"random process"....nothing is random, outside things like virtual particle creations and other quantum weirdness. nothing. not mutations, not natural selection. "random" is basically a word we use to say "when we do not have enough data to predict what caused this unknown cause"
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.
"Existing symbiotic systems/relationships are irreducible complex, interdependent systems, contingent upon one another." But they need not have been from the beginning. Consider an ecosystem with 3 types of bugs and 3 types of plants. All bugs can feed on and pollinate all plants. No bug depends on any one plant, and vice versa. Remove two plants through blight and remove two bugs through disease, and you're left with one bug and one plant in a symbiotic relationship that didn't start that way.
It isn't an ongoing debate. The ID side have yet to present a case that doesn't fail immediately. Specified complexity is a bogus concept that can neither be defined nor measured, and irreducable complexity is an evolved feature as was shown decades ago. The tactic is a dishonest attempt to imply there is doubt about evolution for political reasons.
Both Behe and Dembsky are fellows of the Discovery Institute, the only organisation promoting Intelligent Design. The DI are politically motivated, (google The Wedge document). Stephen Meyer ( also a DI fellow) invented the 'Teach the Controversy' tactic, knowing that there is no controversy.
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.
@capoman1 no, it was miller who was interupting behe. it was behe's turn, so miller should have let him speak, but he was too afraid, because he knew that his arguments will be destroyed.
The flagellum motor can spin 100 thousand RPM, stop at a quarter of a turn when the bacteria cell finds food, go into reverse at 100 thousand RPM. The flagellum motor is irreducible. When you remove 10 or so parts from the bacterial flagellum system, the SYSTEM is irreducible. It will no longer propel the cell forward or backward. Ken Miller seem to have a hard time with this idea and keeps stating the parts can still be functionally. The parts may function but the bacteria can no longer propel forward and backward.
Yes there are other functions that can be selected for, functions that contain a subset of the parts of an 'irreducibly complex' system. Behe counter was "Your argument renders my argument meaningless."
@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 :)
"You can remove one third of the 497 amino acids of flagellum and still have it function precisely as a flagellum." Sorry, but you're the one that's wrong here. The "classic" bacterial flagellum in totality consists of about 12,000 amino acid residues.
@kkkaldav I am so happy to see that this comment has many thumps-ups. I thought I was going mad. Behe points are to my mind not too differcult to understand. Behe HAS NOT changed his position as stated in his original book in 1996. But Ken Miller continues with his contrived mispresentation of the argument, dispite Behe's repeated explanations and telling Ken that is NOT what I said or am saying. The idea is clear and testable.
@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.
I do the same sometimes..................BTW.........how many people have tried to remove that spider from the screen on their monitor...........you got me doing it............lol! Amazing 3D projection on that avatar of yours...
@kkkaldav lol. So if every part in the nearly sequential development of supposedly irreducibly complex system served a function in each configuration of the structure we see today then how is it irreducibly complex?
IIRC, there is a symbiotic relationship between a bug (beetle?) and a species of cactus in the Arizona desert that fits the example I gave. I don't recall how many different bug and plant species there were to begin with, but now there are only one of each. It is now an 'irreducibly complex' symbiosis, but it was not so to begin with. RNA is self-replicating. I don't know where you get the idea that the first self-replicating thing needed to be a cell
@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.
Eric.... the book was "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton, whereas the "Probability Concern" was a concept developed by Denton in the book, and all through it, but especially so in the final three chapters. It was a concept picked up and refined, by William Dembski in his monograph "The Design Inference" and "No Free Lunch". Michael Behe also owes a lot to Denton, as it was the latter who first mentioned the rotor of the flagellum (see 224 - 225, "Evolution: A Theory") - JGL
My favorite moment from the 2005 Dover "panda's" trial was during the cross-examination of Mike Behe by Eric Rothschild. Rothschild asked, "Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?" Behe replied, "No." www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12
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.
@JerezJulio "The Bacterial Flagellum is complex for Dr Behe, but it is not to others Biologist" In the video Miller himself quotes his colleagues who says the BF looks like it was designed by a human & that he agreed it was extra ordinary structure. If it's not complex to other biologist then why are papers still be written on how scientist are still trying to figure it out? If u look at wiki, even the T3SS that Miller tries to make a correlation too, the origins are still largely unknown.
Yes... this is true. And shows that a good Christian can go both ways on this debate. This debate is, partially, about the Faith, and what tenets it concerns. But it more so, or just as much, about wisdom... The Bible contains 5 of the 7 books of Wisdom: the two left out are "The Wisdom of Solomon", and Sirach or "Ecclesiasticus"
@srexob715 Do we need to go over this again? They are homologous in the sense that they attach at the same place and have a similar structure, but the T(3)SS has only about 1/4 of the proteins as the flagella. That's about 13 parts to the flagella's 50. The 13-part T(3)SS injects poison; the 50-part flagella propels the bacteria. A 49-part structure that was almost a flagella would not inject poison (it wouldn't have a tube) and it would not serve as an outboard motor.
