Irreducible Complexity, Michael Behe, and H. J. Muller

[hereliestruth]

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

[Desertphile]

@hereliestruth ; Yes, and if Darwin wrote that he was 100% correct. But so far nobody has found anything that could not have evolved.

[hereliestruth]

I suppose you diehard evolutionists who choose to ignore the obvious (i.e. the fossil records which clearly show it be a farce in such findings as the cambrian explosion) also choose to ignore the fact that man and dinosaurs were contemporaneous.

[catroarb]

The point of Behe is not just that "mutation" had to be extremely accurate but also that evolution claims that those changes were done through very small steps one at a time and if the organism did not find a use for the mutation, it would be disregarded, E.I. the next generation would not have that change, therefore 40 different proteins to achieve the case of a tail rotor would mean that the organism had intelligence to keep 40 diff mutations for his future plus the right match in size etc.

[NeoPsiTom]

Hi Desertphile. This is a good and very informative video. Life evolved through completely natural processes. The theory of evolution is beautiful. btw, I'm theistic. Be well. Tom

[tantzer]

I like Darwin and am not an ID advocate; but your argument isn't very good. You assume Darwinism ("functionality comes after mutation") and then use that to argue for Darwinism. That's circular reasoning.

[ILYIAB]

No. That's "Natural Selection".

Sigh.

[hereliestruth]

@tantzer no, Darwin stated that if irreducible complexity were ever found in any adaptation then his whole theory should be rejected.

[cperez1000]

HJ Muller showed how "IC" system can be produced by evolution nearly a century ago. I even see his name in the title and I'm sure close to a 100% (or a 100%) of ID supporters have NOT taken the time to read about the mullerian two-step

So what's the fuzz? It's an argument from ignorance and I would say from pure stupidity.

So, get your ass moving and read the fucking mullerian two-step and stop claiming that IC poses any challenge to evolution.

[normskis69]

Bollocks

[jwc1926]

Judge Jones (Kitzmiller v. Dover): " The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

So, the courts have decided the matter. You ID folks are idiots and liars. So, KEEP YOUR DAMN DELUSIONS OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS!

[jwc1926]

Judge Jones (Kitzmiller v. Dover): "...the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

[jwc1926]

What I find so odd is that Behe's fans who keep commenting on this video talk as if they have NEVER before heard the arguments against their position. They speak as if they are being original in defending Intelligent Design with tired old arguments - a fact that clearly demonstrates the shallow depth of their thinking on the matter. All of these non-thinking, unreasoning dolts could take a lesson from the "very Christian" Judge Jones in the Dover case. (To be continued...)

[jwc1926]

I wasn't reading from another source, magnetpi21. I have what is called "memory." And my "proof" is an anatomy text and specimens that I have dissected myself. Maybe you should try opening up what many of us call...a "book." Then perhaps you wouldn't ask for "proof" of the painfully obvious. Step right up, step right up. Witness firsthand the zenith of American stupidity right here on Youtube. Step right up, folks!

[McDaveDJM]

Statements of fact come from a variey of sources - Behe has

stated many interesting and highly probable points, in lieu of

reality - It is clear to anyone with eyes, that the universe and

all life is designed - to deny this, is exposing a mindless religious

conviction, in this case, the religion of evolution... - even

scientists rely on Ockham's Razor to emphasize that the simplest

explanation is all that is needed...

[Desertphile]

"It is clear to anyone with eyes, that the universe and all life is designed"

No evidence, therefore dismissed.

[devoceans]

scaffolding is still something and requires ID,

[Desertphile]

"scaffolding is still something and requires ID"

No, Creationism is not required.

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile Paleontologists have consistently told evolutionary biologists that the fossil record does not support evolution. Also, a lot of the evidence that evolutionists use has turned out to be fake. Look it up. The peppered moth photo that is used in countless textbooks was actually rigged. But dont believe, me look it up.

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile You should read the book Total Truth - very inciteful. If you support evolution then you have to support the social implications that come along with it, which means why have morals. If you want to murder some one go ahead because there is no right or wrong - we are just products of chance with no purpose - so why be concerned with how we treat each other. 

[Desertphile]

@ironsikes ; You're being an ass. I do not "support evolution," any more than I support gravity and sunlight. The ONLY "social implications" of evolution is that humanity evolved. Read a fucking science book.

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile I am being an ass huh? Gravity and sunlight are both proven facts. And I am not disputing them. I am disputing a theory. Evolution is a theory. Also, Science is based on weither something can be tested over and over again. Evolution can not be tested over and over again, especially since the fossil record keeps showing that Darwin's theory has flaws in. Grant it adapations happen and we adapt to our environments but there is no solid evidence that one speices evolves into another.

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile And to prove that is a fact you would have to be abole to test it over and over again and get the same results. Plus you should be able to find evidence of that in the fossil record and that has remained to be unseen. And I have read science books thank you very much - in fact I have a Bahcelors of Science, so who is the ass now. Why dont you try attacking my argument rather than me?

