The Bacterial Flagellar Motor

[@coooseee]

It's fascinating that the foundational principles of mechanical motors mimic nature. Considering the flagellar motor was barely identified as a rotary motor in the 1970s, it suggests that modern motor design is fundamental to nature and was really discovered rather than invented.

[@lh8664]

There is nothing new under the sun Ecclesiastes

[@oberonpanopticon]

Yea, it’s a cool example of convergent evolution. Apparently we found the best way to make a motor, since that’s what life has been using for two billion years or more

[@famisheddendon]

​​@@oberonpanopticonthis didn't evolve. How would functionality like this evolve? It has multiple parts working together all of which have to be fully evolved for it to work properly. Why would a life form spend thousands of years evolving useless features until eventually those features all just so happen to work together as a motor? The lifeform would need to evolve one part at a time or all parts simultaneously. Which makes no sense why it would do that from an evolutionary purpose, considering it is not helping it live longer until the mechanism has fully evolved, which it wouldn't have done if the prior evolutionary states of the motor did not help it live longer. Which they wouldn't because the motor wouldn't work. Think for two seconds.

[@qwerty_ops1246]

You’re making up strawmen buckaroo, were wheels useless because we hadn’t invented axles yet? Nah. This complexity comes from iterations. It’s not like the bacterium were consciously waiting to be able to evolve a better means of moving for millions of years, the mechanisms were fine-tuned because they *worked*. Of course they all evolved simultaneously.

[@famisheddendon]

@@qwerty_ops1246 but the mechanism is irreducably complex

[@Uajd-hb1qs]

Humans: “Why hasn’t nature created an animal with wheels?” Nature: “Working on it.”

[@Hungry_God]

Nature: because wheels are overrated. Good luck going up rocky terrain with those wheels😂 Imma just run away and climb using these cool things I invented called LEGS

[@Uajd-hb1qs]

@ How about marine life then? Nature could evolve a fish with a propeller.

[@Hungry_God]

@@Uajd-hb1qs the problem is energy. It's possible to have a propeller on a fish or something, but thats just not how marine life moves in the water. Fish and stuff travel mostly using ocean currents rather than under their own power. Sure, a propeller could boost the speed of a dolphin or shark greatly, but I doubt they would get enough energy to sustain that upkeep

[@ronantetsu4]

Props to the camera man for shrinking down to the molecular level just so we can see the inner workings of the flagellar motor.

[@drcyantist6993]

man those jokes have aged like shit

[@tylerwilliams33]

Absolutely bizarre, the way these concepts exist and then we reproduce them on a larger scale without realizing it.

[@debianlasmana8794]

@@TrevoltIV what about alien?

[@debianlasmana8794]

@@TrevoltIV Alien explain human aren't that special.. Especially all this "GoD ImAgE' bullshit..

[@debianlasmana8794]

@@TrevoltIV So do "because we are made...."

[@debianlasmana8794]

@@TrevoltIV What "evidence"? Its just evolve

[@debianlasmana8794]

@@TrevoltIV Sounds like you have nothing to say but fairy tale to "counter" evolution.

[@jesusistheonlygodamen3406]

When some of the 'simplest' organisms are in fact ludicrously brilliant and complex 😁

[@2fast2block]

God is brilliant in His designs.

[@kevingp12]

@@2fast2block amen

[@patldennis]

Thank you Jesus for Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium botulinum!

[@greathornedowl1783]

@@kevingp12 You know the worst most horrific types of bacteria have flagella motors? good bacteria don't have them.

[@reclusiarchgrimaldus1269]

​@@2fast2block Amen 🙏

[@abhinavajith92]

Superb quality of videos man! You should try and upload more often ;) It definitely helps out a lot of us!

[@StewartLab]

Thanks, will try to do some more soon

[@abhinavajith92]

Stewart Lab Oh great!

[@2fast2block]

@@StewartLab in your videos, why don't you give the glory to God for His designs? They are wonders for sure.

[@conanichigawa]

Amazing video! I hope you make more, like glycolysis and DNA translation/transcription. :)

[@fridaymorning139]

incredible! I have a degree in molecular biology and I'm totally agnostic, yet still, structures like this make me consider intelligent design just for a second....

[@2fast2block]

"structures like this make me consider intelligent design just for a second...." Why just "a second"? Do you suddenly realize that we got space, matter, and time by natural means, then we got the extreme order in our universe by natural means, then life started by natural means, then it evolved information and such designs by natural means? Do you justify it all by the typical HUGE gloss-overs ignoring the finer details to give such lame excuses for such materialistic beliefs?

