It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bacterial Flagellum Falsifies Evolutionary Theory

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
These are Creation Scientists- Who are Scientist that believe in a Master Creator and back it up with data and information.

I believe we were created- But you may believe otherwise


I searched ATS and someone once referenced to the Flagella of which they speak Here.


Its a very Interesting Article. I am not trying to get you to buy the book btw






The central thesis of the book is that many biological systems are “irreducibly complex” at the molecular level and therefore could not have evolved by the standard mechanism of Darwinian evolution, e.g. natural selection and beneficial mutation.





Rotor speeds for E. coli are estimated at 17,000 rpm but motors of some marine vibrios have been clocked upward of 100,000 rpm.


SOURCE DUDE

dudeman




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hillbillydudeman
 




Ken Miller debunking the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum . He was involved in that landmark case regarding intelligent design/creationism in the science class room.

Incidentally , Ken Miller himself is a theist, and a fine scientist by all accounts.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
This is a common tactic for intelligent design and creationist nonsense and even the originator of the term "irreducible complexity" admitted that his view has no supporting evidence:



While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."

en.wikipedia.org...


It's also been shown that parts of the flagellum have functions of their own:



Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

en.wikipedia.org...



IDers and creationists really need to stop repeating the same tired "arguments."


and lol @ "Creation Scientist"



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Behe's argument for IC is massively flawed and takes a very simplistic view of evolution. Here is a link from TalkOrigins that discusses the flaws behind IC. I have it set to link to the section on bacterial flagellum, but the whole article is worth reading.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Creationist's are not interested in science at all.
They simply are religious people with a HUGE chip on their shoulder and a weird need to convince everyone to believe in God.
All the goofball "evolution is a lie" posts are a good example! WHY do you feel compelled to post this junk? Why do you feel the need to convince us?
Why are you so angered by evolution?
Couldn't you find some better way of expressing your Christianity than insisting science adopt some Bronze age theory?
What you really want to debate is not science, but the existence of God.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
This is a common tactic for intelligent design and creationist nonsense and even the originator of the term "irreducible complexity" admitted that his view has no supporting evidence:


Well Of course. Everything is only a theory.

Even the proof scientists think they have many times becomes non-proof in light of new information so proof is not proof, it's only suggestions that support the claims.

You do not have the right to claim "nonsense' just because you disagree with a thing.. remember, there is no "proof" for or against creationism or evolution either way.

I can point you to lots of things science says is proof or things that are taught to be scientific proof that is not proof at all.. thus The Church of The Cult of Science. This is a trend I have noticed and coined a phrase for. Much of true science is just BS.. Science is only after all a philosophy. Just because they claim to operate on flawed rules called a scientific method does not make it infallible.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Much of true science is just BS.. -
----------------------------------------------------

No kidding? Is that a fact?!
Is that why you can use a computer...on the internet?
Drive a car?
Build airplanes? Fly into outer space?
Transplant organs?
Cure disease?
Sail the oceans?
Predict the weather?
Build huge structures?
Record sound and light?
Huh! Who knew it was all BS!


[edit on 10-8-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 





Very nicely said !


reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I agree with you on a lot of science isn't really science, but philosophy.

The theory of evolution however contains a lot of facts and evidence. What will probably be a cause of creationists attacking it all the time.

I guess OldDragger hits the nail on the head with his comment.

Even more so because evolution and creation do not conflict each other and can both be true...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Much of true science is just BS.. -
----------------------------------------------------

No kidding? Is that a fact?!
Is that why you can use a computer...on the internet?
Drive a car?
Build airplanes? Fly into outer space?
Transplant organs?
Cure disease?
Sail the oceans?
Predict the weather?
Build huge structures?
Record sound and light?
Huh! Who knew it was all BS!


[edit on 10-8-2010 by OldDragger]


So, you enjoy twisting what people say to suit your own agenda? In your own quote you prove this is right. I said "much of true science" not 'all of true science' as you try to claim I said. Secondly you take what I said out of the context and subject matter it was written in.

