Comments by "AM" (@AM-rd9pu) on "SmarterEveryDay" channel.

  1.  @tomfoolery1967 There is research showing how flagella evolved. You’re just rejecting or ignoring it.
    13
  2. Evolution isn’t random. It’s guided by the same natural laws that govern the universe.
    6
  3. We have research showing how this evolved.
    4
  4. How exactly? Science knows the structure evolved.
    4
  5. We have research showing how it evolved.
    4
  6.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 They’re not undirected processes. They’re driven by the same natural laws that govern the universe.
    4
  7. We have research showing how the flagellum evolved.
    4
  8. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab.
    3
  9. You’re falling victim to the notion of irreducible complexity. Just because removing a component of the structure as it currently exists would make it inoperable doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been simpler earlier.
    3
  10. Evolution objectively happens.
    3
  11. We have evidence showing how this evolved. What evidence do you have to show otherwise?
    3
  12.  @JohnSmith-yc6uv They’re saying 100% because we know it happened and we know it happened by evolution. Also, it’s a misrepresentation to reduce evolution to just an accident or random chance.
    3
  13. Irreducible complexity is a bogus term that attempts to dismiss evolution by preying on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version of the structure could not have been of any use to the organism.
    3
  14. Behe is a Discovery Institute backed liar that peddles evolution denial. The notion of irreducible complexity is bogus. It preys on people’s ignorance, appeals to incredulity, and relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version could not be of use to the organism. Actual experimentation has disproven irreducible complexity.
    3
  15. Neither evolution nor big bang cosmology says that something came from nothing. Also, we have evidence for how the flagellum evolved.
    3
  16.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020  We’ve already been over this. Clearly you have no idea what goes into peer reviewed papers. They would never be accepted if the author just wrote anything. Other people verify and validate the procedure and conclusions. And I will again point you to, “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    3
  17. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that relies on the flawed assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t or never existed and that an “incomplete” version of the structure couldn’t possibly be useful to the organism.
    3
  18. Because we have research showing how the structure evolved.
    3
  19.  @epanterias57  Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity is bogus and it preys on ignorance and personal incredulity. The notion is reliant on the errant assumptions that a structure could not have been simpler than it is now and that an “incomplete” version of the structure cannot be of use to the organization. The flagellar motor is not irreducibly complex and this has been demonstrated in the lab.
    3
  20. Are you forgetting that the space race began in the 50s? Showing technological superiority to the Soviets was a national priority at the time.
    2
  21. Evolution isn’t entirely random.
    2
  22. Yes it can. It’s not hard to find research papers on how flagella evolved.
    2
  23.  @DK-lz7kg  The evolution of flagella has been directly observed in a lab. The paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” covers this research. Science knows that this structure can evolve.
    2
  24. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean that flagella couldn’t have evolved. There’s research showing how flagella evolved.
    2
  25. Irreducible complexity is a bogus term that attempts to dismiss evolution by preying on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version of the structure could not have been of any use to the organism. Gravity is a real, detectable, measurable, and predictable phenomenon. And naturalistic explanations purely rely on what has been objectively observed and tested.
    2
  26. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @jamesclerkmaxwell8020  Yes we can test and observe evolution. Evolution offers a useful model that both explains and predicts phenomena. Why do you keep lying that transitional fossils don’t exist? There are plenty. And why are you misrepresenting the evidence for a universal common ancestor? No one is saying that bacterial adaptation witnessed in a lab is the singular thing that led to that hypothesis. You’re trying to frame the universal common ancestor hypothesis as a non sequitur by being disingenuous about the evidence that went into it. Surely you know that your argument is tenuous at best when you frequently have to resort to lies and misrepresentations.
    2
  27. We have research showing how the flagellar motor evolved.
    2
  28.  @John_Hoover  Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on the flawed assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version couldn’t have been of any use to the organism. Papers like “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” disprove the notion of irreducible complexity. Also, it is a misrepresentation to say that evolution is a random or unguided process.
    2
  29. What makes you say that? We have evidence for how the flagellar motor evolved.
    2
  30.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 We have researching showing how it evolved.
    2
  31. There’s no mental gymnastics involved in accepting the fact that there’s research showing that evolution exists and that the flagellum and flagellar motor can evolve.
    2
  32. ⁠ @aguy446  You started off with an errant assumption that an “incomplete” flagellum would be a useless stump. It’s also a misrepresentation to say evolution is just random chance. Just because you can’t understand how this structure evolved doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have evolved. Check out “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” and “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” for more information on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum.
    2
  33. It was pretty clear from this video that biology isn’t a strong suit for Destin. I wouldn’t be surprised if he genuinely fell for DI lies involving irreducible complexity.
    2
  34. He’s a proven liar.
    2
  35. Meyer is a Discovery Institute backed liar that pushes evolution denial.
    2
  36. Evolution isn’t strictly random.
    2
  37. Behe is just another evolution denying fraud propped up by the Discovery Institute.
    2
  38. Behe is a fraud and irreducible complexity is a bogus term he coined to try to discredit evolution. Science knows how flagella evolved.
    2
  39. Evolution isn’t a strictly random process. It’s driven by the same forces that govern the universe.
    2
  40. The notion of irreducible complexity is bogus. It preys on people’s ignorance, appeals to incredulity, and relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version could not be of use to the organism.
    2
  41. Whether or not it was his intention, he still presented evolution denial as if it has valid arguments in his closing monologue.
    2
  42. Irreducible complexity is not a valid scientific concept. It preys on personal incredulity and ignorance and relies on the errant assumptions that a structure could not have been simpler than it currently is and that an “incomplete” version of a structure cannot be of any use to an organism.
    2
  43.  @PeterONeil-wu9hw  No, it doesn’t prove your point. The research paper I provided shows that the bacterial flagellum can evolve and therefore disproves the notion that the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved and must have been designed or created.
    2
  44. @ELONCASK Do you really think that the scientists that developed the big bang theory forgot to account for the laws of thermodynamics?
    2
  45.  @HenryDalcke  The paper “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” presents research for figuring out how the bacterial flagellum first evolved. And the paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” details research where a population of bacteria re-evolved flagella.
    2
  46. We know it evolved. Evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in a lab. The research is covered in “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    2
  47. We have research showing how it evolved.
    2
  48. ⁠​⁠ @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 You’ve clearly at least looked at the headlines. Why not look into the rest of the research that supports that hypothesis? And remember, it’s still just a hypothesis because it hasn’t been confirmed yet. I imagine that someone would receive a Nobel Prize if they could prove that. I’m not sure why you’re suggesting that it would be easy to do.
    2
  49.  @DoNotFreeze79 We have research that shows how flagella evolved.
    2
  50.  @chielvooijs2689 Religion isn’t even pseudoscientific. It’s entirely ascientific because of the lack of falsifiability.
    2