Posted: Jan 21, 2011 6:31 am
by hackenslash
Царь Славян wrote:
The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.


Poster named GenesForLife would disagree with you. Take it up with him.


A description is not an analogy, they say they are molecular machines , they don't say they're just like a molecular machine.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... ne#p626563


You're equivocating. In any event, GFL would not disagree with me. In that post, he is answering your question regarding why they are called molecular machines by some. I suggest that those who called it such are being less than completely rigorous, probably because they aren't accustomed to having their words twisted by dishonest, credulous people with a dishonest agenda such as yourself. It's much akin to physicists calling entropy 'disorder'. They expect to be better understood.

Anyhoo, as commonly understood, a machine is an artefact, by definition, while the flagellum evolved from an earlier system. Why you keep resting on the flagellum is, in fact, beyond me, because Behe's ignorant guff regarding it has been comprehensively nailed to the wall some time ago, especially the 'irreducible complexity' canard which, even if it were actually true, wouldn't constitute a problem for evolution, because irreducible complexity is a necessary outcome of evolution, as demonstrated by Hermann Joseph Müller some 50 years before Behe was even born.

Perhaps if you actually learned some science.