[jwc1926]

I hope Michael Behe chokes on a piece of steak. The will show him how intelligent his supposed designer was in putting the openings to the esophagus and trachea right next to each other. And he is getting older, so maybe he's having trouble taking a leak due to an enlarged prostate. How brilliant the designer was in putting the urethra right through the prostate. And maybe Behe's wife had a kid. Wonder if she had to deal with the oddly common complications of pregnancy due to god's intelligence?

[j0kerman2]

No answers from the IDiots yet?? Hmm, interesting. I also wonder what they would say about the fact that the eye is wired backwards or the fat that we lack the gene required to produce vitamin C, which most other mammals have. Or how the fact that the testes develop inside the body, leaving two weak points for hernias to form.

[waj872008]

You speak with an extremely annoying voice, sir. This is also only speculation and guesswork on your side. I do not find you to be more intelligent, or have more information than I do, therefore your deductions are rejected.

[Desertphile]

When I want your opinion I'll put a nickle in you and turn the crank.

[waj872008]

That's fine. But maybe you should open your mind and do a bit more research from every side of the problem and come up with a comprehensive answer for yourself, instead of sticking to old, dead ways of thinking. The development of a person stems from the fact that a person can change, and that a person's opinion changes based on relevant experiences and knowledge, and the wisdom gained from that knowledge. If you decide not to change, I'm afraid you'll live a very sad, unsatified life, old man.

[Desertphile]

"...instead of sticking to old, dead ways of thinking."

Old dead way of "thinking:" believing the Bible.

New live way of thinking: science, logic, reason.

You engage in the former, I engage in the latter. You are therefore projecting yourself on to me. That is the act of the mentally ill.

[waj872008]

Hahaha, you say this as if I believe the things that the Bible or any other religious scripture has to say. Scientists were sent out into the world to find the true nature of our situation here and to report back, but when they are asked how matter came to be, all they have is speculation and here-say. Then they bring the Unified Field Theory to light, and these scientists are skeptical, afraid of what something like that implies.

[waj872008]

There is a lot more to things than you or any scientist can even imagine. When a scientist sees something new and amazing, something that goes against their beliefs, they will try their hardest to refute it. This will get us nowhere. We need a new way of observing things, at a deeper level, and science just wasn't meant to do it. Your thinking is old and dead. And the ravings in your videos are the product of the mentally ill. Don't try to place me in any type of classification, hypocrite.

[Desertphile]

"There is a lot more to things than you or any scientist can even imagine."

Er, ah... that's nice. As soon as something is observed, scientists will know it exists: imagination does not apply. As soon as gods are observed, scientists will know they exist. As soon as "irreducible complexity" is observed, scientists ill know it exists.

Making up shit to believe in, such as you suggest, is insane and it retards human progress.

[waj872008]

People like you retard human progress. Unenlightened, inexperienced, unchanging in their habits and childish? That's you, sir, and I truly feel sorry for you.

[Desertphile]

"People like you retard human progress. Unenlightened, inexperienced, unchanging in their habits and childish? That's you, sir, and I truly feel sorry for you."

Talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness. I suggest you consult a mental health care professional. Go away.

[ebilgreby]

get a mess of boggle dice and see how long it takes you to roll the theory of evolution spelled out in order! roll them dice evolutionist! your gonna be rolling them for about 1500 years..but you want folks to believe even a single protien molecule came into existance by chance! better go look up how complex one of em are! YALL..yup i said yall! comman sence is as far from evolutionist as east is to west! chance disproves evolution alone no need to argue any other points! imo

[Desertphile]

Huh?

[strungout7777]

Michael Behe, you're a joke in your field. Any shred of credibility you had as a scientist evaporated during the Dover trial. When a lawyer placed something like 58 peer reviewed journals about the evolution of the immune system in front of you on the stand, and you hadn't read most of them -- and you still had the audacity to say they weren't enough to change your mind -- you essentially sank you and your cause's idiotic case.

You're the Dane Cook of science: No one respects you.

[Kaneda767]

whats with the hate? Have you seen the proof of evolution? Then you too rely on a book of testimonies for your beliefs.

[timmmy07]

Looks like the evolutionists are becoming the religious bigots...so much of what they believe is faith-based and unprovable. They keep hoping for their Messiah from the church of the missing-link to appear one day.

They do not allow contrary theories presented at their conferences. Is that the way to the truth?

Follow the man who seeks the truth, run from him who says I've found it. This guy is an example of de-evolution,they are bringing back

the dark ages. Get a haircut and take a bath.

[QuiglysMom]

timmy07, I find it laughable that you see people who accept the theory of evolution (such as it is) as returning us to the dark ages when:

1) The Dark Ages were run primarily by a bunch of feudal religious zelots,

2) Many Christians believe not only in God and Christ, but also in evolution,

3) The judge who decided the Dover case received so many death threats from modern-day religious zelots that he had to accept Secret Service protection.

Scientests seek provable ideas, not truth.

[tintinlady]

Behe himself is a hoax. His works and books are stupid. Biologist like me am not convinced with his works. Really really weak. But Intelligent Design, with their lack of knowledge in Science, simply had no choice but to support his untested, unevidencial, non sense theories. He should be embarrased for being the focal embarrasment in Biological Science.

