Comments by "AM" (@AM-rd9pu) on "Nature's Incredible ROTATING MOTOR (It’s Electric!) - Smarter Every Day 300" video.

  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. Evolution isn’t entirely random.
    2
  21. Yes it can. It’s not hard to find research papers on how flagella evolved.
    2
  22.  @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
  23. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean that flagella couldn’t have evolved. There’s research showing how flagella evolved.
    2
  24. 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
  25. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @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
  26. We have research showing how the flagellar motor evolved.
    2
  27.  @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
  28. What makes you say that? We have evidence for how the flagellar motor evolved.
    2
  29.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 We have researching showing how it evolved.
    2
  30. 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
  31. ⁠ @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
  32. 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
  33. He’s a proven liar.
    2
  34. Meyer is a Discovery Institute backed liar that pushes evolution denial.
    2
  35. Evolution isn’t strictly random.
    2
  36. Behe is just another evolution denying fraud propped up by the Discovery Institute.
    2
  37. Behe is a fraud and irreducible complexity is a bogus term he coined to try to discredit evolution. Science knows how flagella evolved.
    2
  38. Evolution isn’t a strictly random process. It’s driven by the same forces that govern the universe.
    2
  39. 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
  40. Whether or not it was his intention, he still presented evolution denial as if it has valid arguments in his closing monologue.
    2
  41. 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
  42.  @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
  43. @ELONCASK Do you really think that the scientists that developed the big bang theory forgot to account for the laws of thermodynamics?
    2
  44.  @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
  45. 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
  46. We have research showing how it evolved.
    2
  47. ⁠​⁠ @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
  48.  @DoNotFreeze79 We have research that shows how flagella evolved.
    2
  49.  @chielvooijs2689 Religion isn’t even pseudoscientific. It’s entirely ascientific because of the lack of falsifiability.
    2
  50. No it doesn’t. We have research showing how flagella evolved.
    2
  51. The evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab.
    2
  52.  @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
  53. Creationist science is pseudoscience.
    2
  54. 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
  55. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab
    2
  56. Just because you don’t understand how this structure could have evolved doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have evolved.
    2
  57. Meyer and the DI are a bunch of frauds that spread lies about science.
    2
  58. Nothing is 100% efficient
    2
  59.  @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
  60. Treating and curing cancer is a much more complicated task.
    2
  61.  @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
  62. 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
  63. No. It evolved well after life first began.
    2
  64.  @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
  65.  @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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Evolution isn’t a random process. It’s driven by the same natural laws that govern the universe.
    2
  69. Science is the study of the natural world.
    2
  70.  @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
  71. 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
  72. Evolution isn’t just chance. Also, flagellar motility has been observed evolving in a lab.
    2
  73. We have research showing how flagella evolved.
    2
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76.  @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
  77. Behe is a Discovery Institute backed liar and fraud.
    1
  78. No, that’s not logical. Nothing about the existence of complex structures implies a deliberate creator.
    1
  79.  @piumalkulasekara8948 Sort the comments by new and you’ll find a disappointing number of evolution deniers.
    1
  80. The coriolis effect doesn’t affect toilets. It affects things like weather systems or long range projectiles.
    1
  81.  @rollinupeverest5042  Do you study DNA? Are you a molecular biologist or a geneticist?
    1
  82.  @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
  83. ⁠ @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
  84. That’s what DNA and RNA are for. If the process goes awry, the cell just dies.
    1
  85. No one worships science. And evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab.
    1
  86. Evolution isn’t a directionless process. It’s directed by the same natural laws that govern the universe.
    1
  87.  @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
  88.  @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
  89.  @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
  90. We have evidence showing how these structure evolved.
    1
  91.  @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
  92. 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
  93. …pushes a creationist agenda. Irreducible complexity is a highly flawed notion designed to prey on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity.
    1
  94. The flagellar motor isn’t evidence of creation. We have research showing how it evolved.
    1
  95. ⁠​⁠ @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
  96. @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
  97. A snowflake is a design but it forms entirely naturally simply due to temperature and the properties of water molecules.
    1
  98. Some flagella whip and some spin. Both work to provide the cell motility.
    1
  99. There is research showing how it evolved.
    1
  100. Evolution isn’t entirely random because there are selective pressures. Things that work are more likely to persist.
    1
  101. ⁠​⁠ @nofal2031  You’re referring to “irreducible complexity” which is an incorrect notion that relies on errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure never could have existed and that an “incomplete” version of the structure cannot be useful to the organism. You’re assuming that the structure never could have been simpler than it is now. That’s not the case. Just because one part of the structure is integral to its function currently doesn’t mean that it was always a required part. Also, multiple things can evolve concurrently, so the evolution of a structure didn’t happen one component at a time. A more applicable analogy would be how a modern car would stop running if the computer controlling fuel injection failed. That doesn’t mean that cars require computers or even fuel injection to work. Old cars still functioned with carburetors and no computers.
    1
  102.  @nofal2031  You entirely missed the point of the analogy. The point is that there are parts that are critical for the operation of modern cars that aren’t even present in older cars. Irreducible complexity would look at a modern car (analogous to any modern organism) and argue that every single component currently there is necessary. But, looking at older cars that don’t have all the same parts, we know this isn’t the case. This is to say that parts can get added that later become essential even though they originally weren’t necessary. So I’ll restate what I said earlier. Irreducible complexity is flawed because of the errant assumptions it relies upon. Just because a part of a structure is necessary for its function now doesn’t mean that it was always necessary for that structure to function.