Epic Fail.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I believe irreducible complexity is not a valid argument against the theory of evolution because the "first flagellum", or "eye" for that matter wouldn't need to work the way they do now. This is because there would be no competition from creatures with flagella or eyes. The parts could slowly evolve and even a small benefit like slow movement or light sensing would give those first lifeforms an advantage over all the other. It really doesn't matter is the parts work at 100% because the entire population of life on Earth at the time didn't have the parts so therefore they were working at 0%. Any little advantage is better than that.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

The theory of evolution however contains a lot of facts and evidence. What will probably be a cause of creationists attacking it all the time.


That's just it. None of those so called facts are written in stone. They can all change and often do in light of new information. History is filled with these examples and scientific facts evaporate like water on a steam kettle all the time.

I would not say those things are facts.. only they are the supporting suggestions of the theories as understood at the present time. That is the best you can do. To claim any more would be doing science a dishonor and is tantamount to lies and deception.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



"This brings us to the dark side of design. Flagella participate in the cause of quite a few bacterial diseases, including diarrhea (38), ulcers and urinary tract infections (39). If the Designer is directly responsible for flagella then he is implicated as a cause of human diseases."

lol @ that

Looks like someone is mad that there's thorns and ticks out there to hurt you- well duh there is! Its a world of sin~!

Thats just bad information - "God made it lame and is directly responsible"

no

We were once great, but we have fallen from perfection, into the Lame-ness, into a world of urinary tract infections and diarrhea.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ModestThought
 


wow, i didnt think that someone would actually say that-

if its not right the first time- like the first eye, you die... in this world.


like the giraffe for instance- The FIRST GIRAFFE to ever exist- Bent over to get a drink of water-

If its brain was not build PERFECTLY to absorb the massive amount of blood that rushes to it, the giraffes brain would explode or something of the likes, and the giraffe would die-

dead giraffes dont mate-

So's all im saying is that The first flagella, the first eye, the first giraffe, if not built right the first time, would perish in this world.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Theory of evolution doesn't say anything on the beginning of life. What is the point of this argument?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
This is a common tactic for intelligent design and creationist nonsense and even the originator of the term "irreducible complexity" admitted that his view has no supporting evidence:



While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."

en.wikipedia.org...


It's also been shown that parts of the flagellum have functions of their own:



Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

en.wikipedia.org...



IDers and creationists really need to stop repeating the same tired "arguments."


and lol @ "Creation Scientist"



Noice Wiki-Skillz

Of course there is no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims of intellegent design, because just like evolution, you can only prove it to a certain point. And if a person doesn't want to listen, they wont. Its all good.




"The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."


You need to take a debate class to learn how to form a more proper rebuttal.

The parts have functions of their own, just like your organs have functions of their own-

but if you were born without a kidney, or a heart, your other organs would not be able to account for them.

btw have you even seen a picture of a flagella?




So complex, so small, but it dont got a brain, or legs, or wings yet?

And its been wat? Millions? Billions of years?

My ancient ancestors saw birds flying in the sky, and we still have yet to get wings-

They saw fish swimmming in the water- still have yet to get gills-

My point is this-

Just like your info on wiki said- about FACILITATED VARIATION here.




In their theory, they describe how certain mutation and changes can cause apparent irreducible complexity. Thus, seemingly irreducibly complex structures are merely "very complex", or they are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.


The Evolutionists believe we are growing to PERFECTION, that we are getting better, that we have merely "very complex" organism like flagella, that are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.

This whole world is Irreducibly Complex! Not just the flagella.


Merely "very complex" what an oxymoron.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
This is a common tactic for intelligent design and creationist nonsense and even the originator of the term "irreducible complexity" admitted that his view has no supporting evidence:


Well Of course. Everything is only a theory.

Even the proof scientists think they have many times becomes non-proof in light of new information so proof is not proof, it's only suggestions that support the claims.

You do not have the right to claim "nonsense' just because you disagree with a thing.. remember, there is no "proof" for or against creationism or evolution either way.