[Odellion]

Behe uses analogy after analogy in his books to support intelligent design, but the analogies are incomplete. In my opinion he confuses the luxury of retrospective analysis with objective analysis. He describes leaps of biological processes as unreasonable to accept and compares it to someone climbing a spiral stepped tower...if there is a section of steps missing then it is unreasonable to think that a coherent leap in evolution will carry it over the gap.

[zloben9000]

Cars have been DESIGNED by people.

yet they are NOT irreducibly complex.

APPARENTLY There could be a DESIGNER without irreducible complexity !

[tintinlady]

zloben9000: And your evidence is..? Simply shows how shallow your logic is. (if you have any?) Maybe pray to your God for some, he is complex anyways.. lol

[zloben9000]

my evidence is simple: you are a gay boy LOL

[tintinlady]

thats your defense? LOL... base from your God and bible???? LMAO! Now i am convinced. That Bible is STUPID hahahahahaha like you and your family. And how can you prove im Gay?Did your God suck my dick? even if i dont have one.. LMAO

[SintherX]

zloben9000 sometimes if you are plain stupid is better to shut up not to advertise it!

You were wrong because:

-cars to not reproduce;

-cars do not suffer mutations;

-and for cars there is no selective process of any kind;

[zloben9000]

no you are stupid.

no fish can evolve lungs, WHY ?

because it would take million years to do so !

for one million years fish will have NON functioning strategic mutations till finally those lungs WORK !

MUTATION DOES NOT PRODUCE NEW ORGANS !

do you get it stupid ?

[Desertphile]

"MUTATION DOES NOT PRODUCE NEW ORGANS ! "

Why have scientists seen mutations producing new organs when you claim it is not possible? Is it a vast global conspiracy?

[zloben9000]

LOL stupid.

you know nothing of mutation !

New organs need a chain of mutations, a million year million ... mile chain of mutations !

where every change is not beneficial as only the final result(functional lungs) counts as beneficial !

read some books !

[Desertphile]

"New organs need a chain of mutations, a million year million ... mile chain of mutations !"

No: Cecal Valves. Science won, you lost.

[zloben9000]

Science says: where every change is not beneficial as only the final result(functional lungs) counts as beneficial !

I know you are retarded but that is no excuse !

[Desertphile]

"Science says: where every chang...."

Science doesn't say anything, retard. Go away: I don't dialog with the mentally handicapped.

[SintherX]

@zloben9000

"Science says: where every ch...."

-you are used with arguments of authority an quote mining. That so nice and naive!

Crawl back under your rock troll.

[Acronym77]

M.I.C.H.A.E.L. B.E.H.E. = "Molecular Irreducible Complexity Has Attacked Evolutionists' Logic, Boldly Exposing Holes Everywhere!"

D.I.S.C.O.V.E.R.Y.

I.N.S.T.I.T.U.T.E. = "DNA Is Showing Creator's Own Venturesome Engineering Regarding You. Intelligent, Nonrandom Source Then Inscribed Teleological Underpinnings To Everything."

[cannibalgourmet]

And making acronyms supports your point how exactly?

[timelesstruths]

Can any one please inform me of the natural function of subterian oil reseviors in are biosphere...

Thank you

[rooflee]

well said mate!

[yangboyangboyangbo]

Exactly, you see, if the mutation is fatal and kills the organism, the organism's mutated genetic information is not passed down, thus OF COURSE it seems that all of us (whose genetic information are sustainable and not lethal) have successful and fully functional systems within us, becuase we are the product of such successful mutations.

[Chuichupachichi]

(we have ten times the number of bacteria cells in and on our bodies as we have human cells)

That supports my point. Since the bacteria which we have within and on our bodies, are separate organisms unto themselves. Why compare them to our cells? Since our cells are what we, each of us an organism unto ourselves, are composed of. Thats what I mean about bacteria being the most prolific organisms on earth. Then, if one asks, which physiological form is the one which has produced the most

[DiggityDogg56]

So everyone out there who thinks they are overweight, here is my gift to you. Just deduct 10% of the scales weight and that is your actual weight. You think you weigh 200 lbs? Not! You now weigh 180 lbs. Since Jennie would have charged you a thousand bucks to lose that weight, I'm only charging $100. EMail me where to send the check. And the loss is permanent. It will always be 10% less than what the scale says. In fact the more you weigh, the better my system works. 500 lbs? Not! 450 lbs!

[Chuichupachichi]

"dragon", (evolution does not stop when a perfect reproducer is found as there is no such thing) I never said they were perfect. Only that bacteria are the most successful in regards to reproducing and are the most numerous. Thus, they, more than any other species, possess a greater survivability factor. According to evo theory, that is the main and only objective of natural selection.

[bignastydragon]

yet their are a huge number of bacterial species.

my point is that just because one species breeds well does not mean another suffers. think of wolves and rabbits, which is most prolific? would that prevent evolution of wolves in any way?

within the orders of life are "positions" which drive to be filled by some life forms. as new species are formed more "positions" are created. the dominance of prokaryotes with their limitations creates a great driving force for eukaryotes.

