Re: [asa] flagella

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed May 23 2007 - 11:33:49 EDT

*but whether there is a single ur-gene.
*
And whether there is a single ur-gene really doesn't say anything about
irreducible complexity one way or the other, does it? I never understood
Behe to be saying that multiple *genes* were poofed into existence.

On 5/23/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Pim, for the objective assessment.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/22/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > First of all a warning:
> > >
> > > The published article is not without controversy and Nick Matzke and
> > > others have explained in great depth their concerns with the accuracy
> > > of the article.
> > > http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/flagellum_evolu_1.html
> > >
> >
>
> We don't have to speculate what Michael Behe would say. He just said hey
Nick says the paper is a dog irreducible complexity mumble mumble mumble.
The level of detail difference in the critiques is striking. (Nick redid
the BLAST runs correcting the bad setup done in the paper.) Nick's point is
not that there are precursors of different function that explains 90% of the
necessary proteins which he documents in a paper in Nature Genetics, (
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/fig_tab/nrmicro1493_T1.html )
but whether there is a single ur-gene.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 23 11:34:30 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 23 2007 - 11:34:30 EDT