[@fridaymorning139]

2fast2block I have no idea what side you are arguing for or against because your word choice is too vague. “Extreme order”? What does that even mean?

[@DrunkardCow]

Isn't it quite obvious on what spectrum (s)he lies on, ha? It's not like he's trying to hide it; nor should (s)he... I was an atheist before I found out these little machines but now I believe the life was created by something but I don't personally think it has anything to with our religious deities...

[@fridaymorning139]

@@DrunkardCow I'm also not sure what you're saying

[@katielind74]

Hello! If these types of structures make you consider Intelligent design for a second, have you ever thought of exploring that thought more fully? If God is real it would be of utmost importance to search for Him and believe. If there is no God, then you have nothing to lose. I wonder what the odds are that these bacteria evolved to form this intricate motor? A motor which has many parts that need to function together in order to work. (Irreducible complexity. Other examples are the eye and DNA.) The motor would have had to evolve all at once in order to work, or, piece by piece. Neither option makes sense. God designed everything. He knew exactly how to make this motor in order for it to function correctly. I hope that you decide to search for Him. If you search for Him with an open mind and an open heart He will make Himself known to you. Revelation 3:20 says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." This is God's promise to us that He is here and He is waiting for you to invite Him into your life. I hope that you do. I will be praying for you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. God bless you.

[@gonzalomorenoandonaegui2052]

Very cool animation !! How it works with protons ? Is it thanks to the same reluctance force that drives our electric motors ? Could electric motors be more efficient if they worked with protons current instead of electrons current ?

[@colim2595]

Its been 2 years, but maybe you will see this anyways. The movement of the protons causes changes in the structure of the Proteins; magnetism is not involved. Transposing this onto Electronic Motors would be extremely difficult because priton currents of this kind do not flow through metal (so no cables) but an aqueous solution; it would be impossible to use our electrical infrastructure with Proton currents.

[@Chente_Bui]

@@colim2595what forces cause protons to influence proteins? Also this animation shows protons, coming from both stators, moving behind the rotor. Is that accurate?

[@CMZneu]

@@colim2595 What is this called so i can research?

[@nirmalkumar7941]

I thought that it was some motor design 😂. Amazed to see that a living organism has a motor literally

[@elusiveDEVIANT]

Cant we design a motor that looks like that but is bigger?

[@danielvillanuevaavalos]

Hello, is there a way that I can get in contact with Callum Smits? I have some questions about how the protons were simulated. Thank you.

[@georgieippolito9924]

Now what happens when you go under a microscope and overvolt it until it pops? Also how long does it last until the motor Is burned out?

[@sirprize.7472]

Excellent.

[@ericcassidy6916]

Kind of makes me wonder why we don't see more wheel and axle structures in nature..

[@lv1543]

My bacteria runs off a V8 engine

[@kevingp12]

Incredible engineering that requires a mind behind it's design, it's just how modern motors work, and these required engineers.

[@Sir_Gugharde_Wuglis]

Fine tunneling in nature is fascinating to behold.

[@SnorlaxNaps]

This is an amazing video thank you so much

[@azvka]

Best quicc explanation

[@AlexDan99]

"The God deluision" braught me here

[@Minecraftj-qk4if]

what do you mean?

[@Orlanzepol123]

How can this not have been designed? How can this have even evolved? It’s a freaking motor on a cell.

[@johnthebeloved6598]

@@Orlanzepol123 it's Richard Dawkins, what would we expect from a weirdo God hater such as he. www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/ PSALMS 14 sums up Dawkins perfectly. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

[@zacharysylvester8349]

Darwin’s black box for me. Amazing system.

[@patldennis]

@@Orlanzepol123 why aren't macroscopic organisms designed with this form of locomotion?

[@ammugiri5363]

Smashed the like button 👍 Very nice and realistic video👍Thank you so much❤

[@falcychead8198]

One of the rare videos on KZbin that is informative on the subject without a bunch of creationist bullshit.

[@patldennis]

@@jameswright3618 Nope.

[@shelv9538]

@@jameswright3618 I would.

[@oberonpanopticon]

thank Ra the comments made up for it!

[@Atylonisus]

Ha ha, I basically check in periodically to watch all of their hocus pocus "it's not real, it's magi... I mean God! It's God, and not magic and NOT SCIENCE EITHER GRR" comments slowly get whittled away.

[@cosmicwarriorx1]

For more details watch Smarter Every Day's video

[@user-ro1cc8tz6d]

god I love ocean

[@xa-xii4865]

Government: Write that down!! Write it down!!

