The Digital Evidence for Flagellar Evolution

_{William Dembski

December 23, 2006

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When biological evidence fails to establish Darwinian evolution, go instead for digital evidence. Here at last digital proof positive for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum (if Kitzmiller v. Dover wasn’t enough to sink ID, this surely will):

For more on digital evolution, check out MSU’s Digital Evolution Lab. For the logic underlying digital evidence for evolution, see my piece Evolutionary Logic.

Comments

crandaddy, Thanks for the 5 star. Regarding your X-men quib. I always thought in strange that evolution, if true, hadn't yet evolved the trait of immorality for any organism yet. Or a process for accelerated healing. Strange isn't it? Since, those would be the ultimate survival designs if natual selection were real... and conceptually easy enough to ocme about - since old people can have young babies and since those babie tissue can grow rapidly. What kept the young tissue from directly evovling to benefit the parent and in reproduction?JGuy_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

You got a 5 from me, JGuy. Rock on, dude! (Now if only Matzke would not...Yikes!)crandaddy_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

The Nick Matzke paper behind this video... http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.htmlJGuy_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

If you guys didn't already know, the scenario the YouTube video is inspired by is derived from Nick Matzke's material/report.. not quite a peer reviewed paper from my understanding. I know this partly because I had a short correspondance with the person who posted that video on YouTube a couple months ago. Also, I posted a video response. My response was simply a video of flagellar assembly ( a better simulation) that I found on the net. I felt the video I posted spoke for itself; but I have actually received a very consistently poor ratings.. haha.. I suppose it could be in part that I don't have a dramatic background track - it's purely visual - However, it is probably more-so driven by the fact that there is a large base of Darwin's support on YouTube. If any of you have an account, you can go in and rate it at 5 stars to cancel out the negative bias.. ie if you agree with the side note by the video and like the video. You can see my response here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N09BIEzDlI This link may be dead one day.. since I will likely close my YouTube login later.JGuy_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

I watched less than half of it. I don't know why they aren't embarrassed. If a person had kept up with the flagellum arguments, surely they must see how inadequate that silly film is. I argued over at After the Bar Closes for a while, but I could never get any of those guys to read Mike Gene's flagellum essays, or, for that matter, Dembski's answer to The Flagellum Unspun (of which they are very proud). So that we could actually get down to brass tacks and talk about it. They prefer to stay in dreamland. My favorite part of the Gene essays were the assembly process of the flagellum. That, alone, is probably IC.avocationist_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Do NOT laugh at the X-men! Naturalistic evolution is most certainly capable of bestowing such abilities upon mankind. What are you people, some sort of Christian fundie cretinists? Don't you know what an argument from ignorance is? :-Pcrandaddy_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

LOL @Idnet's X-men comment.Atom_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

DEVOLABS publications page shows no published scientific papers in 2 years. Perhaps they find it easier to publish these you tube videos.idnet.com.au_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

These videos are downloadable by "right click" and "save as".idnet.com.au_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

If you want to see a real marvel watch the experimentally derived animation of the progressive construction of a real flagellum at http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellarassembly-l.mov Better still watch the 30 min movie of the research that went into the discoveries that enabled the flagella animation to be made at http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/files/011a.wmvidnet.com.au_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

If IC is an argument from ignorance Ã¢â‚¬Å“Because I cannot imagine how something evolved, it must not haveÃ¢â‚¬Â, then Darwinism is an argument from imagination. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Because I can imagine how something evolved, it must have.Ã¢â‚¬Â No need for experimental evidnce when we can make a video simulation. Why don't we watch X Men instead because it proved mutations produce valuable evolution.idnet.com.au_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

I seriously can't believe I wasted my time watching that. I'll never get those minutes back. And man, that music...you'd think that Darwinists would have at least evolved better taste in music. (Before anyone asks the question, musical taste confers an evolutionary benefit because it prevents said individual from having their eardrums ripped out after they subject me to awful music.) By the way, this reminds me of deGrasse Tyson's BB presentation where he misspelled 'crocodile'. Fortunately for Tyson, though, his voice is at least somewhat redeeming; I can't really find any redeeming features about this video other than the fact that it could have been longer and wasn't (thanks be to God).thechristiancynic_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t wait to see the detailed results of this highly sophisticated scientific study!Ã¢â‚¬Â Man you guys are all so hung up on Ã¢â‚¬Å“scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â stuff. Since when does Darwinism need scientific evidence to be true? DoesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t having music in the background of this intelligently-designed animation count for anything? Now seriously, how terrified of ID do you have to be to make something like this? I say very.shaner74_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

That clip is unintentionally funny...they have a TTSS evolved BEFORE the flagellum, when EVIDENCE supports it appearing afterwards. It claims functions without DEMONSTRATING the survival advatnage of them...assertion is not demonstration. Can their poorly spinning "proto" motor overcome the brownian motion factor, as pointed out by WmAD? This is just-so brilliant.Atom_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

ID has been refuted! I had no idea that the process depicted in this video has actually been proven to have taken place in nature, but the video provides overwhelming evidence that it has. I'm sure that the scientists who made the video have done an exhaustive analysis of what mutations would be required to engineer this marvelous transformation, and have done the relevant statistical calculations to demonstrate that such a process could have taken place with the available probabilistic resources. I can't wait to see the detailed results of this highly sophisticated scientific study! Science has proven that I, my wife, and my children are just the product of chance and necessity. What a nihilistic bummer! I guess I'll just have to deal with it.GilDodgen_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Athiesm is an argument from ignorance. "I don't know God, therefore He doesn't exist."Jehu_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

The video also claims that IC is an "argument from ignorance", and characterizes it this way: "Because I cannot imagine how something evolved, it must not have." Well, somebody please tell me why this can't be said for the Darwinist/anti-ID position, for example: "I can't imagine how this could have been designed, therefore it must have evolved." Seems like a pretty good fit to me. TRoutMac The Intelligent (Graphic) DesignerTRoutMac_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

The video claims: "The system need not have the same function as the ancestral system from which it evolved" My question is, "Who says?" Irreducible complexity is a term coined by Behe. Does it not matter whether Behe agrees that irreducible complexity can include different functions? Seems to me they're just conveniently re-defining "irreducible complexity" because they can't get around the definition given to that term by the man who invented it. They may as well say that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because I can use the holding bar to pick my nose. And it's my understanding that there's evidence that the TTSS came after the flagellumÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ do these guys ever explain how the TTSS figures into the "evolution" of the flagellum when it appears to have come AFTER? Is there good reason to doubt that the TTSS came after the flagellum? TRoutMac The Intelligent (Graphic) DesignerTRoutMac_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

I forgot to add that the theory is "so beautiful, so powerful"IDist_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

We don't even need this proof. Richard Dawkins proved that Darwinian evolution is a fact. And we know that IC is an argument from ignorant, and trying to solve this problem will give credit to "Creationists" because it means that Darwinian evolution does have problems! This is not true, the evidence is OVERWHELMING and anybody says that darwinism is not true is stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked, and of course is a religious fundamentalist.IDist_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

In my opionion, they are right. Computer simulations bring a high degree of testablity to Darwinian science which is not possible to obtain in a reasonable time frame in biological siutations. And Darwinism fails that test.WinstonEwert_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

[...] UD has a link to Evolutionary Logic [...]Darwiniana » Evolutionary logic_{December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply