In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
@Ko252 Well, that's kind of nit-picking diction. I could word it another way and say "It's about how well it performs a function". Not really sure what you're getting at here.
@mcmeister89 Nit-picking diction? Far from. It is actually a very important fact, and obviously you dont understand it. Let me make it easy for you. Let say you got 100 genes in a given population; some with beneficiary effect, some with none at all and, finally, some resulting a disadvantage outcome (or more likely the potential) in the given environment. Natural selection will disselect the genes with disadvantage effect, leaving the non-functional and beneficiary genes. A ramification of this
@Ko252 You're right. My college education as a microbiology major has been for nothing. I have no clue how this crazy thing works.
Sarcasm aside, you failed to argue against the point I made. I could argue that natural selection chooses the best functioning gene. You could say it chooses against the most dysfunctional gene. It means the same thing.
Don't think your point is lost, it's not. I recognize your scenario and it's correct. But so is this one.
@Ko252 Two populations of falcons; both flourishing and in equilibrium for generations. One population develops a mutation which improves sight therefore giving them the edge on spotting food. The other population is outperformed and dies.
The original shared "sight" gene was fine before. It wasn't dysfunctional. It didn't cause disease or decrease ability to find food. However, the improved gene functioned better and was passed on. Or was the other selected against? See. It cuts both ways.
@mcmeister89 No, it doesnt. It is the selection pressure, that decides. If there was an abudancy of food, this selection wood not happen, regardless of the first race being able to see or not. If the selection pressure was stronger than issued in your example, perhaps both races would have died, etc.
@Ko252 Oyyyyy, ok. Obviously this isn't going to be a conversation but an argument that has no positive outcome as we're both pretty solidified in our stances. And since it won't be a conversation, it should end.
Actually spamming Loricalady is not a good idea... I tell you why!
Because her comments show exactly why creationist are stupid and why ID or creation theory is based on nothing else than just "believe in a god"...
You just have to read the last comments from her... Creationists do not want to understand evolution, they want to see a fish turning into a lizard in their bathroom by magic, such as they claim God creates everything from his own wishes... Tada! rabbit from the hat!
@MattleSystem She has been doing this for 6-8 months across many Ken Miller videos.
She is trolling Miller himself, she is obsessed.
There is no talking or reasoning with her. Her bullshit has been vomited out of her mouth over and over again all through this time. It is spam because a few of us keep seeing her repeat it over and over.
Cont. Where are the "transitional" fossils that show such outward changes? How do we tell "missing" links from never existed links? Fossils include soft tissues, even cells at times. Where are fossils showing the nerves, muscles & veins being constantly REengineered not just for one leg, but for 2 pairs which do not match? No, all they can point to are animals that are already fully formed & then claim with no evidence that it "evolved" from another fully formed animal. Total B.S. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. (There is no way evo is going to do anything of course.) Let's see, while a tetropod's right frontal limb, which is no way identical to the back limbs, is "evolving", the left frontal limb has to "evolve" in syn-chron-y. Not only that , the back legs have to develop in synchrony, but in a different, & complimentary, way to the front legs. If these changes don't ALL occur synchronously - all the while useless initially of course - the animal will be lop sided & handicapped. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
8:40 "We can actually trace the development of the tetrapod limb." Bull. A big lie told to little childrfen. Every "tetrapod limb" is seen to be already fully formed and suited to it's environment. There is no "emerging" part fish & part leg fossil anywhere. The truth is, of course, that "transitional" legs would be useless. Assymetrical "accidental" bumps & spots would only slow an animal down. Again, there is no way statistically four legs are going to simultaneously "evolve".
@LoricaLady No, a fish has already the part to produce legs, the flippers... The flippers just gain a strength, and the body bulk is slowly transformed into a skeleton! Then the flippers becomes more rigid...
check Ostéichtyens definition! A fish does not lose the flipper to change into legs!!! the flippers changes, the skeleton changes! Come on! this is purely rational!
The tetrapoidy is already there because some fishes have four flippers! The ancestor also. in front and in back!
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you see I am not responding to the posters below, they know they are on ignore. I have found it fruitless to "debate" with people who are insulting, name calling, grossly obscene, & sometimes even sexually harrassing, and who put all my posts into the "hide" mode to try to discourage others from reading them. Such behaviors only become more virulent over time.
I'm happy to debate with those who truly do debate, who are civil & objective & stick to science & logic.
Those of you who are doing the "Expelled" thing by removing my posts on YT - you aren't going to make me go away. (If I stop posting it will only be if DE2 Expells me. Count on it.) I think it is quite likely that some folk will look to see why someone is hiding so many of another poster's replies & maybe read what they would have ignored. Anyone with a shred of discernment will also see that hiding another person's post hints, at least, of fear of them.
Cont. Of course they don't say "kinda looks like" but use words like "similarities....has characteristics of...similar homology...": i.e. Kinda looks like to us! As always "evidence" for "transtional forms" is made totally ignoring the logical fallacy of: Correlation Does Not Imply Caustion. If the public really understood logical fallacies, evolutionary theory would have died a long time ago - for logical fallacies are what it is built squarely upon.
@LoricaLady Where is the logical fallacy in this... Paleontology started by comparing animal bones! This has a specific name and the shpae of the bones, give the evidence for a certain functionality but also can give you how they were connected.
So for the skull of an chimp, the skull of an australopithecus, an homo habilis and the us... you will see homology and differences!
We don't say a dolphin is a fish because it looks like a salmon... The science is far from these assumptions!
@LoricaLady If you want to understand how it works, you should dress up like a paleontologist. You dig, you dig, you find a piece, you clean, remove the rock around, go to a library, review the papers about the regional conditions, geological records etc. Then you compare the bone with other bone, or multiple bones with more. Then you will find some matching bones. so you dig again, and hope to find more details. and you find a specific bone that make relation to the specie. Logical process only
Of course IDers don't work like that! They dig, find a bone, theyr of course date the bone about 12000 years ago. a guy say, it looks like T rex bone, ok ! T rex. they present the bone and the T-rex with Noah and his family with a music track in the background to warn Noah that the Flood is coming. What about science here?? Hmmm.. Yes they watched Jurassic Park to see how a T rex look like. And the caption for the scene is "GOD creation,irreductibly complex!
Cont. For a fish to turn into an amphibian - & there are innumerable fossils in the world, billions of just 1 kind of nautiloid in the Grand Canyone alone - the fish would have had to be re-engineered at least a zillion times w/rewiring for nerves, bones, muscles, veins etc. etc. each time a new "accidental" bone or lung etc. changed. Aside from being statistically absurd, where are THOSE transitions? They only have a few extinct forms to CLAIM are transitions based on "kinda looks like."
8:20 "They've ignored 2 transtional forms." How can they tell they are transitional? How dare they tell little children that they are any such things? Can they do DNA paternity testing to show 1 came from the other? Do they have a shred of evidence to show any of them ever produced a single progeny significantly different from themselves or are in any way related? No. Is there anything observable, testable or repeatable about their claims? No. Pseudo science taught as fact to kids. Cont
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I don't respond to the posters below, they know they are on ignore. I do not "debate" with people who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, hide my posts (a great ex. of Expelled in action), and sometimes use sexual harrassment. Such approaches are antithetical to the true purposes of science & I've seen they only increase in virulence if I respond to them or not. I'm happy to debate with the very few evo fans who can be civil & objective.
Cont. There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that such things ever happened. All there is are wild armchair theories built on "might...could...we propose a model...probably....likely..." Evo lit is replete with one conditional, one speculation, built onto another. Lots of nifty looking charts are made to match the theories & references are given of other evo lit that also is based on theoreticals. Nothing is testable, observable or repeatable but it is still sold as "evidence." Cont.
Cont. All of that is just a minor example. The animals lungs, mouth, skin, the simultaneous development of 10 toes, well, hopefully you are getting the picture. And oh yeal, if those changes don't happen on both sides of the body simultaneously, then of course the animal is going to be less likely to compete in the wild. For example, a crook in 1 "evolving" leg would simply make the animal asymetrical, less streamlined for flight & travel. Evo can't synchronously perfect useless accidents.
Just to remind you that generally legs or eyes or arm or etc are in pair.
Also just to show you that some fish have a gas bladder, which are the ancestor of lumb.
Other point, sea level change created some inland lake, that push the fish to find a new way to survive. Of course, you want magic, and see the fish jumping and running as a lezard... but only Oudini can do this kind of stuff...
Nothing is testable, observable or repeatable but it is still sold as "evidence." u talk about god?
@MattleSystem LoricaLady has been presented with all of this before. She doesn't listen to anyone, she is only here to feed her obsession with trying to get revenge on Miller for something in her past.
She is targeting him specifically, too. I'm wondering if she was at a lecture and Miller shot her down in the Q&N session or something.
She has no education, no credentials, no research, no clue. She is simply hurt and angry, and will keep spamming these vids for another 8+ months.
Whats even more telling is her "blocked/ignore" list.
Hurt her feelings once and you will get this in response: "HOW DARE YOU LAUGH AT ME!! You are now on my IGNORE list! MUAHAHAHHAHA!!! Take THAT! This will teach you take me seriously! *clears her throat* Now, I see no one wants to debate me!"
.....its really pathetic, especially since the laughter comes AFTER people debunk her BS. Once you hurt her feelings, she feels she is entitled to ignore everything you have or will say.
Cont. All those changes would not only have to happen simultaneously, which means constant re-engineering of the animals internal parts, but - get this - it wouldn't just be a case of one leg, ya know. These changes would have to be bi-lat-er-al! Yes, the miracle of rewiring, new cells with different functions, new nerves & veinous paths, new muscles, would have to happen on both sides of the body. Simultaneously! Really, in four place, since there are 4 legs & 4 crooks in them. Cont.
