Posted on 01/19/2009 9:42:35 PM PST by Coyoteman
[[Can you point to one advancement made in western science and medicine that was made possible by replacing science with religious instruction?]]
Can you point out where we’re tryign to ‘replace science with religious isntruction”? Cripes- it appears you’re incapable of intellectualy honest discussions.
[[If children are taught that a religious belief or superstition has as much scientific value as an actual scientific theory, they will be less prepared for work in that particular field.]]
Again- anopther ignorant statement- perhaps you missed my links above showing where religion is NOT in any way shape or form a part of ID science- but keep pretendign it is- it just shows the desperation Macroevolutionists feel by tryign ot malign and falsely accuse the opposition- Yep- that’s the scientific process evidently, intiidate the opposition by lying about htem and tryign to shape public opinion about htme by spreading and perpetrating lies about hteir purpose-
[[If students who will go on to become scientists are taught that the religious belief that the earth and all the life upon it was created wholly formed six thousand years ago is just as scientifically valid as the theory of evolution, modern cosmology, and modern geology, we will all suffer for it.]]
What’s hte matter Flimshaw? Afraid hte truth might destroy the hypothesis of macroevolution? Is that how science works to you? Repress any counterevidences for fear of being exposed?
[[Please do not, however, ask the rest of us to teach your religious ideas to our own children under the guise of “science.”]]
Calm down- NOONE is askign you to teach the parables of Christ, or the virtues of the ten commandments- We are however askign that objective science be taught- ALL of it- instead of hiding hte serious flaws and impossibilities of Macroevolution- Apparently htough, only your particular religious beleif is allowed in schools? Lol- Yep- must be nervewracking htinking your hypothesis faces serious exposure- But do please keep spreading lies about ID- again- apparently that’s hte only defense you folks have- which exposes just how weak your hypothesis really is!
What creation story do you think should be taught in science classes in public schools in order to cure our scientific ignorance?
You are aware, aren't you, that in the last ten years or so evolution has become an experimental laboratory science, and the arguments against multi-step evolution are being whittled away? Behe's Edge of Evolution was obsolete within weeks of its publication. Actually the specific claims he made were obsolete before he published, but he failed to do a simple literature search.
Since publication, two laboratory experiments have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.
Yes I can. If someone is seeking to teach creationism/ID in a science class, they are seeking to replace science with religious instruction.
Creationism/ID is not science, and the recent attempts to pretend that it is merely another scientific theory is nothing more than window dressing.
Is that how science works to you? Repress any counterevidences for fear of being exposed?
Absolutely not. If there are criticisms of a scientific theory that themselves adhere to the scientific method, those criticisms are invaluable. The theory of evolution has been greatly strenghthened, from over a century of scientific observation, testing, and refinement. The more this particular theory is "exposed" to actual scientific scrutiny, the stronger it has become.
If you can either disprove, modify, or refine the theory of evolution using another scientific theory, then science would welcome your contribution. If you merely seek to tear down science that conflicts with your own particular religious belief, as is the case for creationism/ID, then keep it in your own house of worship, thank you very much.
[[Yes I can. If someone is seeking to teach creationism/ID in a science class, they are seeking to replace science with religious instruction. ]]
You didn’t point out anythign but a biased LIE- ID presents evidence and facts- they do NOT posit who or what the intelligence is, only that IC can NOT arise via naturalistic means- that’s ALL they do-
[[Creationism/ID is not science,]]
This is a biased a priori dogmatic statement that is detached from the reality of hte issue-
[[Absolutely not. If there are criticisms of a scientific theory that themselves adhere to the scientific method, those criticisms are invaluable.]]
Well sir, you are in luck- ID is just that.
[[The theory of evolution has been greatly strenghthened, from over a century of scientific observation, testing, and refinement.]]
This is anotherl ie- it has NOT been strengthened, but just the opposite- the more we try to replicate it, test it, examine it, the more we find out just how impossible it really is- it violates several key fundamental laws of science, and is an impossibility who’s adherants must hterefore rely on ASSUMPTIONS that can NOT be proved, demonstrated or shown in the lab.
[[If you can either disprove, modify, or refine the theory of evolution using another scientific theory, then science would welcome your contribution.]]
