Question:
NOT OPINION, can you prove it is wrong, evolutionists?
disciple
2007-01-28 13:08:26 UTC
in ours bodies lie something called the bacteria flagellum. the bacteria flagellum is in bacteria and is like a tail that has a motor like function, the problem is that in order for evolution to be true to explain creation it is impossible for these parts to have evolved. The reason is because it is like a motor and everyone knows that you need many working parts all at once and properly in place to work. Therefore it would be impossible to have evolved which would have required a gradual gain and placement of parts in which by that time life would not have been able to be sustained. Creation is explainable through faith and through the word of God but also through the little bacteria flagellum. To have an well assembled motorlike part in this bacteria shows undefensable evidence for an intelligent designer who is God.

There are no solid facts in which science can prove this. I pray you will embrace the creator, I appeal, please come to the savior that is Christ Jesus and ask him
23 answers:
Phoebe
2007-01-28 13:37:47 UTC
There are so many ways to dispute evolution, and the evolutionists will still find a way to stand up for it. The only reason they stick by it is because they can't stand to admit the fact that there is Someone that will answer to at the end of days. They can't fathom that Someone created them. I think they're flailing in the water and trying to grab a life preserver, but the problem is that they keep grabbing bits of rope that lead to nothing. Evolutionists have their own religion whether they want to admit it or not. They keep waiting for something to be found that will prove evolution. Mr. Darwin died waiting for proof and so will they, unless they find their way. Just be confident in the fact that we have already found God and we don't have to wait for anything. The more discoveries they make, the more everything points to God.
Chris W
2007-01-28 13:19:50 UTC
NH Baritone's answer is absolutely correct. There are solid facts that prove that each component of the bacterial flagellum has its own function. The Dover Trial provided enough evidence to prove that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.



Creation is only explainable through faith. Nothing else supports it.



God is not an intelligent designer. He is a law maker. Evolution is the only way He could have created life, because the evidence supports it.
bc_munkee
2007-01-28 13:17:32 UTC
Your 'irreducable complexity' is an old argument, and not a good one. I am not going into detail on this, but I will get you started. Structures such as this most often start out as something else which becomes changed by evolution so that it may serve a specialized function. This is much like the small hairs in our inner ear. So too, the flagellum would not have originally used this structure for movement, but after a few hundred million years the appendage would have changed towards this because of the usefulness it provided.



Go to school.
The Truth
2007-01-28 16:09:24 UTC
It took me 20 seconds online to find the response of scientists to this very old argument. This was refuted a long time ago and does NOT have the support of science. Therefore it IS just opinion.



I am not an evolutionist as I don't think such a term means anything - it's like calling someone an Einsteinist or a Newtonist. I will listen to the science before I listen to someone with an anti-science agenda.
marbledog
2007-01-28 13:26:30 UTC
This claim was presented by Michael Behe in "Darwin's Black Box years ago. It has been debunked numerous times. The fallacy of the argument lies in the the pre-emptive assumption that it's "impossible" for a flagella to have formed through natural processes. The fact that simpler transportation methods exist in nature, can be created in laboratories, and can be reasonably postulated destroy the concept of impossibility. This does not prove HOW the flagella evolved, but it does prove that divine intervention was not necessary for to happen.
2007-01-28 13:15:03 UTC
This IS AN OPINION, based on your faith and religious beliefs. IT IS POSSIBLE for life to evolve, given enough time and there was enough time on this planet, about 4 billion years. Natural selection can do it's work, go look it up and you will understand.



Since evolution is FACT, doesn't that show a more powerful god in the sacred texts. But instead, most see that humans were created seperately, like creation.
2007-01-28 13:16:53 UTC
Just b/c you cannot prove it wrong, does not mean you can prove it right.