    1
  103.  @nofal2031  You’re still missing the point of the analogy. It demonstrates one of the key flaws in the notion of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity fails to consider the fact that things were once simpler than they are now but still functioned. There are components in modern cars that are critical for their operation that were entirely absent in older cars. The point of the analogy is that new things can be added that later become critical. Just because they’re critical now doesn’t mean they always were.
    1
  104.  @nofal2031  You should look up exaptation. It’s the phenomenon where a trait, feature, or structure develops a different function than it originally had. These changes will persist if they don’t have a detrimental effect on the organism. For example, we can look at any walking fish (e.g. a mudskipper). Their fins evolved to be used to push the fish along the sea floor or the ground. They have “incomplete” legs or “compromised” fins, but we can clearly see that this “intermediate” morphology is something that works for the fish. We could also look at the poster child of the irreducible complexity argument: the bacterial flagellum. The leading hypothesis for how the structure originally evolved is that it used to be an injectisome. We can see that there are distinct similarities between the two structures. An injectisome is missing some parts that are present in a flagellum, but that doesn’t render it useless. So we have an example of an incomplete flagellum that still serves a purpose for the organism. And for conclusive evidence that the flagellum isn’t irreducibly complex, check out the paper, “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. Researchers removed a gene from a population of bacteria to eliminate the flagellum. Under selective pressure for motility, the population re-evolved flagellar motility through a different mechanism than before.
    1
  105. The issue with the closing monologue is that Destin presented evolution denial as if it had equal merit to all the science showing how evolution is real and that shows how the flagellar motor evolved. He has since said that was not what he was aiming for, but it’s hard to deny that’s how it came across.
    1
  106. Evolution isn’t a strictly random process. It’s driven by the same forces that govern the universe.
    1
  107. ⁠​⁠ @RchamTV I’m talking about forces like gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force and natural laws like thermodynamics and kinetics. These are all real phenomena that govern and drive natural processes such as evolution.
    1
  108. The evidence clearly shows that flagellar motility evolved.
    1
  109.  @John_Hoover Evolution is driven/ guided by the same natural laws that govern the universe. Why do you assume that a mind or intelligence has to be involved?
    1
  110. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @John_Hoover There are many examples of natural phenomena that could be considered designs. An arch can be considered a design but they can be created naturally through the erosion of rocks. A snowflake could be considered a design too but that’s just the result of the properties of water molecules. The question this raises is what are we considering a “design”. Oftentimes, it seems that people introduce that term to this type of discussion to imply that something is too complicated to have formed naturally. However, we can identify many very complex systems of a fully naturalistic origin. When it comes to how the natural laws of the universe and fundamental forces came to be, science doesn’t currently know the answer, nor does it pretend to.
    1
  111.  @John_Hoover  You proved my point that the term “design” is introduced to imply that it is too complex to have a naturalistic origin and therefore requires a designer. I specifically explained that rock arches and snowflakes don’t have designer but you followed up by ignoring those explanations and claimed they have a designer. A “design” doesn’t inherently have a designer unless you consider natural laws and fundamental forces to be a “designer”. The “order from chaos” argument is often just an appeal to incredulity to make people think that ordered systems are a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. They’re not. The second law only states that there will still be a net increase in entropy. I already provided you an article describing an experiment that disproves the notion of irreducible complexity and I already explained that the notion relies on errant assumptions. While we haven’t determined for certain how life arose, there is plenty of research showing that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation and we also have a decent idea of what processes were involved.
    1
  112.  @acwright Have you not just googled, “how did flagella evolve”?
    1
  113.  @acwright  So do you have any spectacular research that shows the research detailing the evolution of flagella is wrong?
    1
  114. Evolution objectively happens. Modern bacteria are not simple. The very first cells were much simpler in comparison. The Big Bang happened. One’s belief in a deity is irrelevant to the first three questions.
    1
  115. Meyer is a proven liar. He’s pushing an agenda that’s not backed by science. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept coined by Michael Behe and pushed by the Discovery Institute to try to discredit evolution.
    1
  116. ⁠​⁠ @aguy446  There are other means of motility for bacteria other than flagella. No one is saying that these bacteria were immotile until the flagellum came along. And the YouTube filter is fickle and affects everyone. Let’s see if you have a missing comment. I see two responses from you under your original comment. The first beginning with, “But zero” and the second beginning with “A stump”. Is there a missing third comment? Lastly, this comment section is hardly an echo chamber. It’s filled with evolution deniers.
    1
  117. Because research has shown us how it happened.
    1
  118.  @Shxbwkaixbsbao  Studies of the fossil record, genetic studies, observed mutations and natural selection, and the list goes on. It’s an entire body of work that proves evolution, not just a single study. Is there anything in particular you’re interested in learning more about?
    1
  119.  @Shxbwkaixbsbao  What research has proven that one species can’t evolve into another? The fossil record clearly shows that species have evolved into other species. One notable example is that we have a fossil record of land mammals evolving into whales. I can present research detailing this if you’d like to see it.
    1
  120. Electric universe is nothing more than pseudoscience.
    1
  121. Evolution can explain this.
    1
  122.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020  Check out “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”
    1
  123. Behe is a Discovery Institute backed evolution denier. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on the errant assumptions that the structure never could have been simpler than it is now and that an “incomplete” version could not have been of any use to the organism.
    1
  124. Whether or not you know it, you’re parroting the notion of irreducible complexity that Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute peddle. That notion makes the flawed assumption that the flagella couldn’t have had a simpler form in the past and that an incomplete version of a flagella couldn’t have been useful for the bacteria.