That’s a load of manure- ID brings hte evidnece agaisnt it, and ID is fiercely opposed by scientists like Miller, Dawkins, and many other congregationalists of Darwin.
[[If you merely seek to tear down science that conflicts with your own particular religious belief, as is the case for creationism/ID, then keep it in your own house of worship, thank you very much.]]
It’s coming ot a school near you- and thnakfully so- It’s about time kids are taught the TRUTH abotu Macroevolution instead of being handed a myth that violates the very foundational principles upon which scence stands on.
[[You are aware, aren’t you, that in the last ten years or so evolution has become an experimental laboratory science, and the arguments against multi-step evolution are being whittled away?]]
Lol- being ‘whittled away’? That’s funny- Behe’s irreducible complexity still stands- apparently you are unaware of his rebuttals to those hwo tried to ‘whittle away’ his proposals? and just for hte record- IC exists in EVERY level, not just in certain systems like Behe once htought-
[[Since publication, two laboratory experiments have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.]]
That’s swell, and how does htis ‘whittle away’ IC again? It doesn’t- Lab tests show certai adaptions need several mutaitons? Big deal. You still have hte problems of Metainfo to deal with, as well as the problems associated with MACROEvolution- Seems ot me that all these tests really show are that natural selection is a force that drives MICROEvolution- Swell- We know MICROEvolution is a scientific fact- but we also know MACROEvolution is still a biologically impossible process that still hasn’t been shown in lab tests contrary to some misperceptions on the part of some who argue it’s an ‘established fact’
[[Behe’s Edge of Evolution was obsolete within weeks of its publication. Actually the specific claims he made were obsolete before he published, but he failed to do a simple literature search.]]
Got news for ya- Deconstructing the NON IC components of an IC system doesn’t make IC proposals ‘obsolete’- The ONLY thing oponents of Behe have managed to do is show what we already know- that IC systems CAN and DO contain some reducible components- You can remove an air filter from a carbeurator, but you can NOT remove the IRREDUCIBLE parts of the carbeurator and have it still run. The arguments agaisnt IC are intellectually dishonest arguments, and htose making them know full well that the actual IC parts can NOT be reduced without hte system malfunctioning.
Let’s remove hte metainfo from a living system, and htrow a myraid of mutaitons at hte core components and see how well we do- You will see quickly just how itneredependent systems are on this system of metainfo. Bottom line, Chemicals can not create this absolutely necessary system which is required for life, nor can nature provide it despite claism that it must have.
[[What creation story do you think should be taught in science classes in public schools in order to cure our scientific ignorance?]]
None- what should be taught are the FACTS about Macroevolution- ALL the facts, and all the evidnece showing ID and IC- NOONE is suggesting religous precepts should be taught- just hte scientific facts- The fossil record defintively and objectively shows discontinuity- Baraminology, a discipline made up of several strict scientific practices, shows htis discontinuity conclusively, however, Macroevolutionsts go WAY beyond hte actual scientific evidneces, and make claism that simply do NOT fit hte evidneces and take a tremendous amount of faith to beleive in- You want religion out of Schools? Fine- let’s throw it ALL out- including hte religious beleifs in Macreovolution that DEFY several scientific laws and is contrary to the actual scientific evidences.
Things do not evolve by myriads of simultaneous mutations. You are ignoring the fact that mutation and evolution are now experimental science. we can now track the exact history of mutations and adaptations.
It’s really no longer necessary to build hypothetical scenarios or to argue about whose assumptions are unfounded.
The pregame show is over. Grab some popcorn.
[[Behe’s Edge of Evolution was obsolete within weeks of its publication.]]
You know, that statement says quite a lot about just who and what you are willing to put your faith in.
Apparently, it is fashionable to misquote someone, and to launch false claims as some sort of ‘rebuttal to’ someone? Behe never stated that multiple mutations could appear at multiple sites- Those statign he did, are lying about what Behe actually said in his book- whic just goes to show, once again, how deceitful and dishonest these supposed ‘rebuttals’ of his really are- It’s quite a leap from dishonest ‘rebuttals’ to ‘made obsolete’- wouldn’t you agree?
