The Origin of Life...

[sarmido]

I'll believe in evolution ...if I would see a book of with millions of pages of precius informations inside created by a tornado in a forest ...... (DNA)

[n8style]

A little explanation would be nice

[n8style]

A little explanation would be nice

[Guoldisney]

4.5 BILLION years of natural selection guided by thousands of worldwide natural disasters versus 7 days and a bored man with a beard.

[aierce]

"Do you believe a complex organism like human being come out of no where?" Why do creationists keep saying stuff like this. Don't make up things about evolution. It is NOT random. reproduction+mutation might be random, but Natural Selection is the driving force

[benthemiester]

I don't like to play fast and loose with words, or use phrases like, no doubt, nor do I make any claim that scientist have done things that simply aren't true, like creating a BF from forty different parts. I think this an anathema to science, when things are repeated and parroted that simply aren't true. Its bad enough we have Miller distorting and writing about a subject he says is not science. This is a contradiction since he is attempting to falsify IC through scientific means.

[benthemiester]

By the way Punchee I never said that..... "the flagellum could not be assembled because a conceivable sub-pieces of it had no function"

You said that, not me. This actually has nothing to do with the definition of IC. You can thank Miller for his contribution to scientific illiteracy on this topic, since everyone seems to be parroting his distortions of the definition of IC and his propositions against it..

[benthemiester]

Miler said that some of the same proteins that made up a part of the bacterial flagellum could be used to make another part, which is no big news. Your under the misconception that Miller some how took a piece off the bacterial flagellum and made a syringe. This is not the case. He was speaking of it from a theoretical perspective not from anything done in the lab in this particular instance.

[madzyzome]

There are only about 40 or so proteins making it up. It would be a waste of time and a huge pain in the ass to actually physically remove those proteins to see if it will work. There's no point. With SEM imaging it can be determined that the type III secretion system is a subset of the flagellum. This is not "theoretical". This is a fact.

[puncheex]

@benthemiester: IC (Behe) said that the flagellum could not be assembled because a conceivable sub-pieces of it had no function. Miller showed that there is at least one subunit of the flagellum had such a function. So the system forms at least one in a series of steps from cell wall to the flagellum. That is not a complete destruction of this IC point, but it is a major hole. Biology now needs to show how the sec system developed, and how it went on to the flagellum - a work in progress.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex When Miller can demonstrate his argument, then it will be a hole to IC, as of now, its only a proposed argument. He also has to demonstrate it to be ancestral to the BF which is not what many believe to be the case, in fact the BF was supposed to have come on the scene earlier on, according to many. Micro biologist have not built a bacterial flagellum from scratch. This is not true. You also should not confuse natural selection with guided intelligent processes.

[puncheex]

@benthemiester: No. It doesn't need a demonstration. The Type III Secretory System has been a well known cellular structure for years. It is not Miller (who is only a reporter of other's work in this instance) who has to do anything except point out that the basic tenet of IC is violated in this case. Creating a flagellum through evolution, such as the citrate metabolism that was evolved in Lenski's lab would be great, but not necessary to convince most biologists.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex (Milton Saier, "Evolution of bacterial type III protein secretion systems," Trends in Microbiology, Vol 12 (3) pg. 113-15, March, 2004.)

This article cites the BF as being ancestral to the type lll sec. system. If you can cite an example of it being demonstrated to being the other way around, and in a science journal, I would be interested in knowing.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex Do you really believe 40 proteins or so, equal forty steps? Personally, I don't know, I don't think anyone does, however I think that might be a an over-simplistic estimate. I think Encode and other current data suggest far more under layers of cellular complexity, and a move towards a more non centric gene view. Many like Stuart Newman, Pigliucci and other major players in Evo Devo are proposing an extended synthesis modeled on epigenetic factors, plasticity, & self organizing models.