    1
  125. We have research showing how the flagellum evolved.
    1
  126. ⁠ @jamesclerkmaxwell8020  How else should research be presented other than publishing a peer reviewed paper? And you know that peer review is what prevents the authors from just writing anything right? I’d like to hear what you think are better alternatives. Blog posts? YouTube videos? Non peer reviewed journals with questionable ethics? Those seem to be the preferred methods for creationists. And I’ve already told you a paper that covers the re-evolution of flagella witnessed in a lab. So what’s your evidence against evolution other than “nuh uh”?
    1
  127. The argument of irreducible complexity relies on flawed assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t exist and that an “incomplete” version of the structure couldn’t be useful to the organism. The flagella we see today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The original flagella would not have looked like they do now. Creationists like to misrepresent arguments and make baseless claims that certain ideas have been debunked as can be seen above my comment.
    1
  128. Things don’t only get more disordered over time. Things at a local level in a non-isolated system can get more complex. There’s plenty of research showing how flagella evolved and how evolution in general works.
    1
  129. Evolution is a useful model that holds explanatory and predictive power. Also, most mutations have no effect.
    1
  130.  @JesusPlsSaveMe  Those questions are entirely irrelevant to the topic on hand. Nothing you said changes the fact that evolution objectively exists and it serves as a useful scientific model.
    1
  131. No it’s not. Electric universe is a sham peddled by grifters. Their claims are demonstrably false.
    1
  132. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that gets peddled to try to dismiss evolution. It operates on the errant premise that the structure was never simpler in the past and that an “incomplete” version can’t have any use to the organism.
    1
  133.  @gomini3707  I already explained that the concept of irreducible complexity is based on flawed assumptions. Just because removing one component from the structure as it currently exists would make it nonfunctional doesn’t mean it couldn’t evolve. The first ever flagellar motor didn’t look like the ones in modern bacteria. The concept of irreducible complexity also errantly assumes that an “incomplete” version of the structure couldn’t have been of any use to the organism. We have research showing how the flagella evolved. We even have experiments that witnessed the re-evolution of flagella. I have papers I can share describing these topics if you’re interested. And lastly, you say that the flagella couldn’t have come from a secretory system, but what’s your evidence showing this to be the case? Without providing research or evidence to support this claim, you’re just asking people to take your word on it.
    1
  134. The evidence for evolution is clear. The evolution of flagellar motility has even been observed directly in the lab.
    1
  135.  @moshemyym4627  The fossil record is a good place to start. Trying to understand microbiology isn’t exactly the easiest starting point.
    1
  136. ⁠​⁠ @gomini3707 Natural selection doesn’t solely select for beneficial mutations. Mutations that have no effect or even ones with only slight negative effects will persist as long as the organism survives and reproduces. Irreducible complexity pushes the false notion that a simpler version of a current structure couldn’t have existed in the past and that an “incomplete” version of the structure couldn’t have been useful to the organism.
    1
  137. Actually, the opposite is true. All evidence clearly shows that evolution objectively exists. Looking further into it will only lead to a better understanding of how it works, how it forms, and how it evolved. None of those things will get you “kicked out of science”.
    1
  138. You’re effectively citing personal incredulity as your reasoning why a bacterial flagellum could not have evolved. That structure had billions of years to involve into what we see today. The first flagellum would have been less complex than the modern flagellum. Also, evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab.
    1
  139. They deny evolution. They’re not a good resource for scientific topics.
    1
  140.  @GreatBehoover You’re the one denying the current research and evidence. What’s your evidence to show it’s all wrong?
    1
  141. Bacteria have existed for billions of years and evolution objectively exists.
    1
  142.  @JesusPlsSaveMe  Since you copied and pasted this, I’ll copy and paste my last comment addressing it. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to the topic on hand. Nothing you said changes the fact that evolution objectively exists and it serves as a useful scientific model.
    1
  143. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept pushed by the Discovery Institute to try to discredit evolution. We have research showing how the flagella evolved.
    1
  144. Comparing a human made structure to the evolution of a biological structure is a false analogy and only serves to instill personal incredulity.
    1
  145. If you paid attention to the video, you’d know they’re not just guessing. And NASA is very clear as to how all of their photos were taken or images were created. There are plenty of real photos of the earth from space.
    1
  146.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 The fossil record and genetic data are strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.
    1
  147.  @Km4rt  The what, how, and why regarding the creation of the fundamental forces at the beginning of the universe is currently unknown.
    1
  148.  @Km4rt  I’m saying we don’t currently know all the details of the beginning of the universe and how the fundamental forces and their strengths came to be.
    1
  149. It’s not just time. It’s selective pressures and mutations among many factors.
    1
  150. We have research that shows how flagella evolved. Do you think you know better than the scientists performing the research in this field?
    1
  151.  @Zorlont  And why is that? What are your credentials? What research have you performed or seen that’s better than the research showing how the flagella evolved?
    1
  152.  @Zorlont  I’m going to make some inferences here so correct me if I’m wrong. Are you implying that you know better than the microbiologists and evolutionary biologists who have studied and performed research in their field for years to decades just because you read the Bible? And what makes you think I’ve never read the Bible?
    1
  153. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab. Why couldn’t it have happened in nature the first time?
    1
  154. ⁠​⁠ @lolly_bread  You’re assigning attributes to the flagellar motor out of personal incredulity. As I already said, evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab. Check out the paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. It is not only ignorance, but willful ignorance to deny evolution. Science knows this structure can evolve.
    1
  155. That’s not a proper analogy. It only serves to instill/ confirm personal incredulity. Evolution objectively happens and the evolution of flagellar motility has even been directly observed in the lab.
