Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Subduction Zone]

He knows what is needed to synthesize chemicals and that the conditions need to controlled and that a supply of ingredients need to exist on hand and that if one chemical in the equation manages to synthesize it will decay in nature before other needed chemicals can come along to complete the synthesization.



Your and Professor Dave's ad hominen attacks don't answer his arguments.

He knows only what is needed in the lab when one has a specific goal. He repeatedly showed that he didn't understand how it happens in nature.

There were no ad hominem attacks. That is a concept that you don't understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say that person must be Napoleon, but I do say that the person's personal experiences are evidence for the person.

So what? It is not rational evidence. Also depending upon the sort of evidence it is likely not even evidence. It wouldn't be scientific evidence or legal evidence either.

 

[wellwisher]

Your knowledge of abiogenesis is at least fifty years out of date.

The current science theories of life and evolution uses two female goddesses, which are Lady Luck and Mother Nature; probability and natural selection. Natural selection sounds good, until you try to use the concept to predict the future. If we look only at the past, we can form patterns for natural selection in our imagination. But if these patterns were fully logical, the same logic should hold for the future. If not, the 20/20 hindsight of patterns is no more than just cataloging the past. Let us use mother nature to make a prediction. That's right Lady Luck and Mother Nature are not always on the same page; logic versus dice and cards. Mother Nature is sweet and maternal, but Lady Luck is a bimbo and appeals to the fellas, since she appears to offer anything your fantasy desires, but you also have to watch for whims of the goddess curveballs.

Evolution assumes life began at replicators, since this was the easiest place to start. But this claim has never shown any solid evidence of the first replicators. There are no fossils replicators, just active imagination of them, with lady luck in charge of fantasy. It is similar to dark energy and dark matter, which are also foundation premises, which also have never been seen in the lab. Science is watering itself down with lady luck mythology.

I prefer an approach without mythology. This approach needs a solid and tangible reference variable to gauge the rest.

Water is the chemical bookend of life. Water is the same today as it was before the earth formed. We can drink ancient water with no harmful effects. Water's anomalously high melting and boiling points, for a molecule so small, is testament to its unusually strong self binding power; self protection. All the data shows us that only the organics of life changed with time, with water still the same. This stable bookend is key to evolution. Evolution involves water staying the same; solid but dynamic foundation. It also was there for abiogenesis and kept going, never really changing.

Life in other solvents, all run into the bottleneck of the solvent being able to change with the structural components. Life in water can metabolize all the alternate organic solvents for life, with water still the last man standing. This stable bookend causes the 2nd law to target the organics in terms of increasing entropy; complexity. All the focus is on the organics. This is a natural design of Mother Nature without Lady Luck. Water can increase entropy but this is done via the hydrogen bonding, without altering the core H2O.

Photosynthesis will causes CO2 and Water to change into sugars. This lowers entropy and increases enthalpy. Inevitably water will come back to lower the free energy; metabolism increases entropy and lowers enthalpy. Metabolism is an expression of the 2nd law and was inevitable, once there was a pressure to change the water; photosynthesis. Amino acid incorporate water, while protein brings the water back, so a mechanism had to evolve.

The water and oil effect is also key since water and oil; organics, create various levels of surface tension. The term hydrophobic is a misnomer since organics do not fear water. Rather the hydrogen bonding based stability of water excludes the organics based on minimizing the potential of the water and then the system free energy. Even if water and organics minimize surface tension, there is still potential at the remaining water and organic surfaces. This helps provide the free energy needed for organic entropy to increase, since entropy increase needs energy; naturally energized organic catalytic surfaces.

The liquid state of water is also important to life. The gaseous state can only be under pressure, but not tension. We measure partial pressure of gases. Solids can be under tension and pressure but not both at the same time and reach steady state. Solids will move or rotate if both are applied at the same time; push and pull a car.