[@DrBeansjr]

Pick up line… you give my motor proteins a break.

[@prashantthapliyal5449]

Great job, subscribed

[@jumafasi]

Fantástico! 👌🏽

[@Mfields4517]

So if just one component isnt included, the motor becomes useless. So how did they all “evolve” naturally simultaneously

[@ZebecZT]

the concept of irreducible complexity really needs some research.

[@user-ro1cc8tz6d]

they had a good rig to "fold@home"

[@alexmijo]

The components didn't evolve simultaneously

[@FutureAIDev2015]

Who said the components had to have that one purpose the whole time? I could imagine the proton channel components being useful as ion pumps, and maybe the components that translate the osmotic pressure into rotational motion could be derived from a modified version of ATP synthase

[@Matt-yp4iz]

CLUTCH BEFORE SHIFTING

[@alucardlord9032]

Question Why does flagellas dont get entangled with each other if its really spinning? Maybe its just wiggling like in sperm cells?

[@kenmorris7826]

Brilliant

[@K17ZUN3]

This is crazy, nature created engines before humans discover fire

[@brokenEngineerMathAndPhysics]

Nature??

[@brokenEngineerMathAndPhysics]

I don't know when will people stop this "Nature" trend. Fu**k Darwin

[@MrZed82]

Provocative but serious question: it's unlikely that a bacteria developed the complete flagellum+motor in a single try. So my question is: what evolutive advantages an incomplete system (only motor, only flagellum, first parts of the motor and so on) would have given to the evolving branch of the species over the not evolving branch? Like, a motorless flagellum or a flagellum-less motor are useless if not an hindrance. In short: what is the evolutive hypothesis? Disclaimer: I'm no saying God did it, but on the other hand I don't accept "because evolution" without an explanation because it's basically like asking to accept it by faith

[@BPS298]

I am no microbiologist, but I saw a comment from someone claiming to be a microbiologist talking about how this isn't the only type of motor in bacteria, and how there's a much simpler version of this used in other parts of the cell. I assume that a very simple version of this evolved (perhaps a simple rotating gear or something similar) that gradually got more and more complex until eventually we get what we see today. You can also see in this video ATP synthase, which is a much smaller motor and simpler motor used to create ATP. Perhaps that could've evolved into the giant motor today, perhaps not. There's no way of really knowing.

[@logitech4873]

​@@TrevoltIV Oh you're one of those people. Ok.

[@Ariztid]

Clearly designed.

[@narcissesmith9466]

Designed by what ?

[@eustab.anas-mann9510]

@@narcissesmith9466 God

[@narcissesmith9466]

@@eustab.anas-mann9510 And who designed God ?

[@julius5310]

yes clearly designed by evolution aka nature. Life is wonderful and preservable. Lets do our part and keep the air and oceans clean from our pollution.

[@greathornedowl1783]

God must be a psychopath because the worst bacteria have flagella motors.

[@apexlifeismine100]

This organic technology exists inside our bodies. Microbiology wasn't even thought of around the time that human beings invented the motor boat . My question is how did we copy the movement and functionality of a tiny "motor boat ) inside one human cell without ever having seen or heard of the flagella? Your body is a perfect machine that operates millions of tiny pieces of equipment, fluids , and thought processes independently of any effort on your part . Who made you? We love all of our American Patriots World Wide and we still in this bish . We got love so long for you folks the human eye can't see the end of it . Stay strong stay the course and never give up on your dreams. God Bless you and Much Love

[@julius5310]

god is dead, havent you heard? The west is in decline and will soon be overshadowed by other forces. You are clinging to unreal things.

[@derbigpr500]

We didn't copy it.

[@Atylonisus]

​​@@derbigpr500 I personally like his assertion that microbiology literally didn't exist until we thought of it, and therefore similarities of features across multiple species or even technologies is a conspiracy by Big Science (C). Grasshoppers had ratcheting teeth in their legs long before we came up with cogs in a clock. Does time not exist, because something that looks like an object Man creates also exists in Nature? Also that there's some kind of funny business going on with our bodies, like if God is not real == we'd have to manually input commands to every individual atom of our bodies. Checkmate atheists!

[@Minecraftj-qk4if]

Why does it look like it was designed?

[@Novak2611]

Even "worse" the whole universe itself works by laws of physics which are described by mathematics...

[@imerror6224]

It would have probably looked a lot more "biological" if it was big enough to be seen by human eyes. This is just an interpretation.