    1
  156. No it’s not. We have evidence and research showing how flagella evolved.
    1
  157. You’re referencing irreducible complexity which is a bogus concept that gets peddled by the likes of the Discovery Institute to try to dismiss evolution. It makes the fundamentally flawed assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” structure couldn’t have been of any use to the organism. The first flagella did not look like modern flagella.
    1
  158.  @cat22_a1  Evolution doesn’t happen only one step at a time. Also, remember that it’s a flawed assumption that an “incomplete” version of the structure cannot be useful to the organism. The evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab. Science knows that it can evolve. Check out “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    1
  159. What evidence do you have that shows this structure could not have evolved? Your argument comes across as nothing more than personal incredulity. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab. Why couldn’t it have happened in nature given enough time? Acknowledging the existence of evolution is not blind belief. It is simply an acceptance of the mountains of empirical evidence that all show it exists.
    1
  160. Evolution objectively exists and has been directly observed.
    1
  161.  @seankivlehan4085  Why? Because you say so? There are mountains of evidence that show evolution exists. Your baseless denial means nothing.
    1
  162.  @seankivlehan4085  The problem with your question is that what constitutes a code is not defined. If you define it as something that a someone has to create, then by that definition, there is nothing natural that would be a code. However, if that’s the definition you choose, then the question is inherently disingenuous. If a code is simply something that provides information or instructions, then there are multiple examples. The shape and local charges on a water molecule could be considered a code to provide instructions for water to assemble into hexagonal crystals when freezing. Spectral emission lines are a code for determining the chemical composition of the sample being studied. A mass spectrum is also a code for the composition of a sample. Even tree rings can be viewed as a code for determining their age.
    1
  163. Behe and Meyer are both Discovery Institute backed evolution deniers. Also, irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on ignorance and personal incredulity. It relies on errant assumptions that a structure could not have been simpler in the past and that an “incomplete” version cannot be useful to the organism.
    1
  164.  @ShufflerBluey Evolutionary processes aren’t at odds with thermodynamics.
    1
  165. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @ShufflerBluey Simply put, the second law of thermodynamics says that in an isolated system, entropy always increases. Nothing about that prohibits order or increasing complexity on a local scale. It just means that those processes increase the entropy of the universe. We know that abiogenesis happened, just not how it happened. And abiogenesis is an entirely separate topic than evolution. We have evidence for how multicellular life evolved. Check out “De novo origins of multicellularity in response to predation”. And we have evidence for how life evolved from there. It’s currently hypothesized that thermodynamics actually favor life forming. This isn’t just a matter of time and random chance. These processes are driven by the fundamental forces that govern the universe.
    1
  166.  @ShufflerBluey  I’ll admit that I used definite wording when I shouldn’t have, but abiogenesis is still the most likely explanation for how life began. We have evidence of protocells. We have evidence for when life began. We have evidence of a universal common ancestor. We have a growing understanding of the prebiotic chemistry that likely led to life beginning. This all points to abiogenesis. It is most probable that there is a naturalistic explanation for how life began. Science is also inherently naturalistic, so that’s the only type of explanation it is looking for. Also, I’m not asking you to take my word for anything here. I’m simply providing conclusions from the research performed by the experts in the field. So your perception of my credibility is frankly irrelevant. Meanwhile, you haven’t provided any evidence to support your claims so are you just expecting me to just take your word for your it? You say “De novo origins of multicellularity in response to predation” was debunked years ago but don’t cite any research to substantiate your claim. Also, the paper is from 2019. So did it get debunked immediately? You say there are no intermediate fossils but that’s simply untrue. I can provide plenty of examples of intermediate fossils. The phylogenetic tree is quite well documented with both extant and extinct species. Polystrate fossil is not a standard geological term but is commonly used in creationist publications. Upright fossil trees are the result of rapid sedimentation events that lead to the tree fossilizing followed by long periods of erosion and slow or non deposition. The rock layers built back up around the fossil. It is a misrepresentation to say that random mutation is the only thing driving evolution and it is also a misrepresentation to say it can only “scramble” genetic code. Evolution is a theory because it has proven to be a useful model both for understanding and predicting natural phenomena and has been corroborated through repeated observation and experimentation.
    1
  167.  @benjy288  Based on what evidence? Can you provide any research that reached that conclusion? All the science I’ve seen shows that this structure evolved.
    1
  168.  @benjy288  “Common sense” is irrelevant here. You said it was an assertion based on evidence. I’d like to see what scientific evidence you have to substantiate your claim. Asking me a to prove something is nothing more than a red herring when the burden of proof is on you to prove your point. If you provide evidence, I’ll answer your question. But as a preview to the answer, it’s not just random chance.
    1
  169.  @benjy288  No, common sense is not always applicable. Common sense only applies to things that are self evident or inherently intuitive. Much of science is counterintuitive. For example, the wave-particle duality of light, Lagrange points, the fact that atoms are mostly empty space, and time dilation are all completely un/ counterintuitive. Common sense alone would not have led to the discovery of any of these things. And no, increases of order or complexity don’t require intelligence. Simply freezing water makes it more complex and ordered. No intelligence required. Solar systems form because of gravity and other basic scientific principles like the conservation of momentum. The actual scientific evidence clearly shows that biological structures can evolve. It has been directly witnessed in the lab, nature, and the fossil record. “Specified complexity” isn’t a real scientific term. It was coined by intelligent design proponents to make it sound legitimate. You said you had evidence to support your claim. The burden of proof is on you to provide your scientific evidence that substantiates your claim. “Common sense” is just an excuse to not provide evidence.
