'theorist' God's taking a shower in my bathroom. Evolutionary biolgist; there's no evidence for that. When we looked in your bathroom when you said he was showering there was no one there. Gotcha! My god showering 'theory' really is science because its falsifiable. Well no; you could always say god's showering in my bathroom but we just can't see it! .....
How the fuck did michael behe become a professor at lehigh.
@EnlightenedReader That's my point. If you watch the video, Ken took a couple of quotes out of context to redefine the definition of irreducibly complex, refutes the redefinition and then says he refuted irreducibly complex. That's cheesy and dishonest. So, if you actually read Behe's books you would know what I am talking about. I encourage the viewers to read Behe and see his videos to see both sides and you will know what I am talking about.
This is so cheesy. Ken tries to bait Behe into accepting Ken's own definition of irreducible-complexity, Behe doesn't take the bait and yet Ken goes ahead using his own definition, refutes it and then says case closed. Yet he still doesn't address the central thesis of Behe's argument. Ken knows goddamn well what Behe was talking about and yet handwaves and skirts around it. As an engineer, if I tried to pull that shit I would be fired. Very dishonest ...
By Michael's definition, EVERYTHING is irreducibly complex. If you take a part away, its CURRENT primary function is no more. Well shit how can you argue that?! That doesnt disprove the function evolved. As miller demonstrates, you can get a system with less parts, in its primitive stage. The complex cell we have today has lots of parts, its irreducibly complex by that definition, but it still evolved.
Also can we all gather up for a huge group hug around Genie Scott? You can watch so many debates where the moderator is blatantly on one side or the other (Sam Harris v. Chris Hedges), but although we all know where Genie falls on this issue, she is absolutely objective throughout.
@semitope Not for lack of asking Behe and Dembski. Maybe if they had an idea of what irreducible complexity is, the rest of us could, too. Also, why doesn't the complete lack of punctuation surprise me in an ID activist?
@dpowens those guys have explained it quite well. Evolutionists are simply too dumb or biased (or both) to understand. I would lean towards Dumb though. To see what is obvious in nature and still believe something as ridiculous as evolution shows that they are massively brain fked somehow. You can't possibly do science and honestly think evolution was fact.
@semitope "You can't possibly do science and honestly think evolution was fact."
Really? Because I'm pretty sure millions of people do it every day. No use talking to someone as ignorant and close-minded as you are. Have a good one.
@dpowens LOL. wow, I just read my comment. You really care that much about the one missing full-stop? typical evolutionist. Picking on the wrong thing to draw attention away from what is important. Miller misrepresenting the opposing position so that he doesn't have to counter it. sheesh.
@semitope When did I say I cared about your grammar? I said it didn't surprise me coming from an ID... person. And did you really re-read your original comment and find only one "full-stop"? That's embarrassing for you, too. Also, tip: when you say things like "typical ..." serious people will generally stop paying attention to you. As I will now do.
@dpowens "miller has no idea what irreducible complexity is" is what i saw. I say typical and u bitch, yet you said something is not surprising of an ID advocate.... you funny. You'd better stop believing evolution. It seriously screws a persons logical thinking up
Concerning cutting-edge research stemming from the auspices of Seattle's Discovery Institute, what practical applications have resulted from a "irreducible complexity" (IC) paradigm? .
There is no such thing as irreducible-complexity, because it never existed. It was another religious construct thrown into the world with absolutely no real thought.
@zfan2591 What is interesting is that these "scientist" and "philosopher" don't hear very well. The ID argument by Behe is that the "system" (bacterial flagellum) will not work according to its principal function. He never said the individual proteins would not work in other systems. These arguments are deceptive and sophomoric - they should've known better.
Michael. I appreciate you standing up to Ken. He is obstinate. He APPARENTLY or RANDOMLY misses the points you're making. I'm not sure who his god is?
You make the false assumption that he has any belief in any god. People who are convinced that they have invisible, magical superfriends assume that the rest of us are under the same delusion.
@SymmetricStrings Actually he did not disprove Irreducible Complexity. He picked examples that (unfortunately for Behe) had redundancies. Like choosing a mouse trap with 2 springs & saying, If I take off one spring it will still work. Behe made the mistake of choosing an example with redundancies & it was exploited. But the concept wasn't disproved in the least. Miller knows this, that's why he chose those. But he can't disprove irreducible complexity of an applicable system. Logic wins. sorry.
he ALSO emphatically mentioned in chapter 8: "Suppose the parts developed individually for other functions ... and then accidentally got together? No, their previous functions would leave them unfit... " (p.177)
Again, I was astounded to Behe's contradictory response to Miller's questions. Indeed, Dr. Behe's own words in "Darwin's Black Box" speak for themselves.
After watching NCSE's video "The Great Debate," I was astounded what Dr. Behe (concerning the parts of a system) had to say: "I never said that they are useless on their own. As a matter of fact, if you read closely in my book I talk about the microtubules being used in other things, dynein proteins being used in other things, and so on. "
HOWEVER, in that very book, "Darwin's Black Box" (which you have already wonderfully pointed out), he ALSO emphatically mentioned in chapter
@SymmetricStrings Miller did a pretty good job...but he didn't kill the concept. You have to take each mechanism on its own. The mouse trap ceases to work when one of the components isn't present; therefore, it's irreducibly complex. It's a red harring to say that because some of the components are found to be used elsewhere, therefore it not irreducibly complex. There is a reason that Dophins do not have Factor XII and you do...It's by design :)
@brettcav Behe states that the blood clotting system was made by a designer because if even a single part were removed the system would cease to function. Science finds functioning clotting systems with pieces removed and the response is "it was done that way by design." Talk about a path of circular reasoning that leads to no scientific understanding. By that logic it doesn't matter what science finds--it was all done that way by design!
Speaking strictly from an unbiased observational perspective, its clear that miller won the debate with Behe. Behe is forced to restate the obvious that the the "system" doesnt work upon dismantling it however the parts still work. Than the question becomes whether or not the parts come together to to form the intended function of the system through natural selection... of which Miller gave examples! Dont you call it a night right then and there? DONE
@Johnf85 Yea...I think your right in the sense of debate skills (as far as 2002 goes). But the argument is still a powerful one. Just because a part is found in different kinds of machinery, doesn't negate the irreducible complex argument...it just means that particular part is being used for a different or similiar function elsewhere that works. Mechanical bushings are used in this way by engineers. Why can't an intelligence designer use proteins in this way?
Now I can see clearly how Behe was demolished and humiliated in the Dover trial - the guy is a complete nut. I have a question - if it was designed whole without missing parts when did that occur?
@SymmetricStrings Miller ignored everything that Behe said & kept repeating already answered questions. He could provide no evidence of any study where a bacteria flagellum had ever had 40 proteins knocked off and were left with ten of the same functional proteins of the T3SS, in fact, Behe pointed out that the ten proteins of the TT3S mentioned, were not the same, and Miller conceded that. The holes and inconsistencies of the neo Darwinian synthesis are gargantuan. Oh what a dual standard.
well, the proble is, how can darwinian evolution be falsified? does any one of you have not 100, not 10 but 2 experiments where darwinian evolution occurs? complexity and fuction or pass of info by pure accident? please I want to know
Behe and Dembski are in this for the money. I'm not even sure if they believe any of their own arguments. Its just easy to sell books with titles that evoke divinity in nature to dumbass creationists. They are exploiting a ready and willing market with a lot of purchasing power. Hell, from a business perspective those guys are a couple of geniuses.
Michael Behe theory gets ripped apart EVERY SINGLE time by Dr Miller but he STILLS insists that it is plausible. A TRUE hunble scientist would admit that thier theory was wrong when torn apart but Dr Behe's problem is that he allows is religous beliefs to cloud his thinking.
@wowamonn Actually his theory doesn't get ripped if you check the arguments around 6.15 you notice that Ken ignores what behe says about the type 3 seqaunce
What you will find is everyone has bias, my bias is that i am a thiest and if you are a athiest, evoluntionist or agnostic that mean that you have a bias (athiesm or agnostism is not a nutureal position)
any bias means any proof offered up by the counter party will be scrapped, because its about personal belief first and not science
@MarktheSuth I totally disagree with your opinion. Because if you watch from 3:30 to 6:55 again you will see the point that Dr Miller is trying to get Behe to reconize is that evan if the Proteins mentioned are diffrent it is irrelavant to the Behe's argument of irreducible complexity because his argument claims that if ONE part is missing it renders the bacterial flagellum non-functional so it does not matter if the proteins are diffrent in a type 3 the point is it should have no function
@wowamonn hmmm... I do see what you are saying, however I think Behe was cut of from making his point,
The functioning part that Miller pulled out used most of the same proteins as part of the fejllium, however Behe stated taht these proteins are shaped differently and also it uses new foreign proteins in order to work, therefore if you were to take that part away from the flagellum it would not be functional as it requires significant change in order to work
@MarktheSuth Evan if that were true I am guessing it would still be irrelavanyt also Behe may imply that it may be drasticaly diffence between the types it is my understanding that there are only a few letters in the DNA chain that are diffrent and this is predicted in Evolution where genetic material form diffrent species are changed via deletions, additions and mutations.
