Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked.flv

[frogman360]

The cool thing about this video is the fact that Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic =) . Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[ian9toes]

The whole notion of Darwins theory is that things evolved gradually. All this moron has done is show that there is no gradual steps toward the bacterial flagellum. If there were any gradual steps he would have showed them to us. Instead he shows us a "possible" step and then expects us to believe all the other dozens of steps must be possible then. I don't think Michael Behe was prepared for such stupidity, especially when the more parts or steps he removes the more he thinks he is convincing.

[Atalatl]

@ian9toes You might want to watch the video again, as you managed to completely misunderstand it. Behe is the moron who failed to do his research properly; Miller is a cell biologist who is well aware that the type 3 SS is the precurser to the flagellum; it also is seen in cells that have no flagellum. Behe's argument was that if ANY parts were removed, the system would be functionless---he was wrong, as are you.

[ian9toes]

@Atalatl You really don't get it do you. The whole concept of I.C is that if you take ONE part away you don't have anything that is functional. Miller doesn't take away one part he takes away 40. This doesn't help his cause because now he is missing 40 parts that is 40 parts that have to be added in one generation, because there are no intermediate steps shown. No demonstration of GRADUAL steps means it is all speculation which is pseudoscience. Epic fail, but you can't see it.

[Atalatl]

@ian9toes Please show me where it says that 40 parts MUST be added in only ONE generation...this is an inane assumption on your part which has no basis in reality. Additionally, Miller is not required to demonstrate intermediate steps. To DISPROVE Behe's asinine ID contention, all he needed to do is show the system is functional with parts removed, which he did superbly. The epic fail is yours, fool...and of course Behe's.

[ian9toes]

@Atalatl What if Miller removed 1 million parts and all you were left with were some protein strands that are usefull elsewhere, would this give much weight to his argument. Or what if he removed everything down to a single electron, and because we know electrons are useful, then irreducibly complex is blown out of the water right? Are you catching on yet fool? Miller arogantly boasts how he didn't remove 1 or 5 or 10 but 40 parts. And you fools take the bait. ONE part removed beats 40.

[Atalatl]

@ian9toes >>I really enjoy your irrationality. Behe claimed the FLAGELLUM was irreducibly complex, not the motor. Miller showed it wasn't. Miller is NOT required to show ANY intermediate steps except in your laughably delusional aberrant thinking---Behe was exposed as a pseudoscientist idiot, Miller confirmed as a gifted scientist and educator. Miller's task was to show Behe was wrong, not outline the evolutionary steps of the flagellum: your claim is fallacious, and a misdirection.

[moonfiber]

@ian9toes I've read your discussion with Atalatl and my friend you got it all wrong. You stick to claims like "remove 1 or 5 or 40 parts" but what you don't get is that these are not car mechanics. These are organic pieces that provide function, and they GROW, they don't just get attached or removed. Ken Miller shows in this video that the organ has function in more primitive forms, debunking Behe's claims.

[ian9toes]

@moonfiber Well read it again. The whole evolution theory is based on GRADUAL steps. He takes away 40 parts and thinks that is a gradual step. There is nothing gradual about 2 steps that are 40 parts in difference. Why couldn't he show us, 1 part missing, and 2 parts missing, and so on. He didn't but you guys just put faith in the asumption that they must be there, faith based speculation is not science. Evolution is a faith, it resides in the evo's imagination.

[Atalatl]

@ian9toes" The whole evolution theory is based on GRADUAL steps" WRONG.

" He takes away 40 parts and thinks that is a gradual step." WRONG

"...you guys just put faith in the asumption that they must be there" WRONG

Can't get anything right can ya?

[ian9toes]

@Atalatl So evolution doesn't require gradual steps now. Ok then the theory must have changed again, it's so hard to keep up.

[Atalatl]

@ian9toes Punctuated equilibrium, 1972. You are only 40 years out of date.

[ian9toes]

@Atalatl HAHAHA! That is THE biggest joke in the evolutionary myth. Even the evo myth believers know there are huge problems with the evo myth. So what do they do, "I know let's come up with a new term that we won't need to prove or demonstrate, just simply having the term will give our trusty believers something to quote in an argument". That Sir is pathetic and you have been deluded. Punctuated equilibrium was only invented because the fossil record needed a new theory. Pseudoscience.

[Atalatl]

@ian9toes See Marine Iguana; see Galapagos Tortoise. See Madagascar fauna in entirety.See Australian fauna in entirety. Oh dear, completely disproven. Looks like you are completely wrong again, as usual.

[Atalatl]

@moonfiber Read his next post! "What we have here is failure to communicate" on account of the communicatee is about as smart as a bag of hammers.

[ian9toes]

So are we to believe that all 40 parts that were removed were added in ONE mutation. This is a poor argument. You could have just taken away all but one part and said this remaining protein strand has a function elsewhere. The thing you can't show us is a the one step before, the organism with just one part missing.

[allahbob]

If you call something irreducibly complex, that's just code for "I'm too stupid to understand it."

[MrSheptical]

@allahbob What if somebody calls your comment irreducibly flippant?

