From the article: ---------------------------------------------------------------- By Jennifer Cutraro ScienceNOW Daily News 17 April 2007
One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to counter arguments from evolution's foes. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Spaceman wrote: > From the article: > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > By Jennifer Cutraro > ScienceNOW Daily News > 17 April 2007
> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > counter arguments from evolution's foes. > ------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:f040so$odu$1@news.datemas.de... > From the article: > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > By Jennifer Cutraro > ScienceNOW Daily News > 17 April 2007
> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > counter arguments from evolution's foes. > ------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds interesting. I look forward to what the bloggers have to say about it, and to seeing this paper online. Or maybe I'll make a trip to the local med-school library and xerox it.
But I have to say that the ScienceNOW article didn't give me a very warm feeling about this. Especially the picture of what I am pretty sure is not a bacterial flagellum. I'm not an expert, but it looks more like two eukaryotic flagella (or maybe four) in a dinoflagellate.
> From the article: > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > By Jennifer Cutraro > ScienceNOW Daily News > 17 April 2007
> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > counter arguments from evolution's foes. > ------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
> "Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:f040so$odu$1@news.datemas.de... > > From the article: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > By Jennifer Cutraro > > ScienceNOW Daily News > > 17 April 2007
> > One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > > of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > > evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > > swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > > of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > > bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > > evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > > counter arguments from evolution's foes. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds interesting. I look forward to what the bloggers have to say about > it, and to seeing this paper online. Or maybe I'll make a trip to the local > med-school library and xerox it.
Even if you are not interested in flagella, it is worth dipping into this maelstrom just to get some feeling for how science is done, both the old way, and the new web-based way.
Steven J. wrote: > On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > wrote: >> From the article: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> By Jennifer Cutraro >> ScienceNOW Daily News >> 17 April 2007
>> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins >> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the >> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in >> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result >> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's >> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the >> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to >> counter arguments from evolution's foes. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
> Steven J. wrote: > > On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > > wrote: > >> From the article: > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> By Jennifer Cutraro > >> ScienceNOW Daily News > >> 17 April 2007
> >> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > >> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > >> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > >> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > >> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > >> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > >> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > >> counter arguments from evolution's foes. > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > > Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > > what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > > significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > > single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > > piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > > evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
gregwrld wrote: > On Apr 18, 6:32 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote: >> Steven J. wrote: >>> On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> >>> wrote: >>>> From the article: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> By Jennifer Cutraro >>>> ScienceNOW Daily News >>>> 17 April 2007 >>>> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins >>>> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the >>>> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in >>>> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result >>>> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's >>>> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the >>>> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to >>>> counter arguments from evolution's foes. >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Read it athttp://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/417/3 >>>> J. Spaceman >>> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the >>> Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on >>> what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to >>> significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a >>> single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important >>> piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar >>> evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results. >>> <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/ >>> flagellum_evolu_1.html#more> >>> -- Steven J. >> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her >> take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
> On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > wrote:
> > From the article: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > By Jennifer Cutraro > > ScienceNOW Daily News > > 17 April 2007
> > One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > > of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > > evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > > swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > > of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > > bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > > evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > > counter arguments from evolution's foes. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
It seems like a no brainer that all the parts of the flagellum were not evolved from the same original protein. Just the structural tail components and the ATPases would seem to counter that. The guy was probably just talking about certain relationships between the parts.
> > Steven J. wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > > > wrote: > > >> From the article: > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> By Jennifer Cutraro > > >> ScienceNOW Daily News > > >> 17 April 2007
> > >> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > > >> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > > >> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > > >> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > > >> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > > >> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > > >> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > > >> counter arguments from evolution's foes. > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > > > Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > > > what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > > > significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > > > single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > > > piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > > > evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
> > <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her > > take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
> > --
> > Nicolas
> You guys just hate being such losers, don'tcha?
> gregwrld
I'm not qualified to analyse the scientific question, which at once is both on the "bleeding edge" of research and, I suspect, only being looked at this decade because of intelligent design claims. But the "authority figures" involved who are criticising the work appear to be amongst those whose prejudice, if they were acting on prejudice, would be to incline to favour the argument of the paper and even not to scrutinise it minutely, since it points in the direction that they like. So, on the other hand, they must be fairly sure of their sceptical position, to make a stronger statement than "I have some misgivings, I don't follow the argument as compellingly persuasive." To say that it's plain wrong.
