Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 4 of 12)

[EmmaOnATangent]

My question is, if a bacterial flagellum is necessary for a bacterium now, how did it survive without one for all those years, and if it did survive, why did the flagellum become necessary? You still have to invent the universe to make a pumpkin pie from scratch.

[helm311]

Not trying to step on anyone's toes, but just how does something with no intelligent guide rewrite its own blueprint by adding more info. than it started with and become more complex.

[gary00333]

The response that because a subsystem of the flagellum motor can operate independently for a different function says NOTHING about irreducible complexity. Just because it could function as an active transport for ions doesn't matter. The fact is, if you remove one or more parts from the flagellum motor, it CANNOT function as a rotary propulsion machine. That is Behe's point. Video is accurate as is.

[FrostdPoptart]

Since the making of this movie, scientists have 1) found that many bacteria have bacterial flagellum that function with different parts than this specific one, 2) shown that this specific one is NOT irreducibly complex (remove ~1/2 of it and you're left with an active transport system for ions), and 3) have demonstrated a Darwinian method that details how this specific bacterial flagellum could have evolved.

Time to make a new video for your next example of irreducible complexity.

[emekaobioji]

@FrostdPoptart Please where´s your proof? or web page or whatever where you got this info?

[FrostdPoptart]

@emekaobioji You should be able to Google with the words

bacterial flagellum evolution

and find all of the proof you need. There's a decent article at NewScientist titled "Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex" that should make it pretty clear that this flagellum is absolutely not irreducibly complex. In truth, you'll find that Creationists use the words "irreducible complexity" to convince gullible people who won't question them that their pseudoscience is correct..

[joraynas]

And also, who "programmed" living organisms into wanting to survive at all in the first place? Why would something want to survive at all? What is the driving force behind the will to survive? If I am just matter, what difference does it do to me whether I live or die? Why would anything living want to survive in the first place? I belive, because the Creator gave Life and purpose and the will to live into every living organism.

[joraynas]

Darwinists are actually giving a kind of Intelligence to Natural Selection but consider: Why would these first single cell organisms want to survive at all? If they are mindless living organisms without any intelligence, who put into them the will to survive in the first place? Why would they even want to survive? They are mindless living matter without any intelligence! It wouldnt have made any difference to them to live or die. No Brain no Pain!

[TheSeventhSon]

@joraynas

We don't know why organisms have a will to survive. What's your point? Not knowing doesn't, by default, mean that someone or something was responsible for it.

[Glad1kun]

@TheSeventhSon we do know why. Those that didn't have "the will" to survive died and the only ones that left did have "the will".

[Xmuslim2010]

They are assuming that the bacteria was as it is without the motor, and THEN start building it.

They forgot the possibility that the whole system was evolving together INCLUDING the motor until it reach this state.

[peyupsgurl]

how can a bacteria with no tail could evolve if it's dead? A bacteria without a flagellum cannot survive

[thedrummer77]

@Xmuslim2010 But that is the problem of evolution right there, since evolution declares that one part without a function in a system WILL BE ELIMINATED because it is not fitted to that it yet until it is ready. If a rotor cannot work without the propeller (which is not developed yet) both are useless since they depend on each other to be fully functional.

[Xmuslim2010]

@thedrummer77 "one part without a function in a system WILL BE ELIMINATED " this is wrong.

Only parts that CAUSE the system to lose performance or lower its chance to survive will be eliminated.

[thedrummer77]

@Xmuslim2010 Per definition a system is a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a COMPLEX WHOLE. In other words how can you use a piston without having a cylinder to compress the air (or fuel)? If each one of those parts depends on each other, or if both would take millions of years to develop, HOW can they cause the system to perform?

[Xmuslim2010]

@thedrummer77 If a piston and cylinder evolved initially to do something else each one alone (i.e leg and channel), another step could put them toghater to work in different way.

In the bacterial flagellar system, part of it can work as waste repellent.

