfairly moved from the first category into the second category.

So it isn’t surprising that any objections are dismissed as anti-evolution.

Those are not grounds for dismissal. If objections are being dismissed, it is for other reasons.

Why not simply answer the objections with good evidence or reasons…

Because sometimes we don’t know the answers, and that may be OK, depending on the question.

, rather than slip into the “people who disagree with my position are simple-minded, ignorant or malicious” trap?

Calling an argument an “anti-evolution” argument says nothing derogatory about the person making the argument. In fact, if evolution is false, then presenting an anti-evolution argument is exactly what an intelligent, kind, and sincere person ought to do.

 

[rossum]

aka micro-evolution

The two smallest examples of macro-evolution (i.e. evolution of a new species) I know are 1 mutation and 3 mutations. Are you denying the possibility of 1 mutation macro-evolution happening? Are 3 mutations too many for you? Do all organisms have to stop after two mutations? Remember that the average human has about 70 mutations.

rossum

 

[rossum]

@rossum will chime in it was natural selection that didddit.

No, rossum will not. It is the combination of random mutations introducing variations into the population, and natural selection increasing the frequency of the beneficial mutations. Both are needed for evolution to happen. Neither is sufficient on its own.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well… I forgot to say random mutations + natural selection .

A much better answer.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

But you haven’t put up any arguments whatsoever against that paper. None at all. In fact, all your highlighting gives every indication that you accept what was written.

So what we have is you saying something could not have evolved and when it is shown that it undoubtedly could have evolved, you accept the process but then claim it is evidence of design.

Which is the whole point of the exercise. Accepting tbe process. Quite frankly I don’t care who you think is behind the process and I could care less whether you describe it as adaption, micro evolution or even design.

It’s like you claiming that it was designed that France won the World Cup. And we’re all pointing out the fact that they played umpteen games to qualify and 6 games in the tournament to win it and scored more goals than the other teams so progressed step by step at each stage by beating the other sides. And you are there having every tackle and every shot and save and every goal played for you and at every point you simply bleat: But that tackle/shot/save/goal was designed!

You want to claim that every breath of air, every clump of grass, every breath that each player took was designed by God. Well, go for it. But to claim that and yet deny that the parts constitute a process by which we arrive at a result is sophistry of the highest order.

As has been noted before, you are fooling no-one except yourself.

 

[buffalo]

So what we have is you saying something could not have evolved and when it is shown that it undoubtedly could have evolved, you accept the process but then claim it is evidence of design.

This paper offers no evidence. It is again an a priori position it had to.

 

[edwest211]

Selection of what? Goo?

 

[buffalo]

Metamorphosis​

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So what we have is you saying something could not have evolved and when it is shown that it undoubtedly could have evolved, you accept the process but then claim it is evidence of design.

This paper offers no evidence. It is again an a priori position it had to.

Yet your own post calls you out.

Most people might have had an ‘Oops, I see what I did’ moment there. But not you.

Because what you posted wasn’t a refutation. What you posted was ‘What he is describing is actually Design!’ Who cares? Call it what you will. You can call it Blueberry Pie and write it in Cyrillic on a T shirt and wear it all week if that floats your boat.

Keep swinging blindly and eventually you end up smacking yourself upside the head.

 

[buffalo]

What you posted was ‘What he is describing is actually Design!’ Who cares? Call it what you will.

I do. Take out the words evolution and this paper would be an ID paper. We are seeing more and more of this in the current literature. The landscape is shifting right beneath your feet.

 

[Techno2000]

Metamorphosis​

Thanks for this… it’s what I been saying all along, how can evolution know the future ? It could only react to the environment that it is actually experiencing at that moment.

 

[edwest211]

It’s as if the theory is wrong.

 

[Techno2000]

It’s as if the theory is wrong.

If an environmental change crops up on an organism, how exactly is it going to deal with it, when there is a million year lag time for evolution to do anything ?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

What you posted was ‘What he is describing is actually Design!’ Who cares? Call it what you will.

I do. Take out the words evolution and this paper would be an ID paper. We are seeing more and more of this in the current literature. The landscape is shifting right beneath your feet.

I guess the hole you dug earlier was too deep. ‘Best keep digging’ must seem your only option.

 

[o_mlly]

So what we have is you saying something could not have evolved and when it is shown that it undoubtedly could have evolved, you accept the process but then claim it is evidence of design.

One doesn’t often see the word “could” in a scientific claim. “Could” merely suggests a possibility may exist. Absent evidence to the contrary, anything is possible.

“Undoubtedly could” is an interesting phrase. Although perhaps intended to elevate the “possible” to the realm of the “probable,” it does not. A thing that is “undoubtedly possible” is no more possible than a merely possible thing. No one doubts the possibility of that which has not been proven false.

There’s a parallel, I think, in the atheist and the non-evolutionist.

The atheist says, “Until I observe the Resurrection, preferably in my backyard, I will not believe.”

The non-evolutionist says, “Until I observe life emanate from non-life, preferably in my own laboratory, I will not believe.”

Both make an act of faith.