Life was made

Pro says: "DNA is the most complex in the sense that it contains code for the human body and other organisms." My response: 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. 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. Pro claims that in the bacterial flagellum: "There are additional extra parts that can be removed, but once you remove them and are left with the minimal amount of parts needed for the function that is when you can begin your removal and attempt to find a pathway for naturalistic evolution." My response: According to an NCBI publication called, "How Bacteria Assemble Flagella," motility proteins are the minimal parts needed for the function of the flagellar apparatus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 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. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 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. 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. I reject, of course, a pre-planner of the bacterial flagellum on the grounds that insufficient proteins were "planned" in the "creation" of the flagellum, and that these insufficient parts can be removed from this "irreducible" entity and still allow for its principle function. So Pro cannot eschew my NCBI argument, because it is not under false assumption of irreducible complexity; it simply negates irreducible complexity. Pro indicates: "Let's assume that [the flagellum recruiting proteins over time] is correct. It would STILL not be an argument against irreducible complexity." My response: 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." Finally, Pro takes a stab at abiogenesis: "I have seen what you have written to back up this claim, and I entirely disagree with you -- you have completely misunderstood the entire theory of abiogenesis and confused the issues, it's not at all the way you describe it." My response: At first, I thought that because Pro said they would not use the idea that "there are currently no scientifically sound naturalistic theories on the origin of the first cell, or the beginning of life" to argue for an intelligent origin of life that I should eschew this argument. Well, now that my scientific integrity has been presumably compromised by Pro's baseless comments, and I realize that the resolution is directly refuted by abiogenesis, I must ask Pro: In what ways have I misunderstood abiogenesis? How is my description of abiogenesis "not the way abiogenesis is?" I will remind readers that the citations I have provided for abiogenesis can be accessed first round, but I also found some more specific "first cell" evidence from the good old NCBI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... These are all peer reviewed, published scientific articles. The NCBI is the most credible source for all things biological. It follows that our accumulated knowledge of the origins of life (biological entities) would best be understood by the NCBI. So, it would appear that if I "have completely misunderstood the entire theory of abiogenesis and confused the issues," then one could verify that by accessing my citations, instead of blindly accepting Pro's contention that abiogenesis is "absolutely not" scientific. I reject the claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, because when we reduced the flagellum by deleting components, it was still able to perform its function; this is not irreducible complexity. I also reject the claim that the flagellum could not have been assembled over time, step by step, as phenotyping data indicates that motility proteins were in fact recruited step by step through natural selection, and were conserved as necessary for the bacteria. I further reject the resolution that life was made, because abiogenesis negates the need for a creator of life, and all of the evidence we have for life indicates that species evolved to their current states, and were not "created" in their current form; the bacterial flagellum is a result of evolution.