Ken Miller talks about the evolution of blood clotting

[ian9toes]

So let me get this straight, seeing as Miller showed a simpler system exists in whales, do we now believe that whales mutated to have that missing part before the whale turned into a human. Wouldn't a open minded evo demand proof that the human system is found in a water based animal. Seems to me one system works in water and the other works on land only. Show me where one system is found in the opposite environment.

[eballest7]

look for : "Ken Miller's Only a Theory Misquotes Michael Behe on"

on g o o gle

[eballest7]

if you look for what I wrote above you will see this Video is based on a misquote

[eballest7]

Ken Miller MISQUOTED Behe in this Video.

Check out the website, so you can see for yourself.

[xenoknight696]

ID works like this:

1) Find system that looks designed

2) Declare that no natural explanation can explain its existence

3) Conclude magic man did it

[jelleepit]

how is this an argument if he actually admits that if you just knock out two of the components it doesnt function in humans. Even if he gets down to a cell and discovers it only needs 3 parts thats still IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX so who's owned now?

[archilles1195]

@jelleepit Exactly bro, blood clotting, no matter what he was bullshitting, remains an IC.

[hisham031170]

Ken Miller failed. If he removed any of the protein and the human's blood still clot, then he's correct, otherwise he's bullshitting and those worship him are gullible idiots. Behe was correct all the way.

[pppaaaooo13]

@hisham031170 Thats right my friend.Evolutionists wont think how is impossible, for example, the digestive system to evolve.What evolved first?The mouth?The stomach?Oh never mind.Somehow happened...

[foresigns]

Blood clotting is IC in each species. Miller is a master of illusion and misdirection.

[n3wbuo]

@foresigns My thoughts exactly. This video is the best refuter I have seen yet, however he still leaves questions hanging, has logic flaws like what you pointed out, and glosses over these questions by cleverly hiding behind theories that only work in cleverly designed words. I still think there is an enormous amount of proof for macro evolution though. I'm wondering if a union of these theories is the answer.

[micah1116]

Ken, Are we whales or pufferfish? If not, then Behe is 100% correct. Do they have different proteins that are responsible for blood clotting? And what about all the other countless organisms, saying that certain organisms don't have the proteins that humans do that are responsible for blood clotting, and then claiming that disproves what Behe said is simply nonsense.

[reamsauce]

As an evolutionist I fully refute the ideas of irreducible complexity, but I'm concerned with the lack of citations and authenticated empirical evidence presented in Miller's argument. Some clarity on the matter would be greatly appreciated, in the style of MLA.

[zenithar6666]

this is indoctrination, he has not reduced any part of any system, just given examples of other ones that are apparently "missing" components, when in fact they are whole and complete systems unto themlselves....painfull pseudoscience

[Pokarot]

@zenithar6666 So the system can be completely whole while not having some components? I bet you said the same thing when he tore your irreducibly complex flagellum apart too, or others crushed your idea of an irreducibly complex eye.

[zenithar6666]

what are you talking about, my point stands, ken miller is here participating in disinfo and misleading his students, these blood clotting systems he points out to disprove irreducible complexity are simply not "missing" anyting and to say they are is, for him in particular, what seems like a case of cognitive dissonance!

oh and i am by no means a creationist or religinos so dont act as though i am by defualkt just cause im not yet convineced by evolutions mechanisms

[Pokarot]

@zenithar6666 How is he misleading his students? Can blood clotting happen with less factors? Yes. Does Behe claim that it is irreducibly complex? Yes. So, clotting can happen with less factors, does this support the idea of evolution, or creationism? If a different system exists that has less factors, does that contradict irreducible complexity? Yes. You should look up the laryngeal nerve in giraffes and somehow try to make that fit in with something that isn't evolution.

[zenithar6666]

how is he misleadign students? becuase he says he will take away somethign from humans, yet moves onto fish claiming they are missing something, when they are clearly and simply not, why not just take a factor out of the human and see what happens instead of extrapolating from a fish, come on, this is totally misleading and shows a certain desparation if you ask me, im not even saying irreducible complexity is true, im just saying he is misleading here...cant you see that?