7:30 Back to the statistical probabilities that a fish is going to develop a crook in in a leg to help complete it's "evolution" into an amphibian. Not only would the intial accidental "bump" of a crook be useless on it's own, not only would it need to develop the appropriate and intricately interconnected sets of blood vessels, veins, cranial & spinal nerves, etc. etc. to be useful, not only would all those changes have to be made sim-ul-tane-ous-ly to be helpful in anyway, but...Cont.
ROTFL. You've been following me around for 2 years from one vid series after another making inane comments about religion & insulting me over & over & you think I'M the one with a problem? (Rolling eyes.) Too bad your mama didn't teach you any manners, or if she did, you shoulda paid attention. Back to ignore.
@LoricaLady Sorry if you comment all videos of Miller, some videos that I appreciate and try to understand exactly what it means and not just try to put some "LIES" or "Primary school" comment.
I have no problem with you, I have problem with your comment that show how you just don't understand one piece of the evolution process. Or if you think, you misunderstand.
The evolution of a organ, a leg, is not magic! it appear with time and time and several generation of animal.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. For those who believe that random accidents can benefit computers or other machines, and that they have some mysterious ability to pick and choose which ones would benefit them and which ones would not, I suggest you talk to computer programmers and engineers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Little children are taught to accept as fact what never can be proven, and what flies in the face of statistical probabilities & plain common sense. Worse, they are being told that is how science works. Very sad. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Computer science & basic engineering illustrate when you add random "accidents" to a complex system, you don't get an improvement. You get a mess. Suppose the former fin suddenly develops a "bump" for a crook in the "evolving" leg. Again, if there is no blood flow, muscle & nervous connection for it, so what? Why would evo drive a useless bump to completion, & how could it drive & rewire the cells, nerves, muscles etc. simultaneously - as would be needed for it to work? Cont.
@LoricaLady No No, No. If you add random accidents to a complex system, then the system will pick the one that matchs. Then it restarts with the new element, random event, and keeps the matching one... Etc.Etc... this is exactely how you build a complete new system.
you don't just grab randomly an element (leg) and you put it on a fish just like lthat... It does not work like that
Creationist believe that, they believe that everything pop up from nothing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. An ex, of innumerable re-wiring & re-engineering processes would occur when the elbow/crook in the leg started to "evolve." Gotta re-engineer again with all those cells, bones, spinal & cranial nervous connections, blood flow etc. Wait a minute! Those changes would have to happen simultaneously too! What good is a crook for a leg going to do if it isn't hooked up properly in the ways mentioned? What are the statistical probabilies here? Where are the "transitional" rewirings? Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Every fossil they show is a completed animal, adapted to its special habitat. For a fish's fin to turn into a leg, we are not just talking external changes. (Notice that evo forever focuses on external changes, not the internal re-wiring that would be necessary for so called evolutionary processes to come about.) For a fin to turn into a foot, it has to be re-engineered over & over & over countless times. It would need new cells, nerves, bones, fluid pathways, etc. etc.. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
7:50 It they would simply say, "We speculate that these are transitions." But, no, they want to, insist to, say that they ARE transitional forms. Again, it's not testable, observable or repeatable, therefore it is not science. It is psueod science, smoke & mirrors, a scam, pure and simple. Look at that fin and that foot. They don't really show fossils that have half feet & half fins, of which there should be many in the billions of fossils found on the planet. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
7:30 I invite anyone, privately, in front of a mirror, to ask yourself if you would wager next year's income, double or nothing, that - if the abosolute truth could be known - any single "transitional fossil" is for real. You would do it to bet the sun would come up, that babies would be born, that people would die & so much else because there is ev-i-dence. I don't think you'd bet on the "transitional forms" because there is no evidence, just opinions, speculations, "similar homology". Cont.
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I do not respond to posters below, they know they are on ignore. I do not want to spend my limited time "debating" with people who name call, use personal insults, gross obscenities & sometimes sexual harrassment. Such behaviors are counterproductive to the true purposes of science. Further I have noticed that responses to such posts, however mild, only increase their virulence. I'm happy to debate with the very few YT evo-ites who are civil & objective.
Cont. Also, every time I have asked for evidence that they were out of context, with exact, "missing" quotes, they have nothing to show. What Dr. Colin Patterson had to say is very telling and damning to evolutionary theory. He was the head of the British Museum of Natural Hist. & said he woke up one morning & realized there was not one thing he knew for sure about evolution. How his colleagues responded is fascinating for research, also. Cont.
Cont. "Cambrian" seashells dot every mountain top. It's almost like...the world was covered with...water & only the seashells, - which have the habit of hanging on when water comes & goes -were all that was left. when the water receeded. Odd, isn't it? (Rhetorical Q.) Also, invariably when Dr. Patterson's quotes are mentioned people start saying they are bogus. He did express embarrassment over them but not 1 poster has been able to show where he denied them or was misquoted. Cont.
Cont. Now some will inevitably be thinking, "No geologic collumn?" That was a 19th century construct that had no evidence whatsoever. Since then world wide excavations have not found any match for it anywhere. 'Course there are lots of excuuuses for that, "Well, the earth moved" is a good one. The truth is fossils from all the "evolutionary periods" in the nonexistent column exist at all layers on the earth. For ex. so called Cambrian trilobyte fossils abound in the hills of Ky. Cont.
@LoricaLady It is getting worst... Do you know how many boreholes are done around the world, with sometimes few km below the crust... I wonder if you realise the number of oil exploration well done, the number of mine explored, excavation done.
Cambrian trilobite in creataceous should be possible then! Give me one!
All fossils in one layer! so it should be easy to creationist to dig one hole and show the the world the discovery...
Coccolithophroridae are also found in every layer??? really?
Cont... more you post comment and more you become just another "Nephilimfree". It was generally with respect that I replied to you, but after 2 years (almost), you seem to becoming psychotic with Miller videos... I don't know what to say about your learning of Evolution and Geology and all elements that can disprove ID and religious texts, but you are still far far away from the basic...
And Ignorant is the right word to define your comments!
6:30 LOL! A great ex. of evo double talk: "There are so many examples of transitional forms...that you often can't tell where the transition occurs from one species to another." LOL! You can't tell...that's the evidence! This ain't science folks. This is snake oil. This is what little children are being taught is science. They're taught that speculations, similariites, "you can't tell"
and logical fallacies are evidence, science. Guess it's not funny after all. Cont.
Its amusing you keep using the same old mistakes you have been called on for months on end. You never learn, do you? What am I saying, you are a YEC who believes the Expelled movie is completely legitimate.
Stop fucking lying, LoricaLady. Until you stop lying, I'll just keep marking your bullshit as the filthy spam it is.
Cont. Scientific evidence, what is testable, repeatable, and observable is considered irrelevant in evolutionary literature. They feel free to make claims of undisputable evidence based on "similarities...homology...it's place in the
[non existent] geological column." Why do they call something evidence that is only speculation? Because that is all they ever have & they are desperate to convince the naive public that evolution is based on science. Goiogle: Patterson - That Quote. Cont.
6:29 The so called intermediate fossil Archeopteryx, seen here, has been disputed and debunked, even by evolutionists, as being nothing but a bird, "a perching bird" as one says. True it has teeth and claws on its wings, but then so do some birds living today. It is totally pseudo science to call any kind of fossil a "transitional form." Can they do DNA paternity testing? Of course not. It is impossible to tell if it ever produced any significantly different progeny. Cont.
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am ignoring the posters below, they know they are on ignore. I believe it is antithetical to the true purposes of science to "debate" with those who name call, make false accusations, use personal insults & gross obscenities & generally display an emotional, non objective approach. From much experience, I know the verbal abuse just escalates with any responses. I am happy to debate with those who are objective & civil.
Cont. Further, after 2 years of debunking evo vids, particularly those of Miller, I see the same posters over & over attacking dissenters, obviously guard dogging the vids. If one only reads the so called "scientific literature" one will never see the real truth. If one speaks up against it, one can expect ugly opposition. And that's the plan.
@LoricaLady Dont you fucking dare play the victim card now.
YOU have been lying to everyone for years, bitch. Dont you fucking cry about the response you have gotten from ignorantly asserting nonsense. Your rape of logic is insulting and offensive.
By the way, its funny you keep holding up Ben Steins Expelled movie as some kind of good thing. You simply dont understand why everyone laughs at you even more so when they find out you like it so much.
Cont. I have been Expelled from 1 vid series, have had people ask why I wasn't tossed off of another, & I continually get insults, name calling, gross obscenities, sexist remarks & some sexual harrassment. For what? Simply presenting another point of view with science & logic. All the unpleasantness is telling in it's own way, tho, for it shows the Expelled mentality. Is it about science with evo fans or is it about ideology & being threatened by any dissent from it? Rhetorical Q. Cont.
@LoricaLady You seem to enjoy pretending to be a martyr for your cause but the fact is, people are just calling you on your ignorance and misrepresentation of facts. Even after you are told that you are wrong, you repeat the same mantra. When you do that it's no longer ignorance, it's a lie. What do you expect people to say? Try checking the facts when people present them to you instead of ignoring what everyone tells you.
Cont. Why would Miller want us to look to "the scientific literature" for truth instead of analyzing the data, the actual evidence, for ourselves. Expelled tells the story. Those who want to present ideas counter to the evo party line are in danger of losing their jobs, and, as many testify, are more than likely to be unable to submit their articles for publication. Those who think Expelled is a lie, should note the comments I get. One poster is even hding, Expelling, all my posts. Cont.
