• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proof that Evolution is Garbage [W:408]

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive


Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. Many will try, and all will fail, I guarantee it.

The simple fact is that evolution does not hold water as a theory. However, people are invested in it... heavily. Therefore, they will defend it to the bitter end.

If we don't have evolution, what is left to fill the void? How do we explain the origin of mankind?

So many people are personally invested in this theory because they are deathly afraid that, should evolution be exposed as flawed, religion will take its place.

That is the truth of the matter.
 
Typical religious over zealousness...lots of telling, not much asking or listening.


I have an angle for you....I could care less how humankind began.

But if it did matter much to me, I sure as heck will believe a bunch of brilliant scientists more then a bunch of child-molesting priests and their leap-of-faith book they carry around as to the origin of humankind.


And btw - it is 'humankind', not 'mankind'...it's 2013, not 1973.


Have a nice day.
 


Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. Many will try, and all will fail, I guarantee it.

The simple fact is that evolution does not hold water as a theory. However, people are invested in it... heavily. Therefore, they will defend it to the bitter end.

If we don't have evolution, what is left to fill the void? How do we explain the origin of mankind?

So many people are personally invested in this theory because they are deathly afraid that, should evolution be exposed as flawed, religion will take its place.

That is the truth of the matter.


1) This is not proof that evolution is garbage. Rather, it is evidence that evolution is garbage.

2) Our understanding of evolution has grown very much since Darwin postulated it. While we hold true to the basics of his original theory, scientist have changed and altered it as our understanding of the universe has grown to take in that new understanding. Something which religion is quite slow to do.

3) The irreducible complexity of flagellum has been refuted by the scientific community.

From Wikipedia said:
The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 different protein parts. Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex as if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.
Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[SUP][67][/SUP][SUP][68][/SUP] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[SUP][69][/SUP] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP] Dembski's critique of this position is that phylogenetically, the TTSS makes an unlikely precursor to the flagellum given that TTSS is found in a narrow range of bacteria which makes it seem to be a late innovation, whereas flagella are widespread throughout many bacterial groups, which implies it was an early innovation.[SUP][72][/SUP][SUP][73][/SUP]
Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function,[SUP][74][/SUP][SUP][75][/SUP] even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases.

4) Just because evolution may be refuted does not justify intelligent design.

5) Even if there is an intelligent design, the argument then must be asked which divinity designed it.
 


Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. Many will try, and all will fail, I guarantee it.


Good to know you have an open mind. :roll:
The simple fact is that evolution does not hold water as a theory. However, people are invested in it... heavily. Therefore, they will defend it to the bitter end.

If we don't have evolution, what is left to fill the void? How do we explain the origin of mankind?

So many people are personally invested in this theory because they are deathly afraid that, should evolution be exposed as flawed, religion will take its place.

That is the truth of the matter.

There's not all that much to refute. On bacterial flagellum and the mouse trap analogy, they're basically saying that for a mousetrap (flagellum) to work, it has to be assembled simultaneously, and it can only ever be a mousetrap. Which is false. And in the same way, bacterial flagellum could have originally evolved as several different organelles for different purposes, that merged together for propulsion, in a process know as exaptation.
 
Typical religious over zealousness...lots of telling, not much asking or listening.


I have an angle for you....I could care less how humankind began.

But if it did matter much to me, I sure as heck will believe a bunch of brilliant scientists more then a bunch of child-molesting priests and their leap-of-faith book they carry around as to the origin of humankind.


And btw - it is 'humankind', not 'mankind'...it's 2013, not 1973.


Have a nice day.

Mankind is a word, and it's more common than "humankind."

If you don't care how mankind began, why the hell are you here on this thread?

Go play in traffic.
 
images


All the proof I need.
 
1) This is not proof that evolution is garbage. Rather, it is evidence that evolution is garbage.

Correct. Good evidence.

