Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum

[lilfishie49]

What these guys are missing is that taking away a part stops the INTENDED function altogether! I don't care about his silly tie clip if I want a working mouse trap! The syrenge example is no good as a refutation of I.C. because even that wouldn't work if reduced. Very poor attempts to debunk I.C.

[VoiceOfReasonXXX]

@IDtaksovr, you have got to be joking. Selective courtroom testimony? They lost!! The judge heard every word of the testimony and ruled against ID! He heard it all and they lost! ID is not science. These "scientists" are perfectly free to "research" anything they like. They just won't get anyone to buy it until they can provide evidence that can stand up to the rigors of peer review.

[IDtaksovr]

@VoiceOfReasonXXX

"Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design"

50 and counting!

[IDtaksovr]

LOL. This sad and desperate attempt to make a case against intelligent design arguments using selective courtroom testimony, is like re enacting excerpts from Galileos inquisition, as evidence against heliocentricity.

People fighting for the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific questions that challenge existing orthodoxy, without fear of persecution, should be afraid right now ...... they should be very afraid!

[spryguy]

If faith is belief in the absence of evidence, then why do some faithful insisting on proving their beliefs? My guess is because they are fighting with their own internal logic which tells them they're living a lie, but their ego won't let them come to that realization because they don't want to seem stupid. Either way, whenever I see a religious person trying to prove something, I immediately lump them in the category of not being true believers.

[anasiaj]

@spryguy Surah Al-Hajj

Thus have We sent it (this Qur'ân) down (to Muhammad SAW) as clear signs, evidences and proofs, and surely, Allâh guides whom He wills. (16)

[anasiaj]

But when he came to them with Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations) behold, they laughed at them. (47)

[spryguy]

@anasiaj “I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”

-Dr Seuss

[elvegaro]

@spryguy Problem is when fantasy substitutes reality in the minds of men, driven not by wonder nor beauty, but by fear and ignorance. And that is what the creationists/IDers have done.

A better argument against God's existance than ID and creationism is hard to find.

[spryguy]

@elvegaro

I was quoting Dr Seuss to someone quoting the bible. It was meant to point out a children's writer involved more relevant philosophy than the bible/islam bible.

[anasiaj]

@spryguy Sura 4 - An-Nisa (MADINA) : Verse 174

O mankind! Verily, there has come to you a convincing proof (Prophet Muhammad SAW) from your Lord, and We sent down to you a manifest light (this Qur'ân).

[anasiaj]

@spryguy Sura 6 - Al-Anaam (MAKKA) : Verse 54

When those who believe in Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) come to you, say: "Salâmun 'Alaikum" (peace be on you); your Lord has written (prescribed) Mercy for Himself, so that, if any of you does evil in ignorance, and thereafter repents and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allâh), then surely, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[anasiaj]

@spryguy Sura 6 - Al-Anaam (MAKKA) : Verse 104

Verily, proofs have come to you from your Lord, so whosoever sees, will do so for (the good of) his ownself, and whosoever blinds himself, will do so to his own harm, and I (Muhammad SAW) am not a watcher over you.

[jeff5102]

@pjpopper Sorry, but EVERYTHING is built from molecules. Including proteins, muscles, bones, etc.

[TheJFKassassin]

I used to be a bacterial flagellum, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

[jeff5102]

@pjpopper No, they do not assume that a whole human being can evolve from a puddle of mud". Actually, it are theYoung-Earth creationists who believe that "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground," (Genesis, 2:7)

[baassietje]

Miller use a bad example. Were does the energy come from tot make the mousetrap work?

[ladybugsingstheblues]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution appears to me more and more to be simply a tool of Intelligent Design! A mechanism used by Intelligent Design for a whole multitude of extremely crucial purposes!

[Surfxeo]

@assym2006 Yes I agree the idea of a sky fairy is a joke ROTFL

That is why Richard Dawkins is a joke for believing in it!

What you are doing is believing in naturalistic materialism to try to justify your own beliefs, however this philosophy cannot be rationally defended. You are concluding "God does not exist" because I am using this philosophy of mine because its conclusion precludes God in the first place. It is called arguing in circles.

[Surfxeo]

@assym2006 That makes no sene. You still need God in evolution, as evolusionists always say that evolution is only about living systems. It has nothing to do with how life started.

