Chris Hyland
Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote | | No one can account even in a plausible way for how a system like the flagellum can have evolved. |
No one is saying that we have an exact pathway, especially not to Behes requirements. But based on the understanding we have of the mechanisms of evolution, this is by far the most likely option. There is no part of the flagellum that couldnt have concievably come about by the mechanisms we are aware of. We have to infre our knowledge of the evolution of other protein complexes to this one, if this does not satisfy you then that is just too bad. Behe has to prove that the falgellum couldnt have evolved, and he tries to do so by use of bad analogies and misrepresentation of the nature of biological systems. I am happy to try and explain this, but some of it I did in a previous post in response to your questions about cooption. The flagellum exists in many different configurations in many different bacteria with various different parts missing, in each case the other parts, especially those that 'would interact' are also slightly different. As i said before a small change in a protein can lead to a large change in its functional properties, or vice-versa. To fully understand requires more knowledge about protein structure than i can explain in a couple of paragraphs.
I am sorry if I am coming off sounding like an arrogant scientist, but that is just the problem. I read Darwins black box before I had heard of the Pandas thumb, or the NCSE, or Talk Origins, or the Discovery Institute, and I knew that it was a load of rubbish. To fully appreciate that fact you do need to understand biochemistry and evolution quite well. This is the biggest problem with the whole ID debate, it has made the public distrust scientists, and demand techincal explenations. Do you really think that I do not really believe waht I am saying, or that I am ignoring the evidence for ID even though I see some truth in it?
|