[puncheex]

@benthemiester: I personally don't know what it would take. I'm an engineer, not a microbio. But a detailed refutation of IC for the flagellum would seem to require that a pathway from the individual proteins into the whole structure, each step of which is a structure that is positively selected for, be established. There would be a lot of repetition, as many proteins are identical. No doubt a lot of that already exists.

[shayneby]

How far some people will go to deny intelligent Design. This is madness

[madzyzome]

What predictions does intelligent design make? Is it even a theory? Does it explain anything or is it born from lack of explanation? Is there any positive evidence for it, i.e. not using arguments like "it's too complicated to come about naturally therefore god... I mean the intelligent designer did it."?

[shayneby]

'Origin of Species'

Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin and other scientists at the time, thought the cell was some simple glob of protoplasm or some piece of jello and wasn't hard to explain at all.

THEY WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT A BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM, WERE THEY?

[madzyzome]

But the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. This has been proven by biologist Ken Miller. He eve showed that the idea or irreducible complexity is actually just an opinion based on lack of imagination and artificial constraints.

[shayneby]

Now, Darwin said in his Origin of Species

Quote:

" If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would ABSOLUTELY break down".

The flagellum is a perfect example.

This kills Darwinian evolution right there.

And Darwin himself said it. Why are you still holding on to it?

[madzyzome]

First Darwins theory is 150 years old and has been modified so it doesn't resemble his theory anymore. Second You made argument from authority. I couldn't care less what Darwin said. He was on to something. Third I just told you the flagellum can and has evolved through successive steps. It's not irreducibly complex. Why are YOU still holding on to it?

[shayneby]

No matter how Ken Miller and others try to twist it round to suit their view point the flagellum had never been anything else. Remove one part. It wouldn't work.

BUT the problem is not about chatching mice. It is that, it has always been a mouse trap with all its parts. Even if it could be a two part mouse trap, it has always been two part. It never improved.

That is the issue.

We know that the flagellum is rendered functionless if one part is absent.

[madzyzome]

Ken Miller twisted nothing he showed clear as day how the flagellum is still functional with missing parts as a syringe to deliver proteins. Reduce it even more and it becomes a selective secretion mechanism and reduce it even more it becomes a regular secretion mechanism.

That's the problem with your conclusion. Yes you are right it no longer functions as a flagellum when you remove any of it's parts, but you are ignoring other perfectly good uses it can have other than a flagellum.

[benthemiester]

Ken miller never showed how it could be functional as a bacterial flagellum which is what Behe has clearly stated over and over. No one argues that protiens and genes are not interchangeable. That's a whole different animal. Placticity has nothing to do with irreducible complexity even on the level of protiens. The bottom up aproach doesnt work.

[madzyzome]

Behe artificially constrained his definition. When Ken Miller says it is reducible Behe says "Oh yeah? How?" and Miller says "If you remove these certain proteins it functions as a molecular syringe" then Behe's counter argument is "Aha! But it's not a flagellum! It has to have the same function". Right there is where Behe turned into a little child. He changed the rules and doesn't give a reason. Why does it have to have the same function, there is no logic behind it except to save face.

[benthemiester]

It was Miller who changed the goal post. What your saying doesn't make any sense. They tried to do the same thing with his analogy to a mouse trap. I don't think you quite understand what IC is. He was speaking of the bacterial flagellum as complete system not a syringe. Behe and every one else knows that. proteins are not exclusive to a particular function. He said the bacterial flagellum was irreducible complex. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.

[madzyzome]

How did Ken Miller change any goal post if he wasn't defending any position. He was attacking the shear stupidity of IC. I know what he means when he speaks of the flagellum on the whole by restricting a reduced version only to a flagellum he is moving the goal post. Ken Miller showed in clear evolutionary steps how the flagellum evolved, the key is it didn't start out as a flagellum. It's science and it works. IC is not science just a negative argument.

[benthemiester]

I'm not sure were your getting this stuff , including the colorful language. I know Mike and have read most of his work. I know who Miller is and have read most of his critiques. your repeating something you have heard with out really understanding it. There are only 20 to 25 thousand proteins in the human body they are interchangeable. This has been known for decades. I have tried to explain it to you and you don't seem to get the point.

