The Instigator
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Life was made

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 879 times Debate No: 78717
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

The deoxyribonucleic acid is the most complex molecule known to mankind. It encodes information in the form of nucleotides for all life on earth, human, animal and plant. There are currently no scientifically sound naturalistic theories on the origin of the first cell, or the beginning of life -- however, I will not use this fact to argue for an intelligent origin of life in this debate.

My argument will focus on irreducible complexity. Charles Darwin famously stated that if it could be shown that a system could not arrive step by step through natural selection, then his theory would basically collapse. Today we have enough information to propose several such systems in the cell -- I will be presenting the bacterial flagellum.

The bacterial flagellum is a nano machine attached to a bacteria and it's function is to propel the bacteria through the micro world of the body. Here you can see the picture of this engine: http://www.evolutionnews.org... and here you can see a more realistic picture of this engine: http://www.talkdesign.org...

The machine consists of approximately 50 components and it's impossible to assemble the machine step by step through natural selection, the parts would have to pre-adapt in order to fit with each other and perform their function. Therefore, only pre-planning could account for the engine, and pre planning comes from intelligence, not natural selection, which is a mechanism that is concerned with the present.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro.

I reject the resolution that life was made, and the claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex.

First, though it does not affect the debate, Pro is incorrect about the most complex molecule known to mankind.
i-propyl cyanide is more complex than DNA.
https://www.google.com...

1. Pro claims that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, which means that if you remove ANY part of the bacterial flagellum, then it can no longer function in the manner it is most useful for "[propelling] the bacteria through the micro world of the body."

My response:
Well, like all things organic, the bacterium's flagellum is determined by genes.
The funny thing is, the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) along with the NIH deleted genes from the flagellar apparatus and found that, though it was reduced, the motility (propelling through the micro world) remained.

Directly from the NCBI
"[We] tested an Escherichia coli gene deletion array for motility defects (using swarming assays) and found 159 gene deletion strains to have reduced...motility."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So even with deleted genes, the necessary components of the complex flagellum, the flagellum can still function as a propeller through the micro world.
Reducible.

2. Pro baldly asserts:
"it's impossible to assemble the [flagellum] step by step through natural selection"

My response:
Ok, well the people at NCBI, who may have a slightly better understanding of the flagellum's evolutionary history than Pro, noticed that "phenotyping data reveals a conserved core of motility proteins, which appear to have recruited many additional species-specific components over time."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So not only is the flagellum not irreducibly complex, but the very things that give the flagellum its function, motility proteins, have been developing over time in bacteria...step by step.

3. Pro asserts:
"There are currently no scientifically sound naturalistic theories on the origin of the first cell, or the beginning of life."

My response:
I know that Pro said that they wouldn't use this assertion to argue a designer, but this statement cannot go unchallenged.

Abiogenesis is a fact.
Abiogenesis is the fact that life can come from inorganic compounds.

In chemistry, a compound is organic if it is covalently bonded to carbon.
If the compound is not covalently bonded to carbon it is inorganic.
So the distinction between inorganic and organic in chemistry can be very small if you're dealing with carbon compounds.

The Miller Urey and replicated experiments showed that with naturally occurring atmospheric gases, inorganic compounds, like those of earlier earth, can become organic compounds.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

So let's see how extreme inorganic-->organic is.
Here's an inorganic carbon compound, cyanate
H N C O
Here's an organic compound, an amino acid/building block of life, Glycine
C 2 H 5 N O 2

Does Glycine seem to have anything in it that couldn't be found in earth's earlier atmosphere?

Ok well then the idea of inorganic-->organic shouldn't seem that radical.

A claim from people who have not looked at the replicated studies of the Miller Urey is that too much oxygen, which would be present in earth's atmosphere, ruins the results of inorganic-->organic.

This is true, but any lowering at all of the oxygen from the typical atmosphere allows for the inorganic-->organic switch proven in the experiments. These oxygen fluctuations are demonstrable.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

Once we have amino acids, many opponents to the theory say, well amino acids are just lifeless organic matter...how do you get to replication genetically?
Ready?
Amino acids react with each other, and if a chain of amino acids, polypeptides, fold onto themselves, they become biologically active.
To quote the NIH:
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Once we have biologically active proteins, we are talking about basic genetics.
RNA - a messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins.