[DiggityDogg56]

Umm, bacteria are at the Domain level. At the Domain level we are eukaryotes, and if I may speak for all other eukaryotes, as almost all of the cannot speak for themselves, we've done alright to, thank you very much. Bacteria's total biomass is about equal to the total biomass of plants.

Wow. I don't know about this one. Wiki claims that we have ten times the number of bacteria cells in and on our bodies as we have human cells. That many? That claim is on Wiki's 'bacteria' page.

[DiggityDogg56]

OK, bacteria appear to be about a hundred times smaller than most human cells, so they are about 10% of our mass, if you assume cell size and mass have a linear relationship which I think is a fair assumption.

[Chuichupachichi]

prolific, most successful organism, or species? The answer is, the physiological form of which prokaryotes have. Since that is what bacteria are. Therefor, it must be, that all life forms which are higher, more complex life forms(believed more evolved) than bacteria. Are in fact, a regression from the form of bacteria, when regarding survivability. Since all other forms which are forms, other than that of bacteria. Are less prolific, or less successful in their specific form, and as a species.

[Chuichupachichi]

If indeed that is true of Behe, then that is his problem. I'll subscribe to the truth, not peoples problems. The seemingly insignificant little microbial known as "bacteria", is earths most successful, most numerous of all living organisms. That microbial, organism form is obviously the one best suited for reproduction and survivability of its species. Also, considering that evolutionists claim that, in spite of its absence of intelligence, the evo process includes the mechanism which

[Chuichupachichi]

provides for the selection and adoption of survivability enhancing traits. Since natural selection/evo., had already produced the most efficient and proficient organism in the microbial form. Why then, would evo have caused the evolution of so many organisms, even up to the level of mammals? Since its claimed that once, microbials were the only organisms on earth. Even if not all were bacteria, still, its microbial form is obviously the best, when survivability is the only valued characteristic

[bignastydragon]

you are right when you say survivability is the only value characteristic, yet you draw the wrong conclussion.

just because prokaryotes(bacteria) are the most prolific does not in any way inhibit eukaryotic(yeasts, fungii, and all muticellular organisms) survivability. without multicellular organisms moving onto land there would only be life within water systems.

[bignastydragon]

evolution does not stop when a perfect reproducer is found as there is no such thing. a specialist is required for harsh environments and a specialist cannot normally outcompete those in temperate conditions.

eukaryotes are in general an improvement on prokaryotes, but this pressure has forced many prokaryotes into the role of parasites or into a symbiotic relationship(gut bacteria), and the line between the 2 is quite flexable.

[Chuichupachichi]

Since the greatest success has come from a microbial life form. I was stating that all higher, more complex life forms, which are supposedly evolved from microbials. Would in fact, be a regression from the microbial, when considering the survivability factor, if evo theory were correct. survival of the species is supposed to be the only reason for them to have evolved in the first place.

[Chuichupachichi]

"dragon", (just because prokaryotes are the most prolific does not in any way inhibit eukaryotic survivability) If you look back at my comments, you'll see that I never claimed such a thing.

[Chuichupachichi]

"dragon",(although you wish for a more biological polymer, nylon is organic) Do we have nylon within our composition? Even if we do, there obviously has to be many more organic polymers which need to form before the possibility of a spontaneously generated cell. From what I've read, those which are necessary for cells, are monomers which don't polymerize under natural conditions. I said IC's arena is abiogenesis simply because the cell is organisms reduced to their most fundamental building

[Chuichupachichi]

blocks. The cell itself ceases to function, if any of its components are removed. Furthermore, some of it's components, like the flagellum, are also that way. The complexity of the system which is the cell, is the reason why abiogenesis proponents cant produce a hypothesis which is truly plausible. Thats the presence of IC. Instead of the tables being turned on ID'ers and creationists, which demands them to prove anything. The burden of proof needs to be on the naturalists/materialists to

[Chuichupachichi]

Thanks for the crash course. You know more about this stuff than most guy's one comes across on many of these videos. But though I'm sure that what you've written is correct. Still, you've simply just given account of some of biology's learned functions within organisms. It in no way supports abiogenesis or evolution. Think of when Darwin was just putting his theory together. It had already been long known, that biological organisms are comprised of systems and countless detailed workings.

[bignastydragon]

have you even read darwin's "on the origin of species"? if you have any intelligence it will answer your questions on evolution. it is very easy to read and covers most ID or creationism arguments. once read there are very few areas you could argue against evolution from.

[Chuichupachichi]

"dragon",(have you even read darwin's "on the origin of species"?) I don't have any questions regarding the theory of evolution. It's concept and what it entails, are quite easily understandable. You say Darwin's book refutes all arguments from those rejecting evo. I think if Darwin were alive today, he would have let go of his theory some time ago. In his book, he explains the kinds of things which would "shoot down" his theory. Those things are present today. Even Gould said there's no fossils

[bignastydragon]

no fossils? where are you looking? a creationist website no doubt. please look up the real science in real scientific journals.

yes darwin did explain the things which would shoot down his theory, yet none of those have been found. if you found something and it survived scientific scutiny then you would walk away with a nobel prize.

finally, if you've ever seen a single real fossil, then you would be hard pressed not to have seen a transitional fossil.