The liquid state is unusual in that if can be under both pressure and tension, at the same time and reach steady state. For example, an open glass of water under atmospheric pressure will also display surface tension with the air. Water can express this liquid state behavior internally through the binary polar/covalent bonding characteristics of its hydrogen bonds.

The polar setting of hydrogen bonds cause water to shrink in size creating local tension around itself. While the overlap of the covalent bonding orbitals cause an expansion of water that can create a zone of local pressure. Liquid water, via the hydrogen bonding binary, can push and pull the organics simply by altering its hydrogen bonding state. This is memory with muscle; volume changes, as well as free energy changes. Each setting in the binary also has opposing differences in entropy and enthalpy. Changes in the organic matrix can change the water settings, which can then be transmitted as information with muscle and energy through the water. While the hydrogen bonding matrix of water seeks to maximize itself for integrating effects.

One pivotal evolutionary changes within the water was connected to potassium and sodium ions. These two cations in water expanded the hydrogen bonding range of water. Sodium cations are kosmotropic or will cause more order in water than pure water creates for itself. Potassium cations in water are chaotropic or will create more disorder in water than pure water creates for itself. The pumping and exchange of these two cations allows water to exist in two extreme states inside and outside the cells; specialized zones. This also brings osmosis to the table which has a connection to the entropic or life force, to use old terminology.

Ions do not exist in water without layers of hydrated water encasing them.This makes the ion-water complexes are much larger than the ions. Water to minimize surface area and tension makes the cell membrane tight; permeable to water, but less so to the larger ion-water complexes. Gradients of ions, across the membrane can create an entropic potential with water left doing the work for both; generate osmotic pressure which is force/area; life force/area. The evolution of ion pumping and exchange quicken evolution since it added hydrogen bonding pressures to organics. This is even critical to consciousness with the brain's water responding and integrating ahead of the organics and ions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The current science theories of life and evolution uses two female goddesses, which are Lady Luck and Mother Nature; probability and natural selection. Natural selection sounds good, until you try to use the concept to predict the future. If we look only at the past, we can form patterns for natural selection in our imagination. But if these patterns were fully logical, the same logic should hold for the future. If not, the 20/20 hindsight of patterns is no more than just cataloging the past. Let us use mother nature to make a prediction. That's right Lady Luck and Mother Nature are not always on the same page; logic versus dice and cards. Mother Nature is sweet and maternal, but Lady Luck is a bimbo and appeals to the fellas, since she appears to offer anything your fantasy desires, but you also have to watch for whims of the goddess curveballs.

Evolution assumes life began at replicators, since this was the easiest place to start. But this claim has never shown any solid evidence of the first replicators. There are no fossils replicators, just active imagination of them, with lady luck in charge of fantasy. It is similar to dark energy and dark matter, which are also foundation premises, which also have never been seen in the lab. Science is watering itself down with lady luck mythology.

I prefer an approach without mythology. This approach needs a solid and tangible reference variable to gauge the rest.

Water is the chemical bookend of life. Water is the same today as it was before the earth formed. We can drink ancient water with no harmful effects. Water's anomalously high melting and boiling points, for a molecule so small, is testament to its unusually strong self binding power; self protection. All the data shows us that only the organics of life changed with time, with water still the same. This stable bookend is key to evolution. Evolution involves water staying the same; solid but dynamic foundation. It also was there for abiogenesis and kept going, never really changing.

Life in other solvents, all run into the bottleneck of the solvent being able to change with the structural components. Life in water can metabolize all the alternate organic solvents for life, with water still the last man standing. This stable bookend causes the 2nd law to target the organics in terms of increasing entropy; complexity. All the focus is on the organics. This is a natural design of Mother Nature without Lady Luck. Water can increase entropy but this is done via the hydrogen bonding, without altering the core H2O.

Photosynthesis will causes CO2 and Water to change into sugars. This lowers entropy and increases enthalpy. Inevitably water will come back to lower the free energy; metabolism increases entropy and lowers enthalpy. Metabolism is an expression of the 2nd law and was inevitable, once there was a pressure to change the water; photosynthesis. Amino acid incorporate water, while protein brings the water back, so a mechanism had to evolve.