[Pokarot]

@zenithar6666 Evolution doesn't just apply to humans, it applies to everything. If there were no other species, it'd be impossible to verify if evolution was right or not. The claim was "Clotting is irreducibly complex", every single factor is needed for clotting, this was shown to be false.

[zenithar6666]

first of all, im not in pre school, i know where evolution applies,

he did not take, i reapeaet he did not take away any factors, from ANYTHING, he just presumed that the fish was missing somethign simply becuase it was not there, oh but wait the fish's clotting system is perfect, becuase its whoel and complete unto itself, even if we come from teh same lineage ultimatly...things evolve in dffernt envirometns,

explain why did miller not take somethign dirctly away from humans blood clottign?

[Pokarot]

@zenithar6666 The system as it is in humans, right now, does not function well if you remove a factor, no. What Behe was stating was: There is no possible way for this to come about naturally, and that this system could not function if any parts were missing. Miller shows that other systems exist that do not need these parts. It's like an eye doesn't need a lens to be beneficial overall, a lens definitely helps, but it isn't 100% required.

[zenithar6666]

your missing the point miller doesnt show that it can function with any parts missing since he has not removed anything from anythign, smiply extrapolated, and its dishonest,,

evolution is as much based on faith as fact...i dont mean the fact that thigns change over time, i mean the faith placed in teh mechanisms is far too high for me to buy into at the minute, in studying biology i am in awe of what i see and as yet dont see how darwinian mechanisms can accoutn lest we simply say they do,

[Pokarot]

@zenithar6666 You're pretty much asking him to knock out a central pillar of a building and still have it stand, it doesn't work that way. If a supportive pillar fell sometime during the evolution, the organism may be able to continue to live on, but if something vital is destroyed, no, they'll die. I think you misunderstand the working of the theory of evolution.

Evolution requires as much faith in its tools as the germ theory of disease requires faith in the microscope.

[zenithar6666]

NO im asking him to knock out ANYTHING from a system, he has not done that, you clearly cannot grasp this so ill just leave you to your religio science

[zenithar6666]

what are you talking about, my point stands, ken miller is here participating in disinfo and misleading his students, these blood clotting systems he points out to disprove irreducible complexity are simply not "missing" anyting and to say they are is, for him in particular, what seems like a case of cognitive dissonance!

oh and i am by no means a creationist or religinos so dont act as though i am by defualkt just cause im not yet convineced by evolutions mechanisms

[jbjbjb88]

i support evolution but i have to say that this man,apparently dosen't know that this pathway takes part only in vitro in vivo there is no intrinsic pathway and no extrinsic pathway, in vivo tissue factor take 7a (from the extrinsic pathway) then it activates 9 and 10 which produce a littel anmount of thrombin (2a) and then it stops because of TFPI (tissue factor pathway inhibitor) not before it has produced 5a and 8a. 9 and 8 making some more 10a which thake the 5a and produce thrombin.

[zenithar6666]

this is unfortunatly not refuting anything, how do these studens fall fo this, he arrogontly staes that puffer fish and (was it dolpihns?) LACK those factors, yet this is false, they dont LACK anything, they have exactly what they NEED for where they ihabit, how about we take away components of there clotting system and sea does it work,

he metntions humans for a breif second then move onto other biengs, i think he should be expaling what happens if we randomly take one away form us!!!

come on

[unassumption]

@zenithar6666

X-ray diffraction has been described as a 'trick' to identify the structure of a molecule - this does not mean something untoward, trick can mean something evil or a useful technique. Lack can mean something with a negative connotation, or it can simply mean "does not have." Maybe it isn't the best word to use, since it also has a meaning with an evaluative character, but you understand what he means there - it is absent, it is not to be found in those organisms.