Abiogenesis proves that life can come from non-life with the pressures and atmosphere of an earlier earth, and this negates Pro's claim that there are no sound naturalistic theories for the origins of life/first cell.

In any case, I reject the resolution that life was made, that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and that the flagellum could not have evolved over time, because amino acids reacting with each other is not a creator, a gene-deleted flagellum still performs its function, and motility proteins phenotypically demonstrate the acquiring of more motility proteins over time.
Debate Round No. 1
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

You: First, though it does not affect the debate, Pro is incorrect about the most complex molecule known to mankind.
i-propyl cyanide is more complex than DNA.

Answer: Disagree. It may be complex in the pattern and connections, but DNA is the most complex in the sense that it contains code for the human body and other organisms.
___________________
You: Pro claims that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, which means that if you remove ANY part of the bacterial flagellum, then it can no longer function in the manner it is most useful for "[propelling] the bacteria through the micro world of the body."

Answer: False. There are additional extra parts that can be removed, but once you remove them and are left with the minimal amount of parts needed for the function, that is when you can begin your removal and attempt to find a pathway for naturalistic evolution. Because your assumption was false, I can dismiss your argument from the NCBI.
___________________
You: Ok, well the people at NCBI, who may have a slightly better understanding of the flagellum's evolutionary history than Pro, noticed that "phenotyping data reveals a conserved core of motility proteins, which appear to have recruited many additional species-specific components over time."

Answer: Let's assume that this is correct. It would STILL not be an argument against irreducible complexity, because you have provided no selection advantages for these specific parts that would lead to the complete structure, which is crucial for an evolutionary development model of the bacterial flagellum. You can't simply say, here are the parts, therefore it's not irreducibly complex, that way you would be invoking an intelligence to arrange those parts, what we are looking for is a purely naturalistic arrangement and origin of these parts due to natural selection.
___________________
You: Abiogenesis is a fact.
Abiogenesis is the fact that life can come from inorganic compounds.

Answer: I have seen what you have written to back up this claim, and I entirely disagree with you -- you have completely misunderstood the entire theory of abiogenesis and confused the issues, it's not at all the way you describe it. However, since this was not the topic of the debate, I won't respond to that. If you would like to discuss whether or not abiogenesis is scientific (absolutely not!) then you can invite me to such a debate afterwards.
___________________
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro says:
"DNA is the most complex in the sense that it contains code for the human body and other organisms."

My response:
Silly me...I thought the complexity of a molecule was measured by its amount of chemical bonds.
Thank you Pro for pointing out that molecular complexity is measured by whether or not the molecule can code for the human body.
With this logic, any molecule regarded as complex must code for the human body.

Sarcasm aside, complex molecules are such because of their chemical bonds.
The most chemical bonds in a molecule?
i-propyl cyanide.
Though irrelevant, this is the case.

Pro claims that in the bacterial flagellum:
"There are additional extra parts that can be removed, but once you remove them and are left with the minimal amount of parts needed for the function that is when you can begin your removal and attempt to find a pathway for naturalistic evolution."

My response:
According to an NCBI publication called, "How Bacteria Assemble Flagella," motility proteins are the minimal parts needed for the function of the flagellar apparatus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I noted that the NCBI deleted genes from bacterial flagella.
The gene deletion removed certain motility proteins, the "minimal amount of parts needed for the function," and yet the flagellar apparatus still functioned, in a reduced manner.
This shows that at one point in time, the flagellum could have had fewer proteins, still functioned, and acquired the vast amount of motility proteins we see today, over time, step by step.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Pro would have to explain how the flagellum is irreducibly complex, when we can take some of the very basic necessities of the flagellum's function, motility proteins, remove them, and the flagellum can still function.
Also, genes, I argue, are always considered a "part needed for the function" of any organism.
We removed motility protein genes, and yet the flagellum still functioned with reduced motility.

Also, my assumption about irreducible complexity is not false, because if the flagellum were "pre-planned," why are there so many insufficient parts of the flagellum that can be reduced/deleted and the function remains?
If anything, this points to a pre-planner who allowed for REDUCIBLE complexity.

