Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#104290 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that one way back, summarized as follows, we have a substrate, then a diode, then a transistor, then an IC, then a computer with out intelligence then presto we obviously have a proton powered motor for our tiny little bacteria. Common decent evolutionary Nano-homology style at its worst. No reconciliation of the convergent and complex information required to make these jumps, and as all these part and party life forms live at the same time today, the notion of evo common decent theory falls again. Its a cut and tape job and a decade behind the times. I give you credit for an answer, better than the rest here. Try the Yale paper,he touches on origin's in his summary. I really doubt he and Berg at Harvard would debate this but I will see if they will say anything to me about it.. Thanks.
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104291 Nov 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
SBT and Sub. About the two articles.
SBTs Yale article link - Authored by;
Robert M. Macnab
Yale University
Publications: 70 | Citations: 1820
Fields: Microbiology, Biochemistry,and Molecular Biology
Collaborated with 72 co-authors from 1981 to 2006 Cited by 2570 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...
Subs talkorigins link - Authored by;
Nicholas J. Matzke
University of California Berkeley
Publications: 2 | Citations: 9
Fields: Education
Collaborated with 1 co-author from 2007 to 2010 | Cited by 18 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...
The credentials of the authors speak for their selves. Plus if you look you will see both used many of the same people/publications for references in their article.
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104292 Nov 2, 2013
Has anyone kept track of how many times that I have informed replaytime that the article I linked was based upon over 200 peer reviewed journal articles? You would think that he might finally understand that it was not a peer reviewed journal article itself, but it was clearly based upon peer reviewed science.

Does anyone besides me get sick and tired of explaining the obvious?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#104293 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Has anyone kept track of how many times that I have informed replaytime that the article I linked was based upon over 200 peer reviewed journal articles? You would think that he might finally understand that it was not a peer reviewed journal article itself, but it was clearly based upon peer reviewed science.
Does anyone besides me get sick and tired of explaining the obvious?
It is a number too large to express in this forum.

Yes, but that doesn't stop the replay.

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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#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!

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

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
News Michael Jackson went to great lengths for stran... 7 min No More 21
News Lisa Mariea s suspicious mind (Aug '10) 21 min Let Yourself Go 98
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 25 min eleanorigby 40,268
News Giant billowing aerial sculpture installed over... 36 min Anita Bryant s Jihad 1
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 38 min wichita-rick 161,817
News Touching, funny, messages in obits getting wide... 39 min Anita Bryant s Jihad 1
News Oyez! Town Crier at Royal Baby Birth Captures A... 41 min Anita Bryant s Jihad 1
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr Mr_FX 265
News Baltimore Mom Catches Her Son Rioting, Beats Hi... 1 hr Spotted Girl 178
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 hr Jennifer Renee 10,908
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 4 hr Enter Username 29,001
More from around the web