[zenithar6666]

still his point is moot? how does this pass for anything

[unassumption]

@zenithar6666

Other species are important, if humans are thought to descend from them - the system of coagulation developed over millions of years with slow adaptions in earlier species we are hypothesised to descend from (And inherit our system from) and to show they could survive change shows they could obtain the system, and pass it to us. The relatedness is independantly evidenced by structural / genetic / embrylogical similarity as well as spacial and temporal distribution of similarity

[unassumption]

@zenithar6666

Evolution acts non-randomly, on species rather than organisms, over the course of hundreds of generations.

[trexheliflyer]

BS video. Sure, different animals have different compounds but the system does not work when you remove certain components. According to basic evolutionary doctrines, you can't end up with redundant or unnecessary systems or components that simply take up energy with no useful purpose. So even if you argue that you can take away some components and they system still works, that goes against evolution. Frankly it takes more religious "faith" to believe in evolution than intelligent design.

[unassumption]

@trexheliflyer

Vestigial organs / genes / embryology are a prediction of evolution - their removal takes time, and so some remain - intelligent designer "theory" is unable to explain these redundant organs. By tracing through similar species, the reverse decline of vestigial organs can be seen until an organism in which it was useful is reached. Components are slowly removed over generations, not from one organism (snake looses legs =/= evolution) and are only removed when no longer of use.

[zenithar6666]

why call them vestigal as though they are obvioisly supposed to be there, why cant be attribute them to random mutations that were neutral

[EasingDifficulties]

We are who we are. Hating ourselves is not productive. Plastic surgery has its practical side, especially for people who have gone through windshields.

[puncheex]

Yup, it is exactly as you say - he does say that the simpler clotting mechanism doesn't work for humans. But it doesn't have to - it works for an ancestor of humans, from which humans eventually descended, and along the way the additional step was evolved, probably because it made the whole clotting system more comprehensive, or more stable - it did something which made humans better adapted.

[puncheex]

...

But all that is beside the point. Irreducible complexity attempts to show the human clotting mechanism was not useful unless it is whole, thereby making the system impossible to bring together as a working unit except against tremendous coincidental odds. However, Miller shows that it was built up, one stage at a time, by being useful to our ancestors. In them it worked well enough, and today still works in their direct descendents. QED.

[puncheex]

Irreducibe complexity requires:

- that a multi-part mechanism be so compicated that it cannot be reasonably assembled from its components by chance; AND

- that there exist no incremental pathway to create that mechanism which is useful to organism it is in.

So far, no such mechanism has been identified. Behe, originator of the irreducible complexity theory, used blood clotting at the Dover trial, and when faced with the proof that he ignored the published evidence, had no reasonable response.

[emmaus9]

This is SO disengenuous! The idea is that without all the requisite proteins clotting will not occur in humans. He even acknowledges this to be true after removing just one protein. Then he has to go to lower animals which don't have the same blood clotting mechanism as we do. And of course, then it proves his point. But NOT if humans didn't evolve from lower species. Is this the best this supposed genius has??? WOW I am so amazed.  Where do I signup for the "I came from nothing society?"

[DeadFishFactory]

You're a dumbass. The argument that he is rebutting is that there are no precursor blood-clotting mechanisms that could give rise to the current one, but evidence clearly shows that not all the proteins are required for blood-clotting to work, so there could be precursors.

Of course, now you ignore that and just move that goal post, bitch.

[emmaus9]

And you're smart? Again, watch the video again and see where Miller admits that if you remove one protein blood clotting will no longer work in humans but it does in a lower species. That is the only point I'm making, but somehow that makes me a "dumbass". Let me explain: if I have not been convinced of the truth of evolution, what do I care that one less protein will still allow for blood clotting in a lower species?

Your language shows your depth, or lack thereof, as a human being.

[DeadFishFactory]

I'm not saying that I am smart; I'm saying that you're a dumbass. There's a difference, shithead.

Yes, because we evolved with that blood-clotting cascade, retard, so of course removing any part in our blood-clotting cascade will not make it work.

You're missing the entire point of the argument at hand, numbnuts. The fact that there is a species out there with a missing protein in the blood-clotting process means that irreducible complexity is full of shit.

