Humans are the most intelligent things in the world, and we've never produced anything close to a self replicating, complex life form including irreducibly complex RNA DNA converters with intrinsic ends, how does dumb blind random nature do this? when all the material surrounding us do not have these qualities. I think It takes a whole hell of a lot more faith to believe that arose by chance than to say an intelligence created it
How nature does this is well understood by scientists engaged in study of the natural world. It's just common sense to pay attention to people that study the subject.
If it takes intelligence to make something complex, then you have an infinite regress: what intelligent being created that intelligence? Then what produced the creator of the creator? Creationism doesn't explain anything - it just moves the problemdown the line.
@proudfootz What are these scientific explanations to the information in DNA, and the outlandish complexity of the cell? And how do these explanations originate themselves without infinite regress? The whole notion of an intelligence is that it would exist eternally, I'm actually a curious agnostic so im open to anything. but I'm certainly not advocating creationism, My position is that the universe is better explained by an intelligent cause than naturalistic processes.
The idea is that an intelligent being is complex, and if complexity needs an intelligent being to create it, then every creator needs a creator.
Evolution is cumulative, so there is no 'infinite' regress. The fossil record shows how life developed from simple forms through many forms until modern plants and animals came on the scene. If all these complex forms require creators then there are creators on the scene all the time to replace the extinct forms with new ones.
@proudfootz How does science being cumulative imply that it does not infinitely regress? how do you suppose the universe started? If a naturalistic process caused it, that itself would imply infinite regression, unless you believe the universe began without cause?
How is a omnipotent spiritual being complex? It seems a lot more simple than the complexity of life on earth. Do you really believe that the first cell on this planet assembled by chance and evolved into a human? That is ludicrous.
The 'infinite regress' comes in when you need something just as complicated to explain something that is complicated - like an intelligent being is needed to 'create' an intelligent being.
Evolution explains the fossil record that life began as simple forms, eventually evolving the cell, then multi-cellular forms, then life which we recognize as plants and animals. Then those plants and animals evolved over millions of years before they resemble modern forms.
We don't even know there is such a thing as an omnipotent spiritual being, or how something non-material can 'create' matter. But a being that is capable of thinking, planning, executing a plan, creating something from nothing, etc - seems pretty complex to me.
It *is* simple to say 'it was magic' but that doesn't count as a meaningful or useful *explanation*.
What would be ludicrous is to abandon science which gives us real knowledge about the world.
(part 1/2) the Book titled "Tangible Proofs For the Existence of God" by Samuel Vila, in which author says: "When different parties or various particular individuals converge in common agreement to produce a certain effect, or what is, when an action is produced by an simultaneous effect coming from different individuals or instruments, we say that there is a relationship or agreement, wherever it is observed ... there is incontrovertible evidence of knowledge, intent and art”
(“2/2”)copyright 1961, by Samuel Vila, Publishing House: CLIE, P.O, Box 348, Grand Rapids 1, Michigan USA. First Edition: 1945, Second Edition 1954, Third Edition 1961. 197 p.p.. The quote is on 45 page.
Irreducible Complexity isn’t an original argument of Michael Behe.
..and long before Behe came along alleged 'irreducibly complex' structures were explained:
"Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory. Thus... so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible.
Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939."
@proudfootz : Ok, I get it. However, as far as I know nobody has could originate or modify one of these structures successfully for over sixty years, it means, without lost of original function. I mean: experimental evidence support creationist viewpoint.
look everyone its himler!!!!! lol.... well atleast his nazi views of ID are consistent lol.. maybe he thinks ID is a jewish thing lol....what a bunch of bunk.. what is he talking about God for. ID has no driection as a science for God but it certainly has philosophical projections. if thats where the science takes us then so be it. stop being such fruits about it.
@proudfootz please can you give me a specific teaching of id that is bunk? is it bunk simply because its not evolution? why exactly is it bunk? and dont site, the lack of scientific papers. its a new science and outs forth a good theory or alternative to complex systems which evolution cannot account for as of yet except in theory. please give me a specific, because i hear alot of gum flapping and not alot of specific points. Behe adressed the mouse trap argument that you put forth already
@proudfootz wow what a leap in thought... religious evolutionists such as yourself are often also empiricists by world view... which according to philosophy is illogical and completley undermines their ability to know things fully. science is not just empiricism but also philosophy of life and also hence has a belief... i believe you just showed your belief. biological evolution still cannot account for transitional forms. homology just doesnt cut it either.
I'm neither religious nor an evolutionist. Yes, I do agree that empiricusm has shown itself to be the best way to investigate our world, as the alternative - revelation - has a very poor track record in according to reality.
You claim evolution cannot account for the transitional forms found in the natural world - but it does. It is actually creationism which is put to shame by the discoveries of science.
@proudfootz creationism is a very broad term, that has many camps of thought. but as i said i have yet to find a transitional fossil science or discovery that is not bathed in assumptions and predetermined values that are imposed on the evidence. homology is a classic example of this. its the same assumption that says that creatures are designed therefore we should see similarities in the engineers plan.. its the exact same assumption and isnt good science.
Use of homology in science was pioneered by Linnaeus, a creationist - so it can hardly be used as evidence of 'evolutionist' assumptions.
Homolgy is confirmed by other lines of evidence. DNA confirms that men are more closely related to monkeys than they are to mice, exactly as evolutionary theory predicts.
Evolution by natural selection is a theory that grew out of the evidence - it is not something imposed upon the evidence.
@proudfootz natural selection is actually a creationist view. heaving said that, scientists at one time were creationist because the view was that if God created this world then natural law and patterns should be evident thats what we see. Yes we are close in Dna to monkeys but do you realize that the information that is missiong to make us exact is enough to fill something like 15 000 books of information... we are far from being monkeys.. we are also close to a tabbacco plant by that logic
If "natural selection is actually a creationist view" then such a view is not an 'evolutionist' assumption either.
Yes, DNA shows common descent of all life on Earth from a common ancestor. But we're more closely related to chimps than any plant. Just as evolution predicts.
@proudfootz WOW YOU STILL dont get the concept you know whats a good example of irreducible complexity the human body. the mousetrap will function if you mangle it the way you did but even if you do it will not work better then the way it was originally conceived you had to alter it physically to prove your point instead of simply removing a component. the human body is irreducible complexity remove or alter any component and it will not function as it was ORIGINALLY designed.that was the point
There's no evidence anything on biology was 'designed'.
For example early land vertabrates had simple fin-like feet. Some descendants evolved those forelimbs into hooves like horses, wings like bats, or hands like monkeys. Each is pretty efficient but all clearly modifications of the original.
So the fossil record shows no complexity that can't come from ancestors through modification over time.
@therealistone2003 You'd get on better if you considered that a god might have formed life on earth by a process of evolution. Try reading the excellent books by Richard Dawkins, "The ancestor's tale", " The blind watchmaker", " Climbing mount improbable"; they give a whole lot of interesting ideas about natural history. Dawkins observes that the entity by which life formed shows complete indifference to the suffering or death of animals or even the extinction of species.
@zytigon no thank you i dont need that pseudo science in my life. if you believe in evolution fine you have that right. they are just that a whole bunch of interesting ideas. i rather listen to sam harris about naturalism although i do not agree with his beliefs or non beliefs. i can confidently say he is more intellectual than richard dawkins and willing to put his reputation on the line to defend his beliefs. im doing just fine with my belief in god sir.
All you could have possibly demonstrated is that Behe should have used a different analogy (however, even if your mousetraps would work, you would need to provide a Darwinian path from 3:36 to 1:43). It is irrelevant to Darwinism whether the mousetrap is irreducibly complex; it was designed.
What you need to demonstrate to actually refute Behe is to show that the BIOLOGICAL systems he presents are reducible. You and John McDonald have merely dreamed up distraction.
Yes, Behe was silly to have chosen the mousetrap - it's rather like 'begging the question' since we know mousetraps are designed and living things are not.
The biological examples have been shown to be reducible: talkorigins has many articles on Behe's misguided notions.
