Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'
Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 13, 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

Posted on 02/13/2004 3:14:29 AM PST by The Raven

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 621-628 next last
To: The Raven

221 posted on 02/13/2004 9:15:22 PM PST by Tinhatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
It would seem like ALL creatures should be literally COVERED with all kinds of INEFFECTUAL 'features' then!!

Genomes examined do exactly that. Not all features need be expressed, but there may be (partial) code for them. The human genomen has lots of virus DNA in it.

Evolutionary prediction made; evolutionary prediction fulfilled.

222 posted on 02/13/2004 9:18:03 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: elephantlips
There is no evidence in all of history that shows structure and order coming from chaos.

How wuld you describe a hurricane?

Remember when Comet Shoemacher-Levi crashed into Jupiter? How it broke up into an ordered string of fragments before it hit?

If a moon gets too close to its planet, do you think it's possible that it break up into a ring system?

Ever see convective cells form in a heated liquid?

Which exhibits more structure and order, a cloud or a snowflake? A cloud or a hailstone?

223 posted on 02/13/2004 9:23:45 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Could you please provide a cite for this, I never heard it before.

See post 194. The conclusion is mine, but the assertion "Type Ill genes are homologous to those of the flagellar export apparatus from which they probably evolved." comes from that citation. I have read other papers concerning the TTSS and the bugs that have them. These bugs are symbionts and they have "stripped down" genomes since their hosts provide many of their "necessities" and the coding for these would be superfluous. It is not a big jump to call a TTSS a "stripped down" flagella.

When the genome sequence of C. trachomatis serovar D was completed, Stephens et al., (1998) noted that its Type Ill genes were scattered about the genome in several groups and that their GC content was the same as that of the genome as a whole. They concluded that the TTS system of C. trachomatis must be of ancient origin. Hueck (1998) and Kim (2001) went a step further and suggested that TTS systems actually arose in the Chlamydiales lineage. Kim has provided a detailed genetic argument for his view. Being partial to chlamydiae, I find this an attractive idea, but I have been concerned about the different ways in which proteobacterial and chlamydial TTS systems operate. Proteobacteria use them to inject proteins into host cells from the outside, but chlamydiae use their TTS systems to inject proteins into host cells from the inside (that is, from inside the inclusion). The recent discovery that the proteome of EBs, the infecting stage of the developmental cycle, contains several proteins of the TTS system (Vandahl et al., 2001) offers a way to ease my concern. Since EBs also have their own pool of ATP to supply the needed energy (Tipples and McClarty, 1993) TTS proteins could play a role in chlamydial attachment and entry. There is precedent for such a role in other bacteria. Shigella and Salmonella use TTS systems for invasion of nonphagocytic cells (Galan and Collmer, 1998) and Type III genes are essential for entry of the tsetse fly endosymbiont Sodalis glossinidius into host cells (Dale et al., 2001; Moran, 2001). All this leads to a ‘Just - So’ story of "How chlamydiae got their TTS genes". The extracellular progenitor of Chlamydiales was flagellated, and when Chlamydiales began to live in eukaryotic hosts, there was selection for individuals more efficient at getting into those cells. Thus the primitive TTS system of Chlamydiales was one that facilitated entry by an outside - to - inside injection route. Then after protracted residence in the intracellular habitat, selection for better ways to exploit the advantages of that habitat and to ameliorate its disadvantages resulted in the appearance of the unique ability of inclusion - dwelling Chlamydiales to secrete proteins into the inclusion membrane and surrounding cytoplasm. This idea obviously conflicts with my earlier suggestion that the Chlamydiales lineage was symbiotic before it was parasitic

It is explained elsewhere that the TTSS has Type II secretion proteins in the outer membrane, thus it is incorrect to say that TTSS is only a "stripped down" flagella since it contains extra features. So, horrors, some might be misled by my statement and should take this explanation into consideration.

224 posted on 02/13/2004 9:25:11 PM PST by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
>> Evolution can be predicted, and even if it couldn't, your argument has no logic to it.

Sonny, you need to get a clue.
225 posted on 02/13/2004 9:30:33 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: qam1
You making a mistake in terminology,"Flagellar Export Apparatus" is not the same thing as a Flagellum.

And type III genes is not the same thing as a Type Three secretion system, but we know what it is that we are trying to convey. A comes before B and not the other way around. You forget that the assertion is in the article above and that assertion is .... Called the type III secretory system, this microsyringe enables a bacterium to inject a toxin into its victim (this is how bubonic-plague bacteria kill). This component of the flagellum, then, could have been hanging around a very long time, conferring benefits on any organism that had it, ready to combine with other structures (which also perform functions in primitive living things) into a full-blown, functional flagellum.

226 posted on 02/13/2004 9:33:19 PM PST by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Sonny, you need to get a clue.

