14 COMMENTS

  1. The rear end of bacteria unequivocally proves that god exists. At long last, here is our proof! With damnation hanging in the balance and belief as the only salvation, only a benevolent and just god would offer such clear and timely evidence of his awesomeness. Therefore, Jesus!!!

  2. Kim Probable gives an awesome resource. Ken miller also participates in the Dover trial featured in a Nova special available on line.

    The key to understanding why irreducible complexity is fancy language and nothing else is the idea of exaptation. Exaptation is when a feature becomes useful for something other than the initial reason it developed. So, the flagella of bacteria (BTW the bacterial flagella is extremely cool and vastly different from eukaryotic flagella) is not useful a AS A FLAGELLA if some of the proteins are missing. However, it is a perfectly good jabber or injector….

    Ken Miller uses a mousetrap as an example at the Dover trial and it is truly excellent!!! He has it on as a tie clip the entire time he testifies and suddenly it becomes a prop in the testimony. BRILLIANT!

  3. Oh, and Richard does an excellent piece (even though he’s rocking a 70′s polyester shirt) on eye development, available on youtube in 3 or 4 pieces. Although “irreducible complexity” had not yet been coined as a meme, he clearly refutes it with logic and education. A great resource.

    What good is 1/2 an eye?????

  4. I basically just need some quick references to some works on the NOT SO irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum.

    There was an earlier discussion of this here:-

    Revealing the secrets of motility in archaea

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2013/2/15/revealing-the-secrets-of-motility-in-archaea?category=Science#

    This has been an old favourite of the IDiots for years.

    It is quite amazing how their tiny minds think that finding one example which is complex to explain, will somehow refute the millions of other examples of evolution by way of natural selection!
    Still – That’s “faith-thinking”!

  5. Once again, thank for all the references. I’ve caught Dawkins’ bit on the eye. Great stuff. You’d really have to have a blinding shield of faith to completely ignore the argument against irreducible complex mechanisms. Assuming something like that makes you ripe for the picking when time and experimentation gets involved. How is it so hard to see that arguments like this are only strong when they’re new and fairly unknown?

  6. Ken Miller was the first person to unravel the mystery of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum and blow the irreducibly complex claim for the ID mob. However as Ken Miller is a devout catholic I’m not sure people here are completely happy about it.

    • In reply to #10 by atheistengineer:

      Ken Miller was the first person to unravel the mystery of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum and blow the irreducibly complex claim for the ID mob. However as Ken Miller is a devout catholic I’m not sure people here are completely happy about it.

      Personally, I’m of the mind that if people feel good and enjoy the rituals, let them. (My grandmother was a lifelong atheist, though she said she was Catholic of you asked her, but started going to church when she got older and her friends started passing away, just to see other people.) I just get peeved when people try to pass religion specific laws, or kids die, or scientific progress is thwarted, or other things of that nature.

    • Yes, and to his credit he does not allow the “belief” part impose rules on the “science” part. Check him out in the Nova special on the Dover trial, he’s awesome!!!

      In reply to #10 by atheistengineer:

      Ken Miller was the first person to unravel the mystery of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum and blow the irreducibly complex claim for the ID mob. However as Ken Miller is a devout catholic I’m not sure people here are completely happy about it.

  7. I have come to love this particular alleged example of “irreducible complexity”. The IDiots formed their conclusion first, then selected the evidence to make their assertion plausible to the gullible.

    However, a bit more evidence reveals that…Darwin was right after all!

  8. http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_goddelusionreview.htm

    thought I would post this. it is a “clever” distortion of the facts, with the obligatory “pseudo-scientific” citations;
    i.e – “because we can’t explain it now, then of course… ID”, dum, dum, dum, dum – Freud’s ghost (hahaha) must be laughing his arse off…

    it must be difficult to get a membership to this site-they certainly are generating a lot of banner revenue-hahaha…it would be nice to see a well-documented response to this “article”, although I am not qualified, and it would require (for me) a lot of research, point-by-point…anyways…the article at this link -http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html —reveal many inconsistencies—what bothers me is their “illusion” of authenticity—I guess one must pick their arguments carefully—would be interested if anyone had some answers to this critics “cosmological numbers”??

Leave a Reply