Watch this, very useful

youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZ­M

[thedrummer77]

@Xmuslim2010 Thanks for the video! But actually, by definition Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. (to be continued)

[thedrummer77]

@Xmuslim2010 the video is showing an example of a rough adaptation (which also offers a problem here) because according to the theory, using that example, the mouse trap would mutate into a paper clip or a spitball launcher! Substituting it for other more advanced and proper adapted organism (in the case a REAL paper clip) natural selection would eliminate the mouse trap in a few generations and it would NEVER become a mouse trap, as it was poorly evolved for that function.

[Xmuslim2010]

@thedrummer77 You didn't understand what's in the video.

Your example of piston and cylinder is the same idea of what Micheal Behe talks about, he calls it "irreducible complexity", which has been disproved by that video.

Mr Behe argues that if you remove one part of the mouse trap, it won't work any more. He is missing the point that it doesn't have to work as a mouse trap!. it can work as paper clip or a spitball launcher.

So, a mouse trap could evolve from a paper clip or spitball launcher.

[thedrummer77]

@Xmuslim2010 I did understand the video, but did you read my answer about it? Did you understand that there is a natural selection that will eliminate the unfitted? A mousetrap definitely is not a paper clip and in evolution it would be eliminated for a REAL paper clip IF it doesn't mutate (or evolve) into one. Same goes for the spitball laucher. Evolution would eliminate it until it has a use. Since there is no use for a mousetrap til it's completely assembled, natural selection eliminates it.

[Xmuslim2010]

@thedrummer77 "in evolution it would be eliminated for a REAL paper clip IF it doesn't mutate (or evolve) into one"

THAT'S WRONG.

That's not what the theory of evolution says, and obviously you do not understand the theory.

The theory says a paper clip would evolve to mouse trap not the other way around!!!!!

A mouse trap will remain and even evolve to more complicated device according to the theory.

A device will be eliminated for more complicated one not the other way around.

[thedrummer77]

@Xmuslim2010 "The theory says a paper clip would evolve to mouse trap not the other way around!!!!!"

From the video you told me? If you had to choose between the tie clip and the mouse trap which one would you choose to go to a party? That's what nature does according to Evolution - it selects the fittest! It's the mouse trap that would have to adapt to the paper clip until it is fully developed not the other way around, since the mouse trap still has no function. I guess you got confused.

[sKewbrain]

We see the effect, but I want to know the mind!

[bmbsage]

Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

[Jesrael1986M]

"Natural Selection is scrutinizing the slightest variations, rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good"

Darwin is using the language and metaphors of teleology to describe a mindless process, because that is the only way to make it sound plausible. We mustn't be fooled by this kind of sophistry.

That is why it is so important to crystallize these concepts into mathematical models, only then can we determine what Natural Selection can and cannot do.

[sandrajoylees]

How sad for those who don't see the miracle of this life and universe and then start to question and explore the possibility of an awesome Creator Cod, evolution has not been proven and cant be. Its amazing to come into contact with your creator and find that Love, joy, hope and reward are a part of his life. Evolution is the religion of death, no hope and deceit- there is still judgment whether believing or not.

[ChrisnStarry]

We ARE NOT accidental animals!!!

[forexfreak77]

Only a "reasonable" mind can consider other posibllities.

[gregrutz]

"Darwin's theory says"........and then they get it WRONG !

[gregrutz]

IR and ID don't exist, just religion.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz NO EVOLUTION IS RELIGION...A MAN MADE RELIGION. Its used because some people don't want to except that God exists but HE DOES and ID is true science!!!

[gregrutz]

@thebig1 >>> Know I know what dilutional is. You can't tell the difference between science and religion. How can people get it backwards? Hopeless.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz No we understand evolution for what it truely is. It happens based upon situation and surrouding but thats where evolution ends.

[hihelloheyhowsitgoin]

@gregrutz

"Now I know what delusional is."

That is how you spell it.

[smartlasertech]

so natural selection knows what to select, with no program or criteria to go by.

sounds like natural selection much like a computer program , though they do not want a "programmer".

