No comment required
Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Another sore loser insulting those who have thoroughly shown his theory to be total garbage.
Hey just calling it the way I see it. You haven’t been right about a single thing as far as I can tell. You can’t even manage to read a simple passage without completely misunderstanding it. You attempt to argue molecular biology yet you can’t even get the terms straight! You do not know what biologists mean by “phenotype”. You do not know that transcription and splicing are two separate processes. These are concepts that alert junior high biology students grasp with ease.
Remember this one 'Nilla'? Care to show how you proved me wrong on it? Bet you don't. You tried through a thousand posts and got slaughtered:
Poor delusional Gore3000. You (ostensibly) spend 100% of your free time here being either flat out wrong or intentionally deceitful. Somehow at the end of the day you’re still able to call yourself a Christian.
You are so confident of your “arguments” yet you didn’t even provide links to anyone who might want to read them. For the record:
The latter half of this monster thread consisted of you ignoring from just about every case study that was given to you. When you finally did attempt to address any of the studies, you either got it completely wrong or you deliberately misrepresented the authors. Eventually in the end you basically accuse the authors of working for an “evolutionist” organization. Of course everyone who disagrees with Gore3000 is dishonest, a liar, and a“slimer”. The world of Gore3000 is a lonely one indeed.
Later upon finding yourself in a tighter squeeze than Jerrold Nadler in spandex, you stammered out:
I have been saying that duplicated genes are not expressed, a very different thing. In other words, I have been saying that duplicated genes do not work.
This was based on your completely nonsensical interpretation of a few paragraphs describing eukaryotic transcription (where the authors clearly stated that gene duplication is a common mechanism to increase produce protein expression!)
Your ridiculous statements fly in the face of literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers.
Anything to avoid admitting you were wrong, even if it means adhering to an entirely illogical, non-reality based position. You choose to go down with the ship. I’ve only been here for about a month, but I have already come to expect no less from you.
A more careful reading of that source and looking around the net makes me believe that figure (which is around the Permian-Triassic boundary extinction date) is much too recent.
Sorry, comment required when no image posted ;)
Tripod doesn't let you externally link to images they host...
Much better ;)
Well, the claim is: His objections to evolution are limited to the rejection of the neo-Darwinian mechanism as a sufficient explanation for the origin of all biological systems.
Which means, to him, natural selection CANNOT explain the bacterial flagellum. However, I have shown you links to 3 papers which directly discuss this, and a book on cells which contains a section devoted to this. Therefore, Behe, in his current logical stance, is wrong. However, since you asked for details, here you go:
Rizotti etal discusses the evolution of the flagellum from the evolution of a F1F0 ATPase, which is a protein found in cells.
From the abstract:
The base of the bacterial flagellum is a rotating "molecular machine" which obtains its energy from an inflow of hydrogen ions. A similar machine, more fundamental and widespread, is bacterial ATP synthase. Thus, the former may have derived from the latter. For this derivation, intermediate evolutionary steps may be hypothesised, as may also intermediate functions. It is not surprising that no intermediate structure is known in present-day prokaryotes, as intermediate structures usually become extinct during evolution. Confirmation of this possible origin of the bacterial flagellum may come from sequence and/or conformational homologies. These are more likely to be provided by the essential components of both structures, i.e., stator and rotor.
The Sperandio paper deals with E. Coli cells, and discusses that the genetic structures in the flagella of Enteropathogenic E. Coli also allow it to secrete an adhesin which allows the bacterium to attach to the epithelial cells in the intestinal they find a relationship between the expression of the flagella, BFP and LEE-encoded type III secretion (several mutants impaired in type III secretion and BFP production were also impaired for flagella expression). The Giron paper (referenced in the Spirandio paper) discusses that the mechanism for secreting this adhesin is the same mechanism that the flagellum uses to move. Giron mutated the E.Coli bacterium to remove the adhesin, and the organisms motility was also impaired. Along with the similar homologies to secretive mechanisms in other bacterium (Salmonella and Pseudomonas families), this lends a lot of credence to the theory that the flagellar mechanisms are derived from a secretive mechanism.
Also see: this webpage, which also discusses this possibility in detail.
As you can see, there are plenty of possible mechanisms, quite the opposite of what Dr. Behe suggests.
Theists are 'required' by their faith to find idiotic religious dogmatic explanations for the existence and development of the universe. Of course they will deny evolution, but their fierce defense of some god and ad-homiem attacks on those who are thinking objectively because they aren't bound by a leather-bound book belies their protestations.
Okay, this one absolutely takes the cake. LBB has basically gone off the deep end. He knows full well that bones discolor all the time, especially when exposed to the elements or chemicals in the soil in which they are interred. Indeed if one goes to any anthropological research center where modern human skulls are on display one will note that the skulls come in all sorts of colors. That LBB should use this as a defense of his positions indicate the bankruptcy of his arguments.
Creationism researcher
Yep. You're a real pisser.
Tip: it may be unwise to assume that certain posters know any particular thing, no matter how obvious it may seem ;)
The innumerable government regulations already on the books and now being proposed not only seem not to be able to wipe out occasional business mal-practice but constitute a kind of democratic lynch mob action, this time on the futile grounds of precaution or prevention. By that argument the very idea of innocent until proven otherwise could be tossed and the creeping totalitarianism of police states unleashed. (Moreover, proponents of this idea are naïve in holding that regulators are immune to corruption!)
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.