Miller: "Mike, would you say this definition pretty much represents your position?" Behe: "No, those are your words, not mine." Miller: "Well, (going to the slide show) that's odd because that is pretty much what you said in this paragraph. So, is that a fair representation?" Behe: "No, and this is what I meant..." CASE CLOSED, folks! The dishonesty of the Creationist zealot for all to see.
@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
I had the same thoughts too. And if the parts can be there with other functions, nothing impeaches that they slowly evolve towards something else, providing it will be ginven advantages to the organism with it, how small they are.
@srexob715 The T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum [11]. It is unresolved, however, exactly how the two are related. There are three competing hypotheses [12]: first, that the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure, second, that the T3SS
Would I hold that opinion... if the verdict had gone the other way? Good question... Obviously, I would have been rather more pleased with the counter decision (one for the teachers, and ID, that is). But as I read Judge Jones 100+ pg. write up of his decision, I was disappointed in his reasoning. But to answer you... Yes, I would hold that position, even still. We are all aware that verdicts can go back and forth, andd it all depends on just laws, anyway.
I'm not sure if I understand the conversation.I was curious and wanted to try and understand by listening to the back and forth. This may sound stupid,but,Is a human being an example of irreducible complexity ? You can take a piece of hair,or a skin cell and even a leg..( I don't think they can evolve into something else) and we would still be the system of " a human being" if they're missing,BUT,there ARE certain parts we can not work without. a heart or lungs or blood,for exam.
Eric: I believe you are correct when saying that Behe believes evolution did actually happen, but we do not know the exact mechanisms & the whether Almighty God was not involved in the process at all. He may have been. Ken Miller will propose similar hypotheses. Miller and Behe's positions are therefore very similar. However, there are others inside of the ID movement who are traditional Creationists, as Genie Scott points out. Where W. Dembski stands, precisely, I am unaware of. - JGL
@srexob715 At 25 - 46 Seconds Miller agrees with the fact that if you remove one part, the system ceases to function. He admits it and says "I agree with you by the way, that is correct" etc. If you didn't hear it, then play it over and over until you get it.
@lifeandphilosophy The point your missing is that's not what the function of the parts of the flagellum were in the past. In the past they could have served a completely different function for a bacteria that didn't need to be propelled through the water.
@srexob715 Behe has never changed his definition. It is Miller who has tried to change it. The statement that Miller quoted was a not the definition. It was a paragraph that is later explained in the book. I urge you to look at the Behes definition. What Miller quoted was "Any precursor to an IC system is non functional" Miller could not demonstrate and still has not demonstrated that the T3SS is a precursor to the BF. I think this is the point you missed.
@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?
Add to this the need for new systems and protocols to bring these new proteins to the right place at the right time in the right quantity; then any, even dyed in the wool, Darwinian should realise and concede there is a BIG problem with the efficacy of the proposed mechanism. Behe’s point (and I am not even bothered about the intelligent design inference) is self-evident. What is Ken struggling with?
@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.
---------JGL Reply (Addendum)------- The relation that Miller attempts to draw, with the other types of flagellum, is evidence of Darwinian descent. He is being clever. He never directly attacks Behe's reasoning, "that if one part were to be removed..[from one *specific* system]... it would be nonfunctional." Rather, he shows *different* (albeit similar) systems... Kenneth Miller's "refutation" unwittingly assumes the Darwinian process happened - without giving an explanation of how.
@kkkaldav what is Behe saying though? It doesn't seem like anyone call tell. Not even Behe. The only thing that I can figure out is that it's not any of the things that the words say that can be shown to be wrong.
@kaox44 what kind of argument is that? Seriously, I have presented arguments here. The issue is not settled by a court! If the decision had gone the other way, would you have been satisfied? To ask the question is to answer it.
@lifeandphilosophy The point is on it's surface, IC looks true. But for the bacterial flagellum, if a large number of proteins are removed, it's exactly the same as the botulism toxin injection structure. It may not propel the cell but it has a perfectly useful function.
In regards to the Radiometric dating, there are two main possible answers that will support Creationism: 1. There is old Earth Creationism, of course. 2. There may be some great explanation, of the naturalistic or naturalistic/theological, that explains the radiometrics, why they all correlate, and why they are incorrect. But Eric... it is *not quite correct* to say that God will *not* allow any delusions on Earth. Sometimes He allows it to punish the unrighteous (2 Thess. 2:11)
@srexob715 Depending on who's logic? Are you saying Francis Collins, Einstein, Mendel & Newton were all illogical for believing in a God? Was it illogical for theologians to be the first to establish the first Universities and teach & promote science in Europe? Many thought it was illogical to believe that coelacanths still existed 80 years ago or that we would find soft tissue, blood vessels and collagen proteins in 70 years million year old dinosaurs fossils, but here we have them.
@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?
Miller ignored everything Behe said & used quote mining tactics, when these complex ideas require more that one sentence or simple yes or no answers. If you want to know what Behe said read his book. Miller kept cutting him off every time he tried to explain. It is the function of the system that is IC. Behe never said that proteins were not interchangeable & even Miller reluctantly agreed they were not the same proteins. This was more an interrogation than an effort to understand each other.
