Home » Evolution, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity » Genes switching rows of teeth = Efficient ID Design?

Genes switching rows of teeth = Efficient ID Design?

The “Msx1, a feedback activator of Bmp4 expression” with the Osr2 control gene has been discovered to switch between single vs multiple sets of teeth. E.g. distinguishing between humans and sharks. This efficient compact control mechanism appears to fit well within an ID Design paradigm. The serious cleft pallet defects caused by errors further suggest an irreducibly complex system.

What evidence might there be for random mutation and “selection” to form such a complex yet elegant control system so “early” in evolution?

Finding genes that make teeth grow all in a row By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Thursday, February 26, 2009

Ever wonder why sharks get several rows of teeth and people only get one? . . .A single gene appears to be in charge, preventing additional tooth formation in species destined for a limited set. When the scientists bred mice that lacked that gene, the rodents developed extra teeth next to their first molars _ backups like sharks and other non-mammals grow, University of Rochester scientists reported Thursday. . . .Also intriguing: All the mice born without this gene, called Osr2, had cleft palates severe enough to kill. So better understanding of this gene might play a role in efforts to prevent that birth defect, the Rochester team reported in the journal Science.

Teeth may not be visible until long after birth, but they start to form early in embryo development. Teeth ultimately erupt from a thickened band of tissue along the jaw line called the dental lamina, a band that forms in a top layer of the gum called the epithelium.
. . . All the action takes place instead in a deeper cell layer called the mesenchyme.

Think of the Osr2 gene as a control switch, a kind of gene that turns on and off the downstream actions of other genes and proteins. In that mesenchymal tissue, the Osr2 gene works in concert with two other genes to make sure budding teeth form in the right spot, said lead researcher Dr. Rulang Jiang, a geneticist at Rochester’s Center for Oral Biology.

See: full article.

Antagonistic Actions of Msx1 and Osr2 Pattern Mammalian Teeth into a Single Row
Zunyi Zhang, Yu Lan, Yang Chai, Rulang Jiang
Science 27 February 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5918, pp. 1232 – 1234;
DOI: 10.1126/science.1167418

Mammals have single-rowed dentitions, whereas many nonmammalian vertebrates have teeth in multiple rows. Neither the molecular mechanism regulating iterative tooth initiation nor that restricting mammalian tooth development in one row is known. We found that mice lacking the transcription factor odd-skipped related-2 (Osr2) develop supernumerary teeth lingual to their molars because of expansion of the odontogenic field. Osr2 was expressed in a lingual-to-buccal gradient and restricted expression of bone morphogenetic protein 4 (Bmp4), an essential odontogenic signal, in the developing tooth mesenchyme. Expansion of odontogenic field in Osr2-deficient mice required Msx1, a feedback activator of Bmp4 expression. These findings suggest that the Bmp4-Msx1 pathway propagates mesenchymal activation for sequential tooth induction and that spatial modulation of this pathway provides a mechanism for patterning vertebrate dentition.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

59 Responses to Genes switching rows of teeth = Efficient ID Design?

  1. DLH, were have you been? Welcome back.

  2. This efficient compact control mechanism appears to fit well within an ID Design paradigm.

    Would an inefficient and uncompact control mechanism fit any less well?

  3. 3
    George L Farquhar

    DLH

    What evidence might there be for random mutation and “selection” to form such a complex yet elegant control system so “early” in evolution?

    As living systems, no matter how comparativly simple, are very complex entities does this sort of question even make sense?

    If there is a complex control system then the thing it is controlling must also be complex. Or why else have a complex control system?

    And why is “selection” in scare quotes? Don’t you believe in “selection”? At it’s simplest the enviroment selects the winners and losers, and the winners win reproduction. So why is “selection” in quotes?

  4. To say that the system is irreducibly complex is not enough to say this is evidence for ID. Remember the flagelum or the immune system?

  5. 5

    eintown, do you fail to see the insight demonstrated by creating such a mechanism of control? Beyond its irreducibly complex nature, this is pretty clear evidence of FLE. But I’ll bite, why isn’t irreducible complexity evidence for ID?

  6. Thats not what I meant. I mean, to say something is irreducibly complex is not the same as showing empirically that the system is indeed IC.

    E.g. Behe: Immune system and flagelum are examples of IC. However there is no evidence for this and the amount of data published to show the evolution of these systems is overwhelming – What Behe said cannot happen.

    So, yes the teeth may be examples of IC. But then show it is!

  7. 7

    Eintown,

    You might want to consider re-reading the literature. Behe has not been answered.