Behe’s response to those who made the FALSE CLAIMS abotu hwat he said:
“But I certainly do not say that multipleamino acid replacements “can’t happen”. A centerpiece of The Edge of Evolution is that it can and did happen. I stress in Chapter 3 that in the case of malarial resistance to chloroquine, multiple necessary mutations did happen in the membrane protein PfCRT. I also of course emphasize that it took a huge population size, one that would not be available to larger organisms. But Carroll seems uninterested in making distinctions.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKWOEF4DT51SV2
you are basing your claim that Behe’s book was ‘made obsolete’ based on an undergraduate’s FALSE claims that were completely and honesalty REFUTED and exposed for lies that were said- Not very good ground for you to be standign on JS in regards to this particular issue. Carrol was made to look quite foolish, and infact, was even REFUTED by other laypeople
Carrol infact was EXPOSED as a less than honest and intellectually dishonest critic in the very book he unseuccesfully tried to ‘refute’
[[Things do not evolve by myriads of simultaneous mutations.]]
I didn’t say they did- You are misrepresentign what I said- You DO however need to htrow a myriad of mutaitosn at the whole genome in order to bring about changes (Adaptive MICROEvolution) changes. As you know, some mutaitons will ‘stick’ while others will be handled and discarded, or thrown off, and others still will remain neutral i nthe system.
[[we can now track the exact history of mutations and adaptations.]]
We sure can, and wonder of wonders, it shows MICROEvolution- just as it should. Not sure why you are tryign to claim these experiments and trackings ‘close hte show’ on MACROEvolution? They have absolutely nothign to do with macroevolution- I’ve got my popcorn, but it appears the Macroevos are refusing to play the game, claiming falsely that there’s nothign to discuss when it’s becoming more and more evident that there really is a serious problem with MACROEvoluionary changes being biologically possible or not..
[[Things do not evolve by myriads of simultaneous mutations.]]
I didn’t say they did- You are misrepresentign what I said- You DO however need to htrow a myriad of mutaitosn at the whole genome in order to bring about changes (Adaptive MICROEvolution) changes. As you know, some mutaitons will ‘stick’ while others will be handled and discarded, or thrown off, and others still will remain neutral i nthe system.
[[we can now track the exact history of mutations and adaptations.]]
We sure can, and wonder of wonders, it shows MICROEvolution- just as it should. Not sure why you are tryign to claim these experiments and trackings ‘close hte show’ on MACROEvolution? They have absolutely nothign to do with macroevolution- I’ve got my popcorn, but it appears the Macroevos are refusing to play the game, claiming falsely that there’s nothign to discuss when it’s becoming more and more evident that there really is a serious problem with MACROEvoluionary changes being biologically possible or not..
It’s the equivilent of “Yuo guys aren’t playing fair- Macroevolution is an ‘established fact’ and that is that! I’m takign my ball and and going home if you persist in questioning that!”
But what will the students do with the other 59 minutes, 59 seconds of the hour?
DEFY several scientific laws and is contrary to the actual scientific evidences.
Without conceding for a moment that the theory of evolution DEFIES several scientific laws (because it doesn't)--how does encouraging the teacing of a "theory" which relies primarily upon a supernatural actor (as creationism/ID most certainly does) increase the quality of scientific progress?
Apparently Behe is in a race to the bottom of the barrel in his latest “response”.
In this response he attempts to address the crippling of the central point in his book “Edge of Evolution”. His claim is that for malaria to develop resistance to CQ it must have two simultaneous mutations occur. Behe then took the probability of two specific mutations occurring simultaneously and tried to use it as a false “limit” of evolution. This is flat out wrong as clearly stated by the published literature. The literature clearly states that CQ resistance occurred gradually and that only having one gene mutation sill offers some resistance(in other words only having the one mutation is still beneficial instead of detrimental). The odds of two mutations occurring at the same time is irrelevant to CQ resistance in malaria and Behe knows it. Yet he keeps going back to it as if it does. Behe states:
“I stress in Chapter 3 that in the case of malarial resistance to chloroquine, multiple necessary mutations did happen in the membrane protein PfCRT. I also of course emphasize that it took a huge population size, one that would not be available to larger organisms.”
He also quote mined Carroll in a vain attempt to support himself. He quoted Carroll saying:
“Behe’s chief error is minimizing the power of natural selection to act cumulatively... Behe states correctly [my emphasis] that in most species two adaptive mutations occurring instantaneously at two specific sites in one gene are very unlikely and that functional changes in proteins often involve two or more sites.”
