Life was made

Ok, I'll play Pro's game and for a moment and agree that the motility proteins in the flagellum that allow the flagellar apparatus to move the bacteria (the flagellum's functionality) are "extra" parts. Do you understand that by calling the flagellum irreducibly complex while claiming that the flagellum has "extra" parts that can be removed is a contradiction? Pro, does the flagellum (total) have parts that can be removed and its functionality remain? If the answer is yes, then it is not irreducible. You can call the parts of the flagellum "additional," but all you've done is proven that the flagellum (total) is not irreducible...the "additional" parts can be reduced. Let me put Pro's argument succinctly: The flagellum is so complex that it cannot be reduced and maintain its complexity (movement)...except for those additional parts, motility proteins and their genes, that can be reduced. Remember what Pro said about complexity? "The complexity I am talking about is the functionality involved." Well the flagellum was reduced of parts and maintained its functionality. It was reduced, and remained complex. Not only are motility proteins NOT extra parts, they are necessary for the complexity (function) of the flagellum. Also, the genes that code for the motility proteins, which were deleted in the studies I provided, are not extra parts. If the flagellum has "extra" parts that can be reduced, then the flagellum is not irreducible. Pro kind of hanged himself on this one. Pro provides an analogy: "If I create a car, I may add extra parts to it in order to increase the efficiency, like nitro boosts, however, these are not critical in the operation of the car itself." My response: Yeah, that's why cars are not irreducibly complex. Again, Pro hangs himself in this debate by associating the flagellum with a car that has additional parts and is therefore not irreducibly complex; the additional parts can be...reduced, just like the nitro boosters of which Pro speaks. Pro then complains: "I have not yet seen the report where it gives the clear advantage-lead natural selection path to [motility proteins]." My response: So Pro didn't bother to check any of my sources, as I suspected, so here is a direct quote from the NCBI's full study on Novel Conserved Assembly Factor of the Bacterial Flagellum, "Here we provide additional evidence and synthesize all available information into a model that supports the classification of a whole cluster of orthologous genes (COG1699) as a novel family of flagellar assembly factors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Orthologous genes are genes in different species that evolved from a common ancestral gene by speciation. Orthologous genes retain the same function in the course of evolution. Identification of orthologous genes is critical for reliable prediction of gene function in newly sequenced genomes. https://www.google.com... On abiogenesis, Pro claims: "First, your notion that organic = life is completely unreasonable." My response: I never said organic = life, I said that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds, like amino acids. Amino acids become biologically active when the protein chains fold onto each other. So Pro is finally correct when saying "yes, I agree that it's possible for a few amino acids to be created by nature." Pro's airplane dropping sticks analogy has many problems. A flying airplane presupposes an agent, the pilot, which is not part of abiogenesis. More accurately, if the sticks are to represent amino acids, the sticks should be paragraphs that fall to the ground to make a book. Amino acids are way more than just sticks that would make letters; the amino acids themselves are made of protons, neutrons and electrons (sticks), which make up the atoms (letters), which make up a compound (words), which make up a specific amino acid (paragraphs). Maybe if the plane were dropping paragraphs to make a simple book, this analogy would hold...either way the analogy is inaccurate. Pro asserts improbability: "Your statement that the amino acids become biologically active once they bind with one another is not entirely correct. They need to bind in a very specific way, and only left handed, to form functional proteins." My response: You mean the left handed proteins like the ones in this abiogenesis experiment? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "We report here the detection and quantification of primary amine-containing compounds in the original sample residues, which were produced via spark discharge using a gaseous mixture of H(2)S, CH(4), NH(3), and CO(2). A total of 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds, were detected in these samples...the amino acids with chiral centers are RACEMIC." Now, even I had to look up some of these words, but "racemic" is key here. Racemic means both left and right handed proteins. Right handed proteins are called dextrorotatory, and left handed proteins are called levorotatory. racemic - composed of dextrorotatory and levorotatory forms of a compound in equal proportion. https://www.google.com... So, we know that abiogenesis results in EQUAL PROPORTIONS of left handed and right handed proteins. This completely refutes Pro's contentions with abiogenesis. Pro also says: "Since the 50s, no breakthroughs, no discoveries and no improvements have been done in the field of abiogenesis." My response: Ok, so the replicated Miller-Urey experiments that I have provided were conducted in 2011-2014, and they were able to produce more amino acids than the Miller-Urey in the 50's. So Pro is just wrong. Conclusions: 1. Remember how Pro claimed originally that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex? Pro later claimed that the bacterial flagellum has "additional" and "extra" parts that can be removed and the flagellum's functionality remains. Pro can play around with definitions, but this is NOT irreducibly complex. 2. Given all of my citations, motility proteins and the genes that code them are not extra parts, in fact they have been recruited over time by way of natural selection, because of their absolute necessity for propulsion or movement of the bacteria. Think about it, MOTILITY proteins are required for MOTILITY, which is the complexity that Pro claims the flagellum has. These proteins can't be additional...they're integral. 3. Abiogenesis is not only a fact, but the Miller-Urey experiments have been replicated over and over again, producing more and more left-handed amino acids each time; left-handed amino acid chains fold into a shape that is biologically active. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... I invite anyone to research the concept of irreducible complexity, which is also pseudoscientific. Ask yourself, is something with additional parts that can be removed yet the functionality remains irreducibly complex? The bacterial flagellum is reducible; just ask Pro about its "extra" parts that can be reduced.