[Surfxeo]

But the mouse trap is no longer effective and ceases to perform its designed function. Do not forget also that the syringe also performs a very specific function that falls apart if you reduce that even further. You can't make a syringe out of wishful thinking. You still need a pump, a sharp hard point, hole in the centre, and a way of fixing the structure to the base.

That cannot be reduced using anecdotes lol

[RespectMyHate]

@assym2006 You must be out of your mind, It's one of the most efficient motors in the known universe.

[YamiYami17]

The counter argument is so ridiculous beyond imagination what we mean by Irreducible Complexity is that if you removed any part you want have a motor now if he saying that he have a syringe and it's a nice think to have i don't caaaaaaaaaare, he have to explain how it get from a syring to a motor, or is he that blind with the idea of evolution ???

[creativeprojects720]

so possibly it first evolved as a syringe, and then later some of them evolved to spin like a rotary motor, and that became useful like that.

[YamiYami17]

@creativeprojects720 "syringe" + "evolved to spin" let me tell you sir that the diffirence between a syringe and a motor are infinitly big, you have the factor of energy and how you have to make the motor spin and controll it, in other words you have to change all the structure of the bacteria to get that, it's like you are putting similarities between a stick and an electric motor.

[ahyahyahy]

@creativeprojects720 Seriously? Can you just listen to yourself what you just said? Maaan....... darwinists are silly... WAIT let me get my syringes for injecting my medicines.... THEY ARE TURNING into my car's engine in a miniature fashion!

Seriously... just no... This is confused notion of atheists wanting to cling onto believing that there is no God.

God is the creator of all and believing in God does not mean we 'dont think' in fact we need to think more and observe our environment more.

[creativeprojects720]

@ahyahyahy no, I did some research into this, and yes it was most likely the syringe that later developed into a turning rotary mechanism.

[sheffieldgeek]

@creativeprojects720 most likely? I thought science dont deal with likelihood...and only work with the absolute?

[IKillBabyKittensLOL]

@sheffieldgeek Science never proves.

[creativeprojects720]

@IKillBabyKittensLOL that's right. science has hypotheses, educated guesses. I hope you don't really kill baby kittens, as your username says...

[creativeprojects720]

@sheffieldgeek no definitely not. science has "hypotheses", which are educated guesses. religion is very sure of itself, however, and states things in absolutes often. 

[creativeprojects720]

this bacteria with a flagella is incredible. I am doing research on it at wikipedia. It's like a little rotary motor. Why didn't they teach us about this in high school?

[creativeprojects720]

how does a flagella reproduce? I think maybe aliens made flagella, and then they reproduced.

[creativeprojects720]

aliens designed it, maybe.

[cliffordanthonypaiva]

The problem here concerns DESIGNED function. The so-called "scientist" in this video confuses similar structures with etiology. The have similarity as a function of same Designer using functional principles, that's all. One system does NOT come from the other, no more than a man comes from apes. Both have similar functional requirements. Rotary motion as a function of chemical gradient potentials (forward and reverse, in 6 degrees of freedom) is precision design...NOT evolutionary fantasy.

[creativeprojects720]

@cliffordanthonypaiva how is evolution fantasy? Evolution is a gradual step by step process, logical, and driven by survival.

[YamiYami17]

@creativeprojects720 It is more than a fantasy it is a lie on science :

Evolution Debunked : /watch?v=2lwiOewUS-0

For Evolution: From 0 to 300 No way /watch?v=AKzr270FeNA

[kriskurtisallen]

I get the needle thing is a good mid point on the way to the flagellum, but there are still jumps here that needs to be addressed a little more. About half the proteins in the flagellum are not in the needle. You got half way there. And are there examples of something between nothing and the needle. Of course then from the needle to flagellum. this is not a argument for or against, simply an observation that I think something more in depth is needed.

[badfender223]

6:20 is still not convincing. An electric motor and a solenoid are far too similar - one rotates and the other moves in a linear motion and they both use electromagnets. Would it not make sense that rotating and linear mechanisms in bacteria look similar? You don’t need bearings or a rotor when a simple up/down motion is all that's needed. Anyway, you guys can argue all you want. I have better things to do with my time.

[swarm420]

For the piece on the end, though similar the probe doesn't spin, so why would those components arrive? Also, there's a point where when you reduce things there's no explanation for why they would have formed or what purpose they would have.

[swarm420]

Also with the mouse trap, note how it had to still be made by something and then assigned specifically to do a certain task. It didn't just form from a random glitch at the factory and start clipping itself on ties. In fact, if it were to randomly form due to a problem at the factory, in a short amount of time the factory would fix itself and start producing the mouse traps properly, rather than waste resources.