The water and oil effect is also key since water and oil; organics, create various levels of surface tension. The term hydrophobic is a misnomer since organics do not fear water. Rather the hydrogen bonding based stability of water excludes the organics based on minimizing the potential of the water and then the system free energy. Even if water and organics minimize surface tension, there is still potential at the remaining water and organic surfaces. This helps provide the free energy needed for organic entropy to increase, since entropy increase needs energy; naturally energized organic catalytic surfaces.

The liquid state of water is also important to life. The gaseous state can only be under pressure, but not tension. We measure partial pressure of gases. Solids can be under tension and pressure but not both at the same time and reach steady state. Solids will move or rotate if both are applied at the same time; push and pull a car.

The liquid state is unusual in that if can be under both pressure and tension, at the same time and reach steady state. For example, an open glass of water under atmospheric pressure will also display surface tension with the air. Water can express this liquid state behavior internally through the binary polar/covalent bonding characteristics of its hydrogen bonds.

The polar setting of hydrogen bonds cause water to shrink in size creating local tension around itself. While the overlap of the covalent bonding orbitals cause an expansion of water that can create a zone of local pressure. Liquid water, via the hydrogen bonding binary, can push and pull the organics simply by altering its hydrogen bonding state. This is memory with muscle; volume changes, as well as free energy changes. Each setting in the binary also has opposing differences in entropy and enthalpy. Changes in the organic matrix can change the water settings, which can then be transmitted as information with muscle and energy through the water. While the hydrogen bonding matrix of water seeks to maximize itself for integrating effects.

One pivotal evolutionary changes within the water was connected to potassium and sodium ions. These two cations in water expanded the hydrogen bonding range of water. Sodium cations are kosmotropic or will cause more order in water than pure water creates for itself. Potassium cations in water are chaotropic or will create more disorder in water than pure water creates for itself. The pumping and exchange of these two cations allows water to exist in two extreme states inside and outside the cells; specialized zones. This also brings osmosis to the table which has a connection to the entropic or life force, to use old terminology.

Ions do not exist in water without layers of hydrated water encasing them.This makes the ion-water complexes are much larger than the ions. Water to minimize surface area and tension makes the cell membrane tight; permeable to water, but less so to the larger ion-water complexes. Gradients of ions, across the membrane can create an entropic potential with water left doing the work for both; generate osmotic pressure which is force/area; life force/area. The evolution of ion pumping and exchange quicken evolution since it added hydrogen bonding pressures to organics. This is even critical to consciousness with the brain's water responding and integrating ahead of the organics and ions.

When you start off with nonsense no one is going to read your posts. TLDR.

 

[exchemist]

Where is it shown that the flagellum motor can work after bits have been removed?

Nowhere. What is shown is that much of the apparatus for the flagellum is also part of a system performing a different function. So one could easily have come from the other, or else the two had a common ancestor system in the cell.

Eubacterial flagellum is a multifunctional organelle. It is also one of a range of motility systems in bacteria. The structure of the organelle appears like a motor, shaft and a propeller.[8] However, the structure of eubacterial flagellae varies based on whether their motor systems run on protons or sodium, and on the complexity of the flagellar whip.[9] The evolutionary origin of eubacterial flagellae is probably an example of indirect evolution. A hypothesis on the evolutionary pathway of the eubacterial flagellum argues that a secretory system evolved first, based around the SMC rod- and pore-forming complex. This is presumed to be the common ancestor of the type-III secretory system and the flagellar system. Then, an ion pump was introduced to this structure which improved secretion. The ion pump later became the motor protein. This was followed by the emergence of the proto-flagellar filament as part of the protein-secretion structure. Gliding-twitching motility arose at this stage or later and was then refined into swimming motility.[8]

From:Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just as your personal experiences can serve as evidence for you so they can serve as evidence for anyone, even if they cannot be examined by science.