If it /is/ wrong, it's going to be interesting and educational to see how fast and how well a corrective word catches up with the original exciting news. And in any case creationists will have a field day. They're still throwing erroneous embryo sketches and Piltdown Man in your face, all these years later.
The work is quite interesting, although I'm not sure how mankind benefits from discoveries in this precise area.
Elsewhere, I was looking at web page discussions from a little while back when chimpanzee DNA was sequenced, and some creationists are on, like, Go ahead then, I guess you're going to say that this is proof that humans really are related to chimpanzees", and the majority of people on the science side are going, "proof that... what?? how the heck is that even a question?"
There's no /need/ to twist the intelligent designists' flagellum. The argument with intelligent design has been over for a long, long time.
group when s/he wrote: >gregwrld wrote: >> On Apr 18, 6:32 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote: >>> Steven J. wrote: >>>> On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> From the article: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> By Jennifer Cutraro >>>>> ScienceNOW Daily News >>>>> 17 April 2007 >>>>> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins >>>>> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the >>>>> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in >>>>> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result >>>>> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's >>>>> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the >>>>> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to >>>>> counter arguments from evolution's foes. >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Read it athttp://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/417/3 >>>>> J. Spaceman >>>> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the >>>> Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on >>>> what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to >>>> significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a >>>> single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important >>>> piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar >>>> evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results. >>>> <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/ >>>> flagellum_evolu_1.html#more> >>>> -- Steven J. >>> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her >>> take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
>>> --
>>> Nicolas
>> You guys just hate being such losers, don'tcha?
>> gregwrld
>Let me guess, you're 16?
Regardless of whether that was age or IQ he would still be far ahead of you NashtOff.
Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote: > gregwrld wrote: >> On Apr 18, 6:32 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote: >>> Steven J. wrote: >>>> On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> From the article: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> By Jennifer Cutraro >>>>> ScienceNOW Daily News >>>>> 17 April 2007 >>>>> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins >>>>> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the >>>>> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in >>>>> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result >>>>> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's >>>>> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the >>>>> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to >>>>> counter arguments from evolution's foes. >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Read it athttp://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/417/3 >>>>> J. Spaceman >>>> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the >>>> Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on >>>> what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to >>>> significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a >>>> single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important >>>> piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar >>>> evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results. >>>> <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/ >>>> flagellum_evolu_1.html#more> >>>> -- Steven J. >>> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her >>> take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
>>> --
>>> Nicolas
>> You guys just hate being such losers, don'tcha?
>> gregwrld
> Let me guess, you're 16?
I was going to say the same of you. You're the one being the infantile prick.
Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote: > Steven J. wrote: >> On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> >> wrote: >>> From the article: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> By Jennifer Cutraro >>> ScienceNOW Daily News >>> 17 April 2007
>>> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins >>> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the >>> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in >>> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result >>> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's >>> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the >>> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to >>> counter arguments from evolution's foes. >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the >> Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on >> what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to >> significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a >> single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important >> piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar >> evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
><sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her > take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
Judge Jones said scientists determine what science is. It's a pity that you are intellectually incapable of comprehending what the Dover decision meant. But please do keep misrepresenting it. It only confirms the level of depravity that you operate at.
> > > From the article: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > By Jennifer Cutraro > > > ScienceNOW Daily News > > > 17 April 2007
> > > One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > > > of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > > > evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > > > swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > > > of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > > > bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > > > evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > > > counter arguments from evolution's foes. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > > Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > > what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > > significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > > single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > > piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > > evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
> It seems like a no brainer that all the parts of the flagellum were > not evolved from the same original protein. Just the structural tail > components and the ATPases would seem to counter that. The guy was > probably just talking about certain relationships between the parts.
No, that does not seem to be what they were talking about. They really do suggest, based on weak, but suggestive evidence, that a set of 'core' protein components (24 of them) evolved from a single protein.
Well, actually, in the abstract, they say it a little more weakly
Within a genome, many of these core genes show sequence similarity only to other flagellar core genes, indicating that they were derived from one another, and the relationships among these genes suggest the probable order in which the structural components of the bacterial flagellum arose. These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene.
A few precursor genes, maybe. But I agree that it seems like a no-brainer that they have to be wrong that there was a single precursor gene.