    The never-ending attack on the concept of IC should be a clue.

  8. By literature do you mean that which is posted here or scientific journals?

    And that does not counter my objection to the teeth.

  9. The never ending attack is because creationists never stop positing it.

  10. the amount of data published to show the evolution of these systems is overwhelming

    There is a record of the evolutionary history of the flagellum? I’m curious as to what you are saying here

  11. Uncovering the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. New Scientist, 2643.

    W. Ford Doolittle and Olga Zhaxybayeva (2007). “Reducible Complexity – The Case for Bacterial Flagella.” Current Biology, 17(13), R510-R512. July 3, 2007.

    Asai, D. J.; Koonce, M. F. (2001). “The dynein heavy chain: structure, mechanics and evolution”. Trends in Cell Biology 11 (5): 196–202

    Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. PNAS April 24, 2007 vol. 104 no. 17 7116-7121

    Amazing what 3 seconds of google can do. There are many more papers – all published in journals.

  12. 12

    Eintown is safely in his coccoon, no need to question the authorities. Why be curious? Why read what the opposition has to say?

  13. I am on this site right? But your retort is far better suited to your situation, as you were ignorant of counter evidence to Behe.

    And I assure you I am far more curious then most here.

  14. “counter evidence to Behe.”

    I have never seen any. What we have seen is wishful speculation or just so stories or trivial complaints. Evolutionary biology is the only science where one’s imagination is considered evidence. So the fact that they are published in journals is really evidence for the IC position. The lack of something is usually considered tacit admission of the opposite. It is more revealing about the editors of these journals then about the science itself.

    If you disagree, then I suggest you lay out the case for us.

  15. No dear sir, do not make sweeping statements to dismiss the science. I have given you ample resources to begin laying the case out for yourself.

    Lets just sum this up:
    -I say IC has to be proven, and all evidence points to invalidity.
    -You say, no, thats not true, show us!
    -I reference some sources.
    -I’m told I am blinded by authorities and its really just bad journal editors allowing ‘just so’ stories in.

    Yes, resort to the ever powerful claim of conspiracy theory rather than science, when, well, talking about science

  16. So if there is evidence against IC, then its just bad science. So in essence you cant be wrong, and so, thats not science, and so ID is not sciece.

  17. 17

    1. Not aware of? Gimme a break, the argument has been raging for at least 14 years.

    And, have you actually read Behe’s response to his critics? Have you read Black Box or EOE?

    If I build an IC system using valves, gears, belts, etc from existing systems – does the fact that some of the parts existed prior to being assembled mean that the assembly is not IC? Should it also be ignored that some of the parts where manufactured from scratch?

    The response to IC has been a joke – and an obvious one at that. It so poor in fact, that it can easily be seen as nothing more than a pacifier popped into the mouths of the faithful in order to say that the challenge has been met and that an answer has been put in its place.

    IC has not been answered. Sorry.

  18. Take a look at a fellow creationists post [10] “There is a record of the evolutionary history of the flagellum? I’m curious as to what you are saying here”

    So I will say it again: if there is evidence against IC, then its just bad science. So in essence you cant be wrong, and so, thats not science, and so ID is not science.

  19. @eintown

    This is a blog. Most of those commenting here have day jobs, mortgages and unattended mistresses to take care of. With this in mind, don’t dump a thousand dissertations on the heads of ID proponents – expressing arguments that most here are already familiar with – and then laugh maniacally.

    If IC is so obviously invalid, then it should be simple to state in a clear paragraph why this is so. Start off like this:
    “IC is invalid because of x, y, z.” Then the commenters of this blog can respond to your specific criticisms.

    You don’t need to go into massive detail. Just a simple outline of your discontent devoid of links to TalkReason, TalkOrigins or any other talk-oriented page.

    In the same way that Darwinists grow weary of discussing thermodynamics, so to do design propopents sigh deeply when confronted with misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Behe’s theory.

  20. Yes, thats true, creationists have lives, while scientists don’t, so I should summarize points for you. LOL.

  21. eintown,

    First, most of the people here are not creationists. So that is a bad start. Please lay out the evidence against Behe. The main argument I have ever seen is speculative co-option or exaptation. That mainly there is speculation that an appropriate part may be available and once this claim is made, it is asserted that this is how it happened. That is not science or evidence but wishful thinking.

    Even if all the parts were part of the genome of the bacteria it begs the question of how they all got assembled. Again wishful speculation is interesting but it is not science except for hypothesis generation.

  22. 22

    Gee eintown, at first I thought you were just being short-sighted, but then you make a couple of posts that seems to inedicate a deeper issue.

