sandy_mcd wrote:Hi Byblos; your words just made a nice juxtaposition with the article.
And that's why I found it funny. I also thought a clarification of my position was in order lest it be misconstrued as an over-simplification of biology.
Sandy wrote:I don't claim to know any more than you. I do not know what many of the words mean and have no biology background.
Trust me, you probably know more than I do. My wife is the biology wiz in the family, not me.
Sandy wrote: The article seems to be saying that one bug has a device for injecting material into other cells and another (most likely) bug has a means for propelling itself with flagella. About 40% of the types of components (proteins) used for building the the injector are similar in composition and/or shape to parts used in the flagella. There are also some other shared characteristics in the formation of both (didn't understand any of that).
The unstated implication is that both devices are derived from some common or similar starting point. If true, this would undermine the use of the flagella as an example of irreducible complexity.
I know you asked for differences to be highlighted. There are undoubtedly many differences (presumably more than similarities) but it is the similarities which are important since they would indicate some degree of relationship.
And that is precisely why I'm looking for the differences because similarities can be found anywhere. Take for example the complex machine in the flagella. It was mechanically built long before discovering it in the flagella. A few millennia from now, do you not think the similarities between them would be a source of wonder?
The similarities the article highlights are unmistakable but in no way prove a common origin. And that is very clear when you look at the differences, i.e. they serve completely different purposes and each one in its own right is a good candidate for IC.
Snady wrote:Warranty: the validity of this interpretation is worth precisely what I was paid for it.
LOL! It's worth more than you think.