[gregrutz]

@smartlasertech The ''laws of nature'' is the programmer.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz There is no law of nature without a creator of that law. Nothing comes into existance from nothing...it must be created by something else. God has always been therefore he is the creator!!!

[gregrutz]

@thebig1 Who said there wasn't one?

[thebig1]

@gregrutz You did...you don't believe there is a God. No one is the creator but God.

[blattt188]

@thebig1 Exactly. If there is universal law, there is a single lawgiver above time & dimension as there is order instead of chaos in the universe.

[egatz4u]

How to drive Evo. Crazy let them whatch this!!!

[gregrutz]

watch....  Why do people laugh at creationists?

[TeamDarwin1809]

LOL, old news, I. C. debunked by real science.

damn

[violet101]

asking the question of our existence is asking what comes first; the chicken or the egg. you really go bak and forth on it cuz even if natural selection explains adaptations, thers the question of how did the universe come to be in the first place. If you say it was designed by a superior being, what then created the superior being? It's beyond understanding.

[piggod1234]

why evolutionits have to redefine results , redefine theory, if in that specific moment they where accpeting absolute subjetvity and writing it in? why creationists have to accept everything wrote by egomaniachumans not a GOD.. you are all the same bragging know things

evolutionits and creationists you guys need silence and meditation you know just too much

[TheOnlyTrueGoodGod]

Biologist Ken Miller's reponse:

watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

[prettyemofreak]

you wanted my point of view on GOD, Who GOD is? my friend you need to look somewhere better than me for that answer you need to turn to GOD himself for that answer and I Guarantee you at some point in your life you will see wether its on judgement day or before that i'm praying its before that

[prettyemofreak]

it shatters my mind it blows my mind away how someone can deny facts such as these the FACT that GOD exists and did most definitely create us you are the MORONS OF THIS UNIVERSE that should be the tittle of my book

[TheSeventhSon]

@prettyemofreak That is not a fact. It's a belief. I have no reason to believe that there needed to be a god for any of this to happen.

[gregrutz]

God exists, I don't understand the nuclear reactions inside the sun, It is complex.

So I worship Ra, the sun God.

[prettyemofreak]

you brought no logical argument and you are preassuming about how people look at the sun i have never met a christian that worships the sun you are a Liar and a pathetic one too you are bringing up a "subject about sun" that i have not talked about nor mentiond you are changing the subject into something its not again you are a pathetic loser who lies good for you loser good for you this is a breakpoint for me to stop talking to you because no point on with someone who is a liar and a moron

[gregrutz]

Prove your god exists and the other ones don't.

[prettyemofreak]

@gregrutz your going to hell thats my prove

[thebig1]

@gregrutz Prove " evolution "according to Darwin and I will. The problem on your is YOU CAN'T and I can.

[gregrutz]

@thebig1

There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!

[thebig1]

@gregrutz You mean that GOOD OLE BOYS CLUB called the elites of " science "? They review it and say its true because THATS WHAT THEY BELIEVE not because its true. Universities all over this country black ball ID experts because THEY CAN'T DEBATE THEM ON THE FACTS

[gregrutz]

@thebig1

Name one FACT supporting ID,

not an arguement, a fact.

[mebe84]

@gregrutz that is an exaggeration at best

why not respond to arguments made in the video instead of childishly claiming everyone else believes it so it must be true.

[gregrutz]

ID lost in court, it was proven to be religion. The don't have a scientific argument.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz And Evolution is nothing more than a MAN MADE RELIGION to replace God. True science does not support Evolution according to Liberals.

[gregrutz]

60% of Biologists accept God, most of them accept evolution. The ones who don't are in this video.

[thebig1]

@thebig1 This DVD has already done that you just refuse to listen. EVolution happens there is no debate about that but what is in question is evolution according to Darwin....which has been proven laughable over the years.

[gregrutz]

@thebig1 ''according to Darwin'' !?!

