this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
66 points (81.7% liked)

Videos

16056 readers
481 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not going to debate Intelligent Design in 2025, that's just dumb.

The whole thing boils down to: Just because we don't fully understand it, doesn't mean it's proof of god.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days 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.