I am curious of this. Once some tests have been done to prove ID completely bogus. Without any wiggle room. What then? What will the test be? I know there is another coming.
The earth is flat. - wrong
We are the center of everything - wrong
The pope is gods right hand man on earth - Hahahaha
Science is evil - Quit looking for a new way to kill people.
@kkkaldav "He lost one leg in accident and lost the ability to walk, but he GAINED the ability to hop about on one leg." Funny and insightful. There was always something odd about the idea of gaining through the loss of information. Your analogy put it in perspective.
But its ok, I knew all along. THAT IS - I could tell by the very very similar writing styles. THAT IS - you were exposed a long time ago. THAT IS - get lost FUCKWIT!
Just having read and agreed with Dr. Behe's definition about the inviolability of the system and acknowledging the amazing structure of the bacterial flagella with its 50 parts, Dr. Miller jumps to the type III secretory system. What does that have to do with the inviolability of the 50 parts of the flagella. By his own admission, without the 50 it won't work. If it doesn't work, how in God's beautiful blue planet can Natural Selection give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down?
@MorganMarvinson Dr. Miller jumps to the type III secretory system. "
Yep because Behe says that this system(BF) is IC because when it loses a part, it is non functional. So, if Miller wanted to prove Behe is wrong, would Miller prove the BF DOES have a function when it loses a part or would he have to prove that the BF does NOT have a function when it loses its parts.
@srexob715 "WHICH proves Behe is wrong? HUH?" No, which proves that neither you nor Dr. Miller have been listening to what Behe is claiming. Strangely, Miller concedes Behe's point in a video here on YouTube, when he says of Behe's statement that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex (i.e. it needs all its parts to function):
"That's a perfectly valid point." /watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM Then he goes on to argue against something Behe never said. You have done likewise.
@MorganMarvinson Behe said that an IC system, that loses a part, will become nonfunctional.
So, if Miller is going to prove Behe is wrong, should he prove that the parts left over from the BF are FUNCTIONAL or NONFUNCTIONAL??? Which would prove behe is wrong? HUH?
@MorganMarvinson Behe said that an IC system, that loses a part, will become nonfunctional." Maybe you'll get it this time:
Which single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella?"
Mabye you will get it this time. WHO said it could function as a flagella with some of the parts missing? LMAO! Keep trying, but you are way too stupid.
@srexob715 I'm trying to be patient with you. That IS Behe's argument:
What single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella?
It is the whole machine that is irreducible. You must have all its parts together and integrated within the organism for Natural Selection to play its role in determining the fitness of the organism. If it isn't fit, the new machine won't get passed on to the rest of the population. (When you get this, pass it on to Miller.)
@srexob715 I've been patient with you, and I will try to continue to be. The point is about whether it will function as a flagella with one missing part--that is what makes it irreducibly complex as a mechanism.
Miller conceded the point of irreducible complexity, he just wanted to move the goal posts. Without all its component parts, it will not be a functioning flagella. Even if it has all its parts, but they aren't connected properly, it will not be a functioning flagella.
@MorganMarvinson whether it will function as a flagella with one missing part"
The point is that Behe claimed an IC system ceases to function when it loses a part. Therefore IMPLYING that since any precursor to an IC system is by def. nonfunctional, he thinks this disproves the step by step, addition of parts, natural selection evolution.
But again, just because a BF loses a part and can no longer function as a BF does nothing to evoluion.
@MorganMarvinson Miller conceded the point of irreducible complexity, he just wanted to move the goal posts."
Yes and it only supposedly proposes a problem for the step by step gradual, natural mechanism of evolution. Sadly, it doesn't KKK. I have no idea why you are having a problem with this again--THAT IS(LOL) you still don't understand that you are too scared! Thought I wouldn't notice huh?
I realize that, but you are avoiding my question. Behe says they are 'nonfunctional'.
So, when Miller goes to prove behe is wrong, should he prove the left over parts are functional or nonfunctional. If Miller can prove they are functional, at something else such as a T3SS, this shows those remaining parts are functional.
Sorry you dont quite understand this. Either you will or you will run away!
@srexob715 "Behe says they are 'nonfunctional'" This is where Miller is being dishonest or incredibly dense. Over and over Behe says they will not function as the flagellar system. That is his point. He has no disagreement that pieces of the flagellar system can do something else. (Though, mind you, there has not been a machine correlated to the hypothetical combination of the machine as it is being built piece by piece.)
@MorganMarvinson Behe says they are 'nonfunctional'" This is where Miller is being dishonest or incredibly dense. Over and over Behe says they will not function as the flagellar system. "
Behe means that an IC system that loses a part, is no longer able to function as originally intended. Miller never disagrees with this, but he does prove that the remaining parts do have a function........T3SS! RIGHT? LOL
@srexob715 "Miller never disagrees with this, but he does prove that the remaining parts do have a function........T3SS! RIGHT? LOL"
No, he does NOT prove that the remaining parts have a function. He points to a similar structure that may have derived from the flagella--no one is quite sure whether it came before or after. But that doesn't account for all the other pieces to the flagella--nor does is demonstrate how the cumulative structure would be useful at its various steps.
@MorganMarvinson But that doesn't account for all the other pieces to the flagella--nor does is demonstrate how the cumulative structure would be useful at its various steps."
Consider the Mullherian two step. Sometimes things are added that do not necessarily increase or make the function better.
@MorganMarvinson no one is quite sure whether it came before or after. "
But yet Behe only considers the IC system, as is it LOSES a part, and ceases to function as originally intended. Now you say no one is quite sure whether it came before or after.
But if it(T3SS) came BEFORE, then this disproves behe's theory, since he says that any direct precursor is nonfunctional. So you can't believe it came before the BF. You MUST believe it came after the BF.
@srexob715 Citing the T3SS as evidence that you can get a flagella by stepwise additions that always make a functioning molecular machine is like saying you can walk from Hawaii to Japan because Wake Island is in between.
@MorganMarvinson YOU: "Behe said that an IC system, that loses a part, will become nonfunctional." Maybe you'll get it this time"
ME: "Which single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella? Mabye you will get it this time. WHO said it could function as a flagella with some of the parts missing?"
I wonder why you run from questions that prove you are wrong. Ahhhhhhh! LOL FUCKWIT!
@MorganMarvinson What does that have to do with the inviolability of the 50 parts of the flagella."
Ummm, welll, ummmm, errrrr, Behe says that the BF is IC since it can no longer function once it loses a part. So, this IMPLIES that parts cannot be added, in a successive, gradual, step by step processes, since any precursor to an IC system is by def. nonfunctional. RIGHT?
Behe is wrong and Miller proves that those remaining parts DO have a function. BEhe is wrong, they are not nonfunctional.
@srexob715 "this implies that parts cannot be added ... RIGHT?" No, only the flagella is irreducibly complex. Miller missed Behe's point. All the parts to the flagella must be present and put together properly and working before Natural Selection could not act upon them--to give a thumbs up or thumbs down. A non-functioning flagella would be dead weight and would give no advantage, but would be a liability. Besides, studies have shown that the type III seretory system likely came later.
@MorganMarvinson this implies that parts cannot be added ... RIGHT?" No, only the flagella is irreducibly complex"
That doesn't answer the question. If an IC system, loses a part and is nonfunctional, it also means that any direct precursor to this IC system is by definition nonfunctional. This IMPLIES that parts cannot be added/selected in a gradual, successive, step by step evolutionary mechanism? Right or wrong.
@srexob715 "You are confusing a lot of biology there, bud!" No, I'm not, but apparently I am confusing you.
MINUS ONE PART (this is the point of the statement), it would be a non-functioning flagella and would be dead weight, a liability--and not an advantage--to the bacteria's survivial. Unless all the parts are present and in good working order, it is no help.
@MorganMarvinson MINUS ONE PART (this is the point of the statement), it would be a non-functioning flagella and would be dead weight, a liability"
It only has the disadvantage of propulsion, but may be advantageous to some other function; now or in the future. If it benefits its survival, then it could become necessary.
@srexob715 "May be advantageous ... could become necessary." What "theoretically" or "conceivably" could be does not refute Behe's point.
You're looking for a "sky hook." (If you don't know what that it is, it is an imaginary tool to help lift something you can't figure out how to move on the ground.)
@MorganMarvinson What "theoretically" or "conceivably" could be does not refute Behe's point."
How so? Behe believes his point means that it could not happen by successive, gradual, step by step processes. Remember, for any direct precursor to an IC system is by def. nonfunctional...................as originally intended. Like a mousetrap that can no longer catch mice.
@srexob715 "How so?" An imaginary scenario with a possible single step to a mult-step process does not refute Behe's point.
Let's say you tell me that you have devised a plan to travel to Japan from Hawaii by walking. I say it can't be done and ask you what the plan entails, You say it involves walking the length of Owahu and also walking the length of Wake Island, and you conclude by saying, "There! See! It can be done."
@srexob715 Let's see if I can mark out the parallels.
I say you can't walk from Japan to Hawaii. Behe says you can't get an irreducibly complex flagella through a step by step process.
You say, yes, you can walk from Hawaii to Japan--because Wake Island is in between them. Miller says, yes, an irreducibly complex mechanism can form step by step--and I even have a mechanism that looks like it could be part of the flagella to prove it!
