Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2012, 04:49 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 05:01 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
This is the result of a 3 min google search. A personal best!

1) From Wikipedia:
"Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

This was my response to this:

"If by irreducible complexity you mean that, within the same species, a certain complex structure only functions as a whole. Well, I'll say to you that that alone doesn't say anything against evolution (you can say it was designed, I can say it was randomly generated in the computer of the magic goblin), but it may say something about specialization. And I
say may, because it is so very common in biology to see a component from a complex cell structure having different functions."


2) "Again, even if the T3SS did evolve from the BF and the data was foolproof and empirical this does not refute IC."

Thank you for accepting evolution as an explanation! This what you're missing: I don't care if it refutes IC. For me what you call IC may be the result of a specialization process, as I've told you before. But even this process of specialization is reversible! And that is what the paper tells us. The paper shows data supporting for the evolution of a highly specialized structure!


3) "When you can provide a detailed and empirical account of how a neo Darwinian process could have produced a BF then let me know. Remember were using your own standard as applied to me. It has to be empirical data."

Typical argument from incredulity!


4) "Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?"

I must say that I got quite confused about this... The only flagelated mamalian cell is the sperm and its flagellum is structurally unrelated to the prokaryotic flagellum. In which way are BF or TTSS vital for mamalian cells?

As to the ancestor question, I think that Chas answered it conviniently!

If I'm missing something, please enlight me.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 05:02 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 03:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 02:30 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  ... And one other thing. Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?

They were quite busy not yet being mammals. Drinking Beverage
OK and once they became mammals how long did they have to wait?

Those who support the hypothesis that the T3SS evolved from flagella cite evidence that Eukaryotes evolved after Prokaryotes. Thus, the need for motility would have caused selection for the development of flagella before an injectisome.[20] However this suggestion can be seen as ‘reductive evolution,’ and receives no topological support from the phylogenetic trees.


Saier, M "Evolution of bacterial type III protein secretion systems". Trends in Microbiology Gophna U, Ron EZ, Graur D .

"Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 06:44 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
As far as I know the eukaryotic flagellum did not evolve from the prokaryotic flagellum... They're unrelated.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

(http://jcb.rupress.org/content/194/2/165.long)

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 05:30 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 03:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 02:30 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  ... And one other thing. Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?

They were quite busy not yet being mammals. Drinking Beverage
Keep in mind Chas this was one of Millers supposed key pieces of evidence at Dover trial (again that the T3SS was the precursor to the BF) and even my nemesis here on this post finally admitted Miller was wrong, and kudos to him for doing so. This is also a mention of a citation from my buddy Casey, and this was known even before this recent paper.



"Ken Miller has been making the same objections about irreducible complexity and the bacterial flagellum for a long time. In his Dover testimony, his book Only a Theory, and in other writings he argues that irreducible complexity for the flagellum is refuted because about 10 flagellar proteins can also be used to construct a toxin-injection machine (called the Type-III Secretory System, or T3SS) that some predatory bacteria use to kill other cells. Miller may even boast that Judge Jones ruled that the T3SS explained how the bacterial flagellum could evolve: "[W]ith regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer-reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System."3

Let it be known that I have backed up what I have said with science and peer review citations, in addition to unwittingly getting the help of a proponent. By the way, the latest to fall from grace and who now admits that the current evolutionary synthesis has failed, is another corresponding acquaintance of mine. His name is Señor Francisco Ayala of the National Academy of sciences. He still believes in evolution, but admits the current theory as taught has failed. For being honest, my respect and muchisimas gracias mi Amigo Don Francisco In addition, Phillip Skell of the same National Academy renounced the theory and jumped ship to intelligent design a few years before he passed away RIP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 07:46 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 05:14 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  As far as I know the eukaryotic flagellum did not evolve from the prokaryotic flagellum... They're unrelated.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

(http://jcb.rupress.org/content/194/2/165.long)
I never said they did. So you dont even seem to understand what your arguing. I even cited data that shows there is no phylogenetic tree to confirm this. I'll cite it again. You may want to read a little more carefully. Its not that hard to understand.









"Those who support the hypothesis that the T3SS evolved from flagella cite evidence that Eukaryotes evolved after Prokaryotes. Thus, the need for motility would have caused selection for the development of flagella before an injectisome.[20] However this suggestion can be seen as ‘reductive evolution,’ and receives no topological support from the phylogenetic trees.

Saier, M "Evolution of bacterial type III protein secretion systems". Trends in Microbiology


Gophna U, Ron EZ, Graur D . "Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events


This is an interesting cut-n-paste from William Lane Craig's latest newsletter. Francisco J. Ayala is no creationist or ID proponent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 09:04 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
"Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?"

