That Crazy Bacterial Flagellum !

Twenty-first century science has found that the extreme complexity of molecular motors such as the bacterial flagellum disprove the notion of Darwinian evolution. Early Darwinists believed life would be found to be simple, but this was not the case. Additionally, how can miniature machines of such complexity evolve by chance when all the multiple parts must be perfectly functioning (together) in order to provide any benefit whatsoever to the creature? This clip is from Illustra Media's "Where Does the Evidence Lead?" c2003.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• miniaturization
• Darwin
• Darwinian
• evolution
• creation
• bacteria
• bacterial
• flagellum
• natural selection
• Illustra
• Media
• complexity
• efficient
• engineering
• science
• biology
• microbiology
• chemistry
• machine
• miniature
• nanotechnology
• design
• medical
• school
• motor
• intelligent
• genius
• propulsion
• natural
• selection
• college
• university
• infection

[ThomasWinkworth]

So what does this machine need in order to survive?

[alyosha24601]

@ThomasWinkworth said 7 months ago: "So what does this machine need in order to survive?" The point of the video is to use the Bacterial Flagellum as an example. Darwinian evolution is impossible for a number of reasons, but the point here is "irreducible complexity". The point is that you cannot evolve into a complex mechanism by small increments when the WHOLE mechanism must be working perfectly in order to convey any survival advantage. What good is a half wing? Evolution is quack science.

[alyosha24601]

@scientific These are just empty words. You need to address the problem of irreducible complexity as a whole. How can a non-working half formed system convey a survival advantage in order to benefit from natural selection? It can't. And that is why there are no transitional specimens in the fossil record. (Sorry, I have blocked you because I believe you have created another account in order to pester me. If I'm wrong, sorry.)

[scientific]

@ian9toes Actually even Behe recognizes that Miller's argument regarding the type three secretory system is apt, the only way he tries to weasel out of it is by saying 'but it doesn't serve function as a flagellum. That's the point, different parts serve different function. Either way, irreducible complexity is not valid argumentation, it's an argument from ignorance.

[scientific]

@alyosha24601 Actually irreducible complexity is an argument from incredulity.

[ian9toes]

@alyosha24601 Mate, well said. Ken Miller missed the forest for the trees alright. The whole point of irreducible complexity is that taking ONE part away leaves it useless or with a heap of useless parts at best. But Ken Miller doesn't just take away one part he takes away 40! That right there is why he's argument is totally flawed. Shows us something with only ONE of the parts removed, then you have an argument. But no evolutionist will pick up on that.

[truvelocity]

@alyosha24601 I too, saw Ken Millers vid about this. It tears this explanation to shreds.

[alyosha24601]

@dekippiesip No, Ken Miller has missed the forest for the trees. He can't see beyond his (religious) naturalistic presupposition. And if this were the only issue, I might consider it. Unfortunately the problem of irreducible complexity applies to every complex natural system. Half-made organs and systems are of no use. No one installs a broken part in their car, then expects it to fix itself. That's evolutionary religious faith!

[TypicallyHuman]

@alyosha24601 no don't confuse satire with genuine desire to debate over youtube.

[ThomasWinkworth]

@alyosha24601 yeah i think at the time i was just confused to how the flagellum even got it's energy etc

i suppose they will just the high improbability down to chance once again... it's stupid because since when was high improbability ever scientific? science doesn't deal with absolute truth, so when they turn around and say "it's possible that it could have come about by chance" it's completely irrelevant to science. science deals with the most probable, not the most improbable