IC falls apart

[CaliforniaSun]

Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum - YouTube

 

[FreethinkerWWJD]

Yeah it's ironic that Irreducible Complexity is the single best argument for creationism but it's also the only argument that's been proven wrong in a court of law!

 

[idscience]

Yeah it's ironic that Irreducible Complexity is the single best argument for creationism but it's also the only argument that's been proven wrong in a court of law!

That's funny.

 

[idscience]

The only thing here falling apart is the integrity of science.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

So, you ingore the question on the other thread and start another one. OK, let's dance.

If you watched the video, you'd know the dance is over.

As I asked in your thread, which you ignored, is of what value is ID/IC to the scientific process method? In other words, can scientists do science without it?

 

[idscience]

This Thread is Dead!

 

[AV1611VET]

As I asked in your thread, which you ignored,

-- I didn't ignore it!

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Just a few problems.

1. The TTSS may work but the flagellum does not. The flagellum is IC, the flagellum is said to stop working when components are removed what happens? The flagellum stops working.
2. the assumption that the TTSS is part of the flagellum. It may look similar, but there are many differences. If you pulled that set of components out of the flagellum, you also have to change many of the parts to get it to work as a TTSS, so it doesn't work either. The argument is totally fallacious. Neither the flagellum or the TTSS work.
3. No one has shown how a TTSS can turn into a flagellum
4. No one has shown where the extra parts come from
5. No one has shown where the regulatory, and control systems come from that drive and control the flagellum.
6. No one has shown how the TTSS came about step by step with its 30 parts. How to account for selection keeping all of those parts.
7. Where did the new building instructions come from for all the extra parts and the propeller.

There ara a few red herrings and strawmen in the above, but let me ask you this: Will it be the scientific process that fills in the (albeit small) gaps, or will it be ID/IC?

 

[razeontherock]

Will it be the scientific process that fills in the (albeit small) gaps, or will it be ID/IC?

False dilemma

 

[idscience]

I take it you haven't watched the video I posted where IC is shredded.

This thread is dead


I watched that ridiculous video, and here is my rebut.

Ignored the question on the other thread and start another one. OK, let's dance.

@ 3:28 in, the video makes a misleading statement that if one part is removed from an IC component it will not work. This is true, but what opponents of IC try to do is remove blocks of parts that may work in separate operations and say, see, this works so its not IC. What they fail to say is, the bacterial flagellum no longer works. That is the statement in question. Whether the flagellum will stop working if you remove components of it. They do, it does. It is misleading. @ 7:42 this misleading conclusion is made.



Follow the logic.

• The bacterial flagellum is not IC because we can take away most of its components. These components work perfectly fine as a TTSS system, therefore the flagellum is not IC

Just a few problems.

1. The TTSS may work but the flagellum does not. The flagellum is IC, the flagellum is said to stop working when components are removed what happens? The flagellum stops working.
2. the assumption that the TTSS is part of the flagellum. It may look similar, but there are many differences. If you pulled that set of components out of the flagellum, you also have to change many of the parts to get it to work as a TTSS, so it doesn't work either. The argument is totally fallacious. Neither the flagellum or the TTSS work.
3. No one has shown how a TTSS can turn into a flagellum
4. No one has shown where the extra parts come from
5. No one has shown where the regulatory, and control systems come from that drive and control the flagellum.
6. No one has shown how the TTSS came about step by step with its 30 parts. How to account for selection keeping all of those parts.
7. Where did the new building instructions come from for all the extra parts and the propeller.

It is all smoke and mirrors designed to draw you from the point that evolution cannot build this structure. It can't be disputed with scientific papers, so an appeal is made to logic and reason. Only that falls on its face as well. If all your interested in is a glimmer of hope IC may not work, you have that here in this video. But any scientist, including any that may be here, has to refuse this bunk, for what it is. If you take this as good science, that proves the flagellum is refuted, your no scientist. Your just an evolutionist.


@ 6:19 we see this

This is a comparison of the flagellum and the TTSS. They are quite different. The biggest of which is the TTSS does not rotate as stated by the video. Here is another picture from the video. Notice how the computer graphic looks more similar than the actual picture.​

They are trying to show how easy it should be to to make one from the other. Clearly from a protein building perspective, these are much different in areas.​

Great way to end this prestigious scientific work.
Notice as the video ends and Miller is talking about how by removing numerous parts of the flagellum what remains is perfectly useful. What is not brought to the viewers attention is how what remains, is not useful. The TTSS, is transformed, magically before our eyes from the rotating flagellar motor apparatus with a propeller, to a non rotating structure with a needle, and several other changed protein components.