    Perhaps, I am mistaken.

    Please tell us what you thought of the details in the literature you posted. I know it make take more than the “three seconds” of googling that it took you to post them, but perhaps becoming aquainted with the evidence would be worth it to you.

  23. 23

    eintown wrote:
    “Amazing what 3 seconds of google can do. There are many more papers – all published in journals.”

    That’s very nice, but you see they all make the same principle arguments which have been addressed by Behe elsewhere. It would be pointless to repeat oneself over and over if the principle points are the same, if someone is familiar enough with biology and the fundamental tenets of the argument, then one can see by the responses that all these same points have been addressed. Until a fundamentally new argument arises, rehashes of the same point are meaningless in the context of the broader discussion.

    I am sure Behe is familiar with all this literature as well, but if you think there is an argument within, then by all means, demonstrate it here.

  24. Thanks platonist. Been buried in patent land etc.

    eitown
    re IC “However there is no evidence for this and the amount of data published to show the evolution of these systems is overwhelming – What Behe said cannot happen.”

    You seem to exhibit little to no conception of engineering, design, controls, or probability. A few hand waving arguments appear to satisfy you.

    Please answer UpRight Biped’s query on what you have read of Behe.

    Have you read “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”?

    What grounds do you have to stand on to begin with?

    Evolutionists make the quantum jump of abiogenesis to a self reproducing living cell with full energy processing, information processing and material processing.
    See Yockey on abiogenesis:

    It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8).

    Then evolutionists assume that because such amazing replication with error correction, energy conversion mechanisms, and material processing mechanisms exist, that any small change from mutations etc. is “proof” of evolution etc.

    What evidence can you show to dispute Behe’s hypothesis of the practical limit of two mutations? e.g. parts per 10^20.

    See Behe’s rebuttals to objections in Behe’s blog. at Amazon.com

    e.g. Waiting Longer for Two Mutations

    If you can’t even get a reasonably probable occurrence of two necessary mutations, where is the faintest hope of de novo obtaining any sequence of the DNA to synthesize complex proteins for complex functions?

    On Doolitle, See Behe’s blog addressing another of Doolitle’s papers:
    Miller vs. Luskin, Part 2
    January 15, 2009

    as far as the argument for intelligent design is concerned the only relevant part of Doolittle’s paper is Figure 10, which purports to show the clotting pathway in lamprey vs. other vertebrates. (Intelligent design is wholly compatible with common descent — including descent by gene duplication/rearrangement. Rather, ID argues against the Darwinian claim that complex, functional molecular systems could be built by a random, unguided process.) Yet to get from one arrangement to the other one would take multiple steps, not just one: whole genome duplication, retargeting of Factor IX, retargeting of Factor VIII, and so on.

    On design and control, consider how to explain from the four random forces of nature any of the following:
    1) Storing specified information.
    2) Copying specified information.
    3) Recognizing specified information.
    4) Creating a control system including:
    4.1) Sensing a parameter
    4.2) Transmiting that parameter to a comparator
    4.3) Comparing the control parameter against a reference.
    4.3) Forming a control signal.
    4.4) Amplifying the control signal.
    4.5) Controlling the system. etc.

    From life experience and practice, we recognize all of these coming from intelligent agents. (E.g. the processes by which you can read this.)

    The example of control of single or multiple sets of teeth is a very elegant compact method of storing design information. I see no rational basis for arguing for such from the four laws of nature and stochastic processes.

    The apparent “Evidence” and “arguments” you presented appear to presume materialism is true that no intelligent causation can be tolerated, and therefore you assume the argument is made QED.

    Pretty weak n’cest pas?
    In effect, an astronomically remote probability beyond all rational understanding.

    Why should I not consider your, holding to abiogenesis and evolution to be based on an a priori rejection of any intelligent causation and consequent necessary embracing of materialism?

    May I encourage you to carefully review your assumptions and show where any of the steps from abiogenesis to control of multiple rows of teeth is justifiable based on the presumption of materialism and stochastic processes based on the four laws of nature.

    Per Behe, try to take and explain ANY step in this sequence requiring two mutations.

    Then consider the thousands of such steps needed to reach the multiple teeth control mechanism mentioned above.

    Then consider the joint probability of achieving biological feedback control in complex macro organisms with complex body parts where the control systems are dispersed across multiple organs requiring communication via blood flows, nerves etc.

    See “Exercise your wonder” by Dr. G.

    I think you will find such evolutionary explanations to be variations on Kipling’s Just So Stories with no relation to common understanding of information, software, control, energy conversion etc.