@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?
"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.
@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.)
@kkkaldav Behe may present an enticing argument from incredulity, but examples he mentioned such as the bacterial flagellum have long since been explained by evolution in a way that conforms to the evidence and is more beneficial to our knowledge then proposing a designer. Now, I dont' have a response to the incoherency you posted as a response to my question--you've got me there. You blind sided me with nonsense good job.
Just like in the Dover trial, Miller destroys Behe with solid scientific evidence, not wild, unsupported speculation, based on a religious starting point. Ken Miller rocks!
@srexob715 "why should their parts do different functions??" In the same way that the homologous pistol and drill do different functions. Both fit in the hand; both are worked by a trigger. This makes them homologous. Yet no one expects them to have all the same parts or do the same thing. The T3SS has a tube running down its middle; the flagella does not. That's just the beginning of their differences.
The idea of God is unrefutable in the arena of science? Yes... I may say so. But it is unrefutable in other arenas, such as philosophy and theology? (...) Scientists often will arrogantly assume supremacy or mastery, if not in all fields of endeavor, at least in the examination of the material world? Why should it not, indeed...? Philosophy and theology, as being broad areas of inquiry, also include the natural world.
@JerezJulio "but ther one thing those objects has in common is that they are made of inorganic, inanimated matter that cannot reproduce" Which would indicate that living things which can reproduce are much more complex requiring even greater design than a watch. So why would this observation make design any less viable? Unless you can explain origin of life. Can science explain origin of life or genetic code? So far no one in science can. Maybe you can I don't know.
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.
@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.
All scientist agree that we live in a very special habitual zone sometimes referred to as the goldilocks planet or the rare earth. Many people have criticized Guillermo Gonzalez who made the Privileged Planet video, (and who also refutes your take on the center of the universe myth) but no one can point out one factual error in the Privileged Planet production based on scientific observations. If u can cite factual error in this production please do.
1. @srexob715 "You don't have any, do you?" I gave a reason above, when I wrote: "studies have shown that the type III seretory system likely came later." Leading biologists argue that phylogenetic data implies the T3SS could not have been a precursor to the flagellum.
@srexob715 "Right they don't have to." The word "homologous" may be throwing you off. If I hold a gun or a drill in my hand, they are homologous. But that has no implication about how the gun and the drill were invented or whether one came from the other. They are homologous because we hold them in similar fashion. The T3SS and the flagella are homologous because they attach at the same place and have a similar structure. But that doesn't tell us how they came to be.
@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.
The great points against ID/Creationism are really just one now: radiometric geophysical dating.... and I do not know the answer to that. ID can be said to be strict mathematical analysis, and hence strict science, if it is used just as W. Dembski initially intended (being "the Filter"). This is an analysis *the scientists should have done on their own, anyway*, as David Berlinski has claimed. Yet, I do admit that ID does have broader implications and (even) broader foundations.
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
@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!
Check out the debate between Francisco Ayala and William Lane Craig. It is a must see. Craig tactically demolishes Ayala concerning evolution. He displays the "best" examples of experimental evolution and it is surprisingly weak. Ayala resorts to philosophy about God half way through the debate.
@JerezJulio "Behe claim the collection of the Part cannot be use for anything else" Really, when did Behe claim this? Please give an example. As for design we infer design all the time in sciences like archeology, anthropology, forensics etc. If you see an elaborate piece of pottery buried in the ground are you going to dismiss it was created by an intelligent agent because you don't no the name of the person who built it? If this is the standard, we can say goodbye to many earth sciences.
I was aware of that. It may be that somehow, for unknown reasons, radiometric dating methods are unreliable, or... that the Earth *really is* of great ag!. As stated, some Design theorists believe this, such as William Dembski. The problem with Evolutionary theory, in particular UCD (Universal Common Descent) is what I have loosely termed "the Probability Concern" (of the main hypothesis, from the "Evolution: A Theory...", by Denton). This would later be picked up, and enlarged, by Dembski
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.
@JerezJulio It is you who is being offensive and it is you who has brought religion into it. I merely asked some fair questions. Many thing you have said can be proven false and others at best are tentative and or inconclusive. Look at the language the other threader has used. I have not resorted to profanity nor have I tried to insult you. If your theory of macro evolution cannot stand up to scrutiny then maybe its not worth its salt.
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
@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.
@srexob715 The T3SS do not share the same proteins. Homologous means similar, like the wings of a sparrow are similar to the wings on an Eagle. They are not the same and still very little is known about the way the T3SS developed. The TSS3 does not have the function of the BF which is the whole point. Behe never said that proteins are not interchangeable. Miller has no proof that this was a precursor. If he could he might have a point. He has nothing.
@srexob715 "his point and as I previously stated was to show that the BF could lose 40 parts and those remaining parts are FUNCTIONAL" Show your evidence. Where is published knock out study? Please provide. Behe did not mischaracterize Miller and Miller never claimed he did. You still don't seem to understand the the difference between homologous proteins and the same proteins. Did you hear Miller from 25-46 seconds. Why are you refusing to admit Miller agreed and you were mistaken?