[swarm420]

which may superficially resemble the starting trap. That, however, is intelligent design. Neither Miller nor anyone else has shown that the mousetrap I pictured in my book can be constructed by a series of small changes, one at a time, as Darwinian evolution would have to do."

[swarm420]

From Wikipedia: Behe has responded, "What Miller actually means is that if you take away some components and then go on to, say, twist a couple of metal pieces in just the right way and add a few staples in the correct positions, you can construct a new kind of working trap,

[FascistBros]

Every single animal on the face of the earth can be explained through evolution. Do you not think that a creator would design an animal by ONLY intelligent design to display his presence?

[anasiaj]

Surah 54, Ayah 49 "Verily, all things have we created in proportion and measure (perfection)." - Quran,

[anasiaj]

(16: 68, 69).

("And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's)

habitations; *Then to eat of all the produce (of the earth), and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord: there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for men: verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought")

[anasiaj]

"Verily! It is Allâh Who causes the seed-grain and the fruit-stone (like date-stone) to split and sprout" (Quran 6:9)

[skreeeboy]

@anasiaj I've "Un-spammed" your comments. I don't censor. However, quoting scripture is not an argument. Try harder.

[anasiaj]

@skreeeboy The scripture Qur'an which I quoted is more than 1400 years old.it was revealed much long before these scientific discoveries happened. What I am trying to argue here is that the scripture could not be made by humans in those days with such a scientific accuracy and wherein there is no contradiction with scientific facts as we know today and stood the test of time.

[skreeeboy]

@anasiaj I do understand that you believe the Qur'an is God's word, and I can appreciate how that influences your thoughts. What you fail to do is appreciate that those who are not religious (or at the very least, are not Muslim) are equally uninfluenced by the Qur'an, therefore quoting scripture from it is ineffective. I'm not a Hindu, but if I were to begin offering quotes from the Vedas, you would most likely dismiss them without hesitating.

[anasiaj]

@skreeeboy I do understand that a quote from qur'an or a from any other scriptures for a person who does't believe to be from god is not a proof for him. But in the context of our discussion what I am trying to point out is that why is that such scientific facts which are explained with accuracy found in the scriptures which could not be discovered by humans by any means in those days. And Regarding Vedas I have a really different opinion which is related to my belief in scriptures.

[anasiaj]

@skreeeboy As per my belief it is mandatory for me to believe that God had send his human messengers with good news and a warning and with some of them scriptures to all nations at all times in their own mother tongue and Prophet Mohammad(Pbuh) is One among then and Qur'an is the Scripture given to him and the massage it has is not different from which came before and the specialty of Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) is that he is last prophet and Qur'an is last scripture to the mankind from God.

[anasiaj]

@skreeeboy And also let me quote to you from a well known Scientist Mr. Keith L More "statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an", and that "the interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago."

[devarsi]

"Could" be used in evolution? Then who is the user? And could be, may be e.g. are the favorite words of those who do not know and speculate. Here you have two perfectly designed instruments so to speak, each meant to perform a particular function and each needing its particular parts to function in its capacity. I think that intelligent design can be applied for both of them. Just my belief & only one who surveys everything can claim there is no creator. Does a watch assemble itself?

[lordmolotov]

@anasiaj It's probably that the prophet Muhammad had a close encounter with an extraterrestrial who had highly advanced, scientific knowledge- and explained it in a simple way that the prophet could understand.

[anasiaj]

@lordmolotov thats my point here. he had an encounter with with an extraterrestrial.. if you were to research what happened in that first encounter you would be amazed.. and this is what that was revealed in that it goes like this.."

[FascistBros]

@anasiaj there is no correlation between age and credibility you fucking moron.

[anasiaj]

@FascistBros why are you so emotional cant you think with your brain, if you have one..!!!!

[FascistBros]

@anasiaj what, i stated a fact. get over yourself. compensatory fool

[BenC303]

@anasiaj try looking up Scientology, that will give you some answers to the statement you just made.

(Ignore all the crap though) They do offer the occasional good suggestion.