    Happy hunting for reality and truth.

    PS. Darwin did not publish his work in journals.

  25. George L Farquhar at 3.

    On “selection”, it sounds plausible, until you apply realistic mutation rates. See:

    Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.(3rd ed) # 248 pages, Feed My Sheep Foundation, Inc. (March 1, 2008)ISBN-10: 0981631606

    Sanford cites the population models developed by ardent evolutionists to show that “natural mutation” overwhelms any “selection”, resulting in steadily degrading genomes.

    Look forward to your careful read of Sanford.

  26. Yip, I love “just so” stories and “hand waving”.

    I am blinded by:
    1. The oiled materialistic machine of modern science.
    2. Power and money hungry scientists, who only want to push their agendas.

    Its kind of sad that both Demski’s and Behe’s arguements have been deconstructed quite throughly. PLEASE DONT ASK ME TO REHASH THEM – ITS POINTLESS.

    My point IS that no level of evidence and no amount of detail will satisfy you.

  27. eintown
    Sad to see you have such an “open” mind. Apparently:
    1) You have not read either of Behe’s books.
    2) You have not understood Behe’s findings on the probability of 10^20 for two joint mutations based on the best hard scientific facts.
    3) You don’t understand the time/space probability demands of randomly searching through DNA space for the hundreds of necessary mutations.

    You cannot “rehash” what you have not read and do not grasp. Is your mind so placid that facts cannot impact you?

  28. Again its pointless to argue over the details, as others have. My point is as I’ve reiterated so many times previously is that no amount of evidence is enough for you.

    If 1 changed to 2 and then to 3, you guys what 1.5 and 2.5. If they are found then you want 1.25 and 1.75 and 2.25 and 2.75. You get the picture.

    Demski himself admitted this. But hey, claim that this link is full of lies: http://endogenousretrovirus.bl.....human.html

  29. eintown wrote:
    “Again its pointless to argue over the details, as others have. My point is as I’ve reiterated so many times previously is that no amount of evidence is enough for you.”

    Then you should demonstrate this. We all know that Behe understands the arguments, and has provided adequate responses, but we don’t know if you do or if you can. Experience has apparently shown otherwise regarding your ability to engage the subject, as you consistently refuse to do so despite many requests.

    “If 1 changed to 2 and then to 3, you guys what 1.5 and 2.5. If they are found then you want 1.25 and 1.75 and 2.25 and 2.75. You get the picture.”
    If evaluating 1.5 and 2.5 are necessary to understand the probability of arriving at 3 from 1, then a refusal to evaluate them is intellectually dishonest.

    “Demski himself admitted this. But hey, claim that this link is full of lies:”
    I don’t need to, he didn’t admit that no evidence would convince him of evolution. That is the interpretation of his comments by an ideologically motivated critic. It seems to me from the link ERV gave, the more thoughtful students realized that making a few glib comments failed to address the substance of Dembski’s arguments. Furthermore, if this was really the “point” that you have “reiterated so many times,” then it appears all your point amounts to is a tired old ad hominem.

  30. Lord Timothy,

    Don’t try to refute Eintown. He is a typical anti ID person. So he is playing his part perfectly. None have any information so they have to bluff it somehow.

    We should just thank Eintown for his performance here. It is people like him who are our best advertisments for ID.

  31. Because I have nothing better to do than fight with middle aged creationists. 1. Begin with a passive membrane pore. 2. Pore becomes substrate specific – couples with a synthetase. 4. Associate with secretin, has secretory function. 5. Oligomerization allows more surface adhesins without blocking other secretion substrates. 6. Polymerization leads to primitive pilus. 7. Further oligomerization and duplication increases the efficiency and strength. 8. Further duplication produce the axial proteins. 9. Structural instability increases rotation. 10. Couple more steps I’ve missed and you end up with the good ‘ol flagellum.

    ID claims: “The TTSS (secretory system) is after all much simpler than the flagellum. The TTSS contains ten or so proteins that are homologous to proteins in the flagellum. The flagellum requires an additional thirty or forty proteins, which are unique”

    This means say the IDists the flagellum could not have evolved stepwise. Too many parts are unique. BUT. One then glances over the research done on flagella (indecently conducted by evil evolutionists) and we see that there are 42 proteins, with only 15 (35%) being unique! Which is FAR less that the 80% claimed. So stepwise evolution is possible.
    And how did the genes come about? BLASTing (look it up) has show significant homology between more than 20 of the genes, suggesting a common ancestor. However lateral gene transfer may have played a large role. Also IDist claim 40 proteins are required for the flagellum to function. The number is however at 20. So there are very few unique genes as the majority arose through duplication and then divergence. The number of essential and required parts is far lower than IDist claim. So it appears as if the flagellum did not did arise out of nowhere but slowly evolved piece by piece, with the majority of the genes traced together and clearly linked.
    But now that I have raised some technical points, the reaction is going to be predictable: “Behe/Demski/Luskin have eloquently responded to those objections”. “While the majority of the genes/parts are explained SOME are not”. So again, I’ll ask, what is the point of bringing that up??