[Chuichupachichi]

But just to have known some, or many of these things, didn't speak in regards to the matter of origins. Its why that, still, later became and still is a point of contention. Its like you teaching me the nuts & bolts of a musical composition. You may know it well, and I may learn it. But that in itself doesn't reveal who composed it. Never the less, you spoke of Bio-chemistry and some behaviors of chemical molecules as they're governed by natural laws. You must consider though, that the functions

[Chuichupachichi]

I think Mr.Miller did something he should not have done. It's perfectly fine if he has the science to show that an actual biological system such as the flagellum, exists in the form of a predecessor. But I think he added to many peoples confusion with the tie clip thing. Since to attribute the state of IC to a system, it inherently by definition of IC. Is claiming that it can't be reduced and still function as specifically that system which is attributed with IC.

[bignastydragon]

the problem is that a mousetrap is a bad analogy employed by behe, miller used the mousetrap because of its previous association with ID.

in reality with biological systems they often are faulty with an entire component removed, yet a modified component can still accomplish the job and may aquire extra functionality in the meantime.

biological systems are not the highly specific "robots" that behe touts them as, but instead follow chemical laws, i'll give an example below.

[bignastydragon]

in ATP synthase which is a membrane bound protein, it requires a flow of protons through its body to mechanically force together the bits of ATP and release the new made molecule. the membrane has a high concentration of protons on one side compared with the other. laws of diffusion state that when allows, the net flow of protons will be from a high concentration to low concentration. this is just a law of averages as it is possible that the flow may run in reverse for a time.

[bignastydragon]

there are also laws which govern the binding of molecules to binding sites in a receptor protein. different variations on the receptor protein may allow it to bind the molecule more or less tightly, yet at some point they all bind the molecule. a cell measures this by having thousands of receptors and so can now work on averages to detect concentrations of the molecule.

the cell is very fluid, and should not be compared to machinery because it is just a collection of chemical reactions.

[Chuichupachichi]

and events that occure as you've explained. All take place within an already living organism. This discussion was regarding IC. IC's arena is abiogenesis. Explaining functions of living organisms, in itself, doesn't support any abio. hypothesis. Bio-Chems. - monomers don't naturally organize, assembling into polymers. Even the famous exper. in the 50's was in a lab. Merely producing defective aminos. Defective are equal to none. Even if they were useful, its still a long way from amino to cell

[bignastydragon]

you're wrong, monomers in certain environments will polymerise. nylon for example is the result of polymerisation in normal conditions, although you wish for a more biological polymer, nylon is organic.

also, ID attempts to both push out abiogenesis AND evolution as it tries to explain current complexity AND the origin. if you say IC's arena is abiogenesis then i guess you have no problems accepting evolution. abiogenesis is a relatively new field and does not yet have the data to defend itself

[Chuichupachichi]

either produce a cell from scratch in the lab. Or present a natural example in which spontaneous generation of a cell can be observed. The theory is yours, you should be required to prove it. ID'rs present scientific discoveries which show abio. and evo. to not be possible, according to those scientific facts. I don't see the correctness in your reasoning, regarding my comment of IC and why that would make evo. acceptable to me. There are many things other than IC which show evo to be impossible

[bignastydragon]

are you wanting a modern cell? if so then that will take a lot of doing, but is possible. abiogenesis does not posit a modern cell, ID does. abiogenesis works on what would be the minimal in the early earth conditions for the first life. remember that this life would have no competition for resources and once this life exists and begins evolving it is very difficult for abiogenesis to occur again. spontaneous generation has been proved a false theory and is separate to abiogenesis.

[bignastydragon]

my comment was not to make evolution acceptable to you, it's just to say that ID attempts to take on a huge bite of the scientific pudding, competing with evolution, theories of abiogenesis and even cosmology, and it does all this without the scientific data it needs.

for ID to work it either needs to come up with a naturalistic way for a designer to appear, or to prove the supernatural. all it has done so far is stamp its feet and try to poke holes in evolution.

[Chuichupachichi]

("are you wanting a modern cell?")

Is there any other kind?

Where has a differing, primitive cell existed, but in the imaginations of men.

[bignastydragon]

even behe is not so intellectually bankrupt as to deny the position of common decent from a primitive cell. the only difference is that behe posits a path created by the interaction of a supernatural being, first to create that cell, and second to progress it through the eras.

genetics shows such overwhelming evidence for common decent from a primitive cell that you would have to ignore billions of facts and conclusions to dismiss this.

so yes, there has been more than modern cells.

[Chuichupachichi]

Any microbial is definitely far closer to the best form, than is any mammal, or any other life form for that matter. Why cause none bacteria microbials to go through so many countless transformations. When simply morphing them into their microbial cousins, "bacteria", would have been far easier and less time consuming. Also, evolution could have been enjoying retirement since a long time ago. Can you direct me to see the overwhelming evidence of primitive cells, less complex than modern cells?