Let me fill in what Behe cut out of that quote: “...as traits or molecules evolve stepwise from one state to another via intermediates.”
Well, that changes things a bit. Behe is ignoring the fact that CQ resistance most likely occurred in multiple stages and then he had the audacity to take Carroll's quote out of context to give it the impression that Carroll was agreeing with his fictitious probability. The simply fact is that, yes, two mutations occurring at the same time IS very rare, but that has no bearing on Behe’s claims regarding CQ resistance in malaria since it did NOT require two simultaneous mutations. In breathtaking fashion, after ignoring cumulative gene mutation in CQ resistance and then quote mining Carroll, Behe then admits that mutations CAN occur in sequence and accumulate, but then he tries to dismiss it by saying, “it is a non sequitur to leap to the conclusion that all biological features therefore can gradually accumulate”. He tries to justify this by confusing his readers about beneficial and detrimental mutations. For one thing, natural selection filters out the detrimental mutations. Another more important fact is that the published literature clearly states that one gene mutation involved in CQ resistance imparts some resistance, and that resistance is ENHANCED by adding the second. The published works on CQ resistance are clear on this topic, CQ resistance most likely occurred gradually and the individual gene mutations ARE clearly beneficial. To watch Behe going through such contortions to try and defend his falsehoods is almost painful to watch.
Behe next attempts to address Carroll's demolishing of his claims about protein binding sites. Essentially Behe tried arguing in his book that binding sites are just too complex for evolution to account for. Carroll points out that this claim of Behe’s rests solely on Behe’s unfounded requirements for protein interaction. Carroll even ran through some simple math in his review that shows just how wrong Behe is:
“Very simple calculations indicate how easily such motifs evolve at random. If one assumes an average length of 400 amino acids for proteins and equal abundance of all amino acids, any given two-amino acid motif is likely to occur at random in every protein in a cell. (There are 399 dipeptide motifs in a 400-amino acid protein and 20 mult 20 = 400 possible dipeptide motifs.) Any specific three-amino acid motif will occur once at random in every 20 proteins and any four-amino acid motif will occur once in every 400 proteins. That means that, without any new mutations or natural selection, many sequences that are identical or close matches to many interaction motifs already exist. New motifs can arise readily at random, and any weak interaction can easily evolve, via random mutation and natural selection, to become a strong interaction (9). Furthermore, any pair of interacting proteins can readily recruit a third protein, and so forth, to form larger complexes. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that new protein interactions (10) and protein networks (11) can evolve fairly rapidly and are thus well within the limits of evolution.”
Behe’s only response to this is to misrepresent the cited references then to accuse Carroll of “begging the question” just as he did Jerry Coyne in his earlier “response”. Behe does nothing to address the fact that his assertion in regards to protein binding sites is fundamentally WRONG.
I was still willing to give Behe the benefit of the doubt about the errors in his book. I was willing to entertain the idea that maybe he just got in over his head and didn't understand the subjects he was talking about. The naked dishonesty Behe has demonstrated in this “response” has cinched my opinion, the “errors” in Behe’s book were deliberate.
You can read Carroll's review here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427References:
CQ resistance
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S009286740080447Xpaper that Behe misrepresented
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16172400
There's quite a bit more after that.
You’re welcome for the link- infact, it does ‘go on’ and the points brought up by the poster you quoted are refuted once again in hte very next post- so let’s keep going here (And by hte way- nothign that was posted claiming Behe ‘quote miend’ was relevent- what was left out did nothign to udermine what Behe was stating- but let’s do pretend that it did, shall we?
“David Marshall says:
Your claim to objectivity, Mr. / Mrs Allen, is hard to believe, reading some of your other postings. But all right, let’s take your arguments at face value. Here, it seems to me, you’re missing the ball. You may even be swinging for the wrong fence.
Behe is not primarily making an apriori argument in this book. He is arguing from the actual history of evolution among pathogens. The point about chloroquine resistence is that in fact it has not arisen that often. Resistence to atovaquone, by contrast, appears to arise very quickly; every third person, he says. (59) He ascribes the difference to the fact that the former requires two mutations, the latter, just one.