@MorganMarvinson Behe says you can't get an irreducibly complex flagella through a step by step process."
Then Behe is not smart enough to consider the mullherian two step. You can get an IC bridge thru a step by step process. You can get an eye, which is also IC, thru a step by step process.
Sure, we can't get to Japan from Hawaii by walking, but we could swim, build a boat, or hop on a plane.
@srexob715 "Sure, we can't get to Japan from Hawaii by walking, but we could swim, build a boat, or hop on a plane." Ah, so! You CAN get there if you use a more intelligently designed means of transport.
@MorganMarvinson Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct. RIGHT?????????? LOL
@MorganMarvinson Behe says you can't get an irreducibly complex flagella through a step by step process."
So, when Miller claims "leaving nothing for natural selection to select for"............although it is not Behe's direct words, it is the implication made by what behe directly says!!!!!
So, Miller is not lying!! Sure, Behe claims it is not his words, but he fails to be honest and mention that its the IMPLICATION made based on his direct words!
@srexob715 Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct.
Sure, again, its not behe's direct words, but its the implication that is made from behe's words that you don't understand. FEAR is in your way! LMAO!
Maybe you're quoting me. Without a working flagella, NS cannot select for it, for it wouldn't be an advantage--until it was all together and working. One part, two parts, three parts, four parts short and it isn't an advantage unless there is something at each stage of progression between a poison shute and an outboard motor that is advantageous. So far you've said, "Well it COULD be advantageous." But, honestly, how? It's a non-functioning BOTH.
@MorganMarvinson Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct. RIGHT?????????? LOL
@MorganMarvinson Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct. RIGHT?
@MorganMarvinson Have you refuted my claim that it can't be done?"
Well, if I made a claim that I was going to travel to Japan from Hawaii by walking, I am not sure that we have to refute your claim, for the claim I made is illogical. Not many people are going to believe me my claim, irregardless of what your claim is. Sure, your claim is that it can't be done. Well, since it can't be done, not many are going to beleive my claim.
@srexob715 However, people believe the other claim even though it is illogical. Go figure!
The evolutionary view of creation is "accidentally on purpose." The flagella required careful design, but because of your great faith that it needed to be done without guidance, you postulate that the exquisitely designed flagellar motor was just a happenstance though it has all the engineering of something carefully designed.
@srexob715 "too dumb ..." Intelligence isn't at issue. Look what you've done with what you have! *wink wink*
Permit me to explain my reason for using the phrase "accidentally on purpose." "Accidentally" is the random phase of the theory--RANDOM mutation; "on purpose" is the non-random phase of the theory--natural SELECTION. In other words, little accidents within the DNA are directed by the natural forces of the environment, thereby producing what evolutionists say is not chance development.
@MorganMarvinson "Accidentally" is the random phase of the theory--RANDOM mutation"
So the coin that randomly lands on heads, as opposed to heads, is due to an accident or due to physical forces that were unknown at the time just before and during its landing?????????
don't be DUMB! I don't think your god likes you being dumb on purpose. Now, if you don't know any better because you are DUMB, then your God will excuse you. K
@MorganMarvinson In other words, little accidents within the DNA are directed by the natural forces of the environment, "
Little mutations, that are not accidents, but merely normal.......just as in its normal for the coin to land on heads or tails. The problem is that we don't know which side the coin is going to land on and neither do we know of the mutation until either occurs.........but this does not mean that either of them are accidents.
@MorganMarvinson YOU: "May be advantageous ... could become necessary." What "theoretically" or "conceivably" could be does not refute behe's point."
If it COULD BECOME advantageous, then this proves Behe is wrong because he believes it could not become advantageous.....................THEREFORE something NS could select from.
IDIOT, IDIOT, IDIOT, but I hope you dont run away. WHERE am I going to get entertained?????
@MorganMarvinson By his own admission, without the 50 it won't work."
At what function?? As a bacterial flagellum or as a T3SS??? Miller proves the BF flagellum, when it loses some parts, WILL WORK as a T3SS. So, Miller admits that it(a BF that has lost some parts - IC system) WILL WORK as a T3SS. Miller admits that a mousetrap that loses just 1 part, WILL WORK at clipping ties.
@srexob715 Figuring out how to use a broken mousetrap for a tie clip or spit wad launcher doesn't stop the mousetrap from being irreducibly complex. Behe's point is that it won't catch mice unless all its parts are present and together.
Yes, I know somebody took the plate off one and attached the trap to the floor. That didn't get rid of the part--it just gave it a bigger plate. I know that somebody else took the holder bar off and bent the wire to catch the bar--that only substituted a part.
@MorganMarvinson So, if Miller is going to prove Behe is wrong, should he prove that the parts left over from the BF are FUNCTIONAL or NONFUNCTIONAL??
@srexob715 Leftover parts could be either. (My hunch is that leftovers would be very expensive for survival.) Figuring out a use for leftovers is ingenious work, but it doesn't effect the irreducible complexity of the parts together.
@srexob715 "When that 'use' is beneficial for survival, it takes no figuring at all, huh???? WOW!" And when you get hungry, just imagine you have a delicious sandwich in your hand.
You're repeating the hypothetical case of evolutionary dogma, not pointing to what has been observed or reconstructed. There is no useful-at-each-step mechanism to equip a bacteria with a flagella.
@MorganMarvinson Be sure to read back thru all the messages on this video. Especially when you get to "kkkaldav". I have met some stupid people before, but this dude takes the cake.
@MorganMarvinson It's not obvious that "parts" of a system are the units of selection. The dominant view today in evolution is that genes are selected or rejected. Under this view, natural selection can very easily still operate as long as the genes result in differential reproduction.
@JonathanM00r3 This view makes even less sense as a support for change by random mutation and natural selection--unless it is DESIGNED into the chromosome. You are saying that it is "genes" that "are selected or rejected"--not the part produced by the genes. But, Natural Selection cannot address change on the genetic level. It can only accept or reject what eventually shows up as a working part--the phenome.
You are positing a "selection" apart from Natural Selection.
@MorganMarvinson This is a misrepresentation of the gene-centered view. Genes cause phenotypes and a gene is 'judged' by its phenotypic effects. There is a distinction between entities that survive or fail to survive ("replicators") and entities with temporary existence ("vehicles"). Genes are "replicators" while individuals and groups are "vehicles". Because genes have a permanent character, it is argued by gene centrists that they should be regarded as the beneficiaries of adaptations.
@JonathanM00r3 "This is a misrepresentation of the gene-centered view. Genes cause phenotypes and a gene is 'judged' by its phenotypic effects." So you validate it again by your statement. It is the GENE that causes the phenotype--not natural selection. Natural selection, alias environmental pressure, can have no effect on the gene unless the gene is PROGRAMMED to respond to its environment.
@MorganMarvinson This will be my last comment. I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from. The GCF does not imply that genes don't respond to the environment. That's precisely what they do! Genotypes (replicators) and phenotypes (vehicles) are both aspects of the same process. However, the reason why genes are preferred as units of selection has to do with their permanence. Genes either survive or don't survive. Because of this, they are seen as the ultimate beneficiaries of adaptations.
@JonathanM00r3 In making genes respond directly to the environment, you disprove the undirected nature of evolution. Randomness as a mechanism of change is just the opposite of directedness. Your point supports the central point of intelligent design--that the cell was designed to respond to its environment. This form of teleology contradicts the classic RM/NS of neodarwinism.
@MorganMarvinson "But, Natural Selection cannot address change on the genetic level. It can only accept or reject what eventually shows up as a working part--the phenome."
This is empirically false. Clear examples where it does include meiotic drive and retrotransposons. In these cases, genes increase their relative frequency without providing any benefits at other levels of organization.
@MorganMarvinson Again, my initial claim was that it's not OBVIOUS that "parts" are selected for. Far from it actually. George C. Williams argued that "The natural selection of phenotypes cannot in itself produce cumulative change, because phenotypes are extremely temporary manifestations". Each phenotype is the unique product of the interaction between genome and environment. It does not matter how fit and fertile a phenotype is, it will eventually be destroyed and will never be duplicated."
@MorganMarvinson "You are positing a "selection" apart from Natural Selection."
Not at all. In fact, the GCV is consistent with natural selection. All it's saying is that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors. How is this selection different from Natural Selection?
@JonathanM00r3 "How is this selection different from Natural Selection?" You said "genes are selected or rejected." Genetic "selection," in the sense of genetic design, is a random matter, according to neodarwinian theory. It is merely a chance occurrence. What Natural Selection does is provide an environment for survival or death. Do only the fittest survive? While circumstances allow, many varieties survive, as Darwin noted on the Galapagos islands, but environment doesn't fuel the change.
Then Dr. Miller is ready to move on to build his case on his statement of point #2 when he has been told, no, that is not a fair representation of my point.
I give Dr. Miller an "A" for his effort, but an "F" for actually dealing with Dr. Behe's hypothesis.
@MorganMarvinson when he has been told, no, that is not a fair representation of my point."
Behe tries to lie and say, "Well, those are your words, not mine", but Behe fails to realize that Miller was only finishing the LOGIC/REASONING behind what Behe said.
