The Complexity of Life (Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe, Ep. 2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2024
- Join bestselling author and biochemist Michael Behe as he explores "reducible" and "irreducible" complexity at the foundation of life in Episode 2 of "Secrets of the Cell."
Check out all the videos in this series on our series playlist:
• Secrets of the Cell wi...
For more information and to dig deeper about the topics in this series, visit:
michaelbehe.com/videos/secret...
Explore further with these other short videos:
Michael Egnor Shows You're Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2) - • Michael Egnor Shows Yo...
Flat Earth Myth: A Favorite with ID Critics - • Flat Earth Myth: A Fav...
Stephen Meyer: Is Methodological Naturalism Necessary for Science? - • Stephen Meyer: Is Meth...
Stay up on all the latest intelligent design news by visiting Evolution News & Science Today (EN) - evolutionnews.org/
EN provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues, including breaking news about scientific research. It also covers the impact of science on culture and conflicts over free speech and academic freedom in science.
============================
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.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
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 - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 6](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CVUx09Rx0-M/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] ลูกหมี-ลิลลี่ เหงียน เปิดใจฟาด ปู มัณฑนา I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 15 ก.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FKQ60Y7bJ6s/mqdefault.jpg)
Love this man Michael behe. Respect from Pakistan.
MB I love U 4 Your currage, sincerity and wisdom in teaching!
I'm showing this to my 7 year old son so he can see for himself that Darwinian nonsense should be ridiculed openly.
Indeed brother. The mainstream is controlled and what gets out is controlled. They need to keep us all robotic and Godless.
Yes, it should.
Dr. Behe is amazing. The intellectual honesty that he has maintained within a massively anti-intelligence-biased larger science community is deeply commendable. Several converging fields of science and math are now strongly suggesting that he has been correct all along. Thanks, Doc.
There's a video I watched a while back with Behe and friends vs evolutionist panel. It's very detailed. If you enjoyed this then I think you'll really enjoy the debate. Its about 2hrs long. Try to find it and watch it.
I like the tecnique of this video, invite people to watch without spoilers
😍amazing
Good to see this discussion being brought into public. Hopefully the option to comment will be left open. I find it harder to trust people theory whenever i see that they wont open their theory up to comment
"You can stand over there." That was pretty funny! Overall - great job - I'll make sure to share this with my students.
Dr Behe is an important thought leader in ID. It is interesting that he is a proponent of common ancestry for all life.
Wow this was really interesting 😀
The evidence for God’s existence is so strong it will soften the heart of an atheist.
Over 22 years ago I was an atheist that believed in the Theory of Evolution.
*Outstanding presentation.* The term and concept of "irreducible complexity" is so simple that even an evolutionist should be able to understand it. My initial worry was that these videos would be too brief, but they are perfectly bite-sized. The animation is excellent. *Keep it up!*
I like this series.
Clear and concise.
Thanks!
Bueno tardes! Love these short videos - very interesting.
A true scientist will go where the facts lead, regardless of preconceived ideas Dr Behe is that kind of scientist !
I'm loving this video; I have interest in both sciences. I'm working on an idea to use restriction enzymes from bacteria, to target the palindromic sequences of viruses to fight infections and save lives. I'm learning now about the fusion peptides that might hopefully get the right restriction enzyme across cells membranes to do the trick. Thank you for this video! I'm still watching it. It's a treat!
Excellent work, I love this!
My grand pawpaw always said “only the foxes lay down with the bugs, and the bugs are not anyone’s friend.” This video is EXACTLY what he meant. Thanks for the info!!
Can't wait for next one!!!
I always felt evolution was a bully who answered to no one. Now I see how insecure a bully.
The THEORY of evolution is a slap in the face to the true LAWS of thermodynamics. It's a joke to hear anybody trying to use it as an actual explanation for life on this Earth.
How so?
Dr. Ken Miller, I believe, demonstrated the use of a partially disassembled mouse trap as a tie clip. And yes, other parts could be used for different purposes. The spring could hold business cards; the holding bar could be used as a toothpick, etc. As the argument goes, there is a similar structure in bacteria as the flagellum motor that acts as a syringe. The problem with these arguments is that it still requires intelligence to co-opt parts used in different, unrelated functions into a new, integrated function.
Intelligence will still be required to develop, before human offspring can proceed to alter situation too though . A new born baby cannot alter anything much
@@slimdusty6328 Not all intelligence would be required to develop. The original intelligence that gave rise to all intelligence did not have to develop, unless your are talking about your own alternate universe. Your requirements.