Cont. Note that all that has been presented so far as "evidence" are symbolic drawings, admission that "this isn't evidence" & logical fallacies. Where are actual people in actual labs demonstrating what is claimed by Miller? In evo lit and evo talk that is what is commonly seen - lots of drawings & charts & logical fallacies, all very impressive looking at first glance to one who confuses actual evidence & hard core data with armchair speculation & wishful, ever faith-filled evo talk. Cont.
5:54 "...matches the predictions of evolution which is that the parts of this system should have functions of their own." And the whip and the rotary motor, on their own, separate from the rest of the flagellum have exactly what functions? None of course.
Here is a perfectly classic evolutionist statement: "The core argument collapses...once you look at the scientific literature." Uh, 'scuze me, I thought we should form conclusions based on the actual, you know, data & evidence. Cont.
@LoricaLady Yes, we SHOULD look at the conclusions based on actual data and evidence.... and guess what, idiot, that is EXACTLY what we find in the scientific literature.
SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!
Your lies, misinformation, and blatant propaganda will not be tolerated. If you have valid points to make, MAKE them. Stop vomiting bullshit lies.
5:10 Cont. "Every protein...is strongly homologous...to proteins in another system..." Here is probably the #1 logical fallacy found in evo lit: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. If Fossil A has any similarities to Fossil B, why obviously one evolved from another! If simple bacteria have any similarities to complex bacteria...well, you get the idea. That such ideas have evidence, what is testable, repeatable & observable, is vital to true science, & irrelevant to pseudo science.Cont.
4:40 "And it is perfectly functional." Again, where's the evidence? Can he show us that secretory system working with any useful function in a life form that is built to move and is - because of all the removed parts - instead being randomly carried through the body fluids with no direction? Never do we see ev-i-dence for what he claims. No lab models where the parts have been removed & studied. No, no evidence, just lots of theories for the ever faithful faithfilled believers. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
3:11 Miller has not demonstrated that the left over 10 parts are actually going to perform w/o the missing parts. True, they have independent functions while connected, but where does he show ev-i-dence that they can help the body w/o being connected to those missing parts? Probably he would point to a simpler, bacteria, which of course does not operate with the same purposes. Then we are, again, w/0 evidence to fill in the imaginary blanks & belieeeve the other 40 parts evolved later. Cont.
@LoricaLady Miller does not have to show evidence for every step in the evolution of this biological system. He only has to show that it is plausible for it to have evolved. This debunks Behe's assertion that irreducible complexity is evidence for intelligent design. You wouldn't believe that the rotary flagellum evolved if he could show you every step in the process but that is beside the point. He has shown that it is well within the ability evolution for it to have happened. Case closed.
@foxlake02 For the 9th time - for the benefit of any others. I do not respond to, or even really read, posts from people such as yourself who use personal insults, gross obscenities, name calling, sexual harrassment - & who tell someone who has left me a pornographic post, appropros to 0 science, "good job."
Cont. Think about the top of the flagellar motor, the whip & the rotary mechanism that turns it. What possible function could an "evolving" dot of a whip, & ditto rotary motor have? One poster said, Well a bump of a whip might move it a little. "MIght...could...we proppose a model" are all theoreticals which evo lives on. There is no evidence a "bump" would move anything. Why would evo drive it & a rotary motor "bump" to completion while useless and (!) complete them syn-chron-ously? Cont.
Cont. When Miller can demonstrate that those subsets all by themselves do a body any good, not - just leave us to assuuume that because they have separate functions of their own, the body can use them w/o the missing parts - then he will be in the realm of evidence, data, real science. A battery can work w/o the car, but can the car go anywhere w/o the battery? The flagellar motor needs all it's parts to do what it & a car are made to do, moooove! I would like to go deeper into this. Cont.
Cont. To move rapidly through body fluids it has to have that rotary motor and that whip, all of which need to react with the other parts, both those he took away and those he left. Notice that the rotary motor & whip are missing. Rolling eyes. This is all too absurd. Uh, gee, if those other parts aren't needed for the motor to function as is ess-en-tial, I wonder why "evolutioin" would build them slooooowly over time anyway? As usual As to vital Qs, and evidence, are lacking. Cont.
2:58 "We've taken away 40 of the 50 parts." Drawings & computer animation can show anything so the usual speculation & theorizing is easy. But is there actual lab ev-i-dence that the flagellum, which must move rapidly, is going to help the body & do it's job, w/o t those 40 parts? Of course not. Yes, some bacteria don't need to move htat fast or have a moto.r. So what? Different bacteria do different jobs. To do it's specific job, this one must move fast thru the liquids in the body. Cont.
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am ignoring the posters below they know they are on ignore. I have found it counterproductive to swap posts with those who indulge in name calling, personal insults, false accusations of lying, sexual harrassment, and cheering on another who is engaging in gross pornographic sexual harrassment. Such behaviors are of course antithtetical to the true purposes of science & I have found that they only increase with time. I will debate those who are civil.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. And oh yeal, Miller likes to point to other kinds of cellular mechanisms & say, Well, they don't have all those parts, so ob-vee-ously that means this flagellar motor once didn't need them. Don't ask for any evidence for one coming from the other, that too would be in the convenient long ago & far away theoretical la la land of evolution. In facr, don't ask Qs at all. A politically appointed, nonscientist judge, the state, will do you thinking for you. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. MIller never addresses how the flagellar motor is going to be useful to the human body with just those "subsets" sitting there, going nowhere. How are they, alone, going to fulfill the role of the flagellar motor that needs to travel through the blood in order to be of use? Oh, yeal, we can theorize about that. (As usual.) Somewhere in the past - convenieintly so far away that no one can check it out - they had some kind of speculative purpose in some speculative, indescribable way.
@LoricaLady "Miller never addresses how the flagellar motor is going to be useful to the human body with just those "subsets" sitting there, going nowhere" Wow you are as dense as a person can get. First, he is talking about bacteria. Not the human body. Second, the "subsets" have DIFFERENT functions with altogether DIFFERENT uses than motility. Bacteria exist that are motile and nonmotile.There are also gliding bacteria that survive just fine and others with different means of motility too.
@foxlake02 For the 8th time - for the benefit of any others. I do not respond to posts of people like you who use name calling, personal insults, sexual harrassment, falsley accuse me of lying and tell someone who sent me a pornographic post re zip science, "Good job".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
2:31 "If they do have individual functions than the evoutionary explanation is likely correct" for machines within the flagellar motor. ("If", "likely" & all conditionals abound in evo lit & talk.) Miller says "Take away 40 parts...and the 10 parts that I have left...If the i.c. argument is right, this little subset should be non functional." Of course that's not what Behe is saying. Is that flagellar motor going to do what it is supposed to do w/o those 40 parts present & complete? Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1:30 Having given a very decent description of what microbiologist Prof. Behe has had to say about intelligent design in mouse traps & flagellar motors, Miller then tries to explain Behe's argument away. He says "these complex machines arise from simpler machines." 1st of all there is no ev-i-dence for any such thing. And Miller admits that at 1:52 saying, "Now that's not evidence." No, it's the usual speculation piled on speculation + deceiption, which is all evo ever has to offer. Cont.
he has conveniently removed 40 parts that make up a complete component of the structure. This is deceptive. Proeins would not be evolve as complete components...whose buying this crap...
Science can be no more than Man's perspective on the physical world. When it reaches beyond that it delves into the purview of religion. Darwinism has done this: it's taken the Sumerian postulations of species' gradation {filtered through the plagiarist Charles Darwin} and created a church.
[Fr. p. 2032 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" (1967): science / L scientia knowledge, fr. scient-, sciens (pres. part. of "scire" to know) 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute] That's science. It means "to know." There are innumerable means by which to learn. The derivation of the word "science" doesn't mention tenured "professors"; "peer review" nor "consensus."
You cannot ignore the scientific method and call it science. I would suggest more updated sources. How much has science changed to adapt what has been researched and the things that have been created in the last 42 years?
As a woman, I must say that I am insulted and not at all impressed by your argument.
Also, I have just googled the definition you speak of, and I am apparently not reading the same things that you are. What I DO see is actually quite different: " knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".
Less than being impressed, I am much more disgusted by your arrogant display of ignorance.
Religionists must apologize for the shortcomings of their orthodoxy. There are fossils. They support the fact that 98% of Earth's flora & fauna are extinct. I see no piety, nor humility, in the humanism of Satan's handmaidens. The evidence bore by Darwinists bears out that the impetus of life is unknown, and likely unknowable, to the meager mind of Man.
but words falling on deaf ears I'm afraid (or would that be "blind eyes" since it's text?). whatever. you can lead a creationist to logic but you can't make him think.
"Ken Miller is like Popeye the Science Man, opening up cans of scientific whoopass on an island full of grunting ID Goons. 'I'll take you all on one at a time! A-gah-gah-gah-gah-gah-gah!!!'"
No- the prediction is that all parts should be useless. Indeed, the other proteins seen also have redundancies, demonstrating evolution as the only logical cause.
unfortunately sir thats not what Behe stated in his book Darwins Black Box, Behe stated that if a part of the SYSTEM was removed then the system wouldnt work HE DIDNT SAY THAT THE PARTS COULDNT FUNCTION ON THEIR OWN
Well if thats what he said its a dumb ass argument. Of course if you take the wings from a bird it cant function as a bird. What does that prove? If they can function on their own, then they can do until they come together via evolution!!! Either you or Behe have missed the point of your own argument.
The first part of your comment hits the nail on the head (Miller is using a really silly trick. Why anyones goes for it is beyond me) The second part of your comment is also very inconvenient for Miller's argument too. And to top it all Miller is not even addressing Behe's actual argument! This is clearly not what Behe's argues, even when he first wrote about it. K Miller has to replace it with his own silly caricature of what IC means. He just keeps repeating it and repeating it, unscrupulous.
