Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Here is a list of problems and/or questions for you Taq.Parts of random filaments are very likely to aggregate into clumps before they are transported through any sort of porus channel to the outer surface of the cell.Tell me why they would stick to the right places outside of the cell? Why would the parts of the flagellum be transported through the TTSS in the first place? What would prevent them from sticking to the inside of the pilus or the TTSS?The TTSS has 10 protein parts. What are the chances of the 32 other proteins being secreted in the correct order and having the correct binding sites?What part of natural selection would preserve the step by step process in any given environment?What are the odds that a gene able to code for such specialized proteins will just happen to come along to be secreted in a specific way by an existing TTSS?Now tell me what use the TTSS would have if bacteria didn't have a flagellum to begin with? Without a flagellum then, how would a bacteria deliver poisonous proteins into its host?I would also wonder why the TTSS is only found in specific gram-negative bacteria and the bacterial flagellum is found in mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while TTSS systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria. Not only are TTSS systems restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but also to pathogenic gram-negative bacteria that specifically attack animals and plants.

I concluded certain genes were toxic to E. coli and inhibited their growth. I think you are seeing only a part of the study. In 1,064 (76%) ofthese events, the same gene was uncloneable to E. coli fromtwo or more different genomes. Sixty one genes (477 events,34% of total events) could not be cloned from 5 or moredifferent genomes into E. coli (Fig. 2). The high transfer failure rate for certain gene families across several genomes further suggests that specific genes, rather than the
experimental protocol or random biases, may cause this lack
of horizontal transfer.I'm going to admit that I really don't know what is going on in that cut and paste above. Maybe it would help if I was in the lab studying it with them. It appears to me certain genes are found in different genera of bacteria but certain genes interfere with HGT. In other words, I see it is specific genes inhibiting successful transfer. It also looks like they were using the chemical IPTG and antibiotics to help force certain gene transfers. Instead our results suggest there are universal gene transfer
barriers, regardless of whether transfer occurs among closely
or distantly related microorganisms, and that these barriers
may be associated with toxicity of the transferred gene to the
host.This is true. My point was not that the theories were dreamed up. Quantum physics is grounded on empirical evidence. My point, and this was probably a misconception of you was that whatever you don't see doesn't exist. I remember meeting an atheist who thought this way. Apply that sort of thinking to what science knew 200 years ago and you know what they knew from their five senses was only a very small part of reality. My point was, what makes you think we know everything there is to know? That is only one design paradigm. Why does a supernatural creator have to use supernatural processes?

Did I state that? Where did I state it? Why would I state that when I believe HGT has the most potential for explaining the bacterial flagellum?Maybe I shouldn't be attempting to read the papers. Maybe I should do something else other than debating you people? Not that I have something against you Percy. I think you are OK (even though you insult me) but I just don't understand how we see certain things the same way but other things much differently.And another thing, I will state it again. I don't know enough about HGT to criticize it... but I do question it because it doesn't convince me it can build complex molecular machinery.It apparently can create a new type of flatworm or a sea slug that uses photosynthesis. That is amazing in itself. But what kinds of changes have to be made in the genome to accomodate this? Photosynthetic algae is still algae in or just under the surface of the worm or slug. As Taq stated, it modifies existing genes. To create something novel such as a complex bacterial flagellum or a cilium is an unhill process not a horizontal or a lateral process. But I cannot rule out a tortuous HGT route with my level of knowledge can I? At least this makes sense to me. I guess you will just assume that I have to be wrong because you call me the Forrest Gump of the forum, right?I really have better things to do.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Yes, that is correct. I will state it one more time in another way. I don't know enough about HGT to critique it or form a good opinion on it.The neo-Darwinian explanation for the flagellum consistently fails to convince me. The most simple and powerful way of refuting it is, how does natural selection perserve each step or even a few simultaneous steps in the process of building it from a TTSS? I would think you need a blueprint for building a flagellum. Saying you can build it from a TTSS in a brief and random way without useful precursors that natural selection can preserve is almost like saying, "I have an engine and a fuel pump and random mutation can build the rest of the automobile." I think a blueprint could come from an intelligent designer.I cannot prove my last statment above so someone can only disprove it or falsify it by some other means. So do I need to know everything about the scientific papers to form a logical opinion on the issue?HGT is the only way I can see it could possibly be done. I know "basically" how neo-Darwinism works in my head. The paradigm is easy enough. The question is, can these things be proven in the lab? What happens in the head may not happen in real life in the lab.I have been trying to be objective. We all under the influence of our own biases, even scientists. Just look at this link here. This ought to get some of you stirred.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/02/100209183335.htm The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.

We are in almost total agreement and i'm glad you are starting to understand my position now. In your defense, I could have have provided more details before.The only place where we disagree is, you can try to find unintelligent causes for the Rosetta Stone and waste your time for an eternity. I didn't think most of you would would be upset over it. Just only if science is like a religion to some of you. It seems to me the bird to dinosaur pathway was almost like a holy dogma in evolution as though the process behind finding it was / is infallible.My point really was we are all, to a certain extent, subject to what we wish to see.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I pretty much believe when you are posting to me you are not responding to me directly but you are posting to me and other people who might potentially disagree with you. Of course, Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the bible and I would expect all Creationists to be Christians. I will not argue with a process that discovers things through repeatable and testable experimentation. I just think science excels in certain areas and it doesn't do as well in others.One reason why I have been sticking around here is because I told everyone that I would explain why I am not a Creationist because I think "The Physics of Genesis" by Jim Thompson explains the book of Genesis better than Creationism does.