[anasiaj]

@skreeeboy . And you could understand exactly what I meant here if you could ponder on the meaning of the verse (16: 68, 69) and compare this verse with scientific knowledge people had 1400 years ago in this regard...

and regarding the intelligent design which we we are discussing about

Surah 54, Ayah 49 "Verily, all things have we created in proportion and measure (perfection)." - Quran,

[SteveArpo]

@anasiaj Is that the same Allah that says throw gays over a cliff and stone women for being unfaithful? That Allah?

[anasiaj]

@SteveArpo whats your point here steve ?

[RespectMyHate]

The truth is, the bacteria flagellum was created by God. There is no other alternative.

[skreeeboy]

@RespectMyHate this is not an argument.

[carlosmj38]

@skreeeboy I think he was being sarcastic :P

[creativeprojects720]

@RespectMyHate "created by god" is a very old fashioned way to look at it. I think it may be a form of alien life that came to earth, possibly in the ice of a comet that crashed here, and then they multiplied. Or possibly over millions of years, which is a really long time, it evolved on earth (started on earth and evolved) Created by god is just another way of saying that some divine and unknown power made it.

[CtrlRm]

Mind blown

[assistme]

The argument that "Irreducible Complexity" falls apart because the removal of essential components continues to provide a useful apparatus is absurd.

Once the catch is removed, a "Mouse Trap" ceases to be a "Mouse Trap". Is this point not obvious?

Likewise, once certain proteins are removed from the Bacterial Flagellum, we have no longer Bacterial Flagellum; but something else.

"Irreducible Complexity" is... Irrefutable!

[skreeeboy]

@assistme, You're missing the point. Yes, removing the components from the mousetrap, renders it unable to catch mice, so you are correct, it's no longer a mousetrap... he's not claiming it is a mousetrap any longer. Though in this instance he's moving in reverse to describe the phenomenon. Just as the "tie clip" he has provided for the example could have components added to make it a functioning mousetrap, so could the "syringe" have components added to make a flagellum.

[assistme]

@skreeeboy, on the contrary, I'm not the one missing the point. Materialist dogma is based on the premise that mutation increases information within DNA while evolution increases information throughout the genome; which this "tinker-toy" analogy (toward the refutation of Irreducible Complexity) provides not only no evidence of that whatsoever, but works at cross purposes to the dogma itself; as the presence or absence of the essential proteins adds no new info, but produces different apparatus.

[Mdebacle]

@skreeeboy

[the tie clip could have components added] but this would be by design.

A tie clip would not turn into a mousetrap by small, random, incremental changes.

[skreeeboy]

@Mdebacle, It's a metaphor. Nevermind.

[Mdebacle]

@skreeeboy

You might think this is changing the subject, but it isn't.

You know the new Neanderthal theory that says modern Eurasian humans are partly descended from hybridization with Neanderthal ?

The evidence actually proves that Neanderthal was the hybrid.

[ipheltu]

@skreeeboy A terrible one though. The last example was such an ignorant rabbit's trail. So typical, but if that's his opinion I could really care less. :)

[queruvimwj]

@assistme I agree with you 100 %. Take some part of their brain out. It doesn´t matter they dont care. What they have they dont use properly! how can we say that ? like the interdependence of living creatures evolved! I must have faith for believing in such things!

[MrFlinchie]

@assistme Think of it more as the spring, plate and hammer came together (the syringe structure) and was useful. Then this was added to and was useful for something else.

[assistme]

@MrFlinchie, OK. I'll think of a spring, plate, and hammer proteins (as tools). And, I'll think of them "coming together"; & that "mutations" occurred to produce other implements. So, it's your turn. Try thinking What produced these specific tools? What connected them; in just the right (and only) way they can connect? How is it that these tools are all (say) "metric" and not "imperial"? And, best of all, "What has now given the"EXteriority" of these tools an INteriority & sentience?" & "Why?"

[22222222george]

@assistme The tools do not nor have ever had "sentience" of any kind. All internal systems move along spontaneous process as defined by Gibbs free energy. The molecules do not need to know what they are doing to work; they know no more than a volcano knows that by spewing lava it is creating new land. They work simply because they do, and because they work and their working is not a hindrance to the entity, selection will not select against those mechanisms. metric can convert to imperial.

[archy526]

@assistme ID doesn't say anything about the organ serving the same purpose, it says that there is no way an organism would have an organ that is missing parts because the complexity of these organs would render to organ useless. This is an example as to how an organ could still be useful an be slightly less complex.

[rgneufeld]

It is impossible for a bacterium as destructive as the bubonic plague to evolve into a bacterium that is less destructive. That goes against the theory of evolution. If its purpose for existence is to cause sickness and death how can it evolve into something constructive when it destroys its carrier.