I reject, of course, a pre-planner of the bacterial flagellum on the grounds that insufficient proteins were "planned" in the "creation" of the flagellum, and that these insufficient parts can be removed from this "irreducible" entity and still allow for its principle function.

So Pro cannot eschew my NCBI argument, because it is not under false assumption of irreducible complexity; it simply negates irreducible complexity.

Pro indicates:
"Let's assume that [the flagellum recruiting proteins over time] is correct. It would STILL not be an argument against irreducible complexity."

My response:
I agree. It was an argument against Pro's claim from round 1 that "it's impossible to assemble the [flagellum] step by step through natural selection."
So, again, the NCBI has provided phenotyping data that indicates the flagellum's recruiting of motility proteins over time, step by step.
This shows that natural selection perfectly accounts for this wonderful "machine."

Finally, Pro takes a stab at abiogenesis:
"I have seen what you have written to back up this claim, and I entirely disagree with you -- you have completely misunderstood the entire theory of abiogenesis and confused the issues, it's not at all the way you describe it."

My response:
At first, I thought that because Pro said they would not use the idea that "there are currently no scientifically sound naturalistic theories on the origin of the first cell, or the beginning of life" to argue for an intelligent origin of life that I should eschew this argument.
Well, now that my scientific integrity has been presumably compromised by Pro's baseless comments, and I realize that the resolution is directly refuted by abiogenesis, I must ask Pro:

In what ways have I misunderstood abiogenesis?
How is my description of abiogenesis "not the way abiogenesis is?"

I will remind readers that the citations I have provided for abiogenesis can be accessed first round, but I also found some more specific "first cell" evidence from the good old NCBI:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

These are all peer reviewed, published scientific articles. The NCBI is the most credible source for all things biological. It follows that our accumulated knowledge of the origins of life (biological entities) would best be understood by the NCBI.

So, it would appear that if I "have completely misunderstood the entire theory of abiogenesis and confused the issues," then one could verify that by accessing my citations, instead of blindly accepting Pro's contention that abiogenesis is "absolutely not" scientific.

I reject the claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, because when we reduced the flagellum by deleting components, it was still able to perform its function; this is not irreducible complexity.

I also reject the claim that the flagellum could not have been assembled over time, step by step, as phenotyping data indicates that motility proteins were in fact recruited step by step through natural selection, and were conserved as necessary for the bacteria.

I further reject the resolution that life was made, because abiogenesis negates the need for a creator of life, and all of the evidence we have for life indicates that species evolved to their current states, and were not "created" in their current form; the bacterial flagellum is a result of evolution.
Debate Round No. 2
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

You: Silly me...I thought the complexity of a molecule was measured by its amount of chemical bonds.
Thank you Pro for pointing out that molecular complexity is measured by whether or not the molecule can code for the human body.
With this logic, any molecule regarded as complex must code for the human body.

Answer: I said the human body and other organisms -- and you're doing a circular walk here, it's not that complex is equal to code for bodies, it's that codes for bodies are complex.
__________________
You: Sarcasm aside, complex molecules are such because of their chemical bonds.
The most chemical bonds in a molecule?
i-propyl cyanide.
Though irrelevant, this is the case.

Answer: That is one form of complexity. The complexity I am talking about is the functionality involved, the information involved -- the binding of DNA may very well be less complex than i-propyl cyanide, however, DNA encodes, like Morse code, incredible complexity that is beyond what the greatest minds and scientists of the 21st century could even begin to create.
__________________
You: According to an NCBI publication called, "How Bacteria Assemble Flagella," motility proteins are the minimal parts needed for the function of the flagellar apparatus. I noted that the NCBI deleted genes from bacterial flagella.
The gene deletion removed certain motility proteins, the "minimal amount of parts needed for the function," and yet the flagellar apparatus still functioned, in a reduced manner. This shows that at one point in time, the flagellum could have had fewer proteins, still functioned, and acquired the vast amount of motility proteins we see today, over time, step by step. Pro would have to explain how the flagellum is irreducibly complex, when we can take some of the very basic necessities of the flagellum's function, motility proteins, remove them, and the flagellum can still function. Also, genes, I argue, are always considered a "part needed for the function" of any organism. We removed motility protein genes, and yet the flagellum still functioned with reduced motility.

