Re: [asa] Fw: book "By Design"

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Mon Sep 21 2009 - 13:48:24 EDT

>  Am reading a book called "By Design" by Jonathan Sarfati.

Sarfati has a long record as a YEC author, not one that inspires
confidence in his reliability.

> Did you know that the bacterial transporter--Type III Secretory System
> (TTSS) that Kenneth R. Miller (author of the book "Finding Darwin's
> God") talks about actually evolved LATER than the bacterial flagellum?

There is a curious selectivity in accepting this and then denying that
it evolved.

The fact that many of the proteins involved have more than one
possible function is a serious problem for the assumption of
irreducible complexity, because IC claims that the parts cannot
function separately and therefore cannot be selected for separately.
The fact that the particular secretory system as studied in certain
bacteria seems to originate later than the flagellum (haven't checked
on the underlying reasoning) in no way proves that the ancestor of the
originator of the flagellum could not have used the protein in a
secretory system, or perhaps for something else. For example, a stalk
would be a good precursor for a flagellum. If you're up off the
substrate in water, you can better grab nutrients from the water than
your neighbor who is flat on the seafloor; you can also manage with
less seafloor space. You need to able to get the stalk outside and
hold onto it, but that's about it. However, being able to make a
longer stalk is useful, and being able to move around on the stalk
could be useful, too.

> "Scott Minnich, of the University of Idaho, a world expert on the flagellar
> motor disagrees with Scientific American and Miller"  p. 137 of book.

An ID advocate, perhaps not unbiased. Not that that guarantees that
he's wrong, but that he is not an unbiased outsider and that
supporting evidence, rather than quotation of authorities with
excessive highlighting of credentials, is what is needed.

> Also included:  conch shells

I'd be quite interested to see what is being claimed about them.

> The Bible says that birds evolved before land reptiles, which is in
> disagreement with evolutionary theory--that birds came AFTER reptiles.   I
> think I ready somewhere that some paleontologists have found ancient birds
> which are, indeed, older than reptiles (but I need to check more on this).

The oldest confirmed bird is Archaeopteryx, in the late Jurassic, but
there are various claims of greater or lesser plausibility back to the
Triassic. The first reptiles were in the Carboniferous, well before
the Triassic; archosaurs, the group to which birds, crocodiles,
dinosaurs, turtles, and various other things belong, go back to the

If you look at the sequence of "first appearance of anything that
could possibly be considered to fall under the set of things listed
for this day in Genesis 1" versus sequence of geologic appearance, the
match is good apart from astronomical stuff on Day 4 when it should be
first. If you look at the sequence of "everything mentioned within
one day in Genesis 1" versus the geologic record, then the correlation
is much worse. Of course, that's making the assumption that Genesis 1
is intended to convey any chronological information.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 21 13:49:17 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 21 2009 - 13:49:17 EDT