- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. Many will try, and all will fail, I guarantee it.
The simple fact is that evolution does not hold water as a theory. However, people are invested in it... heavily. Therefore, they will defend it to the bitter end.
If we don't have evolution, what is left to fill the void? How do we explain the origin of mankind?
So many people are personally invested in this theory because they are deathly afraid that, should evolution be exposed as flawed, religion will take its place.
That is the truth of the matter.
From Wikipedia said:The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 different protein parts. Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex as if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.
Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[SUP][67][/SUP][SUP][68][/SUP] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[SUP][69][/SUP] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP] Dembski's critique of this position is that phylogenetically, the TTSS makes an unlikely precursor to the flagellum given that TTSS is found in a narrow range of bacteria which makes it seem to be a late innovation, whereas flagella are widespread throughout many bacterial groups, which implies it was an early innovation.[SUP][72][/SUP][SUP][73][/SUP]
Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function,[SUP][74][/SUP][SUP][75][/SUP] even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases.
Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. Many will try, and all will fail, I guarantee it.
The simple fact is that evolution does not hold water as a theory. However, people are invested in it... heavily. Therefore, they will defend it to the bitter end.
If we don't have evolution, what is left to fill the void? How do we explain the origin of mankind?
So many people are personally invested in this theory because they are deathly afraid that, should evolution be exposed as flawed, religion will take its place.
That is the truth of the matter.
Typical religious over zealousness...lots of telling, not much asking or listening.
I have an angle for you....I could care less how humankind began.
But if it did matter much to me, I sure as heck will believe a bunch of brilliant scientists more then a bunch of child-molesting priests and their leap-of-faith book they carry around as to the origin of humankind.
And btw - it is 'humankind', not 'mankind'...it's 2013, not 1973.
Have a nice day.
1) This is not proof that evolution is garbage. Rather, it is evidence that evolution is garbage.
2) Our understanding of evolution has grown very much since Darwin postulated it. While we hold true to the basics of his original theory, scientist have changed and altered it as our understanding of the universe has grown to take in that new understanding. Something which religion is quite slow to do.
3) The irreducible complexity of flagellum has been refuted by the scientific community.
4) Just because evolution may be refuted does not justify intelligent design.
5) Even if there is an intelligent design, the argument then must be asked which divinity designed it.
All the proof I need.
...And in the same way, bacterial flagellum could have originally evolved as several different organelles for different purposes, that merged together for propulsion, in a process know as exaptation.
Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.
Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.
And ignorance/stupidity is more common then intelligence.Mankind is a word, and it's more common than "humankind."
LOLOL....'go play in traffic'?If you don't care how mankind began, why the hell are you here on this thread?
Go play in traffic.
they're basically saying that for a mousetrap (flagellum) to work, it has to be assembled simultaneously, and it can only ever be a mousetrap. Which is false. And in the same way, bacterial flagellum could have originally evolved as several different organelles for different purposes, that merged together for propulsion, in a process know as exaptation.
Back to the mouse trap, if I built a mouse trap out of a piece of wood and the metal bits from chopping up and shaping a wire coat hanger, you're looking at the mouse trap and saying "It couldn't have been constructed from a coat hanger, those parts wouldn't work as a coat hanger". And you're now expecting, if you were to plonk that mouse trap in front of an evolutionary biologist, that he should be able to tell you it's from a coat hanger. And if he can't, then it's not from a coat hanger.
You're arguing from the premise that evolution doesn't happen because evolution doesn't happen. That a mouse trap can't be made from anything other than mouse trap parts, because nothing else could work as mouse trap parts, except mouse trap parts. Which is wrong.
Correct. Good evidence.
Since science keeps changing its mind, chances are it will happen again... which means a good majority of what you hold to be infallible today will one day be disproved by the very people you put so much trust in.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
From the article: "Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function, even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases." - That's a pretty big "even though" to just gloss over. You can pluck some of the keys off your keyboard too, and claim that your computer will still work. The fact is, it destroys the functionality of the whole unit.
How did these piece-parts evolve?
But let's say, for the sake of fun, that you're right and the irreducible complexity of this flagellum were shown to be mistaken because the TTSS uses about 10 of its parts (they are not the same, for your info, but similar). All you've done is shown that TTSS is irreducibly complex.
Intelligent design doesn't scare anyone.... creationism does. If evolution were refuted, that would certainly open the door for discussion when it comes to alternatives like creationism.
Good. It should be.
And ignorance/stupidity is more common then intelligence.
LOLOL....'go play in traffic'?
What a wonderful example of the love and forgiveness that religious people have to offer.
If you disagree with their opinions, they wish for harm to come to you.
Typical...lol.
I am here because I am bored and I feel like it.
You don't like it - too bad.
And btw...
all major religions are a complete and total waste of time that cause far more harm then good.
And anyone that takes a major religion seriously is either weak and/or ignorant and/or desperate.
Look where religion is growing - amongst the poor/politically repressed (i.e. the desperate)
Look where it is shrinking...everywhere else.
You are on the Leap OF Faith train bound for Nowheresville...and you're riding coach.
Have a great day.
But let's say, for the sake of fun, that you're right and the irreducible complexity of this flagellum were shown to be mistaken because the TTSS uses about 10 of its parts (they are not the same, for your info, but similar). All you've done is shown that TTSS is irreducibly complex.
Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.
Actually, i think your paradigm is not accurate. Religion is growing areas where the government is not expanding. Where the government is weak and impotent in aiding people, Religion blossoms.
It's men helping men, but comes in different guises.
Government is not quite as voluntary as is religion, though. Both seem to function as the resulting by products of political parties, though.
Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. .
It is a fascinating video no matter weather you think it disproves Darwinism or not. IMO it is a big check in the creationism column though.
In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. (19:88-95 (Behe)).
As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. ...
... By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument
... Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
I said 'poor/politically repressed'...which means poor and/or politically repressed.
And religion IS declining in the West (where political freedom and economic prosperity are highest)
And rising/remaining strong in other poorer and/or politically repressed areas of the world.
The reason should be obvious...religion appeals to those that are desperate for any hope whatsoever...even from a fictitious god with zero unbiased factual proof of it's existence.
You rarely see relatively happy people turn to religion (assuming it wasn't rammed down their throats when they were young).
But you often see sick people and/or people in misery turning to religion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?