  32. 32
    George L Farquhar

    DLH

    You don’t understand the time/space probability demands of randomly searching through DNA space for the hundreds of necessary mutations.

    I think you’ll find that not all of “DNA space” is searched. Only the parts adjacent to where the organism already is can be searched. This removes the “DNA space is too large to search in a random manner” objection so often used on this board.

    Sanford cites the population models developed by ardent evolutionists to show that “natural mutation” overwhelms any “selection”, resulting in steadily degrading genomes.

    And yet bacteria, who have many many generations in a year are still around.

    How slow is this “degrading” that it’s unnoticiable? When would we expect to see the first effects?

    Did the bacteria that gained the ability to digest Citrate in the Lenski study “degrage”?

    And if everything is “degrading” that must mean it started from a more ordered or perfect state. Tell me DLH, do you believe in a literal garden of Eden, and the fall of man etc?

    Did meat eating animals eat flowers before the fall?

    Do you believe all that?

  33. eintown at 31
    1) Take your 20 proteins, calculate the number of nucleotides, then calculate the probabilities of arriving at a particular configuration de novo.

    Average gene length in Chromosome 1 ~ 2510 bp.

    e.g., 20 genes * 2500 ~ 50,000 bp.
    or 16,667 codons.

    For argument’s sake conservatively assume only 2.1 bits/amino acid site for just known residues/codon.

    See: Yockey Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, 92005) Table 6.3
    (Compare Yockey’s calculation of 3.38 bits for all residues. Table 6.3)

    PS. I highly recommend Yockey for your edification in matters biochemical and problematic.

    16,667 codons * 2.1 bits ~ 35,000 bits.

    Time from formation of oceans to origin of life ~ 2*10*8 years or 6.3*10^15 seconds. Yockey p 95.

    When you get tired of hand waving, perhaps you could explain how you obtain 50,000 bp de novo or 35,000 bits in 6.3*10^15 seconds.

    You might start by converting that to powers of 10.

    Note Behe’s review that empirical fact of the difficulty of coming up with just 2 necessary mutations is about 10^20.

    Compare that challenge with the maximum probabilities of taking all particles times all time at the fastest rate possible. i.e. < 10^120.

    Even if I have have made gross mistakes, I am all ears to hear how you show any rational probability of arriving at your hypothesized method using stochastic processes.

    ps some risk their $ on races with probabilities down to 1 in 100.
    ~10^2.

    Some on Powerballs: The probability of matching 5 white balls and one powerball is
    195,249,054 or ~2*10^8.

  34. George L Farquhar at 32

    I think you’ll find that not all of “DNA space” is searched. Only the parts adjacent to where the organism already is can be searched. This removes the “DNA space is too large to search in a random manner” . . .

    Try explaining that one to any mathematics prof., statistician, or actuarian.

    Casino’s would love to have your play at their tables.

    “Only searching adjacent space” only shows how much more difficult and slow is the process.

    How slow is this “degrading” that it’s unnoticiable? When would we expect to see the first effects?

    Start with OMIM ® – Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man ®

    It currently has some 19,319 entries.

    As of November 26, 2008, Hamosh & Sutland noted:
    “Total # of mutations catalogued in OMIM >16,667″

    You are a walking example of some of them.
    (No beneficial mutations yet that I know of.)

    Perhaps you should read Sanford. You might find him enlightening and informative. The implications of the Mathematics of Evolution are fascinating once you pull together the major theories and apply them with practical numbers.

    PS Sanford invented the Gene Gun.

    Whether I personally believe any of that is irrelevant to the challenge of showing how abiogenesis and neo-Darwinian evolution to present complexity are but “Just so stories”.

    (PS I really enjoyed reading Kipling growing up.
    Darwin’s stories are equally laughable. I especially like Darwin’s How the whale learned to swim.

    “In North America the black bear was seen . . . swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered . . . more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale”

    Storyteller: Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, First edition (Not in the 6th edition)

  35. What the hell does “hand waving” actually mean, and why do creationists think its some super smart argumentative technique??