Answer: I said earlier that there were extra components. When these are removed, the apparatus may become weaker, like you said, but it's still functioning. Another thing that I need to remind you about is that when you provide a path, that path of assembly can not be instructed by the researchers, or propsed as a theoertical fit, it would need to have natural advantages that would enable natural selection to perform the construction.
__________________
You: Also, my assumption about irreducible complexity is not false, because if the flagellum were "pre-planned," why are there so many insufficient parts of the flagellum that can be reduced/deleted and the function remains?
If anything, this points to a pre-planner who allowed for REDUCIBLE complexity.

Answer: If I create a car, I may add extra parts to it in order to increase the efficiency, like nitro boosts, however, these are not critical in the operation of the car itself. In the same way, the gene KO's that you talk about, are redundant parts, not critical to the operation of the apparatus.
__________________
You: I agree. It was an argument against Pro's claim from round 1 that "it's impossible to assemble the [flagellum] step by step through natural selection."
So, again, the NCBI has provided phenotyping data that indicates the flagellum's recruiting of motility proteins over time, step by step.This shows that natural selection perfectly accounts for this wonderful "machine."

Answer: Again, for what.. the fourth time -- these are additional parts that you are talking about, and I have not yet seen the report where it gives the clear advantage-lead natural selection path to these -- but even if that were the case, it would not be of any effect on the actual apparatus which does not require these additional parts to function.
__________________
You: In what ways have I misunderstood abiogenesis?
How is my description of abiogenesis "not the way abiogenesis is?"

Answer: Where shall I begin? Well, first of all, I would rather not discuss abiogenesis in this debate, only my original claim and evidence that life was made (bacterial flagellum) so I will only briefly address this issue. First, your notion that organic = life is completely unreasonable. Organic material is the building block for life, not life itself. Then yes, I agree that it's possible for a few amino acids to be created by nature, it would be the equivalent of dropping a few sticks from an airplane and creating a few letters, perhaps the word 'hello', it's unlikely, but certainly possible. Now, when we talk life, we talk books, not words. If you want to write a coherent book by dropping sticks from an airplane, you have a greater challenge ahead, in fact, the chance has been calculated to be 1 in 10^40,000 (there are 10^80 atoms in the universe) by Fred Hoyle and others, the equivalent of having the entire solar system filled with blind people solving their rubik cubes all at once. Heck, I can barely solve 1/3 while looking and thinking hard. And finally, your statement that the amino acids become biologically active once they bind with one another is not entirely correct. They need to bind in a very specific way, and only left handed, to form functional proteins. This specificity is arranged by the sequence of nucleotides in the deoxyribonucleic acid. Not to mention the vicious circle of which came first, the ribosome or the DNA? Since the 50s, no breakthroughs, no discoveries and no improvements have been done in the field of abiogenesis, honest scientists have admitted that many times.
__________________
MagicAintReal

Con

Ok, I'll play Pro's game and for a moment and agree that the motility proteins in the flagellum that allow the flagellar apparatus to move the bacteria (the flagellum's functionality) are "extra" parts.

Do you understand that by calling the flagellum irreducibly complex while claiming that the flagellum has "extra" parts that can be removed is a contradiction?

Pro, does the flagellum (total) have parts that can be removed and its functionality remain?
If the answer is yes, then it is not irreducible.

You can call the parts of the flagellum "additional," but all you've done is proven that the flagellum (total) is not irreducible...the "additional" parts can be reduced.

Let me put Pro's argument succinctly:
The flagellum is so complex that it cannot be reduced and maintain its complexity (movement)...except for those additional parts, motility proteins and their genes, that can be reduced.

Remember what Pro said about complexity?
"The complexity I am talking about is the functionality involved."
Well the flagellum was reduced of parts and maintained its functionality. It was reduced, and remained complex.

Not only are motility proteins NOT extra parts, they are necessary for the complexity (function) of the flagellum.
Also, the genes that code for the motility proteins, which were deleted in the studies I provided, are not extra parts.

If the flagellum has "extra" parts that can be reduced, then the flagellum is not irreducible.
Pro kind of hanged himself on this one.

