Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216624 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104294 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are churning on and on about how it functions. Function is important to evolution, but it is not a mechanism for evolution. You keep repeating the functional aspects over and over in a nearly neurotic chant as if that is meaningful to refuting the evolution of bacterial flagellar motor. It isn't. It is just the substance of your personal argument for incredulity. The extent of your knowledge of research on the evolution of this structure seems mainly to be that your claim of an increasing negative association between the terms "evolution" and "bacterial flagellar motor" in the scientific literature. A claim I may doesn't seem to hold up.
Demanding answers about the mechanisms of function doesn't address or refute the evolution of this structure.
The issue is that evolution must make sense, the proton motor proves evolution doesn't make any sense. To be scientific, the whole of the matter must fit;The DNA and it's source, the convergent design, the connections, the function, the masterly design that confounds us all technically. And yes, I have worked in several fields, of late electronics for things that actually work and are fairly complex to achieve things we needed in mining, so it turned into a company, a few patents, soon wondering back to another field from my youth in semi-retirement. I used the word "try" to contact, most don't want to touch the matter due to publicity. The motor researchers are crossing into electronic engineering, a thing I know and they don't really get when you read the lit, they have these complex chemical terms but don't get how hard we have to work to get things to work like this.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104295 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What a complete moron. You are comparing apples and grapes, not even apples and oranges. The articles are two totally different types of articles. One was written so that the average person, except for creatards would understand it. The article I supplied was an overview of many articles. It is based directly upon peer reviewed journal articles and is not meant to be the source for further peer reviewed journal articles. Yet, it was referred to at least twice. The Yale article was one peer reviewed journal article about a very specific bit of information on the rotator flagellum. It was meant for other authors to use.
Add how peer reviewed articles work to the vast repertoire of items that replaytime does not understand.
Second, that article in no way supports SBT. It says very little about how the flagellum evolved since it was not concerned with that obvious part of science.
I rest my talkorigins case..

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104296 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is that evolution must make sense, the proton motor proves evolution doesn't make any sense. To be scientific, the whole of the matter must fit;The DNA and it's source, the convergent design, the connections, the function, the masterly design that confounds us all technically. And yes, I have worked in several fields, of late electronics for things that actually work and are fairly complex to achieve things we needed in mining, so it turned into a company, a few patents, soon wondering back to another field from my youth in semi-retirement. I used the word "try" to contact, most don't want to touch the matter due to publicity. The motor researchers are crossing into electronic engineering, a thing I know and they don't really get when you read the lit, they have these complex chemical terms but don't get how hard we have to work to get things to work like this.
Dude, you aren't even smart enough to bullshit about that crap. you've been caught out in so many obvious lies already, why do you continue?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104297 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I rest my talkorigins case..
Good.

So you admit defeat.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#104298 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is that evolution must make sense, the proton motor proves evolution doesn't make any sense. To be scientific, the whole of the matter must fit;The DNA and it's source, the convergent design, the connections, the function, the masterly design that confounds us all technically. And yes, I have worked in several fields, of late electronics for things that actually work and are fairly complex to achieve things we needed in mining, so it turned into a company, a few patents, soon wondering back to another field from my youth in semi-retirement. I used the word "try" to contact, most don't want to touch the matter due to publicity. The motor researchers are crossing into electronic engineering, a thing I know and they don't really get when you read the lit, they have these complex chemical terms but don't get how hard we have to work to get things to work like this.
No it doesn't prove that at all.

There you go with that sing song, style. You can't talk plainly and I think it is because deep down you feel guilty for lying.

Regardless of whatever knowledge of motors you may or may not have, it doesn't matter regarding the evolution of this structure. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104299 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Good.
So you admit defeat.
Talked me right into it, cept your jury disagrees

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104300 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No it doesn't prove that at all.
There you go with that sing song, style. You can't talk plainly and I think it is because deep down you feel guilty for lying.
Regardless of whatever knowledge of motors you may or may not have, it doesn't matter regarding the evolution of this structure. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.
Now you say it doesn't matter. OK.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104301 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Talked me right into it, cept your jury disagrees
Nope, the jury agrees with me.

You don't understand real articles when you link them and rely on garbage sites that are not based upon peer reviewed science.

TalkOrigins is based upon peer reviewed science and includes the sources of their science in their articles.

