Texas Board Passes Social Studies Curriculum

[kokonut]

Why do you have to overemphasize on the word flagella? I mean there's already one word for it. You just took it out and wrote the full definition, hopefully you weren't trying to confuse people.

Besides, flagellum are not measured in nanometers. They can be usually identified in micrometers (μm) with a flagella stain for most generic species.

It's like oversimplyfying it by calling a car "this is an object that is capable of movement consisting of a drivetrain, gears, transmission and a driveshaft"

I do know my cellular biology, thanks though.

I said "nano-engine"...the engine itself that drives that shaft. The "nano-engine" is indeed measured in nanometers.

Let me help.

Engineering picture of flagellum's nano-engine and drive shaft with nanometers scale measurement numbers.
The engine, "gears," shaft, etc.. are measured in nanometers. See the numbers in this drawing? The bacterium itself, sure, at the microscale.

It is without a doubt a cellular nano-engine in this case that uses biochemical reactions using proteins to drive the shaft creating locomotion.

 

[naisho]

Uh, ok man. I don't know what you are on but you got to stop toking on it.
I don't even know if you have ever seriously taken microbiology courses but it is crystal black-and-white clear to me the way you describe the fuctions of cellular motility and movement is that of someone with little or no relevant background.

It's not the time to play armchair microbiologists, the image you provided is a snap up of E. coli's flagella. If you want to get "koko-technical" they are not called "engines", "gears", "shaft", they are labeled on your picture for you. The filament, the hook and body as the major structures.

You are breaking down the flagella into ultrastructures by calling it "nano-engine", while I am still calling it a flagella because.. that's what it is. The flagella can be measured in micrometers and usually on it's full length, is within single or double digit micrometers ESPECIALLY for E. coli.

You don't tell someone "Hey come take a look the engine, steering wheel, drive shaft, axels and wheels I bought" (unless you honestly do), you just simply say "Come look at the car I bought".

Finally, generic species of native E. coli have only 1 flagella. Even in that picture, it's only one. To label it as "flagellum" implies there is more than one, which is false.

 

[AndyE9503]

How did everything start?

No one knows. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying. Remember belief and knowing are two different things. Every theory out there is just that. I have yet to see any proof from any side.

 

[naisho]

Lastly of all I don't even get why kokonut needs to bring the rendering of a flagella into the focus of this whole thread. Makes little sense to even talk about it.

Unless somehow he wants to emphasize that prokaryotes and eukaryotes are capable of movement (which like, they are capable) it doesn't even contribute to the discussion in the slightest.

It's like a tangent into quantum physics while everyone is still discussing grassroots.

 

[kokonut]

Uh, ok man. I don't know what you are on but you got to stop toking on it.
I don't even know if you have ever seriously taken microbiology courses but it is crystal black-and-white clear to me the way you describe the fuctions of cellular motility and movement is that of someone with little or no relevant background.

It's not the time to play armchair microbiologists, the image you provided is a snap up of E. coli's flagella. If you want to get "koko-technical" they are not called "engines", "gears", "shaft", they are labeled on your picture for you. The filament, the hook and body as the major structures.

You are breaking down the flagella into ultrastructures by calling it "nano-engine", while I am still calling it a flagella because.. that's what it is. The flagella can be measured in micrometers and usually on it's full length, is within single or double digit micrometers ESPECIALLY for E. coli.

You don't tell someone "Hey come take a look the engine, steering wheel, drive shaft, axels and wheels I bought" (unless you honestly do), you just simply say "Come look at the car I bought".

Finally, generic species of native E. coli have only 1 flagella. Even in that picture, it's only one. To label it as "flagellum" implies there is more than one, which is false.

Flagella in of itself is measured in micrometer, which can be longer than the bacterium itself, of several micrometers long. That I'm not denying. Yet, the "nano-engine" with it's individual parts, so to speak, are at the nano-scale. The shaft or rod is not the engine, either.

I speak of "gears," "shaft," "engine" and such because it mimics very similar to mechanical engines we know of at the macroscale. I use them because it helps people identify the similarities in this "nano-engine" in the simplest of terms here for people to understand conceptually. Don't kid yourself about the additional mumbo jumbo which is why pictures and video were used to help understand the engine/motor concept which behaves mechanically very similar in our macroscale size world.

On the other hand, a rotary motor that drives Salmonella and E. coli bacteria has a diameter of 30 nm. This motor is rotating at approximately 20,000 rpm, consumes about 10-16 W and exhibits an energy conversion efficiency close to 100% [86]. A continuum description for this nano-engine is not equipped to account for predominant surface effects and if applied, it would result in unrealistically stff behavior.

http://eng.rpi.edu/jfish/MultiphysicsSurvey.pdf

All it takes is one example.