Pro provides an analogy:
"If I create a car, I may add extra parts to it in order to increase the efficiency, like nitro boosts, however, these are not critical in the operation of the car itself."

My response:
Yeah, that's why cars are not irreducibly complex.
Again, Pro hangs himself in this debate by associating the flagellum with a car that has additional parts and is therefore not irreducibly complex; the additional parts can be...reduced, just like the nitro boosters of which Pro speaks.

Pro then complains:
"I have not yet seen the report where it gives the clear advantage-lead natural selection path to [motility proteins]."

My response:
So Pro didn't bother to check any of my sources, as I suspected, so here is a direct quote from the NCBI's full study on Novel Conserved Assembly Factor of the Bacterial Flagellum,
"Here we provide additional evidence and synthesize all available information into a model that supports the classification of a whole cluster of orthologous genes (COG1699) as a novel family of flagellar assembly factors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Orthologous genes are genes in different species that evolved from a common ancestral gene by speciation.
Orthologous genes retain the same function in the course of evolution.
Identification of orthologous genes is critical for reliable prediction of gene function in newly sequenced genomes.
https://www.google.com...

On abiogenesis, Pro claims:
"First, your notion that organic = life is completely unreasonable."

My response:
I never said organic = life, I said that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds, like amino acids.
Amino acids become biologically active when the protein chains fold onto each other.
So Pro is finally correct when saying "yes, I agree that it's possible for a few amino acids to be created by nature."

Pro's airplane dropping sticks analogy has many problems.
A flying airplane presupposes an agent, the pilot, which is not part of abiogenesis.

More accurately, if the sticks are to represent amino acids, the sticks should be paragraphs that fall to the ground to make a book.
Amino acids are way more than just sticks that would make letters; the amino acids themselves are made of protons, neutrons and electrons (sticks), which make up the atoms (letters), which make up a compound (words), which make up a specific amino acid (paragraphs).
Maybe if the plane were dropping paragraphs to make a simple book, this analogy would hold...either way the analogy is inaccurate.

Pro asserts improbability:
"Your statement that the amino acids become biologically active once they bind with one another is not entirely correct. They need to bind in a very specific way, and only left handed, to form functional proteins."

My response:
You mean the left handed proteins like the ones in this abiogenesis experiment?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"We report here the detection and quantification of primary amine-containing compounds in the original sample residues, which were produced via spark discharge using a gaseous mixture of H(2)S, CH(4), NH(3), and CO(2). A total of 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds, were detected in these samples...the amino acids with chiral centers are RACEMIC."

Now, even I had to look up some of these words, but "racemic" is key here.
Racemic means both left and right handed proteins.
Right handed proteins are called dextrorotatory, and left handed proteins are called levorotatory.

racemic - composed of dextrorotatory and levorotatory forms of a compound in equal proportion.
https://www.google.com...

So, we know that abiogenesis results in EQUAL PROPORTIONS of left handed and right handed proteins. This completely refutes Pro's contentions with abiogenesis.

Pro also says:
"Since the 50s, no breakthroughs, no discoveries and no improvements have been done in the field of abiogenesis."

My response:
Ok, so the replicated Miller-Urey experiments that I have provided were conducted in 2011-2014, and they were able to produce more amino acids than the Miller-Urey in the 50's. So Pro is just wrong.

Conclusions:
1. Remember how Pro claimed originally that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex? Pro later claimed that the bacterial flagellum has "additional" and "extra" parts that can be removed and the flagellum's functionality remains. Pro can play around with definitions, but this is NOT irreducibly complex.

2. Given all of my citations, motility proteins and the genes that code them are not extra parts, in fact they have been recruited over time by way of natural selection, because of their absolute necessity for propulsion or movement of the bacteria. Think about it, MOTILITY proteins are required for MOTILITY, which is the complexity that Pro claims the flagellum has. These proteins can't be additional...they're integral.

3. Abiogenesis is not only a fact, but the Miller-Urey experiments have been replicated over and over again, producing more and more left-handed amino acids each time; left-handed amino acid chains fold into a shape that is biologically active.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I invite anyone to research the concept of irreducible complexity, which is also pseudoscientific.
Ask yourself, is something with additional parts that can be removed yet the functionality remains irreducibly complex?