His theory is 150 years out of date, try to keep up with science.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz I'm not just basing my argument on Darwins ignorance but all of modern science in regard to ID is just not true. Evolution in the sense you people base it in is not possible.

[gregrutz]

@thebig1 So what do you think evolution is? One kind of animal turning into another kind of animal?

[thebig1]

@gregrut We know certain species evolve to a certain surrounding if it means they protect themselves or have to eat certain things because thats all thats their. Evolution like that happens but one species cannot become another totally different offshoot of another.

[gregrutz]

@thebig1 Glad you accept evolution !

Kinds make kinds.

That is why dogs make dogs.

And humans are still apes.

and all apes are still primates,

and all primates are still mammals

and all mammals are still tetrapods.

Are you a mammal?

[thebig1]

@gregrutz The man made religion that you hold up as fact is not scientific. Evolution exists in certain envirorments and situations but not in the sense you believe in. Those are the facts.

[yay78900]

what do you mean by god?  how would you define god?

[prettyemofreak]

@yay78900 I saw this ink stamp that says loser on it so if you stamp it anywhere it just says loser saw it at office depot i thought this would be handy to smack someone in the face with and you just came to mind after i read this question you posted

never the less here is the answer

GOD: GOD of the Bible The FATHER/SON/HOLY SPIRIT trinity. The Creator and ruler of the universe & heaven and source of all moral authority, the supreme being

[yay78900]

@prettyemofreak Thank you for responding, but why so hostile my friend? I was simply curious about your point of view, since the word god is used so often, yet the concept is so abstract.

[prettyemofreak]

there are no human words to describe his GREATNESS and even if there was your atheistic mind could never ever in a million years grasp his GREATNESS in fact as a loser who believ'es that he's an accident from a "big bang theory" lol you do the exact opposite and deny him but as one of my favorite verses in the bible says "Philippians 2:11 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." and i guarantee you YOU'RE tongue will confess very soon

[yay78900]

Perhaps none of us can fully understand what is going on. Perhaps that knowledge or intelligence does exist and thus is the god you are referring to? Conceivably the entire universe is a single life form, and thus the concept of one god?

[Perktube1]

Just for a second, I thought i saw the word "Evinrude" on one of those motors.

[llafle7]

Bull. The irreducible complexity hypothesis fails to take into account the possibility that the precursor parts of a complex system had functions themselves that did have survival significance before they became part of a more complex system. The more complex electric organs of eels for example were derived from muscle cells. Based on this hypothesis, electric organs must have been designed and muscles must not have had any survival significance before becoming part of the electric organ

[Perktube1]

irreducible complexity begins with the smallest and most fundamentally basic creatures. That an eel could evolve or develop electric organs involves intra species evolution and in now way casts doubt on the arguments made in this video.

[llafle7]

This video argues that the components of a complex system have no function in and of themselves, only as part of the machine. If the muscles that cause electrogenesis had a function before becoming part of the current producing complex then irreducible complexity is an erred hypothesis. And electric organ formation is not solely an intraspecies evolutionary process, rays and fish have developed them as well. It seems to me a matter of convenience that I.C. can only explain micro adaptations.

[premeditator]

the "logic," for lack of a more accurate term, in this series is seriously flawed; as such, it's a load of crap.

[condorito29]

thank you for your illuminating analysis.

the logic is flawed....because you say so.

how could we have not all seen that??

[member699]

Thats why you guys arent scientists.

[member699]

LOL, lewisner, the the floor wasnt one of the 5 abstract components. Say the floor was, why would a cell keep then keep a useless spring/(insert any of the other components) for 5 further evolution steps when it is just sitting on the floor

[lewisner]

Irreducible complexity is nonsense.You can, for instance, fasten the parts of the mousetrap to the floor and it will still work even though one of it's parts is missing.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

If bacterium have a tail couldn't that help avoid destructive things on the cellular level even if there is no outboard motor?

I thought this motor has the items steps away in existence showing a step-wise process even if not all useful under man's interpretation.