Since Behe says an "IC system that loses a part is by def. nonfunctional"..................this IMPLIES that natural selection has nothing to select from, which is wrong as Miller explained.
How many times does Dr. Behe have to say, No, you didn't get it right? The quotation Dr. Miller used to support his rewording in #3 emphasizes the "unit." Natural selection cannot select (live or die) for the "unit" until the whole unit is present.
@MorganMarvinson And how many times does Miller need to prove that the BF's left over parts can function at something else.
You see, Behe says that a system that is IC is nonfunctional when it loses a part. So, in order for Miller to prove Behe wrong, should Miller prove that an IC system CAN function when it loses a part or that it CANT function when it loses a part. WHICH would prove Behe is wrong???? HUH? LOL
@Wishingstarification And I wish Behe would understand Miller's point and admit where Miller proves him wrong. Why is he so scared and unwilling to admit it????
Will his Intelligent Designer send him to hell for eternity if he does???? HUH? LOL
@Wishingstarification Watch the video and prove that Miller did not have a point. PROVE Miller's point is wrong. TRY this time. Dont run away because you realize you CANT! LOL
@Wishingstarification If you say that Miller does not have a point, this can only be because you did not watch the video to see/hear Miller's point. WATCH it or look scared!
@Wishingstarification SEE? I knew you couldn't be a man and watch the video and then prove Miller was wrong. You just CANT do it, so you tuck your tail and run away!
Typical! When you can be a man and show me where Miller is wrong, you MIGHT be worth the discussion. Until, then keep LYING in the name of your God. I am sure it makes him very proud of you! LOL
@Wishingstarification Again. You said he did not make a point. Watch the movie and when you can admit that he did make a point and when you can show where his point is wrong...............come back; its the only way to justify your lack of belief.
But until then you are taking the cowards way out by trying to claim that he didn't make one at all. IF that is your claim, then you clearly did not watch the video. TRY AGAIN!
@ResurrectedThinker I don't believe they hate each other, but they have an odd collegiality since both are Catholics and Miller ostensibly believes in the Designer but uses all his powers to dismiss any evidence of design. On the other hand, Behe is swimming upstream since Pope John Paul II conceded the issue of evolution (though there are many Catholics who have serious questions about its efficacy).
This is a lie and you know it. Miller would admit design, but a natural designer...................not some supernatural designer. LMAO! And you wonder why we laugh at you guys?
@srexob715 "you wonder why we laugh at you guys" No, we don't. At least, I don't. Ridicule is the first and last line of defense for a half-asked question.
You think it isn't laughable to assume that undirected forces are superb designers of exquisite engineering? We try to restrain our laughter because we know you honestly believe this possible. You can believe it if you wish, but when have you observed such a thing?
Have you accepted any EVIDENCE OF DESIGN? Then you have DISMISSed it.
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Francis Crick, In What Mad Pursuit, p. 138.
@srexob715 "Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." Richard Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker, p. 21.
@MorganMarvinson Does an almost fully formed flagella that is minus just one part function as a Type III secretory system?]
Miller proved that a flagella could lose as many as 40-50 parts and function as a T3SS. Remember, Behe claimed it would be nonfunctional. Keep trying though!
So, let me get this straight. When behe says that an IC system, that loses a part, ceases to function............does he mean 'at all' or 'as originally intended.'
Because Behe clearly points to the mousetrap and how when it loses a part, it CAN function as a tie clip. You need to read Behe's book, you clearly dont' understand his point. Therefore you CANT understand how Miller proves him wrong!
@srexob715 "does he mean 'at all' or 'as originally intended.'" In the case of the flagella, it doesn't function as intended or at all. It won't shoot poison and it won't propell the bacteria. And there are many points between T3SS and flagella that won't serve a purpose either.
"Because Behe clearly points to the mousetrap and how when it loses a part, it CAN function as a tie clip." A broken mousetrap doesn't make a good tie clip, but it does illustrate Dr. Miller's resourcefulness.
@MorganMarvinson In the case of the flagella, it doesn't function as intended or at all. "
Who says it should function as a flagella if it loses a part or many parts? Not miller. He points out that it could lose many parts and those remaining parts could function as a T3SS. Behe admits those remaining parts are homologous to the T3SS.
@srexob715 "those remaining parts could function as a T3SS." Perhaps don't understand the difference between the two. One is a tube that shoots poison. The other has no tube through it, but is several strands together that act like a whip or outboard motor. The "outboard motor" MINUS any one part won't be a tube for shooting poison.
It's a total remake, if the T3SS needle complex was actually a part of the flagella's construction. It's like turning a hypodermic needle into an egg beater.
@srexob715 "WOW! ... We might have a genius on our hands!" It's a pretty simple concept, isn't it?
The hypothetical steps between the T3SS needle complex and the flagellar motor are mostlikely useless. 50 parts, most of which won't help a T3SS function any better (or at all) and which don't make a functioning flagella until they are all present and all in place--that's irreducible complexity.
As you say, it doesn't take a genius to understand it.
@MorganMarvinson The hypothetical steps between the T3SS needle complex and the flagellar motor are mostlikely useless."
You don't KNOW that! Where's your evidence that proves/shows that they are or WILL BE useless.........since you dont' know what they are. Those hypothetical steps COULD be useful.
@MorganMarvinson And there are many points between T3SS and flagella that won't serve a purpose either."
This is the same crap that all IDers make. Its like saying there is no transitional fossils between humans and apes, and then when we show you the intermediates................the religious people THEN say, "well, where are the transitionals between what you showed me and humans"
They cant accept it, so they move the goal posts. Wide and far away!
@srexob715 "This is ****" Tell me what use is a "no longer a hypodermic needle", but "not quite an egg beater." What would you do with it? Then, pretend you don't have any intelligence and figure out how to use it. That's what the bacteria has to do with a malformed non-hypdermic outboard motor.
Does it make sense? I'll give you this one too. NO. It does not.
'theorist' God's taking a shower in my bathroom. Evolutionary biolgist; there's no evidence for that. When we looked in your bathroom when you said he was showering there was no one there. Gotcha! My god showering 'theory' really is science because its falsifiable. Well no; you could always say god's showering in my bathroom but we just can't see it! .....
How the fuck did michael behe become a professor at lehigh.
DRosenman87 1 week ago
@EnlightenedReader That's my point. If you watch the video, Ken took a couple of quotes out of context to redefine the definition of irreducibly complex, refutes the redefinition and then says he refuted irreducibly complex. That's cheesy and dishonest. So, if you actually read Behe's books you would know what I am talking about. I encourage the viewers to read Behe and see his videos to see both sides and you will know what I am talking about.
MrSocrates68 1 month ago
This is so cheesy. Ken tries to bait Behe into accepting Ken's own definition of irreducible-complexity, Behe doesn't take the bait and yet Ken goes ahead using his own definition, refutes it and then says case closed. Yet he still doesn't address the central thesis of Behe's argument. Ken knows goddamn well what Behe was talking about and yet handwaves and skirts around it. As an engineer, if I tried to pull that shit I would be fired. Very dishonest ...
MrSocrates68 1 month ago
By Michael's definition, EVERYTHING is irreducibly complex. If you take a part away, its CURRENT primary function is no more. Well shit how can you argue that?! That doesnt disprove the function evolved. As miller demonstrates, you can get a system with less parts, in its primitive stage. The complex cell we have today has lots of parts, its irreducibly complex by that definition, but it still evolved.
Johnf85 2 months ago
Also can we all gather up for a huge group hug around Genie Scott? You can watch so many debates where the moderator is blatantly on one side or the other (Sam Harris v. Chris Hedges), but although we all know where Genie falls on this issue, she is absolutely objective throughout.
dpowens 2 months ago
miller has no idea what irreducible complexity is
semitope 3 months ago
@semitope Not for lack of asking Behe and Dembski. Maybe if they had an idea of what irreducible complexity is, the rest of us could, too. Also, why doesn't the complete lack of punctuation surprise me in an ID activist?
dpowens 2 months ago
@dpowens those guys have explained it quite well. Evolutionists are simply too dumb or biased (or both) to understand. I would lean towards Dumb though. To see what is obvious in nature and still believe something as ridiculous as evolution shows that they are massively brain fked somehow. You can't possibly do science and honestly think evolution was fact.
punctuation or no, don't remember and don't care.
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope "You can't possibly do science and honestly think evolution was fact."
Really? Because I'm pretty sure millions of people do it every day. No use talking to someone as ignorant and close-minded as you are. Have a good one.
dpowens 2 months ago
@dpowens LOL. wow, I just read my comment. You really care that much about the one missing full-stop? typical evolutionist. Picking on the wrong thing to draw attention away from what is important. Miller misrepresenting the opposing position so that he doesn't have to counter it. sheesh.
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope When did I say I cared about your grammar? I said it didn't surprise me coming from an ID... person. And did you really re-read your original comment and find only one "full-stop"? That's embarrassing for you, too. Also, tip: when you say things like "typical ..." serious people will generally stop paying attention to you. As I will now do.
dpowens 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dpowens "miller has no idea what irreducible complexity is" is what i saw. I say typical and u bitch, yet you said something is not surprising of an ID advocate.... you funny. You'd better stop believing evolution. It seriously screws a persons logical thinking up
semitope 2 months ago
Just one question: .