@JerezJulio "When scientist find objects they think are designed, they also find the designer and how they made it" So if you find an arrow head can name the person who made it? Please tell me the name of the person who invited the wheel? Tell me the name of person who built Stonehenge? Do forensic detectives stop believing that a person was stabbed to death because they don't know who did it? and may never know? Your statement makes no sense. All we can do is infer an intelligent agent.
2. @srexob715 However "homologous" (look alike) structures don't always function the same. A plunger looks like a suction cup, but don't assume that a suction cup will work in your toilet like a plunger. There is a video on RUclips that shows the two "homologous" structures. Careful analysis shows they are similar, but not entirely the same shape, muchless the same design. 3. "Behe then claims the BF can no longer propulse, once it loses 50 parts." Which is his point, by even one part short.
he tells behe "your words speak for themselves" and behe says "ahh I dunno" WHAT? no wonder he's unaware irreducible complexity has been disproven, he's illiterate and can't read scientific papers. But in an astonishing twist he has proven intelligent design, because he is able to write books despite his illiterate short comings. Clear evidence of a designer attempting to expose himself through behe's illiterate book phenomenon. And all this time I thought irreducible complexity was disproven on the basis of it being disproven, boy do I feel dumb.
boyofGod81 okay, but the point is his flagellum irreducible complexity is threatened by the type three injection thing, have you seen the two side by side to compare. With the comparison alone the argument that the motor is an adaptation of the other is entirely valid, behe needs to take that seriously and demonstrate it's not valid (if he can, if anyone can I don't mean to throw him under the bus) clearly the motor with reduced complexity appears to be functional in serving a different purpose that's undeniable, the keywords being "appears to be"
Chad Hinterman the problem is how the comparison is glossed over. as behe pointed out, and miller tried to get around, the 10 parts making up the type 3 are not the same as the flagellum. even if they were, it would take how many random chance mutations to get the flagellum? every additional protein having to hang around till the total of parts are achieved to produce the motor. it is beyond the definition of dawinizm and biology. God's best
@kkkaldav It's kind of hard for him to cope since Behe just gave a definition not half an hour earlier and then is told that it's false, or that he can't use exact quoting without being "sort of true" or "somewhat true". He quotes his exact words and yet you argue that's not what he meant in his own words....
----------JGL Reply (2of 2)------- ...as an example from nature to refute Dr. Behe's reasoning. But these other flagellum are not immediately *related to the principle or first flagellum* that Dr. Behe was examining. They are other flagellum! (...) Therefore, there are other types of flagellum. Yet the conclusion that one type (or types) evolved from another is *a Darwinian conjecture* that stands in need of support.
@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.
Haldane's dilemma receives no coverage in evolutionary research today, not because it's being ignored, but because it's been dealt with, as Haldane predicted it would be. '"I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", ' Grant, Verne & Flake, Robert, "Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma", Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 71(10): 3863-3865, Oct. 1974. Nunney, Leonard, "The cost of natural selection revisited", Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185-194, 2003.
Miller was trying to bring up the T3SS argument until Behe called him on it. I have seem Miller do this many times. We now know the proteins that Miller cited are not the same as the proteins in BF. Even Miller admitted that after Behe brought it up. We also have evidence that the BF predates the T3SS. This why Miller changed subject. If u want to better understand someone then u shouldn't cut them off when their trying to explain or believe that yes or no answers can explain complex ideas.
@kaox44 Again a strange response to what I wrote. Why am I "not for IC"? I really can't see that I could have been any clearer. I am most certainly for IC. Could I politely suggest that you take some time to re-read my and your previous comments on this thread, If something proves unclear to you then please ask.
@JerezJulio "What would Dr Behe say about the Nylon Bacteria?" Why don't you ask him? Would you like his email address. I'm sure he will be happy to respond if asked in a respectful manner.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]](/img/1.gif)
Eugenie Scott did an excellent job here.
Having watched the whole debate my only conclusion is that ID is a perfect example of how the educational system in the USA has failed miserably.
"random process"....nothing is random, outside things like virtual particle creations and other quantum weirdness. nothing. not mutations, not natural selection. "random" is basically a word we use to say "when we do not have enough data to predict what caused this unknown cause"
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.
"Existing symbiotic systems/relationships are irreducible complex, interdependent systems, contingent upon one another."
But they need not have been from the beginning. Consider an ecosystem with 3 types of bugs and 3 types of plants. All bugs can feed on and pollinate all plants. No bug depends on any one plant, and vice versa. Remove two plants through blight and remove two bugs through disease, and you're left with one bug and one plant in a symbiotic relationship that didn't start that way.
But who designed the designer? The designer could not design him or herself.
It isn't an ongoing debate. The ID side have yet to present a case that doesn't fail immediately. Specified complexity is a bogus concept that can neither be defined nor measured, and irreducable complexity is an evolved feature as was shown decades ago. The tactic is a dishonest attempt to imply there is doubt about evolution for political reasons.