    1
  170.  @benjy288  No, common sense is not always applicable. I just gave multiple examples where real science was un/ counterintuitive. Do you think it was just common sense that led to the discovery that traveling faster relative to something else leads to a slower passing of time? What was inherently intuitive or self evident about the fact that a satellite needs to compensate for time dilation? And I also explained that increases in order or complexity don’t require intelligence. Simply getting cold enough leads to water freezing. An ice crystal is more ordered and complex than liquid water. As I already explained, specified complexity isn’t a real scientific term. I was coined by intelligent design proponents. That notion just looks at complex things and baselessly claims that an intelligence was required to create it. It’s little more than an appeal to incredulity. You provided no evidence. You just made baseless claims. Simply saying an intelligence was required to create something and that common sense is applicable doesn’t make it so. The actual scientific evidence makes it abundantly clear that biological structures can evolve. If you want to refute that, please provide legitimate scientific research that says otherwise.
    1
  171.  @benjy288  Again, you have not provided any legitimate scientific evidence. You made baseless claims and expressed personal incredulity while calling it common sense. The only role common sense should play here is to tell you to draw conclusions based from evidence. I explained multiple times that science is often is un/ counterintuitive and therefore common sense alone cannot be used. Conclusions in science are drawn from empirical data, not “common sense”. You are the one that is opening themself up to “believing in all kinds of crazy stuff” by holding views on evolution that are entirely non evidence based. I explained that specified complexity is a made up term and that intelligence isn’t required for complexity to increase. Did you not see my example of ice crystals? Comparing a biological structure evolving to a human created object is a false analogy and again only serves to instill personal incredulity. So, can you provide any actual scientific evidence (e.g. research) to show that evolution doesn’t exist? Once you engage in actually providing evidence, I will provide evidence for my argument.
    1
  172. Evolution objectively exists and has even been directly observed.
    1
  173. If you think science is faith, then you do not understand science. Science studies real, testable, and predictable natural phenomena. No faith is required because the data is objective. Why do you think that scientists are indoctrinated and can’t understand the field that they have dedicated their career to studying? Perhaps you have been indoctrinated to distrust science?
    1
  174. @supersmart671 Already did and I found out that Behe is a fraud that peddles evolution denial. Evolution also doesn’t state that it happens by chance. That’s a nice misrepresentation.
    1
  175. ⁠ @Thetruepredictor That’s a neat misrepresentation of the Big Bang theory. Just because we don’t currently know how something happened doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
    1
  176.  @JohnSmith-yc6uv  Any event that has any probability to happen will eventually happen if given enough time. That’s where the 100% came from. For example, let’s look at an unstable structure that has a 1% chance of collapsing during any given year. Given enough time, its collapse is effectively a certainty. We have evidence to show that evolution happens. We obviously know that the flagellar motor exits. We have evidence showing that the flagellar motor can evolve. So, it’s literally just a matter of time for its evolution to be effectively a certainty.
    1
  177. ⁠ @rumrswright6674 I’m genuinely curious. What about Bill Nye makes you think he might be a literal demon?
    1
  178.  @rumrswright6674  Would you care to provide a specific example of this happening? And I feel that the more likely explanation is that he is annoyed that someone is proposing a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon while rejecting an established and proven naturalistic explanation. I think any scientist would be annoyed if someone rejects science regardless of their religious beliefs.
    1
  179. The evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab. There’s no belief involved.
    1
  180. Some flagella spin and some wiggle. Not all mechanisms of flagellar motility are the same.
    1
  181. Research shows how it evolved.
    1
  182.  @LibertyDankmeme  So are you not going to offer a rebuttal or refutation based on evidence?
    1
  183.  @LibertyDankmeme  Well at least you’re being honest.
    1
  184. Misrepresenting evolution doesn’t help your point. The evolution of flagellar motility has literally been witnessed in a lab. Check out “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    1
  185.  @PeterONeil-wu9hw  If you look at the experimental setup in the paper, you’ll see that the researchers simply introduced selective pressure for motility. To quote the abstract, “Under strong selection for motility, these bacteria consistently regained flagella within 96 hours via a two-step evolutionary pathway.” leading to the conclusion, “Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks in very few, repeatable mutational steps.” And you’re just moving the goalposts by dismissing lab experimentation. The researchers weren’t controlling the processes going on within the bacteria. The changes the populations underwent could also happen in the wild.
    1
  186. Irreducible complexity is a bogus term coined by Michael Behe and peddled by the grifters at the Discovery Institute (including James Tour). It relies on a flawed premise that a currently complex mechanism was always that complex and that an “incomplete” version of it couldn’t possibly be of use to the organism.
    1
  187. Electric universe is a bunch of debunked nonsense.
    1
  188. You’re misrepresenting the points you’re talking about. Models are created using empirical data. No one is shoehorning things into existing models to make them fit. If someone new comes along and it doesn’t fit the model, the model is changed. And you realize that if an event has a nonzero chance of happening, simply giving it more time increases the chance for it to happen right? All these things you’re complaining about are rooted in objective reality. Finally, learn what a scientific theory is.
    1
  189. No. Bacteria don’t have mitochondria.
    1
  190. Meyer is a proven fraud and those books promote fraudulent claims. I agree that science and faith can coexist. That’s evidenced by the fact that there are plenty of scientists who are religious and don’t let their faith affect their science. The problem occurs when religion is used as a reason to deny science. The Discovery Institute pushes fraudulent claims to suggest that science agrees with their religious beliefs. They’re just pushing a religious agenda under the guise of science.