Concerning cutting-edge research stemming from the auspices of Seattle's Discovery Institute, what practical applications have resulted from a "irreducible complexity" (IC) paradigm? .
schraughts 4 months ago
@schraughts Er, a digital fm crucifix?
Or how about a bucket to put over the head with attached ear plugs for keeping those nasty facts out?
Rockster969 2 months ago
There is no such thing as irreducible-complexity, because it never existed. It was another religious construct thrown into the world with absolutely no real thought.
zfan2591 4 months ago 4
@zfan2591 What is interesting is that these "scientist" and "philosopher" don't hear very well. The ID argument by Behe is that the "system" (bacterial flagellum) will not work according to its principal function. He never said the individual proteins would not work in other systems. These arguments are deceptive and sophomoric - they should've known better.
danyellcharles 1 week ago
@danyellcharles I love how you put quotes around "scientist". lol There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.
zfan2591 1 week ago
Michael. I appreciate you standing up to Ken. He is obstinate. He APPARENTLY or RANDOMLY misses the points you're making. I'm not sure who his god is?
taotaotatti 5 months ago
@taotaotatti said "I'm not sure who his god is?"
You make the false assumption that he has any belief in any god. People who are convinced that they have invisible, magical superfriends assume that the rest of us are under the same delusion.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
Michael. I appreciate you standing up to Ken. He is obstinate. He APPARENTLY or RANDOMLY misses the points you're making.
taotaotatti 5 months ago
@SymmetricStrings Actually he did not disprove Irreducible Complexity. He picked examples that (unfortunately for Behe) had redundancies. Like choosing a mouse trap with 2 springs & saying, If I take off one spring it will still work. Behe made the mistake of choosing an example with redundancies & it was exploited. But the concept wasn't disproved in the least. Miller knows this, that's why he chose those. But he can't disprove irreducible complexity of an applicable system. Logic wins. sorry.
violetember 6 months ago
he ALSO emphatically mentioned in chapter 8: "Suppose the parts developed individually for other functions ... and then accidentally got together? No, their previous functions would leave them unfit... " (p.177)
Again, I was astounded to Behe's contradictory response to Miller's questions. Indeed, Dr. Behe's own words in "Darwin's Black Box" speak for themselves.
schraughts 6 months ago
After watching NCSE's video "The Great Debate," I was astounded what Dr. Behe (concerning the parts of a system) had to say: "I never said that they are useless on their own. As a matter of fact, if you read closely in my book I talk about the microtubules being used in other things, dynein proteins being used in other things, and so on. "
HOWEVER, in that very book, "Darwin's Black Box" (which you have already wonderfully pointed out), he ALSO emphatically mentioned in chapter
schraughts 6 months ago
what made god and why would god make humans?
FIGHTFANNERD3 7 months ago
@SymmetricStrings Miller did a pretty good job...but he didn't kill the concept. You have to take each mechanism on its own. The mouse trap ceases to work when one of the components isn't present; therefore, it's irreducibly complex. It's a red harring to say that because some of the components are found to be used elsewhere, therefore it not irreducibly complex. There is a reason that Dophins do not have Factor XII and you do...It's by design :)
brettcav 7 months ago
@brettcav Behe states that the blood clotting system was made by a designer because if even a single part were removed the system would cease to function. Science finds functioning clotting systems with pieces removed and the response is "it was done that way by design." Talk about a path of circular reasoning that leads to no scientific understanding. By that logic it doesn't matter what science finds--it was all done that way by design!
sunzoltar 6 months ago
Speaking strictly from an unbiased observational perspective, its clear that miller won the debate with Behe. Behe is forced to restate the obvious that the the "system" doesnt work upon dismantling it however the parts still work. Than the question becomes whether or not the parts come together to to form the intended function of the system through natural selection... of which Miller gave examples! Dont you call it a night right then and there? DONE
Johnf85 8 months ago
@Johnf85 Yea...I think your right in the sense of debate skills (as far as 2002 goes). But the argument is still a powerful one. Just because a part is found in different kinds of machinery, doesn't negate the irreducible complex argument...it just means that particular part is being used for a different or similiar function elsewhere that works. Mechanical bushings are used in this way by engineers. Why can't an intelligence designer use proteins in this way?
brettcav 7 months ago
Now I can see clearly how Behe was demolished and humiliated in the Dover trial - the guy is a complete nut. I have a question - if it was designed whole without missing parts when did that occur?
vohshkab 8 months ago
Check it at around 6:45, Miller ignores Mikes statements that the Type 3 uses different proteins and doesn't answer that..
Miller at least try to reply I am interested to see what your answer to it actually is
MarktheSuth 9 months ago
@SymmetricStrings Miller ignored everything that Behe said & kept repeating already answered questions. He could provide no evidence of any study where a bacteria flagellum had ever had 40 proteins knocked off and were left with ten of the same functional proteins of the T3SS, in fact, Behe pointed out that the ten proteins of the TT3S mentioned, were not the same, and Miller conceded that. The holes and inconsistencies of the neo Darwinian synthesis are gargantuan. Oh what a dual standard.
benthemiester 9 months ago
well, the proble is, how can darwinian evolution be falsified? does any one of you have not 100, not 10 but 2 experiments where darwinian evolution occurs? complexity and fuction or pass of info by pure accident? please I want to know
eagkss 9 months ago
Behe and Dembski are in this for the money. I'm not even sure if they believe any of their own arguments. Its just easy to sell books with titles that evoke divinity in nature to dumbass creationists. They are exploiting a ready and willing market with a lot of purchasing power. Hell, from a business perspective those guys are a couple of geniuses.
RaggedM88 10 months ago
Michael Behe theory gets ripped apart EVERY SINGLE time by Dr Miller but he STILLS insists that it is plausible. A TRUE hunble scientist would admit that thier theory was wrong when torn apart but Dr Behe's problem is that he allows is religous beliefs to cloud his thinking.
wowamonn 11 months ago
@wowamonn Actually his theory doesn't get ripped if you check the arguments around 6.15 you notice that Ken ignores what behe says about the type 3 seqaunce
What you will find is everyone has bias, my bias is that i am a thiest and if you are a athiest, evoluntionist or agnostic that mean that you have a bias (athiesm or agnostism is not a nutureal position)
any bias means any proof offered up by the counter party will be scrapped, because its about personal belief first and not science
MarktheSuth 9 months ago
@MarktheSuth I totally disagree with your opinion. Because if you watch from 3:30 to 6:55 again you will see the point that Dr Miller is trying to get Behe to reconize is that evan if the Proteins mentioned are diffrent it is irrelavant to the Behe's argument of irreducible complexity because his argument claims that if ONE part is missing it renders the bacterial flagellum non-functional so it does not matter if the proteins are diffrent in a type 3 the point is it should have no function
wowamonn 9 months ago
@wowamonn hmmm... I do see what you are saying, however I think Behe was cut of from making his point,
The functioning part that Miller pulled out used most of the same proteins as part of the fejllium, however Behe stated taht these proteins are shaped differently and also it uses new foreign proteins in order to work, therefore if you were to take that part away from the flagellum it would not be functional as it requires significant change in order to work
MarktheSuth 9 months ago
@MarktheSuth Evan if that were true I am guessing it would still be irrelavanyt also Behe may imply that it may be drasticaly diffence between the types it is my understanding that there are only a few letters in the DNA chain that are diffrent and this is predicted in Evolution where genetic material form diffrent species are changed via deletions, additions and mutations.
wowamonn 8 months ago
I am curious of this. Once some tests have been done to prove ID completely bogus. Without any wiggle room. What then? What will the test be? I know there is another coming.
The earth is flat. - wrong
We are the center of everything - wrong
The pope is gods right hand man on earth - Hahahaha
Science is evil - Quit looking for a new way to kill people.
pumpstations 1 year ago
In regards to Dembski claiming there is no randomness is invention .. but in fact, often inventions are quite random and accidental ...
jj3patube 1 year ago
Ken Miller is amazing. He's like a logic machine.
BabySatch1 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "He lost one leg in accident and lost the ability to walk, but he GAINED the ability to hop about on one leg." Funny and insightful. There was always something odd about the idea of gaining through the loss of information. Your analogy put it in perspective.
Thanks, kkkaldav.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Sock puppets! LOL
But its ok, I knew all along. THAT IS - I could tell by the very very similar writing styles. THAT IS - you were exposed a long time ago. THAT IS - get lost FUCKWIT!
LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 In posted 3 times because my response wouldn't appear when I clicked on [POST]. It appears that all three were actually accepted.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Comment removed
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Just having read and agreed with Dr. Behe's definition about the inviolability of the system and acknowledging the amazing structure of the bacterial flagella with its 50 parts, Dr. Miller jumps to the type III secretory system. What does that have to do with the inviolability of the 50 parts of the flagella. By his own admission, without the 50 it won't work. If it doesn't work, how in God's beautiful blue planet can Natural Selection give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Dr. Miller jumps to the type III secretory system. "
Yep because Behe says that this system(BF) is IC because when it loses a part, it is non functional. So, if Miller wanted to prove Behe is wrong, would Miller prove the BF DOES have a function when it loses a part or would he have to prove that the BF does NOT have a function when it loses its parts.
