this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
55 points (80.9% liked)
Videos
16006 readers
206 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Well, I don't think it's worth repeating the debate again. You can go back and look at what was posted back when it came out.
But he tells a very one sided story and keeps telling to keep an open mind. He presents this thing as if it's totally unique and amazing, where there are very similar structures in nature out there. He also heavily focuses on the idea of it being a motor in the way that a human designed motor works, giving the same names to parts which are kind of similar on a surface level but really aren't. He also repeats all of the bible thumper talking points around this subject, as if it's a mystery nobody can explain and couldn't have come to be without some kind of intelligent design at the helm. But the reality is, this is not representing the reality at all. This whole flagella thing was an exercise of goal post moving in the first place. The ID people kept pointing out weird things and missing links. Then when science explained exactly how that thing came to be, without ID involved, they just pointed to the next thing at one point ending up at flagella.
There is a whole Wikipedia page talking about how flagella evolved and how it came to be. The intelligent design people have been shouting about this for 3 decades now and there is so much info out there to find about how this came to be. If Destin wanted to approach this from a scientific standpoint, he would focus on that information, instead of presenting it like some kind of mystery we are still figuring it out today. And not keep telling people to have an open mind and how he can't figure it out. He could have even gone into why people might think it was ID and then explain the science why it is not. Something other online science communicators often do, give people the points they have been hearing from the "wrong" side and then go into those points and explain them.
Basically the whole subject itself is very hard to present without going into the whole ID versus evolution standpoint and the way he represented it was straight out of the ID playbook. And keep in mind all of this was thoroughly debunked back 20 years ago. Him bringing this up now is inexcusable.
I'm not even sure there is research still being done on this, the research was done decades before, there is no mystery.
He literally does not say that though, he says there's a lot of research into it and encourages people to read it.
Yeah I agree, but I also think that you can't exactly blame someone else who was uninvolved with the initial argument for arguing a different thing at a different time. If one person criticizes a politician for not providing enough social services and another separate person complains about taxes that's not moving goal posts, those are just two different people.
Yes, but, did you read it? Its not exactly too resoundingly confident in any one theory.
All of what? It is true that the flagella isn't unique if that's what you mean.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mmi.14658
Here's a relatively recent study that says basically what the wikipedia says:
But it also says:
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.
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.
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