“That’s just the point! The motility function of the rotary …

Comment on Emergence and the Origin of Life? by george.

“That’s just the point! The motility function of the rotary bacterial flagellum is not reducible below its minimum structural threshold requirement. Below this threshold level, you will not be able to achieve the motility function to any useful degree. In other words, you can’t produce a rotary bacterial flagellum with just 100aa or even 1000aa – regardless of how they’re put together. Rather, such a system requires coding for several thousand specifically arranged amino acid residues, within a couple dozen different structural proteins, at minimum, before the rotary flagellar motility function can be realized.”

Isn’t ATP synthase a smaller, molecular, rotary motor found in the membranes of all bacteria? Is so is the rotary function of the bacterial function truly not reducible?

george Also Commented

Emergence and the Origin of Life?
Howdy Pard

I’ve been doing a lot of reading about that rebellious little molecular machine ATP Synthase. Looks like this ubiquitous little critter might provide some evidence between the common ancestry between Cyanobacteria and chloroplasts. Just wondering if you have done any math on the odds of ATP Synthase evolving from smaller subunits and the rotary motor of the bacterial flagellum evolving from ATP synthase?


Emergence and the Origin of Life?
Excellent article. My good pard shows that he isn’t scared to tackle opposing views, even within the Adventist ranks. I presume Dr. Kootsey is an Advenist from his cv?

Now about that ole tail on the bug and whether it can be broken down into smaller parts. Isn’t it true that the Type III Secretiry System is similar to the protein structure of the flagellum?


Emergence and the Origin of Life?

“Yes, the TTSS system is very similar to a structure of 10 proteins out of the 40 or so proteins that form the rotary flagellum.”

“Because, adapting parts that used to work in other systems doing other jobs to work together requires various small modifications.”

In other words pard, the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because the TTSS is likely a simpler precursor or component part right? Which means that the bacterial flagellum in its own right can not proven to be intelligently designed. It likely evolved from the coupling of simpler biological machines with small modifications and they in turn from even smaller machines or molecules. I think the mistake you are making is to calculate the odds in linear fashion of the end product formed step by step instead of looking at the odds of smaller biological machines hooking up at random and then being naturally selected.

The Krebs Cycle is another example of a combination of smaller precursor cycles combining. This is where both your assumptions and math fail you in my layman’s estimation as you advised me to make and not rely on the experts! 🙂


Recent Comments by george

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Bob

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though 🙂
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. 🙂