2) Our understanding of evolution has grown very much since Darwin postulated it. While we hold true to the basics of his original theory, scientist have changed and altered it as our understanding of the universe has grown to take in that new understanding. Something which religion is quite slow to do.

Since science keeps changing its mind, chances are it will happen again... which means a good majority of what you hold to be infallible today will one day be disproved by the very people you put so much trust in.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

3) The irreducible complexity of flagellum has been refuted by the scientific community.

From the article: "Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function, even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases." - That's a pretty big "even though" to just gloss over. You can pluck some of the keys off your keyboard too, and claim that your computer will still work. The fact is, it destroys the functionality of the whole unit.

How did these piece-parts evolve?

But let's say, for the sake of fun, that you're right and the irreducible complexity of this flagellum were shown to be mistaken because the TTSS uses about 10 of its parts (they are not the same, for your info, but similar). All you've done is shown that TTSS is irreducibly complex.


4) Just because evolution may be refuted does not justify intelligent design.

Intelligent design doesn't scare anyone.... creationism does. If evolution were refuted, that would certainly open the door for discussion when it comes to alternatives like creationism.

5) Even if there is an intelligent design, the argument then must be asked which divinity designed it.

Good. It should be.
 
...And in the same way, bacterial flagellum could have originally evolved as several different organelles for different purposes, that merged together for propulsion, in a process know as exaptation.


Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.
 
Gravity is bunk and I've got a youtube video to prove it!

Don't force me to dispel the theory of relativity in eight minutes, either.
 
Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.

So your entire argument is that if you remove a monkey's leg, and it can't operate independently from the monkey, that proves that evolution is false, because otherwise a leg never could've survived long enough to evolve into a monkey?

Do you realize how insane that sounds? Things like flagellum didn't just appear. It grew in millions of very tiny stages.
 
Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.

Back to the mouse trap, if I built a mouse trap out of a piece of wood and the metal bits from chopping up and shaping a wire coat hanger, you're looking at the mouse trap and saying "It couldn't have been constructed from a coat hanger, those parts wouldn't work as a coat hanger". And you're now expecting, if you were to plonk that mouse trap in front of an evolutionary biologist, that he should be able to tell you it's from a coat hanger. And if he can't, then it's not from a coat hanger.

You're arguing from the premise that evolution doesn't happen because evolution doesn't happen. That a mouse trap can't be made from anything other than mouse trap parts, because nothing else could work as mouse trap parts, except mouse trap parts. Which is wrong.
 
Mankind is a word, and it's more common than "humankind."
And ignorance/stupidity is more common then intelligence.

If you don't care how mankind began, why the hell are you here on this thread?

Go play in traffic.
LOLOL....'go play in traffic'?

What a wonderful example of the love and forgiveness that religious people have to offer.

If you disagree with their opinions, they wish for harm to come to you.

Typical...lol.


I am here because I am bored and I feel like it.

You don't like it - too bad.


And btw...

all major religions are a complete and total waste of time that cause far more harm then good.

And anyone that takes a major religion seriously is either weak and/or ignorant and/or desperate.

Look where religion is growing - amongst the poor/politically repressed (i.e. the desperate)

Look where it is shrinking...everywhere else.

You are on the Leap OF Faith train bound for Nowheresville...and you're riding coach.


Have a great day.
 
Last edited:


"it is said ... to be irreducibly complex because if any of these parts are missing you cannot catch mice with it"

"these parts are perfectly functional in a different context"

As spud said:
they're basically saying that for a mousetrap (flagellum) to work, it has to be assembled simultaneously, and it can only ever be a mousetrap. Which is false. And in the same way, bacterial flagellum could have originally evolved as several different organelles for different purposes, that merged together for propulsion, in a process know as exaptation.
 
Back to the mouse trap, if I built a mouse trap out of a piece of wood and the metal bits from chopping up and shaping a wire coat hanger, you're looking at the mouse trap and saying "It couldn't have been constructed from a coat hanger, those parts wouldn't work as a coat hanger". And you're now expecting, if you were to plonk that mouse trap in front of an evolutionary biologist, that he should be able to tell you it's from a coat hanger. And if he can't, then it's not from a coat hanger.