If Behe is saying only that the systems are not able to function in the same way if you remove any parts, leaving it open that the parts can serve other fuctions on their own, then it is not an argument for the unevolvablity of these systems. So what's your point?
Sci, I do not agree with you here on 2counts. (1)I really do not recognise the position you attribute to Behe as Behe's position. I do not see it as even close. (2)Even your conclusion derived from this false premise surely does not follow. My points were 3 in number in relation to first part of video. (1)Removing 40 bits (not 1, 2 etc) under the pretence of making even harder for himself is a trick (2)There is evidence T3SS is not ancestral but Vice versa (3)Not Behe's argument, so a strawman.
That's cute, but you fail to realize is that what you've said is a baseless assertion founded in ignorance, while what you needed to have said to have any merit is a logical argument based on repeatable, independently verifiable evidence.
hahahahah Your support requires repeatable, independently verifiable evidenceand you shamelessly post theses requirements on Ken Millers argument on the evolution of the bacterial flagella .
Well go ahead and repeat the the processes required for evolving the bacterial flagella . Its not even a good argument much less repeatable, independently verifable evidence . TRY AGAIN SPONGE BOB
Ken Miller doesn't need the evidence here. He doesn't have the burden of proof. The creationist claim is that the flagella is irreducibly complex. For this to be true, there must be NO way it could have evolved. Demonstrating ANY way it could have, whether it's right or wrong that it actually did evolve that way, is called a counterexample. It proves that it is not irreducibly complex. Misunderstanding the burden of proof doesn't absolve you of it.
You're an idiot , the burden remains with you and is why research continues .
Did you really think the burden remains with the skeptic.
The flagellla didnt evolve and the acceptance that it did is only taken seriously because science demands that it did . When the methods demands a naturalistic explanation then any argument is accepted . It automatically wins .
But the validity of the conclusion is naturally brought into question ,
@JAMRAND good question, however, if you were to research a little more, you would find that Miller indeed reduces the I/R Bacterial Flagellum further, and shows where other parts of the BF are useful in other functions. It is also necessary to explain how those smaller groups evolved, piece by piece, which Miller does.
As miller says 'this is an ARGUMENT, not evidence. We see the flagella as a whole but we have no conclusive evidence that the individual parts functioned some place else. Were just presumimg the "possibality that that might have."
BUT "functionality" would be greatly comprimised and give the organism a great disadvantage that might lead to its demise.
Irreducibly Complexity is defined by testing the abality of the final system to evolve in a step by step fasion in which useful FUNCTION may not exist at each step. That would be function that does NOT give it a disadvantage to survival.
Where is your evidence for this claim? This is not Behe's claim in the first place. Just because usefulness is not implied in each and every increment, does not mean that mutation can't change/add/subtract multiple proteins which lead to new functionality. Behe doesn't use your argument because he knows that the onus is on you through experiementation to show that for instance, a 20 protein structure is functional, a 21 protein is not, a 22 protein is, a 23 protein is not etc etc.
"By irreducible complexity 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."
Thats from an excellent write up about the Dover trial by Casey Luskin at
Behe claims that you can't remove even 1 protein and still have a functional structure. Miller proves that you can remove dozens and still have a functional type-III secretory system.
This challenge has been answered. Behe does not have a leg to stand on. Not to mention the other claims like the purported irreducible complexity of bird wings, human eye, giraffe neck etc. They've all been explained.
Miller claims we can remove proteins of the TTSS,which is one just one subpart of the flagellum and still have "normal function.Not true. Also, of the other 30 proteins he has no answer.
Of course his argument is assuming that the TTSS preceeded the flagellium.
Many evolutionary biologists now believe that the TTSS evolved FROM the flagellum.
For the last time, IC says no part of a functional structure can have function. The type-III SS is a part of the flagellum and is functional. IC is dead.
Who are these "many evolutionary biologists" who believe that the type-III SS evolved from the flagellum and where are their peer reviewed publications? This is silly since simpler structures very rarely evolve from more complex structures.
Say we know a 20 protein structure exists and functions. There is a multiple mutation which leads to a functional 22 protein structure skipping over a non-functional 21 protein structure. This shows there does not necessarily need to be an incremental (digital) change and this is exactly what the Type-3 secretory to flagellum evolution shows.
A codon mutation/deletion can also change the location of an existing structure to create new functionality, and infinite number of possibilies exist.
I find it interesting that the scientists you like are the 0.1% of evolution deniers, and not the 99.9% who are unanimous in their support.
Second, let the esteemed Dr. Saier do his experiments, research, attend conferences, argue and debate, and publish his results to be scrutinized. Until then, his opinion means nothing. Just like my opinion means nothing and yours means nothing. All that matters is data and peer review.
It would be the greatest discovery since Darwin, where is his work?
@gamesbok 2 explanations then for Behe, 1) he is simply being dishonest, he knows his argument is not valid, but he also knows that a large % of the public may be fooled by his ideas. explanation 2) Behe believes in irreducible complexity so strongly that no evidence will count agaisnt it. He states it as a matter of faith and ignores any evidence agaisnt it. An odd thing is that Behe is a biochemist, which has almost nothing to do with the subject he attacks, same goes for his associates too.
@SerpentSlayer1 are you sure you understand the nature of argument? Behe makes a claim, Miller refutes it. It isn't necessary to prove that the explanation given is the "exact" one that occurred, as the argument Behe makes is that it is "impossible" for the BF to evolved if all of it's parts are required for it to function. Miller shows why that is not true, and thereby refutes Behe's claim. So Behe's claim most certainly does not stand, as the claim is proven false.
@eastjones Not strictly, because the argument would then be that the reduced parts themselves are IC in nature, Behe is likely going to want a gene by gene list of changes before he is fully satisfied.
Similar to most people who claim fossils are not transitional will keep doing so until there are that many uncovered that you can not even tell where the species line starts and stops.
This has been flagged as spam show
In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
achilles197474 10 months ago
BRILLIANT!
tickledropstop 1 year ago
Ken Miller is wrong. Natural selection doesnt concern itself with the function, but with the disfunction.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 Well, that's kind of nit-picking diction. I could word it another way and say "It's about how well it performs a function". Not really sure what you're getting at here.
mcmeister89 11 months ago
@mcmeister89 Nit-picking diction? Far from. It is actually a very important fact, and obviously you dont understand it. Let me make it easy for you. Let say you got 100 genes in a given population; some with beneficiary effect, some with none at all and, finally, some resulting a disadvantage outcome (or more likely the potential) in the given environment. Natural selection will disselect the genes with disadvantage effect, leaving the non-functional and beneficiary genes. A ramification of this
Ko252 11 months ago
@Ko252 You're right. My college education as a microbiology major has been for nothing. I have no clue how this crazy thing works.
Sarcasm aside, you failed to argue against the point I made. I could argue that natural selection chooses the best functioning gene. You could say it chooses against the most dysfunctional gene. It means the same thing.
Don't think your point is lost, it's not. I recognize your scenario and it's correct. But so is this one.
mcmeister89 11 months ago
@Ko252 Two populations of falcons; both flourishing and in equilibrium for generations. One population develops a mutation which improves sight therefore giving them the edge on spotting food. The other population is outperformed and dies.
The original shared "sight" gene was fine before. It wasn't dysfunctional. It didn't cause disease or decrease ability to find food. However, the improved gene functioned better and was passed on. Or was the other selected against? See. It cuts both ways.
mcmeister89 11 months ago
@mcmeister89 No, it doesnt. It is the selection pressure, that decides. If there was an abudancy of food, this selection wood not happen, regardless of the first race being able to see or not. If the selection pressure was stronger than issued in your example, perhaps both races would have died, etc.
Ko252 11 months ago
@Ko252 Oyyyyy, ok. Obviously this isn't going to be a conversation but an argument that has no positive outcome as we're both pretty solidified in our stances. And since it won't be a conversation, it should end.
mcmeister89 11 months ago
@mcmeister89 Or you could get yourself educated. Anywho, both works for me, so have a nice life.
Ko252 11 months ago
@mcmeister89 is, that all genes do not have a purpose, nor are they perfect.
Ko252 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To be continued at the 4th video.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady And you will be continually marked as the spam that you are.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Actually spamming Loricalady is not a good idea... I tell you why!
Because her comments show exactly why creationist are stupid and why ID or creation theory is based on nothing else than just "believe in a god"...
You just have to read the last comments from her... Creationists do not want to understand evolution, they want to see a fish turning into a lizard in their bathroom by magic, such as they claim God creates everything from his own wishes... Tada! rabbit from the hat!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@MattleSystem She has been doing this for 6-8 months across many Ken Miller videos.
She is trolling Miller himself, she is obsessed.
There is no talking or reasoning with her. Her bullshit has been vomited out of her mouth over and over again all through this time. It is spam because a few of us keep seeing her repeat it over and over.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
She ignores every single refutation that comes her way, as well, so its blatantly obvious she isn't hear to actually have a discussion.
All she wants to do is vomit all over Ken Miller videos.
I think he embarrassed her at a Q&A session or something-maybe thats why she has a stick up her ass about him.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Maybe you are right!
I really want to see videos from Thunderfoot, or Don Exodus, or Potholar54 quoting her comments and just destroy her belief....
Of course, the problem is she has no theory to propose, nothing that can be supported by a real element because every thing is related to God!
I hoped from her some vids, instead of multiplying intervention for nothing... That could have been a lot of fun!
I really want to watch her "Theory Explained" as Nephy!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Where are the "transitional" fossils that show such outward changes? How do we tell "missing" links from never existed links? Fossils include soft tissues, even cells at times. Where are fossils showing the nerves, muscles & veins being constantly REengineered not just for one leg, but for 2 pairs which do not match? No, all they can point to are animals that are already fully formed & then claim with no evidence that it "evolved" from another fully formed animal. Total B.S. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady And you know what we observe in this kind of fishes: "gas bladder" related to the digestive tube! Does that remind you something?