[@patldennis]

Because it evolved from the bottom up to coform to a particular function

[@kevingp12]

@@Novak2611 how did the universe mathematics work?

[@kevingp12]

@@patldennis do you go about building a car bottom up, from screws and bolts or entire panels and entire parts?

[@oberonpanopticon]

People like to act like science and religion are compatible. Idk about that. If you’re religious, you inherently believe that some things don’t need to be proven, hence “faith”. That goes against the fundamentals of science. Believing both that we must prove things with empirical data to be certain that they are real and that some things needn’t be proven or obey logic is straight up doublethink. You can have faith, you can pursue facts, or you can try to do both and never reconcile your beliefs because that’d be hard and scary. But that’s just my two cents.

[@chrisbos4587]

You’re missing the point. God and Science is entirely compatible. Science cannot describe or define God because he is outside his realm of creation. Meaning science cannot be used to prove or disprove God. The first scientists were all theists, because the believed in an intelligent designer, they believed in finding laws in nature

[@Atylonisus]

That ain't 2 cents my guy, that's Fort Knox. Faith intrinsically flies in the face of verifiable, testable hypotheses and therefore cannot be put on equal footing with Science. Those with faith, for their part, must desperately play mental acrobatics in order to categorize each new piece of information they receive through research so that it meshes with their belief system. This leads to the famous "God of the Gaps", where any proposed deities still kickin' in the modern era need to justify why they're responsible for literally anything. "The tides go in, the tides go out. You can't explain that " - Bill OReilly, on unexplainable phenomenon proving the existence of God ;)

[@marvinratchford7913]

historical context from Christopher Hitchens ---“A good person does good things; a bad person does bad things. For a good person to do bad things, it takes a religion.”

[@cndl_lght]

God

[@BlueMesaCable]

I see your angle, but it doesn't point to any specific religion.

[@mariammusri5640]

WOAAAHH :O

[@FutureAIDev2015]

Wow, the flagella motor really does make ATP synthase look like a grain of rice by comparison

[@FutureAIDev2015]

The mechanism kind of reminds me of a brushed DC motor. Either that or maybe probably closer to a turbine driven by the flow of water, only instead of water it is the flow of protons down a concentration gradient.

[@curtisnewton895]

yet we are the sole product of evolution

[@Seabass1206]

all to take away from the beauty and intelligence of creation, its pretty obvious something greater is behind everything

[@EvilGPT]

Just a motor that runs on protons no big deal. . . It amazes me that everyone has to draw a line down the middle on this stuff. I think that two things can be true at once.

[@powersfpv]

Anybody else here from Kyle's video?

[@maxofknowledge3256]

Intelligence design so God create

[@sarp]

Everything in biotechnology but humanity focused other materials

[@iqramahesa4418]

Time to make micro car

[@raedee-z1w]

The fact is, we don't know where life came from, and all theories of it are just speculation. Scientists believe in the "primordial soup" almost like a hard truth, but even with the best lab scenarios, nothing ever happens in that soup, some organic molecules form here and there, but that's it. The soup is and will continue to be inert, with nothing ever forming from it. The is no evidence that actual replicating organic machines emerge from this soup, so even the soup theory falls as speculative as the intelligent design theory. You are fair to believe in the intelligent design, or the primordial soup, because both have no clear evidence to be honest. I personally believe in the intelligent design, because stuff like the flagellum, the kinesin and the synthethic molecular motor clearly reflect our own intelligent creations.

[@thetalkbox2114]

Wtf is going on the the audio man

[@subhadip98]

bacterial motor

[@Saint_Terra]

God exists but He lives in the machines

[@brokenEngineerMathAndPhysics]

What?

[@petrumsk3753]

Praise the ommnissiah

[@2fast2block]

God is sure amazing!

[@brandominoeffect]

Victor YANG oh yeah then what did?