[Chuichupachichi]

"Sand Fucker",(which is a goddamned stupid thing to write)When after I spoke to you properly, without calling you any names and I even said "please". Now you reply with this shit? The only good thing about it is that you wrote it, therefor I can actualy understand what your babeling idiot ass is trying to say.You fucked up, cuz I won't duck from proper constructive debate with just about anyone, but if you want to start getting clever, that too is a way in which

I'll be happy

[Chuichupachichi]

to tear your thorny butthole, cactus keeshtering ass apart. Whats the matter with your cocksucker? Why can't your monkey brain command it to correctly spew out all of your audible worthless noise? You ought to be happy that evolution is just a monkey tale from that Jungle book. Otherwise it would appear that your a specimen in transition. Natural selection seems to have selected you to become as the other monkeys are. Incapable of speech. Natural selection must have heard you, then determined

[Chuichupachichi]

that the human race can not only survive but even thrive without your cactus cock sucker ever saying anything ever again. That would be a far greater "benefit" to humanity than are any one of your "mutant super hero" diseases that you love so much.

You have the audacity to call me stupid and ask me; "why is that not obvious to you"? When its in regards to your having said;

"Mutations that allow disease organisms to infect individuals more easily are also beneficial mutations"

[Chuichupachichi]

Aside from your Jack-assinine view that the facilitateing of disease contraction is made possible by an event which you call "beneficial". There's something else I must ask about. Whats this "also" shit? The mutations which you idiots are calling beneficial, have "only" been mutations of organisms which cause disease or something detrimental to the health of humans. Those are the only organisms to have shown your so called "beneficial" mutations. They've been

[Chuichupachichi]

beneficial alright,but only to the disease causing organism. Why can't you get it through your thick ass filler, that that only makes them even more "unbeneficial" to humans. Those obviously can't be the mutations which your monkey tale claims to be the mechanism by which humans and all organisms have evolved. Since they do the opposite to assisting in ones survival. Therefor, where are they asshole? Where is your Bandini mountain of evidential bullshit? When has a positive mutation, which

[Chuichupachichi]

is the catalyst for advancement, ever been observed to occure? "Never"!

What you bunch of dumbshit, monkey wannabees, Bandini ski team, fail to comprehend is that even if one ever did occure, it would still mean shit. Since mutation is merely a rearranging, or a corruption of already existing information in the DNA. Evolution, would requires "new" added information which results in more complex, more highly organized structuring of the bio. One which would cause a truely beneficial advancement

[Chuichupachichi]

"Desertphile",(there's so many beneficial mutations in various diseases that those mutations happen faster than we can fight them) Is it normaly the practice of the rational and reasonable to fight against things beneficial?

(We are quickly losing the war against beneficial mutations) The rest of us know the benefit in warring against these mutating organisms. Since science has discovered that their mutating only benefits the disease, but they themselves cause only harm to our biology

[Desertphile]

"Is it normaly the practice of the rational and reasonable to fight against things beneficial? "

When those beneficial mutations harm out way of life, then of course the answer is "Yes." Why isn't that obvious to you?

[Chuichupachichi]

"Desertphile",(When those beneficial mutations harm out way of life)

I can't make out what you mean by this. I'm not certain if your using a terminology that I'm not familiar with, or if perhaps that is not the best grammar by which to convey your thought. Perhaps you'd be willing to clarify please?

[Desertphile]

You wrote "Is it normaly the practice of the rational and reasonable to fight against things beneficial?" which is a goddamned stupid thing to write.

Disease organisms that mutate until they infect more species have experiences a beneficial mutation--- which is observed to happen often. Mutations that allow disease organisms to infect individuals more easily are also beneficial mutations.

Why is that not obvious to you?

[Chuichupachichi]

"maurieer",(The idea of a creator that rewards believers by sending them to heaven and hell for non-believers is so ridiculous its mind boggling and simply pathetic) Patheticaly mind boggling is how even though its a very basic simple concept. Still, for you it seems that its so terribly vexing since you cant recognize that its the exact same concept which mankinds civilizations calls "law and order", "crime and punishment". Authority informs you of what you ought not do, giving fair warning

[saxmanchiro]

Desertphile

Thanks for the sane vid.

Unfortunately, most fundies will not follow your logic or info. They have a wall that has been brain-washed into their psyche. As a biologist, I try my best to bring sanity to the delusioned god folks out there but am finding it frustrating. They won't even read. We have so much info on the net and in texts that have been around for decades in our schools but they just won't read or accept the truth. Their parents did a good job of washing their brains.

[dustydirt]

the bible says that we should not excess on anything, gives us the ten commandments, tells us to love one another, to not be proud but humble, which makes society a better place to live. then you crawl out of some dirty rock & tell the world that it's not true. what do you have to offer except your perverted mind. you sick old man. how dare you

[chrishibbert20]

The bible also says to stone people for working on sunday? Adultery?

[dustydirt]

boy, you're something else. do you NOT have anything better to do than make these obnoxious videos. do you not have a wife. why don't you go out & make her proud. thats why you use a cane for walking. you sit around all day your legs forgot what to do.

[Desertphile]

"boy, you're something else."

Your mother thinks so. You were unable to spot any error in my video, and that frustrated your tiny little occult-befuddled Creationist ego, so you had to resort to insult.

[angelragna7]

The guy in this movie just sucks... that's about it.

[Desertphile]

"The guy in this movie just sucks... that's about it."

