Life was made

You: Silly me...I thought the complexity of a molecule was measured by its amount of chemical bonds.Thank you Pro for pointing out that molecular complexity is measured by whether or not the molecule can code for the human body.With this logic, any molecule regarded as complex must code for the human body.Answer: I said the human body and other organisms -- and you're doing a circular walk here, it's not that complex is equal to code for bodies, it's that codes for bodies are complex.__________________You: Sarcasm aside, complex molecules are such because of their chemical bonds.The most chemical bonds in a molecule?i-propyl cyanide.Though irrelevant, this is the case.Answer: That is one form of complexity. The complexity I am talking about is the functionality involved, the information involved -- the binding of DNA may very well be less complex than i-propyl cyanide, however, DNA encodes, like Morse code, incredible complexity that is beyond what the greatest minds and scientists of the 21st century could even begin to create.__________________You: According to an NCBI publication called, "How Bacteria Assemble Flagella," motility proteins are the minimal parts needed for the function of the flagellar apparatus. I noted that the NCBI deleted genes from bacterial flagella.The gene deletion removed certain motility proteins, the "minimal amount of parts needed for the function," and yet the flagellar apparatus still functioned, in a reduced manner. This shows that at one point in time, the flagellum could have had fewer proteins, still functioned, and acquired the vast amount of motility proteins we see today, over time, step by step. Pro would have to explain how the flagellum is irreducibly complex, when we can take some of the very basic necessities of the flagellum's function, motility proteins, remove them, and the flagellum can still function. Also, genes, I argue, are always considered a "part needed for the function" of any organism. We removed motility protein genes, and yet the flagellum still functioned with reduced motility.Answer: I said earlier that there were extra components. When these are removed, the apparatus may become weaker, like you said, but it's still functioning. Another thing that I need to remind you about is that when you provide a path, that path of assembly can not be instructed by the researchers, or propsed as a theoertical fit, it would need to have natural advantages that would enable natural selection to perform the construction. __________________You: Also, my assumption about irreducible complexity is not false, because if the flagellum were "pre-planned," why are there so many insufficient parts of the flagellum that can be reduced/deleted and the function remains?If anything, this points to a pre-planner who allowed for REDUCIBLE complexity.Answer: 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. In the same way, the gene KO's that you talk about, are redundant parts, not critical to the operation of the apparatus.__________________You: I agree. It was an argument against Pro's claim from round 1 that "it's impossible to assemble the [flagellum] step by step through natural selection."So, again, the NCBI has provided phenotyping data that indicates the flagellum's recruiting of motility proteins over time, step by step.This shows that natural selection perfectly accounts for this wonderful "machine."Answer: Again, for what.. the fourth time -- these are additional parts that you are talking about, and I have not yet seen the report where it gives the clear advantage-lead natural selection path to these -- but even if that were the case, it would not be of any effect on the actual apparatus which does not require these additional parts to function.__________________You: In what ways have I misunderstood abiogenesis?How is my description of abiogenesis "not the way abiogenesis is?"Answer: Where shall I begin? Well, first of all, I would rather not discuss abiogenesis in this debate, only my original claim and evidence that life was made (bacterial flagellum) so I will only briefly address this issue. First, your notion that organic = life is completely unreasonable. Organic material is the building block for life, not life itself. Then yes, I agree that it's possible for a few amino acids to be created by nature, it would be the equivalent of dropping a few sticks from an airplane and creating a few letters, perhaps the word 'hello', it's unlikely, but certainly possible. Now, when we talk life, we talk books, not words. If you want to write a coherent book by dropping sticks from an airplane, you have a greater challenge ahead, in fact, the chance has been calculated to be 1 in 10^40,000 (there are 10^80 atoms in the universe) by Fred Hoyle and others, the equivalent of having the entire solar system filled with blind people solving their rubik cubes all at once. Heck, I can barely solve 1/3 while looking and thinking hard. And finally, 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. This specificity is arranged by the sequence of nucleotides in the deoxyribonucleic acid. Not to mention the vicious circle of which came first, the ribosome or the DNA? Since the 50s, no breakthroughs, no discoveries and no improvements have been done in the field of abiogenesis, honest scientists have admitted that many times.__________________