    1) Why introduce ‘bits’ into the discussion, why do you even justify the ‘2.1’.
    2) Wow, big numbers always seem to scare creationists. Do you know that once a day something with a probability of 1 in 6 billion/day happens more than 6 times???
    3) So all mutations are deleterious? ALL? Then why has life been going along happily for billions of years. For eg: Viruses, like HIV exhibit EVERY possible mutation within each population. But, why pray tell, is HIV or any highly mutable RNA retrovirus in existence. Surely they would just ‘degrade’ into extinction. Why do so many random mutations in HIV lead to beneficial properties like drug resistance?

  36. That “10^20″ rubbish has been so thoroughly debunked!

    That number only comes about when the events have to happen simultaneously. Which they dont!

  37. And DLH your post which references my post 31, had NOTHING to do with it. And its funny how the creationist have now fallen silent after I took the time to write up that stuff which they were whining for!

  38. jerry,

    “We should just thank Eintown for his performance here. It is people like him who are our best advertisments for ID.”

    I most certainly agree with you. He seems to clearly demonstrate the utter vacuity of the rhetoric among some of these critics.

    eintown,

    “Because I have nothing better to do than fight with middle aged creationists.”

    What about those in their 20s, in college, and working on degrees in science?

    Oh also, about your origin of the flagellum, paraphrasing without citing a source is also called plagiarism. Especially when you use soo many of the same words.
    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
    Your text compared with Matzke’s:

    “begin(s) with a passive, (somewhat general inner) membrane pore
    1 Begin with a passive membrane pore

    (1a) that is converted to a more substrate-specific pore – (1b) Interaction of an F1F0-ATP synthetase
    2 Pore becomes substrate specific – couples with a synthetase.

    (1c). Addition of a secretin which associates with the cytoplasmic ring
    4 . Associate with secretin, has secretory function.

    (3a) Oligomerization of the adhesin produces a pentameric ring, allowing more surface adhesins without blocking other secretion substrate
    5. Oligomerization allows more surface adhesins without blocking other secretion substrates.

    (3b). Polymerization of this ring produces a tube, a primitive type III pilus
    6. Polymerization leads to primitive pilus.

    (4a)Oligomerization of a pilin produces the cap, increasing assembly speed and efficiency
    7. Further oligomerization and duplication increases the efficiency and strength

    This has already been adequately addressed.
    http://www.arn.org/docs/dembsk.....nctive.htm

    “But now that I have raised some technical points, the reaction is going to be predictable: “Behe/Demski/Luskin have eloquently responded to those objections”. “While the majority of the genes/parts are explained SOME are not”. So again, I’ll ask, what is the point of bringing that up??”

    You also misunderstand the argument completely, it is about the plausibility of transitioning between each step. Not about manufacturing a narrative. Matzke’s and your responses are an adventure in missing the point.

  39. 39

    “And its funny how the creationist have now fallen silent after I took the time to write up that stuff which they were whining for!”

    Yes, I am sure it took you plenty of time to plagiarize Matzke.

    *eyeroll*

  40. Plagiarize? No fellows, I did the experiments myself!! Obviously I took the info from othersites. Its plagirism when you pass the info as your own original work. The response I got when I referenced a couple of papers was “read it yourself”. SO i post a summary and I get accused of plagirism. So cute. Attack me rather than the data. And please, PLEASE can the people who are in their “20s, in college, and working on degrees in science” identify themselves!

  41. [38] take the time to read what I wrote and you’ll see the Demski’s arguement hinges on “For a number of the proteins that make up the flagellum, there simply are no known homologues”. [38] shows that the numbers are rubbish.

  42. eintown,

    There isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates that a flagellum or an immune system can evolve via an accumulation of genetic accidents from a population that didn’t have one- a flagellum of an immune system.

    You should read the papers you found that allegedly show that each can evolve.

    Do that and you will see it is all speculation based on the assumption.

  43. it shows that the majority of the genes controlling flagellum development are closely related. ie. they had a common origin, diverged, which lead to flagellum development. SO you can trace the history through the genetic changes.

    Whats more, a “speculation based on the assumption” leads to testable, falsifiable hypothesis. What does ID have to say about the flagellum? Gosh, way too complex, gosh, must be god. Which is science?

  44. For example the flagelllum with its approx. 40 proteins requires differing amounts of these proteins.

    IOW it isn’t that the flagellum is made up of just 40 proteins.

    You not only need those 40 proteins but in the correct amount, at the correct time and brought to the right place for assembly.