Well, you're not exactly a rocket scientist. The next time you need to catch a mouse, put up a camera and use your "stringy wire" so that we can all see it in action. If that doesn't work(which, of course, it should since it is a "reasonable" theory) then put the coil back in it. In fact, keep going until you have something that actually catches mice. Of course, since this needs to be random, don't use any intellect when assembling or placing the trap..........good luck.
Unfortunately this doesn't prove anything for atheism or for intelligent design either way. It could still be claimed atoms and electrons were designed as machines and evolution took off successfully only because the machinery was oiled and in place ready to go.
Anthropomorphication of the universe, no matter how well intended will not cause the universe to become a concious thing. No matter how much you love the universe and want to think of it as concious - there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is a sentient being. I have a deep apreciation for the wonder in the universe too, but approach it with questions rather than simply assume I have the answers.
You, that tiny thing in the Universe, with your little conscience, are telling me that the Universe doesn't have a conscience, and you're calling that a magical ghost while I'm talking about the Unification of our Universe and his purpose,
I see order in geometry, amazing pattern, ever wonder why the snowflakes are hexagon and all different, I have a rough idea, I bet you don't. There is amazing stuff out there dude, you're missing a lot. Everything happen for a reason.
No reason to believe the universe has a conscience - unless you think there's evidence it feels guilty over all the terrible things that happen on Earth?
Sure there is order in nature - that is what science studies, and that is how the fact of evolution was discovered.
@proudfootz He does not mean that this earth has a moral conscience or that it feels guilty for anything. The science I enjoy is the logical and mathematically sound type. To hold the position that there is mind and order out of disorder and that by chance, time, and pre-existent matter, this mindless matter became mindlessly mindful of itself-ignorant to logic. To believe that there is a mind and a designer behind the brilliant mechanism(S) is logical.
I appreciate the help. But I'm not aware of any laws of logic which require a designer for consciousness to become possible or for order to come from natural laws.
Now we do know why snowflakes are like that - oops, you fell in your own argument's hole, the one that says that since something is inexplaianble, it must be god. What about the rest? Well, we will have to think about the fact that we can discover that by investigating, not accepting something that passed through our mind.
Magical ghost, so little knowledge in theology., and yet you seem to enjoy yourself in theories, the example was made to illustrate that you need an objective to create something, so why nature would even know that this could help something in anyway.
Would the nature be intelligent? or do you prefer to think you are more intelligent than your creator ( in your case... nature)
@proudfootz Are you saying that we can see and hear, but it wasn't intended to be exactly like that? Dude, hearing is so complex, so complex that we don't even fully understand it, there is still more than one theory about the subject and you are telling me that all the things wasn't meant to work together, you have more faith than I do.
When you use words like 'intended' or 'meant to' you're assuming that something other than what science reveals was somehow manipulating things.
Presumably whatever space aliens or whatever you think might have 'designed' all the different species of life on Earth is just as complex or even more so.
So all that does is push the question into an infinite regress- who designed these complex designers? Then who designed the designers of the designers?
There's plenty of evidence from science that evolution is fully capable of explaining what we find in nature.
Therefore Occam's Razor stipulates that since designers aren't necessary, they should be cut out of any theory regarding the many things which evolved during the billions of years the univers has existed.
@proudfootz@proudfootz I don't think you continue a conversation like that for no reason, it's because you believe really hard in that stuff, but unconsciously you know you should keep learning, so you get into a fight.
May I suggest you go have a little conversation about macro evolution
with your evolutionist friends and than when you'll find out that the basis of that theory is as absurd as religion come back and we'll talk some more.
I am always interested in learning - that's why science is so interesting because through these methods many wonderful advances in knowledge and technology have come about: witness the computer and the internet and the electricity that powers it.
I seriously doubt any scientific theory could be as absurd as religious tales of talking snakes and donkeys and men who could command the sun and moon to 'stop' in the sky.
@proudfootz , I just don't believe things like that happen randomly for no reason,
Who designed the designer?, what created the Big Bang?, a lot of clueless questions when you don't think about the fact that we are located in a time space continuum, meaning that time is just a perception, and that we are in fact limited by our perception unless you realize YOU ARE LIMITED, and than, much more interresting stuff will come to you.
@proudfootz I don't have to do it it's called micro evolution and that is also saying that there is a maximum you can improve a specie, you know the Angus beef, you just can't make it better, same thing than "the triple A" by the way. How much do you wanna know, ever wonder why they only show you drawing of the evolution process? Macro evolution is only based on the beliefs that species can become another species and I just don't buy that, and you do obviously.
There's no logical or scientific reason why the same processes that are called micro-evolution cannot produce two or more distinct species from a parent stock.
It is observed in nature - look up 'ring species' for example.
Not one of these comments brings up the point - the mouse trap is INTENDED to kill mice. James Henry Atkinson built the mouse trap to kill mice. He built it in an irreducible fashion. He did not add or delete parts. The end result is that the mouse trap works. This video plays around the edges of irreducibility and avoids the issue.
And every life form, organ, etc provided for the argument of IC has been proven to be anything but IC.
It's true though, mouse traps don't reproduce and are not prone to natural selection. I see a lot of people decimated the argument though simply because it was so stupid.
If you want a final argument, then here; argument from ignorance does not prove god.
Think this mousetrap example is missing the point because it illustrates the components still being used as a mouse trap. In the case of the bacterial flagellum motor it's been shown that the protiens used to construct the motor would still have served other useful functions in the cell - the motor need not have been a motor in a previous step. Also, I think IC depends on a misinterpretation of darwin that all useless elements are rejected. Don't we have left over and redundant genes?
Of course creationists are unable to cope with the notion that a structure once used for one purpose could be commadeered to serve an entirely different purpose - a mouth once used for eating might later be used as a means of communication; a fin used for locomotion might be adapted to tool use, etc.
There are certainly 'left over' genes which might prove useful in the future.
let's remove the ridulous wire & replace it with a foot. just step on the mouse. i ain't afraid of no mouse. (yes, i know. no such word as "ain't). because just like evolutionist, you'll redirect the whole argument of something totally irrelevant
catch a mouse with your ridiculous wire. (what a joke) film it, post it & then we'll discuss. make sure you can also film a mouse being trapped in 2 different locations. which, btw, would mean you would have to move the whole floor of the first location since the ridiculous wire would be attached to the first locations floor.
If you want to expose Michael Behe as a fraud prove it to us by using a real mouse trap with the parts removed and catching a mouse. Not some crappy drawing.
how do you not see this you fuckhead. grow some hair.
how can you think that evolution is the answer to everything. neither is creationism so don't come back and say neither can GOD. fucking hell think for a moment
I tried these devices after watching this vid. the trap stopped working after the first step. I treid the other steps with different materials and the trap continued to fail. epic-evolutionist-fail.
Miller and you miss Behe's point - to make the familiar mousetrap, not just a device to kill mice. Why not carry your argument all the way to just whacking the mouse with a paddle? Or, if you insist on an automated device, a camouflaged oneway trapdoor.
The alterations you propose involve deliberate design. Behe's point stands.
evolutionary mechanisms? Ok which ones? I do like the termonology you use though. "could" is the correct term, because its all speculative. I think I know what you are talking about. Homology is the biggest piece of evidence out there in my opinion. Its still only homology though
I think you misunderstand what irreducible complexity is as defined by Behe. If you remove any of the parts of the bacterial flagellum, it ceases to function! That is irreducible complexity! Behe doesn't argue against evolution, but against random mutation and natural selection as being adequate to understanding how you get from an amoeba to an elephant! The point is that it 'appears" to be designed
I think you should make a different argument: the concept of irreducible complexity is sound; but so far nothing has been proven to be irreducibly complex. This way you won't fall into the "trap" of unfalsifiability (pun intended).
Well, if you establish that things that appear designed (moustrap) can be shown to be candidates for incremental evolution, and if the same argument can be extended to all complex organism, then you have just made evolution unfalsifiable, since it automatically explains everything. I don't think you realize that you've hurt your cause more than helped it.
