It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by HappyBunny
Actually that's not true.
One lone judge dictates science now is that how it works?
You can read the transcriptions from the court case, A microbiologist testified that genetic knockout tests show the flagellum to be by defintition to be irriducably complex.
Do you want to see it?
The judge ignored experimental evidence in favour of ken millers "story" how the TSIII system was a predecessor.
There's many problems with this.
1) it' since been proven not true! it's not a predecessor.
2) it's a subsystem that has nothing to do with the mobility system.
3) even if it were, it's one tiny step in what must contain many many steps. No need because of the above.
This is another lie, the DNA, RNA, Protein problem IS a irriducably complex arrangement! that's why it's called a chicken and egg problem. There a hundreds of these types of things. From molecular, to the systems of the human body to the eco system itself.
It's not been refuted in any scientific way at all. In fact many don't seem too really get the argument to well. Surgeons generally do.edit on 26-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by squiz
There is nothing to suggest irreducible complexity. For that to exist the proteins would have no other functions except for its being a component of the flagellum.
"One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. ‘The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later," Howard Ochman - Biochemist - New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008)
Phylogenetic Analyses of the Constituents of Type III Protein Secretion Systems
Excerpt: We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems.
Originally posted by squiz
Originally posted by Barcs
How can you claim that genetic information is not physical? What is DNA made out of? All physical components, even the "code" itself is pairs of physical atoms. People keep trying to apply information theory to DNA, when it's not a computer code and doesn't even remotely resemble one.
There are different types of information, it's a science onto itself. The "people" that keep trying to apply it are information scientists. Stanley Krick has commented on this, Jack Szostak has commented. It's a fact not an idea.
Watch the video above, and listen to the terminology they use "This is where the genetic information becomes flesh and blood". What was it before? it was encoded. Prescriptive information is encoded into matter it is not the matter itself.
Once again we see darwinist claim it's all resloved, biologists know for a fact little is known about the flagellums origins or any molecular machine for that matter. Are darwinists science deniers?
Behe has proffered the concept of irreducible complexity using the flagellum as a paradigmatic example. It is this very concept that has been the bread and butter of molecular geneticists allowing them to identify genes in any given system by loss of function. Behe argues that natural selection and random mutation cannot produce the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellar motor with its ca. forty separate protein parts, since the motor confers no functional advantage on the cell unless all the parts are present. Natural select can preserve the motor once it has been assembled, but it cannot detect anything to preserve until the motor has been assembled and performs a function. If there is no function, there is nothing to select. Given that the flagellum requires ca. 50 genes to function, how did these arise? Contrary to popular belief, we have no detailed account for the evolution of any molecular machine.
"One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect." (Scott Minnich Testimony, Day 20, pm session, pg. 107-108.)
Natural select can preserve the motor once it has been assembled, but it cannot detect anything to preserve until the motor has been assembled and performs a function. If there is no function, there is nothing to select. Given that the flagellum requires ca. 50 genes to function, how did these arise?
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs
Actually DNA’s definition as a literal code is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s.
The bottom line is you don't have the empirical evidence for very much at all do we? The fact is you need experimental data to back an hypothesis. That's the scientific method.
Prescriptive information is another test and it's been confirmed.
Much of your complaint is everything that is wrong with biology, even darwinist acknowledge we must look at biology in the context of information, it's been regarded as the next step.
By all means correct faulty information, except you have to provide proof you see. That's where you seem to be a little defficient. Just so stories are no good. Oh it's an old debunked argument! Where's the test?
1. Dna contains prescriptive information. Scientific fact!
2. The only known cause for Prescriptive information is mind. Statement of fact!
3. Dna was encrypted by a mind. Logical hypothesis.
Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that "different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent." For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information -- functional information -- is required.
(Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)
Originally posted by uva3021
What do you think that quote says? All it does is point out the fact that with any biological system, information can not be generalized to have an upper bound for a specific function F, or O(F) does not generalize complexity for biological organisms.
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by squiz
Behe is full of it, as nicely summed up here.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by uva3021
I've read a couple, problem is RNA hypothesis is in trouble if we are to accept the other tenants of evolutionary theory.
It seems proteins had to be there in the beggining. So back to the drawing board.