[ramius525]

@rgneufeld Who said that the purpose for the existence of the bacteria was to cause sickness and death? You are looking at it in the perspective of the host not as the bacteria itself. The sickness and death of the host is just an unfortunate byproduct of the bacteria's life cycle. As long as the bacteria has an efficient means of transmission to a new host, the well-being of it's previous host is no longer a concern.

[rgneufeld]

@ramius525 The bacterium bubonic plague is a type of bacteria not the only one. In order for the bacteria to improve itself it must not destroy its host, (its purpose for existence is to cause sickness and eventual death) thus destroying itself in the process. It does not morph itself into a good bacteria.

[ramius525]

@rgneufeld Your first sentence confuses me, where did I ever say it was the only one? Plus an organism that parasitizes its host in such a way that kills it doesn't necessarily destroy itself as long as it can effectively infect new hosts.

[ramius525]

@rgneufeld Also an example of a bacteria losing its virulence is the bacterium streptococcus. It can morph itself into a "good" bacteria by a mutation that causes it to lose its capsule thus not killing its host.

[archy526]

@rgneufeld However, it IS possible that they are both derived from the same organism originally. The point is that slightly less complex versions of an organelle can still serve a viable function and trying to estimate ALL possible functions that could be served by a slightly less complex configuration is not possible.

[rgneufeld]

The mousetrap needs all the parts to catch the mouse. Without all the parts it is rendered useless for its intended purpose. Just as any part missing from the bacterium flagellum would render it useless for its intended purpose.

If the bubonic plague bacterium has any missing pieces in its syringe structure it too would be rendered useless for its intended purpose.

A mouse trap gets the mouse only when functioning properly.

[raviept]

@rgneufeld I think you did not understand the point made in this video. The problem with irreducible complexity is that states that a structure composed of several parts is so complex that it is useless without some of its parts. Therefore, it would be impossible for this structure to be designed by Evolution. However, the bubonic plague bacterium shows that the same structure without some of its parts can be useful in different scenarios. This disproves irreducible complexity.

[rgneufeld]

@raviept Well the bubonic plague serves a unique purpose and its tail is used as a injector not a flagellum. They are not the same structure.

[raviept]

@rgneufeld They are the same structure, aside from a few proteins that are missing. That's the point. If irreducible complexity was true, then it would be impossible for the bubonic plague bacterium to exist, otherwise it still continuous to be possible that bubonic plague evolved into that kind of motor.

[raviept]

@rgneufeld Let me simplify this a little bit, and say that the flagellum is composed by n proteins. What irreducible complexity says is that Evolution is impossible because any other structure with x < n proteins is useless. Therefore, Natural Selection couldn't favour bacterias with, for instance, x+1 proteins in common with the flagellum. But with this bubonic plague bacterium, you have a structure with y proteins out of n, that has a different function than the flagellum.

[raviept]

@rgneufeld This does not prove that the bubonic plague syringe evolved into the flagellum, but it raises that possibility, since Evolution predicts that the syringe might have gained one protein at a time, until it fully obtained n proteins. Then, Natural Selection could have favoured the bacterias with a rotating syringe, creating the flagellum. This doesn't prove Evolution, but it proves that the argument that irreducible complexity disproves Evolution is false.

[qrais]

EXAPTATION !!!

[xm377Moyocoyatzin]

@percussim The point is that a mousetrap can still work as a tie clip, it doesn't necessarily have to work as a mousetrap as long as it still works as something more simple (reduced). In case you didn't notice they showed how the syringe could have evolved into the propeller. You are the one here trying to weasel in a god to explain something you think the rest of us don't understand. So please take your sophistry elsewhere. Try dumb and impressionable people like the rest of the creationists.

[xm377Moyocoyatzin]

@percussim You want to talk about smoke screens? How about blind assertions? You just assert that there is a designer without providing any alternative explanations to the "irreducible complexity" argument that was just blasted out of the water by observable evidence. Speaking of sophistry, irreducible complexity implies that a components individual parts are useless in and of themselves and NOT that they should retain their evolved functionality.

[WKWILLEN]

Ok so let me get this straight....you are saying that the flagellum is an evolution of this syringe? And how would an immobile bacteria us a syringe?