[@2fast2block]

@Victor YANG thanks to Brandon, I see that youtube is famous many times of not notifying of a reply. "god didnt make this" And your proof is.... (blank) Here's your fellow fool, Miller, giving pathetic 'evidence' against IC. Evidence not only shown to be wrong, but doesn't amount to a hill of beans, anyway. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zpm6aJeaf7SKodE Behe explains the absurdity of Miller's conclusions. www.discovery.org/a/1831/ And if that's not bad enough, like ALL evo-nut cases do, they use HUGE gloss-overs. Details are shunned because they hate light exposing their darkness of HUGE gloss-overs. Now let's look at some details that shed light on what you, Miller, and others must wear blinders to. www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html Much of the same giving details here: www.discovery.org/a/24481/ It shows what a complete fairytale you believe that such a design evolved. --"It is strange that the TTSS system is so commonly promoted as the most likely starting point by many evolutionists since the TTSS system is supposed to have evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar evolution. That's right! Several scientists have suggested in fairly recent literature that there is good evidence to believe that the TTSS starting point arose from the fully formed flagellum and not the other way round."-- --"The fact is that the TTSS system is highly complex in its own right and this only adds to the notion that the TTSS system did not evolve from a system of lesser complexity, but arose from a system of much higher complexity (the fully formed flagellum) via a process of removing pre-established parts - not the addition of new parts."-- --"Add to this the fact that some of the homologues between the flagellar system and the TTSS system are not that homologous. The FliN in TTSS is only homologous to ~80 C-terminal residues of flagellar FliN (out of 137aa). There is very little FliG similarity and TTSS FliF is missing the C and N-terminal domains that are involved in forming the MS ring. All that is left of FliF is about 90 out of over 550 amino acid residues. What this means is that the TTSS system cannot rotate. Evolving the ability to rotate would involve the addition of a sizable number of specifically sequenced residues."--- --"In short, the function of the TTSS system itself is very difficult to explain using mindless evolutionary mechanisms. I have yet to see reasonable attempt to explain how a TTSS system could have evolved with neutral gaps small enough to be crossed by random mutations of any type."-- --"Matzke explains: "If type III virulence systems are derived from flagella, what is the basis for hypothesizing a type III secretion system ancestral to flagella? The question would be resolved if nonflagellar homologs of the type III export apparatus were to be discovered in other bacterial phyla, performing functions that would be useful in a pre-eukaryote world. That such an observation has not yet been made is a valid point against the present model, but at the same time serves as a prediction: the model will be considerably strengthened if a such a homolog is discovered. For the moment, it is easy enough to explain the lack of discovery of such a homolog on the basis of lack of data."-- ---"No detailed account of how this could have happened, mutation by mutation, is given. It is simply assumed to have happened. Perhaps, given enough faith in evolution as a creative force, no real detail is needed here?"-- --"What "mainstream scientists", like Kenneth Miller, don't seem to understand is that all systems of function are irreducibly complex regardless of whether or not a working subsystem can be found within the larger system."-- I can go on and on, but I wanted to give just a taste of what a pathetic love for details evo-nut cases have. They have to have such a pathetic lack of care for details so they can teach the same to dumbasses like you who believe them because you lack the care, too. Life is just one big joke to you clowns. HUGE gloss-overs is your god. The silly god of HUGE gloss-overs to your rescue and protect you from any details shedding light as you live in your darkness. Much like life arising all on its own. Many have shed light on your god of HUGE gloss-overs, one being James Tour. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk There is still a law of abiogenesis that you fools never can get around. We can't get a universe without God. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.

[@shelv9538]

Ikr?!

[@VdeV630]

And evolution is Sure fascinating!

[@2fast2block]

@@VdeV630 sure, it just all just came together on its own. Darn, if only you could show that but you can't.

[@fantaxtick9482]

If this is not a proof of God then the hearts are blind.

[@DaleDanErnie]

Atheists are scrambling for answers🤣 “It just magically came into existence.”

[@user-lp7tx1fe6t]

Theists literally believe that God came into existence from nothing and then created everything out of thin air using his magic powers.

[@BPS298]

Theists are scrambling for answers 🤣 "It just magically came into existence." What's funny is that we actually have a solution to this; you guys are using LITERAL MAGIC where this just "came into existence" and then saying WE are the ones doing that 💀💀💀

[@gregoryt8792]

@FaithG-tx2hwunicorns are not a horse with a horn but an animal probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct and dragons are what dinosaurs were called before ~1840. Did you know pictures, tapestries, pottery and stone carvings of sauropods, stegosaurus and other dinosaurs have been found all over the earth which predate the 1840 dinosaur fossil find?

[@SlaveKing1444]

A little knowledge of science will make you an athesit, a lot of knoweldge of science will make you a believer in God.

[@oberonpanopticon]

And thus we see the difference between knowledge and intelligence. How much you know vs your ability to process what you know. You can be extremely knowledgeable and still be an idiot, though it is admittedly a challenge to end up that way.

