87
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 184:
Line 184: + + + + + + +
Talk:Question evolution! campaign (view source)
Revision as of 06:29, September 18, 2011
, 06:29, September 18, 2011→A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student
::Rudrick, judging by your response to question #1 and my rebuttals, I don't believe you are making arguments. I would prefer to spend my time addressing bona fide arguments. For example as far as my rebuttals, and I am just giving one example, you have yet to show anything happens "by chance" nor are you admitting error on this point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Luke 16:10). If you have shown yourself unfaithful in your response to question #1 and my rebuttals of your response to question #1, then why should I assume your "responses" to questions 2 through 15 are any better? At least thus far, you are showing yourself to be stubborn and proud person who is not amenable to correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Rudrick, judging by your response to question #1 and my rebuttals, I don't believe you are making arguments. I would prefer to spend my time addressing bona fide arguments. For example as far as my rebuttals, and I am just giving one example, you have yet to show anything happens "by chance" nor are you admitting error on this point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Luke 16:10). If you have shown yourself unfaithful in your response to question #1 and my rebuttals of your response to question #1, then why should I assume your "responses" to questions 2 through 15 are any better? At least thus far, you are showing yourself to be stubborn and proud person who is not amenable to correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, let's look at his response to question 10. Ask ''any'' evolutionist that question and their reply is going to be "They don't." Now, how are you going to prove them wrong? Coelecanths? Good luck. Do you know how many fossils have been found of the living species of coelecanth, ''Latimeria chalumnae''? None. Do you know how many living specimens have been found of coelecanths known from fossils? None. Living examples of fossil Jurassic sharks? None. Fossils of modern species of horseshoe crab? None. This is a BAD QUESTION and we shouldn't be asking it of evolutionists because they can answer it EASILY. You may not be satisifed with their answer but they don't care; you asked them for an an answer provided by their theory and they can give you one which '''within the framework of the theory you are discussing''' is perfectly valid. Instead why not ask them how the Type 3 secretory system managed to simultaneously add the 42 parts needed to make a bacterial flagellum? Guess what? They CAN'T answer that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, let's look at his response to question 10. Ask ''any'' evolutionist that question and their reply is going to be "They don't." Now, how are you going to prove them wrong? Coelecanths? Good luck. Do you know how many fossils have been found of the living species of coelecanth, ''Latimeria chalumnae''? None. Do you know how many living specimens have been found of coelecanths known from fossils? None. Living examples of fossil Jurassic sharks? None. Fossils of modern species of horseshoe crab? None. This is a BAD QUESTION and we shouldn't be asking it of evolutionists because they can answer it EASILY. You may not be satisifed with their answer but they don't care; you asked them for an an answer provided by their theory and they can give you one which '''within the framework of the theory you are discussing''' is perfectly valid. Instead why not ask them how the Type 3 secretory system managed to simultaneously add the 42 parts needed to make a bacterial flagellum? Guess what? They CAN'T answer that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Actually, we can answer that question. Please read my answers to questions 3 and 5 for background on this explanation. First, there is quite a bit of structural diversity in bacterial flagella between species; furthermore, within eubacteria, there are at least three distinct types of flagella. This diversity, by itself, is actually a pretty good place to start the evolutionary story. The number of genes encoding components of the flagellum ranges from 27 in C. jejuni to 44 in E. Coli. This level of genetic divergence while maintaining structural homology would probably make the flagella a good case study in microbial evolution as well...
:::::Each of the 24 "core" flagellar proteins shares homology with other proteins doing other jobs in the cell. Most of these are proteins involved in other secretion systems. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the flagellum arose from a secretion system.
:::::Starting with the secretion system, subunits of ATP synthase were then incorporated (this alone would provide crude function). After that, remaining components were added by simple gene duplication and diversification.
:::::I know I gave kind of a short answer. I do not have much background in microbiology, so I am definitely not the best person to ask on this topic. Anyhow, if you'd like more detail, you can find two good papers on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852327/?tool=pmcentrez here] and [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04000174 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh, Conservative, plenty of things happen by chance. Ever study quantum mechanics? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==
== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==