[Atalatl]

@LoricaLady You have been given mountains of evidence showing your claims to be false on a number of different videos. Your incapacity to understand the simplest of scientific concepts and your closed-minded unwillingness to learn anything has shown conducting even the briefest of interactions with you to be an utter waste of time. That these are personal insults is quite true: you are most deserving of them. You didn't pay attention to what Miller said and don't understand it.

[Atalatl]

@LoricaLady As you are a scientific illiterate and have no capacity to appreciate critical thinking, and your level of ignorance is so vast that dumbing down any response far enough for you to understand it renders the argument unintelligible, it is pointless to engage in uselss discussion with you. You are a bible idolator without the capacity for logical thought; you ignore what Miller says, don't understand it, and pay heed only to your own irrational delusions. Bugger off.

[LoricaLady]

@Atalatl I assume you will Expel me from this vid and any others you have. That would not be unusual either for YT evo fans. How sad that you can't answer the Qs I asked about Miller. Next time you look yourself in the mirror ask why you haven't got a clue on what function that whip, motor & egg could have while "evolving", or what a dolphin & puffer fish have to do with human blood clotting, or how you know Miller's mangled mousetrap will catch any mice whatsoever on the planet.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. This raises some interesting Qs. Why would evo put in unnecessary parts? Who said we "evolved" from puffer fish or dolphins anyway? And most of all, if this is the best that can be done to "refute" irreducible complexity - mangled mouse traps that are seen to kill 0 mice & dolphins & puffer fish irrelevantly brought in as "evidence" about the human blood clotting system - then why don't they find something that actually does refute i.c.? The answer? Because they can't, of course.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Then there is Miller's so called debunk of the irreducible complexity of our blood clotting mechanism. At no time do we ever see any examples of people with damaged, less complex, clotting systems that are doing fine. Instead we are shown (oh please!) a picture of a puffer fish and a dolphin! We're supposed to believe that because they, who live in totally different kinds of bodies, don't need as many blood clotting mechanisms as we do - then we don't need them all either! Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. How is blind evolution going to slowly, over aeons, build up the whip & the motor AND an egg in a totally separate body? They all need one another. W/o the others (& innumerable other parts not just in the cells but in the transport systems and so on). they are all useless - useless until they are fully formed and fully connected and fully functional. All said in the vid is smoke & mirrors sophistry. Speculation presented as evidence is pseudo science, which is all evo ever is. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. The truth is that until they are both fully in place and fully complete - they have no function! Pointing to less complex cells - cells which perform very different functions and have no "left over" emerging, "evolving" parts that are not being used - and asking us to belieeever that something similar used to be the case for the flagellar motor is the usual: Evidenceless speculation that defies what the real data shows. Think about the flagellar whip on a sperm cell now. Cont.

[MrNeodarwinian]

@LoricaLady Wrong. We see the precursors and the " ghost genes " that once were translated into functioning protein mechanisms. How do you ID morons explain the human (ape) inability to synthesize vitamin C? You can't. Critiques of evolutionary theory mean nothing if you do not have a testable alternative explanation. " magic man " done does not cut it here.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Miller misrepresents what Behe said.  Behe never said that parts couldn't have other functions. He said the flagellar motor was not going to work w/o all the parts in place. The battery has multiple systems. But just because it can made the radio run, that doesn't mean the motor is going to move the car anywhere w/o the battery. Look at the rotary motor that turns the whip. What function could the whip or motor ever have apart from one another? What "co-option" could they have? Cont.

[Atalatl]

@59arkady ~Considering that a complex structure has never been found to give rise to a simple one, that argument is dead.The other 40 proteins do NOT represent irreducible complexity (which is a hoax)...Miller's reduction was not a ruse, but an illustration of how far off the mark Behe actually is. Accounting for the origin of the proteins is not relevent to irreducible complexity. Exposing the duplicity of Behe is what is relevent.

[ThomasWinkworth]

So what do these bacterial flagellum need in order to survive and keep on moving?

[Atalatl]

@ThomasWinkworth The flagella do not exist independently of the bacteria. They get energy from the bacterium. The bacterium dies, they die too.

[Atalatl]

@nightcrawlercyp Did you watch the video? Elementary logic states the Type 3 Secretory apparatus existed before the flagellum developed...the degree of infectiousness has nothing to do with the secretory apparatus OR the flagellum. BTW the flagellum is PART of a bacterium (and not all have flagella) and not a bacterium in its own right, so your idea of a common ancestor for both is a non-starter. You need to study for a while so as to actually understand.

[nightcrawlercyp]

@Atalatl then how did the bacteria "evolved" to something that has a infection rate less than previous. More than that the bubonic plague bacteria cannot exist without complex organisms to infect, while the other can. I have studied the problem from an open minded point of view. Reading without judging what so called scientist say it is not studying.

[Atalatl]

@nightcrawlercyp Whaaaa???

[jingle3]

Ken Miller is one of the best scientists in explaining evolutionary concepts for the layman! As for Michael Behe, if you haven't already read it, please go to Lehigh U's web, dept of biological sciences and read their statement on Evolution and "Intelligent Design." Here's a sample - "The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years."

[Atalatl]

@jingle3 Tee Hee...even LeHigh can't stomach Behe! Too bad they granted him tenure before he decided to abandon science...

[Dwicker64]

The main thing that is non-functional are the creationists.