[DeadFishFactory]

And have you ever tried typing "evolution of coagulation" into a search engine, you little shitfuck? Or do you prefer people to spoon feed you information because that makes it easier to ignore? Asshole.

[emmaus9]

Now I know where you arrived at your screen name. Your mouth is a cesspool of vile, and wicked things. Would you use that language if you were talking to the "Great One" Miller? I have learned to expect foul language from many proponents of evilution. The fact most do not believe in God seems to free their minds and moths to speak with profanity and vulgarity, or is it their lack of anything meaningul to say? Hmmm...

[DeadFishFactory]

Oh shit! Someone is swearing ON THE INTERNETS.

You think I curse because I don't believe in God? Holy shit, you're stupid.

And you've totally dodged my rebuttal, I totally almost didn't noticed it.

[emmaus9]

When you can learn to speak/write in a civil manner, then I will take the time to respond to you. These are courtesies that civilized people extend to each other. Have a good day.

[DeadFishFactory]

Is it because I ruined your shit? You didn't seem to mind my cursing until after I ruined your fucking shit.

Dumbass.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

Evolution may be incompatible with some aspects of some sects of some religion's scriptural interpretation or traditional doctrines (e.g. Gen 1-2) but these are just some of the inacuracies offered by religion, and evolution is usually just one of the internal and external contradictions plaguing these sections. If one can reconcile their faith with the age of the Earth or the two creation accounts, the biblical order of creation is inconsequential.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

Science is based on observed phenomenon and their most logical, simple explanations; to truly believe a proposition on the basis of the authority of the teacher or textbook, rather than experement or deduction from it, is anathama. The evidence or logic an expert presents is more authoritative than their word - their word can tentatively be taken on the merit of their position (Evidence of its reliability) but should be held strongly only when understood from observation + deduction.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

Most believe in a deity of some sort, though since believers are so divided it is unlikely most hold the same views on God as you; perhaps as the Romans thought of Christians, you believe those who accept another god or view of god (i.e. one compatible with evolution) is really not god at all, athiesm? That said, there are too many atheists for one catch-all explanation to apply to the entire group. Being born in an athiestic household is probably the most likely cause

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

The idea that anyone would reject a god they have ample evidence to believe in and think will punish them more for rejecting them than for the sin of swearing, presupposes inhuman irrationality in those people. They can sin (in some sects of some religions, this includes swearing - in others it does not, so why not just convert?) and still go to heaven if they 'repent' and believe in God. If they had evidence to believe, they would never reject god, there is no rational motive.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

That said, the emphasis is on you to prove athiests are primarily such, not because of circumstances of their birth or a lack of evidence or rejection of the social practices of their religion or confusion in a multi-religious multi-ethnic society, but because they want to sin. Just as it is on the emphasis of ID proponents to show the mountain of evidence for evolution is false, that every species alive and dead fits the predicted phylogenetic pattern does not prove descent.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

If a system that lacks one component is of no use to any organism, there would be no way an ancestor could have descendants changed in a small way (by mutations favored by natural selection) to produce the current system, and evolution would be called into question. That removing a random feature from an organism leaves it at a disadvantage does not disprove evolution; it is addition not removal, over generations not to one organism, and is non-random.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

That a path from an organism capable of surviving without that protein (And therefore of obtaining it) to potential descendant organisms counters the IDea that this system is irriductable / impossible. Evolution passes this test, and accumulates evidence. If the aim of the comment was to convince you of the truth of evolution(only attempted if you do not accept it) or at least the non irriductable nature of this system, presenting a piece of evidence for that theory is not unexpected

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

The content of a human's character cannot be ascertained from the content of text comments human has made in a short time period, with a character limit, still less does their choice of words reveal their mind and motives. Then again, one must draw tentative conclusions about complex things from the scant evidence available, weather that be evidence for the personality of a youtube commenter, or for the potential origin of the diversity and distribution of lifeforms.

[FirriTriah]

Humans didn't evolve blood clotting from scratch. Blood clotting was inherited from the "lower animals" that are ancestral to mammals and ultimately to humans. What he is saying is perfectly logical and no evolution is not "I came from nothing", all life came from common ancestors.