The point of irreducable compexity is that each step to the final product must be 1) incremental and 2) beneficial. You clearly just do not understand the argument (like Miller). Tellingly, you state that the trap does not "need" bait..and therefore you can remove the bait. I don't think you probably realise how this mental-leap shows how far behind the intellectual 8 ball you are here.
It's easy to say you can "remove" the bait, but that's not the question..the question is, how do you ADD it?
Proudfootz..that's quite brilliant, but all you have done is suggest that there are simpler ways of killing a mouse than the design of mousetrap we currently have. You might as well say a rock could fall on a mouse and kill it...that would be simplier. The problem is it does nothing to show that your simplier model can evolve to the complex model by a stepwise process, each individual step of which is beneficial and incremental.
proudfootz you need to draw on some eyebrows or something dude... You look as if you've been bathed in depilatory cream... But anyway I liked your video...
So invalid. Actually it makes you look stupid. Have you tried killing mice with what you have made? that is not science. That has not been tested. You can only kill a mice in your imagination with your socalled various mouse traps.
No! it is you attacking Behe with a strawman. That's the problem.
Behe used the mousetrap model to explain irreducible complexity. Instead of you explaining how a flagellum can become simplified and still perform the same function, you cop out by attacking his model. That's exactly what Ken Miller has been doing for years NEVER explaining how a flagellum was ever simplier than what it is today. This as we both know cannot be explained. Only in the mind of maybe Miller with "PLAUSIBLE" methods.
not bad i was expecting to see the alternate uses of the mousetrap components to show the functionality of them under different conditions but this proves the same point from a different perspective
Why on earth should a simplified flagellum need to perform the same function? In the scientific literature there are now at least two variations upon the flagellum that have been discovered that have fewer parts and yet function perfectly well, albeit performing a different task.
It actually doesn't have to perform the same function - creationists invented that condition when they realized it was too easy to prove evolution unless they moved the goalpost.
it still has not been proving that the flagellum or any other organism for that matter devoloped through the so called darwinian evloutionary process. All speculations, frauds, fantasies and lies to support the dying theory.
Evolution is now on LIFE SUPPORT.
All types of lies and fabrications are used to support the theory. Take away all the lies and assumptions, we are left with what? SCIENCE. LOL
"it still has not been proving that the flagellum or any other organism for that matter devoloped through the so called darwinian evloutionary process."
Tell me, what kind of evidence would it take for you to accept natural selection?
I suspect the only way many creationists would accept any scientific principle is if it were written 3000 years ago by an ignorant goatherd after a bad dream.
OK, once you have decided what sort of evidence you would need to accept evolution, tell me what level of evidence you needed before you accepted the existence of a god or gods.
In the beginning GOD created. H make everything. It is because of him that we have our being not because of nothing. Let's start there. That's the premiss of my evidence. That alone make more sense than your belief system evolutionism.
Sorry, but evolution has been proven by real science, using the same methods that enable people to use their computers, get on the internet, and blather on about how stupid scientists are.
Of course your arguments from CAPS LOCK are as vaid as they ever were - which is not at all.
You'll find science is still going strong while the ideas of religious fanatics still contribute nothing to humanity but confusion, division, and hatred.
Natural selection selects. That's what natural selection does. Not evolution. You cannot get a completely different species of animal from another animal (for example).
Micro evolution is what is called natural selection. Variations within a species. Different types but all from thesame kind. Macro-evolution does not exist. That's just fantasy. It has never been observed to happen. Maybe millions and billions of years ago as evolutionists want us to believe. That's not science.
Sha just curius, you don't believe in evolution. So you think its God who created diseases like Tuberculosis? Leprosy? Bubonic plague? etc...
Such plagues were mentioned in the bible as curses, and never had any cure for them for centuries. Those who tried were accused of practicing witchcraft & were burned to death.
Things changed when science took over, and FYI, evolutionary theory is being applied to find cures for modern plagues, and it works much better than exorcism and faith healing.
See, this is the problem with so called atheists, you never study the bible. Just hear say or google verses and passages to support your claims. WEAK! You have to know why/ how death, disease and came about before you can make these statements. That's the problem with alot of you so called atheists. You haven't done your research. Find out how and you will answer these questions yourself and then maybe then ;you will see how evolution is just fairytale for adults and not science.
Your post is a perfect example of Poe's Law: no matter how absurd or crude the satire it is practically indistinguishable from what those bible-thumpers actually say.
People like you assert in throwing other christian denominations along with agnostics in the fence of the athiest, simple because they are not creationists like you. You might actually find an oddity among athiest that most of them were christians and actually know what the bible says from cover to cover. Chances are, you have not even read the bible yourself.
wake up, in fairy tales, people are not killed once swallowed by an animal, and Jonah lived for 3 days before being spitted out alive
"Natural selection selects. That's what natural selection does. Not evolution"
Micro/macro there is no evidence that there is any distinction between the two, but maybe you can be the fist person to theorize an actual mechanism and test for it instead of asserting its existence without a shred of supporting evidence.
But for the sake of you pedantry I shall rephrase the question,
What evidence would you accept to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection causes macroevolution?
I believe in evolution, but behe has a point...the theory of natural selection can not explain something that is made up of several parts working together for one function, now the idea that each part had it's own function before and they just came together out of the blue--does not show natural selection, it just shows something that came together from chance alone...natural selection by itself is more than chance occurrences, its gradual change where each successive addition increases survival
i wish more scientists were open to the idea that natural selection isn't the be all and end all, scientists should be open to the idea that darwin's observations from the 1800s although spot on for many things in explaining evolution has alot of holes and gaps in it, which is fine since that usually occurs with new advances in science...never is anything in science absolute or dogma, it seems like proponents of darwinism aren't willing to accept criticisms...seems more like dogma than science
Alright, but what about the paradigma's, don't they contain unproven pre-assumptions?
Interesting point you make there in your last sentence... I mean 'chance' and 'natural selection' aren't those contradictions? Justlike 'random' natural selection which is also a contradiction in itself...
Well evolution is a SLIPERY word. What do you really mean by you believe in evolution?
Do you believe that minor changes occur within organisms as a result of natural SELECTION(micro evolution) or that a species gives rise to completely different species (macro evolution). That is the evolution you cannot believe in. LOL
Come-on Proudfootz, admit it. This whole post from the Proudfootz handle to the the Mr. Baldy video is a college prank to see how gullible people really are. I mean it's funny & all that but peeps are actually believing that the non working models are for real and workable. LOL! Good joke, but enough is a freekin' 'nough.
Yah, yah, yah! And a thorn will catch a mouse if it falls on it. Explain how raw, undirected energy [from the sun] might combine with chance processes to do anything but cause decay, rust, or otherwise deterioration. I doubt it's your intent but you are proving creationism with evolutions logic of undirected energy. When you die, your body decomposes. Is this natural evidence of GREATER order rising from LESSER order? Thats just plain silly even in your case! Come on, admit it's a prank.
There is order in the universe because of simple physical and chemical laws. No magic from gods or other spirits is needed.
Evolution is evidenced by a long fossil record (which contradicts creationist myths) showing life-forms from the distant past come to resemble modern forms over time.
Have you ever noticed that when the brain gets so full of big ideas the little details get lost? For instance; how In little more than one lifetime, the world has "progressed" from horse and buggy to spacecraft. The question begs; how did people remain SO STUPID for so many MILLLLIONS of YEARS? LOL!
Drawings are one thing, I would like to see this guy build these traps and see how well they sell and how many law suits due to injuries he would encounter.
This is a joke at best that in no way proved anything except some people are desperate. Anyone who thinks this disproves Behe's argument is retarded to put it nicely.
cdk007 has a video "The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity" which shows how irreducible complexity does not necessarily involve 'design' as creationists insist.
I saw the flagellum one. There is actually a huge issue with it, he removes 40 proteins and shows it with a function. If he is correct why didnt he add the other 40 protiens 1 by 1 and tell us each of the next 40 functions it must have had as it evolved? Essentially what this guy did was trick his audience into thinking that he answered the question, but ultimately he didnt show how the first 10 proteins worked on their own or the next 40 after the initial illustrated phase.