For me, sure, but it has to be admitted that there is little or no means to confirm the validity of that, since it is subjective and not possible to share.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Am I suggesting that a religious abology organization is not biased?
Hmmm, I suppose that would depend on what they said, don't you think.

We’ve been through this.
From post #58;

This from the ASA website:
(https://network.asa3.org/page/ASAAbout)


Our Statement of Faith

1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

The above makes cognitive bias obvious….
Actual science doesn’t align itself to any particular religious viewpoint.

You admitted:

True science doesn't align itself to any particular religious viewpoint.

From post #62;

Also putting out a journal whose first edition announced its purpose as being includes:
“it is hoped that it will be instrumental in helping the organization achieve its primary purpose of witnessing to the truth of the Scriptures and elucidating the relationship of both the ideology and fruits of science thereto.”
(Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith - Wikipedia)

It has tipped it’s hand that it is attempting to apply christian apologetics to science…..

Once again, would you not agree that “Christian” is a “particular religious viewpoint”?
From: (Christian apologetics - Wikipedia)
Several Christian apologists have sought to reconcile Christianity and science concerning the question of origins. Theistic Evolution claims that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution and that the Creator God uses the process of evolution.
So let’s try this again;
Are you suggesting that a Christian apologetics organization is not biased?

To answer your question;

Or do you just see any religious abology organization as biased?

After all you seem to want to say that ASA is biased simply because of it's religious views and that it is an apologist organisation.

Yes, I see any religious apology organization as biased, by definition;
There purpose is defense of any theory or doctrine, typically drawing on a set of established responses to specific criticisms.
And yes, as you can read above, by their own admission, in there own words, they are in fact a Christian apologetics organization.

Now since we’ve been through this banality again, how about answering the question asked on several occasions…….
You have still never explained how since you don’t know what a spirit is…..how you know
“it is not part of the material universe”,
“not substances made from matter, which you can test”,
or that they have a will, much less “do things according to their will”.
Or if there is anything other than the material universe.
Please show me where this has been objectively demonstrated.
Please explain what is a “spirit” and demonstrate how you know God to be one.

And once again,
Do these “spirits” and/or God have an affect on anything in the known universe?
Can you give any example of how “spirits” or God is effecting anything on Earth or within the known universe in a demonstrable, measurable way?
If God has an effect in the universe, then that effect should be objectively detectable.
Please show where that has been done using objective evidence.

 

[wellwisher]

When you start off with nonsense no one is going to read your posts. TLDR.

The current theory of evolution begins at the first replicators. Although this is a reasonable foundation premise, it unfortunately has no hard direct evidence. This foundation premise was chosen, so the theory could begin, even with no fossil or other forms of direct evidence. If we assume, for the sake of argument this premise is valid, then the theory does have a way to generate change for natural selection. It follows fine after that.

The problem I have is the dual standard of requiring proof of God, which is the foundation premise for Creationist theory. The God theory also has no direct evidence, like the first replicators. Also like the first replicators, if accepted as true, it allows the rest to follow. Science should be expected to use a higher standard, than it imposes onto others. This is my main beef.

If we go back to the replicators, if we did have the first replicators, in place, then evolution would follow. So how did these first replicators appear? This is left hanging in terms of a solid chemical mechanism or series of mechanisms. Instead it relies on dice and cards and calculating odds to show it is possible. This is a form of hocus pocus, where what is needed suddenly appears with no explanation, others than it is possible via the whims of gods; Lady Luck. This is not how statistics would frame but both will lead to the same place.

I am trying to stay true to vigorous science, but I notice loopholes in evolution that work the same way, in theory, as an appeal to the gods. This explains why evolution is the only place in science waging a religious war; pot calling the kettle black, and the need for dual standards. Foundation premises need to support everything built on it, and if a foundation is not sound, in terms of the rules of science, the rest is a moot point. It is like building on sand. You can do it but eventually it sags. This is why I pivoted away from replicators, to water, since water can be proven as a foundation premise, without the need of any Lady Luck.