[emmaus9]

"..evolution is not 'I came from nothing', all life came from common ancestors."

Really? Can you, or any other scientists prove this, or is it really just supposition?

Without a higher intelligence who designed even the simplest of organisms, what you call our "common ancestors", you are forced to believe our supposed common ancestors came from nothing. Surely you will concede this point, and so ultimately, you came from nothing.

I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist!

[FirriTriah]

Science is not about "100% proof" science is about testable explanations. Evolution gives us many things to test, and every piece of data we find supports common ancestry for all life.

From nothing, nothing comes. Even abiogenesis does not have life coming from "nothing". But even if God created the first life, evolution would still function and BTW . . .I am a Christian.

If you want to find out more look for the book, "I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution".

[puncheex]

The proof of this is in biological papers that describe the creation of a new species of bacteria that can metabolize citrates, where none before could (See Lenski). The proof is in the 40 or so actual speciation events that have been reported in the biological literature. More proof is in the examination of fossil remains. More proof is in studying the ways in which genetic information is replicated, destroyed, repaired and passed along by every species studied so far.

Shove faith.

[Munro1Man]

You don't have the brains or flare to be an evolutionist.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

Evolution is to be tested independently of abiogenesis, the Nebular hypothesis, galaxy theory, the big-bang theory, etc, just as gravity and thermodynamics are independent. God could have created the universe, or galaxies, or planets, or the first common ancestor, and evolution would remain unchanged. Evidence of varying quality exists for all these ideas, but this has no bearing on the validity of evolution.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

Doesn't life come from nothing in the creator hypothesis, since it is Ex Nihlio? OK 'from nothing' creation means 'from god,' but the god has no explanation for its origins that could not be applied to a creature spontaneously coming into being in the early Earth, That said (remembering this has no relevence to the validity of evolution) none of the theories of abiognesis are from nothing - they are from simple molecules present in the early earth atomsphere, this mischaracterises evo

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

@emmaus9

Can you prove the revolutions of 1766 and 1789 occurred, that Aristotle taught and Nero ruled? Evolution is natural history, and like all history involves inferance from its results, and the relics it left behind. It is impossible to prove any natural law will occur in the future, or that it did occur in the past; we must infer the latter and predictions of the former would be uncertain even if our knowledge that they had occured at all times and places past was absolute.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the idea that an original ancestor came from nowhere is A Priori more probable than a deity coming from nowhere and then creating, both as the original lifeform is simpler than the deity (containing less traits that must independantly occur by chance for it to happen randomly), as the deity involves non-material things unlike anything we have evidence for, and as the deity adds no explanatory power (occham's razor - beings or hypothesis).

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

Looking at this word and infering back, if it had a designer it cannot have cared much about: freedom to allow social, economic, historical, biological, physical, linguistic, cultural and psychological forces beyond our control to influence our lives to such an extent: justice, to allow so much intuition and ethical theory would call injustice to occur: suffering, to allow so much both human and animal to occur, including design features (Vestigial organs) that promote suffering

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

The designer cannot care much about life, as it is so rare in occurrence both on earth and in the known universe, is constantly threatened and almost wiped out on a regular basis, is only capable of surviving in a small portion of the surface of one small planet from what we can tell. It does not seem to care much for intelligent life, as it constitutes such a small portion of life, or for culture, as most of that developed in the last tiny portion of human history.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

If a designer existed, it does not appear to care much if people believe in it, from the existence of so many sects and religions, large swathes of the world where belief in a god who cannot help but be the wrong choice is almost 100%, people who would be willing to believe if they had the evidence but do not, mistranslated and difficult to interprite scriptures, no earthly evidence of one religion's truth over any other, etc.

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

To conclude if a god existed, from the evidence in the world, it is unlikely to be the kind of god that would care about us, at least enough to resurect us in the flesh after death, and appears utterly inconsistant with the Gods of most traditional religions.

