I take it you haven't watched the video I posted where IC is shredded.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No one has shown how a TTSS can turn into a flagellum
- No one has shown where the extra parts come from
- No one has shown where the regulatory, and control systems come from that drive and control the flagellum.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
but it uses many tricks to make the viewer accept them. I don't like that.