[madzyzome]

You are off topic and you are ignoring what I have been saying. The topic is irreducible complexity. I never once argued about the interchangeability of proteins. You are manufacturing an argument. The interchangeability of proteins is not contested, please stop bringing it up.

[benthemiester]

Tell me what are views concerning the type 3 secretory system in general and how it relates to this subject?

[madzyzome]

The type 3 secretory system is all that is left when you remove almost all of the proteins from the flagellum's structure. The flagellum evolved from the type III secretion system or the flagellum and the type III secretion system evolved from a more ancient organelle.

[puncheex]

@madzyzome: The IC argument is that every step in the assembly of a structure, from start to finish, must have a function that can be selected for; i.e., each step must lead to positively useful functionality so that natural selection will allow it to happen. With a 40-protein structure, then at least 40 functional steps must be demonstrated to get to the flagellum, and each step must result in a positively functional structure from which to build on the next. Microbiologists have done that.

[shayneby]

It had always had all its parts without which it wouldn't do the job it does. one missing part will render it functionless that's why he used a mouse trap to explain what he meant.

Now Miller and others in an effort to discredit Behe, come up with various "plausible" mouse traps with parts missing, still catching mice.

They're are right. But their model will always be that model and was never anything else, thus irreducible and complex.

[madzyzome]

Either way a mouse trap does not reproduce with modification so it's not a good analogy to a life form.

[shayneby]

Without the tools to observe the machinery of the cell and long before the idea of irreducable complexity,Charles Darwin offered a way to test his own theory.

In Origin of Species he wrote:

Quote: " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would ABSOLUTELY break down".

[madzyzome]

Nothing has ever been shown that could not have evolved. There are many ways to falsify evolution. None have EVER been found.

[shayneby]

Behe observed that, the ingenuity and irreducible complexity of the flagellum machine could not have come into being by Darwinian means.

He explained that the machine did not grow to become what it is today.

[madzyzome]

Behe says it can't be done. Scientists love challenges. After he made the flagellum argument hundreds descended on it and discovered myriads of uses of flagellum structure with missing parts. Ironically they are not missing at all. A more apt explanation is a flagellum is a syringe with more parts added to it turning it from a syringe to a primitive propeller. Would you say now it's expandabley complex?

[shayneby]

You can believe people you listen to such as Ken Miller. But find out what Michael Behe says about their claims. All unfounded. No Proof. Just beating about the bush.

We both know that there is not a flagellulm with a missing part which does the same job. well if you think there is one. Please show me. I will be pleased if you could direct me to one. otherwise you are still talking about "PLAUSIBLE" missing parts just like Miller. Is that what you base you facts on. Plausible?

[madzyzome]

"We both know that there is not a flagellulm [sic] with a missing part which does the same job. well if you think there is one. Please show me."

There is none, I just said there wasn't. Please read what I write. I said when certain parts are missing it acts like a syringe like in the bubonic plague. So is a flagellum a syringe with extra parts or is a syringe a flagellum with missing parts. Irreducible complexity or expandable complexity?

BTW intelligent design is not science but religion.

[madzyzome]

Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system and the flagellum, which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald. If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways—Behe has remarked that such plausible pathways would defeat his argument.

[madzyzome]

You say Millers arguments are "PLAUSABLE"? Well so is Behe's. Behe's own words say there is no plausible way these things could have evolved but every single one has been refuted with sometimes several plausible evolutionary pathways. Just the existence of these plausible scenarios renders the concept of irreducible complexity invalid and indeed tantamount to, as one science writer put it, "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

[puncheex]

@shayneby: Nope, science.

[Caboose25897]

that looks painful o.o

[GoodScienceForYou]

Evodelusionsts, seem to liked fantasy cartoons. Ever notice that. The put crap like this on the screen and tell people "Its real! I tell you. It's real!"