The bacterial flagellum is reducible; just ask Pro about its "extra" parts that can be reduced.
Debate Round No. 3
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

I have this unconvenient feeling that I'm debating with a person that most likely never took the necessary courses in biochemistry and the relevant fields of education to properly understand the apparatus in question, which leads me to say this: only accept debates in which you are certain to have the answers and the proper understanding of the subject, otherwise the debate can easily turn into awkward chatting.

I believe I made it very clear that once you remove these additional parts, and reduce the components to only what is needed for the function of the flagellum, only then can you begin to work out the advantageous pathway of selection and assembly, not prior to that --that is the argument from irreducible complexity, and in this specific case, the bacterial flagellum. In my original statement I said that it's 'impossible to assemble the machine step by step through natural selection, the parts would have to pre-adapt in order to fit with each other and perform their function.' which is to say that there is no way for natural selection to build this apparatus. What you are doing is removing parts not necessary for the function of the apparatus and claim that this somehow proves natural selection could have made it through an unknown advantageous path. I find this extremely unsatisfying and view it as a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument itself.

Then you accuse me of making contradictions, but you yourself said that 'not only are motility proteins NOT extra parts, they are necessary for the complexity (function) of the flagellum.' and prior to that, you stated that 'the gene deletion removed certain motility proteins, the "minimal amount of parts needed for the function," and yet the flagellar apparatus still functioned, in a reduced manner.' This is a somehow obvious contradiction that you may not have noticed.

So then, you say that my analogy of an airplane is not reasonable. How not? The very act of dropping sticks from an airplane makes the action random, the same way it's in the primordial soup that you speak of. If you STILL disagree with the analogy, we can say that there is a robot with a quantum randomizer that is dropping sticks from an airplane, does that help you any? Then about amino acids being paragraphs, I disagree. If amino acids are words, proteins are paragraphs and cells are books -- if you make amino acids into paragraphs, then books are proteins not cells, which makes cells libraries. So then you move on to left and right handed amino acids, and say that both were produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. However, there are some things which you miss (1) these were completely random sequences with zero capability to produce functional proteins (2) these were both left and right handed, when life requires only left handed (3) these were under laboratory conditions (excluding oxygen[ozone] which in turn leaves the UV rays to destroy the compound) and other things, in other words, unrealistic for nature. But my point is, even if the experiment were entirely reproducing what nature would have done, it has STILL not come anywhere close to one single protein, not to mention life.

Your conclusion number one is false, as clearly explained in the beginning of this post and other posts. Your conclusion number two is not clear, first you state the removal of motility proteins only results in reduced functionality, then you say that they are completely necessary, which one do you stand by? If you say the first option, then these were extra parts. If you say the 2nd option, then you have successfully removed a part necessary for the function of the apparatus, congratulations, what follows? Your third conclusion is only a good confirmation that you need to study more and learn about the basics of biology, like amino acids, proteins and cells. What they are made of and so on, because creating a few random amino acids is one hundred percent worthless and not even comparable to life.


MagicAintReal

Con

I have this inconvenient feeling that I'm debating with a person that most likely read my profile and knows full well that I'm a teacher with a graduate degree and a carbon atom tattoo as my avatar.

So when Pro is hinting that I "never took the necessary courses in biochemistry and the relevant fields of education to properly understand the apparatus in question," he's trying to get my goat.
He's messing with me.

So my response is actually a genuine laugh, because that's the first thing I did when I read it...bravo Pro.
Since I debate at work, shhh, I had to share it with my colleagues and they too found it to be hilarious; they like to see people in these types of scientific debates attack my credibility...so, for real, thank you Pro, you've made our day less boring.

Pro tries to point out a contradiction on my part.
He quotes me saying that "the gene deletion removed certain motility proteins, the minimal amount of parts needed for the function, and yet the flagellum still functioned."

Yes, per the function of the flagellum, at minimum, there must be motility proteins.
This is why per the function of the flagellum, motility proteins are not additional.

I have an analogy to clarify what I'm pointing out here.

