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

  1. No it doesn’t. We have research showing how flagella evolved.
    2
  2. The evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab.
    2
  3.  @Mohamed-ee6pg  Check out the paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. Do you have an evidence based refutation of it?
    2
  4. Creationist science is pseudoscience.
    2
  5. Evolution of flagellar motility has been witnessed in the lab. This research is covered in the paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. Science knows the flagellum can evolve.
    2
  6. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab
    2
  7. Just because you don’t understand how this structure could have evolved doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have evolved.
    2
  8. Meyer and the DI are a bunch of frauds that spread lies about science.
    2
  9. Nothing is 100% efficient
    2
  10.  @justanormal16yearoldkid51  Yes. Energy is lost to the surroundings to produce locomotion, usually as heat. If an organism could move with 100% efficiency, it wouldn’t need to consume more nutrients because it would be recovering all the energy expended to move.
    2
  11. Treating and curing cancer is a much more complicated task.
    2
  12.  @knndyskful  I wouldn’t doubt that the some of the equipment and techniques showcased in this video are applicable to cancer treatment, but disease treatment is its own complex field. There are so many more factors at play when it comes to treating diseases, especially cancer.
    2
  13. Robert Macnab is generally considered to be the one who discovered the flagellar motor. Also, irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that is based on errant assumptions.
    2
  14. No. It evolved well after life first began.
    2
  15.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020  We know evolution exists. We have research showing how flagella evolved. Your mistake is assuming that all parts of a modern flagellation motor had to be formed and come together at once. The original flagellar motor would have been much simpler than the modern ones. The original individual components likely had other functions for the cell. Natural laws don’t prevent order or complexity from emerging. Biological process aren’t required for complex structures to emerge either.
    2
  16.  @Thezuule1  My point isn’t necessarily to get the evolution deniers here to change their minds. It’s to hopefully help people who may be on the fence. This comment section is littered with science denial right now and it’s best to not leave it unchecked.
    2
  17. 1. You’re trying to reference the second law of thermodynamics and it states that entropy increases in an isolated system. 2. Yes 3. There is research into self replication of prebiotic molecules. I am not familiar enough with it to make definitive statements on what has or has not been observed, but I believe that there has been some level of self replication observed. 4. Maybe. We don’t know yet.
    2
  18. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on the errant assumptions that there couldn’t have been a simpler version of the structure and that an “incomplete” version cannot be of any use to the organism.
    2
  19. Evolution isn’t a random process. It’s driven by the same natural laws that govern the universe.
    2
  20. Science is the study of the natural world.
    2
  21.  @trenton9  Irreducible complexity not only isn’t a valid argument but it has also been scientifically disproven. Irreducible complexity is a a fallacious concept that preys on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on the errant assumptions that the structure never could have been simpler than it currently is and that an “incomplete” version cannot be of any use to the organism. The first ever bacterial flagellum would have been simpler than the ones we see now. Also, the evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab. The paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” covers an experiment where a population of bacteria had a gene removed that led to them no longer having flagella. Selective pressure for motility was introduced and the population re-evolved flagellar motility through a different method than before. Other than citing a deeply flawed concept, do you have any scientific evidence against evolution?
    2
  22. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab and the research documenting it is covered in the paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. The argument you’re presenting is nothing more than personal incredulity. You’re looking at something you don’t understand and conclude it must have been designed because you can’t fathom how it could have evolved. This is a structure that has had billions of years to evolve into what it is now. It’s also a misrepresentation of evolution to call it entirely random.
    2
  23. Evolution isn’t just chance. Also, flagellar motility has been observed evolving in a lab.
    2
  24. We have research showing how flagella evolved.
    2
  25. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on the errant assumptions that there couldn’t have been a simpler version of the structure and that an “incomplete” version cannot be of any use to the organism.
    2
  26. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on personal incredulity and ignorance. It relies on the errant assumptions that the structure never could have been simpler than it is now and that an “incomplete” version of the structure could not have been of any use to the organism.
    1
  27.  @hozn  You didn’t acknowledge anything about what I said about irreducible complexity. Again, it’s a bogus concept and everyone actually knowledgeable about evolution knows this. Evolution is observable. Personal incredulity isn’t a valid argument against it.