I cant believe Michael Behe was sued and went court for presenting a new perspective evidence based, our world is really bad.
Awesome upload. Thanks👍
This is going to be an awesome series. Since there's no shortage of evidence for design, the series could continue forever.
Unfortunately most of the (arrogant) atheists will disagree as usually.
What are the chances?
Keep up the good work.
Tick Tock time to rock!!!
@@emilio0833 Yes. Lo and behold Hans De Mos, who placed a comment here. He's probably not aware of the fact that Behe's argument for irreducible complexity was distorted by people like Kenneth Miller; that individual parts of something complex can be used for other tasks. So thats why they disagree, because they (maybe wilfully) don't understand Behe's arguments.
@@rockquarry9847 Should be an interesting answer 😃
Way to go. Short, simple and direct. Love the analogies and the production that is pleasing to the eye. Keep up the good work.
Excellent, simple, and yet profound! thank you
Remember when Discovery channel used to involve similiar topics 🙄
This was great!
A good dose of mathematics in probability and statistics applied to the assembly of parts in the flagellum motor should reveal a good deal more about where the good Doctor ended this discussion. "Gee Doc, have there been enough years?"
Wow love this keep it coming
Bravo!
*buenas tardes !!!* 🇧🇷
Incredible, thank you for sharing this. These videos are essential to the arguments I am making in my micro-bio classes for ID.
Very interessting! At Uni they taught us that this case of irreducible complexity is explainable by merging the concepts of emergence (the system has new properties than it's individual parts) and niche construction (a system changes it's enviroment, co-evolution). It goes like this: "... the flagellum is an emergent result of the evolution of components which originally evolved with completely different functions in different contexts. (SIS)" I think they missed the point. First, the individual parts don't seem to have a function UNTIL they come together (anything other than that is just guesswork). Second, how and why did the individual parts come together (in perfect order) in the first place, when they evolved in different contexts? The parts would have been either junk at some point or involved in some other process. This rases the question: Why didn't the junk parts get removed by natural selection and why did't the functioning parts in other processes continue functioning that way? Third, this flagellum is essencial for the survival of the cell, so this mechanism is not something which is easily replaced or susceptible to change.
You are very right
How difficult might it be in a shop to evolve, by gradual steps, a gasoline engine in a car, to a gas turbine engine? The catch is that the car must be running the whole time modifications are being made, and it must continuously be providing, or be capable of providing, torque to the drive train. This will be a tall order, even with intelligent, purpose driven mechanics engaged in the process. All the intermediate steps must also provide some direct advantage that keeps the process moving forward.
Great work; one more nail in Darwinism’s coffin. Now let’s get on with understanding intelligent design.
I remember printing out a description of "A Cell" comparing it to a manufacturing company. I think it was an exerpt from Behes book "Darwins Bkack Box" but I'm not positive. Does anyone know where I can find that description? I've found "like" descriptions but they're not the cool one I'm trying to find. Help!!
Thank you in advance.....
The change from agglomerate cells to in organism with definite stable shape assumes the evolution of apoptosis, program cell death not only to sculpt at the beginning but to kill every other cell after mitosis in order to keep a stable shape. I wonder if the mechanisms of multicellular monoorganismism had to develop with apoptosis
My only problem with the videos is that they're too short 😂. Feels like when they're just getting good it ends lol. Nevertheless thanks for the content
"Yeah but if you remove a part of the mouse trap it can be a useful function as a paper weight!"
^That statement was used as a pathetic attempt to rebut Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument of the mouse trap. Anything goes with these haters as long as it's not God who did it.
Preach it...no matter what evidence you present to the skeptics...it's not evidence
What people who try to refute irreducible complexity don't realise is that for an accidentally produced paperweight to become fixed in a population it would need to be useful to survival. Then you would need all the other parts to accidentally become created, find a use for survival and become fixed in the population and at some time in the future think to themselves 'Ooh look, if we could assemble ourselves in this way we could have a new use.' All this time of course the body, of which it is part, has to be able to survive without it until all these thing happen, by pure chance.
There are parts of the cell which are irreducibly complex without which life is impossible. Life would not begin in the first place.
If you remove a persons soul they also could be uses as paper weight.
@James Horn I don't think being a "hater" has anything to do with the matter.
Regarding God, our definition of who, or what God is is the real issue! If I say the rain comes from the clouds, and you say the rain comes from God, and we are both pointing to the same source, the only difference is what we call that source.