Yes this is the reason why some fishes developped the capacity to breath in the air!
Tada!!! Magic? No! Purely real! Just open the book of anatomy science and more for the rest of your comment!
You really want to learn??? So start with the beginning (the basic science education) instead of speaking about a topic you don't understand!
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. (There is no way evo is going to do anything of course.) Let's see, while a tetropod's right frontal limb, which is no way identical to the back limbs, is "evolving", the left frontal limb has to "evolve" in syn-chron-y. Not only that , the back legs have to develop in synchrony, but in a different, & complimentary, way to the front legs. If these changes don't ALL occur synchronously - all the while useless initially of course - the animal will be lop sided & handicapped. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
8:40 "We can actually trace the development of the tetrapod limb." Bull. A big lie told to little childrfen. Every "tetrapod limb" is seen to be already fully formed and suited to it's environment. There is no "emerging" part fish & part leg fossil anywhere. The truth is, of course, that "transitional" legs would be useless. Assymetrical "accidental" bumps & spots would only slow an animal down. Again, there is no way statistically four legs are going to simultaneously "evolve".
Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady No, a fish has already the part to produce legs, the flippers... The flippers just gain a strength, and the body bulk is slowly transformed into a skeleton! Then the flippers becomes more rigid...
check Ostéichtyens definition! A fish does not lose the flipper to change into legs!!! the flippers changes, the skeleton changes! Come on! this is purely rational!
The tetrapoidy is already there because some fishes have four flippers! The ancestor also. in front and in back!
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you see I am not responding to the posters below, they know they are on ignore. I have found it fruitless to "debate" with people who are insulting, name calling, grossly obscene, & sometimes even sexually harrassing, and who put all my posts into the "hide" mode to try to discourage others from reading them. Such behaviors only become more virulent over time.
I'm happy to debate with those who truly do debate, who are civil & objective & stick to science & logic.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those of you who are doing the "Expelled" thing by removing my posts on YT - you aren't going to make me go away. (If I stop posting it will only be if DE2 Expells me. Count on it.) I think it is quite likely that some folk will look to see why someone is hiding so many of another poster's replies & maybe read what they would have ignored. Anyone with a shred of discernment will also see that hiding another person's post hints, at least, of fear of them.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Of course they don't say "kinda looks like" but use words like "similarities....has characteristics of...similar homology...": i.e. Kinda looks like to us! As always "evidence" for "transtional forms" is made totally ignoring the logical fallacy of: Correlation Does Not Imply Caustion. If the public really understood logical fallacies, evolutionary theory would have died a long time ago - for logical fallacies are what it is built squarely upon.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Where is the logical fallacy in this... Paleontology started by comparing animal bones! This has a specific name and the shpae of the bones, give the evidence for a certain functionality but also can give you how they were connected.
So for the skull of an chimp, the skull of an australopithecus, an homo habilis and the us... you will see homology and differences!
We don't say a dolphin is a fish because it looks like a salmon... The science is far from these assumptions!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@LoricaLady If you want to understand how it works, you should dress up like a paleontologist. You dig, you dig, you find a piece, you clean, remove the rock around, go to a library, review the papers about the regional conditions, geological records etc. Then you compare the bone with other bone, or multiple bones with more. Then you will find some matching bones. so you dig again, and hope to find more details. and you find a specific bone that make relation to the specie. Logical process only
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
Of course IDers don't work like that! They dig, find a bone, theyr of course date the bone about 12000 years ago. a guy say, it looks like T rex bone, ok ! T rex. they present the bone and the T-rex with Noah and his family with a music track in the background to warn Noah that the Flood is coming. What about science here?? Hmmm.. Yes they watched Jurassic Park to see how a T rex look like. And the caption for the scene is "GOD creation,irreductibly complex!
PS no magic involved, just god!"
MattleSystem 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. For a fish to turn into an amphibian - & there are innumerable fossils in the world, billions of just 1 kind of nautiloid in the Grand Canyone alone - the fish would have had to be re-engineered at least a zillion times w/rewiring for nerves, bones, muscles, veins etc. etc. each time a new "accidental" bone or lung etc. changed. Aside from being statistically absurd, where are THOSE transitions? They only have a few extinct forms to CLAIM are transitions based on "kinda looks like."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
8:20 "They've ignored 2 transtional forms." How can they tell they are transitional? How dare they tell little children that they are any such things? Can they do DNA paternity testing to show 1 came from the other? Do they have a shred of evidence to show any of them ever produced a single progeny significantly different from themselves or are in any way related? No. Is there anything observable, testable or repeatable about their claims? No. Pseudo science taught as fact to kids. Cont
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I don't respond to the posters below, they know they are on ignore. I do not "debate" with people who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, hide my posts (a great ex. of Expelled in action), and sometimes use sexual harrassment. Such approaches are antithetical to the true purposes of science & I've seen they only increase in virulence if I respond to them or not. I'm happy to debate with the very few evo fans who can be civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that such things ever happened. All there is are wild armchair theories built on "might...could...we propose a model...probably....likely..." Evo lit is replete with one conditional, one speculation, built onto another. Lots of nifty looking charts are made to match the theories & references are given of other evo lit that also is based on theoreticals. Nothing is testable, observable or repeatable but it is still sold as "evidence." Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. All of that is just a minor example. The animals lungs, mouth, skin, the simultaneous development of 10 toes, well, hopefully you are getting the picture. And oh yeal, if those changes don't happen on both sides of the body simultaneously, then of course the animal is going to be less likely to compete in the wild. For example, a crook in 1 "evolving" leg would simply make the animal asymetrical, less streamlined for flight & travel. Evo can't synchronously perfect useless accidents.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Just to remind you that generally legs or eyes or arm or etc are in pair.
Also just to show you that some fish have a gas bladder, which are the ancestor of lumb.
Other point, sea level change created some inland lake, that push the fish to find a new way to survive. Of course, you want magic, and see the fish jumping and running as a lezard... but only Oudini can do this kind of stuff...
Nothing is testable, observable or repeatable but it is still sold as "evidence." u talk about god?
MattleSystem 1 year ago 4
@MattleSystem LoricaLady has been presented with all of this before. She doesn't listen to anyone, she is only here to feed her obsession with trying to get revenge on Miller for something in her past.
She is targeting him specifically, too. I'm wondering if she was at a lecture and Miller shot her down in the Q&N session or something.
She has no education, no credentials, no research, no clue. She is simply hurt and angry, and will keep spamming these vids for another 8+ months.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 3
Whats even more telling is her "blocked/ignore" list.
Hurt her feelings once and you will get this in response: "HOW DARE YOU LAUGH AT ME!! You are now on my IGNORE list! MUAHAHAHHAHA!!! Take THAT! This will teach you take me seriously! *clears her throat* Now, I see no one wants to debate me!"
.....its really pathetic, especially since the laughter comes AFTER people debunk her BS. Once you hurt her feelings, she feels she is entitled to ignore everything you have or will say.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. All those changes would not only have to happen simultaneously, which means constant re-engineering of the animals internal parts, but - get this - it wouldn't just be a case of one leg, ya know. These changes would have to be bi-lat-er-al! Yes, the miracle of rewiring, new cells with different functions, new nerves & veinous paths, new muscles, would have to happen on both sides of the body. Simultaneously! Really, in four place, since there are 4 legs & 4 crooks in them. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7:30 Back to the statistical probabilities that a fish is going to develop a crook in in a leg to help complete it's "evolution" into an amphibian. Not only would the intial accidental "bump" of a crook be useless on it's own, not only would it need to develop the appropriate and intricately interconnected sets of blood vessels, veins, cranial & spinal nerves, etc. etc. to be useful, not only would all those changes have to be made sim-ul-tane-ous-ly to be helpful in anyway, but...Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ROTFL. You've been following me around for 2 years from one vid series after another making inane comments about religion & insulting me over & over & you think I'M the one with a problem? (Rolling eyes.) Too bad your mama didn't teach you any manners, or if she did, you shoulda paid attention. Back to ignore.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Sorry if you comment all videos of Miller, some videos that I appreciate and try to understand exactly what it means and not just try to put some "LIES" or "Primary school" comment.
I have no problem with you, I have problem with your comment that show how you just don't understand one piece of the evolution process. Or if you think, you misunderstand.
The evolution of a organ, a leg, is not magic! it appear with time and time and several generation of animal.
MattleSystem 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. For those who believe that random accidents can benefit computers or other machines, and that they have some mysterious ability to pick and choose which ones would benefit them and which ones would not, I suggest you talk to computer programmers and engineers.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Little children are taught to accept as fact what never can be proven, and what flies in the face of statistical probabilities & plain common sense. Worse, they are being told that is how science works. Very sad. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Computer science & basic engineering illustrate when you add random "accidents" to a complex system, you don't get an improvement. You get a mess. Suppose the former fin suddenly develops a "bump" for a crook in the "evolving" leg. Again, if there is no blood flow, muscle & nervous connection for it, so what? Why would evo drive a useless bump to completion, & how could it drive & rewire the cells, nerves, muscles etc. simultaneously - as would be needed for it to work? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady No No, No. If you add random accidents to a complex system, then the system will pick the one that matchs. Then it restarts with the new element, random event, and keeps the matching one... Etc.Etc... this is exactely how you build a complete new system.
you don't just grab randomly an element (leg) and you put it on a fish just like lthat... It does not work like that
Creationist believe that, they believe that everything pop up from nothing.
MattleSystem 1 year ago 8
Sorry not from nothing, from the hand of God...
Yeah I know, it means exactly the same to me...