I think your twisting this. This guy simply selectively removed (i.e nothing random about it) 40 proteins, and yes it had a use. The fact is that if he was to add those 40 back 1 by 1 will it have 40 different uses?? The theory still stands really because if you remove 10, 15 or 20 proteins it has no functions. Its like removing the propeller from a boat and leaving a hole and saying "now it works as a sinking device to transport water into the boat" the guy hasnt got a clue.
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
So if after removing even *more* parts than one we still have a functioning system, that system wasn't 'irreducibly complex' in the 1st place.
But you're hero didnt remove 1 part. He removed most of it and then gloryfied the remaining hole. Basically, if one component of the "propulsion" system is removed it will no longer function as a PROPULSION system. Read the definition again and you will see that this is was what he was saying. Cant you see that the system you have left is not a propulsion device??? its not hard to see that this guy is producing data to fool the unscientific masses.
Obviously a fin that becomes a foot no longer functions as a fin.
AFAICT Behe's notion of 'irreducible complexity' hasn't contributed anything to science - so clearly Behe is the one attempting to 'fool the unscientific masses'.
You're attempting to dodge the matter here, i asked what the other 40 functions were as the "functional" hole becomes a propulsion system? I believe there is nothing that can be found or else im sure you would have shown me by now. Unfortunately for Behe the "scientific masses" dont want to hear scientific arguments, that might open the eyes of the public. They have worked hard on this theory and wont have a thinking person spoil it.
face it DNA is a molecule structure ffs
samsonisdope 11 months ago
Humans are the most intelligent things in the world, and we've never produced anything close to a self replicating, complex life form including irreducibly complex RNA DNA converters with intrinsic ends, how does dumb blind random nature do this? when all the material surrounding us do not have these qualities. I think It takes a whole hell of a lot more faith to believe that arose by chance than to say an intelligence created it
hairybalooncabbage 11 months ago
@hairybalooncabbage
How nature does this is well understood by scientists engaged in study of the natural world. It's just common sense to pay attention to people that study the subject.
If it takes intelligence to make something complex, then you have an infinite regress: what intelligent being created that intelligence? Then what produced the creator of the creator? Creationism doesn't explain anything - it just moves the problemdown the line.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz What are these scientific explanations to the information in DNA, and the outlandish complexity of the cell? And how do these explanations originate themselves without infinite regress? The whole notion of an intelligence is that it would exist eternally, I'm actually a curious agnostic so im open to anything. but I'm certainly not advocating creationism, My position is that the universe is better explained by an intelligent cause than naturalistic processes.
hairybalooncabbage 11 months ago
@hairybalooncabbage
The idea is that an intelligent being is complex, and if complexity needs an intelligent being to create it, then every creator needs a creator.
Evolution is cumulative, so there is no 'infinite' regress. The fossil record shows how life developed from simple forms through many forms until modern plants and animals came on the scene. If all these complex forms require creators then there are creators on the scene all the time to replace the extinct forms with new ones.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz How does science being cumulative imply that it does not infinitely regress? how do you suppose the universe started? If a naturalistic process caused it, that itself would imply infinite regression, unless you believe the universe began without cause?
How is a omnipotent spiritual being complex? It seems a lot more simple than the complexity of life on earth. Do you really believe that the first cell on this planet assembled by chance and evolved into a human? That is ludicrous.
hairybalooncabbage 11 months ago
@hairybalooncabbage
The 'infinite regress' comes in when you need something just as complicated to explain something that is complicated - like an intelligent being is needed to 'create' an intelligent being.
Evolution explains the fossil record that life began as simple forms, eventually evolving the cell, then multi-cellular forms, then life which we recognize as plants and animals. Then those plants and animals evolved over millions of years before they resemble modern forms.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@hairybalooncabbage
We don't even know there is such a thing as an omnipotent spiritual being, or how something non-material can 'create' matter. But a being that is capable of thinking, planning, executing a plan, creating something from nothing, etc - seems pretty complex to me.
It *is* simple to say 'it was magic' but that doesn't count as a meaningful or useful *explanation*.
What would be ludicrous is to abandon science which gives us real knowledge about the world.
proudfootz 11 months ago
(part 1/2) the Book titled "Tangible Proofs For the Existence of God" by Samuel Vila, in which author says: "When different parties or various particular individuals converge in common agreement to produce a certain effect, or what is, when an action is produced by an simultaneous effect coming from different individuals or instruments, we say that there is a relationship or agreement, wherever it is observed ... there is incontrovertible evidence of knowledge, intent and art”
Leivinn20 1 year ago
(“2/2”)copyright 1961, by Samuel Vila, Publishing House: CLIE, P.O, Box 348, Grand Rapids 1, Michigan USA. First Edition: 1945, Second Edition 1954, Third Edition 1961. 197 p.p.. The quote is on 45 page.
Irreducible Complexity isn’t an original argument of Michael Behe.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20
..and long before Behe came along alleged 'irreducibly complex' structures were explained:
"Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory. Thus... so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible.
Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939."
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz : Ok, I get it. However, as far as I know nobody has could originate or modify one of these structures successfully for over sixty years, it means, without lost of original function. I mean: experimental evidence support creationist viewpoint.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20
Which structures are you speaking about?
Evolution has been observed: for example the ability of some creatures to digest nylon - a man-made fiber.
proudfootz 1 year ago
look everyone its himler!!!!! lol.... well atleast his nazi views of ID are consistent lol.. maybe he thinks ID is a jewish thing lol....what a bunch of bunk.. what is he talking about God for. ID has no driection as a science for God but it certainly has philosophical projections. if thats where the science takes us then so be it. stop being such fruits about it.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
ID is bunk, on that we can all agree.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz please can you give me a specific teaching of id that is bunk? is it bunk simply because its not evolution? why exactly is it bunk? and dont site, the lack of scientific papers. its a new science and outs forth a good theory or alternative to complex systems which evolution cannot account for as of yet except in theory. please give me a specific, because i hear alot of gum flapping and not alot of specific points. Behe adressed the mouse trap argument that you put forth already
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
No biological system has been shown to be created. None. It's a 'theory' which doesn't explain anything.
Since there is no evidence that anything has been created, there is no need to imagine a 'intelligent designer' in nature either.
There is nothing in biology which evolution cannot account for.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz wow what a leap in thought... religious evolutionists such as yourself are often also empiricists by world view... which according to philosophy is illogical and completley undermines their ability to know things fully. science is not just empiricism but also philosophy of life and also hence has a belief... i believe you just showed your belief. biological evolution still cannot account for transitional forms. homology just doesnt cut it either.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
I'm neither religious nor an evolutionist. Yes, I do agree that empiricusm has shown itself to be the best way to investigate our world, as the alternative - revelation - has a very poor track record in according to reality.
You claim evolution cannot account for the transitional forms found in the natural world - but it does. It is actually creationism which is put to shame by the discoveries of science.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz creationism is a very broad term, that has many camps of thought. but as i said i have yet to find a transitional fossil science or discovery that is not bathed in assumptions and predetermined values that are imposed on the evidence. homology is a classic example of this. its the same assumption that says that creatures are designed therefore we should see similarities in the engineers plan.. its the exact same assumption and isnt good science.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Use of homology in science was pioneered by Linnaeus, a creationist - so it can hardly be used as evidence of 'evolutionist' assumptions.
Homolgy is confirmed by other lines of evidence. DNA confirms that men are more closely related to monkeys than they are to mice, exactly as evolutionary theory predicts.
Evolution by natural selection is a theory that grew out of the evidence - it is not something imposed upon the evidence.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz natural selection is actually a creationist view. heaving said that, scientists at one time were creationist because the view was that if God created this world then natural law and patterns should be evident thats what we see. Yes we are close in Dna to monkeys but do you realize that the information that is missiong to make us exact is enough to fill something like 15 000 books of information... we are far from being monkeys.. we are also close to a tabbacco plant by that logic
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
If "natural selection is actually a creationist view" then such a view is not an 'evolutionist' assumption either.