    1
  28. Behe is a Discovery Institute backed liar and fraud.
    1
  29. No, that’s not logical. Nothing about the existence of complex structures implies a deliberate creator.
    1
  30.  @piumalkulasekara8948 Sort the comments by new and you’ll find a disappointing number of evolution deniers.
    1
  31. The coriolis effect doesn’t affect toilets. It affects things like weather systems or long range projectiles.
    1
  32.  @rollinupeverest5042  Do you study DNA? Are you a molecular biologist or a geneticist?
    1
  33.  @metalroofing6708 Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure could not have existed and that an “incomplete” version could not be of any use to the organism.
    1
  34. ⁠ @metalroofing6708  A simpler version of the structure doesn’t require it to have all the same parts. You’re again falling for the idea that past versions had to be basically the same as the current one. The very first bacterial flagellum and flagellar motor would not have a one to one component relationship to their modern counterparts. Multiple evolutionary changes can happen concurrently. A structure that wasn’t originally used for motility may change and then happen to become useful for better motility. Changes always occur. The ones that don’t prevent the organism from reproducing persist. The ones that give an advantage are the most likely to persist. Your car example is also flawed because evolution has no target in mind. A more accurate analogy would be to slowly replace parts of the car with other branded parts. At some point, you have more parts of something else than the original. What do you call it? Is it the original car or is it a new one? At some point, when there’s more different stuff than original stuff, you’d likely no longer call it the original thing. Bringing this back to biological terms, you could say you have a new species. In nature, instead of someone selecting parts to change or upgrade, it’s driven by natural processes. Science knows evolution happens. It also knows that the flagellum can evolve. It has literally been witnessed in a lab. Check out “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. The only argument you’re presenting is personal incredulity.
    1
  35. That’s what DNA and RNA are for. If the process goes awry, the cell just dies.
    1
  36. No one worships science. And evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab.
    1
  37. Evolution isn’t a directionless process. It’s directed by the same natural laws that govern the universe.
    1
  38.  @faraz2498  This is explained by the current model of evolution. Evolution deniers just reject it and make conclusions based on personal incredulity. Remember that the original versions of the structures we see today were much simpler. We also have research showing that multiple steps can happen concurrently. For example, look at “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    1
  39.  @faraz2498  Are the people saying that a bacterial flagellar motor could have evolved not evolution deniers? If there is a more accurate term, please inform me. We have research showing how the flagellar motor likely originally evolved and we have research that witnessed flagella re-evolve. To say that the structure could not have evolved is to deny science.
    1
  40.  @faraz2498  You misunderstood what I said. When I said, “how the flagellar motor likely originally evolved”, I wasn’t saying that the structure likely, but may not have evolved. Science knows that the flagellar motor evolved. I was saying that research has shown what is most likely the specific way that the flagellar motor originally evolved. The paper, “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” covers this. We have seen the evolution of flagellar motility in the lab. A population of bacteria had genes removed so that they no longer had flagella. Selective pressure for motility was introduced and the population eventually evolved flagellar motility through an entirely different method/ system than before. This research is documented in, “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. We know evolution happens. We know the flagellar motor can evolve. To deny either would be to deny science.
    1
  41. We have evidence showing how these structure evolved.
    1
  42.  @shoeboxpoet  Check out the following papers. “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”
    1
  43. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that gets peddled by the likes of the Discovery Institute to try to dismiss evolution. It relies on the errant premises that the structure couldn’t have been simpler in the past and that an “incomplete” version couldn’t have been useful to the organism.
    1
  44. …pushes a creationist agenda. Irreducible complexity is a highly flawed notion designed to prey on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity.
    1
  45. The flagellar motor isn’t evidence of creation. We have research showing how it evolved.
    1
  46. ⁠​⁠ @jp8378  ”Kinds” is an intentionally vague term with no actual scientific meaning that evolution deniers like Kent Hovind push. And speciation is a real phenomenon. The fossil record and genetic evidence (among other pieces of evidence) show how species evolved over time.
    1
  47. @MyLilMule “Irreducible complexity” is a bogus term coined by Michael Behe and peddled by the Discovery Institute. It relies on the flawed premise that the structure could never have been simpler in the past and that an “incomplete” variant of it couldn’t have been useful. Nothing about a flagellar motor disproves evolution.
    1
  48. A snowflake is a design but it forms entirely naturally simply due to temperature and the properties of water molecules.
    1
  49. Some flagella whip and some spin. Both work to provide the cell motility.
    1
  50. There is research showing how it evolved.
    1