WHICH proves Behe is wrong? HUH?
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "WHICH proves Behe is wrong? HUH?" No, which proves that neither you nor Dr. Miller have been listening to what Behe is claiming. Strangely, Miller concedes Behe's point in a video here on YouTube, when he says of Behe's statement that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex (i.e. it needs all its parts to function):
"That's a perfectly valid point." /watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM Then he goes on to argue against something Behe never said. You have done likewise.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Behe said that an IC system, that loses a part, will become nonfunctional.
So, if Miller is going to prove Behe is wrong, should he prove that the parts left over from the BF are FUNCTIONAL or NONFUNCTIONAL??? Which would prove behe is wrong? HUH?
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "Behe said that an IC system, that loses a part, will become nonfunctional." Maybe you'll get it this time:
Which single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Behe said that an IC system, that loses a part, will become nonfunctional." Maybe you'll get it this time:
Which single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella?"
Mabye you will get it this time. WHO said it could function as a flagella with some of the parts missing? LMAO! Keep trying, but you are way too stupid.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 I'm trying to be patient with you. That IS Behe's argument:
What single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella?
It is the whole machine that is irreducible. You must have all its parts together and integrated within the organism for Natural Selection to play its role in determining the fitness of the organism. If it isn't fit, the new machine won't get passed on to the rest of the population. (When you get this, pass it on to Miller.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson What single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella?"
Who says that's still a flagella? Who is making this claim you are making up?
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 I've been patient with you, and I will try to continue to be. The point is about whether it will function as a flagella with one missing part--that is what makes it irreducibly complex as a mechanism.
Miller conceded the point of irreducible complexity, he just wanted to move the goal posts. Without all its component parts, it will not be a functioning flagella. Even if it has all its parts, but they aren't connected properly, it will not be a functioning flagella.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson whether it will function as a flagella with one missing part"
The point is that Behe claimed an IC system ceases to function when it loses a part. Therefore IMPLYING that since any precursor to an IC system is by def. nonfunctional, he thinks this disproves the step by step, addition of parts, natural selection evolution.
But again, just because a BF loses a part and can no longer function as a BF does nothing to evoluion.
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Miller conceded the point of irreducible complexity, he just wanted to move the goal posts."
Yes and it only supposedly proposes a problem for the step by step gradual, natural mechanism of evolution. Sadly, it doesn't KKK. I have no idea why you are having a problem with this again--THAT IS(LOL) you still don't understand that you are too scared! Thought I wouldn't notice huh?
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson It is the whole machine that is irreducible."
I realize that, but you are avoiding my question. Behe says they are 'nonfunctional'.
So, when Miller goes to prove behe is wrong, should he prove the left over parts are functional or nonfunctional. If Miller can prove they are functional, at something else such as a T3SS, this shows those remaining parts are functional.
Sorry you dont quite understand this. Either you will or you will run away!
srexob715 1 year ago
1.
@srexob715 "Behe says they are 'nonfunctional'" This is where Miller is being dishonest or incredibly dense. Over and over Behe says they will not function as the flagellar system. That is his point. He has no disagreement that pieces of the flagellar system can do something else. (Though, mind you, there has not been a machine correlated to the hypothetical combination of the machine as it is being built piece by piece.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Behe says they are 'nonfunctional'" This is where Miller is being dishonest or incredibly dense. Over and over Behe says they will not function as the flagellar system. "
Behe means that an IC system that loses a part, is no longer able to function as originally intended. Miller never disagrees with this, but he does prove that the remaining parts do have a function........T3SS! RIGHT? LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "Miller never disagrees with this, but he does prove that the remaining parts do have a function........T3SS! RIGHT? LOL"
No, he does NOT prove that the remaining parts have a function. He points to a similar structure that may have derived from the flagella--no one is quite sure whether it came before or after. But that doesn't account for all the other pieces to the flagella--nor does is demonstrate how the cumulative structure would be useful at its various steps.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson He points to a similar structure that may have derived from the flagella"
Or that the flagella may have arisen from the T3SS system. Behe admits they are homologous.
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson But that doesn't account for all the other pieces to the flagella--nor does is demonstrate how the cumulative structure would be useful at its various steps."
Consider the Mullherian two step. Sometimes things are added that do not necessarily increase or make the function better.
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson no one is quite sure whether it came before or after. "
But yet Behe only considers the IC system, as is it LOSES a part, and ceases to function as originally intended. Now you say no one is quite sure whether it came before or after.
But if it(T3SS) came BEFORE, then this disproves behe's theory, since he says that any direct precursor is nonfunctional. So you can't believe it came before the BF. You MUST believe it came after the BF.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Citing the T3SS as evidence that you can get a flagella by stepwise additions that always make a functioning molecular machine is like saying you can walk from Hawaii to Japan because Wake Island is in between.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson YOU: "Behe said that an IC system, that loses a part, will become nonfunctional." Maybe you'll get it this time"
ME: "Which single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella? Mabye you will get it this time. WHO said it could function as a flagella with some of the parts missing?"
I wonder why you run from questions that prove you are wrong. Ahhhhhhh! LOL FUCKWIT!
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson What does that have to do with the inviolability of the 50 parts of the flagella."
Ummm, welll, ummmm, errrrr, Behe says that the BF is IC since it can no longer function once it loses a part. So, this IMPLIES that parts cannot be added, in a successive, gradual, step by step processes, since any precursor to an IC system is by def. nonfunctional. RIGHT?
Behe is wrong and Miller proves that those remaining parts DO have a function. BEhe is wrong, they are not nonfunctional.
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@srexob715 "this implies that parts cannot be added ... RIGHT?" No, only the flagella is irreducibly complex. Miller missed Behe's point. All the parts to the flagella must be present and put together properly and working before Natural Selection could not act upon them--to give a thumbs up or thumbs down. A non-functioning flagella would be dead weight and would give no advantage, but would be a liability. Besides, studies have shown that the type III seretory system likely came later.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson this implies that parts cannot be added ... RIGHT?" No, only the flagella is irreducibly complex"
That doesn't answer the question. If an IC system, loses a part and is nonfunctional, it also means that any direct precursor to this IC system is by definition nonfunctional. This IMPLIES that parts cannot be added/selected in a gradual, successive, step by step evolutionary mechanism? Right or wrong.
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson A non-functioning flagella would be dead weight and would give no advantage, but would be a liability."
Why would it not function as a flagella with all the parts, since it certainly doesn't function like a flagella with parts missing?
You are confusing a lot of biology there, bud!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "You are confusing a lot of biology there, bud!" No, I'm not, but apparently I am confusing you.
MINUS ONE PART (this is the point of the statement), it would be a non-functioning flagella and would be dead weight, a liability--and not an advantage--to the bacteria's survivial. Unless all the parts are present and in good working order, it is no help.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson MINUS ONE PART (this is the point of the statement), it would be a non-functioning flagella and would be dead weight, a liability"
It only has the disadvantage of propulsion, but may be advantageous to some other function; now or in the future. If it benefits its survival, then it could become necessary.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "May be advantageous ... could become necessary." What "theoretically" or "conceivably" could be does not refute Behe's point.
You're looking for a "sky hook." (If you don't know what that it is, it is an imaginary tool to help lift something you can't figure out how to move on the ground.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson What "theoretically" or "conceivably" could be does not refute Behe's point."
How so? Behe believes his point means that it could not happen by successive, gradual, step by step processes. Remember, for any direct precursor to an IC system is by def. nonfunctional...................as originally intended. Like a mousetrap that can no longer catch mice.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "How so?" An imaginary scenario with a possible single step to a mult-step process does not refute Behe's point.
Let's say you tell me that you have devised a plan to travel to Japan from Hawaii by walking. I say it can't be done and ask you what the plan entails, You say it involves walking the length of Owahu and also walking the length of Wake Island, and you conclude by saying, "There! See! It can be done."
Have you refuted my claim that it can't be done?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson What "theoretically" or "conceivably" could be does not refute Behe's point.
But then you supply a COULDN"T happen as a means to prove your point?
You say what theoretically or conceivably COULD BE does not refute Behe's point. A scenario you provide uses what 'conceivably' could NOT happen.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Let's see if I can mark out the parallels.
I say you can't walk from Japan to Hawaii. Behe says you can't get an irreducibly complex flagella through a step by step process.
You say, yes, you can walk from Hawaii to Japan--because Wake Island is in between them. Miller says, yes, an irreducibly complex mechanism can form step by step--and I even have a mechanism that looks like it could be part of the flagella to prove it!
Neither proves it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Behe says you can't get an irreducibly complex flagella through a step by step process."
Then Behe is not smart enough to consider the mullherian two step. You can get an IC bridge thru a step by step process. You can get an eye, which is also IC, thru a step by step process.
Sure, we can't get to Japan from Hawaii by walking, but we could swim, build a boat, or hop on a plane.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "Sure, we can't get to Japan from Hawaii by walking, but we could swim, build a boat, or hop on a plane." Ah, so! You CAN get there if you use a more intelligently designed means of transport.
Good point!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct. RIGHT?????????? LOL
I wonder why you run from this? LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Behe says you can't get an irreducibly complex flagella through a step by step process."
