Irreducible complexity, bacterial flagellum and the Type III Secretory System 

I love how Stephen's expertise is studying science itself. He is a very balanced person, whether you do not want to accept what he is saying or not.

Thanks Mr stephen for your amazing , mind blowing work, I red your two books signature in the cell and Darwin's Doubt. You are pride of intelligent Design. May God bless you, One day we would like to invite you to Pakistan , because Pakistani people deserve your teaching.

Michael Behe’s thesis is always the valid thesis whereas clumsy darwinism is always found wanting. /Lonewolf Liberties

A wonderful presentation but a quick background would help to kickstart the new information

The case for the TTSS having arisen later than the flagellum is compelling. But this makes the hypothesis of this resulting from the co-opting of the flagellum (or at least its protein transport subunit) extremely strong. I would have liked Dr Meyer to give us an idea of why this co-opting mostly amounts to devolution. From reading a chapter of Design and Nature he co-authored in 2004, it would seem that there are no new proteins in the TTSS. (This is not stated explicitly, but only proteins common to both TTSS and flagellum are mentioned.) However, in A mousetrap for Darwin, Michael Behe points out: "Proteins similar-but not identical-to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria."

The grand daddy of all irreducible complexity is information carrying DNA/RNA.

Great to see Disc. Sci publishing on RU-vid. Please consider the merits of a "split screen", and then add animations to one screen, and add publication citations to another. Create computer generated animations to help describe the evolution story in comparison to the design story. Add publication citations in another screen to enhance authority. Also, Dr. Meyer needs to slow down. This is not a race.

amazing.!

Furthermore....the type 3 sec needs to have something to inject...a neurotoxin also has to 'evolve' along with it. Otherwise, the type 3 injector would serve no purpose.

The term "gene" was first introduced by the Danish botanist and geneticist Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909. He used the word "gene" to describe the basic units of heredity that control the inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. The word "gene" is derived from the Greek word "genos", meaning "origin" or "birth".

Breaking down the details for further evidence of intelegent design.

May I suggest a de-ess plug in for the audio editor. Most video editing software should have one and if not many in-expensive audio plug ins are available. The sibilance is pretty hot in this video.

you could pick any specific topic in biology and outline what is not known about that topic. the only conclusion you can draw from the exercise is that we don't yet know everything about the topic and need to study it more.

The evolution religion is not science but a belief system made up by great imagination.

Isaiah 42:9 Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

I loved the flintstones. People and dinosaurs living in harmony. Fossils of dinosaurs are prosaic, but people fossils simply don't exist. A few petrified parts do exist.

Just for the sake of getting both sides, and because I know you guys aren't biased, and aren't afraid of opposing information, because the truth is on your side: Are there any means of investigation that run counter to the ones in this video? Are there any ways of examining these two systems that would suggest the secretary system did come first?

👏

Referring to the ages of both, you get an idea that there is an evolutionary process at work, only guided. But the fact is no one has been around long enough to verify whether or not what is looked at to determine the ages of the genes, actually is evidence that one gene is older than another. And since we have been told that all was created in the timespan of a week, then what ever the processes being used to determine the supposed ages of the two systems, do not actually do so. And are either telling a different story or are something that just happens to be, and these same ages would have been seen from the beginning of creation of the two systems. This is what they can not determine. Because they don't have a before and after picture of what was and what it was incrementally down through time. This would be the same problem with the evolutionists claiming common ancestry trying to use DNA. We know that common ancestry should be seen within the different kinds of lifeforms. This is a given. We can test the DNA from and follow this down through history. But the jump to say that these same results would be evidence for common ancestry crossing over the borders of the different kinds, is a leap without substance. We have no way of knowing an ancestry from different kinds. All we have are the words of those who insist that evolution occurred. We are able to take the common ancestry back to Adam, because we have seen that fulfilled down through so many previous generations. But what DNA do we have from the supposed transitional common ancestors? When we are born the different kinds of organisms are already present. And then there is the important fact that each of them are from where those of their own are always coming from. We know one organism is different from other kinds of organisms. We see this for ourselves. And we can see that there are various species that would fall under the same umbrella kinds of organisms. Too be sure there may be some problems fixing which goes where in the different kinds. But still it is with a doubt a given that we don't have any concrete reasons to assume that the DNA we take today, is good enough evidence to determine common ancestry occurred in the past. instead we should assume that the commonalties seen are a result of coincidence and not because there ever was a common ancestor.

👍

Irreducible complexity - The three legged stool did not evolve as an improvement on the two legged stool, the one legged stool, and the aboriginal legless stool ;)

You would think based on the overwhelming information against evolution our educational systems would revisit the lies they have been doling out to the precious children.

but who is the intelligent designer???? oh yes the magic sky daddy :)

If his claims are true, the counter-argument for Behe's critics sounds very legit indeed.

Tests proves critics of Intelligent design are wrong

The God Delusion brought me here, now I understand the gap finders idea

Yeah, well, Ken Miller made a tie clip from only part of a Mousetrap... So as long as bacteria can evolve the social-norm need for ties, then the tie clip would become useful, and saved by natural selection. THEN the bacterial tie clip would become lost in the bacteria's dresser with lots of other junk, until.... the tie clip mutated into an early hook joint for an outboard motor with the rest of the dresser junk acting like s-rings, bushings, drive rod & membrane! Ta-da! 'Nature made' flagellum step by step. Totally debunked Behe.

Grossest title for a video

Behe... hahaha!

Irreducible complexity is the claim, that the flagellar motor is irreducible in complexity. The Type III Secretory System, among other examples, shows, that this claim is false. Why? Because the Type III Secretory System involves less molecules, is less complex while being fully functional. How hard is that to get?!

The E. coli bacterium contains around 40 different kinds of proteins, only 23 of which are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up. Of these 23 proteins just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum were already present in bacteria before this structure evolved. It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.