A Toothless Ogre or Just an Ignorant Oaf?
-
Ogre asked me three questions:
To which I correctly answered:
1- Motility
2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins
3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.
Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.
The dumbass didn't like those answers so he sed the function of the BF is excretion but provides a reference that sez it also SECRETES- secretion and excretion are not the same.
But anyway, yes while the BF is forming there is some excretion going on- but it is not a BF so that is not the function of a BF. Even the Oaf's reference says the BF is a motive organelle- so what the fuck is her dumbass problem? Secretion is a secondary function.
The second question was bogus to begin with. Ya see there may be only two TYPES of motor proteins (motA and motB) but there are more than two proteins in the configuration. And what is the evidence that if the BF stops spinning-ie all motor proteins are missing- that it can still secrete?
The oaf's third question proves it doesn't understand the argument and thinks its ignorance is some sort of refutation.
Next the dumbass links to the paper* about scientists creating a 5 nucleotide long catalyst- only 3nt are required for the catalyzing portion of the string.
It was a designed catalyst. It did not arise via blind, undirected chemical processes and there isn't any evidence that it could. However even given its design it is very, very limited- it's not a replicator nor part of the replication process.
Then the oaf sez:
No it isn't. And he has written about that very thing.
Irreducible Complexity is an obstacle for Darwinism even if parts of a system have other functions- Also you still have to demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for that other function.
*Turk, Chumachenko and Yarus, “Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences February 22, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912895107.
Ogre asked me three questions:
What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?
Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?
What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?
To which I correctly answered:
1- Motility
2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins
3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.
Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.
The dumbass didn't like those answers so he sed the function of the BF is excretion but provides a reference that sez it also SECRETES- secretion and excretion are not the same.
But anyway, yes while the BF is forming there is some excretion going on- but it is not a BF so that is not the function of a BF. Even the Oaf's reference says the BF is a motive organelle- so what the fuck is her dumbass problem? Secretion is a secondary function.
The second question was bogus to begin with. Ya see there may be only two TYPES of motor proteins (motA and motB) but there are more than two proteins in the configuration. And what is the evidence that if the BF stops spinning-ie all motor proteins are missing- that it can still secrete?
The oaf's third question proves it doesn't understand the argument and thinks its ignorance is some sort of refutation.
Next the dumbass links to the paper* about scientists creating a 5 nucleotide long catalyst- only 3nt are required for the catalyzing portion of the string.
It was a designed catalyst. It did not arise via blind, undirected chemical processes and there isn't any evidence that it could. However even given its design it is very, very limited- it's not a replicator nor part of the replication process.
Then the oaf sez:
BTW: It's your hero's contention that bacteria flagella have no function without both MotA and MotB.
No it isn't. And he has written about that very thing.
First, the flagella maintains a secretion function without either AND if MotB is missing, then MotA and several other proteins take over.
Irreducible Complexity is an obstacle for Darwinism even if parts of a system have other functions- Also you still have to demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for that other function.
*Turk, Chumachenko and Yarus, “Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences February 22, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912895107.
posted by Joe G @ 10:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home