If the evidence for your god is some internal feeling - know muslims, Sikhs, Shinto, pantheists, deists, etc, probably also have that feeling, it cannot differentiate between them.

Sorry to go off topic like this

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

These comments seem rife with projection and talking points. Faith is something theists have, as is belief in creation from nothing, appeal to the authority of "great ones" in the church, many become theists to find absolution for their sins rather than stopping themselves comitting them, etc. Many of these statements are memes, hence you use some of them (ID) in ways incompatable with their original(flawed) logic as you appear to be repeating phrases, as if you believe the strawman

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

Proof is never absolute. It is impossible to demonstrate that A=A or that 1+1=2, or that sense experience is a reliable guide, much less an event in natural history occured; all things are infered from a limited data-set so cannot be infinitely certain. To expect evolution to be proven to such a degree is to ask an impossible task. It is proven most probable explanation for our perceptions of biodiversity

Its not like theism has been 'proven' or is of a comparible level of probability

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

How does that idea disprove evolution? I am unsure what prediction of evolution is contradicted by the existence of systems that cannot function if any component is removed, since evolution is compatible with that system being inherited in humans from a less complex life-form capable of loosing one feature and surviving that is to say, capable of surviving without that feature and then gaining it and passing it onto humans. I just want to see an explanation of how the argument works

[unassumption]

@emmaus9

I see where you come from, but you must realize he is showing descent from lower species is possible, weather or not he proves it is probable. A theory is only disprooven by an observation if it is incapable of explaining it; if evolution is consistent with blood clotting, it the supposed irriductability of the system can not act as evidence against it. Independent evidence shows weather the theory is likely or not, but this test it passes, and so is not disprooven, by this.

[faustolg]

That was a full scale gala massacre on creationism, err ID...

ROFL!

5*

[foresigns]

Miller at his typical lying and word twisting again. Same as every time he opens his mouth.

Human blood needs all the parts required to clot in human beings!

Pollywog blood (or whatever) needs its components to clot in that species.

Don't change creatures and claim IC fails.

You simply cannot speak without using deception, half truths, and twisted statements to lead people to believe your point is correct when it is completely false.

Wake up Millerites! Listen to your prophet lie!

[luker4459]

"You simply cannot speak without using deception, half truths, and twisted statements to lead people to believe your point is correct when it is completely false."

Haha, thats exactly how you describe intelligent design proponents because science has verifyable evidence and intelligent design has... uhh... deception, half truths, and twisted statements

All of millers statements can be backed up by scientific evidence. Your ignorance of the method does not invalidate the claim.

[jackalmate]

I'm with luker 4459~foresigns is the one lying and twisting, using half-truths and deception!

[Defenstrator]

There you go, moving the goal posts again.  When one argues from common descent it makes perfect sense to talk about the way it works in other species because they're all related. The pathway is the same whether it's humans, dolphins oe zebrafish.

[RPFS2008]

The clotting system was obviously already in place before humans evolved., so you owe Miller, and intelligence in general, an apology.

[EasingDifficulties]

Fairy stories intrigue evolutionists/"atheists" because they have evolved from common effeminate homosexual ancestors.

[jct329]

How does one have homosexual ancestors?

[EasingDifficulties]

Homosexuals stray occasionally.

[puncheex]

Sticks and stones, boy, sticks and stones.

[omyballshurt]

Classic ID lack of understanding, it's not a bait and switch at all. If those systems for blood clotting can work in other creatures then there is nothing to say they didn't also work in our very distant ancestors, i.e. the things that became the things that became apes. All you have to do is prove that blood can clot in the absense of certain proteins and indeed it can. How do you not understand that?

[Diomedes01]

Thank goodness this ID nonsense is pretty much dead and buried now. All the court cases have tossed it out. Ben Stein's moronic movie bombed worse than Madonna's "Swept Away". And in a half a year, President Shit for Brains will be out of office and along with him, all his evangelical fruitloops.

Maybe then we can get back on the science path before Europe gets all the patents.

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

Well, ban on stem cells is lifted, and Obama's vowed to cure cancer in ten years. I think we're getting there.