Theistic evolution doesn't deny the "cause" of the universe, or the "cause" of the first life... it just doesn't advance the idea that it's a "white haired, bearded man in the sky." Anthropomorphism is used throughout the Bible...
anthropomorphism: The attributing of human characteristics and purposes to inanimate objects, animals, plants, or other natural phenomena, or to God. To describe a rushing river as “angry” is to anthropomorphize it.
Similarly, biblical symbolism may distort reality when taken literally. Take for example the attributes placed on Messiah (Christ)...
"His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength" [Revelation 1:14-16 KJV].
The attributes and their symbolism: white hair = wisdom... eyes of fire = ability to see through everything, as fire burns through everything... feet like fine brass = a solid stance on principles... voice like many waters = speaks with the knowledge of many people (in Bible symbology water represents many people)... a sharp twoedged sword coming out of his mouth = his words cut through fallacious falsehoods... countenance as the sun = phenomenal power.
No "white haired, bearded man in the sky"... we have but natural phenomena behind the universe and life!
Messiah (Christ) is returning from among mankind!
"And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth" [Revelation 5:5-6 KJV].
In Revelation chapters 4, 5, 11 and 19 the "four and twenty elders" and the "four beasts" before the throne are geopolitical agencies and organizations on earth.
James Horn yeah that’s what I keep saying, “any (ridiculous)excuse will do... as long as it’s not God.”
It’s pathetic. Not to mention, insane.
Link to part 1 please.
Here you go - Part 1:
th-cam.com/video/4YngarAhh0M/w-d-xo.html
Melinda Lemmon th-cam.com/video/4YngarAhh0M/w-d-xo.html
This is a really cool film design.
Attenborough should listen to this..
Episode 1 has Dutch subtitles, why not this part or part 3, 4 and 5?
He really breaks it down completely! How in the world anyone can believe in Darwinian Evolution or any kind of macro Evolution is willful ignorance!
This video is perfect for grade school through college. The constant drumbeat of evolution in textbooks, movies, cartoons, comic books, tv, novels, magazines (even _Good Housekeeping_ ) and newspapers brainwashes everyone. So, when people hear about intelligent design, they get confused, annoyed, defensive, angry, belligerent, and disturbed.
How dare anyone tell believers of evolution something that contradicts what they've been incessantly taught to believe? If you're a young-earth creationist like I am, they think you're not just ignorant. You're stupid, or crazy, or both. "Flat-earth idiot! Flying spaghetti monsters, pink elephants, etc. Learn some biology, dummy!"
Then I let them know I'm a college graduate in microbiology and have done post-graduate studies in clinical lab science and a couple years of Koine Greek at a well-known seminary, knowing they will dismiss this, suggesting that I'm a victim of mental decay, brain damage, or that I was honed by Bible fundamentalists all my life.
Keep it coming Dr. Behe. I've had it pointed out that you're an evolutionist. So? Maybe they should read your _The Edge of Evolution_ and think about the limits to evolution. The evolution of microbes to microbiologists isn't a possibility.
As a YEC myself I enjoy the approach and presentation of intelligent design. I'm definitely not in agreement with all of their presuppostions but there is so much less to filter through that I can enjoy the Science being presented.
I love your videos. Thank you.
the Darwinians get bothered when you disagree evolution more than believers when you say to them there is no God. Did they worship Darwin as we believers worship God?
If the core of the palindromic sequence of the nitrogenous bases of the new Coronavirus is AAGCUU, a restriction enzyme capable of recognizing and cleaving the palindromic region has probably been already isolated and it should have (some) homology to the enzyme Hid III. But I don't know if it is possible to encapsulate each restriction enzyme in liposomes withe the fusion peptide so that the protective enzymes can reach the cytoplasm. If it's feasible, other RNA viruses could be fought with restriction enzymes that recognize and cleave their palindromic regions.
I like the idea, but to be effective wouldn't the restriction enzyme have to be put in the body to fight the infection? If so how would you get it into the body, and would it pose a danger to any similar benign or useful sequences?
Where's part 3 ? Why not just make a longer video ??
This is fabulous work. I need to share this with friends and family. It should be shown in our Catholic schools.
Episode 1: th-cam.com/video/4YngarAhh0M/w-d-xo.html
The link should have been included in the video description.
How about episode 2 link to episode 3, rather than episode 4? How about links to all the episodes be put in the descriptions?
