Richard Simons
Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57) | So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable? |
The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria.
The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules.
The result: the prediction was upheld.
The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design.
The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found.
The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?)
See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test.
BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate.
(Edit to correct typo)
--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.
|