You're arguing from the premise that evolution doesn't happen because evolution doesn't happen. That a mouse trap can't be made from anything other than mouse trap parts, because nothing else could work as mouse trap parts, except mouse trap parts. Which is wrong.

Come on, Spud. Everybody knows that the old saying "Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door" is just a lie invented by Satan to fool the unwary into thinking the contraptions could evolve.

Mouse traps have remained perfect and unchanged ever since God invented them 6000 years ago.
 
Correct. Good evidence.



Since science keeps changing its mind, chances are it will happen again... which means a good majority of what you hold to be infallible today will one day be disproved by the very people you put so much trust in.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



From the article: "Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function, even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases." - That's a pretty big "even though" to just gloss over. You can pluck some of the keys off your keyboard too, and claim that your computer will still work. The fact is, it destroys the functionality of the whole unit.

How did these piece-parts evolve?

But let's say, for the sake of fun, that you're right and the irreducible complexity of this flagellum were shown to be mistaken because the TTSS uses about 10 of its parts (they are not the same, for your info, but similar). All you've done is shown that TTSS is irreducibly complex.




Intelligent design doesn't scare anyone.... creationism does. If evolution were refuted, that would certainly open the door for discussion when it comes to alternatives like creationism.



Good. It should be.

1) Science does not hold itself to be infallible. Rather, science says that, according to the evidence and the repeatability of an experiment, this is how the physical universe works. And as our ability to observe the universe improves, so does our understanding of it.

2) And, in fact, it is religion that holds itself infallible. And has been refuted as well. Take, for instance, the geocentric view of the universe. Or superstitious beliefs in regards to disease and illnesses. Religion has been refuted on many issues.

3) But it's not all that complex when TTSS has only 10 pieces. Which means it could have simply evolved.

4) If evolution were to be refuted, no, it would not open doors to things such as creationism or intelligent design. Rather it would cause scientists to seek likely alternatives according to the scientific method.
 
And ignorance/stupidity is more common then intelligence.

LOLOL....'go play in traffic'?

What a wonderful example of the love and forgiveness that religious people have to offer.

If you disagree with their opinions, they wish for harm to come to you.

Typical...lol.


I am here because I am bored and I feel like it.

You don't like it - too bad.


And btw...

all major religions are a complete and total waste of time that cause far more harm then good.

And anyone that takes a major religion seriously is either weak and/or ignorant and/or desperate.

Look where religion is growing - amongst the poor/politically repressed (i.e. the desperate)

Look where it is shrinking...everywhere else.

You are on the Leap OF Faith train bound for Nowheresville...and you're riding coach.


Have a great day.




Actually, i think your paradigm is not accurate. Religion is growing areas where the government is not expanding. Where the government is weak and impotent in aiding people, Religion blossoms.

It's men helping men, but comes in different guises.

Government is not quite as voluntary as is religion, though. Both seem to function as the resulting by products of political parties, though.
 
Last edited:
But let's say, for the sake of fun, that you're right and the irreducible complexity of this flagellum were shown to be mistaken because the TTSS uses about 10 of its parts (they are not the same, for your info, but similar). All you've done is shown that TTSS is irreducibly complex.

I would say that this would be moving the goalposts so you can perpetuate your argument from ignorance.

anyhow, here lets look at the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.

note this part "Of the 42 proteins required to make a flagellum, 40 have been found so far to have homologues in other systems" - which ties back in to the mousetrap/tie clip comparison.

 
Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.




You seem to be saying that the origin of life and the evolution of life are the same thing.

Without knowing anything about how life was created, I do see that children resemble their parents and that corn can be "engineered" to develop selected favorable traits of previous generations while discarding the unfavorable using the devices that evolution uses.

