Comments on: All flagellar genes derive from a single gene http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:02:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: bork http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117578 bork Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:43:52 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117578 This is quite amazing, while I don't understand the paper I can see the implications. I need to learn some more biology, unfortunately I typically view biology as rote memorization... Time to crack open that book I bought by Ernest Mayr. :-P This is quite amazing, while I don’t understand the paper I can see the implications.

I need to learn some more biology, unfortunately I typically view biology as rote memorization…

Time to crack open that book I bought by Ernest Mayr. :-P

]]> By: PaV http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117554 PaV Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:26:32 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117554 I've given the paper a brief look. I don't see what the problem is as far as methodology goes. The authors cite a paper by Pelligrini, et.al., which, it appears, is the foundational paper on a technique called Phylogenetic Profiling. And, apparently, the BLAST program does such profiling. The Pelligrini paper dates from 1998. That's almost ten years ago. Why didn't anybody object to this methodology before? I think the problem is that Matzke realizes that what the authors have done is given evolutionary skeptics a tool. The paper suggests that there are about 24 "core" genes that are handed down from the Common Ancestor to all bacterial phyla. This seems to imply that somehow, given that bacteria represent the "first life" on this planet, that 24 genes somehow had to "evolve" before bacteria arose. Well, what form of life does this Common Ancestor represent? And why haven't we encountered it before in the fossil record? And even if such a CA should be encountered, using the "co-option" method of Matzke and PZMyers, this means that, miraculously, 24 simultaneous "co-options" (or else you have to come up with some selective advantage for each one of the 'co-options') took place in a Common Ancestor that we don't even know existed. It's no wonder Matzke wants to say this is bad science. It's not bad science; it's science that's bad for Darwinism! I’ve given the paper a brief look. I don’t see what the problem is as far as methodology goes. The authors cite a paper by Pelligrini, et.al., which, it appears, is the foundational paper on a technique called Phylogenetic Profiling. And, apparently, the BLAST program does such profiling. The Pelligrini paper dates from 1998. That’s almost ten years ago. Why didn’t anybody object to this methodology before? I think the problem is that Matzke realizes that what the authors have done is given evolutionary skeptics a tool. The paper suggests that there are about 24 “core” genes that are handed down from the Common Ancestor to all bacterial phyla. This seems to imply that somehow, given that bacteria represent the “first life” on this planet, that 24 genes somehow had to “evolve” before bacteria arose. Well, what form of life does this Common Ancestor represent? And why haven’t we encountered it before in the fossil record? And even if such a CA should be encountered, using the “co-option” method of Matzke and PZMyers, this means that, miraculously, 24 simultaneous “co-options” (or else you have to come up with some selective advantage for each one of the ‘co-options’) took place in a Common Ancestor that we don’t even know existed.

It’s no wonder Matzke wants to say this is bad science. It’s not bad science; it’s science that’s bad for Darwinism!

]]> By: shaner74 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117350 shaner74 Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:00:22 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117350 I don't think it's actually a ruse. I'm not familiar with the authors but I'd bet they were just hoping for uncritical acceptance and instant recognition. “Judges don’t even have a high school level understanding of biology. Regarding scientific issues, they reach their decisions based on the testimony of expert witnesses, not an independent examination of the evidence.” Jehu, I meant it mainly as a joke, but I think it would pose a problem for Darwinists in a court case if there were papers like this that could be pointed to as evidence for Darwinian dogma and “just-so” storytelling. I don’t think it’s actually a ruse. I’m not familiar with the authors but I’d bet they were just hoping for uncritical acceptance and instant recognition.

“Judges don’t even have a high school level understanding of biology. Regarding scientific issues, they reach their decisions based on the testimony of expert witnesses, not an independent examination of the evidence.”

Jehu, I meant it mainly as a joke, but I think it would pose a problem for Darwinists in a court case if there were papers like this that could be pointed to as evidence for Darwinian dogma and “just-so” storytelling.

]]> By: TRoutMac http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117344 TRoutMac Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:35:49 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117344 Okay, I admit… I'm confused. Was Michael Behe's response on the ENV page tongue-in-cheek? Are we just speculating that the paper is a ruse, or do we know that it's a ruse? I mean, it seems ridiculous enough to be a ruse, but then so did John McDonald's "refutation" of Behe's mousetrap analogy… and yet he was SERIOUS. (seriously LAME, but serious, nonetheless) Spell it out for me, guys. Thanks! Okay, I admit… I’m confused. Was Michael Behe’s response on the ENV page tongue-in-cheek? Are we just speculating that the paper is a ruse, or do we know that it’s a ruse?

