Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 65639" data-attributes="member: 353"><p>From the very first sentence this NewScientist article is a plethora of dishonest strawman arguments.</p><p></p><p>The variability of flagella is neither here nor there and does nothing to address Behe’s challenge of irreducible complexity.</p><p></p><p>As a reminder the argument is that when you remove one part of the system, the system does not work. Articles like this seem to have a strong desire to misrepresent the argument.</p><p></p><p>The article mentions that only two proteins are unique to flagella, however a more honest argument would be speak about the complexity of the interactions among these proteins and to delve into the specific functions of each component and the potential changes of their removal. It purposefully avoids these challenges.</p><p></p><p>In terms of functionality of flagellar components the article highlights the versatility of some flagellar components, however it doesn’t bother to acknowledge the specific conditions and limitations under which these components can perform alternative functions. It’s essential to address whether alternative functions could replace the role of the flagellum in a biological context.</p><p></p><p>The article proposes a highly speculative evolutionary pathway for the flagellum as if it was fact. It doesn’t bother to mention that there’s zero empirical evidence for its hypotheses. Full on speculation presented as fact. </p><p></p><p>The author completely avoids discussing the current limitations in understanding specific evolutionary processes, especially at a molecular level.</p><p></p><p>While invoking Orgel’s Second Rule, the article doesn’t mention that this rule reflects a perspective on the adaptability of evolutionary processes, but doesn’t provide a detailed explanation for the origin of specific complex structures.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tiger, post: 65639, member: 353"] From the very first sentence this NewScientist article is a plethora of dishonest strawman arguments. The variability of flagella is neither here nor there and does nothing to address Behe’s challenge of irreducible complexity. As a reminder the argument is that when you remove one part of the system, the system does not work. Articles like this seem to have a strong desire to misrepresent the argument. The article mentions that only two proteins are unique to flagella, however a more honest argument would be speak about the complexity of the interactions among these proteins and to delve into the specific functions of each component and the potential changes of their removal. It purposefully avoids these challenges. In terms of functionality of flagellar components the article highlights the versatility of some flagellar components, however it doesn’t bother to acknowledge the specific conditions and limitations under which these components can perform alternative functions. It’s essential to address whether alternative functions could replace the role of the flagellum in a biological context. The article proposes a highly speculative evolutionary pathway for the flagellum as if it was fact. It doesn’t bother to mention that there’s zero empirical evidence for its hypotheses. Full on speculation presented as fact. The author completely avoids discussing the current limitations in understanding specific evolutionary processes, especially at a molecular level. While invoking Orgel’s Second Rule, the article doesn’t mention that this rule reflects a perspective on the adaptability of evolutionary processes, but doesn’t provide a detailed explanation for the origin of specific complex structures. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
How Dangerous is Israel?
Started by Anderson
Today at 4:04 AM
Replies: 1
Nationalist Politics
Charlie Kirk Shot Dead ~ RIP
Started by Anderson
Yesterday at 3:29 PM
Replies: 94
Nationalist Politics
J
Has anyone else kinda lost the will to live ?
Started by Jay Homer Simpson
Yesterday at 12:30 PM
Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
The 2023 National Party Coup D'état or Split: My Understanding of it
Started by BelfastRatepayer
Saturday at 12:59 PM
Replies: 28
Nationalist Politics
RTE and Virgin - 2 Cheeks of the same.....
Started by Anderson
Friday at 3:46 AM
Replies: 11
Nationalist Politics
Popular Threads
Ukraine.
Started by Declan
Feb 21, 2022
Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
Started by jpc
Nov 7, 2022
Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
Started by Anderson
Feb 26, 2023
Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
Started by Charlene
Sep 14, 2021
Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
Started by Declan
Dec 30, 2024
Replies: 2K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
Started by Anderson
Jul 29, 2022
Replies: 2K
Climate Change
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
Top
Bottom