So, when Miller claims "leaving nothing for natural selection to select for"............although it is not Behe's direct words, it is the implication made by what behe directly says!!!!!
So, Miller is not lying!! Sure, Behe claims it is not his words, but he fails to be honest and mention that its the IMPLICATION made based on his direct words!
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@srexob715 Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct.
Sure, again, its not behe's direct words, but its the implication that is made from behe's words that you don't understand. FEAR is in your way! LMAO!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Why do you hide most of your posts?
Maybe you're quoting me. Without a working flagella, NS cannot select for it, for it wouldn't be an advantage--until it was all together and working. One part, two parts, three parts, four parts short and it isn't an advantage unless there is something at each stage of progression between a poison shute and an outboard motor that is advantageous. So far you've said, "Well it COULD be advantageous." But, honestly, how? It's a non-functioning BOTH.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson And again, I see you avoid my questions for FEAR of what the answer reveals. LOL
Keep running CHUMP!
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct. RIGHT?????????? LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Since behe says/implies, "You can't get an IC BF through a step by step process".........this also implies that "natural selection should not have anything to select from", making #2 of Miller's point correct. RIGHT?
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Have you refuted my claim that it can't be done?"
Well, if I made a claim that I was going to travel to Japan from Hawaii by walking, I am not sure that we have to refute your claim, for the claim I made is illogical. Not many people are going to believe me my claim, irregardless of what your claim is. Sure, your claim is that it can't be done. Well, since it can't be done, not many are going to beleive my claim.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 However, people believe the other claim even though it is illogical. Go figure!
The evolutionary view of creation is "accidentally on purpose." The flagella required careful design, but because of your great faith that it needed to be done without guidance, you postulate that the exquisitely designed flagellar motor was just a happenstance though it has all the engineering of something carefully designed.
Great is thy faith!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The evolutionary view of creation is "accidentally on purpose.""
NOPE and no wonder you CANT understand. Keep trying, but I still bet you CANT understand! WATCH to see that you can't and that I tell the truth.
Its just that you are too dumb/scared to learn. I wonder why?????????? LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "too dumb ..." Intelligence isn't at issue. Look what you've done with what you have! *wink wink*
Permit me to explain my reason for using the phrase "accidentally on purpose." "Accidentally" is the random phase of the theory--RANDOM mutation; "on purpose" is the non-random phase of the theory--natural SELECTION. In other words, little accidents within the DNA are directed by the natural forces of the environment, thereby producing what evolutionists say is not chance development.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Accidentally" is the random phase of the theory--RANDOM mutation"
So the coin that randomly lands on heads, as opposed to heads, is due to an accident or due to physical forces that were unknown at the time just before and during its landing?????????
don't be DUMB! I don't think your god likes you being dumb on purpose. Now, if you don't know any better because you are DUMB, then your God will excuse you. K
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson In other words, little accidents within the DNA are directed by the natural forces of the environment, "
Little mutations, that are not accidents, but merely normal.......just as in its normal for the coin to land on heads or tails. The problem is that we don't know which side the coin is going to land on and neither do we know of the mutation until either occurs.........but this does not mean that either of them are accidents.
Some are smart and can understand this.
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson YOU: "May be advantageous ... could become necessary." What "theoretically" or "conceivably" could be does not refute behe's point."
If it COULD BECOME advantageous, then this proves Behe is wrong because he believes it could not become advantageous.....................THEREFORE something NS could select from.
IDIOT, IDIOT, IDIOT, but I hope you dont run away. WHERE am I going to get entertained?????
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson By his own admission, without the 50 it won't work."
At what function?? As a bacterial flagellum or as a T3SS??? Miller proves the BF flagellum, when it loses some parts, WILL WORK as a T3SS. So, Miller admits that it(a BF that has lost some parts - IC system) WILL WORK as a T3SS. Miller admits that a mousetrap that loses just 1 part, WILL WORK at clipping ties.
LMAO! You guys crack me up!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Figuring out how to use a broken mousetrap for a tie clip or spit wad launcher doesn't stop the mousetrap from being irreducibly complex. Behe's point is that it won't catch mice unless all its parts are present and together.
Yes, I know somebody took the plate off one and attached the trap to the floor. That didn't get rid of the part--it just gave it a bigger plate. I know that somebody else took the holder bar off and bent the wire to catch the bar--that only substituted a part.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson AGain, answer my question or keep proving you cant! LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So, if Miller is going to prove Behe is wrong, should he prove that the parts left over from the BF are FUNCTIONAL or NONFUNCTIONAL??
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Leftover parts could be either. (My hunch is that leftovers would be very expensive for survival.) Figuring out a use for leftovers is ingenious work, but it doesn't effect the irreducible complexity of the parts together.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Figuring out a use for leftovers is ingenious work, but it doesn't effect the irreducible complexity of the parts together."
When that 'use' is beneficial for survival, it takes no figuring at all, huh???? WOW! See you are confused. Big time!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "When that 'use' is beneficial for survival, it takes no figuring at all, huh???? WOW!" And when you get hungry, just imagine you have a delicious sandwich in your hand.
You're repeating the hypothetical case of evolutionary dogma, not pointing to what has been observed or reconstructed. There is no useful-at-each-step mechanism to equip a bacteria with a flagella.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson You said: "What single part of the bacterial flagella can be removed and it still function as a flagella?"
I said: "Who says that's still a flagella? Who is making this claim you are making up?"
ANSWER my question unless you are too SCARED, FUCKWIT!
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Be sure to read back thru all the messages on this video. Especially when you get to "kkkaldav". I have met some stupid people before, but this dude takes the cake.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Maybe he likes cake.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson It's not obvious that "parts" of a system are the units of selection. The dominant view today in evolution is that genes are selected or rejected. Under this view, natural selection can very easily still operate as long as the genes result in differential reproduction.
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago
@JonathanM00r3 This view makes even less sense as a support for change by random mutation and natural selection--unless it is DESIGNED into the chromosome. You are saying that it is "genes" that "are selected or rejected"--not the part produced by the genes. But, Natural Selection cannot address change on the genetic level. It can only accept or reject what eventually shows up as a working part--the phenome.
You are positing a "selection" apart from Natural Selection.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson This is a misrepresentation of the gene-centered view. Genes cause phenotypes and a gene is 'judged' by its phenotypic effects. There is a distinction between entities that survive or fail to survive ("replicators") and entities with temporary existence ("vehicles"). Genes are "replicators" while individuals and groups are "vehicles". Because genes have a permanent character, it is argued by gene centrists that they should be regarded as the beneficiaries of adaptations.
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago
@JonathanM00r3 "This is a misrepresentation of the gene-centered view. Genes cause phenotypes and a gene is 'judged' by its phenotypic effects." So you validate it again by your statement. It is the GENE that causes the phenotype--not natural selection. Natural selection, alias environmental pressure, can have no effect on the gene unless the gene is PROGRAMMED to respond to its environment.
Case closed.
Thanks for the support.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson This will be my last comment. I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from. The GCF does not imply that genes don't respond to the environment. That's precisely what they do! Genotypes (replicators) and phenotypes (vehicles) are both aspects of the same process. However, the reason why genes are preferred as units of selection has to do with their permanence. Genes either survive or don't survive. Because of this, they are seen as the ultimate beneficiaries of adaptations.
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago
@JonathanM00r3 In making genes respond directly to the environment, you disprove the undirected nature of evolution. Randomness as a mechanism of change is just the opposite of directedness. Your point supports the central point of intelligent design--that the cell was designed to respond to its environment. This form of teleology contradicts the classic RM/NS of neodarwinism.
Thanks for the dialog.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson that the cell was designed to respond to its environment."
Right! If it was designed, then nature designed it. SORRY!
srexob715 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Suddenly, you will take back your 'design' comment, for it does not hold water to logical/rational thought.
Wait, was it designed by lions, tigers, and bears.......oh my?
srexob715 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson "But, Natural Selection cannot address change on the genetic level. It can only accept or reject what eventually shows up as a working part--the phenome."
This is empirically false. Clear examples where it does include meiotic drive and retrotransposons. In these cases, genes increase their relative frequency without providing any benefits at other levels of organization.
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Again, my initial claim was that it's not OBVIOUS that "parts" are selected for. Far from it actually. George C. Williams argued that "The natural selection of phenotypes cannot in itself produce cumulative change, because phenotypes are extremely temporary manifestations". Each phenotype is the unique product of the interaction between genome and environment. It does not matter how fit and fertile a phenotype is, it will eventually be destroyed and will never be duplicated."
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "You are positing a "selection" apart from Natural Selection."
Not at all. In fact, the GCV is consistent with natural selection. All it's saying is that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors. How is this selection different from Natural Selection?
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago
@JonathanM00r3 "How is this selection different from Natural Selection?" You said "genes are selected or rejected." Genetic "selection," in the sense of genetic design, is a random matter, according to neodarwinian theory. It is merely a chance occurrence. What Natural Selection does is provide an environment for survival or death. Do only the fittest survive? While circumstances allow, many varieties survive, as Darwin noted on the Galapagos islands, but environment doesn't fuel the change.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Then Dr. Miller is ready to move on to build his case on his statement of point #2 when he has been told, no, that is not a fair representation of my point.