Your mouth (flagellum) is able to successfully chew (move) because of teeth (motility proteins).
Pro is claiming that the mouth (flagellum) is irreducibly complex, but we all know that if you delete some teeth (motility proteins) your mouth (flagellum) can still chew (move), though chewing (motility) may be reduced.

Would you ever claim that per the function of chewing (motility), teeth (motility proteins) are additional parts to the mouth (flagellum)?
Mouths, like flagellum are not irreducibly complex...and, I just realized, our mouths recruited teeth over time, so I think I'll use this analogy again for the motility protein reduction explanation.

You can still chew if you take out some teeth, because your mouth is not irreducibly complex.
The flagellum can still move if you take out some motility proteins, because the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

Pro, the airplane analogy is just not good enough. The fact that it's an airplane requires that when it is flying it is therefore moving forward excluding any trailing of the fallen sticks in a backwards direction from the plane, reducing the possibility for words/paragraphs.
This is not random enough, even with a quantum randomizing stick dropper on board the plane.
So even though I maintain amino acids are the paragraphs, because amino acid chains, when folded onto themselves, become biologically active (life), the analogy is irrelevant to whether or not abiogensis is a fact.

I urge any reader to check any of my citations for abiogenesis, so that they may learn more about this wonderful fact of life, literally.

Pro complains about abiogenesis:
"my point is, even if the [replicated Miller-Urey experiment] were entirely reproducing what nature would have done, it has STILL not come anywhere close to one single protein, not to mention life."

My response:
Pro did not read any of the sources I have cited on this matter. All of the sources mention proteins, because proteins are chains of amino acids; these chains of amino acids are what the experiments precisely yielded.
I'm gonna mention life, because what's special about these building blocks is that they can react with each other to create biologically active structures.

What does the NIH say about amino acids?
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active. The amino acid sequences of proteins are encoded in the genes."
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Amino acids react with themselves and become biologically active (life).
Abiogenesis is a fact.

Finally, Pro mentions:
"You state the removal of motility proteins only results in reduced functionality, then you say that they are completely necessary."

My response:
When I first quoted the study, I left part of it out...let me re-post that:
From the NCBI, of course,
"To explore the biological relevance of these interactions, we tested an Escherichia coli gene deletion array for motility defects (using swarming assays) and found 159 gene deletion strains to have reduced or no motility."

So, I never said that the removal of proteins only results in reduced motility; I just mentioned that A RESULT of gene deletion was reduced motility.
I stand by my statement that motility proteins are completely necessary for motility, just like teeth are completely necessary for chewing.
Fewer teeth = reduced chewing.
Fewer motility proteins = reduced motility OR no motility.

By reducing motility proteins and maintaining the flagellum's function, we have shown that the flagellum is simply not irreducibly complex.

The resolution that life was made is supposed to be supported by the idea of irreducible complexity however, because Pro can't even show irreducible complexity in the flagellum, Pro has a long way to explaining how life was made.

Sorry Pro, you got stuck with an opponent who actually is competent in this particular subject, despite my colleagues chuckling at the idea that I am improperly educated posited by Pro.

Well, now let's read as Pro hedges their bets about irreducible complexity...right after I throw out my diploma, awards, and course syllabus for this academic year...
Debate Round No. 4
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

After carefully reading your text twice, I believe you misunderstood the conclusion of the research paper you provided and applied it wrongly to my argument. Would you please clarify how this paper which is about the interaction of proteins does anything for you? What they said is that they found 159 gene deletion strains to have reduced or killed the motility, and that they found 23 hitherto uncharacterized proteins involved in motility. It's not rare that people misread research papers. Exactly what proteins and deletion strains are we talking about? Be specific.
MagicAintReal

Con

In the final round Pro asks a legit question:
Would you please clarify how this paper which is about the interaction of proteins does anything for you?

My response:
Sure, clarifying and explaining concepts like these is actually my favorite part of what I do, so yeah let's clarify!
I posted the full article's link below, instead of the abstract, and if you look right before the conclusion they mention:

"Indeed, we did find a weak, but statistically significant linear relationship between the number of interactions of an orthologous group and its conservation ratio among flagellated bacteria."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

By deleting and keeping certain interactive motility proteins from flagella with a common ancestor (orthologs), they determined that there were core proteins from the common ancestor, and ones recruited over time, post common ancestor...step by step.
Because the flagella conserve these proteins overtime, and we know that the flagella share a common ancestor, we can see which proteins are shared, and which ones were recruited; that's all.