    1
  191. Electric universe is a sham.
    1
  192. Evolution is the explanation for how flagella came to be.
    1
  193.  @SaintTM2222  The fossil record and genetic data provide clear evidence for evolution. Evolution has even been witnessed in the lab. You’re baselessly denying something that has been directly observed.
    1
  194. The system doesn’t have to come together exactly as we see it now. That’s the false notion that the idea of irreducible complexity tries to push. The original flagella were not the same as the flagella we see today. Modern flagella are the product of billions of years of evolution.
    1
  195.  @tomfoolery1967  Again, there’s plenty of research. You just deny it. Science has a good understanding of how flagella evolved. For example, look at “ Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” and “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. Science focuses only on explaining the natural world, so it will only provide naturalistic explanations for phenomena. There is no scientific evidence for design. People who refuse to accept science claim that design is the only “explanation” for things they don’t understand.
    1
  196.  @neilmlakar1750 Two good papers to look at are “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” and “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    1
  197.  @cesar3422 Check out “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” and “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    1
  198.  @ronaldmorgan7632 Please educate yourself on what a scientific theory is.
    1
  199. Evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab. We know this structure can evolve. Behe does not provide a fair argument. He peddles an anti-evolution agenda and his concept of irreducible complexity is deeply flawed.
    1
  200. ⁠ @HenryDalcke  When evolution objectively exists and the evolution of this particular structure has been directly witnessed, it would be completely illogical to conclude that the structure arose anyway other way than evolution.
    1
  201.  @HenryDalcke  This isn’t about new genes. The researchers simply created an immotile strain of bacteria and introduced selective pressure for motility. They observed that mutations in existing genes led to the re-evolution of flagella in the population through a different means than before. A mutation led to a regulator that normally controlled nitrogen uptake to instead control flagellar biosynthesis.
    1
  202.  @HenryDalcke  The researchers deleted a gene required for the formation of flagella. When flagellar motility reemerged, it was observed that it came from genetic changes to a system that previously played no part in motility. This wasn’t just the expression of some latent trait. It was evolution.
    1
  203.  @HenryDalcke  Genetic changes happened that led to the bacterial population regaining motility through a different method than before. That’s evolution. Don’t you think the researchers would be able to tell what is or isn’t an evolutionary change?
    1
  204.  @HenryDalcke  Instead of acknowledging the fact that evolution has been directly observed, you moved the goalposts and raised a new question. Common ancestry of all living species is the most logical conclusion to draw from the biochemical and genetic similarities between all living things. Speciation is an objectively real phenomenon. There are many pieces of evidence for it, but perhaps the best is the fossil record. Whales can clearly be traced back to land dwelling quadrupeds. And what makes you think that experts in the field wouldn’t be able to identify evolution if they saw it? Wouldn’t the experts, not you, be the best ones to make that determination?
    1
  205. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab.
    1
  206. ⁠ @Thetruth1one  No refutation? Just a petulant retort? Do you really have nothing to offer to refute the fact that the evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab?
    1
  207. ⁠ @Thetruth1one  So no, you have no refutation for the fact that evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab. And you know that personal incredulity isn’t a valid argument right?
    1
  208. ⁠ @Thetruth1one  I’m talking about the objective fact that evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab. The paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” documents this research.
    1
  209.  @Thetruth1one  If you can’t refute the research with evidence, then there is absolutely no reason to take your claims seriously. Your only rebuttal amounts to nothing more than, “nuh uh” and your claims are entirely baseless. Also, if you think adaptation can happen, why don’t you think it can result in large changes over long enough periods of time?
    1
  210.  @Thetruth1one  Have you even looked at the paper I shared? The researchers witnessed a population of bacteria regain flagellar motility through a different means than before. How is that not evolution? Also, can you define the difference between adaptation and evolution? Where is the line and why can’t it be crossed? Why do you declare that evolution is impossible but the people who actually study it think it’s possible? Do you know better than them? Your “argument” is still nothing more than baseless denial and personal incredulity.
    1
  211.  @dvk578  I already provided you a paper detailing research that literally observed the evolution of flagellar motility in the lab. Science knows that the evolution exists. Science knows that the evolution of flagellar motility is possible. The only logical conclusion is that flagellar motility first arose due to evolution.
    1
  212. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @dvk578  Firstly, please learn what the definition of a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Evolution is a theory because it has been repeatedly shown to be a useful model for explaining and predicting natural phenomena. For an example of evolution witnessed in a lab, check out “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. Evolution isn’t a purely random process. Yes, the individual mutations may be random, but the ones that persist aren’t. Selective pressures are one of the main ways that disadvantageous changes are weeded out. Three winged birds and five legged mammals are the result of severe birth defects, they typically don’t survive very long.
    1
  213. ⁠ @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 I will again remind you of “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. And where’s your lab proof that evolution can’t happen? All I’ve seen from you is “nuh uh”.
    1
  214. Science explains the natural world.
    1
  215. Evolution of flagellar motility has been directly observed in the lab.
    1
  216.  @Rasnaaa Evolution isn’t an accident. It’s a process governed by the same forces and natural laws that govern the universe. If you heat a piece of paper to its flashpoint, you’d expect it to catch on fire. The fact that it caught on fire isn’t an accident. It’s what you’d expect to happen in that situation. The same goes for the processes that drive evolution. They’re just acting in the way that’s dictated by thermodynamics, kinetics, selection, etc.