The avoidance of peer reviewed science by creationists is there Achilles Heel. That is why they always lose court cases. Judges may not be experts at science, but they can still tell shit from Shinola.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#104302 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you say it doesn't matter. OK.
Your rambling on about function doesn't support you case against evolution. You are just throwing all that talk about motors out there as a smoke screen and hoping it will shake off some of the biologists. The function is a result of the evolution and not a description of the mechanism of that evolution.

There are a number of studies and reviews in the literature on the evolution of the bacterial flagellar motor. Several have been provided to you. You just ignore that and ramble on about how your argument from incredulity is shaking the pillars of evolution or some such nonsense.

Irreducible complexity doesn't hold up as a concept. If it did, there would be no guarantee that your jumping to a designer is the proper conclusion. You would still be left with no scientific way to support that. All you really have is a version of faith and a lot of misunderstanding about science.

By the way, there are different mechanisms powering different flagella. Not just the proton power that you ramble on about.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104303 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, the jury agrees with me.
You don't understand real articles when you link them and rely on garbage sites that are not based upon peer reviewed science.
TalkOrigins is based upon peer reviewed science and includes the sources of their science in their articles.
The avoidance of peer reviewed science by creationists is there Achilles Heel. That is why they always lose court cases. Judges may not be experts at science, but they can still tell shit from Shinola.
Some garbage sites i reviewed, peer reviewed to make you happy;

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/351625
http://www.iris.ethz.ch/msrl/publications/fil...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818629
http://biocyc.org/ECOLI/new-image...

All these use electric motor analogy in attempts to explain the axial device, most express an inability to understand how much of it works. They all take an observational standpoint, like man looking into space and saying "wow". None attempt to explain the sequence control or proton magnitude control of the coil pulse, they stick to torque/speed measurements which appear analogous to PLC's, as they observe step incremental changes in speed and torque rather than analog changes, go figure.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104304 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some garbage sites i reviewed, peer reviewed to make you happy;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/351625
http://www.iris.ethz.ch/msrl/publications/fil...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818629
http://biocyc.org/ECOLI/new-image...
All these use electric motor analogy in attempts to explain the axial device, most express an inability to understand how much of it works. They all take an observational standpoint, like man looking into space and saying "wow". None attempt to explain the sequence control or proton magnitude control of the coil pulse, they stick to torque/speed measurements which appear analogous to PLC's, as they observe step incremental changes in speed and torque rather than analog changes, go figure.
Yes, and all of the writers of those articles accept the theory of evolution. They all know that the bacteria, along with its flagellum evolved.

None of them are garbage sites and none of them support your claim of creation.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104305 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, the jury agrees with me.
You don't understand real articles when you link them and rely on garbage sites that are not based upon peer reviewed science.
TalkOrigins is based upon peer reviewed science and includes the sources of their science in their articles.
The avoidance of peer reviewed science by creationists is there Achilles Heel. That is why they always lose court cases. Judges may not be experts at science, but they can still tell shit from Shinola.
His Yale article link wasn't good enough?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104306 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some garbage sites i reviewed, peer reviewed to make you happy;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/351625
http://www.iris.ethz.ch/msrl/publications/fil...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818629
http://biocyc.org/ECOLI/new-image...
All these use electric motor analogy in attempts to explain the axial device, most express an inability to understand how much of it works. They all take an observational standpoint, like man looking into space and saying "wow". None attempt to explain the sequence control or proton magnitude control of the coil pulse, they stick to torque/speed measurements which appear analogous to PLC's, as they observe step incremental changes in speed and torque rather than analog changes, go figure.
And seriously, I don't think any of them "express an inability to understand how much of it works'.