I mean, it seems ridiculous enough to be a ruse, but then so did John McDonald’s “refutation” of Behe’s mousetrap analogy… and yet he was SERIOUS. (seriously LAME, but serious, nonetheless)

Spell it out for me, guys.

Thanks!

]]> By: Mats http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117340 Mats Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:02:33 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117340 This is hilarious! This is hilarious!

]]> By: Jehu http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117331 Jehu Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:48:54 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117331 <blockquote>Matzke’s reactions several of us PT bloggers are reaching the conclusion that this paper is looking worse, not better, after close examination. </blockquote> Of course Matzke doesn't like this paper. It destroys his story of the evolution of the flagellum by cooption of pre-existing parts.

Matzke’s reactions

several of us PT bloggers are reaching the conclusion that this paper is looking worse, not better, after close examination.

Of course Matzke doesn’t like this paper. It destroys his story of the evolution of the flagellum by cooption of pre-existing parts.

]]> By: The Scubaredneck http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117330 The Scubaredneck Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:45:47 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117330 They can't seem to help themselves. The sheep at denialism.com, in agreeing with PT (of course) that the paper is a dog, then go on to say that Mike Behe is still a poopy head for daring to disagree with Nick Matzke (who is the "real" expert, you see) and asserting that this is relavent to ID. It makes perfect sense that Nick Matzke, a trained geographer, would understand such things far better than Mike Behe. It might almost serve as the punchline of a bad joke if they weren't serious. <a href="http://www.denialism.com/2007/04/selectivity-alert.html" rel="nofollow">Read all about it</a> They can’t seem to help themselves. The sheep at denialism.com, in agreeing with PT (of course) that the paper is a dog, then go on to say that Mike Behe is still a poopy head for daring to disagree with Nick Matzke (who is the “real” expert, you see) and asserting that this is relavent to ID. It makes perfect sense that Nick Matzke, a trained geographer, would understand such things far better than Mike Behe. It might almost serve as the punchline of a bad joke if they weren’t serious.

Read all about it

]]> By: Jehu http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117329 Jehu Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:32:05 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117329 <blockquote> What would happen during then next court case if the Darwin side tried pointing to its mountain of peer-reviewed literature as proof and had papers like this stinking up the courtroom? </blockquote> Judges don't even have a high school level understanding of biology. Regarding scientific issues, they reach their decisions based on the testimony of expert witnesses, not an independent examination of the evidence. When expert witnesses conflict, they go with the expert who seems to be the most authorative. Any consensous view is seen as highly authorative. That is why the Dover case was such a poorly concieved strategy from the ID perspective. The court room is the LAST place to challenge a prevailing consensous view.

What would happen during then next court case if the Darwin side tried pointing to its mountain of peer-reviewed literature as proof and had papers like this stinking up the courtroom?

Judges don’t even have a high school level understanding of biology. Regarding scientific issues, they reach their decisions based on the testimony of expert witnesses, not an independent examination of the evidence. When expert witnesses conflict, they go with the expert who seems to be the most authorative. Any consensous view is seen as highly authorative.

That is why the Dover case was such a poorly concieved strategy from the ID perspective. The court room is the LAST place to challenge a prevailing consensous view.

]]> By: shaner74 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117318 shaner74 Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:14:52 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117318 You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize this is a brilliant strategy to promote ID. Like scordova mentions, if IDers could get outlandish pro-Darwin papers past peer-review, it could be more damaging than getting actual ID papers published. What would happen during then next court case if the Darwin side tried pointing to its mountain of peer-reviewed literature as proof and had papers like this stinking up the courtroom? I don't want the courts deciding any of it, but I really don't want the courts enslaving us intellectually with atheistic propaganda. What a great paper this is! You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize this is a brilliant strategy to promote ID. Like scordova mentions, if IDers could get outlandish pro-Darwin papers past peer-review, it could be more damaging than getting actual ID papers published. What would happen during then next court case if the Darwin side tried pointing to its mountain of peer-reviewed literature as proof and had papers like this stinking up the courtroom? I don’t want the courts deciding any of it, but I really don’t want the courts enslaving us intellectually with atheistic propaganda. What a great paper this is!

]]> By: TRoutMac http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-117316 TRoutMac Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:48:17 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/#comment-117316 Michael Behe responds to this same paper, apparently, here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/darwinism_gone_wild_neither_se.html Michael Behe responds to this same paper, apparently, here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....er_se.html

]]>