It seems to me that evolution can be recognized to be a robust and continuously occurring thing ignoring completely how or when the primary similar life form came into being.
 
Actually, i think your paradigm is not accurate. Religion is growing areas where the government is not expanding. Where the government is weak and impotent in aiding people, Religion blossoms.

It's men helping men, but comes in different guises.

Government is not quite as voluntary as is religion, though. Both seem to function as the resulting by products of political parties, though.

I said 'poor/politically repressed'...which means poor and/or politically repressed.

And religion IS declining in the West (where political freedom and economic prosperity are highest)

And rising/remaining strong in other poorer and/or politically repressed areas of the world.


The reason should be obvious...religion appeals to those that are desperate for any hope whatsoever...even from a fictitious god with zero unbiased factual proof of it's existence.

You rarely see relatively happy people turn to religion (assuming it wasn't rammed down their throats when they were young).

But you often see sick people and/or people in misery turning to religion.
 
Last edited:
Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. .

Complexity and interdependence of biological mechanisms is self-evident, and contrary to the premise of the video, was obvious to scientists (and non-scientists) long before Darwin.

Now, the idea of irreducible complexity, while valid on its own terms, requires absolute, mathematical proof - but neither Behe nor anyone else do better than, basically, exclaim: "Can you imagine how this could evolve, without intelligent design?" - an emotional appeal without substance. Failure of imagination cannot be a proof, and arguing from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Examples like the bacterial flagellum may appear convincing at a first glance, but then you have to ask a simple question: Why do we assume that the parts of this machine do not or did not serve different functions, in their current form or some previous version, throughout billions of years?

Just because it resembles superficially our own crude contraptions that face parts compatibility issues (try to fix an old engine, with the maker long out of business)?

With the flagellum, we don't even have to look far, as people here have already pointed out, the type III secretory system - a well-studied bacterial "syringe" for injecting eukaryotic cells with bacterial proteins - shares extensive genetic homologies and structural similarity with the flagellum - even though its function is entirely different. Strongly suggesting that parts of both machines have evolved from common ancestors that did, perhaps, something else entirely.

But let me ask another simple, kindergarten level question: Let' say, we have discovered somehow a true example of irreducible complexity. So, either the irreducibly complex item had existed forever (and doesn't need a designer) - or it was designed by an intelligence (a god, an alien...) If that is the case, haven't we just kicked the can down the street? Now we have to figure out how the god or the alien came into existence, and the Darwinian approach - natural selection working with random variations possible in every given structure - is again a perfectly reasonable place to start...
 
Last edited:
It is a fascinating video no matter weather you think it disproves Darwinism or not. IMO it is a big check in the creationism column though.

I am not sure when the orignal video was actually made, but the link is to a reposting of the original to youtube in 2007. The star of the video was also the star witness for the defense in Kitzmiller Vs. Dover. That being the case, I will let the judge who issued the ruling in this case say his piece in response to Behe's claims:

In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. (19:88-95 (Behe)).
As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. ...

... By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument

... Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource, the free online library


edit: and yes the video in the OP is presenting the exact same argument that Behe put forward in Kitzmiller V. Dover. Not only does this argument fail scientific scrutiny, but it was literally put on trial, and it failed.
 
Last edited:
I said 'poor/politically repressed'...which means poor and/or politically repressed.

And religion IS declining in the West (where political freedom and economic prosperity are highest)

And rising/remaining strong in other poorer and/or politically repressed areas of the world.


The reason should be obvious...religion appeals to those that are desperate for any hope whatsoever...even from a fictitious god with zero unbiased factual proof of it's existence.

You rarely see relatively happy people turn to religion (assuming it wasn't rammed down their throats when they were young).

But you often see sick people and/or people in misery turning to religion.



I wasn't disagreeing; only adding to the thought.

People are herd animals and when the government is not dominant as it is in the Western Style Democracies, Religion fills in as the unifying helper.

Absent the overpower and intrusive government of the current Western World, Religion would still be the community developing main.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom