Evolution: World science academies fight back against creationists

PhysOrg.com ^ | 21 June 2006 | Staff

[OmahaFields]

evolutionary biologist who yet to publish detailed, peer reviewed accounts of how the flagellum evolved by Darwinian mechanisms."

They have published detailed accounts of how it may have evolved. But these are not on any of the creationist scam sites you visit.

[SaveUS]

WHOA!! Hang on Omaha! I'm one of the good guys! That goes to Diamond (which takes millions of years to produce.)

[OmahaFields]

WHOA!! Hang on Omaha! I'm one of the good guys! That goes to Diamond (which takes millions of years to produce.)

WHOA!! Let's see. Note to myself. Review Preview before hitting post.

[SaveUS]

and .. uummm.. that proves.. umm whut?

I'll go ahead and give you 1/2 a cool point for providing a pic. You get 1 full cool point if you can prove chaos is ID.

[furball4paws]

I told you where you can find it. FR does not have the bandwidth or disk space to handle it. I'm sure you understand that.

[OmahaFields]

That's fair enough. So I would like to see your professional articles, or if that's outside your professional area, any professional articles on the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

[OmahaFields]

He seems to have disappearead after #618.

[Diamond]

Perhaps you'd care to tell us where it is wrong.

I addressed this article in #608.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

I told you where you can find it. FR does not have the bandwidth or disk space to handle it. I'm sure you understand that.

A citation would use about as much bandwidth and diskspace as this sentence.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

That's fair enough. So I would like to see your professional articles, or if that's outside your professional area, any professional articles on the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

I have not claimed to have any professional expertise in microbiology to give my opinion added weight. So trying to turn my words here back on me is without foundation.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

p.s. Sometimes I do have to work for a living. My schedule may be different from yours.

Cordially,

[furball4paws]

The library is the citation - have fun!

[js1138]

I addressed this article in #608.

You addressed it and mailed it, but the envelop is empty. Exactly where is the article wrong?

[Diamond]

I've always wondered what kind of Designer would make His signature piece something whose sole propose is causing agonizing deaths in children and infants. Seems satanic to me.

Nothing at all wrong with wondering that, but the problem of evil is not a scientific question, and the existense of evil and imperfection doesn't provide positive evidence FOR evolution.

One thing I wondered aloud about, on this very thread in fact, is why some evolutionists, from Darwin on down, consider arguments that they constantly make for evolution based on what God would or wouldn't do concerning what is found in nature "scientific", and automatically consider arguments for God or creation based upon what is found in nature unscientific.

Cordially,

[js1138]

Exactly where is the article wrong?

[Recovering_Democrat]

We urge decision-makers, teachers and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.

Yes, like those bona fide demonstrations, shown in the lab, of one species changing into another. Oh, wait...never mind. ;-)

[Diamond]

...the envelope is empty

The envelope is not empty. It has a little link in it:

Evolving the Bacterial Flagellum Through Mutation and Cooption

After you've read that I'll be happy to discuss the contents of both articles with you.

Cordially,

[OmahaFields]

One thing I wondered aloud about, on this very thread in fact, is why some evolutionists, from Darwin on down, consider arguments that they constantly make for evolution based on what God would or wouldn't do concerning what is found in nature "scientific", and automatically consider arguments for God or creation based upon what is found in nature unscientific.

Because they are not scientific. They are musings, nothing more. Sort of like the tribesman that first sees the airplane go overhead. The local missionary taught him about God and angels but not about aerodynamics so he assumes that the plane is a product of ID held up by angels happy in the thought that he has solved one of the mysteries of the universe.

[OmahaFields]

Yet how plausible are such scenarios?

How plausible is the scenario that we are debating one on one here considering the billions of people on the earth. EGAD. The fact that in all the millions of years of life on earth and the billions of people that have ever lived, we are two together. The odds of that happening must be like, enormous. Too large to have happened. Must be ID!

[js1138]

You can start with this.

One might, of course, raise the objection that I have not provided a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the evolution of the flagellum. Isn't such an explanation required to dispose of the biochemical argument from design?

In a word, no. Not unless the argument has allowed itself to be reduced to a mere observation that an evolutionary explanation of the eubacterial flagellum has yet to be written. I would certainly agree with such a statement. However, the contention made by Behe is quite different from this – it is that evolution cannot explain the flagellum in principle (because its multiple components have no selectable function). By demonstrating the existence of such functions, even in just a handful of components, we have invalidated the argument.

or this.