[WKWILLEN]

@WKWILLEN use*

[types10000]

@WKWILLEN

"Ok so let me get this straight....you are saying that the flagellum is an evolution of this syringe? And how would an immobile bacteria us a syringe?"

- yes, that's right because the only way bacteria can move about is on their own, they certainly cant be transmitted from contact with organisms and waterborn bacteria certainly cant be moved around via water, currents or the tide...that's just crazy *sarcasm*

[avenger391482]

@WKWILLEN it wouldn't. they would die and it lacks the parts for a jet propulsion too.

[xj900man]

I am still waiting for my tie clip to evolve into a mouse trap because i have a big mouse problem in my house. Hurry up and evolve already or my ties will be eaten by the mice :)

[yfna1]

The human coccyx bone would to you be a product of degradation. So what?

[echafaud]

OMG Microtubuli and Centrosomes are ancient parts of proteolytic cells they are essential for Mitosis (cell division) 

[tubewatch59]

There is no "refutation" as claime, because there's just one common function (protein transport) and that's it! The transporter is part of the flagellum, since assembly needs a way to relocate filament proteins outside of the cell wall, hence the use of the transporter module. This so called refutation of IC assumes that evolving the rest of the 30 protein arrangement including the motor, is no big deal!! Thus it's likely a stalling tactic to delay ID, until a better argument is presented.

[tubewatch59]

@tubewatch59

The basic issue that's ignored in this line of reasoning, is the apples and elephants difference between Direct Darwinian Pathways, which are capable of being guidedby natural selection, and Indirect Darwinian Pathways, which cannot beguided via natural selection. Indirect Darwinian pathways can only be driven by random chance (it's evolution guys, but not as you know it). Thus the cooption infeasibility arises which was completely ignored in this so called "refutation" of IC.

[types10000]

@tubewatch59

"The basic issue that's ignored in this line of reasoning, is the apples and elephants difference between Direct Darwinian Pathways, which are capable of being guidedby natural selectio..."

- NO, that's exactly what IS addressed in this video ie. 'indirect Darwinian pathways' ARE EXPLAINED BY the adaptation of existing parts that perform a given function in new parts of differing function. the tie-clip example in the video is a clear metaphor for biological exaptation

[types10000]

@tubewatch59

In short IC makes the claim that the bacterial flagellum cant evolve.

it attempts to justify this in terms of a lack of simpler precursors

However the process exaptation EXPLAINS HOW it could have evolved.

This reduces the claim of IC to argument from ignorance (logical fallacy) of 'i cant think how it could have evolved therefore it didnt'

Do you understand yet?

[bjf5027]

FYI last year they successfully made synthetic life. That means, you can piece things together in order to make a "frankenstien" bacteria. Clearly, that is more probable than a magical creature in the sky whipping something into existence

[gimmedafilez]

@bjf5027 They didn't make synthetic life. They cobbled together a strand of DNA and injected it into an already-living cell. Scientists won't deny that there are many, many structures inside living cells which are complete mysteries to them.

[fenngsu]

Does anyone know what the full title of the show is? How can I watch it in full?

[skreeeboy]

@fenngsu the show is called "Judgment Day" by NOVA (go to the PBS site to find more info).

[krislantijn]

Accepting intelligent design is not a matter of adopting logic, it's a matter of giving up envy...envy towards a superior intelligence.

[type3secretion]

@krislantijn Or perhaps accepting evolution is a matter of humility. Do you really understand how the god you believe in created life? Do you really understand evolution and the arguments scientists make? Perhaps the pride lies within yourself. Could it be that all these scientists who spend their lives on this material are all in one shared delusion over how meaningful the framework of evolution is in explaining life? 

[benbisley]

@type3secretion

Good point. I like your monicker.



[truvelocity]

/watch?v=As1HlmYeh7Q

[gimmedafilez]

An interesting piece of noteworthy information left out by the evolutionists: The "syringe" on the bubonic plague bacteria is a structure that - according to evolutionary science - is 100+ million years more recent. So, the simpler structure made of fewer parts is actually the newer structure. That would be evidence for the opposite of evolution: degradation.

[gimmedafilez]

Furthermore, to a truly unbiased observer, it is clear that the argument is philosophical in nature. Mainstream science doesn't want to acknowledge the possible existence of a God, as it would mean there is an "authority" above their own mind, whether you want to call it moral or just intellectual, it's still a superior mind. The ego becomes a major factor in such discussions, and is evidenced by the fact that many evolutionists will actually get angry when confronted about certain points.