But that still leaves the question as to why the suggestive evidence for a single gene exists. Hmmmm. I wonder what would happen if you used their methodology to look at a set of eukaryotic nuclear genes all targeted at the same organelle. Many of these genes would have at least some partial homology because they would all contain similar 'signal peptide' sequences. I wonder if something like this is involved here.
> Steven J. wrote: > > On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > > wrote: > >> From the article: > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> By Jennifer Cutraro > >> ScienceNOW Daily News > >> 17 April 2007
> >> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > >> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > >> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > >> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > >> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > >> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > >> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > >> counter arguments from evolution's foes. > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > > Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > > what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > > significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > > single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > > piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > > evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her > take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
If anti-evolution activists had the honesty and integrity of challenging each other as real scientists do, instead of covering up the fatal flaws and irreconcilable differences among their hopelessly divergent positions, they wouldn't need a judge to rule on their "breathaking inanity."
> gregwrld wrote: > > On Apr 18, 6:32 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote: > >> Steven J. wrote: > >>> On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> From the article: > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> By Jennifer Cutraro > >>>> ScienceNOW Daily News > >>>> 17 April 2007 > >>>> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > >>>> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > >>>> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > >>>> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > >>>> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > >>>> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > >>>> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > >>>> counter arguments from evolution's foes. > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> Read it athttp://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/417/3 > >>>> J. Spaceman > >>> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > >>> Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > >>> what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > >>> significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > >>> single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > >>> piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > >>> evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results. > >>> <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/ > >>> flagellum_evolu_1.html#more> > >>> -- Steven J. > >> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her > >> take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
> >> --
> >> Nicolas
> > You guys just hate being such losers, don'tcha?
> > gregwrld
> Let me guess, you're 16?
* Picks up Nicolas and puts him back in the sandbox.
-- Creationist Math: Solve x^2 + 2x - 15 = 0 A miracle happens! X = 1 Creationist Trig: Draw curve then plot points
> Steven J. wrote: > > On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > > wrote: > >> From the article: > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> By Jennifer Cutraro > >> ScienceNOW Daily News > >> 17 April 2007
> >> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > >> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > >> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > >> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > >> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > >> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > >> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > >> counter arguments from evolution's foes. > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > > Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > > what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > > significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > > single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > > piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > > evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results.
> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her > take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
Would it make more sense to take the issue to a school board or legislature, and let them decide? That would seem to be the way that ID proponents wish to see science done, these days. Judges, of course, routinely have to decide whether something is science or not (the issue arises when, among other occasions, it is necessary to decide whether some alleged new forensic technique is generally- accepted science or just some prosecutorial or defense fad. But deciding whether something is generally-accepted science or, in the Dover case, religious dogma with the serial numbers filed off, is a different matter from settling a particular scientific question in an accepted scientific field.
> gregwrld wrote: > > On Apr 18, 6:32 am, Nashton <n...@na.na> wrote: > >> Steven J. wrote: > >>> On Apr 17, 9:46 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> From the article: > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> By Jennifer Cutraro > >>>> ScienceNOW Daily News > >>>> 17 April 2007 > >>>> One of evolutionary biology's greatest challenges is deciphering the origins > >>>> of complex structures. Now, scientists have unraveled the steps in the > >>>> evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tiny, whiplike structure used in > >>>> swimming and host invasion. A new study shows the flagellum is the result > >>>> of successive duplications of a single gene in the ancestor of today's > >>>> bacteria, a finding that not only answers an important question about the > >>>> evolution of complex structures but also provides additional ammunition to > >>>> counter arguments from evolution's foes. > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> Read it athttp://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/417/3 > >>>> J. Spaceman > >>> Nick Matzke has an article on what appears to be the same paper at the > >>> Panda's Thumb. He sounds a note of caution, noting that, based on > >>> what he knows, the claim that the entire flagellum (as opposed to > >>> significant parts of the flagellum) originated from duplications of a > >>> single gene is not tenable at all, and that while this is an important > >>> piece of researching confirming some earlier ideas about flagellar > >>> evolution, it seems to over-hype the significance of these results. > >>> <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/ > >>> flagellum_evolu_1.html#more> > >>> -- Steven J. > >> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe if we took the issue to a judge and let him/her > >> take a look at it? Isn't that the way science is done, nowadays?</sarcasm>
> >> --
> >> Nicolas
> > You guys just hate being such losers, don'tcha?
> > gregwrld
> Let me guess, you're 16?
> --
> Nicolas
Yeah, at least 16 times more intelligent than you, whiner.
|