Explain to me what you want to say by this? What do BF or TTSS have to do with mamalian cells?

The only reasonable thing that I've could think of from this quite enigmatic question was that you were trying to relate prokaryote with eukaaryote flagella. Otherwise it's just make no sense to me.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 02:28 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-12-2012 08:17 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  "Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?"

Explain to me what you want to say by this? What do BF or TTSS have to do with mamalian cells?

The only reasonable thing that I've could think of from this quite enigmatic question was that you were trying to relate prokaryote with eukaaryote flagella. Otherwise it's just make no sense to me.
It was in response to Chas who said they were to busy being non mammals when I posed question to you, which he instead responded to.
Technically they exist in all eukaryotes, but we are mammals, and this is why I used the term mammals, but the question still remains concerning the necessity of both apparatuses being needed at the same time. This is why evo devo's do not think like non evo devo biologist who never bother asking these questions, and who unfortunately think strictly in terms of reductionism, cladistics, phylogeny, homology etc. This is why even as an ID'er, I still give credit to evo devo's who for the most part at least think outside the box, challenge orthodox ideas, and are not the average cheerleaders.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 08:06 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-12-2012 02:28 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 08:17 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  "Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?"

Explain to me what you want to say by this? What do BF or TTSS have to do with mamalian cells?

The only reasonable thing that I've could think of from this quite enigmatic question was that you were trying to relate prokaryote with eukaaryote flagella. Otherwise it's just make no sense to me.
It was in response to Chas who said they were to busy being non mammals when I posed question to you, which he instead responded to.
Technically they exist in all eukaryotes, but we are mammals, and this is why I used the term mammals, but the question still remains concerning the necessity of both apparatuses being needed at the same time. This is why evo devo's do not think like non evo devo biologist who never bother asking these questions, and who unfortunately think strictly in terms of reductionism, cladistics, phylogeny, homology etc. This is why even as an ID'er, I still give credit to evo devo's who for the most part at least think outside the box, challenge orthodox ideas, and are not the average cheerleaders.
I think you entirely miss the meaning of the discussions and disagreements within evolutionary biology.

You think they are a sign of weakness; in science, these are a sign of strength and health.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 06:51 PM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2012 07:01 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-12-2012 02:28 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 08:17 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  "Both these apparatuses are vital for living mammals. Tell me, what did we or our ancestors do in the mean time while waiting for the T3SS to evolve from the BF?"

Explain to me what you want to say by this? What do BF or TTSS have to do with mamalian cells?

The only reasonable thing that I've could think of from this quite enigmatic question was that you were trying to relate prokaryote with eukaaryote flagella. Otherwise it's just make no sense to me.
It was in response to Chas who said they were to busy being non mammals when I posed question to you, which he instead responded to.
Technically they exist in all eukaryotes, but we are mammals, and this is why I used the term mammals, but the question still remains concerning the necessity of both apparatuses being needed at the same time. This is why evo devo's do not think like non evo devo biologist who never bother asking these questions, and who unfortunately think strictly in terms of reductionism, cladistics, phylogeny, homology etc. This is why even as an ID'er, I still give credit to evo devo's who for the most part at least think outside the box, challenge orthodox ideas, and are not the average cheerleaders.
As far as I know there is not any homologous structure to BF or TTSS in eukaryotes. There are unrelated structures that serve the same purpose (not the injectosome of course, but export of molecules). So putting the question on Eukaryotes is non-sense.

That question makes sense in the prokaryote context. After reading some articles on the subject, I guess that the hypothesis of BF and TTSS evolving from one common ancestor is the most reasonable explanation.But, of course, more data is needed.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 10:57 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-12-2012 08:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 02:28 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  It was in response to Chas who said they were to busy being non mammals when I posed question to you, which he instead responded to.
Technically they exist in all eukaryotes, but we are mammals, and this is why I used the term mammals, but the question still remains concerning the necessity of both apparatuses being needed at the same time. This is why evo devo's do not think like non evo devo biologist who never bother asking these questions, and who unfortunately think strictly in terms of reductionism, cladistics, phylogeny, homology etc. This is why even as an ID'er, I still give credit to evo devo's who for the most part at least think outside the box, challenge orthodox ideas, and are not the average cheerleaders.
I think you entirely miss the meaning of the discussions and disagreements within evolutionary biology.

You think they are a sign of weakness; in science, these are a sign of strength and health.
This is absurd. I have used current science itself to back up what I said. It is you who mistakenly believes that being critical of a specific theory equals being anti science. It seems you also have the inability to respond to issues or questions point by point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: