Bugs with Gears (Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe, Ep. 3)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- Explore the amazing gears in insects and then investigate the power of evolution in episode 3 of “Secrets of the Cell” hosted by biochemist and bestselling author Michael Behe.
When people invented gears is not certain, but examples survive in artifacts from ancient China and Greece. These indicate that the mechanism was known well over 2,000 years ago. Impressive! And yet as Michael Behe points out in a new episode of Secrets of the Cell, from Discovery Institute, bugs had been there and done that long before humans came on the scene.
For more information and to dig deeper about the topics in this series, visit:
michaelbehe.co...
Check out all the videos in this series on our series playlist:
• Secrets of the Cell wi...
And be sure to check out these other videos:
Marcos Eberlin: The Intelligent Design of Water Makes it a Supernatural Liquid - • Marcos Eberlin: The In...
Privileged Species: Human Uniqueness
• Privileged Species: Hu...
The Complexity of Life (Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe, Ep. 2) - • The Complexity of Life...
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official TH-cam channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery....
www.evolutionne...
www.intelligent...
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other TH-cam channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: / alfredrwallaceid
![ว้าว!ลุงบีมแบกทองมารับขวัญหลานกันยกบ้าน [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.49 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Osihq1OAs-4/mqdefault.jpg)
Great series. This should be shown in every school around the world, because it shows objective facts. Let the children first contemplate on this for themselves, before indoctrinating them with half truths and wild guesses
Exactly. Only the liars would want to prevent children from simply having access to ALL information, and instead of teaching them your own opinion, teaching them to form their own opinion irrespective of yours. When I have kids I will be homeschooling them and teaching them to look at all evidence and decide what is reasonable.
Loving this series!
Acts17Apologetics you rockin with me on Biblical cosmology yet ? 🤨
You know I’m going bug you till you run with it🤨
I love you David
What's _"Biblical cosmology",_ @@BGAKHH?
Ken Jackson Genesis 1:1-19
I found this series Because of You Dr. Wood. Thank you.
If they cannot accept that there is an intelligent Creator who designed all these creatures and deserves our awe and reverence, I pity them, as they scramble in a dark, unknowing, dismal world of human pride and ego. Evolution is a furphy.
The most impressive are the shapes of those gears , they look exactly like gears humans designed even before they knew anything about the bug !
Most of life is actually designed *better* than humans do it, albeit with some of the same concepts. That's why we mimic it so much.
Gods work is astounding!
well done
anda lus ijjiolm ,zhjo ijjjuinbj inn is in in haj$@j I bhjbbbbbbby2@-$$
To my knowledge we have no fossilized or current examples of a species evolving into another species. It seems to all be theory.
There are examples of species adapting to a point that they are considered a new species. Problem comes in the definition of species, it's a very fuzzy line between them. There is no true definition.
@Hakim Mohamad look at divergent evolution. Generally human don't usually evolve, to look more and more like any their human cousins either. Do they. They'll usually begin to look less and less like each other, as each generation passes. Evolution between ourselves an our human cousin is on a divergent track. The same sort of thing apply to difference between cats and dogs.
If dogs were becoming more like cats. And if we human were becoming more like our first and second and third cousins, we would would then be headed onto a convergent evolution track
Our common ancestor were within our past, not in our future
@@hansdemos6510 You're cherry-picking your definitions just a bit. We are changing, sure. Change over time is the definition of evolution, agreed. But in the context of neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory, evolution has a very specific definition.
Selective breeding to change dominant traits isn't the same as randomly evolving a complex new protein or mounting changes producing a completely new body plan. There is no evidence the mechanisms of evolution can accomplish these things, and quite a lot of evidence to suggest they cannot.
Get used to it.
The thing with the fossil record shouldn't be about specific species becaming other.
But rather how Life forms changed all this years.
I don't think anyone can deny that.
For me there is no such evolution, but natural selection are more make sense to me.
Wow I can't wait for the next video 😀😁
Love this stuff! Thanks.
I read Michael Behe's "Darwin Devolves" when it first came out last year. It is a book that no serious student of the evolution debate, whether for or against, can afford to skip. Let this series be your appetizer to delve into the book's scrumptious buffet.
I also suggest the two books by Denis Noble, see wiki, music of life and biological relativity. Fascinating reads.