One other point that bothers me is connected to natural selection. In theory, in an intuitive way, we can all understand what natural selection is. However, can someone make natural selection more tangible, instead of intuitive, since intuition is how faith works. I can see how geography, such as the Arctic or a rain forest sets certain physical parameters that can impact life and therefore selection would mean evolution adapting to these actually physical parameters such as temperature and humidity. But beyond physical parameters, the term natural selection is used as a one size fits all, without having to list actual physical potentials and parameters behind each choice. This is why I used the term, the goddess Mother Nature; she knows and it is a mystery to us. Mother Nature cares of life and that all you need to know.

For example, replicators are chemically so similar, even id there is change, in terms of molecules, how does one stand out to be selected? They all have combinations of four bases and like making plastics and other polymers, one would hard pressed to find physical properties differences, if a mutation was to occur in a milk jug.

The loose use of the term natural selection is like a game than appears to say more than it has to explain. This approach is not allowed of religion, via a dual standard. I am not anti-science, rather I expect science to be held to the highest standard. I am being misrepresented as hating science, because I do not accept these dual standards in sciences. How about staying with just reason and experimental proof. This challenge is never accepted since it will not end well.

I had to change gears from replicators to water since water has plenty of hard data and does not need Lady Luck. Water and oil do not mix and therefore water can segregate organelle and still add surface energy; residual surface tension. Water also has many other tricks up its sleeve being the most anomalous substance in nature. All these unique anomalous properties can be traced to the hydrogen bonding of water, which was also bestowed onto chosen life molecules like DNA, RNA and protein; natural selection at the nanoscale. Water can react to the difference between replicators.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The current theory of evolution begins at the first replicators. Although this is a reasonable foundation premise, it unfortunately has no hard direct evidence. This foundation premise was chosen, so the theory could begin, even with no fossil or other forms of direct evidence. If we assume, for the sake of argument this premise is valid, then the theory does have a way to generate change for natural selection. It follows fine after that.

The problem I have is the dual standard of requiring proof of God, which is the foundation premise for Creationist theory. The God theory also has no direct evidence, like the first replicators. Also like the first replicators, if accepted as true, it allows the rest to follow. Science should be expected to use a higher standard, than it imposes onto others. This is my main beef.

If we go back to the replicators, if we did have the first replicators, in place, then evolution would follow. So how did these first replicators appear? This is left hanging in terms of a solid chemical mechanism or series of mechanisms. Instead it relies on dice and cards and calculating odds to show it is possible. This is a form of hocus pocus, where what is needed suddenly appears with no explanation, others than it is possible via the whims of gods; Lady Luck. This is not how statistics would frame but both will lead to the same place.

I am trying to stay true to vigorous science, but I notice loopholes in evolution that work the same way, in theory, as an appeal to the gods. This explains why evolution is the only place in science waging a religious war; pot calling the kettle black, and the need for dual standards. Foundation premises need to support everything built on it, and if a foundation is not sound, in terms of the rules of science, the rest is a moot point. It is like building on sand. You can do it but eventually it sags. This is why I pivoted away from replicators, to water, since water can be proven as a foundation premise, without the need of any Lady Luck.

One other point that bothers me is connected to natural selection. In theory, in an intuitive way, we can all understand what natural selection is. However, can someone make natural selection more tangible, instead of intuitive, since intuition is how faith works. I can see how geography, such as the Arctic or a rain forest sets certain physical parameters that can impact life and therefore selection would mean evolution adapting to these actually physical parameters such as temperature and humidity. But beyond physical parameters, the term natural selection is used as a one size fits all, without having to list actual physical potentials and parameters behind each choice. This is why I used the term, the goddess Mother Nature; she knows and it is a mystery to us. Mother Nature cares of life and that all you need to know.