I give Dr. Miller an "A" for his effort, but an "F" for actually dealing with Dr. Behe's hypothesis.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson when he has been told, no, that is not a fair representation of my point."
Behe tries to lie and say, "Well, those are your words, not mine", but Behe fails to realize that Miller was only finishing the LOGIC/REASONING behind what Behe said.
Since Behe says an "IC system that loses a part is by def. nonfunctional"..................this IMPLIES that natural selection has nothing to select from, which is wrong as Miller explained.
srexob715 1 year ago
How many times does Dr. Behe have to say, No, you didn't get it right? The quotation Dr. Miller used to support his rewording in #3 emphasizes the "unit." Natural selection cannot select (live or die) for the "unit" until the whole unit is present.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson And how many times does Miller need to prove that the BF's left over parts can function at something else.
You see, Behe says that a system that is IC is nonfunctional when it loses a part. So, in order for Miller to prove Behe wrong, should Miller prove that an IC system CAN function when it loses a part or that it CANT function when it loses a part. WHICH would prove Behe is wrong???? HUH? LOL
You guys crack me up!
srexob715 1 year ago
I wish Miller would first try to under Behe's point.
Wishingstarification 1 year ago
@Wishingstarification And I wish Behe would understand Miller's point and admit where Miller proves him wrong. Why is he so scared and unwilling to admit it????
Will his Intelligent Designer send him to hell for eternity if he does???? HUH? LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Miller didn't have a point.
Wishingstarification 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wishingstarification Watch the video!
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wishingstarification This time, when you watch the video, prove Miller's point is wrong.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 the onus of proof is on you.
Wishingstarification 1 year ago
@Wishingstarification Watch the video and prove that Miller did not have a point. PROVE Miller's point is wrong. TRY this time. Dont run away because you realize you CANT! LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@Wishingstarification If you say that Miller does not have a point, this can only be because you did not watch the video to see/hear Miller's point. WATCH it or look scared!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 You people only have the ability to make vague attacks. It makes sense. After all, you have no evidence on your side.
Wishingstarification 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wishingstarification SEE? I knew you couldn't be a man and watch the video and then prove Miller was wrong. You just CANT do it, so you tuck your tail and run away!
Typical! When you can be a man and show me where Miller is wrong, you MIGHT be worth the discussion. Until, then keep LYING in the name of your God. I am sure it makes him very proud of you! LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 The onus of proof that miller was right is on you.
Wishingstarification 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wishingstarification You said he did not make a point. Watch the video........clearly, you did not.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 IF you watched the video, then surely you would be able to prove the point.
Wishingstarification 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wishingstarification Again. You said he did not make a point. Watch the movie and when you can admit that he did make a point and when you can show where his point is wrong...............come back; its the only way to justify your lack of belief.
But until then you are taking the cowards way out by trying to claim that he didn't make one at all. IF that is your claim, then you clearly did not watch the video. TRY AGAIN!
srexob715 1 year ago
Dang, Behe and Miller hate each other!
ResurrectedThinker 1 year ago
@ResurrectedThinker I don't believe they hate each other, but they have an odd collegiality since both are Catholics and Miller ostensibly believes in the Designer but uses all his powers to dismiss any evidence of design. On the other hand, Behe is swimming upstream since Pope John Paul II conceded the issue of evolution (though there are many Catholics who have serious questions about its efficacy).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson dismiss any evidence of design."
This is a lie and you know it. Miller would admit design, but a natural designer...................not some supernatural designer. LMAO! And you wonder why we laugh at you guys?
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "you wonder why we laugh at you guys" No, we don't. At least, I don't. Ridicule is the first and last line of defense for a half-asked question.
You think it isn't laughable to assume that undirected forces are superb designers of exquisite engineering? We try to restrain our laughter because we know you honestly believe this possible. You can believe it if you wish, but when have you observed such a thing?
Have you accepted any EVIDENCE OF DESIGN? Then you have DISMISSed it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Francis Crick, In What Mad Pursuit, p. 138.
@srexob715 "Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." Richard Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker, p. 21.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson WHAHAHAHAHAH
FUCKWIT!
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson When you can answer my questions, come back and entertain me some more. You got boring! LOL
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson YOU: "A non-functioning flagella would be dead weight and would give no advantage, but would be a liability."
ME: "Why would it not function as a flagella with all the parts, since it certainly doesn't function like a flagella with parts missing?"
YET again more questions that you fail to answer. SCARED of the answer or just don't know???? LOL FUCKWIT!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 Let me ANSWER this one more time, a flagella MINUS ONE OF ITS PARTS would be non-functioning and a liability.
NOT LAUGHING
MORGAN.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson flagella MINUS ONE OF ITS PARTS would be non-functioning and a liability."
Umm, Miller points out that even if the flagella were missing 40-50 parts, it COULD function as a T3SS.
Keep RUNNING FUCKWIT! I keep proving you are wrong, you keep proving you are too damn scared to believe me!!!!
srexob715 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@srexob715 flagella MINUS ONE OF ITS PARTS would be non-functioning "
So, if miller proves it functions as a T3SS, would this prove you wrong.
So, if miller proves it can't function as a flagella, does this prove evolution is wrong?
FUCKWIT! Keep running and proving you dont want to learn!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 I'm trying to run my intelligence. I suggest you run yours. Let's try one more time ...
Does an almost fully formed flagella that is minus just one part function as a Type III secretory system?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Does an almost fully formed flagella that is minus just one part function as a Type III secretory system?]
Miller proved that a flagella could lose as many as 40-50 parts and function as a T3SS. Remember, Behe claimed it would be nonfunctional. Keep trying though!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "Keep trying though!" I am, but you keep avoiding the answer.
YES or NO, does an almost fully formed flagella that is minus just one part, function as a Type III secretory system?
To save time, let me give you the answer to this one.
The answer is: NO. An almost fully formed flagella that is minus just one part, does not function as a Type III secretory system.
Next question: What does it function as?
Answer: It doesn't function at all.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Answer: It doesn't function at all."
So, let me get this straight. When behe says that an IC system, that loses a part, ceases to function............does he mean 'at all' or 'as originally intended.'
Because Behe clearly points to the mousetrap and how when it loses a part, it CAN function as a tie clip. You need to read Behe's book, you clearly dont' understand his point. Therefore you CANT understand how Miller proves him wrong!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "does he mean 'at all' or 'as originally intended.'" In the case of the flagella, it doesn't function as intended or at all. It won't shoot poison and it won't propell the bacteria. And there are many points between T3SS and flagella that won't serve a purpose either.
"Because Behe clearly points to the mousetrap and how when it loses a part, it CAN function as a tie clip." A broken mousetrap doesn't make a good tie clip, but it does illustrate Dr. Miller's resourcefulness.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson In the case of the flagella, it doesn't function as intended or at all. "
Who says it should function as a flagella if it loses a part or many parts? Not miller. He points out that it could lose many parts and those remaining parts could function as a T3SS. Behe admits those remaining parts are homologous to the T3SS.
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "those remaining parts could function as a T3SS." Perhaps don't understand the difference between the two. One is a tube that shoots poison. The other has no tube through it, but is several strands together that act like a whip or outboard motor. The "outboard motor" MINUS any one part won't be a tube for shooting poison.
It's a total remake, if the T3SS needle complex was actually a part of the flagella's construction. It's like turning a hypodermic needle into an egg beater.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The "outboard motor" MINUS any one part won't be a tube for shooting poison."
WOW! Golly Gee. We might have a genius on our hands!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "WOW! ... We might have a genius on our hands!" It's a pretty simple concept, isn't it?
The hypothetical steps between the T3SS needle complex and the flagellar motor are mostlikely useless. 50 parts, most of which won't help a T3SS function any better (or at all) and which don't make a functioning flagella until they are all present and all in place--that's irreducible complexity.
As you say, it doesn't take a genius to understand it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The hypothetical steps between the T3SS needle complex and the flagellar motor are mostlikely useless."
You don't KNOW that! Where's your evidence that proves/shows that they are or WILL BE useless.........since you dont' know what they are. Those hypothetical steps COULD be useful.
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson And there are many points between T3SS and flagella that won't serve a purpose either."
This is the same crap that all IDers make. Its like saying there is no transitional fossils between humans and apes, and then when we show you the intermediates................the religious people THEN say, "well, where are the transitionals between what you showed me and humans"
They cant accept it, so they move the goal posts. Wide and far away!
srexob715 1 year ago
@srexob715 "This is ****" Tell me what use is a "no longer a hypodermic needle", but "not quite an egg beater." What would you do with it? Then, pretend you don't have any intelligence and figure out how to use it. That's what the bacteria has to do with a malformed non-hypdermic outboard motor.
Does it make sense? I'll give you this one too. NO. It does not.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson WHAHA!
Behe claims that an IC system, that loses a part, is nonfunctional.
Miller proves that it could lose 50 and function as a T3SS.
Behe then claims the BF can no longer propulse, once it loses 50 parts.
Miller says, yes, it has a different function........hinting to the function of leftover parts; ie. T3SS
Behe claims they are homologous, but that its not longer safe to say we went from one homologue to another by Darwinian process.
Miller says I did not bring up process.
srexob715 1 year ago