Translation: you were unable to spot any error in my video, and that frustrated your tiny little occult-befuddled Creationist ego, so you had to resort to insult.

[maurieer]

If there is a creator it would not be the god of the bible with it`s violence, vulgarities,

myths, contradictions and written by man.

This god is a delusion created by man in man`s own image.

A real creator would not be concerned with any

life on earth once it set evolution in motion.

The idea of a creator that rewards it`s believers by sending them to a heaven and a hell for non-believers is so ridiculous it is

mind boggling and simply pathetic.

[Chuichupachichi]

of what the consequences will be if you do what you ought not do. For those who realize that its in their own best interest to abide by the rules and do so. There is reward in it since you will have life. For those who fail to abide, there is punishment, and existing in a cage, is not life

I would imagine you consider the concept of civil law and order, crime and punishment, to be rediculous, mind boggling and pathetic to assume its rational and reasonable. For it is the exact same concept.

[stevejjd]

If a person uses or agrees with an argument that does not mean they may agree with all their beliefs.

You make a lot of assumptions about people.

[t0pher1980]

You realize Christians don't worship Behe one bit. He does make a great point in his book and in interviews. He is entitled to his beliefs, even if they don't coincide with the information handed down in the Bible.

"Function follows mutation"? Survival of the fittest doesn't agree with that statement when mutations have not been shown to be beneficial to overall species development.

[Desertphile]

"...when mutations have not been shown to be beneficial to overall species development."

Many mutations have been observed to be beneficial, of course. The HIV virus is one fine example.

[hussun2021]

This is a false statement,there is not one observed beneficial mutation. The HIV virus is not a beneficial mutation.

[Desertphile]

"The HIV virus is not a beneficial mutation."

Yes, idiot, it is. Also, there are so many beneficial mutations in various diseases that those mutations happen faster than humans can fight them. We are quickly losing the war against beneficial mutations. In the early 1900s a beneficial mutation of influenza slaughtered millions of people throughout the USA alone.

[DiscipleZ3R0]

He is both foolish and egocentric in thinking that "beneficial" means "beneficial to humans." People like this can't look beyond their own nose, much less envision something like evolution.

[Desertphile]

"People like this can't look beyond their own nose, much less envision something like evolution."

Indeed, Creationists really do believe everything in the universe revolves around humanity.

[Chuichupachichi]

However, since you believe they are beneficial to the advancement of all life forms. I was wondering, do you approve of, and agree with the war against things like HIV virus and mutations which cause anemia? You & "DiscipleZ3RO" say mutations are beneficial even though not to humans. However, your belief is that mutation is beneficial to all, since its the mechanism by which natural selection works. Which mutations have been discovered to not harm, but instad beneficialy advance human life?

[Chuichupachichi]

"Desertphile"(In the early 1900s a beneficial mutation of influenza slaughtered millions of people throughout the USA alone)

"WOW"! Its shocking isn't it? How when something shows itself to be so exceedingly beneficial, even to the point of being proliferate in accumulating very impressive statistics such as millions of lives claimed

That people can still be that naive so as to launch a war against something so deadly, yet so deceptively beneficial to the survival of evolutionary theory

[bignastydragon]

i do believe you are mixed up on these points. they are not beneficial to all life, just one form of life (although there is still a dispute as to if viruses are lifeforms).

harmful or neutral mutations to an organism in one situation may be beneficial in another. eg. in sickle cell aneamia the mutation is harmful, and yet introduce malaria and suddenly you have what can only be considered a beneficial mutation in this situation.

[Chuichupachichi]

"bignastydragon", ("i do believe you are mixed up on these points") I'm not at all mixed up. Consider the subject matter of this video. His claim that "irreducible complexity doesn't exist". The truth is that it does indeed exist. It's the reason why there doesn't exist even a single theory of "Abiogenesis" which can truly be called a theory. All of the hypothesis' are not even "plausible". I've read articles written even by evolutionary scientists, being able to explain their implausibility

[Desertphile]

"His claim that "irreducible complexity doesn't exist". The truth is that it does indeed exist."

Where? Please give an example. Thank you.

[bignastydragon]

i do believe that irreducible complexity does exist, yet can be fully explained within the framework of evolution. i do believe desertphile to be misled by this phrase due to misuse by advocates of ID into meaning that the system cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. IC is explained by invocing alternative past uses of the parts of the system, or the system in general which have since been modified for a different (modern) use.

the evidence for this is within countless gene homologies.

[Desertphile]

"i do believe that irreducible complexity does exist, yet can be fully explained within the framework of evolution"

Yes, and it was called "interlocking complexity" and explained by Hermann Muller in the year 1918. He explained why we must see "irreducible complexity" in the biosphere.

[Chuichupachichi]

To reduce its complexity and say, "it still functions, but as something other". Is to ignore the whole point. However, if indeed there is empirical data showing systems like flagellums in less complex forms, thats fine. But in that form, it would no longer be a flagellum. It was wrong to present things as he did. He never reduced a mouse trap, which still functioned as a mouse trap. Thats the point.

[Desertphile]

"i do believe you are mixed up on these points."