For example, replicators are chemically so similar, even id there is change, in terms of molecules, how does one stand out to be selected? They all have combinations of four bases and like making plastics and other polymers, one would hard pressed to find physical properties differences, if a mutation was to occur in a milk jug.

The loose use of the term natural selection is like a game than appears to say more than it has to explain. This approach is not allowed of religion, via a dual standard. I am not anti-science, rather I expect science to be held to the highest standard. I am being misrepresented as hating science, because I do not accept these dual standards in sciences. How about staying with just reason and experimental proof. This challenge is never accepted since it will not end well.

I had to change gears from replicators to water since water has plenty of hard data and does not need Lady Luck. Water and oil do not mix and therefore water can segregate organelle and still add surface energy; residual surface tension. Water also has many other tricks up its sleeve being the most anomalous substance in nature. All these unique anomalous properties can be traced to the hydrogen bonding of water, which was also bestowed onto chosen life molecules like DNA, RNA and protein; natural selection at the nanoscale. Water can react to the difference between replicators.

If you want a response please try to keep the nonsense to a minimum.

 

[Valjean]

Where is it shown that the flagellum motor can work after bits have been removed?

Scroll to 3:30

 

[Brian2]

Scroll to 3:30

Taking away 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum motor mobility system and leaving the hole in the cell wall only is hardly a good way to show that irreducible complexity is not true.
The 40 parts that are taken away and which are the moving parts, would not move if parts were removed.
It would certainly be a big leap for all those 40 parts to come together to form the motor.
The science of the Type 111 Secretory System and the motor part seem to point to the Type 111 Secretory System by itself being a development from the original Flagellum cell movement aparatus.

flagellum motor Dr Meyer - Google Search

www.google.com

Here is another video for your entertainment.

 

[Brian2]

For me, sure, but it has to be admitted that there is little or no means to confirm the validity of that, since it is subjective and not possible to share.

It is subjective but can be shared with others in testimonies and some people actually believe the experiences that others say they have had.

 

[Brian2]

We’ve been through this.
From post #58;

You admitted:

From post #62;

Once again, would you not agree that “Christian” is a “particular religious viewpoint”?
From: (Christian apologetics - Wikipedia)
Several Christian apologists have sought to reconcile Christianity and science concerning the question of origins. Theistic Evolution claims that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution and that the Creator God uses the process of evolution.
So let’s try this again;
Are you suggesting that a Christian apologetics organization is not biased?

To answer your question;


Yes, I see any religious apology organization as biased, by definition;
There purpose is defense of any theory or doctrine, typically drawing on a set of established responses to specific criticisms.
And yes, as you can read above, by their own admission, in there own words, they are in fact a Christian apologetics organization.

So I have to admit that the ASA is biased. But this is not saying that it is wrong, or that it lies. These things have to be determined by what it says.

Now since we’ve been through this banality again, how about answering the question asked on several occasions…….
You have still never explained how since you don’t know what a spirit is…..how you know
“it is not part of the material universe”,
“not substances made from matter, which you can test”,
or that they have a will, much less “do things according to their will”.
Or if there is anything other than the material universe.
Please show me where this has been objectively demonstrated.
Please explain what is a “spirit” and demonstrate how you know God to be one.

These things are from faith in the Bible and experiences of people.

And once again,
Do these “spirits” and/or God have an affect on anything in the known universe?
Can you give any example of how “spirits” or God is effecting anything on Earth or within the known universe in a demonstrable, measurable way?
If God has an effect in the universe, then that effect should be objectively detectable.
Please show where that has been done using objective evidence.

I could give miracles where there is no known scientific reason.
I could give prophecies that have or are being fulfilled, or promises of God that are happening.
That sounds objective and subjective at the same time to me. I don't think it could be proven that it was God who did these things however. It does take faith.

