Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps (5-9)

September 27, 2006 lecture by Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. at HHMI headquarters for an audience of high school students from Loudon County, VA

www.hhmi.org

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Fossils
• Genes
• Mousetraps
• Ken
• Miller
• Lecture
• HHMI
• Howard
• Hughes
• Medical
• Institute

[polluxandcastor]

What an amazing teacher.

[ndjarnag]

this is great!

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Actually what you're doing is attempting to dodge the debate by accusing others of personal attacks when all we've done is refute you and ask you very plain and simple questions you cannot answer.

For instance;

How many terrestrial organisms were present in the Cambrian?

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: I am being followed around, as usual, by someone leaving comments while knowing he is on ignore for personal insults and refusal to truly debate by answerings Qs I have posed. Such folk follow me (& others) around YT consistently. If you would like to make any of their same points I will be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story." But I debate only with the civil & objective & those who actually debate.

[LoricaLady]

7:24 Note the word "system" as it will be very significant shortly. 9:27 "The indidvidual parts can have no function." This is bait & switch. A strawman logical fallacy. This is adding to Behe's words! Please click back on 7:24 and see that he made no such statement. He talked, accurately, about a system that cannot work if all the parts are not there. He said nothing about whether or not any individual parts within the system could have any additional purposes. To be cont. on vid 6/9

[LoricaLady]

Cont. It's not going to happen. Evolutionists can spin stories about how things happened millions of years ago that no one ever has seen happen and call that science. Initelligent design advocates use real science with what is observable, repeatable & testable - like the real sciences. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. One is useless w/o the other. How is evo going to drive them to completion thru millions of years while they are incomplete & useless? Of if they have some other use - what the evolutionists are calling "co option" - what could it possibly be?

Further it's not just a matter of a flagellar motor "evolving." If it gets a whip & motor that means innumerable many chemical systems & interactions throughout the body must also change in conjunction with it - all in synch. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. They also lead the public to believe that those simpler organisms "evolved" into the more complex organism that Behe talks about though there is 0 evidence that this happened or that it could work thru evo. There is nothing testable, repeatable, or observable in what they say. So they are the ones who are not using real science. I would like to present another part of the bacteria flagellum for anyone to look at. The whip & the rotary motor below it. They are codependent. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Evolutionists go off on tangents and say "Well, this part over there and this part over here have other functions so it's not irreducibly complex...." But they don't show how if those parts are taken out the flagellar motor will still be able to function as before since that could not happen. They also talk about simpler organisms and say, "Look they don't have all those parts & they function." But they don't function the same way! Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. ...and says it is "unscientific." But this is untrue. The concept of intellilgent design is based on what is observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is what is based on what is not testable, observable or repeatable. For ex. Behe shows the actual flagellar motor and describes how it cannot work until all parts are in place and fully functional. The evolutioinary argument against this is bogus. Behe talked about the entire flagellar motor's ability to move thru the body. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Go figure. Apparently Miller thinks its ok & scientific to think that all the time, space, inorganic matter & energy in the universe got here thru intelligent design but that it is outrageous & unacceptable to think that the same Creator intelligently designed organic matter. And we're not supposed to step over his line drawn in the sand because?? 6:07 "Actually a doctrine of special creation." But both statements are! He says intelligent design is "just religion spiffed up..." Cont.

[LoricaLady]

0:01 Backtracking for just a minute. Is this a Freudian slip resulting from evo indoctrination? "Did that play in our devil-up-ment?" 5:08 How professional is this to a fellow scientist? First we are shown the New Yorker cruel caricature of microbiologist Behe who represents the opposition. Then we see a court sketch of Miller looking like a normal human being. Again, this ain't science. This is propaganda. 6:03 Miller says that he believes in the top statement, but not the 2nd. Cont.