This is not a refutation of my statement, this is a mindless ad hominem.
227 posted on 02/13/2004 9:37:47 PM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
>> False. Evolution, like any good scientific theory, makes numerous predictions. And so far, these predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by mountains of evidence, experiments, observations, and mathematical analyses.

Huh? Evolution predicts nothing. It cannot even predict if there will be life on the planet next week. You can use the theory to guess about the future, but it is only a guess, and even then it is a guess about the general direction of life. The prophesies of God, however, predict the rise and fall of nations, the coming of the Son of God, the final judgement, future rewards and punishments, and the healing of the nations.

228 posted on 02/13/2004 9:39:54 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Evolution predicts nothing.

Yes, it does. I predict, based upon the theory of evolution, that you will never find a transposon that exists in both whales and cows but not in hippos. That's a prediction. It has a very specific falsification criteria.

It cannot even predict if there will be life on the planet next week.

Neither can gravitational theory. I don't see you pooh-poohing gravity because of that.

You can use the theory to guess about the future, but it is only a guess, and even then it is a guess about the general direction of life.

Please look up the definition of "prediction" before you make such a bizarre argument.

The prophesies of God, however, predict the rise and fall of nations, the coming of the Son of God, the final judgement, future rewards and punishments, and the healing of the nations.

The alleged "prophecies" supposedly put forth by the god that you worship have nothing to do with evolution.
229 posted on 02/13/2004 9:42:51 PM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
He's been quiet on all matters of discussion since.

God took a good look at the ways his words were being distorted and used by men. He decided it would be best to just keep quiet.

230 posted on 02/13/2004 9:48:54 PM PST by Jeff Gordon (arabed - verb: lower in esteem; hurt the pride of [syn: mortify, chagrin, humble, abase, humiliate])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
ALL creatures should be literally COVERED with all kinds of INEFFECTUAL 'features' then!

Shaving, waxing and electrolysis will help.

231 posted on 02/13/2004 9:54:30 PM PST by Jeff Gordon (arabed - verb: lower in esteem; hurt the pride of [syn: mortify, chagrin, humble, abase, humiliate])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Welcome back AndrewC!

We missed you!

(Although I confess, not everyone missed you.)

;)
232 posted on 02/13/2004 9:54:31 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What a beautiful, beautiful meditation! Thank you so very much for sharing it!

Of all the magnificent Scriptures describing Jesus, the one which always comes first to my mind is Hebrews 1:3: Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power....

233 posted on 02/13/2004 9:55:30 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: unspun
May all our batteries be so charged. Such things as batteries and other capacitors are pretty useless, otherwise.

So very, very true! Thank you for your wonderful post!

234 posted on 02/13/2004 9:57:56 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for the excellent post! Indeed, people tend to create their own personal "hell".

God is calling. Hopefully, Man will choose to take the call – for God’s sake, and thereby for his own.

Amen!

235 posted on 02/13/2004 10:04:34 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; Dimensio
But the direction of evolution cannot be predicted.

In general, true, because the environment in which organisms live is itself unpredictable.

But some predictions can be made: For example, I predict that our far-future descendants will not have wisdom teeth. This is because, very occasionally, an impacted/infected wisdom tooth is fatal before childbearing years.

We can also safely predict that things like the nylon-eating bacteria will continue to evolve (ie things that metabolize synthetic compounds)

236 posted on 02/13/2004 10:08:12 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Does that mean you're not going to tell me?
237 posted on 02/13/2004 10:30:29 PM PST by Sofa King (MY rights are not subject to YOUR approval http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sofaking/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Well, thank you very much. My intention was only to visit and inject a comment in order to have people look at the evidence on TTSS relationship to flagella. I got involved with a friend and so I stayed a bit longer than I had intended. Moreover, it allowed me to review the information I had read on the subject(some, I can't find one fairly important one). You might want to look at this one GENOME EVOLUTION IN BACTERIAL ENDOSYMBIONTS OF INSECTS in light of this statement Second, the suggestion that a simpler system (TTSS) is derived from a more complex system (flagella) is quite odd in an evolutionary context since it runs against the progressionist grain that pervades evolutionary thought since the days of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. from another citation on this thread.
238 posted on 02/13/2004 10:36:22 PM PST by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
Does that mean you're not going to tell me?

The "genes" of my social security number are "0134689"(example only). They don't die with me, although my social security number does.

239 posted on 02/13/2004 10:45:04 PM PST by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
It would seem like ALL creatures should be literally COVERED with all kinds of INEFFECTUAL 'features' then!!

What is the function of the capacity of the cow to invert her uterus frequently upon calving? What is the function of the propensity to play tag, in crows? What is the function of the vistigial webbing between my forefinger and thumb? Nature throws craps, and the results are unevenly distributed over the the efficiency spectrum--to no biological scientist's great surprise. All features cost something to maintain. For obsolete features, if the cost is great, the elimination is fast, if the cost is insignificant, the elimination is leasurely.

240 posted on 02/13/2004 10:49:35 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 621-628 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson