Co-Option

[Mortan95]

I see you still have black bars, check out my video to see a very easy way to remove black bars on videos that are already uploaded! No programs or downloads required

[TypicalCreationist]

So the flagella, which supposedly will not function if parts are removed evolved into a system with fewer parts? That makes perfect sense, take THAT evolutionists.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Do creationists EVER get tired of being wrong all the time?

[robertmike57]

Dude, you're talking about bacteria then you switch to mentioning "protozoan" like creatures at 1:32. Protozoa are eukaryotes, bacteria are prokaryotes.

NO ONE in biology would conflate bacteria with protozoa! You idiots don't know the difference between bacteria and protozoa, such a joke.

[TheScienceFoundation]

"Dropped down to a 10 part piston motor"

...really? I mean really?

words... have...meanings

'irreducibly complex'

see that word irreducibly?

Irreducible: impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition; impossible to make less or smaller

[MolecularBiologyVids]

Christ man, actually learn before you make videos in the future

[IDquest]

Excellent point. Behe said more on the topic of co-option: watch?v=4nwIJw5-ggc

[MolecularBiologyVids]

And someone who actually knows what they're talking about said more on the topic of co-option here

/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

Excellent point? The only point that he tried to make was that the irreducibly complex flagella was reduced in complexity to evolve into the TTSS, exactly what couldn't happen if IC is true.

[IDquest]

Michael Behe specifically said that IC systems can devolve. I would recommend you read his book Darwin's Black Box. Far too many people listen to the critics of ID without even trying to read what ID proponents say.

[MolecularBiologyVids]

There is no such thing as devolve, if you mean evolve into a system with fewer parts, thats in direct contradiction to his definition of irreducibly complex. It's even in direct contradiction to the very label 'irreducibly complex' if it can be reduced to a system with fewer parts, its not irreducible.

[IDquest]

LOL! You clearly did not read Michael Behe. He's written that parts of an irreducible system can in fact be reduced. The fact that you think this is actually in contradiction to Behe's premise shows that you're just a troll masquerading as someone who thinks he knows what he's talking about. And I doubt you study contemporary biology which has discovered that more and more systems are a result of devolution.

[IDquest]

I'll repeat what I said to the other guy: Behe said the flagellum is irreducibly complex. That is, it didn't evolve to become what it is. However, the type 3 secretory system could have evolved from the flagellum. Thus, the flagellum could reduce to the type 3. But not the other way around.

[MolecularBiologyVids]

Repeating it doesn't make it any less wrong, like foog said, it can't be reducible and irreducible at the same time, that violates the law of logic known as non contradiction. That's a big one.

[aCurrier]

There are examples of systems losing genetic information in biology (e.g. antibiotic resistance), but none of the reverse. Increase in complexity is an uphill process that requires guidance (design), whereas a decrease in complexity follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Elementary, my dear Watson

[yugyfoog]

The second law of thermodynamics is that the total entropy of a closed thermodynamic system is non-decreasing. It says nothing about complexity. Learn some science.

[aCurrier]

It has everything to do with complexity. It concerns systems running down, tending toward disorder. How does that not have to do with complexity?

[yugyfoog]

Whoever told you the 2nd law is about "systems running down, tending toward disorder" lied to you. Read a book on physics. (hint, entropy ≠ disorder)

[aCurrier]

You're the first Darwinist I've heard deny that entropy is a measure of disorder. Ever heard of Ilya Prigogine? He was known for his work on thermodynamics and received a Nobel Prize in 1977 for this. Even he recognizes this problem to Darwinism. Read some of his stuff

[yugyfoog]

Funny how you're asking me to read someone who was an evolutionist to prove evolution wrong.

[aCurrier]

How is that funny? Many evolutionists have been and are skeptical of many aspects of evolution.

[yugyfoog]

From what I understand Prigogine wasn't even skeptical of evolution.

[aCurrier]

He was willing to acknowledge and attempt to address the problem of entropy and Darwinism. I brought him up to counter your claim that this problem doesn't exist

[aCurrier]

Funny how you missed my point

[MolecularBiologyVids]

No, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to energy in isolated systems, earth is not an isolated system.

[MolecularBiologyVids]

'but none of the reverse'

Wrong, /watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk

'complexity follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics'

Wrong again, the SLOT only deals with energy in a system available to do work

[aCurrier]

You're playing word games. An irreducibly complex system, as he who came up with the argument defined it, is "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." It does not mean you can't simplify this, only that doing so renders it's original function inoperable. I.e. you can simplify such a system to serve another purpose, which is brought out in the vid

[MolecularBiologyVids]

'It does not mean you can't simplify this'

Actually thats exactly what it means, if you can make it simpler, its reducible, the opposite of irreducible.

[aCurrier]

As much as I'd love to reply to these, but as I said in my last comments, I'm done with this discussion. I need to make a mental note never to get involved in these because they just go on and on and on lol.

[MolecularBiologyVids]

If you had the intellectual honesty to admit when you're absolutely wrong, they wouldn't

[aCurrier]

However, reducing a system to perform a different function is a completely different story than allowing that system to be built up in an progressive fashion unguided

[yugyfoog]

If a system can be simplified and is still functional then it's not irreducible. Simple. No word games.

By the way, evolution isn't unguided. Ever hear of natural selection?

[aCurrier]

Go ahead and make up your own rules about this. Irreducible complexity doesn't claim that it cannot be reduced to perform a DIFFERENT function, only that it cannot be reduced to perform the former function. That's what this whole idea of co-option is all about. A simpler system of a DIFFERENT function evolving to a more complex system of a DIFFERENT function.

And natural selection doesn't explain anything except that the "unfit" die out and the fit survive.

[yugyfoog]

You're claiming that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because it could not evolve. However Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum could not evolve because it is irreducibly complex. That's circular reasoning.

[aCurrier]

It could hardly be called circular reasoning when you claim I argue one thing and he another. That would be more like conflicting claims. And what I'm arguing is the same as Behe: An irreducibly complex system is "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."

[yugyfoog]

Unless you and Behe disagree, it's circular reasoning.

[aCurrier]

As I said before, you're assuming that the concept of irreducible complexity precludes the possibility of such a system to be reduced to a different function. Irreducible complexity cannot be explained by evolution, evolution cannot explain irreducible complexity-same. If you want to see a good example of circular reasoning, look no further than the dating of index fossils by their position in the geologic column and vice-versa. Look up "Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology" on ICR(dot)org

[aCurrier]

You are putting your own interpretation on the statement by excluding the possibility of such a system being reducible to perform a different basic function. In the example of the flagellum, co-option leaves too great of a gap between the Type III secretion system for evolution to have bridged it without having the end product in mind ahead of time. In other words, the evolutionary process would have to plan ahead

[yugyfoog]

What you're forgetting is that all the parts of the bacterial flagellum have been shown to be either not necessary or to have other functions.

[aCurrier]

The discussion never ends! lol Look up "Rotary motors in the bacterial flagellum" on Creation(dot)com

[yugyfoog]

In a abstract case, it's possible for two systems, each providing their own function, to interact to provide a new third function. If, in the course of evolution, either of the two original functions is lost, then the combined function would be considered irreducibly complex. Therefore, not only have all examples of irreducible complexity been shown not to be irreducibly complex, but irreducibly complex systems can evolve.

[aCurrier]

An abstract case, huh? Lets talk about a realistic case. Funny how you try to make it sound so simple that "all examples of irreducible complexity [have] been shown not to be irreducibly complex" with a blanket statement without actually exploring those systems. I guess I should just take your word for it. Funny how someone can cling so tenaciously to something so preposterous as Darwinism in the name of "reason". Look up "Pseudo-science Attacks Irreducible Complexity" on ICR(dot)org

[aCurrier]

I'm done with this endless discussion

[yugyfoog]

You're done with this discussion? Good! So am I.

You obviously have never read anything by Ilya Prigogine, at least you haven't understood anything you might have read. Yet you persist on spreading lies about his work.

Discussing science with someone with such a profound lack of knowledge and willingness to lie is indeed futile.

[aCurrier]

"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder," Ilya Prigogine, Impact of Science on Society, Vol. XXIII, No. 3., 1973, p.162. I hope we've both been able to walk away from this having learned new things. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," John 3:16. I didn't want to end this dialogue on a purely argumentative note

[aCurrier]

This explains nothing about how new information is introduced, which is pivotal for macroevolution to work. That's why the neodarwinists have to rely on mutations. Surely you knew this. Survival of the fittest explains survival, not arrival. It can only select for the genes that are there, and there boundaries to the variety in the gene code. Mutations have to be used to explain new information. And mutations are a bad poster boy for this

[yugyfoog]

Gene duplication + point mutation = new information

[aCurrier]

And you think that this explains the process of macroevolution? You have great faith for an atheist (assuming you are). Darwinism is truly a religion garbed in the robes of science.

[yugyfoog]

It's an example of one way information can be created in DNA.

[aCurrier]

I'm getting rather tired of this discussion and neither of us are going to budge. Look up "Some mutations are beneficial" on Creation(dot)com

[MolecularBiologyVids]

From the looks of it, you're tired of being wrong.

[aCurrier]

No, I was carrying on quite a lively discussion with yugyfoog and got tired of it. For some reason the end of the discussion he and I had isn't even showing up (on my computer, anyway). Although I'm not gonna continue this discussion, I'd encourage you to look at the articles I mentioned in my discussion with yugyfoog, and look around on those sites in general. But I have better things to do than argue endlessly on a YouTube video

[aCurrier]

Period

[MolecularBiologyVids]

Yeah, I looked over the conversation, he had to keep correcting you on pretty much every point. It's as if you were trying to be wrong.

[yugyfoog]

Behe says an irreducible system can be reduced! Just what does he mean by irreducible then?

[IDquest]

He said the flagellum is irreducibly complex. That is, it didn't evolve to become what it is. However, the type 3 secretory system could have evolved from the flagellum. Thus, the flagellum could reduce to the type 3. But not the other way around.

[yugyfoog]

If a complex system can be reduced to a simpler system then it's not irreducibly complex.

[MolecularBiologyVids]

No, he said if you remove one part it's non functional, which is wrong because it's been known for 23 years that there is a flagella missing the L and P rings altogether.

[JessieNix]

No, its not 'on the table' it hasn't been 'on the table' for over 100 years

[JessieNix]

Try actually learning before you talk /watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

"I don't look at co-option like that" Neither does the scientific community, because thats a strawman.

"I've got to integrate these parts..." look up; argument from personal incredulity.

"would make more sense that the 40 part flagella dropped down to the 10 part piston"

You're REALLY saying that the 'irreducible complex' flagella, which supposedly can't function without all its parts, evolved into a system with fewer parts?

[JessieNix]

no, not simpler motors, different structures with different functions. No, that were co-opted by a mutation which changed/added function. "That all come together perfectly" no, some flagella are lacking the L and P rings entirely. No, thats not the argument, and even if it were, it debunks Behes concept of irreducible complexity which says that any assemblage of parts that is not the whole is by definition non functional

[mejc2]

too bad that the bacterial flagellum predates the more simple form. Oh well! so much for proof.

[Brotoi]

So, in short, the court of law is now the final peer review for scientific endeavor?

And no one sees a problem with this?

(0.o)

If we allow the courts to determine what is and is not "science", then before long eugenics will again be regarded at the height of scientific achievement and we will find ourselves "terminating with grace" any citizen deemed "defective".

That is the lesson of history.

[JessieNix]

The court was ID's idea, and their last ditch effort, they failed even with a highly conservative judge on the bench

[Daytimeofnight]

Irreducible complexity fails because it rests on misunderstandings of the evolutionary process. The notion that a complex structure cannot have evolved, but must have been designed unless a "direct gradual route" from simple origins to finished product can be found is a misunderstanding. The accumulation of molecular data makes it clear that existing genes and their products are constantly coopted and adapted to new functions and their current role is often a poor guide to their original role.

[Tcrowaf]

therefore, baby jesus

[TheEdge012]

Agreed. Great points!

[MacAr7huR]

God bless, Randall!

[Chuichupachichi]

@jbbremerton,

Good point! It's interesting that although it's a scientific issue which by the time of the Dover trial, had been a ongoing debate amongst scientists with their laboratories being the battlegrounds. Yet, the evolutionists seem to be oblivious to the illogical thinking which sees the determinations of lawyers & judges as the conclusive finality to the matter. Although evolutionist scientists had already been making claims in opposition to ID & the Bacterial Flagellum

[Chuichupachichi]

Its equivalent to considering scientists a greater authority than Mr. Niles regarding legal matters

Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer possesses a great scientific intellect but I'd prefer the legal council of R. Niles

The fact is that the evolutionists couldn't achieve victory over I.D. in the lab so they opted to do what even O.J. Simpson was able to do...go to the place where the word "person" might mean a dog and get their supposed victory there

What the heck, in science person = ape

[Chuichupachichi]

I don't mean to say by my earlier comments here, that its required for a person to have a degree in a particular field in order to be capable of speaking accurately or even as somewhat of an authority regarding a matter

I myself, neither scientist nor lawyer, having the opportunity, would gladly remind Congress & Senate by speaking rather authoritatively, that since taxes pay their wages it is "we the people" who are the boss & they our employees. That being Constitutional, thus, a legal matter

[MolecularBiologyVids]

'in science person = ape'

No, in reality.

It was the ID proponents that wanted to take it to court, and they failed there as well.

[Chuichupachichi]

@MolecularBiologyVids

Where within reality, that is within the natural world, can there be found that which determines the criteria for any of the categories within taxonomic classification?

Answer: Nowhere! Due to the fact that people, that is, scientists determine the criteria required for classification into any of the categories. Those determinations are nowhere to be found in nature and that's precisely why the "species problem" exists. Which incidentally, extends to more areas than

[MolecularBiologyVids]

There is no 'species problem'

Species: any group of organisms that can reproduce bearing fertile offspring

[Chuichupachichi]

simply the "species" category. I'm not saying that the species problem exists because of any intentional falsehood by scientists. Quite the contrary...for many years, many scientists have tried to rectify the problem but it has to date, proved to be impossible. Although, ironically, the word "kind" would seem to standardize definitions. Thus, eliminate the problem. Also ironic, is that the man responsible for the use of the word species within science, began using it to group organisms according

[MolecularBiologyVids]

Just the opposite, kind isn't even used in classification because it's purposely left open ended by those who DO use it as to remain a tool of obfuscation.

[Chuichupachichi]

to their kind. Of which, their variation cannot range any further so as to become another kind. In other words, a kind of animal in all it's variations would be one species. It is the classification of different species within the kinds that mostly causes the "species problem"

If they wished, scientists could have determined that there be a category for organisms named "Vita Universalis" with the criteria being any organisms which require any or all of water, oxygen & sunlight.

There, now all

[MolecularBiologyVids]

'Of which, their variation cannot range any further so as to become another kind.'

If you could define 'kind' in a way thats not horribly circular, you'd be the first.

[Chuichupachichi]

organisms on earth classify together in one category. Who can argue that we're all, both flora & fauna, not the same? After all, it's science! It's reality!

Despite the fact that all species of ape, share the traits of 4 hands (2 floor models) full body fur, none are true bipeds, have large canine teeth & none build zoos with humans on exhibit. Still, naturalist, materialist scientists chose to ignore these shared ape traits & make the Ape criteria be whatever can cause the inclusion of humans

[MolecularBiologyVids]

Saying all organisms are in the same class is utterly useless to science.

If you actually watch this video, it will clear up a lot of misunderstandings you have

/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

[jbbremerton]

science is not a courtroom issue. interesting that mainstream science does the same things now that they did in the middle ages!

[sunshade0]

first!

Also awesome video.