    Some, if not most, of the proteins require a chaperone so that they will not react with other molecules already present in the organism.

    All of that requires meta-information.

    The point being is even if all 40 proteins are in one organism a flagellum will not form unless all thta meta-information is already present and functioning.

    1- the filament requires 20,000 subunits of the flagellin protein FliC

    2- The 3 ring proteins- about 26 subunits each (Flgh, I & F)

    3- the distal rod requires 25 subunits

    4- The hook contains about 130 subunits of FlgE

    And that is just the basics but you should get the point.

    Next is the assembly.

    That is not so easy because of cross-reactions thta would occur unless proteins are chaperoned to the correct spot.

    So the organism requires the meta-information for the chaperone as well as the info that tells the chaperone where to bring the protein it carries.

    The we have the issue of “homologs”.

    Homology is assumed. Homoplasy also explains similarities without having to conjure up some unknown common ancestor.

  45. What does ID say about the flagellum?

    It is designed so let’s study it in that light.

    Ya see experience has taught us that in order to truly understand something you have to study it in the proper light.

    For example Stonehenge-

    Do you think we could have the knowledge we now have had we studied it as a naturally occurring formation?

  46. it shows that the majority of the genes controlling flagellum development are closely related. ie. they had a common origin, diverged, which lead to flagellum development.

    It may show they are closely related but how? Via common descent or common design?

    Common descent is assumed. Convergence can also explain similarities.

    IOW there are other explanations for similarity other than common descent.

    Whats more, a “speculation based on the assumption” leads to testable, falsifiable hypothesis

    How the heck can one test the premise that the flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic acidents?

    What is the hypothesis for such a premise?

  47. eintown:

    That “10^20? rubbish has been so thoroughly debunked!

    Perhaps you should read what Dr Behe says about that:

    Waiting Longer for two mutations parts 1-3

    That number only comes about when the events have to happen simultaneously.

    No it doesn’t. IOW it does not pertain to simultaneous events.

    Read what Behe says and also read the paper that tries, but failed, to refute his “Edge of Evolution”.

  48. Again if thats true why is life around? Why doesnt every organism just fall apart. Must I really ask again:

    So all mutations are deleterious? ALL? Then why has life been going along happily for billions of years. For eg: Viruses, like HIV exhibit EVERY possible mutation within each population. But, why pray tell, is HIV or any highly mutable RNA retrovirus in existence. Surely they would just ‘degrade’ into extinction. Why do so many random mutations in HIV lead to beneficial properties like drug resistance?

  49. “Plagiarize? No fellows, I did the experiments myself!!”

    Now exactly what experiments are these?

    “Obviously I took the info from othersites. Its plagirism when you pass the info as your own original work.”

    Correct, when an individual posts something, it is presumed to be that poster’s own work unless he or she notes otherwise.

    “The response I got when I referenced a couple of papers was “read it yourself”. SO i post a summary and I get accused of plagirism.”

    If you would have noted anywhere that it was not your own work, or if you had provided a link as reference, then it would not be an issue. In fact you went as far as to say it was something you “wrote out” and never did you note or imply that it was a summary of another argument.

    “So cute. Attack me rather than the data.”
    I would actually rather not. I am a forgiving guy, but for future reference cite your source. As for your “data” or should I say Matzke’s, I provided the specific rebuttle in which it was addressed, and it seems to have been shot down again in my absence.

    “And please, PLEASE can the people who are in their “20s, in college, and working on degrees in science” identify themselves!”"

    You are speaking to one.

    “Again if thats true why is life around? Why doesnt every organism just fall apart.”
    Why would every organism just fall apart?

    “So all mutations are deleterious? ALL?”

    No, not all, just most of them. Especially when you are trying to mutate genes which code for co-dependent protiens.

  50. Oh, what science do you study and what year?

    So now the story changes, not all the mutations are deleterious. So again lets look at HIV, how does drug resistance develop with such ease? After a single dose of an antiretroviral, drug resistance develops. Not just one mutation but a handful. And not isolated mutations, some work together. E.g One mutation leads to drug resistance, but decreases replicative ability. Another different mutation then arises in response and increases the fitness. You dont see the accessory mutations alone. SO your statement “Especially when you are trying to mutate genes which code for co-dependent protiens” actually doesnt hold.

    If those co-dependent mutations dont arise, scientists are suprised.

  51. “Oh, what science do you study and what year?”
    Biology. Last year.

    “So now the story changes, not all the mutations are deleterious.”

    It has not changed. This has been my position. I was speaking for myself and others may disagree.