 

[Brian2]

Nowhere. What is shown is that much of the apparatus for the flagellum is also part of a system performing a different function. So one could easily have come from the other, or else the two had a common ancestor system in the cell.

Eubacterial flagellum is a multifunctional organelle. It is also one of a range of motility systems in bacteria. The structure of the organelle appears like a motor, shaft and a propeller.[8] However, the structure of eubacterial flagellae varies based on whether their motor systems run on protons or sodium, and on the complexity of the flagellar whip.[9] The evolutionary origin of eubacterial flagellae is probably an example of indirect evolution. A hypothesis on the evolutionary pathway of the eubacterial flagellum argues that a secretory system evolved first, based around the SMC rod- and pore-forming complex. This is presumed to be the common ancestor of the type-III secretory system and the flagellar system. Then, an ion pump was introduced to this structure which improved secretion. The ion pump later became the motor protein. This was followed by the emergence of the proto-flagellar filament as part of the protein-secretion structure. Gliding-twitching motility arose at this stage or later and was then refined into swimming motility.[8]

From:Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia

This is science behind what you describe.

flagellum motor Dr Meyer - Google Search

www.google.com

Personally I don't see how a 40 part motor when taken away from a 10 part hole in the cell way, could be seen as something that could just happen in one hit. It is something that would not work with any part missing. That would be irreducibly complex.
I also hear that Behe thinks that the more complex tails in the system, with multiple flagellum motors along the tail, are considered by him to probably be irreducible complex since if the motors were just one after the other without some sort of cog in between, they would not work, they would jam up and so could not improve through evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is subjective but can be shared with others in testimonies and some people actually believe the experiences that others say they have had.

Yes. It can be shared in that sense and others can and do believe what they are told. But there is no means to validate what they are told. You either believe it or you don't. In that case, belief or disbelief seems to me to be based on how the teller is viewed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is science behind what you describe.

flagellum motor Dr Meyer - Google Search

www.google.com

Personally I don't see how a 40 part motor when taken away from a 10 part hole in the cell way, could be seen as something that could just happen in one hit. It is something that would not work with any part missing. That would be irreducibly complex.
I also hear that Behe thinks that the more complex tails in the system, with multiple flagellum motors along the tail, are considered by him to probably be irreducible complex since if the motors were just one after the other without some sort of cog in between, they would not work, they would jam up and so could not improve through evolution.

No. That isn't science. That is someone sharing what they believe with you. You can believe it or not, but it isn't science. The evidence doesn't support that the flagellar motor is irreducible. More to the point, irreducible complexity isn't testable. How would it be possible to know all the potential iterations of a feature and show they have no reduced function somewhere?

All the examples that Behe used to support his idea have since been shown to exist in reduced form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Taking away 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum motor mobility system and leaving the hole in the cell wall only is hardly a good way to show that irreducible complexity is not true.
The 40 parts that are taken away and which are the moving parts, would not move if parts were removed.
It would certainly be a big leap for all those 40 parts to come together to form the motor.
The science of the Type 111 Secretory System and the motor part seem to point to the Type 111 Secretory System by itself being a development from the original Flagellum cell movement aparatus.

flagellum motor Dr Meyer - Google Search

www.google.com

Here is another video for your entertainment.

You are making bad assumptions. And you are conflating function and purpose. The structure has a function that changed over time. He was using an extreme example to show.how much could be removed and it still had a function. That showed Behe to be extremely wrong.

You could remove one part, and it would still have a function.

You could remove two parts and it would still have a function.

You could remove three . . .

He didn't do the easy one. Where just one part is removed. They removed a whole bunch of parts and it still had a function. Behe's error may have assumed that the flagellum was a goal rather than an ever changing function.

 

[Twilight Hue]

All the examples that Behe used to support his idea have since been shown to exist in reduced form.

Precisely.

Flagellum also has been shown in secondary capacities to function as sensory antennas and secretory organelles such as found in green alge.

Source....