[type3secretion]

@gimmedafilez Actually, no, they both likely evolved from a common ancestor. But that is besides the point. Your argument displays a lack of understanding about what evolution is about. Simpler function is not "degradation." If it's more efficient at what it does, it is actually "better designed" to use a human conceit that creationists are imprisoned within. Evolution, over enormous timescales, always moves towards the efficient via natural selection.

[gimmedafilez]

@type3secretion A staple of evolution is more complex organisms will develop from less complex organisms. If evolution only moves toward efficiency, how do you explain humans as the current peak? We're not efficient organisms, we're complex and highly adaptable. Efficiency and adaptability are opposing forces. A SUV can drive around empty, or hauling people and things. A motorcycle can get around much more efficiently, but can't haul anything. Which do you see more of on the road?

[type3secretion]

@gimmedafilez Complexity is not a requirement of evolution. If a simpler creature can outcompete a more complicated one for finite resources, it will take over. Humans "peak"? By what measure? Not biomass. The simplistic phage has us beat there by orders of magnitude. Longevity? Well, come back and check in 100 million years. Lots of misunderstandings here, and assumption about what evolution is about, and the position humans have in the scheme of life.

[skreeeboy]

@gimmedafilez: Source?

[jlowe424]

@gimmedafilez

Even if your described timeline is accurate, the fact that a simpler version of a structure still exists is not evidence of 'degradation'. There are examples of various stages of eye evolution found in nature today (just go to 'evolution of the eye' on Wikipedia).

Evolution is not a single path from primitive to complex, but a branching tree. The rise of a new feature may cause one branch to split off from another, but the original won't necessarily die out. Character Limit :(

[skreeeboy]

@gimmedafilez If you make a claim like that you should provide where you got your information, otherwise it can be dismissed out of hand.

[mehico33]

@skreeeboy The thing about gimmedafilez comment (left 6 months ago lol) is that evolution allows backwards steps, the same way whales returned to the ocean thus rendering their breathing air disadvantageous (is that a real word?).

So its an interesting fact (if indeed it is a fact) but changes nothing in evolution theory

[SysyphusJones]

@skreeeboy

I too would like to know the reference.

Remarkably, early cyanobacteria have been found in the fossil record but apart from that I don't think much has survived for rather obvious reasons, and what has would have required mineralisation of the cells.

After such changes it seems hard to imagine how something as intricate and microscopic as a flagellum or a syringe could be identifiable, and surely a bold claim to know when these organelles first evolved!

[mikethicke]

@gimmedafilez Whether or not this is true it doesn't really matter -- the issue is whether the flagellum is irreducibly complex. If there is a simpler version of the flagellum that still has a function then the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, regardless of whether that simpler version actually represents an ancestral form of the flagellum or not.

[Rogersmith026]

@gimmedafilez the show said the plague had a syringe structure but it did not say that ONLY the plague had a syringe structure. The plague may be the most common example.

[trisky1234]

@gimmedafilez go read your argument again, because it's flawed. If a degraded mode of operation - caused by randomly mutated dna - leads to new ways of transmitting dna into other cells due to modified cell function then it's not a true degradation because the cell becomes better able to perform mitosis and the dna of the cell has better survivability. That's evolution.

[upanddown2112]

@gimmedafilez that's a brilliant point. But skreeboy is right, you would have to quote it back to verifiable research in todays society or its considered invalid.Honestly, I kinda like the idea of intelligent design, because it opens up so many possibilities for science.But I feel that their current argument (or at least the one I've heard of) isn't rigorous enough.It's essentially a proof-by-cases argument that has effectively an infinite amount of cases. Or,I could just be to accustom to math

[22222222george]

@gimmedafilez you may be correct but that does not disprove the analogy, simply because the syringe evolved into a motor in some bacteria does NOT mean that it had to for ALL bacteria. Further, the syringe in the bubonic plague could have been suppressed for millions of years before being reactivated again through mutation and selection, or could have evolved independently. So what if you are right, logic dictates your point is still useless.

[MPatz1000]

yo that a was a dope video.

[fantom95]

Evolution or common creator? the answer is not science but the drawing of inferences no one argument is more 'scientific' that the other the tie clip is inelegant which really disproves his argument

[MMAGUY13]

this video is a counter argument it has 10 parts use in another unit what about the other 30 parts what is there function other then the flagellum try again guys you failed misrabty you can look at the flagellum and you cant see God very foolish