Yes, DNA shows common descent of all life on Earth from a common ancestor. But we're more closely related to chimps than any plant. Just as evolution predicts.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz WOW YOU STILL dont get the concept you know whats a good example of irreducible complexity the human body. the mousetrap will function if you mangle it the way you did but even if you do it will not work better then the way it was originally conceived you had to alter it physically to prove your point instead of simply removing a component. the human body is irreducible complexity remove or alter any component and it will not function as it was ORIGINALLY designed.that was the point
therealistone2003 9 months ago
@therealistone2003
There's no evidence anything on biology was 'designed'.
For example early land vertabrates had simple fin-like feet. Some descendants evolved those forelimbs into hooves like horses, wings like bats, or hands like monkeys. Each is pretty efficient but all clearly modifications of the original.
So the fossil record shows no complexity that can't come from ancestors through modification over time.
proudfootz 9 months ago
@therealistone2003 You'd get on better if you considered that a god might have formed life on earth by a process of evolution. Try reading the excellent books by Richard Dawkins, "The ancestor's tale", " The blind watchmaker", " Climbing mount improbable"; they give a whole lot of interesting ideas about natural history. Dawkins observes that the entity by which life formed shows complete indifference to the suffering or death of animals or even the extinction of species.
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon no thank you i dont need that pseudo science in my life. if you believe in evolution fine you have that right. they are just that a whole bunch of interesting ideas. i rather listen to sam harris about naturalism although i do not agree with his beliefs or non beliefs. i can confidently say he is more intellectual than richard dawkins and willing to put his reputation on the line to defend his beliefs. im doing just fine with my belief in god sir.
therealistone2003 4 months ago
@therealistone2003
But it's 'intelligent design' which is the pseudo-science. It explains nothing and predicts nothing.
Evolution is science. It actually does explain empirical facts and makes successful predictions.
proudfootz 4 months ago
Proudfootz,
All you could have possibly demonstrated is that Behe should have used a different analogy (however, even if your mousetraps would work, you would need to provide a Darwinian path from 3:36 to 1:43). It is irrelevant to Darwinism whether the mousetrap is irreducibly complex; it was designed.
What you need to demonstrate to actually refute Behe is to show that the BIOLOGICAL systems he presents are reducible. You and John McDonald have merely dreamed up distraction.
MissingChurchill 1 year ago
@MissingChurchill
Yes, Behe was silly to have chosen the mousetrap - it's rather like 'begging the question' since we know mousetraps are designed and living things are not.
The biological examples have been shown to be reducible: talkorigins has many articles on Behe's misguided notions.
proudfootz 1 year ago
FAIL
Those early "mousetraps" would have starved.
rubbersole79 1 year ago
@rubbersole79
So you claim.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Well, you're not exactly a rocket scientist. The next time you need to catch a mouse, put up a camera and use your "stringy wire" so that we can all see it in action. If that doesn't work(which, of course, it should since it is a "reasonable" theory) then put the coil back in it. In fact, keep going until you have something that actually catches mice. Of course, since this needs to be random, don't use any intellect when assembling or placing the trap..........good luck.
bilgerburg 1 year ago
@bilgerburg
Neither of us needs to be a rocket scientist.
Behe's blunder is that his chosen example allegedly could not be simplified.
He was wrong.
proudfootz 1 year ago
An excellent example of Irreducible EggHeadcity
Oh, be nice, (slaps own hand)
Straight8S 1 year ago
Unfortunately this doesn't prove anything for atheism or for intelligent design either way. It could still be claimed atoms and electrons were designed as machines and evolution took off successfully only because the machinery was oiled and in place ready to go.
HugNow 1 year ago
Anthropomorphication of the universe, no matter how well intended will not cause the universe to become a concious thing. No matter how much you love the universe and want to think of it as concious - there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is a sentient being. I have a deep apreciation for the wonder in the universe too, but approach it with questions rather than simply assume I have the answers.
Ciiircle 1 year ago
You, that tiny thing in the Universe, with your little conscience, are telling me that the Universe doesn't have a conscience, and you're calling that a magical ghost while I'm talking about the Unification of our Universe and his purpose,
I see order in geometry, amazing pattern, ever wonder why the snowflakes are hexagon and all different, I have a rough idea, I bet you don't. There is amazing stuff out there dude, you're missing a lot. Everything happen for a reason.
ferrisbueller9000 1 year ago
@ferrisbueller9000
No reason to believe the universe has a conscience - unless you think there's evidence it feels guilty over all the terrible things that happen on Earth?
Sure there is order in nature - that is what science studies, and that is how the fact of evolution was discovered.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz He does not mean that this earth has a moral conscience or that it feels guilty for anything. The science I enjoy is the logical and mathematically sound type. To hold the position that there is mind and order out of disorder and that by chance, time, and pre-existent matter, this mindless matter became mindlessly mindful of itself-ignorant to logic. To believe that there is a mind and a designer behind the brilliant mechanism(S) is logical.
TBass234 1 year ago
@TBass234
I appreciate the help. But I'm not aware of any laws of logic which require a designer for consciousness to become possible or for order to come from natural laws.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@ferrisbueller9000
Now we do know why snowflakes are like that - oops, you fell in your own argument's hole, the one that says that since something is inexplaianble, it must be god. What about the rest? Well, we will have to think about the fact that we can discover that by investigating, not accepting something that passed through our mind.
justforflag2 1 year ago
Magical ghost, so little knowledge in theology., and yet you seem to enjoy yourself in theories, the example was made to illustrate that you need an objective to create something, so why nature would even know that this could help something in anyway.
Would the nature be intelligent? or do you prefer to think you are more intelligent than your creator ( in your case... nature)
ferrisbueller9000 1 year ago
@ferrisbueller9000
Since living things weren't created (they evolved) the notion of an 'objective' or 'goal' is irrelevant.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Are you saying that we can see and hear, but it wasn't intended to be exactly like that? Dude, hearing is so complex, so complex that we don't even fully understand it, there is still more than one theory about the subject and you are telling me that all the things wasn't meant to work together, you have more faith than I do.
ferrisbueller9000 1 year ago
@ferrisbueller9000
When you use words like 'intended' or 'meant to' you're assuming that something other than what science reveals was somehow manipulating things.
Presumably whatever space aliens or whatever you think might have 'designed' all the different species of life on Earth is just as complex or even more so.
So all that does is push the question into an infinite regress- who designed these complex designers? Then who designed the designers of the designers?
proudfootz 1 year ago
There's plenty of evidence from science that evolution is fully capable of explaining what we find in nature.
Therefore Occam's Razor stipulates that since designers aren't necessary, they should be cut out of any theory regarding the many things which evolved during the billions of years the univers has existed.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz @proudfootz I don't think you continue a conversation like that for no reason, it's because you believe really hard in that stuff, but unconsciously you know you should keep learning, so you get into a fight.
May I suggest you go have a little conversation about macro evolution
with your evolutionist friends and than when you'll find out that the basis of that theory is as absurd as religion come back and we'll talk some more.
ferrisbueller9000 1 year ago
@ferrisbueller9000
I am always interested in learning - that's why science is so interesting because through these methods many wonderful advances in knowledge and technology have come about: witness the computer and the internet and the electricity that powers it.
I seriously doubt any scientific theory could be as absurd as religious tales of talking snakes and donkeys and men who could command the sun and moon to 'stop' in the sky.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz , I just don't believe things like that happen randomly for no reason,
Who designed the designer?, what created the Big Bang?, a lot of clueless questions when you don't think about the fact that we are located in a time space continuum, meaning that time is just a perception, and that we are in fact limited by our perception unless you realize YOU ARE LIMITED, and than, much more interresting stuff will come to you.
ferrisbueller9000 1 year ago
@ferrisbueller9000
The 'argument from incredulity' doesn't advance knowledge much.
You haven't demonstrated that a 'reason' is required for evolutionary processes that we observe through scientific methods.
