This podcast is a perfect example of information that needs a very detailed video. It loses too much in just a verbal explanation. A 30 to 60 minute video is needed just as a beginning and an in depth video would need to be compared side by side to a human designed motor.

@Shalom_Michael

Ай бұрын

100% agree! This loses a lot without visuals.

The bacterial flagellum certainly is a marvel of complexity, but I think scientists have demonstrated that it is not irreducibly complex, as has been shown for the eye and other structures that 20 years ago were treated similarly. But how components adapt and evolve certainly is amazing! We are in the earlier stages of developing models to describe such things. One thing we know now for sure is that random errors contributed to less than 2% of changes in organisms. Look at endosymbiosis, horizontal gene transfer, whole gene duplication, epigenetics and so on, in dramatially changing climates, habitats, food sources, etc.

@TrevoltIV

23 күн бұрын

This is precisely why I dislike the term "irreducible complexity". It isn't necessarily the irreducibility that matters, it is the fact that these systems could not be formed by small adaptations, which is something that Darwin was very aware of and talked about in his first book. I prefer to call it "non-adaptive complexity" instead. You can take a computer and replace the processor with a simpler, cheaper one, effectively "reducing" it. However that doesn't mean the more complex processor could come about by slightly adapting one tiny change at a time from the simpler one.

It's probably an upload which would greatly benefit from added animation as it's arguably way too specialised/ high level for 'lay listeners' to grasp.

What a great thumbnail....

Wow!

How can it be from the gradualism of evolution, when all the parts have to be present for it to work

Yeah no, the bacterial flagellum was already disproven as irreducibly complex years ago even on trial. The injectisome is a structure that is missing the flagella parts but still functions well

@TrevoltIV

23 күн бұрын

This is precisely why I dislike the term "irreducible complexity". It isn't necessarily the irreducibility that matters, it is the fact that these systems could not be formed by small adaptations, which is something that Darwin was very aware of and talked about in his first book. I prefer to call it "non-adaptive complexity" instead. You can take a computer and replace the processor with a simpler, cheaper one, effectively "reducing" it. However that doesn't mean the more complex processor could come about by slightly adapting one tiny change at a time from the simpler one.

Lol. I so badly wish Charles Darwin comes back alive and starts to speak to Dawkins.

The evidence of intelligent design in both the genome & many micro organisms is fast becoming irrefutable. As to the source of such ‘intelligence’ I’ll leave it to the theologians to fight amongst themselves

@Papa-dopoulos

Ай бұрын

You’ll acknowledge the designer of life on Earth but not care about what they want?

God existed before He created creatures, yes or no? Yes. God was not created, He is the Creator, yes or no? Yes. Was time created, yes or no? Yes. God is not concerned with the time He created, God existed and time did not exist, yes or no? Yes. God created Space (places, directions), yes or no? Yes. As God is not concerned with the time He created, He is not concerned with the space He created. Even scientific atheists know that space and time are inseparable.