The link in the description is to the playlist that contains ALL episodes released thus far:
th-cam.com/play/PLR8eQzfCOiS2h6bO0dPkJn504dozh4Xmo.html
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.
The human eye, for example, drastically appears as a biological version of a video camera. It 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 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 should put every evolutionary proponent at unease and confusion.
Evolution could never work!
👍
The question is "what is the answer" the universe is a virtual construct and the source code is the cherry ,my split personality Roy ALWAYS told me "I drink therefore I am" well it's goodbye from me and it's goodbye from Roy.😎
Evolution dissmissed 👍
So next step is information and teaching about dating of fossils .
Evolution is not Dismissed. The very word is a slippery when not defined from the start..
What is at question is the Mechanism that allows living organic cells is..Darwinism is not even close. Why it's still a mystery..One that may never be solved.
Bruh evolution was never been dismissed
A computer application has two parts, the program and the database.
Every cell differs a little bit from it's neighbors, if there are 37 trillions of cells in the human body, where is the information of the peculiarities of each cell considering that the DNA contains only 750 MB of information?
I think the DNA is like the database and the "assembly human body cell by cell program" is in another side.
Ah, the video is shorter than I thought. I'd like to talk to the author of the video to exchange some information.
Read “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe
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
How can something be measured at 100,000 rpm?
Fast cameras. They have cameras so fast these days they can measure light moving through certain mediums.
Hang on, I'll try and edit in a link.
th-cam.com/video/7Ys_yKGNFRQ/w-d-xo.html
Jen * how can something be measured at 5000rpm??
I dont know, but that is not I.Ds figures. Bio chemists, and related fields who go with the the evo paradigm say it. Even if it were an estimation one would think it be conservative. The flagellum has been studied for more than 25 years.
should be titled "Darwin destroyed in 5 minutes"
thnks turkish
"Not even close," "oh, okay..." "You can stand over there." That is hilarious.
The complexity of god? Your argument instantly falls apart with this single question.
God is more intelligent than I thought!
Interesting series. However, I don’t know what Behes position is on macro evolution. He accepts common descent but rejects Darwinian macro evolution.
Creationists accept common descent, but not Darwinian or neo-Darwinian common descent, which are very different
I like the video, but I think it's a little off base. Evolution is not what it is portrayed to be. It can happen rapidly, or not at all for a long time. It can occur in spurts, it can change add or delete features. It's not strictly a gradual linear progression. Moreover the general idea presented here is off. Evolution would not be just removing a piece of the mousetrap. Rather it would be more akin to changing a piece of it. Take the board for instance, round off the corners, change the color of another part and the length of yet another. That would be evolution. I recommend reading a book called The Brain: The big bang behavior and beliefs. It's an absolutely brilliant book that covers some evolution on the human brain. I'll end with this: it's ok to believe in both God and evolution. These 2 things do not have to be at odds.
Wrong. Yes, it is not what it is portrayed to be because it is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon a gullible society. All alleged "proofs" of "evolution in action" today do not show that functional new information is added to genes; rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of genetic information. Let ius examine the fossil record. After , 150 years after Darwin and alleged millions of years of gradual evolution-by-creeps [too slow to see], evolution-by-peaks [too fast to see] and evolution-by-freaks (genetic mutations still harmful-produces nothing new by way of transmutations: snails remain snails, clams clams, trilobites trilobites, jellyfish jellyfish, birds birds, fish fish, apes apes, man man) , we have only a few highly disputed intermediate or so-called transitional fossils that could cover a billiard table and are highly disputed even among evolutionists themselves.
What scientists find in the fossil record are completely formed and intact fossils of all life-forms without a hint of evolutionary ancestors or "transitional" fossils in the geological strata beneath them (evidence for biblical creation). And what do we have in the so-called hierarchy of human evolutionary ancestors that you see neatly and orderly arranged in some museum? You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.
$30
The problem I have with those in the intelligent design movement is that they think they are being more scientific in avoiding evidence for supernatural, fiat (divinely spoken) creation , as attested in Genesis 1 by the linguistic evidence (Hebrew scriptures), by theological or biblical evidence (the literal truth of the Creation/Fall/Redemption paradigm of Genesis 1, including the historicity of Adam and Eve, as the foundation of all God's unfolding revelation from Genesis to Revelation) and by true science (not bad science or "from the goo, through the zoo, to you"evolution). They are not. One would have to be physically blind (not just spiritually blind), as well as intellectually dishonest to argue that our extremely beautiful and complex universe is not ordered or intelligible, as noted by astrophysicist Paul Davis, Surely, the fiery innards of a star seem quite chaotic to the eye, but an examination of the equations governing the nuclear reactions, and the order obeyed by the sequential physical processes, suggests a rather different picture. Considering the "Laws" and orderly forces within the Universe I would suggest Orderly over Chaotic, Even Quantum mechanics works within it's own laws. Nothing is truly Chaotic especially anything adhering to cause and effect. Too many strict laws and systems are in place for it to be deemed truly "Chaotic" One can talk about the irreducible complexity of a simple device like a moose trap but it it is a giant, if not infinitesimal, leap from the moose trap to the irreducible complexity of the human eye or the brain. Which brings us to the fundamental problem with Darwinian Evolution; namely, not whether changes occur through time , and neither is it about the size of the change. "Change change in gene frequency with time" or descent with modification" is not proof of functional new information being added to genes, which change is necessary for "goo-to-you, molecules to man" evolution. Creationists have always believed and taught that genetic variation within "kinds" (a created kind is much broader than modern species) and rapid speciation (new species) are compatible with special or biblical creation. Indeed, the type of change required for "molecules to man" evolution isn’t even about whether natural selection happens (it does). The key issue is the TYPE of change required--to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ’specified complexity’) than the half a million DNA ’letters’ of the simplest self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ’higher’ organism , such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ’primitive first cell’ from which all organisms are said to have evolved.
All the alleged proofs of “goo to you” evolution’ today do not show functional new information is added to genes. Rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that such information-increasing change will occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he will sell them for a profit. Neither matter nor energy nor physical laws can create prodigious amounts of information in the first living cell, which renowned Paul Davies (certainly no friend to creationists or Christians) equated to an incredibly powerful supercomputer--the world’s first digital information processor (the original living cell, or molecular hardware), capable of writing its own software (and more astonishingly evolutionists would try to convince us did so from the blind chaos of blundering molecules).
Sorry, but I find I simply don’t have enough faith to believe in “a fairy tale for grown-ups,” as Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research at The French National Center for Scientific Research once described it. It is far more logical and reasonable to believe a superintelligent Creator-God created this universe and all life in it (read Genesis 1:1; Psalm 19:1 Romans 1:20;etc.). God bless.
Intelligent design people have a seemingly healthy balance to their approach and presentation. As a YEC myself I have come to appreciate and even be excited by Science again. They've made it so there is less godless presuppostions to filter out and more Science to enjoy.
There is evolution, but it doesn't build complex structures, and it surely doesn't build new body plans that require all the complexity needed to support it. That's what the evolutionists want you to believe--that evolution is responsible for everything. It can't be.
And to think all of this is just random cosmic soup.
Surprised he used the word evolve. All the atheists will love this video😟
You can use the word evolve where it simply means change over time. All creationists accept this. The literal meaning of evolve is 'rolling out over time.' as in selectively breeding dogs or bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. These changes are due to a selection of existing genetic information and are nothing to do with the creation of new useful genetic information which would be necessary for The imaginary Darwinian evolution from microbe to man.
'Evolution' is a very slippery word. In Michael Behe's third book, Darwin Devolves, he gives a view of (so called) evolution which has similarities with the views of Young Earth Creationists, i.e. new species arise by loss of genetic information with natural selection.
If I'm not mistaken the DSI folks are believe and teach intelligent design, not creation.
I find it's a tolerable and often helpful balance to have, and I'm a YEC.
I once encountered someone in the city. He wanted me to answer a question. He showed me a big board with three holes in it. One hole was triangular. One hole was quare. On hole was circular. All the holes were about the same size.
The question is, he said, can you image an object that fits exactly through a hole, so that when it is passed through the object touches all sides of the hole at once? Well of course a triangular object would fit the triangular hole, a square object would fit the square hole, and a circular object would fit the circular hole.
Very good. Now can you image just one object with that fits exactly through all three holes at the same time?
Well, if you cannot, here is the answer (and indeed such an object exists, which he showed to me). So, ..., if you cannot imagine something, that does not mean it does not exist.
The good man reasoned that God can exist, even if you cannot imagine it.
Now I ask you: just because you cannot imagine how evolution led to the flagellum, does it mean that it did not?
Now I say to you: we indeed do not know how the flagellum came to be, but there are several theories. For example, there is good evidence that the bacterial flagellum has evolved from a Type III secretory and transport system, given the similarity of proteins in both systems.