    “E.g One mutation leads to drug resistance, but decreases replicative ability. Another different mutation then arises in response and increases the fitness. You dont see the accessory mutations alone. SO your statement actually doesnt hold.”

    Yes it does, when I said co-dependent I was referring to functionally co-dependent protiens I am surprised you didn’t realize that as much as you have posted here already.

  52. Not all mutations are deleterious.

    Some can be neutral- perhaps even the bulk may be neutral.

    Some may covey some benefit- benefit being a relative word.

    And then there are those mutations which lead to death and disease.

    But anyways eintown, please answer the following:

    How the heck can one test the premise that the flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic acidents?

    What is the hypothesis for such a premise?

  53. Well from that hypopthesis a scientist can do the following:
    1 – See if those precursor structures exist.
    2- If they dont exist, can one induce them through mutation.
    3- Once produced are they functional.
    4 – Do they increase the fitness of the organism.

    ID? Gosh god made a machine. Now what?

  54. Well from that hypopthesis a scientist can do the following:

    What hypothesis?

    1 – See if those precursor structures exist.

    How can one tell if it is a “precursor” as opposed to a devolved form?

    Or for that matter a form of common design?

    2- If they dont exist, can one induce them through mutation.

    No one has been able to show that any amount of mutational accumulation can give a flagellum where one never existed.

    As a matter of fact there isn’t anything that demonstrates cumulative selection is real- ie exists in the real world.

    3- Once produced are they functional.

    None produced. And when the ribosome was synthesized, it didn’t function.

    <blockquoteID? Gosh god made a machine. Now what?

    Wrong again, as usual.

    ID doesn’t require “God”.

    ID says that the structure in question is designed now let’s study it in that light.

    I have already gone over this and you seem to wish to remain ignorant.

    Oh well…

  55. eintown

    That “10^20? rubbish has been so thoroughly debunked!

    Appeal to your own authority with no evidence or reference does not stand any chance in debate.

    “And its funny how the creationist have now fallen silent”

    Ad hominem attacks also get you nowhere. By the way, you might wake up to the reality that UD focus on Intelligent Design, not creation science. Your efforts to equate the two evidence very little study and recognition of the issues involved.

    I recommend you begin by taking a course in logic. Study how to avoid logical fallacies.

    e.g. The Fallacy Files

    ad hominem attacks.

    After that you should learn what qualifies as objective evidence, proper citation and serious scientific and engineering evaluation.

    ID? Gosh god made a machine. Now what?

    To start with, can you recognize evidence of human design when you see it?
    e.g. the computer and browser you are using. Do you recognize that as having coming from an intelligent cause?

    You still give no evidence you have read or comprehended Behe, let alone distinguishing systems caused by stochastic effects from those that were designed.

    We await your maturing sufficiently to enter into serious discussion.

  56. “Appeal to your own authority with no evidence or reference does not stand any chance in debate”

    If you’d care to read the posts, you would see where I gave info about that. No appeal to my authority required. Yes I didn’t reference the source. I should have – I concede (see we evilutionsist concede when wrong).

    “Ad hominen”

    I wrote up a summary of a couple of things that were requested. Prior to that post, I there were numerous posts per day requesting it. After the post, people fell silent for practically the entire day (save 1 poster).

    You and Joseph both emphasized the merits of recognizing design. And so studying a subject in that light. Neither has shown how the leads to anything fruitful. I was asked how an evolutionary view would prompt hypothesis etc, and I listed some. What would ID lead to?

  57. You and Joseph both emphasized the merits of recognizing design. And so studying a subject in that light. Neither has shown how the leads to anything fruitful.

    Until it is ALLOWED to ID won’t be able to do much of anything.

    Again ID would lead us to understand that living organisms are NOT reducible to matter and energy.

    And that alone would tell us quite a bit.

    For example it would tell us to stop looking for a reducible solution and instead focus on a design solution.

  58. From this gene controlling multiple teeth example, ID gives the fruitful insights:

    Search for genes that control switching between multiple options, based on compact design coding of controls.

  59. Pertinent to the issue is the recent post:
    But remember there isn’t a debate over Darwinism

    Note Behe’s Blog
    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 4
    In particular:

    Furthermore, I “assumed” nothing. I merely cited empirical results from the literature. The figure of 1 in 10^20 is a citation from the literature on chloroquine resistance of malaria. Unlike their model, it is not a calculation on my part.

    eintown’s

    That “10^20? rubbish has been so thoroughly debunked!

    misses the issue that this probability is based on experimental fact, not models.

Leave a Reply