MattleSystem 1 year ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. An ex, of innumerable re-wiring & re-engineering processes would occur when the elbow/crook in the leg started to "evolve." Gotta re-engineer again with all those cells, bones, spinal & cranial nervous connections, blood flow etc. Wait a minute! Those changes would have to happen simultaneously too! What good is a crook for a leg going to do if it isn't hooked up properly in the ways mentioned? What are the statistical probabilies here? Where are the "transitional" rewirings? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Every fossil they show is a completed animal, adapted to its special habitat. For a fish's fin to turn into a leg, we are not just talking external changes. (Notice that evo forever focuses on external changes, not the internal re-wiring that would be necessary for so called evolutionary processes to come about.) For a fin to turn into a foot, it has to be re-engineered over & over & over countless times. It would need new cells, nerves, bones, fluid pathways, etc. etc.. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
7:50 It they would simply say, "We speculate that these are transitions." But, no, they want to, insist to, say that they ARE transitional forms. Again, it's not testable, observable or repeatable, therefore it is not science. It is psueod science, smoke & mirrors, a scam, pure and simple. Look at that fin and that foot. They don't really show fossils that have half feet & half fins, of which there should be many in the billions of fossils found on the planet. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
7:30 I invite anyone, privately, in front of a mirror, to ask yourself if you would wager next year's income, double or nothing, that - if the abosolute truth could be known - any single "transitional fossil" is for real. You would do it to bet the sun would come up, that babies would be born, that people would die & so much else because there is ev-i-dence. I don't think you'd bet on the "transitional forms" because there is no evidence, just opinions, speculations, "similar homology". Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I do not respond to posters below, they know they are on ignore. I do not want to spend my limited time "debating" with people who name call, use personal insults, gross obscenities & sometimes sexual harrassment. Such behaviors are counterproductive to the true purposes of science. Further I have noticed that responses to such posts, however mild, only increase their virulence. I'm happy to debate with the very few YT evo-ites who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady No one is interested in your bullshit because you are lying, kid, and we can prove it.
Shut the fuck up or stop lying. Your choice.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Also, every time I have asked for evidence that they were out of context, with exact, "missing" quotes, they have nothing to show. What Dr. Colin Patterson had to say is very telling and damning to evolutionary theory. He was the head of the British Museum of Natural Hist. & said he woke up one morning & realized there was not one thing he knew for sure about evolution. How his colleagues responded is fascinating for research, also. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. "Cambrian" seashells dot every mountain top. It's almost like...the world was covered with...water & only the seashells, - which have the habit of hanging on when water comes & goes -were all that was left. when the water receeded. Odd, isn't it? (Rhetorical Q.) Also, invariably when Dr. Patterson's quotes are mentioned people start saying they are bogus. He did express embarrassment over them but not 1 poster has been able to show where he denied them or was misquoted. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Now some will inevitably be thinking, "No geologic collumn?" That was a 19th century construct that had no evidence whatsoever. Since then world wide excavations have not found any match for it anywhere. 'Course there are lots of excuuuses for that, "Well, the earth moved" is a good one. The truth is fossils from all the "evolutionary periods" in the nonexistent column exist at all layers on the earth. For ex. so called Cambrian trilobyte fossils abound in the hills of Ky. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady It is getting worst... Do you know how many boreholes are done around the world, with sometimes few km below the crust... I wonder if you realise the number of oil exploration well done, the number of mine explored, excavation done.
Cambrian trilobite in creataceous should be possible then! Give me one!
All fossils in one layer! so it should be easy to creationist to dig one hole and show the the world the discovery...
Coccolithophroridae are also found in every layer??? really?
MattleSystem 1 year ago 14
Cont... more you post comment and more you become just another "Nephilimfree". It was generally with respect that I replied to you, but after 2 years (almost), you seem to becoming psychotic with Miller videos... I don't know what to say about your learning of Evolution and Geology and all elements that can disprove ID and religious texts, but you are still far far away from the basic...
And Ignorant is the right word to define your comments!
All fossil in one layer..why not JC with Elvis?
MattleSystem 1 year ago 13
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6:30 LOL! A great ex. of evo double talk: "There are so many examples of transitional forms...that you often can't tell where the transition occurs from one species to another." LOL! You can't tell...that's the evidence! This ain't science folks. This is snake oil. This is what little children are being taught is science. They're taught that speculations, similariites, "you can't tell"
and logical fallacies are evidence, science. Guess it's not funny after all. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Stop lying, child.
Its amusing you keep using the same old mistakes you have been called on for months on end. You never learn, do you? What am I saying, you are a YEC who believes the Expelled movie is completely legitimate.
Stop fucking lying, LoricaLady. Until you stop lying, I'll just keep marking your bullshit as the filthy spam it is.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Scientific evidence, what is testable, repeatable, and observable is considered irrelevant in evolutionary literature. They feel free to make claims of undisputable evidence based on "similarities...homology...it's place in the
[non existent] geological column." Why do they call something evidence that is only speculation? Because that is all they ever have & they are desperate to convince the naive public that evolution is based on science. Goiogle: Patterson - That Quote. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6:29 The so called intermediate fossil Archeopteryx, seen here, has been disputed and debunked, even by evolutionists, as being nothing but a bird, "a perching bird" as one says. True it has teeth and claws on its wings, but then so do some birds living today. It is totally pseudo science to call any kind of fossil a "transitional form." Can they do DNA paternity testing? Of course not. It is impossible to tell if it ever produced any significantly different progeny. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am ignoring the posters below, they know they are on ignore. I believe it is antithetical to the true purposes of science to "debate" with those who name call, make false accusations, use personal insults & gross obscenities & generally display an emotional, non objective approach. From much experience, I know the verbal abuse just escalates with any responses. I am happy to debate with those who are objective & civil.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Further, after 2 years of debunking evo vids, particularly those of Miller, I see the same posters over & over attacking dissenters, obviously guard dogging the vids. If one only reads the so called "scientific literature" one will never see the real truth. If one speaks up against it, one can expect ugly opposition. And that's the plan.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady You havn't debunked a single video, LoricaLady.
Everyone that has seen your posts have challenged you are your blatantly dishonest and ignorant assertions.
Shut your face, kid. Its for your own good; you dont have a clue about any of this and everything you say is a lie.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 11
@LoricaLady Dont you fucking dare play the victim card now.
YOU have been lying to everyone for years, bitch. Dont you fucking cry about the response you have gotten from ignorantly asserting nonsense. Your rape of logic is insulting and offensive.
By the way, its funny you keep holding up Ben Steins Expelled movie as some kind of good thing. You simply dont understand why everyone laughs at you even more so when they find out you like it so much.
Its all a lie-they lied to everyone.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 12
You have been duped and brainwashed, LoricaLady, and your parents/Creationist bullshit has mind-fucked you good.
Whats funny is watching how you simply ignore everyone you dont agree with. THAT is telling.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. I have been Expelled from 1 vid series, have had people ask why I wasn't tossed off of another, & I continually get insults, name calling, gross obscenities, sexist remarks & some sexual harrassment. For what? Simply presenting another point of view with science & logic. All the unpleasantness is telling in it's own way, tho, for it shows the Expelled mentality. Is it about science with evo fans or is it about ideology & being threatened by any dissent from it? Rhetorical Q. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady You seem to enjoy pretending to be a martyr for your cause but the fact is, people are just calling you on your ignorance and misrepresentation of facts. Even after you are told that you are wrong, you repeat the same mantra. When you do that it's no longer ignorance, it's a lie. What do you expect people to say? Try checking the facts when people present them to you instead of ignoring what everyone tells you.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Why would Miller want us to look to "the scientific literature" for truth instead of analyzing the data, the actual evidence, for ourselves. Expelled tells the story. Those who want to present ideas counter to the evo party line are in danger of losing their jobs, and, as many testify, are more than likely to be unable to submit their articles for publication. Those who think Expelled is a lie, should note the comments I get. One poster is even hding, Expelling, all my posts. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Note that all that has been presented so far as "evidence" are symbolic drawings, admission that "this isn't evidence" & logical fallacies. Where are actual people in actual labs demonstrating what is claimed by Miller? In evo lit and evo talk that is what is commonly seen - lots of drawings & charts & logical fallacies, all very impressive looking at first glance to one who confuses actual evidence & hard core data with armchair speculation & wishful, ever faith-filled evo talk. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5:54 "...matches the predictions of evolution which is that the parts of this system should have functions of their own." And the whip and the rotary motor, on their own, separate from the rest of the flagellum have exactly what functions? None of course.
Here is a perfectly classic evolutionist statement: "The core argument collapses...once you look at the scientific literature." Uh, 'scuze me, I thought we should form conclusions based on the actual, you know, data & evidence. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Yes, we SHOULD look at the conclusions based on actual data and evidence.... and guess what, idiot, that is EXACTLY what we find in the scientific literature.
SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!