Of course we are all limited. There is no such thing as an infinity or an infinite being.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I don't have to do it it's called micro evolution and that is also saying that there is a maximum you can improve a specie, you know the Angus beef, you just can't make it better, same thing than "the triple A" by the way. How much do you wanna know, ever wonder why they only show you drawing of the evolution process? Macro evolution is only based on the beliefs that species can become another species and I just don't buy that, and you do obviously.
ferrisbueller9000 1 year ago
@ferrisbueller9000
There's no logical or scientific reason why the same processes that are called micro-evolution cannot produce two or more distinct species from a parent stock.
It is observed in nature - look up 'ring species' for example.
proudfootz 1 year ago
This argument sounds familiar did you get it from somewhere?
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik
Yes, the illustrations are from a source cited in the video information.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Oops, lol, should have spotted that.
michalchik 1 year ago
Not one of these comments brings up the point - the mouse trap is INTENDED to kill mice. James Henry Atkinson built the mouse trap to kill mice. He built it in an irreducible fashion. He did not add or delete parts. The end result is that the mouse trap works. This video plays around the edges of irreducibility and avoids the issue.
TheSupervideotube 2 years ago
@TheSupervideotube
Many posters have brought up the issue that the parts could be adapted from items not intended to catch or kill mice.
proudfootz 2 years ago
@TheSupervideotube
And every life form, organ, etc provided for the argument of IC has been proven to be anything but IC.
It's true though, mouse traps don't reproduce and are not prone to natural selection. I see a lot of people decimated the argument though simply because it was so stupid.
If you want a final argument, then here; argument from ignorance does not prove god.
Have fun
yubarraboo 1 year ago
interesting........where did you get the wire???
anolmec 2 years ago
Think this mousetrap example is missing the point because it illustrates the components still being used as a mouse trap. In the case of the bacterial flagellum motor it's been shown that the protiens used to construct the motor would still have served other useful functions in the cell - the motor need not have been a motor in a previous step. Also, I think IC depends on a misinterpretation of darwin that all useless elements are rejected. Don't we have left over and redundant genes?
Ciiircle 2 years ago
@Ciiircle
Of course creationists are unable to cope with the notion that a structure once used for one purpose could be commadeered to serve an entirely different purpose - a mouth once used for eating might later be used as a means of communication; a fin used for locomotion might be adapted to tool use, etc.
There are certainly 'left over' genes which might prove useful in the future.
proudfootz 2 years ago
the concept of putting 2 words together like irreducable and complexity...is on its self bullshit....they make words up...
they dont even speak normal languige..thats their trick..
religious people even lie when they take a breath..
robot014 2 years ago
Well, if you believe that irreducible and complexity are difficult words, how are you going to remember the names of, say, transitional forms?
Irreducible? Remember reduce, and make its antonym, adding ir-.
Complexity? Think of "complex", but make it a noun.
justforflag2 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA!!!
keep going, why stop there.
let's remove the ridulous wire & replace it with a foot. just step on the mouse. i ain't afraid of no mouse. (yes, i know. no such word as "ain't). because just like evolutionist, you'll redirect the whole argument of something totally irrelevant
dustydirt 2 years ago
@dustydirt
Behe's the one that chose the mousetrap - so if it's irrelevant it ain't my fault.
proudfootz 2 years ago
catch a mouse with your ridiculous wire. (what a joke) film it, post it & then we'll discuss. make sure you can also film a mouse being trapped in 2 different locations. which, btw, would mean you would have to move the whole floor of the first location since the ridiculous wire would be attached to the first locations floor.
WHAT A FOOL!!!
dustydirt 2 years ago
@dustydirt
Another Creationist misses the point...
proudfootz 2 years ago
If you want to expose Michael Behe as a fraud prove it to us by using a real mouse trap with the parts removed and catching a mouse. Not some crappy drawing.
skipt07 2 years ago
skip -
No need for me to prove Behe is a fraud.
That much should be obvious to anyone.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Your mouse trap won't catch a shit
Webwabi 2 years ago
They may not catch shit, but the may catch mice!
proudfootz 2 years ago
they dont say evolution is impossible wtf
just that evolution can't explain everything.
how do you not see this you fuckhead. grow some hair.
how can you think that evolution is the answer to everything. neither is creationism so don't come back and say neither can GOD. fucking hell think for a moment
maidaid 2 years ago
Maid -
No need for you to get upset.
Behe's notion of 'irreducible complexity' explains nothing except Behe's ignorance.
All this was described in evolutionary terms decades ago.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Boldy you talk bullshit, your thinking to hard to understand a simple analogy.
ukcool2 2 years ago
@ukcool2
I always strive to boldly go where others fear to tread.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I tried these devices after watching this vid. the trap stopped working after the first step. I treid the other steps with different materials and the trap continued to fail. epic-evolutionist-fail.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
mouse trap is a perfect example intelegent design and another word god disigned the Mouse trap!
samgee2007 2 years ago
Miller and you miss Behe's point - to make the familiar mousetrap, not just a device to kill mice. Why not carry your argument all the way to just whacking the mouse with a paddle? Or, if you insist on an automated device, a camouflaged oneway trapdoor.
The alterations you propose involve deliberate design. Behe's point stands.
rachimbaskin 2 years ago
rachi -
No, Behe's point does not stand - it has yet to be demonstrated there is any such thing as 'irreducibly complexity' in biological systems.
Behe argues that the mousetrap cannot be simplified - this video shows him wrong there, too.
proudfootz 2 years ago
The Flagellar Motor! Remove any of the components and it ceases to function!
yeahimjoey 2 years ago
yeah -
It has already been demonstrated that the flagellum could be developed by evolutionary mechanisms.
It has never been demonstrated how any 'designer' could create any living thing.
proudfootz 2 years ago
evolutionary mechanisms? Ok which ones? I do like the termonology you use though. "could" is the correct term, because its all speculative. I think I know what you are talking about. Homology is the biggest piece of evidence out there in my opinion. Its still only homology though
yeahimjoey 2 years ago
yeah -
There are some good ones on YouTube - look them up if you are interested in the scientific view.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I think you misunderstand what irreducible complexity is as defined by Behe. If you remove any of the parts of the bacterial flagellum, it ceases to function! That is irreducible complexity! Behe doesn't argue against evolution, but against random mutation and natural selection as being adequate to understanding how you get from an amoeba to an elephant! The point is that it 'appears" to be designed
yeahimjoey 2 years ago
yea -
H. J. Muller apparently anticipated Behe's "irreducibly complexity" in papers published in 1918 and in 1939.
In these papers he solved the 'problem' Behe finds so perplexing.
Because it was known even then that evolution not only 'adds parts' as Behe believes, but also 'changes parts' and 'removes parts'.
No designer is needed to create Mullerian interlocking complexity - just the simple gradual evolution we already know.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Yeah, lets see those reductions in functionality or "complexity" work in reality...
EagleTalons1 2 years ago
et -
Behe asserted falsely that such systems could not *in principle* be simplified.
No point in moving the goalposts now, the game is over.
proudfootz 2 years ago
O.k.
EagleTalons1 2 years ago
I think you should make a different argument: the concept of irreducible complexity is sound; but so far nothing has been proven to be irreducibly complex. This way you won't fall into the "trap" of unfalsifiability (pun intended).
tantzer 2 years ago
tan -
You are correct that the point is that Behe has not demonstrated that there is anything 'irreducibly complex' in biology which indicates creation.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Well, if you establish that things that appear designed (moustrap) can be shown to be candidates for incremental evolution, and if the same argument can be extended to all complex organism, then you have just made evolution unfalsifiable, since it automatically explains everything. I don't think you realize that you've hurt your cause more than helped it.
tantzer 2 years ago
tan -
I'm not convinced that 'irreducible complexity' is the only way to falsify evolution.
proudfootz 2 years ago
The point of irreducable compexity is that each step to the final product must be 1) incremental and 2) beneficial. You clearly just do not understand the argument (like Miller). Tellingly, you state that the trap does not "need" bait..and therefore you can remove the bait. I don't think you probably realise how this mental-leap shows how far behind the intellectual 8 ball you are here.