Let's imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in Leprechauns. You cannot prove that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they exist." You actually have heard of Leprechauns. There are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist. There is no physical evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. Not a single bit. Therefore, it is obvious to any normal person that Leprechauns are imaginary. There is no difference between "god" and Leprechauns.
perelandra
2007-01-28 13:26:09 UTC
I'm not an evolutionist. If Zero says the irreducible complexity of the bacteria flagellum is now disproved, I challenge him to name his source. While he's at it, let him deal with Roger Penrose's calculations of the odds of the universe we have coming about by chance (1 in 100,000,000,000 to the 123rd power--pigs could have better odds of flying!). Then he can disprove the fine-tuning of the macrouniverse, the Cambrian Explosion, the complexity of DNA programming...ad infinitum...

Hang in there. Evolutionists are as they are because if they admitted that they were created beings, then they would have to be accountable to their Creator, and that's the last thing they want.
Nick F
2007-01-28 13:14:52 UTC
it's certainlly possible for the parts to evolved the parts of the flagellum are actually also used for something else, you just make some changes and BAM, you have a flagellum
The Frontrunner
2007-01-28 13:16:13 UTC
i agree with everyone above me except you. I am an atheist, I can tell you right now that the reason the flaggela work is not because god just woke up one day and said, hmm, i think ill make bacteria tails today. get a brain.
Jorge
2015-10-03 14:21:17 UTC
1 out of 10 billions to the 123 power.those are the odds for the evolutionist to be right.
2007-01-28 13:19:01 UTC
what did jesus christ do? everyone says "he died for our sins." I never met another question that gave such non understandable answers. Im not being biased, but if your Christian pretend for a second your not and if it rly made sense if someone told you he "died for our sins" I just dont honestly understand, how is he a savior, who did he save? I saved a butterfly from a bag of spinach once, can i be a savior too?
Cold Fart
2007-01-28 13:12:44 UTC
Ever notice that the common cold can morph and mutate to become immune to certain medicines? That's evolution.



The bacterial flagellum has already been settled.
anthonypaullloyd
2007-01-28 13:38:48 UTC
I MAY be able to prove it wrong. What I need to establish, before running off and getting it, is what you will accept as proof. Now if you are just going to ignore anything that disproves the theory that it couldn't evolve then no, I can't prove it wrong. If, however, you clearly state what you WILL ACCEPT as proof then we can discuss it.
ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT••
2007-01-28 13:12:12 UTC
The "irreducible complexity" of bacteria flagellum has already been disproven. Were you not paying attention?



http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
NHBaritone
2007-01-28 13:14:22 UTC
This was addressed ad nauseum in the Dover School case in which the Federal Judge determined that Intelligent Design is a religion-based set of ideas.



Here are some of the refutations of your poorly reasoned framework taken from talkorigins.org :



1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.



One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):



1. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.



2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).



3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).



4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.



5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.



6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.



The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.



2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).



Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).



3. Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.
rosbif
2007-01-28 13:15:45 UTC
Sure.If you check this out you will find that there are different types of flagella that move in different ways.In other words they have EVOLVED differently



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum
neil s
2007-01-28 13:12:46 UTC
Creationism is based o the fact that the universe is to complex for creationists to understand.
2007-01-28 13:23:49 UTC
If you cannot tell the difference between manufactured and naturally occurring, then I feel really badly for you.



People are not machines, Peanut.
2007-01-28 13:13:45 UTC
This is a very old example thrown forward. How many times does it need to be refuted?
2007-01-28 13:14:24 UTC
I think you're doing a great job. Please continue to spread the word of God. There are not too many people out there who have the guts to stick up to the atheists, evolutionists, and the just plain stubborn. Regardless of what all of the others are saying you're doing great and I wish you the best of luck in all your missions. You've restored some of my trust in people. God Bless you. Take care.
cthulhu will raise
2007-01-28 13:15:32 UTC
wow.... your lacking in knowledge
Stormilutionist Chasealogist
2007-01-28 13:14:40 UTC
Thanks but no thanks. Been there, done that.



And your statement makes no sense whatsoever.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...