I can point you to lots of things science says is proof or things that are taught to be scientific proof that is not proof at all.. thus The Church of The Cult of Science. This is a trend I have noticed and coined a phrase for. Much of true science is just BS.. Science is only after all a philosophy. Just because they claim to operate on flawed rules called a scientific method does not make it infallible.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]


You obviously have little to no understanding of the scientific method and science itself. Not everything is a theory; creationism isn't a theory and neither is intelligent design. Hell, they can't even be considered hypothesis since they cannot even be attempted to be proven wrong or have supporting empirical evidence.

I certainly do have the right to call creationist attacks on science nonsense, because that is what it is, nonsense; until your hatred for science has some empirical evidence as to why your view is the correct one, you have nothing but collections of scripture and conjecture from liars that claim they are "creation scientists." And there certainly is zero proof for creationism, but there are mounds of evidence for evolution, but you chose to rather disregard and even attempt to understand the things you're arguing against. Case in point that you couldn't even refute the science I presented to you showing how your initial argument was false, but rather had to attack science as a whole and compare it to faith. It just shows how intellectually dishonest you and the rest of the ignorant people that follow your absurd attacks on science are.

And yes, I would appreciate it if you pointed me to the so many things that are taught as scientific proof with no evidence as you claim and how the scientific method is flawed.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by DisappearCompletely]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hillbillydudeman
 




The Evolutionists believe we are growing to PERFECTION, that we are getting better, that we have merely "very complex" organism like flagella, that are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.


That's a complete lie. Anyone who has studied evolution will tell you that it doesn't have an end goal. Therefore, if there is no goal it cannot be moving towards anything.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by hillbillydudeman
 




The Evolutionists believe we are growing to PERFECTION, that we are getting better, that we have merely "very complex" organism like flagella, that are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.


That's a complete lie. Anyone who has studied evolution will tell you that it doesn't have an end goal. Therefore, if there is no goal it cannot be moving towards anything.


Lord help me.



Ok, so there was some cosmic dust (in an evolutionists theory far far away) and it exploded for some reason, and made a star, and it exploded, and somehow, a galaxy, a planet, and a singular cell organism appeared-

we came from single cell organism sam right?

so he got tired of being single celled, so became, i dunno, triple celled, then he was a fish, then he got tired of swimming, then he walked on land (after millionths of yearths or courth) then he evolved into a monkey--

then the monkey evolved into.... us?

why are there still monkeys then? If the human is the more advanced choice to evolve to? Why are there still any other animals except us? If we all evolved here from the same single cell that is-

and that brings up another point that if we did 'EVOLVE' from the same singular cell, we are all related somehow....right?

then why cant i mate with a dolphin, or a lion, or a dog, well i prolly could, but it aint gonna make some half-human-hybrid-dophin-dog

but as you sed




Anyone who has studied evolution will tell you that it doesn't have an end goal.


dude, your a little off the point here.

to SURVIVE is the goal-

to have QUALITY life is the goal-

to beget MORE life is the goal-

To 'evolve' and become better is the goal!

havnt you played spore?

[edit on 10-8-2010 by hillbillydudeman]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hillbillydudeman
 


Skimming over your last post here just proves that you're trolling or are mentally incapable of understanding the concepts being presented to you. And perhaps you should watch the video in the second post of this thread since it was he (Kenneth Miller) who said that each part of the flagellum has its own function, and not me. So feel free to debate one of the most credited biologists in the US, who also discredited your "irreducibly complex" messiah as a liar in the court of law.

Why are there still monkeys? Seriously? Go pick up a grade 5 science text book and learn why, or spend 15 seconds on google.

And evolution does not have a purpose or goal, it's a function of biology, not a sentient process.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by DisappearCompletely]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Evolutionary theory is no linear in nature so saying that evolutionists think we are "getting better" is a fabrication and a misrepresentation of the science.

Linear evolution is not an accepted theory, you're 'refuting' something that evolutionists will refute right along with you.

They agree, we don't evolve in a linear "keep getting stronger smarter faster" kind of way.

The species that survives is not the species that is strongest, fastest, smartest, or even all three. The species that survives is the species that adapts most successfully to ever changing environments and prey/predator introductions.

Sight came about through very primitive light/heat receptors, it was a stacked effect and that's why our eyes are not as good as they could be, because we didn't "intelligently" evolve.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by sremmos]




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join