it is homologous to each other, that's in favour of evolution, no? That one flagellum protein along the evolutionary path duplicated and the second one became something slightly different? They haven't found the precursor to both these proteins, which is the same thing as the others they haven't found the precursor for. So yea, my response would be similar.
No of course it's not enough to say it evolved and that's it, if science were a religion that would be sufficient, but it isn't. You need to do research on it. Which I would assume people are doing. My training is in science, not in politics and frankly I give no thoughts to ID/creation, it's so hogwash i can't even. It's really just fairytales with the benefit of mass delusion.
I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure what solution you're seeking? I've explained why the hypothesis still stands. So a new one is not required, but if one were to present itself then that one needs research to get support from evidence. New evidence doesn't just show up to support the hypothesis we want it to, research has to be done. And this hypothesis may ultimately be falsified and it'll just be another day in science
.
No of course it's not enough to say it evolved and that's it, if science were a religion that would be sufficient, but it isn't. You need to do research on it. Which I would assume people are doing. My training is in science, not in politics and frankly I give no thoughts to ID/creation, it's so hogwash i can't even. It's really just fairytales with the benefit of mass delusion.
I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure what solution you're seeking? I've explained why the hypothesis still stands. So a new one is not required, but if one were to present itself then that one needs research to get support from evidence. New evidence doesn't just show up to support the hypothesis we want it to, research has to be done. And this hypothesis may ultimately be falsified and it'll just be another day in science
.
