Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

[noguru]

Its a classic joke I first ran into in 1950. Valz was leaving the subject of irreducible complexity and trying the "argument by authority" so I threw in a joke to lighten things up.

Once we are finished with the subject of irreducible complexity and whether the bacterial flagellum is an example of one, then we can move on to other things such as what impact, if any, the existence of even one irreducibly complex system might have on NeoDarwinism, the concept of step by step slow changes via random mutations and natural selection.

Tanto to Lone Ranger;

"What do you mean 'we'?"

 

[hatsoff]

Irreducible complexity is a definition which appears to be true by definition provided one assumes a step by step process and natural selection.

Right away, your comments betray that you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. IC is an escape. It seeks to cast doubt on evolution, because evolution is in conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nevermind that the Bible has no one definitive text.

You are incorrect that it does not cover the case of a system which may have more parts than necessary and can lose a part to arrive at a functioning system. In that case the system which had the extra part would not be an irreducibly complex system, because it was able to lose one part and was still a functioning system.

You are wrong that IC does not presuppose subtractions, because that is the entire point of an IC system: it is only an IC system if the loss of any part yields a non-functioning system.

If that is the case, than IC is not any evidence, much less proof, for ID.

The bacterial flagellum has been advanced as the "icon" of IC. So why can't evolutionists disprove it? Can you remove any one component from the bacterial flagellum and still have a functioning system?

Ken Miller didn't disprove IC because he didn't try to show that one can remove any one part of the bacterial flagellum and still yield a functioning system (the definition of an IC system). What he did was to show that there were simpler systems that could function, and by the way the TTSS system contains 10 or so proteins that are similar to 10 of the 40 or so proteins that comprise the bacterial flagellum. He then left the problem of how the TTSS could evolve step by step into the bacterial flagellum to the student as an exercise.
Nice try but no cigar Ken.

If IC conforms to your definition, it need not be disproved.

 

[Clete]

Wrong, a flagellum that is partially there functions as a partially working secretory system. Did you not read?

I think it was you who didn’t read. Did you miss the part where I mentioned that without a functioning flagellum the bacterium is immobilized?

There is no need to secrete anything if you can't get to your food source because you're completely immobilized by the fact that you have a propeller with 87% of a motor to spin it. :duh:

The process is pretty simple to follow.

You get to a food source FIRST, you ingest it SECOND, you secrete it LAST. You can't poop what you haven't eaten and you can't eat what you can't get too. The only thing there would be available for the bacterium to ingest would be it own biomass. Thus with only half of a functioning flagellum I grant that yes the starving bacterium would still be able to crap itself (literally).

Further, just out of curiosity, specifically which part of the flagellum functions as a secretory system?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Evoken]

Nonsense. Biologists are quite clear that they rule out an intelligent designer in their work. They wish to explain things using natural phenomena only because that is all science can work with (observe and experiment on).

Being a "Science Lover" you should know better. You should know well that Methodological Naturalism is the only method by which science can work and yield accurate, testable and raliable results. The alternative that you are proposing, namely, Methodological Supernaturalism yeilds no results, it is superfluos (gives us nothing that MetaNat does not gives us), it propsoes no predictions/confirmations, it is untestable and and not bound to any logical restrictions. Under MS, anything and everything is possible, there is no constrain to what can or cannot happen, there is not way of knowing what we should or should not see.

MetaNat is the only method by which genuine science is possible. This is not some Naturalist bias or anything similar (personally I believe that the fact that MetaNat is so reliable is a strong evidence for God, but that is another subject). Rather, MetaNat is prefered because it has a long track record of amazing results in all branches of natural science.

The question then is: is the bacterial flagellum irreducibly complex? Maybe, maybe not, but so far nobody has been able to show that it isn't. Perhaps the reason is that nobody seems to be trying to do an experiment which would remove one of the proteins which comprise this system and find out if it still functions. They are doing many other things and saying many other things, but nobody seems to be paying any attention to the definition Behe gave for an irreducibly complex system.

bob b, the whole argument for IC rests on a fallacy(reverse evolution), see what the paper on TalkReason says...

"The protein parts of biochemical systems also evolve, so the flytrap is a good model for them and the mousetrap isn't. The flytrap and hemoglobin show in different ways that removing a part is often not the same as evolution in reverse. The flytrap has already lost a part (the glue that Drosera use to trap insects). With hemoglobin, taking away either the alpha or the beta chain would be a disaster unless the whole animal could be 'evolved back' to a much earlier stage.

Both hemoglobin and the recent evolution of a way to metabolize PCP show that what we have called 'deployment of parts' is important in evolution. Biologists usually call this regulation of gene expression, or just gene regulation. From another point of view, it is called co-option or recruitment of a protein to a new function. If a protein takes on two roles, any subsequent duplication of the corresponding gene will be subject to selection for both its regulation and the separate functions. Hence this duplication will be more likely to persist and spread in the population.

Here's another interesting thing about the PCP example: it amounts to 'adding a part to a previously non-functional system', which is exactly what Behe thinks cannot happen, because he thinks the organism couldn't have lived without that part. It turns out that a single mutation can create a new function and mechanism, allowing the organism to live better or in a new environment. This is indirect evolution in Behe's terms, but to DNA it is just another mutation."

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dunk.cfm

Evolution does not needs to show that a part of the flagellum can be removed without it losing it's function, it only needs to show that the flagellum could have evolved, that is what has been done, and that is precisely what refutes IC. By asking just for the removal of parts, you are only presenting hafl of the argument that Behe is making, the conclusion Behe makes is that because this or that system is IC, then it cannot have evolved, but since it has been shown that it could have evolved, then IC (wether it exists) is simply irrelevant to Evolution because Evolution can also produce IC(if such a thing actually exists) systems.


Valz

 

[Johnny]

I think it was you who didn’t read. Did you miss the part where I mentioned that without a functioning flagellum the bacterium is immobilized?

There is no need to secrete anything if you can't get to your food source because you're completely immobilized by the fact that you have a propeller with 87% of a motor to spin it.

The process is pretty simple to follow.

You get to a food source FIRST, you ingest it SECOND, you secrete it LAST. You can't poop what you haven't eaten and you can't eat what you can't get too.

Bacteria don't have to be mobile to survive. Lots of bacteria lack flagella and motility. Secretion isn't referring to bacterial waste. Bacteria secrete all kinds of chemicals.