You are correct: he is. When a disease mutates to infect more hosts, the mutation is beneficial.... even when the mutation maims or kills millions more hosts than the non-mutated strain. Examples of observed benefical mutations number in tens of thousands.

[moorooduc]

@t0pher1980: ""Function follows mutation"? Survival of the fittest doesn't agree with that"

you turn darwin 180degrees. obviously, you did not understand him. the fittest survive because some special mutation has proven to be useful. but that only happens after the mutation.

since NO ONE can know beforehand, if some mutation will turn out to be useful or lethal. (except some intelligent designer, of course)

[Desertphile]

"you turn darwin 180degrees. obviously, you did not understand him."

Indeed, you understood me but of course Creationists don't dare understand. Mutations that provide an organism with any useful function will be selected for--- the function following the form of the mutation. The Panda's "thumb" is an excellent example.

[havock89]

Interesting until he starts talking about christians. I am a Christian and that bit shows he has no idea about christianity or what they hold dear. Stick to the subjects your good at mate, and dont comment on other peoples beliefs.

[Desertphile]

"...and dont comment on other peoples beliefs."

And how, exactly, are you going to stop me from castigating the evil acts of Christians?

[havock89]

Haha you are a first class prat. Go get yourself a life, and you answer your own question.

[Desertphile]

"Haha you are a first class prat."

So, you cannot stop me from exposing evil. Therefore why did you even bother complaining?

[t0pher1980]

How about the evil acts of atheists? Don't you think you should examine how an atheistic outlook on society has resulted in millions upon millions of people being led to an early death?  Stalin, Hitler, Engels and Pol Pot are great examples, but also regimes led by Kim Jong-il and Fidel Castro in the modern world have me scratching my head about the evils of atheism.

[zosozm69]

Darwin new nothing of genetics "NOTHING"

[Desertphile]

"Darwin new nothing of genetics "NOTHING""

You are being silly.

[blindbrick]

no, and Einstein did not know how to build a nuclear reactor, that doesnt mean that he was wrong.

[Desertphile]

"Michael Behe comes to your doorstep with a radio telescope proclaiming"

No. Michael Behe comes to your door with a Bible proclaiming scientists should abandon reason.

[karkas07]

Michael Behe comes to your doorstep with a radio telescope proclaiming he has found new evidence of a black hole... you then respond by saying "I've got my great great grandpa's telescope on my roof and never saw a black hole so go away... you couldn't possibly present new evidence."

[tatjd]

Your humor is refreshing! The scientific problem with "irreducible complexity" is that all anyone has to do is posit a plausible and simpler way of reducing any complexity (Occam's razor). Seems like Behe is now accepting everything except undirected mutation. Guess he is shaving. Thank you for your part.

[NotSoOldHippy]

Damn! You have been busy!  Excellent coverage of Creationist claptrap as usual.

[Desertphile]

"Damn! You have been busy! Excellent coverage of Creationist claptrap as usual."

The days have been too hot to work outside. :-) So I make videos. I have a long list of topics.

[CousinoMacul]

The biggest thing I learned from a talk I went by Steven G. Harvey (one of the <i>Kitzmiller v. Dover</i> lawyers) was that Behe's Irreducible Complexity wasn't original. And I had thoght my my opinion of him couldn't sink any lower.

[Desertphile]

"And I had thoght my my opinion of him couldn't sink any lower."

Indeed, though a huge point in Behe's favor is that he did not lie under oath while his peers did.

[ltzippy2]

I read a review of Behe's testimony at the Dover trial and whilst he accepts all the things cited in the video it appears that he does not consider "Natural selection" up to the job! Another argument from personal incredulity methinks!

[Desertphile]

"Another argument from personal incredulity methinks!"

The trial transcipts are sad: I fet sorry for Behe when reading them--- he so desperately wants there to be a god somewhere in biology. His latest book pretends to prove a "intelligent mutator" mathematically.

[tellnet]

(Desertphile)

"intelligent mutator" ?? !!

.. And then He spoke of truths and Pharaohs, Pharisees and Phallicies, His immaculated contraception gleaming as far as the eye seeith and equally as much as the more lessness did behove, behold, bewilder, bemuse, (betray), be here, there and as everywhere as omniomniencibility permits during that importantly imposing intrusive period politely defined as wiping your arse.

[ark1588]

Greetings from Merseyside ,

I enjoy your presentations ,but I think some of you targets are not worthy of your analysis .(eg Hovind)

I type typed Desertphile in the YOUTUBE search field and found "creation or evolution ?" and information about a free booklet ( which seems unnecessary .)

It seems to raise a number of problems with the

theory .

[Zucadragon]

Using examples like the eye and the bombardier beetle, which had been deemed irreducibly complex, before real scientists found those "parts" of those structures in other organismes, single parts that still have function, al though a different one.. Behe didnt figure this out, he just invokes an intelligent designer and then sits down to rest and nod at his handywork.

[NotSoOldHippy]

Some Creationists continue to pretend that the Bombardier Beetle would have to have "exploded" before they could breed. }:-} Got to love the entertainment that Creationists afford educated people.

[ProfOrchard]

I LOVE that last sentence... very well said. I hope you don't mind if I paraphrase you in the future. Cheers!