If you want to refute Behe on this point, what you need to prove is that (1) CQ resistance actually demands more than two mutations. (To show that potentially profitable mutations arise more frequently than Behe claims), or (2) CQ resistance actually appears far more often — exponentially more often — than Behe claims.
If you can do one of these two things, then it seems to me that you will have made his position in this book less comfortable. Until then, you’re just batting theory around. In fact, some of your arguments seem to actually make his point stronger.”
Irreducible Complexity is nothing more then a god of the gaps argument. So far every system that Behe has identified and claimed was irreducible has been shown to be reducible. His claims about the flagellum were proven wrong(cut it down by 40 components and you have the type III secretory system) nearly a decade ago. His claims that the blood clotting cascade were irreducibly complex were shown to be false when it was pointed out that the dolphin's immune system worked just fine without a component that Behe said was required. His latest claim of an irreducible system is contained within this book where he argues that cilia HAVE to have the IFT to form. This is again shown to not be the case by the published literature.
As you can see irreducible complexity is nothing but a god of the gaps explanation. When one system that was proclaimed to be IC is explained or demonstrated to NOT be IC, then Behe simply picks another system and says, “What about that one?”.
David,
I'm not sure whether you simply haven't understood any of the critiques of Behe’s probability estimates or if you are being willfully ignorant. I THINK you are just jumping in without any idea of what you are talking about in an attempt to defend Behe. For starters you say:“If you want to refute Behe on this point, what you need to prove is that (1) CQ resistance actually demands more than two mutations.”
Which leads me to think you don't understand what everybody is talking about in regards to CQ resistance. Behe’s false assertion is that CQ resistance requires two SIMULTANEOUS mutations to occur. The reality is that the published literature clearly shows that the mutations for CQ resistance occur gradually, one mutation at a time. No one has said anything about CQ resistance needing more then 2 mutations. For one thing, that would be HELPING Behe’s claim, not refuting it. As such, your claim that in order to “refute Behe” I would have to show that CQ resistance requires more then 2 mutations makes no sense. The whole point of this little exercise is to point out that Behe’s false assertion greatly exaggerates the difficulty in CQ resistance by claiming that both mutations have to happen simultaneously. This one simple distortion allows Behe to radically alter the probability of CQ resistance arising via evolution(exponentially so actually). You seem to have totally missed the argument here. BOTH sides of the argument actually. Your entire comment is based around your faulty understanding of this issue.
Two other points: first you don't have to take my points at face value. I provided links to the original review that Behe was responding to as well as links to the published scientific literature that disproves Behe’s claims about CQ resistance. If you don't believe me, read them yourself. Second, it's Mr. Allen. ;-)
Mr. Behe,
how does your probability calculation deal with the documented fact that a chloroquine-resistant species of malaria without one of the mutations you discuss (at position 220)? Isn't this an example of sequential evolution?Secondly, are you serious when you claim that specific protein-protein interactions evolve only with difficulty? If so, you are making a good case for revocation of your biochemistry diploma.
Pretty much every protein will interact with any other protein, depending on conditions and concentrations (as anyone who has performed pulldown or shift assays can tell you; but you should know that yourself by now). If a weak interaction provides a selective advantage, further mutations ANYWHERE in the interaction region that strengthen this interaction IN ANY WAY will be highly selected for. This does not require specific point changes at specific positions, but any kind of change at any position where initial weak binding contact occurs; and this counts for interaction surfaces of BOTH proteins (i.e. both can change).
Given the scope of freedom most proteins have to change sequence without impairing function, I find your “argument” so removed from reality that I can't believe anyone who has taken a junior biochemistry class would buy it.
This, incidentally, has nothing to do with the reality of evolution. Even if theory of evolution was incorrect, and there really is a Designer, it makes no difference. Based on hard, published data about known behavior of proteins and known incidence and effect of mutations, your arguments are completely incorrect.
“I know you've challenged Behe’s assumption that the two mutations need to occur at the same time.”
No, I didn't challenge his claim, the peer reviewed and published science did. I posted a link to the relevant research which clearly shows Behe is wrong.