Great stuff. Also the videography here is wonderful. Thanks.
Realmente incrível essa série, obrigado Discovery Institute
Those who still have faith in evolution are in _"Oh no!"_ mode, hiding from the revelations of science.
Its quite disturbing actually. The amount of evidence you can give people, and they still claim that the evidence gathered through scientific research isn't science because it doesn't agree with their world view.
@@theblackcatvieweraccount5402 Had been debating a guy on this video "Can we see evolution" on PBS took 79 comments and still don't know if he accepted
@@mcmanustony
Ok, I'll bite. You have something to say, so just say it. Show us your brilliance, and how you've demonstrably refuted Behe's work. You can start with the multifunctional dual action member protein ion channels. How, EXACTLY, does something like this evolve according to Darwinian process? Which came first? The need to regulate, or the regulator? Which came first, the pumping function, or the need for the pumping function? And then, which of these dual actions as a functional protein came first, or was it simultaneous?
Don't see how this doco disproves evolution mate
@@ludwigkirchner08 I call this the chicken or the egg problem. Which came first: flight, or the advantage flight gives to be selected by natural selection. You always hear them say "oh well flight gives birds an advantage so it would be selected for" but they never talk about the fact that before the complex system that allows flight evolved, the birds couldn't fly (obviously) which means there was no selective advantage for these systems, until they were fully formed.
I love how science proves God
Great work Sir. I commend your scientific endeavors.
I absolutely love the series
Me too.. I didn't want this episode to end
Great video. Looking forward to the series; thank you for posting.
*David Wood **_@Act17Apologetics_** Sent Me Here 📍*
I like the series, but maybe you should do like Netflix and dump the entire season for us bingers 😁
Wish these videos were longer. Should put them together.
I'm really enjoying these videos!
I'm not generally a bug fan. But they really are amazing creatures!
Science: Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.
Yeah, I've heard this one before.😁 Some materialist scientists actually plead this. Even if we grant them the "miracle," there is a long chain of necessary miracles. Suppose a functional protein assembled in a watery soup. That would be miraculous. It would be another miracle to keep that protein's peptide bonds holding the amino acids together from being hydrolyzed. The need for replication of the protein would call for another miracle--the assembly of the mRNA strand that coded for the protein, keeping in mind that it too will be hydrolyzed in water unless they are miraculously protected by buffers and other molecules that would protect their bonds.. The RNA world would be another series of miracles, and the development of the abiotic, short-chained molecules that produced the RNA world. Another miracle to get all the necessary cellular constituents together in a volume as small as that of a bacterium so that they could be cellularized. In would be another miracle to get the proper membrane to enclose them. Of course, getting all these constituents separated into their necessary compartments so they don't react with each other, or catabolize each other would be another series of miracles. It would take a myriad of miracles to develop the first living cell. Alas, materialists scoff at probabilities, and continue to make implausible claims about how those gears evolved, how the ATPase motor came about, and what caused the formation of the flagellum.
@@hansdemos6510 th-cam.com/video/T7ep3FBF3Is/w-d-xo.html
All of these have been explained... do your research
@@TigeyPuss1 And you only mentioned a tiny portion of necessary components here too. In reality some mRNA and proteins floating around in a phospholipid bilayer will be completely and utterly useless even if it doesn't hydrolyze. It's exactly like putting a corrupt hard drive in a computer case and expecting the other parts to magically appear too. mRNA is not all we need to reproduce proteins, we need many other mechanisms to even come close to what a cell can do, and that's not even accounting for actual cell division, just basic gene expression. They claim RNA can "copy itself" but those studies are completely misleading and even still they constitute the intervention of human lab work.
First comment on an awesome episode. Let's get the word out.
First reply to the first comment on an awesome episode.
@Aaron Michael
If I may quote that great modern philosopher Donald J. Rickles..."You win a cookie!"
Someone has to be the skinny old wise ass....and here I am! :-)
@@KenJackson_US First reply to First reply to the first comment on an awesome episode.
Steven Wiederholt “ Now I know why Tigers eat their young” Professor Dangerfield. Biology always kept him fascinated
Darwin was only aware if about 15% of species. That means he was around 85% ignorant of his field of study.
I want that next episode, now. 😡😉
The molecular knowledge needed to creat this insect and others, is mind boggling. Only a superiir being could achieve it.
Another 'Wow, how cool is this?' moment for us to ponder. So, here again, we can respond to the God of Creation who said in Jer 32:27 “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too difficult for Me?... No there is not! I mean Long jumping a human equivalent distance of 600'+ ... 2 Football fields! (BTW the World Record is less than 30')
This bug's gears had to be designed with precision far greater than we can... with materials manufactured and assembled with sub-micron precision. The Engineering, Physics and Protein Chemistry on display here is mind-boggling and yet knowing this we continue to indoctrinate our children that an 'undirected process of random molecular collisions over billions of years created this'? God gets no glory or appreciation or even acknowledgment from the evolutionists. What a peculiar species we are in this atheistic slap in the face of the very God who created us and then went to the Cross, Himself, to save us!
O, if the simple cell was still simple.
Can you make future episodes longer? I’d really like them to go deeper.
Great high quality presentation throughout. Thats an amazing point about the gears! Intelligent design.
Where is your Nobel Prize?
I too was fascinated by the gears in the leaf hoppers legs when I first saw the video of them . In fact it was
another one of those moments that you realize the failure and limitations of evolutionery speculation to explain
something that you would never perceive to occur other then by an Intelligent Designer. I can't imagine even
the most zealous Darwinist ever conceiving with their noncritical and unconstrained postulations an interlocking gear system in nature. How could even the most daft of people not recognize interlocking gears as being "Designed"?
@@hansdemos6510 I believe your confusing interlocking joints with actual mechanical interlocking gears.
Mind you , the human knee is one of the most complex types of joints known and the incredible physics
and engineering escapes most evolutionists since their perception is to omit or to oversimplify extreme
complexity with vague unsupported claims. Would love to know where all these other interlocking
gears that you mentioned are? I would believe both Evolutionists and ID Proponents would think anyone
having any critical thought would at least have reason to ponder a set of precision interlocking gears which
have to fit preciously together , but also have to stay perfectly in position throughout the entire motion or the
whole process fails. Not an easy feat since it's not in fixed stationery position and would be quite an
engineering feat to duplicate. But who am I to question those that claim the mythology's of albatross's
de-evolving into penguins or wolfs into whales?
ALL biology should look almost identical to non-biology. All biology should never look very similar to any intelligently designed thing. But this is not what we see.
For example, the human eye drastically appears as a biological version of a video camera. It literally transmits a stream of an electric signal of optical information, and so, human eyes can DEFINITELY be linked to a TV and produce video. The video would have color aberration, be upside down, and have a missing section, but it would clearly be discernible. This shouldn't be possible without ID.
To even further reiterate... If life came about without intelligence then life should appear almost indistinguishable from lifelessness which *ALSO* came about without intelligence. In other words, poodles should look and function like puddles, trees should look and function like rocks of granite, insects should look and function like rocks of marble, birds should look and function like clouds, bacteria should look and function like snowflakes, etc. This great difference between life and lifelessness, which is even clearly apparent to children, is an extraordinary anomaly and ought to put every evolutionary proponent at unease and confusion.
Impeccable logic. I can tell you put some thought into your comment.
You asked "Will humans mutate into super-powered X-Men?" Quick answer, Nope! For the last little while the species seems to have devolved into under-powered (but lusting for power) Democrats. Maybe Darwin got it wrong. Maybe devolution is what's going on. If so, maybe he should have written "The Origins of Specious Species by Means of Natural Correction, or the Preservation of Presidential Races in the Struggle for Control".
By the way, Discovery Science, I am really liking this series.
Good grief.
@@JohnHazenhousen Sadly, Democrats have made me question my belief in evolution. Clearly, their thinking is inferior to that of other great apes. *sniff*
One of the most severe problems with modern evolutionary biology is that it is not true science. Apart from microevolution, which can sometimes be observed in nature or in a lab setting, evolution relies on the analysis of a fossil record and the making up of “just so stories” straight out of Kipling, in order to speculate about possible evolutionary connections between widely divergent species. This idle thought is what passes for science in this field.
Theories that generate hypotheses that may potentially lead to experiments that result in the null hypothesis being rejected at a statistical p-level that meets or undercuts the study’s a priori alpha level are impossible, even in principle. In addition, very few hypotheses in the field of traditional modern evolutionary biology are falsifiable, again, even in principle. According to the brilliant insights of Karl Popper and more recent philosophers of science, falsifiability is an absolute criterion for hypotheses to be scientific and ampliative. An unfalsifiable hypothesis cannot be tested, and hypothesis testing is the business of science. Whatever much of modern evolutionary biology may be,it is not science.
4:20 LUCAS!
Our God is all powerful and all knowing
Purposiveness. Did I hear right?
I’m confused by Behes position on evolution. He argues against evolution in other videos (at least macro-evolution) but advocates evolution in this video. I’m sure I’m missing something.
G Man I’m getting your point however let us not rush I guess he is just putting forward an idea to refute and the last part of this video he asked a question to be completed next video.
G Man It may seem like he is advocating evolution but he’s not. Maybe it’s a ploy to keep those who are skeptical around for the next video. His last book was Darwin Devolves which is the opposite of evolve, the polar bear actually devolved from a brown bear not evolved. He used the car analogy in the last video which is exactly what happened to the polar bear
I can see your point... Behe is definitely not an evolutionist as you will clearly see.
Evolution means change over time. Adaptive change is observed and therefore is legitimately an evolution. Evolutionary theory on the other hand means all biology shares a common ancestor. I expect he will next give a comparison of adaptive change vs what it would require for large scale modification of a body plan.
@@abdulaziz-ct6ip he was stating on the theory of how polar bears became white, which he will address in the next video. The issue is that a change from brown to white is a degradation of the genome. Not new information added, but information missing or dormant. We've observed 100 years of fruit flies which is about equal to 100,000 years in generations for humans. We have never seen a positive mutation in the fruit flies. Missing wings/legs, extra but unused limbs, bigger size with shorter life span, but never anything that benefited the fruit flies or became more than abnormalities. Which is entirely what should have been predicted, given that the theory of evolution defies the laws of entropy and thermal dynamics.
Indeed, evolution is such a powerful mechanisme, that the evolutionary idea is adopted by programmers. Just let a program be randomly modified (mutated). The program's "offspring" will either perform better (survives) or not (dies). The surviving programs are randomly mutated again.
Using this principle, programs have been created, that can do tasks better, quicker than any programmer would have been able to write.
Of course, random mutation often leads to defects, non functional programs, etc. But that is the whole idea. Just sometimes, a program outperforms, develops new capabilities. It is a wasteful way of developing, and it takes many generations of programs (just like evolution took a long long time). But the principles of evolution that we take from nature are powerful, and proven to work.
made on Earth by God
The power of God.
👏👏👏
Evolution very weak . Creation wake up and be saved by God of Abraham
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I’m way off topic here , but this gentleman looks to me like Ron Howard .
wow
Why are there many religious comments in this video? I'm quite confused.
When we train a neural network to identify cats, we can’t understand the exact function of the weights that the network developed to do it’s classification- and that is with a human designed and trained model. We can understand the underlying mechanics (matrix multiplication) but not the emergent structure (meaning of the weights).
Similarly, Random mutation with natural selection can approximate gradient descent (I.e you can train the same network as above with an evolutionary algorithm) the reason life is so complex and incomprehensible is because it contains solutions to extremely complex non linear optimization problems. We can understand the underlying mechanics (chemistry) but the emergent complexity is a lot harder to comprehend (biology).
So I don’t really buy the argument that because we can’t explain something completely means it was constructed from a higher power (i.e the god of the gaps). We can’t completely explain the weights of the neural network- but they emerged from mathematics.
Algorithms require insight into the problem being solved and insight is what evolution lacks.
😀👍👍💯
Why are bugs gross and cute at the same time?
Where IS all remains and proofs about darwins theory...If i recall right Darwin himself Said that he's theory isn't right!
O humanity! A lesson is set forth, so listen to it ˹carefully˺: those ˹idols˺ you invoke besides Allah can never create ˹so much as˺ a fly, even if they ˹all˺ were to come together for that. And if a fly were to snatch anything away from them, they cannot ˹even˺ retrieve it from the fly. How powerless are those who invoke and those invoked!
Quran, Al-Hajj, Ayah 73
یَـٰۤأَیُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ ضُرِبَ مَثَلࣱ فَٱسۡتَمِعُوا۟ لَهُۥۤۚ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِینَ تَدۡعُونَ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ لَن یَخۡلُقُوا۟ ذُبَابࣰا وَلَوِ ٱجۡتَمَعُوا۟ لَهُۥۖ وَإِن یَسۡلُبۡهُمُ ٱلذُّبَابُ شَیۡـࣰٔا لَّا یَسۡتَنقِذُوهُ مِنۡهُۚ ضَعُفَ ٱلطَّالِبُ وَٱلۡمَطۡلُوبُ﴿ ٧٣ ﴾
Please turkish subtitle
We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
Quran, Fussilat, Ayah 53
تحية لبراهين
Just looked it up but it still sounds daft.
0
I'm disappointed. I would normally share this but I reject the narrative of evolution. I reject that polar bears "evolved" from Brown bears, even tho "scientists believe it". To me it's implausible and unnecessary speculation for theists like Behe, whose books I generally love.
If you wait and listen carefully again to what he said, he said it like a bedtime story. He does not believe the bear thing.
Hang on. Wait for episode 4. You wont be disappointed!
L
Isn't design amazing? The manic use of the word "mutations" in the face of mathematical probabilities for all these amazing design features to have happened merely by way of chance and time, that simply is indefensible from a mathematical perspective. Chance and time are not forces that can possibly hope to provide the massive array of design features found nowhere else in nature. The precision of the universe, rather than it being a "mutation," clearly has cosmologists scrambling to avoid admitting design...anything but THAT... So, the fairy tales of human invention remain the prime sellers in many sectors of academia.
There is no way that random mutations created genetic based live forms - watch a few of Stephen Meyer videos and he explains how only God/intelligent design is the only possible consultation
Meyer is one of my few heroes in this life. Brilliant man who has the talent to make lay people understand.
Funny you should mention the giraffe which is an excellent example of why evolution is clearly at work. For all the talk about the perfection of God's creation, little seems to be said about the imperfections which are evidence of gradual evolution via natural selection. The recurrent laryngeal nerve (often referred to as the vagus nerve, off which it's a part) goes around the aortic arch which is clearly a design flaw (assuming you think we're designed). Clearly a more direct path is possible and would result in a shorter nerve. The longer the neck, the more unnecessarily long this nerve is by a factor of 2. In a giraffe, as in any mammal, this nerve has to go allll the way down the neck from the brain around the aorta and back up the neck.
Designed by who? Morons?
You must of gone back about 50 years to find the laryngeal nerve design flaw or listened to Dawkins or
Coyne who still reference evolutionery speculation from 50 years ago. Medical science has known for
about 1/2 a century that the pathway of the recurrent laryngeal nerve has a purpose . Grays Anatomy and
other leading medical Journals Stated: Its intended function is not only to innervate the larynx , but to
innervate the heart , provide nerves to the throat for both muscular functions and the production of
mucus as well as functions of the esophagus.. Recent research has shown it has a major role in
embryonic development in the ductus developing as a muscular artery rather then an elastic artery.
But the other part that seems to allude these lackless evolutionary critics is the fact that some nerves do
also "Directly" innervate without taking the circumvented route. So as science progresses and our understanding
becomes more enlightened , I'm sure we'll discover even more complex functions of the physiology of everything
involved. Of course this will require greater effort to support the main tenets of evolution with poor uncritical
and unsubstantiated arguments such as yours. In one breath your (materialists) criticizing why we don't have
the vision of eagles and the next grasping at finding failures. When you look at any of the main arguments for
supporting the main tenets , it necessitates oversimplification , omissions , manipulations and deceptions
of the empirical science in order create the endless speculations needed to support this antiquated theory.
Have you ever considered Picasso's artwork? Would you regard his art as being created by an artistic moron? Rightly so, if you did not understand his purpose. Nevertheless, by looking at his work you can never deny the fact that it was created by someone. In the same way, the point being made here is that science it's pointing to a designer or creator. It is not trying to explain why things were created the way they were or for what reasons some seem to be imperfect but that they were indeed designed.
This Frustration scientist tries to get answer the question that he never can have answer by his limited and narrow brain, about the creation....typical of one that doesnt know that he doesnt know....