Posted: Jul 01, 2010 12:56 am
by PhiloKGB
CharlieM wrote:Matzke has proposed this model based on his views on how evolution proceeds and this assumes that the type III secretory system is ancestral to the flagellum. I could propose a model based on my understanding of how evolution proceeds in which various bacteria make use of an archetypal plan which contains the "instructions" for making flagellar motility and secretion systems. This plan is expressed variously by different bacteria and sometimes in the same bacterium depending on physical factors. With my plan it doesn't matter which system (type III or Flagellum) came first.

Both our models can fit the observed data. Its our beliefs that determine the model, the data is the same in both cases.

How have you come to understand that evolution proceeds by using "archetypal plan[s]" with "instructions" inbuilt? Your argument appears to assume facts not in evidence and Matzke's is therefore preferable on that basis alone.
I was talking about natural selection on its own. I know things are different when mutations are taken into account. My point was that natural selection cannot create novelty it only removes or lets through what is already there.

This is pure bullshit, an assertion which can only be made by those merely Google-educated who nonetheless consider themselves experts.