I understand what he is trying to say. But, in the case of the flagellum and TTSS, he is not being upfront with his demonstration. Because the TTSS is not like the component in the flagellum. ie, has different proteins to make it rotate, has a propeller, and other components, his mouse trap tie clip would have to be modified to work. Re-engineered to work as something else. It is misleading for Miller to say it is just a case of removing some parts. That is not the case. It sounds simple on the surface but there are a multitude of changes that have been glossed over as if they were not important to address.​

This is how evolution explains away many things. There is no way on earth an ID proponent could get away with such liberty with the evidence, and does not.

• "still fulfilling a perfectly good purpose that could? be favored by evolution, and that is why the IC theory falls apart."​

Miller proposes that IC falls apart because something may have happened. Absurd. No evidence, or experimentation, just a "notion" of maybe's. And, a very poor logic of "maybe's" as well.​

• Irreducibly Complex
• Darwin's Black Box
• The Edge Of Evolution
• Nick Matzke’s TTSS to Flagellum Evolutionary Narrative Refuted
• Irreducible Complexity; Center for Science & Culture
• "Regarding the bacterialflagellum and TTSSs, we must consider three (and only three) possibilities. First, the TTSS came first; second, the Fla system came first; or third, both systems evolved from a common precursor. At present, too little information is available to distinguish between these possibilities with certainty. As is often true in evaluating evolutionary arguments, the investigator must rely on logical deduction and intuition." (academic.uprm.edu;Milton H. Saier, Jr., TRENDS in Microbiology Vol.12 No.3 March 2004 )
• Bacterial Flagellum Completely Refuted

It is amazing what is accepted as good science against ID, and what is dismissed as evidence against evolution. The only explanation is ideology. If the above video and its incoherent, logic flawed arguments is enough to meet your criteria for scientific evidence, then debate is no longer possible on a scientific basis.


Maybe that is why no peer reviewed papers showing the demise of the flagellum have been submitted, there not needed anymore. Now you just have to come up with anything close to opposing ID, and make a declaration it has been refuted for it to be accepted. ID must be stopped at any cost. Even at the integrity of the scientific method, and science itself.

Do non of you degree students and scientists here see the error, and assumption here? All you who state I know nothing, I don't understand anything, are willing to state publically here that this constitutes good science to you?

I would like to see a poll of those who do know something, who do understand how science and evolution works, believe that video refutes the flagellar motor as IC. A simple yes or no.​

 

[TerranceL]

People still take Behe seriously?

 

[Jro]

@ 3:28 in, the video makes a misleading statement that if one part is removed from an IC component it will not work. This is true, but what opponents of IC try to do is remove blocks of parts that may work in separate operations and say, see, this works so its not IC. What they fail to say is, the bacterial flagellum no longer works. That is the statement in question. Whether the flagellum will stop working if you remove components of it. They do, it does. It is misleading. @ 7:42 this misleading conclusion is made.

That's kind of the point though- evolution doesn't predict that all structures will originate with the function that they will ultimately have, but it predicts that structures will be modified for novel function- eg a hand can become a wing, flipper, hoof, grasping object whatever.

 

[Split Rock]

This is how evolution explains away many things. There is no way on earth an ID proponent could get away with such liberty with the evidence, and does not.

• "still fulfilling a perfectly good purpose that could? be favored by evolution, and that is why the IC theory falls apart."​

Miller proposes that IC falls apart because something may have happened. Absurd. No evidence, or experimentation, just a "notion" of maybe's. And, a very poor logic of "maybe's" as well.​

• Irreducibly Complex
• Darwin's Black Box
• The Edge Of Evolution
• Nick Matzke’s TTSS to Flagellum Evolutionary Narrative Refuted
• Irreducible Complexity; Center for Science & Culture
• "Regarding the bacterialflagellum and TTSSs, we must consider three (and only three) possibilities. First, the TTSS came first; second, the Fla system came first; or third, both systems evolved from a common precursor. At present, too little information is available to distinguish between these possibilities with certainty. As is often true in evaluating evolutionary arguments, the investigator must rely on logical deduction and intuition." (academic.uprm.edu;Milton H. Saier, Jr., TRENDS in Microbiology Vol.12 No.3 March 2004 )
• Bacterial Flagellum Completely Refuted

It is amazing what is accepted as good science against ID, and what is dismissed as evidence against evolution. The only explanation is ideology. If the above video and its incoherent, logic flawed arguments is enough to meet your criteria for scientific evidence, then debate is no longer possible on a scientific basis.


Maybe that is why no peer reviewed papers showing the demise of the flagellum have been submitted, there not needed anymore. Now you just have to come up with anything close to opposing ID, and make a declaration it has been refuted for it to be accepted. ID must be stopped at any cost. Even at the integrity of the scientific method, and science itself.

Do non of you degree students and scientists here see the error, and assumption here? All you who state I know nothing, I don't understand anything, are willing to state publically here that this constitutes good science to you?

I would like to see a poll of those who do know something, who do understand how science and evolution works, believe that video refutes the flagellar motor as IC. A simple yes or no.​

You seem to be forgetting the nature of the Irreducible Complexity argument. It, like most of I.D., is a negative argument. If it is impossible for a flagellum to come about via natural processes, then by default, it must be the work of an Intelligent Designer. This is the way I.D. advocates have stated the argument, not me. Therefore, Miller does not need to explain exactly how a bacterial flagellum evolved, only that it could have evolved. I.C. ignores changes in function, changes in individual components, and reduction in components (such as scaffolding). That is why it fails.

 

[FreethinkerWWJD]

You seem to be forgetting the nature of the Irreducible Complexity argument. It, like most of I.D., is a negative argument. If it is impossible for a flagellum to come about via natural processes, then by default, it must be the work of an Intelligent Designer. This is the way I.D. advocates have stated the argument, not me. Therefore, Miller does not need to explain exactly how a bacterial flagellum evolved, only that it could have evolved. I.C. ignores changes in function, changes in individual components, and reduction in components (such as scaffolding). That is why it fails.

Well, to be fair, if they assume that the flagellum could NOT have come about through natural processes then what other alternative is there other than intelligent design?

So, I feel like in this instance they would be correct to assume a designer IF they could prove that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Of course it's not and they can't.

But given two choices: was it designed, or was is not designed, the falsification of one would automatically prove the other.

I understand where you were going with your point though. Creationists often assume "God did it" when they can't find a natural explanation for things, but in this instance they would be correct to assume some kind of intelligence is at work.

Now, what KIND of intelligence is at work behind this; THAT'S the question. Is it God? Aliens? Gary Busey? That's what can't be scientifically proven and must be accepted through faith.

Of course the problem we both have with Intelligent Design is that it assumes a personal, omnipotent God is responsible for design when that couldn't be proven even if they proved irreducible complexity.

We Christians believe through faith that there is a personal, omnipotent God; but we admit that we can't prove it scientifically... I personally don't think God wants himself to be proven scientifically because if he was proven, there would be no need for faith; and faith is the single most important quality God wants us to have.

 

[razeontherock]

Has anyone demonstrated in this thread how the flagellum could actually develop? (Reasonably, I mean)

 

[Elendur]

Has anyone demonstrated in this thread how the flagellum could actually develop? (Reasonably, I mean)

I think it's been done.

Counter question:
Has anyone demonstrated in this thread how the flagellum could actually be designed? (Reasonably, I mean)

 

[CabVet]

@ 3:28 in, the video makes a misleading statement that if one part is removed from an IC component it will not work. This is true, but what opponents of IC try to do is remove blocks of parts that may work in separate operations and say, see, this works so its not IC. What they fail to say is, the bacterial flagellum no longer works. That is the statement in question. Whether the flagellum will stop working if you remove components of it. They do, it does. It is misleading. @ 7:42 this misleading conclusion is made.

So, according to you everything is irreducibly complex then? If I remove all of my fingers, my hand will no longer be work like a "hand", so evolution could not have "made" it. This is the most erroneous understanding of irreducible complexity that I ever read.

FYI, irreducible complexity states that a complex system could not have evolved because it is composed of many different parts. The answer to that is that yes, it could have evolved, if the simpler parts had other functions, which is what is shown in the flagellum and many other cases.

 

[CabVet]

Has anyone demonstrated in this thread how the flagellum could actually develop? (Reasonably, I mean)

Hmmm... First post.

 

[razeontherock]

The answer to that is that yes, it could have evolved, if the simpler parts had other functions

And all of it functioned at every step along the way

 

[CabVet]

And all of it functioned at every step along the way

And you are the one saying that, not evolution (or the evidence).