Life was made

I have this unconvenient feeling that I'm debating with a person that most likely never took the necessary courses in biochemistry and the relevant fields of education to properly understand the apparatus in question, which leads me to say this: only accept debates in which you are certain to have the answers and the proper understanding of the subject, otherwise the debate can easily turn into awkward chatting.I believe I made it very clear that once you remove these additional parts, and reduce the components to only what is needed for the function of the flagellum, only then can you begin to work out the advantageous pathway of selection and assembly, not prior to that --that is the argument from irreducible complexity, and in this specific case, the bacterial flagellum. In my original statement I said that it's 'impossible to assemble the machine step by step through natural selection, the parts would have to pre-adapt in order to fit with each other and perform their function.' which is to say that there is no way for natural selection to build this apparatus. What you are doing is removing parts not necessary for the function of the apparatus and claim that this somehow proves natural selection could have made it through an unknown advantageous path. I find this extremely unsatisfying and view it as a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument itself.Then you accuse me of making contradictions, but you yourself said that 'not only are motility proteins NOT extra parts, they are necessary for the complexity (function) of the flagellum.' and prior to that, you stated that '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 is a somehow obvious contradiction that you may not have noticed.So then, you say that my analogy of an airplane is not reasonable. How not? The very act of dropping sticks from an airplane makes the action random, the same way it's in the primordial soup that you speak of. If you STILL disagree with the analogy, we can say that there is a robot with a quantum randomizer that is dropping sticks from an airplane, does that help you any? Then about amino acids being paragraphs, I disagree. If amino acids are words, proteins are paragraphs and cells are books -- if you make amino acids into paragraphs, then books are proteins not cells, which makes cells libraries. So then you move on to left and right handed amino acids, and say that both were produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. However, there are some things which you miss (1) these were completely random sequences with zero capability to produce functional proteins (2) these were both left and right handed, when life requires only left handed (3) these were under laboratory conditions (excluding oxygen[ozone] which in turn leaves the UV rays to destroy the compound) and other things, in other words, unrealistic for nature. But my point is, even if the experiment were entirely reproducing what nature would have done, it has STILL not come anywhere close to one single protein, not to mention life.Your conclusion number one is false, as clearly explained in the beginning of this post and other posts. Your conclusion number two is not clear, first you state the removal of motility proteins only results in reduced functionality, then you say that they are completely necessary, which one do you stand by? If you say the first option, then these were extra parts. If you say the 2nd option, then you have successfully removed a part necessary for the function of the apparatus, congratulations, what follows? Your third conclusion is only a good confirmation that you need to study more and learn about the basics of biology, like amino acids, proteins and cells. What they are made of and so on, because creating a few random amino acids is one hundred percent worthless and not even comparable to life.