Dr. Stephen Meyer

And he acknowledged, I'll have to think about this point Steve made about

These cosmological models invoking unexplained fine-tuning.

But there was one debate we had about the bacterial flagellar motor where I explained that the genetic evidence showed that the parts of the flagellar motor had not –

The flagellar motor had not evolved from simpler parts, but it rather—oh, no, excuse me.

The flagellar motor, there's another thing called the type 3 secretory system, which is a kind of—it's got the inner workings of the flagellar motor, but not all the accoutrements.

And some people have proposed that the type 3 secretory system was the ancestor from which the flagellar motor evolved.

And in the debate, I explained that the genetics showed that it was the other way around, that the flagellar motor evolved.

was the aboriginal form and the type three secretory system was a devolutionary byproduct of the system or something that had arisen independently.

And after the debate, one of the guys on the other side came up to me and he said, he said, I won't say the name of the other scientists, but some other scientists had given him the argument about the type three being the ancestor.

And I said, okay,

I told him it might be the opposite, and now you've made me look foolish.

So anyway, you have people that do debates that want to win at all costs, and you have people that do debates to want to get to the truth, and I've encountered both.

And I think it's coming on me and my side, our side also.

When we get something wrong, we've got to own up to that.

Yeah.

It's the same thing.

Well, it is obviously a design hypothesis, right?

Look, we're seeing all this evidence of...

information, information processing.

This looks like almost like a computer world in a living setting.