[gcnengineer]

Oh I dunno, I once watched a show on The Discovery Planet called "Alien Planet". A 2 hour cartoon which went into detail about how life "might" evlove on a different world. (I thought the same thing you just did when I saw that)

[gregrutz]

If you know anything about science you would know this is not about how life began. It is a short clip about flagellan.

[GoodScienceForYou]

It is a GD cartoon, fantasy.

[gregrutz]

Some people are so stupid it has to be shown to them in a way they understand.

What is your idea of fantasy, something you can't see or prove, like allah.

[TheHumanistAlliance]

Science? Relying on outliers and the ends of ONE experiment? Give me a break.

[sukkha911]

Man made by both evolution and creationism.

[LoricaLady]

There is no evidence that life ever did or ever could come from inorganic material.

[TheHumanistAlliance]

Yes there is. Take a science class. I like how all of the stupid creationists are always asking for evolutionists to explain things to them. Its not our fault you didn't pay attention in high school because you thought it was cute to write scripture on your science test instead of the answers. You want information, read a fucking book.

[LoricaLady]

Same ol' same ol' evoution fans' responses. Not addressing the Qs. posed by the vid. Name calling, and(sometimes) obscenties instead of intelligently and scientifically dealing with the facts presented. I hope you will learn to think scientifically and outside the box where truth is. I don't have time for verbally abusive people however. Bye!

[madzyzome]

Who is verbally abusing you and calling you obscenities? What questions does this video ask? It's only 15 seconds long and has no audio or explanation?

[LoricaLady]

I used the reply button under TheHumanist Alliance - who wrote the afore mentioned obscenity - but unfortunately it did not show up under that post. My bad on the "Qs" in the vid. I got several responses from evolutionists today on posts I'd previously made & I got mixed up on which this one was. Oops.

[madzyzome]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Of course life can't come from inorganic material!!! Life is organic therefore it came from organic material. Who (besides Kent Hovind who thinks scientists believe it came from rocks) thinks it came from inorganic materials anyway?

[LoricaLady]

Let's see now, where did that primal pond theory come from? A creationist? What about Miller's experiments with inorganic matter (which never produced anything but a few left handed amino acids & life needs the right handed kind) trying to prove life came from it. You need to know what evoutionists, starting with Darwin have been, and are saying. I'm sorry friend but you don't really understand evolutionists theories the way you think you do. Please quit lauging & satrt learning. Bye!

[madzyzome]

Wow you've got so much wrong. Where do I begin? The Miller-Ulrey experiments used methane which IS organic. The experiments produced a racemic mixture (both left and right handed) and life is made of left handed amino acids. But your biggest mistake is your complete lack of knowledge of biological evolution since it has nothing to do with the origin of life only the diversity of life. So I'll keep laughing because you have literally been wrong on every point you don't even know what evolution is

[Benlucky13]

the miller experiment created amino acids (which are organic matter). according to you, you can creat life from organic material, so there you go.

[madzyzome]

According to me? The life on this earth is all organic, therefore you need organic molecules to create it. I don't understand what you are getting at.

[Benlucky13]

ehem... the miller experiment CREATED ORGANIC MATTER.

[madzyzome]

An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon.

Methane is CH4. It contains carbon therefor it's organic.

[Benlucky13]

methane is not organic. amino acids are. we CREATED AMINO ACIDS IN THE MILLER EXPERIMENT. the original ingredients were inorganic, but combined FORMED ORGANIC MATTER.

[madzyzome]

The IUPAC (International Union on Pure and Applied Chemistry) defines methane as organic.

YOU LOSE, LOSER!!!

[Benlucky13]

fine, methanes organic. that disproved your original statement that there was not any organic matter to create life from.

[madzyzome]

I didn't say that. Please quote me. Even if I did say it, it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in calling methane in-organic. Wow! You are a poor sport.