It's easy to say you can "remove" the bait, but that's not the question..the question is, how do you ADD it?
stu1002 2 years ago
Adding bait to the trap fulfills both 'incremental' and 'beneficial' constraints of irreducible complexity notion.
Now where does Behe state that things cannot be added?
proudfootz 2 years ago
Proudfootz..that's quite brilliant, but all you have done is suggest that there are simpler ways of killing a mouse than the design of mousetrap we currently have. You might as well say a rock could fall on a mouse and kill it...that would be simplier. The problem is it does nothing to show that your simplier model can evolve to the complex model by a stepwise process, each individual step of which is beneficial and incremental.
stu1002 2 years ago
This merely shows that Behe is wrong to suggest that there is such a thing as 'irreducibly complex systems' found in nature which cannot evolve.
Each of the steps in this analogy fulfill the 'beneficial' and 'incremental' requirements.
proudfootz 2 years ago
proudfootz you need to draw on some eyebrows or something dude... You look as if you've been bathed in depilatory cream... But anyway I liked your video...
^..^
TheWildAssCopyCat 2 years ago
So invalid. Actually it makes you look stupid. Have you tried killing mice with what you have made? that is not science. That has not been tested. You can only kill a mice in your imagination with your socalled various mouse traps.
shayneby 2 years ago
It is Behe's ridiculous notion that something like a mousetrap cannot be simplified.
But in reality man-made things like mousetraps aren't anything like the biological mechanisms which result from evolution.
proudfootz 2 years ago
No! it is you attacking Behe with a strawman. That's the problem.
Behe used the mousetrap model to explain irreducible complexity. Instead of you explaining how a flagellum can become simplified and still perform the same function, you cop out by attacking his model. That's exactly what Ken Miller has been doing for years NEVER explaining how a flagellum was ever simplier than what it is today. This as we both know cannot be explained. Only in the mind of maybe Miller with "PLAUSIBLE" methods.
shayneby 2 years ago
Behe introduced the mousetrap analogy.
I simply demonstrate it fails as much as his examples from biology have failed.
proudfootz 2 years ago
not bad i was expecting to see the alternate uses of the mousetrap components to show the functionality of them under different conditions but this proves the same point from a different perspective
thisis3d 2 years ago
Why on earth should a simplified flagellum need to perform the same function? In the scientific literature there are now at least two variations upon the flagellum that have been discovered that have fewer parts and yet function perfectly well, albeit performing a different task.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
It actually doesn't have to perform the same function - creationists invented that condition when they realized it was too easy to prove evolution unless they moved the goalpost.
proudfootz 2 years ago
"creationists invented that condition when they realized it was too easy to prove evolution"
Yes it's like the nonsense that they came up with about the observed reduced structures being more recent than the flagellum and therefore invalid.
It can be difficult to debate with people who can't think logically.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
ken -
Tell me about it!
Good to know there are others out there fighting the good fight.
proudfootz 2 years ago
it still has not been proving that the flagellum or any other organism for that matter devoloped through the so called darwinian evloutionary process. All speculations, frauds, fantasies and lies to support the dying theory.
Evolution is now on LIFE SUPPORT.
All types of lies and fabrications are used to support the theory. Take away all the lies and assumptions, we are left with what? SCIENCE. LOL
REAL SCIENCE
shayneby 2 years ago
"it still has not been proving that the flagellum or any other organism for that matter devoloped through the so called darwinian evloutionary process."
Tell me, what kind of evidence would it take for you to accept natural selection?
KennyTew2 2 years ago
ken -
I suspect the only way many creationists would accept any scientific principle is if it were written 3000 years ago by an ignorant goatherd after a bad dream.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Let's study real science and keep evolutionism out of it.
It is not science.
Darwins theory has been of no help to anything. Only brought more suspicion and resentment to science.
No definite answers, just speculations, assumptions UNIMAGINABLE MIND TRAVELS with millions and billions of years used as evidence.
USELESS.
It's only job is to substitute GOD. And it's doing so very woefully.
Its now on LIFE SUPPORT so give it your best shot now.
shayneby 2 years ago
sha -
Imagining magical ghosts and calling the your god is no substitute for science.
Likewise your argument from CAPS LOCK is unconvincing.
Truly you seem happy to remain ignorant - but you also seem compelled to advertise your ignorance.
You may as well argue that gravity is on its deathbed as make similar false claims about science of evolution.
proudfootz 2 years ago
uh uh uh. " science of evolution"?
Think again.
speculation, imaginative mind travels, assumptions, is not science.
more like,
RELIGION of EVOLUTION.lol
say that to a kid
shayneby 2 years ago
"It's only job is to substitute GOD:"
OK, once you have decided what sort of evidence you would need to accept evolution, tell me what level of evidence you needed before you accepted the existence of a god or gods.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
In the beginning GOD created. H make everything. It is because of him that we have our being not because of nothing. Let's start there. That's the premiss of my evidence. That alone make more sense than your belief system evolutionism.
shayneby 2 years ago
sha -
No evidence for this alleged god.
You assume what you were asked to supply evidenc efor.
A failure on your part.
proudfootz 2 years ago
sha -
Sorry, but evolution has been proven by real science, using the same methods that enable people to use their computers, get on the internet, and blather on about how stupid scientists are.
Of course your arguments from CAPS LOCK are as vaid as they ever were - which is not at all.
You'll find science is still going strong while the ideas of religious fanatics still contribute nothing to humanity but confusion, division, and hatred.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Natural selection selects. That's what natural selection does. Not evolution. You cannot get a completely different species of animal from another animal (for example).
Micro evolution is what is called natural selection. Variations within a species. Different types but all from thesame kind. Macro-evolution does not exist. That's just fantasy. It has never been observed to happen. Maybe millions and billions of years ago as evolutionists want us to believe. That's not science.
shayneby 2 years ago
Unfortunately for your unsubstantiated claim, evolution and speciation are observed.
proudfootz 2 years ago
observed via IMAGINATIVE MIND TRAVELS.lol?
shayneby 2 years ago
I would conclude that evolution is REALLY
REALLY
REALLY
REALLY
REALLY
REA---------------LLY SLOW
and it's so SLOW that you can't see it. It's kind of like a RELIGION,
EVOLUTIONARY RELIGION. LOL
shayneby 2 years ago
Sha just curius, you don't believe in evolution. So you think its God who created diseases like Tuberculosis? Leprosy? Bubonic plague? etc...
Such plagues were mentioned in the bible as curses, and never had any cure for them for centuries. Those who tried were accused of practicing witchcraft & were burned to death.
Things changed when science took over, and FYI, evolutionary theory is being applied to find cures for modern plagues, and it works much better than exorcism and faith healing.
emancoy 2 years ago 4
See, this is the problem with so called atheists, you never study the bible. Just hear say or google verses and passages to support your claims. WEAK! You have to know why/ how death, disease and came about before you can make these statements. That's the problem with alot of you so called atheists. You haven't done your research. Find out how and you will answer these questions yourself and then maybe then ;you will see how evolution is just fairytale for adults and not science.
shayneby 2 years ago
LOL! Good one!
Your post is a perfect example of Poe's Law: no matter how absurd or crude the satire it is practically indistinguishable from what those bible-thumpers actually say.
proudfootz 2 years ago
People like you assert in throwing other christian denominations along with agnostics in the fence of the athiest, simple because they are not creationists like you. You might actually find an oddity among athiest that most of them were christians and actually know what the bible says from cover to cover. Chances are, you have not even read the bible yourself.
wake up, in fairy tales, people are not killed once swallowed by an animal, and Jonah lived for 3 days before being spitted out alive
emancoy 2 years ago
emancoy -
It is ironic that I often find myself in the position of instructing 'believers' in what their holy books actually say.
proudfootz 2 years ago
LOL! that is also true to me.
emancoy 2 years ago
"Natural selection selects. That's what natural selection does. Not evolution"
Micro/macro there is no evidence that there is any distinction between the two, but maybe you can be the fist person to theorize an actual mechanism and test for it instead of asserting its existence without a shred of supporting evidence.