Pro asks:
Exactly what proteins and deletion strains are we talking about? Be specific.

My response:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I reject the claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, and that life was made given the vast amount of evidence for evolution just in this study...of course there is more evidence, but for this debate, what I have provided shall do.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
It was not a gloat; it was a defense of my debating style which, need I remind, was attacked right after finishing the debate.
If defending my debating style by pointing out the errancy in calling my style "not legit" by referencing a relevant win despite such is considered gloating, then yes I gloated.
He attacked, I defended, no gloating here.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
And you think that gloating over 11 points from 2 votes will help them?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Right, but the original claim was that I missed the argument, hence the posited illegitimacy.
If you can win by 11 points and miss the argument, then the system, not my debate style, is illegitimate.

So, since the person who missed the argument won by 11 points, the person who lost must be inept; they didn't miss the argument and still lost.
I have tried to encourage this debater to get better, but, I must point out, the horse has been lead to the water and refuses to drink.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
In fairness, you got two votes. Hardly a valid statistical sample.Plus, "winning" is irrelevant to the claim you won illegitamatly. I get you might be annoyed by his/her statemebt, but I personally think encouraging them to keeping trying (and improve) would be better than implying they are a failure.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
To quote pr.Daniel_Jordan
"What I have to say about this debate is that [MagicAintReal] either on purpose, or due to lack of knowledge, repeatedly missed the argument, and re-defined it, claiming to have refuted irreducible complexity. It's not a legit way of debating and next time I launch such a debate I certainly hope a moderator (if there is one) will notice this."

aaaaaaaand I won. Decidedly so. If my style of debate is not legit, then what does that make pr.Daniel_Jordan's style of debate?...utterly inept.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
@pr.Daniel_Jordan I have debated you, and read a couple of your debates. I have noticed a trend where you claim some personal harm having occurred due to your opponent. This isn't to judge you, but consider... If you were actually interested in learning and challenging yourself, rather than reinforcing your ideology, why would you get upset if a debate took a turn you weren't expecting? That's the ENTIRE POINT of a debate!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD:

It seems to me that Pro never really proved the resolution true. The best he did was show that there is a core of proteins involved in flagella that are reducably complex, but not that that same core of proteins cannot form naturally. In fact, he seems to be quite focused on disproving some natural means of formation while ignoring his central burden: proving that life was made. I could buy all of his arguments about the complexity being too extreme for random evolution to form a flagella and still vote Con on the basis that that just makes me uncertain as to what the impetus was. Pro asserts that the only alternative is an intelligent creator of sorts, but never supports that assertion.

Nonetheless, Con's winning on reducable complexity. So long as I believe that the pieces of flagella could a) function independently, b) come together, and c) provide improved function by doing so, even in pieces, I believe that they most likely arose by evolution, and thus vote Con. I could also vote on abiogenesis, as he's the only one that's giving me much of an evidence based argument. Proving that it's at all likely disproves the resolution, so that's an easy place to vote. And speaking of evidence, he provided numerous peer-reviewed studies and extensive details from them to support his arguments. By comparison, I felt Con's sources barely supplemented his arguments, and that he often failed to engage with Con's. Ergo, I also award Con source points.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Yeah...
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Indeed, it is easy to research and precisely because of that, they will realize that it's irreducibly complex.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I thought the debate went fine...and I think readers will see that the bacteria flagellum is easy to research scientifically, because bacteria are plentiful and conveniently testable; legit published studies on bacteria are everywhere.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
pr.Daniel_JordanMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed at the outset. Their entire argument could be summarized as "If enough parts were removed, the flagellum would sooner or later stop working". Pro failed to demonstrate irreducibility, failed to provide any alternative, failed to demonstrate that hypothetical alternative, failed to establish that alternative applies to all life or the foundation of life, and failed to establish the alternative is equivalent to being "made". Pro did not provide [many] sources, and none to support core arguments; Con did. Pro blew conduct in the last round by using ad hominems.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
pr.Daniel_JordanMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.