Now, having said that. How was this marvelous nano-engine designed in the first place?

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Lastly of all I don't even get why kokonut needs to bring the rendering of a flagella into the focus of this whole thread. Makes little sense to even talk about it.

Unless somehow he wants to emphasize that prokaryotes and eukaryotes are capable of movement (which like, they are capable) it doesn't even contribute to the discussion in the slightest.

It's like a tangent into quantum physics while everyone is still discussing grassroots.

You do realize the video was meant to be anti-evolution?

I remember seeing it, but I fell asleep when the guy was talking about why it's all wrong.

Sorry, but I have no interest in molecular biology... or microbiology.

 

[kokonut]

No one knows. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying. Remember belief and knowing are two different things. Every theory out there is just that. I have yet to see any proof from any side.

I look at nature and the complexites of it and the world around us from the subatomic size and its quantum mechanics to the size of the universe to make my conclusion.

 

[kokonut]

You do realize the video was meant to be anti-evolution?

I remember seeing it, but I fell asleep when the guy was talking about why it's all wrong.

Sorry, but I have no interest in molecular biology... or microbiology.

That wasn't the point. The point in this was how was it designed and put together in the first place? If you look at the nanoscale up close, you'd probably would think there was a mechanic nearby who put this one together.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Your point is?

 

[kokonut]

How was that designed?

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

So how was it designed?

 

[naisho]

You do realize the video was meant to be anti-evolution?

I remember seeing it, but I fell asleep when the guy was talking about why it's all wrong.

Sorry, but I have no interest in molecular biology... or microbiology.

Haha. I didn't watch it. Good to know that it's an anti-evolution video, definitely tinfoil hat area.

I love to read up on cell biology and the area/field of microbiology, it's one of my fields. To see it being misused and for propaganda definitely rubs me the wrong way.

 

[kokonut]

Haha. I didn't watch it. Good to know that it's an anti-evolution video, definitely tinfoil hat area.

I love to read up on cell biology and the area/field of microbiology, it's one of my fields. To see it being misused and for propaganda definitely rubs me the wrong way.

There's no propaganda here. I'm asking a salient question here. How was it designed? The architecture is obviously there. How was it designed? If you don't know exactly, then say so!

 

[kokonut]

So how was it designed?

That was my question to you. And to anybody else who may have an answer to that.

 

[naisho]

Well, to be fair you made it sound like you were the all-inclusive expert on the subject, but I noticed the amateur packaging in your material displayed. That's why I questioned your motives.

 

[kokonut]

Well, to be fair you made it sound like you were the all-inclusive expert on the subject, but I noticed the amateur packaging in your material displayed. That's why I questioned your motives.

I have my own conclusion. But I'm asking you. Why are you avoiding my question?

 

[naisho]

I'm not avoiding your question. I don't have physical material dating 5 billion years ago and I can't draw conclusions or hypothesis based on them with my limited scope in the creationism area.
Most if not all of the time my focus is only right now on the future and moving forward, such as what do the functions do and properties of them. It is not focusing on their past, as species are always changing into the future.

You'll have to ask seasoned biologists who have racked up many years in order to get a concrete hypothesis. They will probably more than likely associate Endosymbiotic theory along with it though, as that's how reality seems to fit the missing puzzles.

 

[kokonut]

I'm not avoiding your question. I don't have physical material dating 5 billion years ago and I can't draw conclusions or hypothesis based on them with my limited scope in the creationism area.
Most if not all of the time my focus is only right now on the future and moving forward, such as what do the functions do and properties of them. It is not focusing on their past, as species are always changing into the future.

You'll have to ask seasoned biologists who have racked up many years in order to get a concrete hypothesis. They will probably more than likely associate Endosymbiotic theory along with it though, as that's how reality seems to fit the missing puzzles.

You get what you can around here. I'm asking you to look at what we have available from the subatomic/quantum scale to the macro, the physics behind them, the math, the statistics and such. From the depths of our ocean, to the surface, our atmosphere, to our moon, the solar system, our galaxy and the universe. Look at the precision required for everything to work properly. Why is that? How was that designed? You can based your concluson on those things that we already know for sure without question. Use the process of inductive reasoning to come up with a possible answer. Scientists do this all the time by using facts and observations to come to a general conclusion.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Still doesn't answer how everything started.

 

[kokonut]

It's YOUR answer based on YOUR observations and facts to come to a conclusion. This is what scientists do all the time. It's an answer but is it a plausible, acceptable answer?