Life was made

I have this inconvenient feeling that I'm debating with a person that most likely read my profile and knows full well that I'm a teacher with a graduate degree and a carbon atom tattoo as my avatar. So when Pro is hinting that I "never took the necessary courses in biochemistry and the relevant fields of education to properly understand the apparatus in question," he's trying to get my goat. He's messing with me. So my response is actually a genuine laugh, because that's the first thing I did when I read it...bravo Pro. Since I debate at work, shhh, I had to share it with my colleagues and they too found it to be hilarious; they like to see people in these types of scientific debates attack my credibility...so, for real, thank you Pro, you've made our day less boring. Pro tries to point out a contradiction on my part. He quotes me saying that "the gene deletion removed certain motility proteins, the minimal amount of parts needed for the function, and yet the flagellum still functioned." Yes, per the function of the flagellum, at minimum, there must be motility proteins. This is why per the function of the flagellum, motility proteins are not additional. I have an analogy to clarify what I'm pointing out here. Your mouth (flagellum) is able to successfully chew (move) because of teeth (motility proteins). Pro is claiming that the mouth (flagellum) is irreducibly complex, but we all know that if you delete some teeth (motility proteins) your mouth (flagellum) can still chew (move), though chewing (motility) may be reduced. Would you ever claim that per the function of chewing (motility), teeth (motility proteins) are additional parts to the mouth (flagellum)? Mouths, like flagellum are not irreducibly complex...and, I just realized, our mouths recruited teeth over time, so I think I'll use this analogy again for the motility protein reduction explanation. You can still chew if you take out some teeth, because your mouth is not irreducibly complex. The flagellum can still move if you take out some motility proteins, because the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Pro, the airplane analogy is just not good enough. The fact that it's an airplane requires that when it is flying it is therefore moving forward excluding any trailing of the fallen sticks in a backwards direction from the plane, reducing the possibility for words/paragraphs. This is not random enough, even with a quantum randomizing stick dropper on board the plane. So even though I maintain amino acids are the paragraphs, because amino acid chains, when folded onto themselves, become biologically active (life), the analogy is irrelevant to whether or not abiogensis is a fact. I urge any reader to check any of my citations for abiogenesis, so that they may learn more about this wonderful fact of life, literally. Pro complains about abiogenesis: "my point is, even if the [replicated Miller-Urey experiment] were entirely reproducing what nature would have done, it has STILL not come anywhere close to one single protein, not to mention life." My response: Pro did not read any of the sources I have cited on this matter. All of the sources mention proteins, because proteins are chains of amino acids; these chains of amino acids are what the experiments precisely yielded. I'm gonna mention life, because what's special about these building blocks is that they can react with each other to create biologically active structures. What does the NIH say about amino acids? "The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active. The amino acid sequences of proteins are encoded in the genes." http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... Amino acids react with themselves and become biologically active (life). Abiogenesis is a fact. Finally, Pro mentions: "You state the removal of motility proteins only results in reduced functionality, then you say that they are completely necessary." My response: When I first quoted the study, I left part of it out...let me re-post that: From the NCBI, of course, "To explore the biological relevance of these interactions, we tested an Escherichia coli gene deletion array for motility defects (using swarming assays) and found 159 gene deletion strains to have reduced or no motility." So, I never said that the removal of proteins only results in reduced motility; I just mentioned that A RESULT of gene deletion was reduced motility. I stand by my statement that motility proteins are completely necessary for motility, just like teeth are completely necessary for chewing. Fewer teeth = reduced chewing. Fewer motility proteins = reduced motility OR no motility. By reducing motility proteins and maintaining the flagellum's function, we have shown that the flagellum is simply not irreducibly complex. The resolution that life was made is supposed to be supported by the idea of irreducible complexity however, because Pro can't even show irreducible complexity in the flagellum, Pro has a long way to explaining how life was made. Sorry Pro, you got stuck with an opponent who actually is competent in this particular subject, despite my colleagues chuckling at the idea that I am improperly educated posited by Pro. Well, now let's read as Pro hedges their bets about irreducible complexity...right after I throw out my diploma, awards, and course syllabus for this academic year...