[@juisss]

​@@oberonpanopticon In islam we think it's more of a will thing, no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable if you don't want to believe and submit to the creator you won't see, Nowadays we call this "bias", in the Quran it's called a thin veil on the eyes that watch but don't see Disbelievers just think we are telling stories, because they are not at peace with the fact of submitting to Allah, that is until the day the test that is this life ends, then they'll want to return and believe. TLDR: it's just about wanting to believe, worldly life is a test for the will power we have been gifted with, before the true life that is ahead

[@neves5083]

What in the actual

[@Brukrex]

No way, there is so much we don't know. God is literally the best creator. We are made in God's image; that is why we also create and design.

[@gregoryt8792]

@FaithG-tx2hwHe is waiting for you to believe. Satan is in control for a little while longer. In 1910 Ivan Panin, a Russian/ American Harvard math genius and linguistic expert, proved the Bible mathematically. Watch - Math proves the Bible. Most recently a 30 year veteran cold case criminologist J. Warner Wallace proved the Bible forensically in his book, Person of Interest. His testimony would convince any jury of the veracity of the Bible. Some of the amazing things in the Bible include the prophecy of the fall of Tyre and the prophecy of Alexander the great. Bible firsts include knowing life being in the blood long before modern science, or the Bible knowing about mountains and currents in the oceans or how the earth hangs on nothing. You should know about the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus and the impossible odds of that happening. The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that the writings are divine rather than human in origin. The Bible has also been proven archaeologically, historically and linguistically. 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. I recommend a church that teaches the Bible verse by verse.

[@VinluvAntonHandesbukia]

Atheists be like "just a Lucky coincidence"

[@oberonpanopticon]

Theists be like “I don’t understand it. Obviously god must’ve done it.”

[@VinluvAntonHandesbukia]

@@oberonpanopticon I look and talk like this. All I know is that I look nothing.

[@juisss]

@@oberonpanopticon So in your mind because you understand it then Allah hasn't made it?

[@oberonpanopticon]

@@juisss No, I think the sun god Ra hasn’t made it

[@moistmike4150]

Wow! With enough time you can expect nature to create God... or vice versa...

[@TRVPHAUS]

Ummm. What..? And what would the vice versa even be in that case? Makes literally no sense.

[@davrocket5304]

Darwin fans left the chat room

[@sajjadrashid4891]

And atheists believe that this amazing thing came into being by itself. Show them a wall clock and tell them that it came into being by itself they will call u lunatic ... When this thing is of nano technology and more complex than a wall clock. Believe in Almighty God

[@patldennis]

Bacteria aren't wall clocks. We can go and watch a clock built

[@kevingp12]

A bacteria is significantly more complex, if a clock required a designer, so does the bacteria

[@scottrussell1018]

@@patldennis Design is inferred from intuition. We know a wall clock is designed because of our intuition when we look at it, we don’t think it’s designed because of knowing we can observe it being built.

[@patldennis]

@@scottrussell1018 intuition is a piss poor conduit fir understanding unintuitive nature. Not tge use of inference which is comparable to an anecdotal theory. The only reliable method for assessing the usefulness of a model is deduction. What deductions can you derive abd then explore abd test as a means of testing your general model?

[@patldennis]

@@kevingp12 Were pathogenic bacteria designed to cause suffering and disease?

[@gotdammit]

Fuckin' what?

[@hamabrewer]

And they say this just MATERIALIZED out of “nothing”...

[@weirjwerijrweurhuewhr588]

That's not what "they" say at all.

[@hamabrewer]

Ramon omaR Yes, it is...

[@alex_inside]

Hama Brewer than you know nothing about evolution

[@Dinos0001]

Hama Brewer "Hey look!! Something amazing that I don't understand!! I'll just say that god made it...". And if you think it just materialized out of nowhere/nothing then I suggest you open some books and educate yourself.

[@Godsambassador3]

It takes incredible faith to believe this is not from a designer! Evolutionists say it has the illusion of design, but it's not because it's built from the ground up. That would be similar to building a simple tree house and then keep adding to it until you end up with the Empire State Building. Kind of ridiculous when you say that out loud.

[@DiamondbackAxis]

And scientists still believe this happened randomly without a designer! 😂 what a bunch of fools God created nature. The ultimate designer of the Universe! Btw it's called universe because of the FIRST verse of the FIRST chapter in the Bible. Genesis 1:1 is the answer. read it

[@LodyBasha]

(1) Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, (2) Allah, the Eternal Refuge. (3) He neither begets nor is born, (4) Nor is there to Him any equivalent." Quran Ch.112

[@raanoooshh9296]

👏🏼🙏

[@brunoder303]

(5) He shall kaboom hard.