The Evolution of the Flagellum
Uploaded by: cdk007
Video Description:
BEHE CONCEDES IC SYSTEMS CAN EVOLVE
Here I present a theory first published in 2003 by Nicholas Matzke. For more details one can view his work at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html This theory is derived from a wealth of data regarding protein homologies. It shows that a fully functional flagellum could evolve through
multiple functional intermediates. Each step involves the modification of only a single protein. For more discussion on the actual proteins involved and their homologues see the link above. When ID proponents ask what good is half a flagellum, well, ¾ a flagellum is good for dispersion, ½ a fl
agellum is good for attachment to substrates, ¼ a flagellum is good for regulated protein secretion. This model based on a wealth of evidence shows that the flagellum could evolve. Since 2003 many experiments have confirmed what initially were only predictions or weak assumptions. Still, many
fine details remain to be worked out regarding function, not origin. For example, how does the ATP synthase derived components impart the motion of active transport, or how does the Tol-Pal derived components actually spine the flagellum. Behe in the Dover trial concedes that Irreducibly Complex s
ystems can evolve. Lawyer -- "You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex and thus could not have been produced directly, however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route, right? Behe -- "Yes." Lawyer -- "And by indirect, you mean evolution from a pre-
cursor with a different function than the system being studied?" Behe -- "Yes, different function, perhaps different number of parts, and so on." To be fair, however, Behe claims that at a certain point of complexity an indirect route is impossible. But he gives no evidence to support this caveat.
To download this video go to: http://www.mediafire.com/?edxwzxh2ymk Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.
Tags for this video: Bacteria Complexity Creation data Debate Design Education Evolution facts Flagella Flagellum ID Intelligent Irreducible
Find more videos in the "Howto" category
See more videos uploaded by cdk007
| Captain ATP Synthase | Active Transport | ATP synthase |
 |  |  |
| Spiral-type microrobot | ATP Synthase Cartoon | I Dream of Aerobic Respiration |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
"Because I can not imagine how something evolved, it must not have"
Incomparable to the correct definition above, which I have generously elected to gift to you. Gifted with the intentions of directing your ignorance towards a state of Irreducible Complexity. That your mind may function as efficiently as possible. In which case, if and when that most efficient sta
te is achieved, you will cease to be an evolutionist
Your words: "Logic tells us that irreducible complexity is an arguement bla bla bla......" "Irreducible Complexity" is not an arguement. It is a functioning systems configuration at its minimum degree of complexity prior to becoming disfunctional. Since your ignorant of that which is the descrip
tion of Irreducible Complexity. Naturaly, your continued statements purporting to give the definition of it, are merely more ignorance
"Irreducible Complexity", is the cornerstone of "Intelligent Design". Actualy, design in nature and the universe, is the cornerstone of "Intelligent Design".
"Complexity" is the noun. "Irreducible" is the adjective. Its merely a descriptive term. Whats there to argue?
See, the problem is that your thinking of Intelligent Design science, only as it pertains to Biology. Watch the video named "The Privileged Planet". Its actualy some of the best science produced by Intelligent Design proponents. Actualy, some of the best in recent times period! Though "complexity
" is indeed part of the picture, it is however, not necessarily irreducible
Not as such. You'd have to demonstrate it's a *real* path. Any notional path won't do. Otherwise you could refute anything with a well researched thought experiment. Whether it's valid or not. Is Matzke's proposal valid? That would have to be demonstrated before it's any kind of a refutation.
Until then it's just a proposal.
How can you set the bar so low as to say any plausible path will do? How plausible is the path? Slightly? Not very? Or perhaps we don't really know! Of course some tidying of the definition of I.C. might be required for some machines. As Dembski points out a machine might consist of an irreducib
ly complex core along with a reducible set of components as well.
Oh, and germ theory IS a theory. You seem to think that "lots of evidence" means "fact," while it doesn't and it never will.