Okay, So to disprove evolution.....The Bacterium Flagellum.
Consists of several micro "peices" so to speak of, Each of these peices is an "irreducable complex" If evolution using the laws of natural selection were true, each one of these 40 some odd peices would have to be made slightly over time however if not all 40 of them were made at exactly the same time they would serve NO benefit to the organism and thus eliminated via natural selection.
How about the lack of any transitional form ever found in any fossil records. Darwin said it himself there must have been countless fossils of transitional forms or else my theory would be false.
How about the cambrian explosion?
How about the evidence against such "extincit" organisms like the Archaeptery, the Coelacanth and the Hyrax???
18 comments
1. It's spelled "pieces."
There are plenty of transitional fossils, and we even have living transitional forms like the monotremes. And if evolution works (and it does) then every species alive today, that has ever lived, or that ever will live, is a transitional species; transitional between what it was, and what it may become if its environment changes and evolutionary forces go to work on it.
Really, this isn't hard to understand.
Ooooh, I know this one. The flagellum, far from being useless if only partially constructed, is actually an example of organs, if you can use the term to describe something that minor, taking on different roles.
Bacteria have been found with half flagellums. Instead of being poor movement devices, they serve as rather well constructed attack mechanisms, to aid in the destruction of other bacteria's cell walls.
Far from being irreducibly complex, the flagellum is just another structure with bits added on. Mutations caused this device to gain bits, and in so doing new functionality.
THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY ARGUMENT IS MISTAKEN AND THEREFORE INVALID. And you're using the term wrong anyway. Shows you don't even understand THAT. Like an eye: People who spout irreducible complexity say, "Well, what good is half an eye?" Nothing ever had half an eye. They would've started as light-sensitive cells on the body which would be better clumped together. Soon, the cells become a light-sensitive mass, since that's even better. So on and so forth until you get the eyes of today's humans. Or the eyes of today's flies. Different traits help different species different ways. Never is there half an eye. Just a less effective one.
The only reason we think something's extinct is because no one sees or reports one for a period of time. Are you suggesting God pops them back into reality all the sudden? Or doesn't the fact it's a big world with some areas largely unresearched,
You do realize we're still finding 'new' undocumented species? No you don't, as you scientific inquiry ends with Genesis
Irreducible complexity can be easily explained. Those "40 or so" pieces all changed (read: EVOLVED) together. Each one does something to support the next.
There are numerous examples of tranistional fossils. Please visit a nautral history museum.
The Cambrian Explosion came about because the Earth was very conducive to support life. It had millions of years to diversify. Plants, large reptiles (dinosuars) as you might recall reading about, even our tiny mammalian ancestors came into being. It was ended around 65 million years ago.
The Archaeoraptor (is extinct) was an example of a transtional fossil. The Coelacanth is an evolutionary throw back. It managed to remain in existance, as it was very isolated off the east coast of Africa. And hyraxes are still running around rocky places in the "holy land".
You don't need to come back and completely debunk yourself. I'd like to think it's taken care of.
The flagellum's anchor point is a former excretory pore. In other words, the bacterium grew a wild hair out its ass.
Systems that evolve, display what is more accurately called "interlocking complexity". Take away a component, and the system may not work as it did... but the system's evolution is not a process of throwing otherwise useless components together.
Lady Gray wrote: "People who spout irreducible complexity say, "Well, what good is half an eye?"
The simple answer is "half as good."
Anyone who has taken a walk on a moonlit night has experienced what it is like to only have a fraction of the normal level of visual perception. Anyone who thinks this means you'd fare no worse if you walked around at night with your eyes closed is a moron.
look, I know that using the "irreducible complexity" argument makes you feel smart, but it has long since been discredited. Same with the "no transitional fossils" argument, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument (if you were thinking about using that one next). You may feel smart when you talk about these topics, but you sure don't look smart when you do.
You know, all these arguments have been debunked so many times I don't understand why on earth creationists keep repeating them.
Common sense would say that after someone shows you that what you're saying is nonsense you'd stop saying it. But these people just keep on repeating the same things over and over and over again like a broken record.
is actually an example of organs, if you can use the term to describe something that minor,
I believe the word is "organelle."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