A system with irreducable complexity can from a larger system that could be reduced. The notion that it MUST come from a smaller system is just lack of imagination.
Vhi
Completo
Darwinists will tell you they are as complex as a snowflake .That when you refuse to think.
Anyone who believes in Neo-Darwinian evolution needs to take a serious course in molecular and cell biology. One of the most amazing things in cells are signal peptides. Basically the cell produces various proteins which in order to pass through a membrane have as part of them a molecular key which opens up a channel in the membrane for the protein to pass through after which the key breaks off and is reabsorbed. (Watch this short animation: th-cam.com/video/epywovT_S9I/w-d-xo.html&pbjreload=10 ), Another fascinating feature of cells is kinesins which transport molecules throughout the cell while literally walking on two molecular feet along self-assembling microtubule pathways ( Look at this amazing little animation: th-cam.com/video/gbycQf1TbM0/w-d-xo.html&pbjreload=10 )
Anyone looking objectively at such processes, at the production of proteins via DNA and post-processing into a range of other proteins, and at the cascade of processes that underpin embryo-genesis (with timed switching of genes on and off in order to permit cell differentiation and even timed cell death so that fingers and toes can separate) could not rationally NOT believe in design ( or teleology for that matter.) In fact what you find materialist biologists having to do is explain away design because it is so obvious. But explaining away what you don't want to believe because of non-scientific pre-commitments is the antithesis of scientific objectivity. And it means abandoning Ockham's Razor ( the argument to the simplest explanation i.e. that apparent design is actual design) as well as the idea that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof (ie. the onus of proof is on anyone who claims that an exquisitely complex system is due to random causes rather than design.)
Note that ID does not presuppose a religious 'God' of any description, only a designer significantly more powerful and intelligent than human beings, a being (or beings) who has possibly been around for billions of years longer than life on earth. Presumably, no scientist would deny the possibility that in the universe there may be intelligent beings immeasurably superior to human beings. I'd be surprised if even Richard Dawkins could in good faith deny that possibility! You even commonly see such beings in science fiction (e.g. Q, the Douwd, the Nacene, the Edo’s ‘god’, the Squire of Gothos in various series of Star Trek) so it is not inconceivable. If scientists are prepared to believe in bubble universes, then presumably they could not rule out intelligent beings who have been around for even trillions of years before the beginning of our own universe and who had discovered how to navigate between bubble universes and exercise God-like powers including conceivably the creation of new universes. In fact, given a practical infinity of such universes, the existence of such beings would become a mathematical certainty. Of course, at that point, any distinction between such beings and a God would be quibbling.)
Pp
If you reduce a part, the bacteria simply serve other functions not that it wouldn't exist anymore. I think it's a nonsensical argument.
i dnt know how atheist could live without appreciating the complexity and simply dismissing it as a product of a chance , its so smuch of wonder they are missing . what a depressing life ,,, i mean studying science becomes less of an important stuff when u render some scientific inquiry as a BY PRODUCT , lolz .
I as an atheist am not missing anything. I absolutely appreciate the complexity of life, especially knowing the process by which it arose.
So God is an ever shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance? This is called the God of the gaps argument and it depends upon the ignorance of the listener to work.
Was it the pathetically poor analogy and critique of the mousetrap that was presented as an argument
by Ken Miller to support his ideology that convinced you against the incredible good hypothesis of irreducible complexity that makes complete logical and scientific sense which be tested and is being used today by
some evolutionary researchers?
in 5 min video.. he never use the word God..? you are mind is closed..
A fallacy underpins the whole discussion on irreducible complexity - mousetrap is not a living system.
@ichew gum Just because it comes from something doesn't mean that it's the same. Americans come from the British yet they aren't British.
Living systems replicate, sometimes imperfectly, which is what gives rise variability. On the other hand, non-living things except crystals don't and they can't evolve because of that. Evolution is what brings about gradual change and complexity.
What you're doing is taking a designed object and equating it to a non-designed system.
@@brane4859 With respect, I think you missed his argument.
Why does that make a difference? What fallacy are you meaning?
Just an analogy for trying to reach out a larger audience. There were counter arguments to irreducible complexity of the flagellum, but are so hard-pressed and unlikely that it seems that ex-machina plots in movies are more plausible
And why does that matter? Your comment is like a mousetrap with missing parts - It does not perform its function.