Your lies, misinformation, and blatant propaganda will not be tolerated. If you have valid points to make, MAKE them. Stop vomiting bullshit lies.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
5:10 Cont. "Every protein...is strongly homologous...to proteins in another system..." Here is probably the #1 logical fallacy found in evo lit: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. If Fossil A has any similarities to Fossil B, why obviously one evolved from another! If simple bacteria have any similarities to complex bacteria...well, you get the idea. That such ideas have evidence, what is testable, repeatable & observable, is vital to true science, & irrelevant to pseudo science.Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4:40 "And it is perfectly functional." Again, where's the evidence? Can he show us that secretory system working with any useful function in a life form that is built to move and is - because of all the removed parts - instead being randomly carried through the body fluids with no direction? Never do we see ev-i-dence for what he claims. No lab models where the parts have been removed & studied. No, no evidence, just lots of theories for the ever faithful faithfilled believers. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3:11 Miller has not demonstrated that the left over 10 parts are actually going to perform w/o the missing parts. True, they have independent functions while connected, but where does he show ev-i-dence that they can help the body w/o being connected to those missing parts? Probably he would point to a simpler, bacteria, which of course does not operate with the same purposes. Then we are, again, w/0 evidence to fill in the imaginary blanks & belieeeve the other 40 parts evolved later. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Miller does not have to show evidence for every step in the evolution of this biological system. He only has to show that it is plausible for it to have evolved. This debunks Behe's assertion that irreducible complexity is evidence for intelligent design. You wouldn't believe that the rotary flagellum evolved if he could show you every step in the process but that is beside the point. He has shown that it is well within the ability evolution for it to have happened. Case closed.
foxlake02 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@foxlake02 For the 9th time - for the benefit of any others. I do not respond to, or even really read, posts from people such as yourself who use personal insults, gross obscenities, name calling, sexual harrassment - & who tell someone who has left me a pornographic post, appropros to 0 science, "good job."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. Think about the top of the flagellar motor, the whip & the rotary mechanism that turns it. What possible function could an "evolving" dot of a whip, & ditto rotary motor have? One poster said, Well a bump of a whip might move it a little. "MIght...could...we proppose a model" are all theoreticals which evo lives on. There is no evidence a "bump" would move anything. Why would evo drive it & a rotary motor "bump" to completion while useless and (!) complete them syn-chron-ously? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Its funny, you go from channel to channel, month after month, repeating the same bullshit propaganda.
I'll be marking everything you regurgitate as the filthy spam it is.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. When Miller can demonstrate that those subsets all by themselves do a body any good, not - just leave us to assuuume that because they have separate functions of their own, the body can use them w/o the missing parts - then he will be in the realm of evidence, data, real science. A battery can work w/o the car, but can the car go anywhere w/o the battery? The flagellar motor needs all it's parts to do what it & a car are made to do, moooove! I would like to go deeper into this. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "I would like to go deeper into this"
Please don't. You're shit is getting so deep I had to put my boots on already.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. To move rapidly through body fluids it has to have that rotary motor and that whip, all of which need to react with the other parts, both those he took away and those he left. Notice that the rotary motor & whip are missing. Rolling eyes. This is all too absurd. Uh, gee, if those other parts aren't needed for the motor to function as is ess-en-tial, I wonder why "evolutioin" would build them slooooowly over time anyway? As usual As to vital Qs, and evidence, are lacking. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:58 "We've taken away 40 of the 50 parts." Drawings & computer animation can show anything so the usual speculation & theorizing is easy. But is there actual lab ev-i-dence that the flagellum, which must move rapidly, is going to help the body & do it's job, w/o t those 40 parts? Of course not. Yes, some bacteria don't need to move htat fast or have a moto.r. So what? Different bacteria do different jobs. To do it's specific job, this one must move fast thru the liquids in the body. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am ignoring the posters below they know they are on ignore. I have found it counterproductive to swap posts with those who indulge in name calling, personal insults, false accusations of lying, sexual harrassment, and cheering on another who is engaging in gross pornographic sexual harrassment. Such behaviors are of course antithtetical to the true purposes of science & I have found that they only increase with time. I will debate those who are civil.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@brospec I think its safe to assume everyone will simply be marking LoricaLady's propaganda/misinformation/lies/etc as the spam it is?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. And oh yeal, Miller likes to point to other kinds of cellular mechanisms & say, Well, they don't have all those parts, so ob-vee-ously that means this flagellar motor once didn't need them. Don't ask for any evidence for one coming from the other, that too would be in the convenient long ago & far away theoretical la la land of evolution. In facr, don't ask Qs at all. A politically appointed, nonscientist judge, the state, will do you thinking for you. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. MIller never addresses how the flagellar motor is going to be useful to the human body with just those "subsets" sitting there, going nowhere. How are they, alone, going to fulfill the role of the flagellar motor that needs to travel through the blood in order to be of use? Oh, yeal, we can theorize about that. (As usual.) Somewhere in the past - convenieintly so far away that no one can check it out - they had some kind of speculative purpose in some speculative, indescribable way.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "Miller never addresses how the flagellar motor is going to be useful to the human body with just those "subsets" sitting there, going nowhere" Wow you are as dense as a person can get. First, he is talking about bacteria. Not the human body. Second, the "subsets" have DIFFERENT functions with altogether DIFFERENT uses than motility. Bacteria exist that are motile and nonmotile.There are also gliding bacteria that survive just fine and others with different means of motility too.
foxlake02 1 year ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
@foxlake02 For the 8th time - for the benefit of any others. I do not respond to posts of people like you who use name calling, personal insults, sexual harrassment, falsley accuse me of lying and tell someone who sent me a pornographic post re zip science, "Good job".
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2:31 "If they do have individual functions than the evoutionary explanation is likely correct" for machines within the flagellar motor. ("If", "likely" & all conditionals abound in evo lit & talk.) Miller says "Take away 40 parts...and the 10 parts that I have left...If the i.c. argument is right, this little subset should be non functional." Of course that's not what Behe is saying. Is that flagellar motor going to do what it is supposed to do w/o those 40 parts present & complete? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1:30 Having given a very decent description of what microbiologist Prof. Behe has had to say about intelligent design in mouse traps & flagellar motors, Miller then tries to explain Behe's argument away. He says "these complex machines arise from simpler machines." 1st of all there is no ev-i-dence for any such thing. And Miller admits that at 1:52 saying, "Now that's not evidence." No, it's the usual speculation piled on speculation + deceiption, which is all evo ever has to offer. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Michael Behe GOT OWNED!!!
oldblubblub 1 year ago
I bet people that doesnt believe in evolution and makes arguments, they dont even have a bachellors degree in natural sciences. :/ sad
iNova707 1 year ago
Good editing...something of a cliffhanger at the end of this...or at least it would be for me had I never heard of Neil Shubin.
Enter Tiktaalik roseae.
Thanks for uploading these. Ken Miller is awesome!
mapscannotcontainme 1 year ago
he has conveniently removed 40 parts that make up a complete component of the structure. This is deceptive. Proeins would not be evolve as complete components...whose buying this crap...
grfield1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science can be no more than Man's perspective on the physical world. When it reaches beyond that it delves into the purview of religion. Darwinism has done this: it's taken the Sumerian postulations of species' gradation {filtered through the plagiarist Charles Darwin} and created a church.
procommenter 2 years ago
[Fr. p. 2032 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" (1967): science / L scientia knowledge, fr. scient-, sciens (pres. part. of "scire" to know) 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute] That's science. It means "to know." There are innumerable means by which to learn. The derivation of the word "science" doesn't mention tenured "professors"; "peer review" nor "consensus."
Learn things. Impress women.
procommenter 3 years ago
You cannot ignore the scientific method and call it science. I would suggest more updated sources. How much has science changed to adapt what has been researched and the things that have been created in the last 42 years?
MoNsTeRHoGGeR 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
By the "scientific method" you mean institutionalized/tax-grant-funded "science." Collectivism is appalling. It enslaves Mankind.
Contact Merriam-Webster and show them the light,
in regards to the defining of words.
procommenter 2 years ago
As a woman, I must say that I am insulted and not at all impressed by your argument.
Also, I have just googled the definition you speak of, and I am apparently not reading the same things that you are. What I DO see is actually quite different: " knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".
Less than being impressed, I am much more disgusted by your arrogant display of ignorance.
SugarCookietarian 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Take a Midol.
procommenter 2 years ago
I love that you chose such a sexist and childish comeback. It's vindicating to know that you had no actual defense about your dictionary statement.
I could resort to quips about your manhood, but why bother? You're already your own joke in that regard.
SugarCookietarian 2 years ago 4
Could you?
procommenter 2 years ago
It's late for a comment but would you consider it sexist to say "you go girl?"
OskyATL 2 years ago
Religionists must apologize for the shortcomings of their orthodoxy. There are fossils. They support the fact that 98% of Earth's flora & fauna are extinct. I see no piety, nor humility, in the humanism of Satan's handmaidens. The evidence bore by Darwinists bears out that the impetus of life is unknown, and likely unknowable, to the meager mind of Man.
procommenter 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THEORY : conjecture, speculation, supposition
{"Webster's Unabridged Dictionary," p. 2371}
procommenter 3 years ago
Ummm, Jesus HATES dinosaurs....duh! Ever see a Stegosaurus walk on water? Take THAT Satan!
kev3d 3 years ago
I don't know what that means.
You don't know what that means.
procommenter 3 years ago 2
Evolution has no humanism. It does not even know we exist.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stop fighting.
my vagina is SO sore right now!! lol my bf just got done f*cking me! jD
Greattimberlake 3 years ago
"The parts of this system have functions of their own." QED Indeed.
lynchmobb2000 3 years ago
@lynchmobb2000 word.
but words falling on deaf ears I'm afraid (or would that be "blind eyes" since it's text?). whatever. you can lead a creationist to logic but you can't make him think.
eastjones 1 year ago
"Ken Miller is like Popeye the Science Man, opening up cans of scientific whoopass on an island full of grunting ID Goons. 'I'll take you all on one at a time! A-gah-gah-gah-gah-gah-gah!!!'"
- methinxaweezil
CrumblyButGood 3 years ago 14
Dam what did I say to recieve (poor comment.) I looked at serpent slayers comment and havent a clue why his comment would be hidden.
He is actually right, The evolution of the bacterial flagellum is but an argument. Even Ken Miller agrees.
These militants have to stop and quit hating.
JAMRAND 3 years ago
Don, Ken removed 40 parts to use as an example and found a use for the remnant
What about just losing 2 parts what happens then.
It seemed convenient for him to reduce to a functional system.
What about the current data stating the motor is older than the machine. Doesnt that support behe and refute ken miller.
