Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[68][69] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[70] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[71][72] Dembski's critique of this position is that phylogenetically, the TTSS makes an unlikely precursor to the flagellum given that TTSS is found in a narrow range of bacteria which makes it seem to be a late innovation, whereas flagella are widespread throughout many bacterial groups, which implies it was an early innovation.[73][74]
Again don't give me scientists have disproven claim - you all started this behss that whatever it is, will be argued here on this thread. Anybody's opinion will not be taken as proof.
While you're at it - you should also define who you consider actual scientist. Phir tumhari uspe alagse class hogi.
Ok now for the rest of your argument.
BF = TTSS? No similar.
Salmonella has 40 parts missing and 10 parts same as BF.
It was pointed out that in BF removal of one part ceases its functionality. If you disagree with me, point to me which part you say can be removed precisely and the cell's rotary motor and tail would maintain a function and won't be considered vestigial.