Comment

Comment on I Tried To Make Something In America (The Smarter Scrubber Experiment) - Smarter Every Day 308

<- View Parent

aidan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

You’re thinking I’m saying something I’m not. And I think that was the case with your interpretation of the video too.

Nothing I’ve said here (or ever said in my life) is pro-intelligent design

source

Sort:hotnew top

m0darn@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
I’m a different person weighing in here:

When you said:

The T3SS is one of the most complex bacterial molecular machines, incorporating one to over a hundred copies of more than 15 different proteins into a multi-MDa transmembrane complex (Table 1). The system, especially the flagellum, has, therefore often been quoted as an example for “irreducible complexity,” based on the argument that the evolution of such a complex system with no beneficial intermediates would be exceedingly unlikely. However, it is now clear that, far from having evolved as independent entities, many secretion systems share components between each other and with other cellular machineries (Egelman, 2010; Pallen and Gophna, 2007).

I ofc am just a layman reading this, I agree it seems better understood that how I interpreted what he was saying, but it also doesn’t seem nearly as well understood as you’re saying.

IMO it’s a problem with the article. The article says that T3SS is cited as an example as something that’s “irreducibly complex”. I suppose that it’s true that it is cited as that. But the second part of the paragraph explains why it isn’t true that it’s “irreducibly complex”. The paragraph isn’t explicit enough because the paragraph has probably evolved to be something that’s true and equally dissatisfying to both sides.

source
- aidan@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Yeah, I’m not trying to say its black and white, I’m just saying its not as devoid of nuance as I feel like they’re presenting it.
  
  source
  - m0darn@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    I think the irreducible complexity debate is over. Creationist scientists will continue to publish “but maybe” arguments because defending creationism is part of their identity, but its just a “but maybe this gap in human knowledge proves XYZ”. They are starting with a conclusion and looking for arguments that it isn’t impossible.
    
    source
    aidan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    I agree, I don’t think that a lack of current understanding proves the existence of god in any way. But them drawing the wrong conclusion doesn’t mean that they aren’t right about there being a lack of current understanding.
    
    source