“But Behe’s argument is not primarily based on theoretical calculations about how difficult mutations might be”
Actually, yes it is. It's the core argument in his book which is clearly evident by the number of times he references his bogus probability of 1x10^20. Attempting to define false “limits” to evolution was the entire purpose of his book. Behe’s false probability argument was the best he could come up with for this.
I not even sure what you are trying to say when you are talking about “given a certain number of bugs per patient” etc.
“If, as I think you claim, the first mutation confers a slightly positive effect, and is therefore selected for, it would be even more puzzling why the appearance of both mutations together is so rare.”
You are correct. I don't think you intended to do it, but you just saw through Behe’s argument. The simple fact is it's no where near as hard as Behe leads his readers to believe for sequential mutations to both occur and combine. It seems you are starting to understand. :-)
“My point about whether two or more mutations would be needed was not to question the fact that it does take two mutations, but simply to point out a logically possible response to Behe, whether it is empirically viable or not.”
David, I don't think you understood what was being discussed. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that in order to “disprove” Behe I would have to show that it takes more then 2 mutations for CQ resistance to arise. Again if you don't want to believe me, go back and use the link I provided and read it for yourself. The cited article lays it out in black and white.
“But this has not happened. More research is taking place in biology than ever before. And besides, Intelligent Design hypothesizes an intelligence, but doesn't get more specific. The design could come from an advanced civilization from another solar system.”
Researh IS taking place in biology, however there is none taking place in ID. Without a scientific framework to start from, there simply is no way to do research into ID. Not identifying who they think the designer is has nothing to do with that fact. The creationists at the DI intentionally avoid discussing who the think the “designer” is for the simple reason that they are trying to trick people into thinking that ID is separate from their religion. They would have a hard time of that if they revealed their designer to be the god of the old testament.
“In the other examples, I think the problem is with the wording of Behe’s definitions. I think the underlying concept is still valid.”
It's not his definition, it's his hypothesis. The evidence clearly shows his hypothesis of IC is incorrect, he has simply chosen to ignore the evidence and keep asserting IC as if it were valid.
“Like any good scientist, Behe should modify his theory to include the situations that have been pointed out to him. Behe should modify his definition of Irreducibly Complex, if he hasn't already. The new definition of a system could allow for parts that are themselves beneficial and have been improved by natural selection.”
The system you just described already has a name, it's called evolution. ;-)
Oh, and one little quibble, I wouldn't call Behe a good scientist. For one he doesn't do any research, and two the errors he has made in this book indicate he either has no understanding of basic evolutionary biology or he is being intentionally dishonest.
“If you start removing parts, in many cases, at some point you will reach a situation where the system will no longer perform its current function. In our example of the flagellum, if you start removing the 40 parts that you mention, at some point the flagellum will stop working.”
You fail to understand what Behe is trying to describe with his failed hypothesis of IC. Behe’s conjecture is that in an IC system all the parts HAVE to be there or the entire structure is useless. Essentially he uses IC to argue that the structure could not have evolved because all the pieces have to be present at the same time or it's all useless. This is clearly false. What Behe overlooks is that the FUNCTION of these various pieces can change. That's what you see if you look at the type III secretory system. It's composed of about 40 of the same pieces as the flagellum, but it has a completely different function. This demonstrates how supposedly IC systems can be reduced to smaller components performing different jobs. Once you realize that these supposedly rigid IC systems are actually very versatile in their function, it becomes clear how easily evolution could produce them in a step wise fashion.
“The case of the cilia is similar. Yes, Behe seems to have been misinformed about the need for IFT. Yet his basic, underlying concept still holds. If you remove enough unnecessary parts, eventually you will reach the point where the system no longer functions as a cilia.”
What you are describing is the classic god of the gaps scenario. Essentially what you are doing is that after a supposedly IC system is shown to have a reducible component, you are then pointing to a smaller component and saying, “well, then THAT'S IC”. What you are doing is shoving IC into ever smaller gaps as the larger gaps are filled in.
“Again, how does a system, which doesn't have enough parts to work as a cilia, benefit the organism enough to be favored by natural selection?”
Because the smaller precursors to the cilia performed OTHER functions that were useful before being incorporated into the cilia itself. This is where Behe tries to confuse his reader. He has them convinced that all of these various parts are only useful for performing ONE function in regards to the cilia. He glosses over the fact that in a different structure they may have a different function.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.