539
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 192:
Line 192: + + + +
Talk:Question evolution! campaign (view source)
Revision as of 13:22, September 18, 2011
, 13:22, September 18, 2011→A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student
::::::Oh, Conservative, plenty of things happen by chance. Ever study quantum mechanics? --[[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)
::::::::There's a certain half-dead cat who can attest to that ;) --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::There's a certain half-dead cat who can attest to that ;) --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Thanks for the references, they were interesting but they don't really resolve the problem. I have no issue with the idea of gene duplication adding the necessary material for a smaller structure (the T3SS) to evolve into a larger one, but the problem is in the application of evolutionary theory to that. If we take E coli with 44 genes involved in coding the flagellum, and say that 25 of these coded for a fully functional ancestral secretory system, it's certainly possible for gene duplication to result in a still-functional SS with 44 genes, and the 19 non-coding genes will be free from selection pressure and able to mutate pretty freely. However for natural selection to turn this SS into a flagellum you need one of two things: Firstly you could have a series of plausible intermediate structures, each of which is beneficial and therefore selected for, and each of which results from a mutation of ONE of the non-coding genes in the SS. You don't have such a series; I'm aware that one coincidentally exists for the vertebrate eye, which is why "eyes couldn't evolve" is an argument I'd never use, but there isn't one here. Secondly you could have simultaneous complementary mutation of ALL 19 non-coding genes to take you from the SS to a functional flagellum, which obviously would then be selected for; the odds against this strain even even scientific notation.
:::::::::In my opinion this IS a valid argument against evolution, and while you can certainly point to a lot of homologies between flagellum genes and others within the cell I don't think you can bridge the gap between the T3SS and the flagellum. I know that many scientists are trying to resolve this issue, and I think their eventual failure to do so is a lot more likely to show them the truth of creationism than the "Question Evolution!" campaign, which in my opinion is mostly intended to give its originators something to congratulate themselves about and certainly has no chance of making any inroads in the scientific community. Anyway I'm wary of breaking the 90/10 rule here, so please feel free to email me and we can discuss it further. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:22, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==
== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==