Both Behe and Dembsky are fellows of the Discovery Institute, the only organisation promoting Intelligent Design. The DI are politically motivated, (google The Wedge document). Stephen Meyer ( also a DI fellow) invented the 'Teach the Controversy' tactic, knowing that there is no controversy.
where, why, when was the designer. where has he been?
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.
21:11
Behe to Pennock: "Somehow I don't believe you."
That just about sums up Pennock.
Ed Reynolds you are a simpleton and an idiot. Good luck living out the rest of your life as a blind bat in subjugation to irrational superstitions
@capoman1 no, it was miller who was interupting behe. it was behe's turn, so miller should have let him speak, but he was too afraid, because he knew that his arguments will be destroyed.
I think you HAVE to prove the existence of a designer BEFORE claiming his works.
I don't think Miller even read Behe's book. It's like he said to himself "how do I twist certain statements to make his arguments weaker?"
The flagellum motor can spin 100 thousand RPM, stop at a quarter of a turn when the bacteria cell finds food, go into reverse at 100 thousand RPM. The flagellum motor is irreducible. When you remove 10 or so parts from the bacterial flagellum system, the SYSTEM is irreducible. It will no longer propel the cell forward or backward. Ken Miller seem to have a hard time with this idea and keeps stating the parts can still be functionally. The parts may function but the bacteria can no longer propel forward and backward.
Yes there are other functions that can be selected for, functions that contain a subset of the parts of an 'irreducibly complex' system. Behe counter was "Your argument renders my argument meaningless."
@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 :)
"You can remove one third of the 497 amino acids of flagellum and still have it function precisely as a flagellum."
Sorry, but you're the one that's wrong here. The "classic" bacterial flagellum in totality consists of about 12,000 amino acid residues.
@kkkaldav I am so happy to see that this comment has many thumps-ups. I thought I was going mad. Behe points are to my mind not too differcult to understand. Behe HAS NOT changed his position as stated in his original book in 1996. But Ken Miller continues with his contrived mispresentation of the argument, dispite Behe's repeated explanations and telling Ken that is NOT what I said or am saying. The idea is clear and testable.
@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.
I do the same sometimes..................BTW.........how many people have tried to remove that spider from the screen on their monitor...........you got me doing it............lol!
Amazing 3D projection on that avatar of yours...
@kkkaldav
lol. So if every part in the nearly sequential development of supposedly irreducibly complex system served a function in each configuration of the structure we see today then how is it irreducibly complex?
@infinit888 By component do you mean protein? Please provide citation.
@benthemiester Actually it can still function as a bacterial flagellum if you take away a component. Just not as efficiently. Is IC falsified now?
This was a good and necessary discourse.
IIRC, there is a symbiotic relationship between a bug (beetle?) and a species of cactus in the Arizona desert that fits the example I gave. I don't recall how many different bug and plant species there were to begin with, but now there are only one of each. It is now an 'irreducibly complex' symbiosis, but it was not so to begin with.
RNA is self-replicating. I don't know where you get the idea that the first self-replicating thing needed to be a cell
@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.
Eric.... the book was "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton, whereas the "Probability Concern" was a concept developed by Denton in the book, and all through it, but especially so in the final three chapters. It was a concept picked up and refined, by William Dembski in his monograph "The Design Inference" and "No Free Lunch". Michael Behe also owes a lot to Denton, as it was the latter who first mentioned the rotor of the flagellum (see 224 - 225, "Evolution: A Theory") - JGL
What i missing in this debate is, every system needs a sort of power to make it works.
My favorite moment from the 2005 Dover "panda's" trial was during the cross-examination of Mike Behe by Eric Rothschild. Rothschild asked, "Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?"
Behe replied, "No."
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12
my book, my book, my book, my book. Did anyone count how many times that phrase appears.
cheers
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.
@JerezJulio "The Bacterial Flagellum is complex for Dr Behe, but it is not to others Biologist"
In the video Miller himself quotes his colleagues who says the BF looks like it was designed by a human & that he agreed it was extra ordinary structure. If it's not complex to other biologist then why are papers still be written on how scientist are still trying to figure it out? If u look at wiki, even the T3SS that Miller tries to make a correlation too, the origins are still largely unknown.
Yes... this is true. And shows that a good Christian can go both ways on this debate.
This debate is, partially, about the Faith, and what tenets it concerns. But it more so, or just as much, about wisdom... The Bible contains 5 of the 7 books of Wisdom: the two left out are "The Wisdom of Solomon", and Sirach or "Ecclesiasticus"
@srexob715 I missed your explanation of what you want me to believe. Could you repeat it for me?
@srexob715 Do we need to go over this again? They are homologous in the sense that they attach at the same place and have a similar structure, but the T(3)SS has only about 1/4 of the proteins as the flagella. That's about 13 parts to the flagella's 50. The 13-part T(3)SS injects poison; the 50-part flagella propels the bacteria. A 49-part structure that was almost a flagella would not inject poison (it wouldn't have a tube) and it would not serve as an outboard motor.
Miller: "Mike, would you say this definition pretty much represents your position?" Behe: "No, those are your words, not mine." Miller: "Well, (going to the slide show) that's odd because that is pretty much what you said in this paragraph. So, is that a fair representation?" Behe: "No, and this is what I meant..." CASE CLOSED, folks! The dishonesty of the Creationist zealot for all to see.
@kaox44 how does this relate to anything I have said or to me? It ignores what I said and in fact persists as if I said the opposite of what I said!
@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
I had the same thoughts too. And if the parts can be there with other functions, nothing impeaches that they slowly evolve towards something else, providing it will be ginven advantages to the organism with it, how small they are.
@srexob715 The T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum [11]. It is unresolved, however, exactly how the two are related. There are three competing hypotheses [12]: first, that the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure, second, that the T3SS
Would I hold that opinion... if the verdict had gone the other way?
Good question... Obviously, I would have been rather more pleased with the counter decision (one for the teachers, and ID, that is). But as I read Judge Jones 100+ pg. write up of his decision, I was disappointed in his reasoning.
But to answer you... Yes, I would hold that position, even still. We are all aware that verdicts can go back and forth, andd it all depends on just laws, anyway.
I'm not sure if I understand the conversation.I was curious and wanted to try and understand by listening to the back and forth.
This may sound stupid,but,Is a human being an example of irreducible complexity ? You can take a piece of hair,or a skin cell and even a leg..( I don't think they can evolve into something else) and we would still be the system of " a human being" if they're missing,BUT,there ARE certain parts we can not work without. a heart or lungs or blood,for exam.
Eric: I believe you are correct when saying that Behe believes evolution did actually happen, but we do not know the exact mechanisms & the whether Almighty God was not involved in the process at all. He may have been. Ken Miller will propose similar hypotheses. Miller and Behe's positions are therefore very similar.
However, there are others inside of the ID movement who are traditional Creationists, as Genie Scott points out. Where W. Dembski stands, precisely, I am unaware of. - JGL
In regards to Dembski claiming there is no randomness is invention .. but in fact, often inventions are quite random and accidental ...
@srexob715
At 25 - 46 Seconds Miller agrees with the fact that if you remove one part, the system ceases to function. He admits it and says "I agree with you by the way, that is correct" etc. If you didn't hear it, then play it over and over until you get it.
Sorry, im misreading your comments.
@lifeandphilosophy
The point your missing is that's not what the function of the parts of the flagellum were in the past. In the past they could have served a completely different function for a bacteria that didn't need to be propelled through the water.
@srexob715 Behe has never changed his definition. It is Miller who has tried to change it. The statement that Miller quoted was a not the definition. It was a paragraph that is later explained in the book. I urge you to look at the Behes definition.
What Miller quoted was "Any precursor to an IC system is non functional" Miller could not demonstrate and still has not demonstrated that the T3SS is a precursor to the BF. I think this is the point you missed.
@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?
Add to this the need for new systems and protocols to bring these new proteins to the right place at the right time in the right quantity; then any, even dyed in the wool, Darwinian should realise and concede there is a BIG problem with the efficacy of the proposed mechanism. Behe’s point (and I am not even bothered about the intelligent design inference) is self-evident. What is Ken struggling with?
Behe "It's my turn now." Behe was constantly interrupting Miller.
@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.
---------JGL Reply (Addendum)-------
The relation that Miller attempts to draw, with the other types of flagellum, is evidence of Darwinian descent. He is being clever. He never directly attacks Behe's reasoning, "that if one part were to be removed..[from one *specific* system]... it would be nonfunctional." Rather, he shows *different* (albeit similar) systems... Kenneth Miller's "refutation" unwittingly assumes the Darwinian process happened - without giving an explanation of how.
@kkkaldav what is Behe saying though? It doesn't seem like anyone call tell. Not even Behe. The only thing that I can figure out is that it's not any of the things that the words say that can be shown to be wrong.
@kaox44 what kind of argument is that? Seriously, I have presented arguments here. The issue is not settled by a court! If the decision had gone the other way, would you have been satisfied? To ask the question is to answer it.
@lifeandphilosophy The point is on it's surface, IC looks true. But for the bacterial flagellum, if a large number of proteins are removed, it's exactly the same as the botulism toxin injection structure. It may not propel the cell but it has a perfectly useful function.
In regards to the Radiometric dating, there are two main possible answers that will support Creationism:
1. There is old Earth Creationism, of course.
2. There may be some great explanation, of the naturalistic or naturalistic/theological, that explains the radiometrics, why they all correlate, and why they are incorrect.
But Eric... it is *not quite correct* to say that God will *not* allow any delusions on Earth. Sometimes He allows it to punish the unrighteous (2 Thess. 2:11)
@srexob715
Depending on who's logic? Are you saying Francis Collins, Einstein, Mendel & Newton were all illogical for believing in a God? Was it illogical for theologians to be the first to establish the first Universities and teach & promote science in Europe?