When you make stupid claims like that you should back them up with quotes from the article. It seems that you are the one who is not understanding how these simple "motors" work.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104307 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone ever observe these steps you speak of? Like the whole of evolutionary biology, it either happens so fast we cant see it (Gould), or so slowly we can't detect it,(Darwin).
At least on Star Wars, Back to the Future or Star Trek, we have Luke, the Professor and Scotty, and you folks have the Time God. If Scotty told us his Warp Drive came from a God the series would have been over, kids expect better fiction than that! But if talkorigins says so that works for you? The papers I quoted use a pile of far more current references and the foundational one's also. Look up how a controller activates axial connected electric motors using pulse coil technology and how the needed 1.1 mil/pulses/sec to run this motor @ 100,000 rpm would entail all by and by accident's. Its a real motor. AC motors need a special transmission to vari speed and can't reverse! None of your talkorigins lit touches this. Even if they understood the principals,(which after a casual reading they don't, not even close) the perfectly ordered gene data required to build and run this thing must be explained, but no, just drop the word evolution here and there and all the DNA controlled design is automatically explained, how simple. Even the science fiction stories I quote are more plausable.
Bravo!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#104308 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some garbage sites i reviewed, peer reviewed to make you happy;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/351625
http://www.iris.ethz.ch/msrl/publications/fil...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818629
http://biocyc.org/ECOLI/new-image...
All these use electric motor analogy in attempts to explain the axial device, most express an inability to understand how much of it works. They all take an observational standpoint, like man looking into space and saying "wow". None attempt to explain the sequence control or proton magnitude control of the coil pulse, they stick to torque/speed measurements which appear analogous to PLC's, as they observe step incremental changes in speed and torque rather than analog changes, go figure.
That's fantastic. Good show old man. Still, it doesn't refute evolution. It is akin to my explaining the function of bark and claiming that refutes how the forest was formed.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#104309 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And seriously, I don't think any of them "express an inability to understand how much of it works'.
When you make stupid claims like that you should back them up with quotes from the article. It seems that you are the one who is not understanding how these simple "motors" work.
A very good point. I was reviewing his links, and it seems that his claim is made in hopes no one would follow up it and find out it was bullshit.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#104310 Nov 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo!
You have no idea about any of this do you. You are just backing a fellow anti-science, hack.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104311 Nov 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The inevitable walking tree theory:
Given enough time, chance and planets , a walking tree is quite plausible. Trees have the ability to bend with the wind so sooner or later a tree will have the proper mutation enabling it to have incredible flexibility enough for walking. Since trees are known to seek out the sun , to grow towards it , this decision by the tree will only evolve into a higher level of decision making, resulting in a greater self awareness of it's enviroment, allowing the tree to understand that when water is scarce, it must seek out other sources. As the root system evolves to meet the tree's movement needs , they will become shallower with each generation until a series of biped appendages evolve that allows the movement possible. Whole herds of roaming tree's will cover the areas of the planet where the water is abundant. Vocal organs will no doubt evolve then to enable the tree herds to communicate in their migration........
and before you know it the tree's will be carrying Hobbits and a movie trilogy will be made
Lord of the Rings
the end
Here go Dan

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104312 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You have no idea about any of this do you. You are just backing a fellow anti-science, hack.
Coming soon ! I'll explain how beef stew emerged through natural processes alone without any intelligent design.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#104313 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some garbage sites i reviewed, peer reviewed to make you happy;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/351625
http://www.iris.ethz.ch/msrl/publications/fil...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818629
http://biocyc.org/ECOLI/new-image...
All these use electric motor analogy in attempts to explain the axial device, most express an inability to understand how much of it works. They all take an observational standpoint, like man looking into space and saying "wow". None attempt to explain the sequence control or proton magnitude control of the coil pulse, they stick to torque/speed measurements which appear analogous to PLC's, as they observe step incremental changes in speed and torque rather than analog changes, go figure.
That second link is to an abstract of a review paper. In the abstract in tells us that it will provide an overview of a number of components of bacterial physiology, genetics and structure including bacterial motility. Did you read the actual paper? Out of curiosity, what did you get from that reference that supports your position? We can't tell from our side, since it just says it will tell us all about it in the rest of the paper.

Another paper on how the flagellum senses load and changes speed. That doesn't say anything about the evolution of the flagellum. Another on nanotechnology modeled on the bacterial flagellum. Nothing there to support your point and no mention of evolution either.

No wonder you don't find papers including "evolution" and bacterial flagellar motor". You aren't looking for them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Denny CranesPlace 67,097
News Cleveland 53 mins ago 8:55 p.m.Man charged with... 27 min Christine 1
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 29 min Hoosier Hillbilly 11,129
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 36 min whatimeisit 5,780
Benghazi (Oct '15) 38 min Hoosier Hillbilly 107
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 40 min Hoosier Hillbilly 37,071
2words into 2new words (May '12) 42 min whatimeisit 6,762
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 1 hr Bye Bye 979
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 1 hr Grace Nerissa 44
News Church fined $12,000 for helping homeless new 1 hr Spotted Girl 41
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr avon5735 206,908
More from around the web