JAMRAND 3 years ago
No- the prediction is that all parts should be useless. Indeed, the other proteins seen also have redundancies, demonstrating evolution as the only logical cause.
DonExodus2 3 years ago 2
I think the actual prediction is that some of the parts are original.
JAMRAND 3 years ago
unfortunately sir thats not what Behe stated in his book Darwins Black Box, Behe stated that if a part of the SYSTEM was removed then the system wouldnt work HE DIDNT SAY THAT THE PARTS COULDNT FUNCTION ON THEIR OWN
gdunntm 3 years ago
Well if thats what he said its a dumb ass argument. Of course if you take the wings from a bird it cant function as a bird. What does that prove? If they can function on their own, then they can do until they come together via evolution!!! Either you or Behe have missed the point of your own argument.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
The first part of your comment hits the nail on the head (Miller is using a really silly trick. Why anyones goes for it is beyond me) The second part of your comment is also very inconvenient for Miller's argument too. And to top it all Miller is not even addressing Behe's actual argument! This is clearly not what Behe's argues, even when he first wrote about it. K Miller has to replace it with his own silly caricature of what IC means. He just keeps repeating it and repeating it, unscrupulous.
allan3141 2 years ago
If Behe is saying only that the systems are not able to function in the same way if you remove any parts, leaving it open that the parts can serve other fuctions on their own, then it is not an argument for the unevolvablity of these systems. So what's your point?
Scientialist 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
allan3141 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sci, I do not agree with you here on 2counts. (1)I really do not recognise the position you attribute to Behe as Behe's position. I do not see it as even close. (2)Even your conclusion derived from this false premise surely does not follow. My points were 3 in number in relation to first part of video. (1)Removing 40 bits (not 1, 2 etc) under the pretence of making even harder for himself is a trick (2)There is evidence T3SS is not ancestral but Vice versa (3)Not Behe's argument, so a strawman.
allan3141 2 years ago
@JAMRAND
Let's reduce it one part at a time then.
Take the bait off the mousetrap. Now you have to put it where mice travel.
Take the pressure plate off the mousetrap. Now you have to chase the mice.
Take the catch off. Now you have to hold the bar.
Take the bar off. Now you have to club the mouse with the baseplate.
Take the baseplate away. Now you have to catch mice by hand.
Even the example Behe gave isn't irreducibly complex. At every stage, you can catch mice.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Thats cute but you fail to realize that your entire process required intelligence .
You seem to believe nature is capable of producing it yet If that were true then it would have definitely created a GOD by now .
Any fool should recognize that
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND
That's cute, but you fail to realize is that what you've said is a baseless assertion founded in ignorance, while what you needed to have said to have any merit is a logical argument based on repeatable, independently verifiable evidence.
rkyeun 1 year ago 4
@rkyeun
hahahahah Your support requires repeatable, independently verifiable evidenceand you shamelessly post theses requirements on Ken Millers argument on the evolution of the bacterial flagella .
Well go ahead and repeat the the processes required for evolving the bacterial flagella . Its not even a good argument much less repeatable, independently verifable evidence . TRY AGAIN SPONGE BOB
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND
Ken Miller doesn't need the evidence here. He doesn't have the burden of proof. The creationist claim is that the flagella is irreducibly complex. For this to be true, there must be NO way it could have evolved. Demonstrating ANY way it could have, whether it's right or wrong that it actually did evolve that way, is called a counterexample. It proves that it is not irreducibly complex. Misunderstanding the burden of proof doesn't absolve you of it.
rkyeun 1 year ago 8
@rkyeun
You're an idiot , the burden remains with you and is why research continues .
Did you really think the burden remains with the skeptic.
The flagellla didnt evolve and the acceptance that it did is only taken seriously because science demands that it did . When the methods demands a naturalistic explanation then any argument is accepted . It automatically wins .
But the validity of the conclusion is naturally brought into question ,
since it was a demanded conclusion
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND good question, however, if you were to research a little more, you would find that Miller indeed reduces the I/R Bacterial Flagellum further, and shows where other parts of the BF are useful in other functions. It is also necessary to explain how those smaller groups evolved, piece by piece, which Miller does.
eastjones 1 year ago
As miller says 'this is an ARGUMENT, not evidence. We see the flagella as a whole but we have no conclusive evidence that the individual parts functioned some place else. Were just presumimg the "possibality that that might have."
BEHE'S ARGUMENT STILL STANDS.
SerpentSlayer1 3 years ago
"we have no conclusive evidence that the individual parts functioned some place else. Were just presumimg the "possibality that that might have.""
Dude, hello, you need to put on your science goggles. Did you skip the type III secretory?
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 3 years ago
???
No lol. It is the type III secretory system, case closed.
DonExodus2 3 years ago 3
type III secretory system is observable in today's oranisms
avalsonline 3 years ago
Behe says you can't remove even a single part from the structure and still have functionality. That is Behe's argument.
Miller shows that you can remove parts and still have functionality. The flagella is not irreducibly complex. QED
lynchmobb2000 3 years ago
BUT "functionality" would be greatly comprimised and give the organism a great disadvantage that might lead to its demise.
Irreducibly Complexity is defined by testing the abality of the final system to evolve in a step by step fasion in which useful FUNCTION may not exist at each step. That would be function that does NOT give it a disadvantage to survival.
SerpentSlayer1 3 years ago
Where is your evidence for this claim? This is not Behe's claim in the first place. Just because usefulness is not implied in each and every increment, does not mean that mutation can't change/add/subtract multiple proteins which lead to new functionality. Behe doesn't use your argument because he knows that the onus is on you through experiementation to show that for instance, a 20 protein structure is functional, a 21 protein is not, a 22 protein is, a 23 protein is not etc etc.
lynchmobb2000 3 years ago
From "Darwins Black Box" Behe defines ID...
"By irreducible complexity 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."
Thats from an excellent write up about the Dover trial by Casey Luskin at
discoveryorg/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=747
SerpentSlayer1 3 years ago
Behe claims that you can't remove even 1 protein and still have a functional structure. Miller proves that you can remove dozens and still have a functional type-III secretory system.
This challenge has been answered. Behe does not have a leg to stand on. Not to mention the other claims like the purported irreducible complexity of bird wings, human eye, giraffe neck etc. They've all been explained.
lynchmobb2000 3 years ago 2
Miller claims we can remove proteins of the TTSS,which is one just one subpart of the flagellum and still have "normal function.Not true. Also, of the other 30 proteins he has no answer.
Of course his argument is assuming that the TTSS preceeded the flagellium.
Many evolutionary biologists now believe that the TTSS evolved FROM the flagellum.
SerpentSlayer1 3 years ago
For the last time, IC says no part of a functional structure can have function. The type-III SS is a part of the flagellum and is functional. IC is dead.
Who are these "many evolutionary biologists" who believe that the type-III SS evolved from the flagellum and where are their peer reviewed publications? This is silly since simpler structures very rarely evolve from more complex structures.
lynchmobb2000 3 years ago
Biologists who believe the ttss came from the flag? For one, Professor of Biology,Milton Saier from UCSD.
SerpentSlayer1 3 years ago
Say we know a 20 protein structure exists and functions. There is a multiple mutation which leads to a functional 22 protein structure skipping over a non-functional 21 protein structure. This shows there does not necessarily need to be an incremental (digital) change and this is exactly what the Type-3 secretory to flagellum evolution shows.
A codon mutation/deletion can also change the location of an existing structure to create new functionality, and infinite number of possibilies exist.
lynchmobb2000 3 years ago 3
I find it interesting that the scientists you like are the 0.1% of evolution deniers, and not the 99.9% who are unanimous in their support.
Second, let the esteemed Dr. Saier do his experiments, research, attend conferences, argue and debate, and publish his results to be scrutinized. Until then, his opinion means nothing. Just like my opinion means nothing and yours means nothing. All that matters is data and peer review.
It would be the greatest discovery since Darwin, where is his work?
lynchmobb2000 3 years ago 4
Your rambling again Lynch... and once again making up your own stats. Go outside and get some air...relax..its just debate...;)
SerpentSlayer1 3 years ago
Miller already shown that all the parts have a function and that it exists in other cells.
LaingGod 2 years ago
Heres what REALLY came out of the Miller experiments.
/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
@SerpentSlayer1 Behe start position is that Darwin cannot explain this structure. Behe's arguement is a solution to a question that doesn't exist.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok The sad thing about Behe is that he probably does believe that he is right.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 I don't think so. He must be familiar with HJ Muller's 1918 work, so he MUST know that irreducable complexity isn't an arguement.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok 2 explanations then for Behe, 1) he is simply being dishonest, he knows his argument is not valid, but he also knows that a large % of the public may be fooled by his ideas. explanation 2) Behe believes in irreducible complexity so strongly that no evidence will count agaisnt it. He states it as a matter of faith and ignores any evidence agaisnt it. An odd thing is that Behe is a biochemist, which has almost nothing to do with the subject he attacks, same goes for his associates too.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
@SerpentSlayer1 are you sure you understand the nature of argument? Behe makes a claim, Miller refutes it. It isn't necessary to prove that the explanation given is the "exact" one that occurred, as the argument Behe makes is that it is "impossible" for the BF to evolved if all of it's parts are required for it to function. Miller shows why that is not true, and thereby refutes Behe's claim. So Behe's claim most certainly does not stand, as the claim is proven false.
eastjones 1 year ago
@eastjones Not strictly, because the argument would then be that the reduced parts themselves are IC in nature, Behe is likely going to want a gene by gene list of changes before he is fully satisfied.
Similar to most people who claim fossils are not transitional will keep doing so until there are that many uncovered that you can not even tell where the species line starts and stops.
CliffStamp 1 year ago