See for more themes.
| Functional Intermediates for Bacteria Flagella systems.
Yes but do they show evidence of
Since the author believes in Creationism as the Bible defines it, there are some parameters not told in Science about who these Intelligent Designers might be:- Ge 3:17 "And [God] said: ...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;" As a result of sinning, major changes happened to the way plants (and animals) behave. We also know there was a change from Adam as prince of earth, to Satan as prince of earth. Notice these texts: Mt 13:27 "..Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this." Isa 59:4 "...they conceive mischief, and 'born' iniquity." The greatest enemy of planet earth is Satan. Why plants and animals change, is because Satan deliberately changed the genome of many species with His own Intelligent Designing. ( Perhaps God also allowed the laws of thermodynamics and entropy to also impact the entire universe, after mankind's sinning.) There is a Hebrew word for genetic propensities "aven" Strong's 205. (see partial studies of aven) It is the author's belief that Satan has tampered with and changed God's genome engineering His own Evolution Design. It is also highly probable that ancient humans before the flood also did reverse engineering on organism and engineered many changes to the genome of species. With Intelligent Design as orginally engineered by God, we would expect to see such designs as functional, well designed and very good. Thus it is not going to easy to unravel evidence for Evolution Design and Intelligent Design, because both have aspects of Intelligent Beings making changes to the programming of life. However there would be differences, oberservable and testable that one can apply to unravel the differences between both systems of design. Notice the alive colonies with no functional motor, cannot spread across the agar jelly petri dish. Some have proposed that stages 6 and 7 are similar to the secretory III systems found already in many existing species of bacteria. But some genetics argue the secretory systems came after the flagella motor system. The Author suspects the type III system is a syringe mechanism for causing diseases in host cells, was engineered by Satanic agencies. Perhaps pre-flood humans also engineered diseases for their own purposes as well, as Satanic agencies? They were certainly smart enough. So let's try to introduce these functional intermediates:- Now if you count the protein types between the type III secretory system on the left with the tail motor system on the right, how many proteins are the same ? Not many...around two. See source of diagram. Now admittedly these are tail motors of Salomonella and Yerinia species. And not all bacterial species have the same proteins in their structures. The Author had trouble finding anybody willing to detail intermediate designs. Here is an Evoutionist called Nicholas J. Matzke and his work showing functional intermediates:- And his example of a functional intermediate:- You can read Matzke's paper yourself here. But the language is technical and difficult to fathom. In his paper he suggests of the 42 proteins making organelles such as these discussed here that only two proteins, FliE and FlgD are not similar to the type III secretory systems. He is suggesting that Evolutionary Design could easily evolve the functional use of these two proteins over time. But if you look and count the similarities of his diagrams proposed for functional intermediates, how many proteins are the same ? Most proteins seem in place in both organelles. Notice the differences the author found looking at both diagrams:- The author counts 27 proteins listed in his diagram for the motor tail system, and possibly 17 proteins listed in his diagram for the type III secretory system. Mathematically the proteins alone tell you they are only 62% the similar. How does the evolutionist scientist explain how all the above proteins come to be switched on by gene regulation process in the DNA of bacteria cells to make a type III secretory organelle become a tail motor system ? So where do the extra DNA sequence of complex code come from to allow a change in function? Here scientists study the simplified genome sequence of bacteria viruses to get an appreciation of how complex sequenced information works. In order to evaluate how organelles are added to cells, one has to study the actual sequence of DNA code for switching and or for making new additional information. This is where the changes must come from, not surmising intermediate organelles, though how nice that seems. In the final remarks of bacterial tail motors, we will try to analyse if any studies have been done at how new DNA sequenced information evolves from natural means, without the supervison of Inteligent Designers such as God, Satan or pre-flood humans. |
Created by Rob Thompson. Hosted since 10/01/2012. Visitors HOSTED by Prologic, my Son. A thin website.
Scientists who reverse engineer bacteria tail motors use genetics to stop functions working in one motor piece at a time. Thus just because of how scientists work they admit such systems are irreducibly complex.
Scientists who reverse engineer bacteria tail motors use genetics to stop functions working in one motor piece at a time. Thus scientists know if the genetic mutational change they makestops the tail motor from working or not, by observing if colonies move about.
Here is a diagram of all the supposed genetic processes of building the bacteria tail motor. According to molecular genetic scientists each step has gene control, waiting for the step to be completed before a signal happens to start buiding the next stage of the bacteria motor system. 