[martyshack717]

Psalm 14:1

[nicee555]

thats fucked up

[Bobomb37]

I am fairly certain that life did not start in this way. Evolution has little or no ground to stand on when it comes to origins. Life needs specific instructions in the form of DNA. If DNA is not present to begin with, how can it possibly just appear? Even in cells already containing DNA, the only way to get it is to copy it.

[ZoroXP]

the origin of life is though to have started with RNA, which is generated spontaneously in nature (by crystalisation) and its generation is accelarated by natural clay. there is accomulating evidence about how vesicles, RNA, DNA and simple proteins can be generated in black smokers and other specific places and how they support, speed and stabilize eachother.

[gigamugged]

Design is just things plus time. In this case imagine the primordial earth full of precursor chemicals that life ended up using. We know this primordial soup existed because experiments can replicate it given simple chemicals, heat and electricity, all of which are still present on earth today. Imagine millions of years, and the nearly infinite number of interactions between all those chemicals. Life was bound to happen by accident somewhere in the universe, and is probably very common.

[Cothius]

Why did the origin of life, a presumed simple process involving only a few natural chemicals and some other ancillary conditions (temp, electricity), stop after speciation? Why aren't there pools of creation detectable, locatable and existing anywhere these conditions and materials are found? This process should be easily recognizable and measurable. Simply put, life being originated should be a continuing process co-existing with organisms that evolved out of this original process.

[gigamugged]

It undoubtedly is going on, right now. The odds of it happening on the same planet twice are very low however (remember this is a very very big universe we live in, and it's being doing its thing for a very long time). Even if a new form of life did emerge ab initio in parallel with our ongoing ecosystem, the chance that a primitive form could out-compete forms which have been evolving for billions of years is also very low.

[HeNRyKus]

this is how a bacterial flagellum grows up

[ZoroXP]

yes, at least an artistic impression...

[princeofexcess]

man invented God...

man discovered evolution

anyways what do you think evolution is?

what does evolution say?

do you even know

[Lupiswolf]

I don't gets it

[Vlaew]

Guys, why fight creationism? Evolution fights for itself. The regular creationist tend to breed with other creationists, judging by their spelling, it's true.

[HippieKnight]

all this video showed was a process of a bacterial flagellum being built; this had nothing to do with the origin of life.

FAIL

[filifili87]

True historical facts like Noah's ark...........hahahhhahahahaha­aaahahahhhaha.

[monkyseemonkykill]

true historical facts???!!! lololololololololol its a collection of unbelievable stories put together into 1 book. if it was proven to be true every 1 would believe it. however it has not been proven therefore it is not a fact. evolution over millions of years is much more believable than ne of the stories from the bible.

[tupapi2323]

i'm kinda bad with evolution... how did everything start?? some one plz...

[magick205]

That's called abiogenesis. A couple of different models exist as to how this may have happened. Evolution is the discussion of how those new organisms changed as they reproduced to better suit their environment.

[goodshorts]

abiogenesis contradicts the Law of biogenesis. that is why evolution is FAIL. it is suprising indeed to realize how many universal laws evolution must contradict.

[magick205]

My dear, the only fail here is your obvious misunderstanding of what is being discussed. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. The appearance of high levels of complexity in systems is well documented and understood.

[WolYou]

tupapi2323: There is plenty of material if you just google abiogenesis. It's hard to say how something started after it has started. But probably a number of theories about abiogenesis are all valid at the same time. Life could have evolved from organic matter that covers interstellar dust and formed meteors, radiation, or both or lots of other possibilities. But thats not so important. The evolution is the centerpiece. Otherwise only organic matter would be there and no life at all.

[goodshorts]

i can't believe that you believe that

[tubewatch59]

As far as abiogenesis goes. Lot's of studies being done. And nobody has anything beyond pretty wild speculation. In another time and place, It would be quite respectable to say that the idea that life formed from non-life by natural means is nonsense. But nowadays it is considered non-scientific to say that. Even though that is what the evidence actually shows! Scientists want to tidy up this hole in their knowledge, but the more research they shovel in, the bigger this bottomless hole gets.