But for the sake of you pedantry I shall rephrase the question,
What evidence would you accept to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection causes macroevolution?
KennyTew2 2 years ago 3
ken -
Shayne has no evidence - she merely asserts.
proudfootz 2 years ago
sha -
Evolution is still going strong, making contributions to agriculture, medicine, biology, etc.
Creationism, despite being the premier 'theory' of life and physics for thousands of years, has produced *nothing* of value.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Your cranium is shaped like an egg.
Your argument is invalid
zeitgeist3 2 years ago
zeit -
That's easily the best rebuttal of this video ever.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I believe in evolution, but behe has a point...the theory of natural selection can not explain something that is made up of several parts working together for one function, now the idea that each part had it's own function before and they just came together out of the blue--does not show natural selection, it just shows something that came together from chance alone...natural selection by itself is more than chance occurrences, its gradual change where each successive addition increases survival
speakupforjustice 2 years ago
i wish more scientists were open to the idea that natural selection isn't the be all and end all, scientists should be open to the idea that darwin's observations from the 1800s although spot on for many things in explaining evolution has alot of holes and gaps in it, which is fine since that usually occurs with new advances in science...never is anything in science absolute or dogma, it seems like proponents of darwinism aren't willing to accept criticisms...seems more like dogma than science
speakupforjustice 2 years ago
speakup -
You're right that science is not about absolutism or dogma.
But if there are deficiencies in a science, the answer is not to 'give up' as Behe seems to do whenever one cannot explain some aspect.
Clearly the 'chance' part is separate from 'natural selection' in evolution - they must not be confused.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Alright, but what about the paradigma's, don't they contain unproven pre-assumptions?
Interesting point you make there in your last sentence... I mean 'chance' and 'natural selection' aren't those contradictions? Justlike 'random' natural selection which is also a contradiction in itself...
ManuelLogan 2 years ago
manu
There can be a process that contains both chance and selection - so the fact that they are different doesn't mean they do not co-exist.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Well evolution is a SLIPERY word. What do you really mean by you believe in evolution?
Do you believe that minor changes occur within organisms as a result of natural SELECTION(micro evolution) or that a species gives rise to completely different species (macro evolution). That is the evolution you cannot believe in. LOL
shayneby 2 years ago
That's funny - one no more needs to 'believe' in evolution than one needs to 'believe' in electricity or gravity.
They are simply scientific facts, but there seem to be those who are determined to wish away the real world outside their little bubble of fantasy.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Come-on Proudfootz, admit it. This whole post from the Proudfootz handle to the the Mr. Baldy video is a college prank to see how gullible people really are. I mean it's funny & all that but peeps are actually believing that the non working models are for real and workable. LOL! Good joke, but enough is a freekin' 'nough.
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
It is Behe's 'argument from ignorance' which is the joke.
Religious zealots have glommed onto it in desperation.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Yah, yah, yah! And a thorn will catch a mouse if it falls on it. Explain how raw, undirected energy [from the sun] might combine with chance processes to do anything but cause decay, rust, or otherwise deterioration. I doubt it's your intent but you are proving creationism with evolutions logic of undirected energy. When you die, your body decomposes. Is this natural evidence of GREATER order rising from LESSER order? Thats just plain silly even in your case! Come on, admit it's a prank.
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
There is order in the universe because of simple physical and chemical laws. No magic from gods or other spirits is needed.
Evolution is evidenced by a long fossil record (which contradicts creationist myths) showing life-forms from the distant past come to resemble modern forms over time.
Evolution is even observed today.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Religion has done its utmost to keep people stupid - hence the wide acceptance of Behe's argument from ignorance among the zealots.
Why make any effort to cure disease when you make your living casting out 'demons'?
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
LITTLE DETAILS
Have you ever noticed that when the brain gets so full of big ideas the little details get lost? For instance; how In little more than one lifetime, the world has "progressed" from horse and buggy to spacecraft. The question begs; how did people remain SO STUPID for so many MILLLLIONS of YEARS? LOL!
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
Yes, the 'success' of Intelligent Design and other forms of Creationism does show that some people can be incredibly stupid.
Not much progress was made while the priestly class was riding on everyone's backs.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I find it amazing that Catholicism gets the blame for holding back knowledge for milllllllions of years. Whoodathunkit!
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
Religions generally hold back knowledge because they replace curiosity and investigation of the world with dogma and hostility to rational thinking.
For instance, the Dark Ages in Europe represent a1000-year gap in scientific advancement due to the influence of christianity.
proudfootz 2 years ago
This video only proves that his head is as empty on the inside as it is on the topside. Silly wabbit will believe anything.
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
LOL! Not silly enough to believe Behe's 'irreducible complexity' pseudo-science.
That there's so many things that Behe doesn't understand doesn't mean real scientists can't figure them out.
As it is those taken in by Behe's charlatran act are reduced to making 'bald' jokes.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Drawings are one thing, I would like to see this guy build these traps and see how well they sell and how many law suits due to injuries he would encounter.
jeffdicarlo 2 years ago
Another swing and another miss.
The point is simply that Behe's example is reducible - proving his claim is nonsense.
proudfootz 2 years ago
This is a joke at best that in no way proved anything except some people are desperate. Anyone who thinks this disproves Behe's argument is retarded to put it nicely.
alohawg 2 years ago
alo -
"Behe's argument is retarded"
That's about the only true thing in your post.
It is Behe who hasn't proved anything - I'm just showing how even his chosen example is reducubly complex.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
alohawg 2 years ago
cdk007 has a video "The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity" which shows how irreducible complexity does not necessarily involve 'design' as creationists insist.
Maybe that will help some of you out there.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I saw the flagellum one. There is actually a huge issue with it, he removes 40 proteins and shows it with a function. If he is correct why didnt he add the other 40 protiens 1 by 1 and tell us each of the next 40 functions it must have had as it evolved? Essentially what this guy did was trick his audience into thinking that he answered the question, but ultimately he didnt show how the first 10 proteins worked on their own or the next 40 after the initial illustrated phase.
ukman2001 2 years ago
uk -
Unfortunately for Behe's thesis you cannot ebven remove one protein and still have a function.
Removing 40 it shows just how far off base Behe's concept of 'irreducible complexity' is.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I think your twisting this. This guy simply selectively removed (i.e nothing random about it) 40 proteins, and yes it had a use. The fact is that if he was to add those 40 back 1 by 1 will it have 40 different uses?? The theory still stands really because if you remove 10, 15 or 20 proteins it has no functions. Its like removing the propeller from a boat and leaving a hole and saying "now it works as a sinking device to transport water into the boat" the guy hasnt got a clue.
ukman2001 2 years ago
ukman -
Behe states:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
So if after removing even *more* parts than one we still have a functioning system, that system wasn't 'irreducibly complex' in the 1st place.
It's Behe who hasn't got a clue.
proudfootz 2 years ago
But you're hero didnt remove 1 part. He removed most of it and then gloryfied the remaining hole. Basically, if one component of the "propulsion" system is removed it will no longer function as a PROPULSION system. Read the definition again and you will see that this is was what he was saying. Cant you see that the system you have left is not a propulsion device??? its not hard to see that this guy is producing data to fool the unscientific masses.
ukman2001 2 years ago
ukman -
Obviously a fin that becomes a foot no longer functions as a fin.
AFAICT Behe's notion of 'irreducible complexity' hasn't contributed anything to science - so clearly Behe is the one attempting to 'fool the unscientific masses'.
proudfootz 2 years ago
You're attempting to dodge the matter here, i asked what the other 40 functions were as the "functional" hole becomes a propulsion system? I believe there is nothing that can be found or else im sure you would have shown me by now. Unfortunately for Behe the "scientific masses" dont want to hear scientific arguments, that might open the eyes of the public. They have worked hard on this theory and wont have a thinking person spoil it.
ukman2001 2 years ago