[Megile]

fucking owned.

[WordyDave]

The claim was made for human blood clotting only. Using other species to refute the claim is baseless. But using Miller's argument, what happens when one component is removed from the puffer fish's clotting elements? Most likely, a dead puffer fish.

[DeadFishFactory]

Irreducible complexity said that certain living SYSTEMS are too complicated and therefore cannot have been made through gradual steps and mentions the blood-clotting cascade as one of them. I don't remember it ever saying certain HUMAN systems, asshole. The different proteins used are a result of different evolutionary processes. Asshole.

[cutebuttt]

what's the asshole got to do with this? does it bleed more?? you need to take it easy

[kungfuwookie]

@DeadFishFactory huh?

[hughjarrse]

"The claim was made for human blood clotting only. Using other species to refute the claim is baseless"

please read your statement again, then familiarise yourself with the engine of evolution

[foxxycleopatra1979]

yes and what about flagellum,chromosones,the eye,falsifying experimental results..need i go on...? ID has been demolished.

[foxxycleopatra1979]

yes and what about flagellum,chromosones,the eye,falsifying experimental results..need i go on...? ID has been demolished.

[Erech01]

irruducibly complexity? cells cannot come together by hemselves??

next time you cut yourself hope that wht you say abut cells is wrong........

[tkhuang]

Even if this person's statement is true, how did the other individual parts of the blood-clotting system arise in the first place in each of the animals? Those precursor systems would still missing a part. The question for evolution is not whether you can take a system and use its parts for something else, it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a functional system -- you are building things from scratch.

[smaakjeks]

"Even if this person's statement is true, how did the other individual parts of the blood-clotting system arise in the first place in each of the animals? Those precursor systems would still missing a part. The question for evolution is not whether you can take a system and use its parts for something else, it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a functional system -- you are building things from scratch."

Argument from ignorance.

[memoryofakiss]

FYI ireducible complexity is a terrible argument and has been debunked countless times.

I suggest trying a new one that hasnt been utterly destroyed.

[cotterca]

"I suggest trying a new one that hasnt been utterly destroyed."

Problem is, there isn't one. :-)

[buffalobills4eva]

So why are we here?What is the meaning of our existence?To live ,to suffer then to die....So we are created to die....right?So why don't all you evolutuionists and abortionists kill your selves allrerady...why are you holding back.Why wake up,grow old,feel pain...then die..when you can cut out the midddle man?

[FlowCell]

You assume that the original sin was committed by Adam. What if the original sin was Satan's rebellion that caused the entire universe fell. If the fall was caused by Adam, the imperfection we see should be limited to the Earth. If that were so, then stars would never go super nova and die into black holes.

[foxxycleopatra1979]

so what? we're trying to find that out why we exist and die and the meaning of life, but creationists are retarding the process. if you cant handle the fact that you too will one day die or feel pain, then fine believe what you want but creationists shouldnt stop the rest who can and are trying to find out the truth. im muslim nut i dont believe we poofed onto the earth.

[rasago3r]

For 13.7 billion years I didn't exist, thus I didn't get to experience anything during that time. Now that I have been given the chance to live in this universe, I want to create a personal meaning for my life and experience as many things as I can as long as they do not interfere with the meaning I created. This is why I don't kill myself.

[floats09]

How did the other parts evolve? The same way the full system evolved. Through natural selection. One compound interacted with another... If this was beneficial to the organism, the gene was conserved. etc. etc.

[lolharbandhar]

Ken Miller is a brilliant scientist and a brilliant explainer of evolution. The whole talk was fantastic.

[kurisu313]

wow, thats fascinating

[Kurpalac]

Well, their predictions still are not testable really. They are simply labeling our ignorance to be God rather than trying to explain it or understand it. I think that practice does a disservice to both religion and science.

[bluebeard2]

Fascinating. I'm really enjoying your videos, and hope that you present some more. Also, notice how nowadays, Creationists are making testable predictions out of their theories, something unheard of in centuries past. Although, they keep being demonstrated as false predictions :)