[goodshorts]

finally someone with some sense.

[tubewatch59]

I think as much research as possible should be thrown at this problem. I predict that our ignorance of how life could have started by natural means, isn't just saying we don't know enough yet. It's pointing to the idea that life really cannot form naturally. That life was designed! Many must reject that out of hand, but the ignorance remains. Fact is they have to assert that life began naturally by using faith, whether they admit that or not. For now, abiogenesis is just a quasireligious belief!

[DrewGuy88]

how does a video about a flagellum forming lead to god?

[ZoroXP]

its doesn't lead to god. as creating something even more complex that you cant even see can not be regarded as an answer to something complex that you are not (yet) able to explain.

[Archaikos]

Does not exist... (Formation does not, Flagellum do). 1/5 for a lame video. BTW Evolution is just as stupid as Islam. I have every right to say that.

[GBart]

"BTW Evolution is just as stupid as Islam."

You have every right to say that, and I have every right to say that Jesus rode a pink unicorn and had anal sex with Augustus Caesar, but that doesn't make either statement true.

[OHFUFI]

true true

[whitelotus2006]

i find it hard to believe in God because of bad experiences i have & seeing all poverty & injustice . but after studying about plant & animal cells, i cant deny an existence of a designer whose knowledge which i cant comprehend , do you believe a complex organism like human being come out of no where? , we have complex electric ,optical chemical reactions etc happening in our body without our knowledge

[GBart]

"i find it hard to believe in God because of bad experiences"

This is hardly sufficient. There are much better reasons.

"i cant deny an existence of a designer"

"do you believe...come out of no where?"

Perfect! Do you believe a complex designer came out of nowhere?

And to answer your question, no. I think the evidence is pretty clear that we evolved out of simple self-replicating molecules like every other life form. Life is complex, yes, but not impossible to explain.

[GBart]

*could have* come out of nowhere

[ZoroXP]

The problem with your reasoning is that the Designer itself should be even more complex and why can you believe that such "even more complex Designer" is "being come out of no where?". There are many examples of complexities, such as diseases and natural disasters, that we contributed to the designer for which we have now strong, solid and reliable scientific explanation.

[otaku3d]

@whitelotus2006 maybe, maybe, but that does not proves that bible is true. Bible is SHIT written by shitty-archaic-sandman but a God/designer idea its a cool hypothesis.

[jonesgerard]

@whitelotus2006 Poverty and injustice are usually caused by humans.

[whitelotus2006]

....can you pls guide me to a right book or a video so that i can have a better knowledge how it all happened? i want to get a real prespective how can learned people be an atheist....i am not supporting any relegion

[GBart]

DonExodus2, thunderf00t, cdk007, potholer54, AronRa... thats a pretty good collection of Youtubers with videos explaining evolution pretty well. You could also read Richard Dawkins - Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, etc.

[Savaga]

It looks like the formation of a flagellum. I'm not sure why it doesn't tell you this or what this has to do with the origin of life or abiogenesis, but a beautiful simulation nonetheless.

[NoFrostHell]

it means

"do you really think that such mechanism came into existence on its own"

lol

[moonlightbateman]

I will translate...No one knows for sure.

[Specialist01xbl]

Not exactly sure what I just looked at........

[kurtleics]

people have a right to be confused, its not like you learn this is school!

[civisromae]

Um...what exactly did I just see?

[animalfreak147]

i love how all of the comments showng that this video is stupid have -4 or -3 on them. It will probably happen to this comment to.

[3dMelon]

Nice video on the building on flagella, However an explanation would be appopriate.

[VBH8888]

ok so what, i grew a tail too its called my dick and i grew it being born,

[Gilda716]

this must be the construction of a flagella :)

[Patamarak]

What the fuck is this supposed to tell me?

[ahamagi]

am i watching self-replicating DNA? :-\

[dancingnature]

a bacterial flagellum self assembling

[roidroid]

...where the hell am i?!