    1
  217. “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” and “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”
    1
  218.  @casualgamer3689  Explaining the origin of the flagellar motor wasn’t the point of the paper. It just showed that a flagellar motor and flagellar can evolve. In doing so, it disproves the notion of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version cannot be of any use to the organism. For research into how the flagellar motor and flagellum originally evolved, I suggest looking at “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system”.
    1
  219. It’s not only a misconception, it’s misinformation spread by the likes of the Discovery Institute to try to dismiss evolution. They prey on people’s ignorance with appeals to incredulity.
    1
  220. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @aaronrigg8166  An organism with a neutral mutation wouldn’t preferentially reproduce. It would have the same chances of reproducing as other organisms in the population that don’t have the mutation. But if the organism with the mutation reproduces, that mutation will likely get passed on. The mutation has the same chance of persisting as the organism has for reproducing. If the mutation persists, there then exists the chance that additional mutations could compound with the original one and produce an advantage.
    1
  221. Behe is a Discovery Institute backed evolution denier. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys on personal incredulity and ignorance. It’s based on the errant 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.
    1
  222. We have evidence for how it evolved.
    1
  223. Science knows that the bacterial flagellum can evolve. It has even been witnessed in the lab.
    1
  224.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 The fact that there are selective pressures disproves the notion that it’s an unguided process.
    1
  225. Evolution objectively exists. We have research showing how the flagellum evolved.
    1
  226. The bacterial flagellar motor was discovered in the 70s. Science’s understanding of it has grown since then, but this isn’t a paradigm shift.
    1
  227.  @KevinVanGelder  You’re referencing irreducible complexity, which is a bogus concept peddled by Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute as a way to try to dismiss evolution. It relies on a flawed assumption that the structure has never been simpler than it currently is and that an “incomplete” or transitional version of the structure couldn’t have been useful to the organism. We have research showing how flagella evolved. You should look it up instead of declaring that it’s too complex and must have been designed that way.
    1
  228.  @Mohamed-ee6pg  Referring me to Qunaibi’s video series does nothing to refute the findings in the paper I cited. My original statement here is that the evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in a lab and you said that was a lie. If you do not have research that directly refutes the paper I cited, then you have no substantiation for your claim that my statement was a lie. For good measure, I did still check out the series and I quickly noticed many glaring issues with it. First is that Qunaibi’s expertise appears to be in pharmacology, not evolutionary biology, yet he speaks as if he is an expert on the matter. He uses very misleading analogies intended to instill personal incredulity. And he presents arguments that are hardly more than conjecture and predetermined conclusions that he retroactively tries to fit data (that is often cherry-picked or misrepresented) into. The whole series comes off as extremely disingenuous.
    1
  229.  @Mohamed-ee6pg  You haven’t posed any questions for me to answer. You’re the one who still hasn’t answered the question they’ve been asked. If you reject the findings of the paper I provided, then please provide an evidence based refutation. If the researchers didn’t observe evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility, then what did they see and why? Again, referring me to that video series doesn’t refute the paper.
    1
  230.  @Mohamed-ee6pg  Again, you still haven’t asked me a question. How can you be expecting an answer from me when you haven’t asked a question? You are the one that is dodging questions. If you deny the results reported in “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”, then can you provide an evidence based refutation of this research? If you cannot provide an evidence based refutation of the results covered in the paper, then I can only conclude that your denial is entirely baseless.
    1
  231. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept that preys off people’s ignorance and personal incredulity. It is based off the errant assumptions that the structure could never have been simpler than it is now and that an “incomplete” version of the structure cannot be of use to the organism.
    1
  232. Behe is a fraud who spreads disinformation.
    1
  233.  @strangelee4400  There’s no “proper place” for the colors. They are in the order that they are simply because that is how our eyes and brains process those wavelengths of light.
    1
  234. Both Behe and Meyer are Discovery Institute backed evolution deniers. Their “work” regarding evolution is dubious at best.
    1
  235. There is research showing how the flagellum evolved.
    1
  236. All research points to abiogenesis being the origin of life on earth.
    1
  237.  @hozn I never said anything about atheism. I simply pointed out what the most likely conclusion is based on science.
    1
  238. We have research showing how the flagellum evolved.
    1
  239. Irreducible complexity is a bogus concept used to try to dismiss evolution. It relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure never existed and that an “incomplete” version couldn’t possibly be of any use to the organism.
    1
  240.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020  If you think that doing something in the lab is what matters, why are you accepting claims made by the Discovery Institute? Irreducible complexity hasn’t been proven in a lab. Behe used flawed logic and preyed on the ignorance and personal incredulity of DI followers. As for the evolution of the flagellum, I suggest reading the primary literature. Start with, “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system”. And for flagella evolution witnessed in a lab, check out, “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    1
  241. Science knows know evolution works and has even directly witnessed it.
    1
  242. Evolution isn’t just a product of chance.
    1
  243.  @gabilish_ART  The re-evolution of flagella was directly witnessed in the research covered by the paper “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”.
    1
  244. He’s probably off somewhere complaining about origin of life research or busy being mad that he’s been exposed by Dave Farina.
    1
  245. Science knows that the bacterial flagellum evolved.
    1
  246. The same natural laws that govern the universe drive evolution. It’s not a completely random process and it would be a misrepresentation to compare evolution to a tornado putting something together.
    1
  247.  @gomini3707 I don’t think you understand what a scientific theory is.
    1
  248.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 Complexity doesn’t require a designer. Just look at intricate rock formations, planets, solar systems, and galaxies.
    1
  249.  @rothvisuals  As far as we know, it is. We have no evidence to show that anything is getting in or out of the universe.