Eukaryotic Flagella: Variations in Form, Function, and Composition during Evolution

Abstract. The microtubule axoneme is an iconic structure in eukaryotic cell biology and the defining structure in all eukaryotic flagella (or cilia). Flagella o

academic.oup.com

 

[wellwisher]

If you want a response please try to keep the nonsense to a minimum.

It is not nonsense. You cannot answer but are deflecting. Show me direct evidence of the first replicators so I can agree with that foundation premise? Also show me how it appeared other than lady luck poof, here I am? You should learn critical thinking skills so you can make sure any model; science or not, has a solid conceptual foundation per the rules of science.

We’ve been through this.
From post #58;

You admitted:

From post #62;

Once again, would you not agree that “Christian” is a “particular religious viewpoint”?
From: (Christian apologetics - Wikipedia)
Several Christian apologists have sought to reconcile Christianity and science concerning the question of origins. Theistic Evolution claims that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution and that the Creator God uses the process of evolution.
So let’s try this again;
Are you suggesting that a Christian apologetics organization is not biased?

To answer your question;


Yes, I see any religious apology organization as biased, by definition;
There purpose is defense of any theory or doctrine, typically drawing on a set of established responses to specific criticisms.
And yes, as you can read above, by their own admission, in there own words, they are in fact a Christian apologetics organization.

Now since we’ve been through this banality again, how about answering the question asked on several occasions…….
You have still never explained how since you don’t know what a spirit is…..how you know
“it is not part of the material universe”,
“not substances made from matter, which you can test”,
or that they have a will, much less “do things according to their will”.
Or if there is anything other than the material universe.
Please show me where this has been objectively demonstrated.
Please explain what is a “spirit” and demonstrate how you know God to be one.

And once again,
Do these “spirits” and/or God have an affect on anything in the known universe?
Can you give any example of how “spirits” or God is effecting anything on Earth or within the known universe in a demonstrable, measurable way?
If God has an effect in the universe, then that effect should be objectively detectable.
Please show where that has been done using objective evidence.

We live in space-time where the concepts of space and time act together as one. This sets practical limits, which are governed by the laws of physics. But consider the theoretical possibility of space and time not connected, where time can act apart from space and space can act apart from time. The rules of this dimension would be very different from those of space-time.

In classic tradition God is omnipresent. This can theoretically occur if one could move in space apart from time. The concept of omnipresent can occur if time and space are disconnected. Omnipresent cannot happen if space and time are connected as space-time, since that connection sets the upper limit of movement at the speed of light. This is not fast enough to become omnipresent. But if we detach time from space this limit is no longer applicable.

The question is, is there any proof of separated space and separated time. The answer is yes within the quantum world. For example, entangled particles can coordinate in time even when separated by space. If space-time was in affect, the signals between these particles, at the speed of light, would take a finite time, making it hard to maintain their coordination in time. What is observed is there is no time delay. This is an example of moving in time apart from space; space is not a factor.

Consciousness also makes use of this other dimension. We can plan activities in space-time, such as a vacation, without moving from a chair. We do not need to coordinate with material reality for constant feedback.The speed of thought is not limited to the speed of light. That being said, the Gods, by virtue of their divine properties, are not part of space-time. These theoretical ideas allow consciousness to think outside the box of space-time, into divine connections that require separated space and time to explain.

 

[exchemist]

This is science behind what you describe.

flagellum motor Dr Meyer - Google Search

www.google.com

Personally I don't see how a 40 part motor when taken away from a 10 part hole in the cell way, could be seen as something that could just happen in one hit. It is something that would not work with any part missing. That would be irreducibly complex.
I also hear that Behe thinks that the more complex tails in the system, with multiple flagellum motors along the tail, are considered by him to probably be irreducible complex since if the motors were just one after the other without some sort of cog in between, they would not work, they would jam up and so could not improve through evolution.

Nobody suggests it happened in one hit, so far as I am aware. These evolutionary steps generally take place in stages.