Many thought it was illogical to believe that coelacanths still existed 80 years ago or that we would find soft tissue, blood vessels and collagen proteins in 70 years million year old dinosaurs fossils, but here we have them.
@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?
I'm not attributing design at all..............I'm an agnostic at best and I wholly agree with you.....didn't you read what I said?
Miller ignored everything Behe said & used quote mining tactics, when these complex ideas require more that one sentence or simple yes or no answers. If you want to know what Behe said read his book. Miller kept cutting him off every time he tried to explain. It is the function of the system that is IC. Behe never said that proteins were not interchangeable & even Miller reluctantly agreed they were not the same proteins. This was more an interrogation than an effort to understand each other.
@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?
"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.
@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.)
@kkkaldav
Behe may present an enticing argument from incredulity, but examples he mentioned such as the bacterial flagellum have long since been explained by evolution in a way that conforms to the evidence and is more beneficial to our knowledge then proposing a designer. Now, I dont' have a response to the incoherency you posted as a response to my question--you've got me there. You blind sided me with nonsense good job.
Just like in the Dover trial, Miller destroys Behe with solid scientific evidence, not wild, unsupported speculation, based on a religious starting point. Ken Miller rocks!
@srexob715 "why should their parts do different functions??" In the same way that the homologous pistol and drill do different functions. Both fit in the hand; both are worked by a trigger. This makes them homologous. Yet no one expects them to have all the same parts or do the same thing. The T3SS has a tube running down its middle; the flagella does not. That's just the beginning of their differences.
The idea of God is unrefutable in the arena of science? Yes... I may say so. But it is unrefutable in other arenas, such as philosophy and theology? (...) Scientists often will arrogantly assume supremacy or mastery, if not in all fields of endeavor, at least in the examination of the material world? Why should it not, indeed...? Philosophy and theology, as being broad areas of inquiry, also include the natural world.
@JerezJulio "but ther one thing those objects has in common is that they are made of inorganic, inanimated matter that cannot reproduce"
Which would indicate that living things which can reproduce are much more complex requiring even greater design than a watch. So why would this observation make design any less viable? Unless you can explain origin of life. Can science explain origin of life or genetic code? So far no one in science can. Maybe you can I don't know.
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.
@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.
All scientist agree that we live in a very special habitual zone sometimes referred to as the goldilocks planet or the rare earth. Many people have criticized Guillermo Gonzalez who made the Privileged Planet video, (and who also refutes your take on the center of the universe myth) but no one can point out one factual error in the Privileged Planet production based on scientific observations. If u can cite factual error in this production please do.
1.
@srexob715 "You don't have any, do you?" I gave a reason above, when I wrote:
"studies have shown that the type III seretory system likely came later."
Leading biologists argue that phylogenetic data implies the T3SS could not have been a precursor to the flagellum.
@srexob715
"Right they don't have to." The word "homologous" may be throwing you off. If I hold a gun or a drill in my hand, they are homologous. But that has no implication about how the gun and the drill were invented or whether one came from the other. They are homologous because we hold them in similar fashion.
The T3SS and the flagella are homologous because they attach at the same place and have a similar structure. But that doesn't tell us how they came to be.
you might not understand, but if the theory is accepted it must provide some testable predictions.
Irreducible complexity can offer that...
@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.
The great points against ID/Creationism are really just one now: radiometric geophysical dating.... and I do not know the answer to that. ID can be said to be strict mathematical analysis, and hence strict science, if it is used just as W. Dembski initially intended (being "the Filter"). This is an analysis *the scientists should have done on their own, anyway*, as David Berlinski has claimed.
Yet, I do admit that ID does have broader implications and (even) broader foundations.
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
@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!
Check out the debate between Francisco Ayala and William Lane Craig. It is a must see. Craig tactically demolishes Ayala concerning evolution. He displays the "best" examples of experimental evolution and it is surprisingly weak. Ayala resorts to philosophy about God half way through the debate.
@srexob715 In posted 3 times because my response wouldn't appear when I clicked on [POST]. It appears that all three were actually accepted.
@JerezJulio "Behe claim the collection of the Part cannot be use for anything else"
Really, when did Behe claim this? Please give an example. As for design we infer design all the time in sciences like archeology, anthropology, forensics etc. If you see an elaborate piece of pottery buried in the ground are you going to dismiss it was created by an intelligent agent because you don't no the name of the person who built it? If this is the standard, we can say goodbye to many earth sciences.
I was aware of that. It may be that somehow, for unknown reasons, radiometric dating methods are unreliable, or... that the Earth *really is* of great ag!. As stated, some Design theorists believe this, such as William Dembski.
The problem with Evolutionary theory, in particular UCD (Universal Common Descent) is what I have loosely termed "the Probability Concern" (of the main hypothesis, from the "Evolution: A Theory...", by Denton). This would later be picked up, and enlarged, by Dembski
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.
@JerezJulio It is you who is being offensive and it is you who has brought religion into it. I merely asked some fair questions. Many thing you have said can be proven false and others at best are tentative and or inconclusive.
Look at the language the other threader has used. I have not resorted to profanity nor have I tried to insult you. If your theory of macro evolution cannot stand up to scrutiny then maybe its not worth its salt.
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
@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.
@srexob715 The T3SS do not share the same proteins. Homologous means similar, like the wings of a sparrow are similar to the wings on an Eagle. They are not the same and still very little is known about the way the T3SS developed.
The TSS3 does not have the function of the BF which is the whole point. Behe never said that proteins are not interchangeable. Miller has no proof that this was a precursor. If he could he might have a point. He has nothing.
@srexob715 "his point and as I previously stated was to show that the BF could lose 40 parts and those remaining parts are FUNCTIONAL"
Show your evidence. Where is published knock out study? Please provide. Behe did not mischaracterize Miller and Miller never claimed he did. You still don't seem to understand the the difference between homologous proteins and the same proteins. Did you hear Miller from 25-46 seconds. Why are you refusing to admit Miller agreed and you were mistaken?
@JerezJulio "When scientist find objects they think are designed, they also find the designer and how they made it"
So if you find an arrow head can name the person who made it? Please tell me the name of the person who invited the wheel? Tell me the name of person who built Stonehenge? Do forensic detectives stop believing that a person was stabbed to death because they don't know who did it? and may never know? Your statement makes no sense. All we can do is infer an intelligent agent.
2.
@srexob715 However "homologous" (look alike) structures don't always function the same. A plunger looks like a suction cup, but don't assume that a suction cup will work in your toilet like a plunger. There is a video on RUclips that shows the two "homologous" structures. Careful analysis shows they are similar, but not entirely the same shape, muchless the same design.
3. "Behe then claims the BF can no longer propulse, once it loses 50 parts." Which is his point, by even one part short.
he tells behe "your words speak for themselves" and behe says "ahh I dunno" WHAT? no wonder he's unaware irreducible complexity has been disproven, he's illiterate and can't read scientific papers. But in an astonishing twist he has proven intelligent design, because he is able to write books despite his illiterate short comings. Clear evidence of a designer attempting to expose himself through behe's illiterate book phenomenon. And all this time I thought irreducible complexity was disproven on the basis of it being disproven, boy do I feel dumb.
boyofGod81 okay, but the point is his flagellum irreducible complexity is threatened by the type three injection thing, have you seen the two side by side to compare. With the comparison alone the argument that the motor is an adaptation of the other is entirely valid, behe needs to take that seriously and demonstrate it's not valid (if he can, if anyone can I don't mean to throw him under the bus) clearly the motor with reduced complexity appears to be functional in serving a different purpose that's undeniable, the keywords being "appears to be"
Chad Hinterman the problem is how the comparison is glossed over.
as behe pointed out, and miller tried to get around, the 10 parts making up the type 3 are not the same as the flagellum. even if they were, it would take how many random chance mutations to get the flagellum? every additional protein having to hang around till the total of parts are achieved to produce the motor. it is beyond the definition of dawinizm and biology. God's best
Good, you should feel dumb if you have any ability for introspection.
+Aaron Siering introspection doesn't belong in these topics, there's a way to avoid it "scientific process"
I think you have greatly misunderstood my comment.
@kkkaldav It's kind of hard for him to cope since Behe just gave a definition not half an hour earlier and then is told that it's false, or that he can't use exact quoting without being "sort of true" or "somewhat true". He quotes his exact words and yet you argue that's not what he meant in his own words....
----------JGL Reply (2of 2)-------
...as an example from nature to refute Dr. Behe's reasoning. But these other flagellum are not immediately *related to the principle or first flagellum* that Dr. Behe was examining. They are other flagellum! (...) Therefore, there are other types of flagellum. Yet the conclusion that one type (or types) evolved from another is *a Darwinian conjecture* that stands in need of support.
@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.
Haldane's dilemma receives no coverage in evolutionary research today, not because it's being ignored, but because it's been dealt with, as Haldane predicted it would be. '"I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", '
Grant, Verne & Flake, Robert, "Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma", Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 71(10): 3863-3865, Oct. 1974.
Nunney, Leonard, "The cost of natural selection revisited", Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185-194, 2003.
Miller was trying to bring up the T3SS argument until Behe called him on it. I have seem Miller do this many times. We now know the proteins that Miller cited are not the same as the proteins in BF. Even Miller admitted that after Behe brought it up. We also have evidence that the BF predates the T3SS. This why Miller changed subject. If u want to better understand someone then u shouldn't cut them off when their trying to explain or believe that yes or no answers can explain complex ideas.
@kaox44 Again a strange response to what I wrote. Why am I "not for IC"? I really can't see that I could have been any clearer. I am most certainly for IC. Could I politely suggest that you take some time to re-read my and your previous comments on this thread, If something proves unclear to you then please ask.
@JerezJulio "What would Dr Behe say about the Nylon Bacteria?"
Why don't you ask him? Would you like his email address. I'm sure he will be happy to respond if asked in a respectful manner.