    1
  250. Evolution objectively exists
    1
  251. Meyer is a Discovery Institute backed evolution denier. “Specified complexity” is a meaningless term coined to imply that anything that’s perceived to be complex has to have a “designer” or “creator” behind it.
    1
  252. Evolution objectively exists. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or lying.
    1
  253. Evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab.
    1
  254. The evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in a lab. Science knows the structure evolved.
    1
  255. Did you miss the part where he said he’s a Christian?
    1
  256. Science knows that this structure evolved.
    1
  257.  @jesusisalive3227  So do you have an evidence based rebuttal or is “nuh uh” all you’ve got?
    1
  258.  @jesusisalive3227  The thing about science is that literally no faith is required. It is entirely empirical. I am more than happy to have an evidence based discussion on the matter. I won’t just baselessly deny anything you say. If you have evidence, I genuinely want to hear it. As long as you don’t include links, there is a high probability your comment won’t be caught by the filter. If I respond, then you’ll know that the comment went through. And if you’re worried about retyping if the comment does trip the filter, just type it in a note first. That’s what I do because sometimes mine disappear for seemingly no reason.
    1
  259. There’s nothing stopping you from reading the research on how the flagellum evolved.
    1
  260. ⁠ @karl5395 Again, there’s nothing stopping you from reading the primary literature. “Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system” is a good place to start. I’m not sure why want a random person on YouTube to present this to you when the actual scientists in the field, a teacher/ professor, or even a professional science communicator would do a much better job.
    1
  261. Evidence says otherwise. Do you have evidence showing that it didn’t and couldn’t evolve?
    1
  262. ⁠​⁠ @trenton9  None of your responses feature an evidence based refutation. You didn’t actually address either of the assumptions I pointed out that irreducible complexity is based on. You just baselessly claimed they are based off scientific observation and experimentation. If this is the case, then please provide research that supports this claim. You also baselessly claim that actual scientists are just making things up? What’s your evidence for that? It sounds like you’re just expressing an antiestablishment bias. The research performed in the paper I referenced showed a supposedly irreducibly complex structure re-emerging. If it actually was irreducibly complex, it would have been impossible to re-emerge, especially through a different method than before. You baselessly call it “devolution”, which is not a real scientific term. Any change is evolution. Evolution doesn’t have a target in mind. Just because the changes didn’t go where you think they should doesn’t mean it evolved “backwards”. Selective pressure for motility was introduced to a population of immobile bacteria. They evolved flagellar motility. How is that “devolution”? It really seems that you’re fishing for reasons to deny something that has been directly witnessed. There are other examples of evolution being directly observed too. There is more actual science that disproves irreducible complexity and I’d be happy to share it.
    1
  263.  @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 ”Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” shows the evolution of flagella in a population of bacteria in a lab setting.
    1
  264. ⁠​⁠ @jamesclerkmaxwell8020 It’s not a repair. The population of bacteria re-evolved flagella via a system that previously was unrelated to flagellar motion. The genes responsible for creating the flagella initially were completely removed. It was an immobile or nearly immobile population of bacteria and they evolved a means for motility.
    1
  265.  @abdulrahmanalsultan2871  Yes and no. There’s not exactly a black and white answer. The mutations themselves are largely random, but the factors that influence which ones persist aren’t really random. For example, environmental factors can favor certain mutations. It’s not random that when dolphins and whales evolved from land dwelling mammals that they ended up with a fish-like body plan. Also, evolution is actually a thermodynamically favored process, so it could be argued that the fact that it’s expected to happen makes it not entirely random.
    1
  266.  @abdulrahmanalsultan2871  Science doesn’t make up stories and call it science. That’s a false narrative pushed by science deniers in an effort to baselessly dismiss actual science. Convergent evolution objectively exists and shows that the direction that natural selection and other environmental factors push evolution is not entirely random. The Cambrian explosion doesn’t disprove evolution either. It lasted between 13 and 25 million years. While that is a relatively short amount of time compared to the age of the earth, it is still more than enough time for evolution to happen. For reference, that’s about the time it took for cetacean ancestors to evolve from land dwelling to fully aquatic and resembling their modern counterparts. Do you not find it odd that actual paleontologists don’t take issue with the Cambrian explosion? It’s only evolution deniers who take issue with it. And lastly, let’s look at abiogenesis. The first thing to say about it is that abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis for how life began and evolution is a theory describing how life changes over time. It is also the most likely way that life began according to the scientific evidence.
    1
  267. How do you know the bacterial flagellum is perfect? What criteria define a perfect flagellum? Also, evolution of flagellar motility has been observed in the lab.
    1
  268. ⁠​⁠ @SuperSushidog  Again, the argument you’re presenting is just an appeal to incredulity. Assigning names of things people identify as manmade objects to biological structures only serves to evoke incredulity. We could call an eye a sensor, but a sensor has a very different connotation. Sure, when we look at a modern eye, it’s very complicated and it may be difficult for a regular person to understand how it evolved. But, science has been able to identify a pathway from clusters of light sensitive cells all the way to a modern eye. There’s no prejudice or bias involved in understanding that the flagellar motor evolved. We have literally observed the evolution of flagellar motility in the lab. Check out the paper, “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system”. When we know evolution exists and we know that flagellar motility can evolve, Occam’s razor tells us that a flagellar motor found in the wild most likely evolved.
    1
  269.  @NathanWoyessa  The beginning of the universe and establishment of the fundamental forces are not the topic of this discussion nor are they relevant. I was simply pointing out that irreducible complexity is not a valid argument against evolution.
    1