Menu Bar
NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Biologists discuss the assertion by creationists that some organs are "irreducibly complex." Such an organ would serve no purpose and give no competitive advantage to the organism unless it was fully formed, and therefore could not be the product of gradual development through evolution by natural selection. A segment from NOVA's documentary on Kitzmiller, et. al. v. Dover Area School District.
In that case, the Court held that the District had attempted to require the teaching of creationism in its schools, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
From: NOVA's "Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial"
In that case, the Court held that the District had attempted to require the teaching of creationism in its schools, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
From: NOVA's "Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial"
Feb 16, 2009 6:48 PM
Re: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
People need to stop "debunking" intelligent design. It's like debunking flat earth theory- there's no need. The constant exposure it gets makes it legitimate when we should just be ignoring it outright. If supporters threaten to get it instituted in, for example, schools, it needs to be shut down but otherwise stop calling attention to a non-entity.
I guess it's just too fun and easy to "rage against" something so obviously wrong. It's lazy work on NOVA's part.
I guess it's just too fun and easy to "rage against" something so obviously wrong. It's lazy work on NOVA's part.
By: Chewbot
Re: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
This video is a part of a nova special covering the Dover case back in 2007.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
By: slage123
Re: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
While in principle I agree; if someone's debunking of theist propaganda makes even one wrong-headed individual question their beliefs it is worth it.
By: shorn
Re: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
Miller says that the mousetrap is useless unless it contains the baseplate, catch, hammer and bait-holder. He says it will not work if any one of those five parts are taken away. His tie-clip contains less than those five parts. It is not a mousetrap. A flagellum contains many, many parts in perfect synchronicity. Take any one part away, and it is no longer a flagellum. It wouldn't even make a decent tie clip. The syringe structure looks somewhat similar in size and shape but it serves a completely different purpose. A flagellum with several parts taken away does not a syringe make, and a syringe with several parts added would not make a flagellum. What would a bacterium do with only 75% of the parts needed for a flagellum? How about 90%? I think the bacterium needs a 100% completed and functioning motor to zoom around getting business done. -Now, no need to get nasty, I'm just an observer that's all.
Re: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
When you take the parts away from the whole, OF COURSE it doesn't function as the whole. However, the individual parts still have a function, which goes against the principles of irreducible complexity. If the individual parts had no function, they wouldn't have existed in the first place. But you could conceivably find a use for each part of the above mentioned things.
However, those are both irrelevant because they're man made.
However, those are both irrelevant because they're man made.
By: Faffy
Re: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
Oh, and so does the flagellum, in case you haven't done any actual investigation into the subject. It was shown to not be irreducibly complex.
Irreducible complexity is just a childrens game of "religious scientists" picking small things they don't fully understand and saying "I bet you can't make that simpler" and then forcing scientists to do work for them to show them otherwise.
Irreducible complexity is just a childrens game of "religious scientists" picking small things they don't fully understand and saying "I bet you can't make that simpler" and then forcing scientists to do work for them to show them otherwise.
By: Faffy
qqq
"What would a bacterium do with only 75% of the parts needed for a flagellum?" Simple. They'd have a syringe (or some other biological device) instead. Many bacteria use air or water currents to travel without the aid of a flagellum. It is not necessary for transport, it is an aid to it. In fact, the existence of the two similar structures on such simple creatures is an argument in favor of evolution!
image of plague @
http://www.rkm.com.au/BACTERIA/Yersinia-pestis.html
general bacteria info @ http://www.lanesville.k12.in.us/lcsyellowpages/Tickit/Carl/bacteria.html
image of plague @
http://www.rkm.com.au/BACTERIA/Yersinia-pestis.html
general bacteria info @ http://www.lanesville.k12.in.us/lcsyellowpages/Tickit/Carl/bacteria.html
By: catgrin
Re: qqq
The structures shown in the video (flagellum and syringe) look similar to me but they have very different purposes. Kind of like how a spark plug looks an awful lot like the axle & gear assembly in my sons remote control car.
OK, Lets say there are 36 parts needed to make a working flagellum. Each of these parts must be arranged with specific locations, not too close, not too far away. Rather small tolerances for error. Kind of like the parts in my son's toy car. Oh and they'll need command and control systems in place as well. Now let's say it took a quick 10,000 years for the flagellum to evolve through random mutations, trial and error, etc. After a few centuries some of the parts appear in the right place. A few centuries later some of the other bits appear. A few now, a few later. They don't actually do anything yet. They're waiting to be a flagellum. As time and chance would have it, the shape, size and specific arrangement begin to look more and more like the finished product. At the same time the command and control system is getting prepared. Very complex in my humble opinion.
But then why would a "simple" creature be developing these structures that are unrelated and don't actually do anything useful yet. Isn't that a waste of resources? What's the biological advantage to having a little collection of crank shafts, gears and such muddled together? This inefficient side-project must have been in progress across thousands or millions of generations. How is this bunch of components causing these creatures to be favoured in the process of natural selection? Nice plague pic by the way.
OK, Lets say there are 36 parts needed to make a working flagellum. Each of these parts must be arranged with specific locations, not too close, not too far away. Rather small tolerances for error. Kind of like the parts in my son's toy car. Oh and they'll need command and control systems in place as well. Now let's say it took a quick 10,000 years for the flagellum to evolve through random mutations, trial and error, etc. After a few centuries some of the parts appear in the right place. A few centuries later some of the other bits appear. A few now, a few later. They don't actually do anything yet. They're waiting to be a flagellum. As time and chance would have it, the shape, size and specific arrangement begin to look more and more like the finished product. At the same time the command and control system is getting prepared. Very complex in my humble opinion.
But then why would a "simple" creature be developing these structures that are unrelated and don't actually do anything useful yet. Isn't that a waste of resources? What's the biological advantage to having a little collection of crank shafts, gears and such muddled together? This inefficient side-project must have been in progress across thousands or millions of generations. How is this bunch of components causing these creatures to be favoured in the process of natural selection? Nice plague pic by the way.
