Discovering the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest was a game-changer for me. It's wild how something so profound can be overlooked. Highly encourage everyone to dive into it!
As a medstudent every time I learn something about the cell, Iam always amazed by its design. Next time All I need is popcorn, its that fun to watch. Keep it up G
I just discovered your channel a couple days ago. What a breath of fresh air! You have a fantastic sense of humor and an engaging story telling style. I started sharing these with my daughters, ages 8, 11, and 13, as soon as I found them. They love them and keep asking to see more! Please keep up the good work. We are all learning a lot!
I'm such a Nerd (yes, capital "N" level nerd) I got my first soldering iron burn fixing my mom's calculator at age 5. I wrote my first program from scratch at 8, having hacked my first program at 8 years old. The first time I saw a line of DNA code, all I could think of was two separate lines binary code that, not only overlap, but interact and mesh. The more I've learned, the more I'm convinced that none of it could be by chance. (Edit: Yes, I know it's not two intertwined binaries. But what was discovered later on, and as I've learned since, it's actually way more sophisticated than binary, trinary, or anything like that.) That makes this channel is a wonderful echo chamber for me. I make it a practice to stay out of echo chambers as much as possible, but, when they're well educated, logical and don't attack anyone, they're very nice to hang out in. I don't hang out in chambers that focus on making the "other side" look stupid, illiterate, uneducated, or whatever. We cannot be considered reasonable if we don't take all sides into account. Especially with stuff like this. Your polymathematical knowledge of other subjects not only makes for great relatable illustrations, but demonstrates that point very well. Thank you for this channel. I'm currently homeless, but I'll be at your Patreon as soon as I can.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 daran zu glauben ist völlig realitätsfern. Die simpelste Zelle, die die notwendigen Eigenschaften für Leben erfüllt, d. h. Abgetrenntheit von der Umwelt, eigener Stoffwechsel, Fortpflanzung, ist schon komplexer als alles gröbere, was du um dich herum siehst. Das heißt, dass es Abiogenesis ungefähr so ist, als würde man sagen, dass dein Auto aus dem Zufall heraus entstanden wäre. Hier kannst du keinen Weg zurück nehmen, weil es keine Evolution zuvor gibt, weil es kein Leben zuvor gibt. Für Viren gilt das gleiche. Ab dem Punkt wird eure ganze Theorie nur noch ein philosophisches Konstrukt.
@@Fanboy1222 Offentsichtlich wissen Sie ganz wenig von der Realität von Abiogenese und Evolution. Sie haben nur die grundlegenden Eigenschaften des Lebens aufgelistet und denken, dass Abiogenese diesen nicht erfüllen kann. Tatsächlich ist Abiogenese die Ursache für den Ursprung der ersten Protozelle, die schon die Eigenschaften des Lebens hatte. Lassen Sie mich erklären, wie Abiogenese die erste Protozelle schaffen kann. Erst muss da, als Sie sagten, eine Abgetrenntheit zwischen dem biologischen System und der Umwelt. Eine Phospholipid-Doppelschicht, die automatisch im Wasser gebildet, ermöglichte diese Abtrennung. Als nächstes diskutieren wir über den Ursprung des Stoffwechsels. Um das zu erklären ist mehr komplexiert, aber es ist nicht unmöglich. Wir beobachtete, wie einfache Proteine neue chemische Wege finden kann, damit nützliche Produkte produzieren kann. Die Präsenz der vielfältigen Kohlenhydrate, die Abwechslung zum Erkunden gab, war auch wichtig für Auswahldruck, auf das biologische System einzuwirken. Der Ursprung der Fortpflanzung ist einfacher, zu erklären. Autocatalyse in den Nukleinsäuren, wie RNA und später DNA, erlaubte die Weitergabe der Information an die nächsten Generationen. Biologische Systeme sind nichts wie Autos und andere kunstliche Sachen. Darwinistische Evolution ist verantwortlich für beide die Vielfalt und Komplexität des Lebens. Der Ursprung des Lebens war Abiogenese, die den Übergang von einem chemischen System zu einem biologischen System. Weder ein Gott noch ein intelligenter Agent ist erfoderlich, um den Ursprung des Lebens zu erklären.
@@Fanboy1222 Offentsichtlich wissen Sie ganz wenig von der Realität von Abiogenese und Evolution. Sie haben nur die grundlegenden Eigenschaften des Lebens aufgelistet und denken, dass Abiogenese diesen nicht erfüllen kann. Tatsächlich ist Abiogenese die Ursache für den Ursprung der ersten Protozelle, die schon die Eigenschaften des Lebens hatte. Lassen Sie mich erklären, wie Abiogenese die erste Protozelle schaffen kann. Erst muss da, als Sie sagten, eine Abgetrenntheit zwischen dem biologischen System und der Umwelt. Eine Phospholipid-Doppelschicht, die automatisch im Wasser gebildet, ermöglichte diese Abtrennung. Als nächstes diskutieren wir über den Ursprung des Stoffwechsels. Um das zu erklären ist mehr komplexiert, aber es ist nicht unmöglich. Wir beobachtete, wie einfache Proteine neue chemische Wege finden kann, damit nützliche Produkte produzieren kann. Die Präsenz der vielfältigen Kohlenhydrate, die Abwechslung zum Erkunden gab, war auch wichtig für Auswahldruck, auf das biologische System einzuwirken. Der Ursprung der Fortpflanzung ist einfacher, zu erklären. Autocatalyse in den Nukleinsäuren, wie RNA und später DNA, erlaubte die Weitergabe der Information an die nächsten Generationen. Biologische Systeme sind nichts wie Autos und andere kunstliche Sachen. Darwinistische Evolution ist verantwortlich für beide die Vielfalt und Komplexität des Lebens. Der Ursprung des Lebens war Abiogenese, die den Übergang von einem chemischen System zu einem biologischen System ermöglichte. Weder ein Gott noch ein intelligenter Agent ist erfoderlich, um den Ursprung des Lebens zu erklären.
DNA is going to be killer for the theory or evolution creating complex life. It was easy to picture macro evolution before DNA and understanding the irreducible complexity of cells and organs but with more we know the hard it is to accept.
LMAO what are y'all yapping about? I'm a molecular biologist and DNA/genetics ultimately proves evolution. Have you ever heard of the percent similarity of genes/DNA between species?
@@Amino_Domado have you ever heard that organisms have to make similar proteins and do similar things so of course they'll have similar DNA? What are they teaching these kids...
@Amino_Domado How come every self proclaimed "biologist" that jumps in the comments to oppose these videos always seem to resort to name calling. If you are so smart, take one or two of his points and argue it so the rest of us can become smarter. Obviously, you are threatened by the information that was put forth.
Mutations are not just random. Mutations also happen through epigenetics. Basically, the environment, for example, what you eat, influences gene expression. You're what you eat.
Amazing! Video toward the end could've explained things better maybe but overall loved it. The humor and knowledge, fantastic. Feels like your production value has grown too. Keep going on!
This channel is incredible, wishing you all of the success. At some point, the amount of complexity across all the fields of science is so overwhelming, intelligent design can't be refuted. Personally, I think that threshold was already crossed.
I can't believe how little people discuss the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest. Ever since I uncovered its insights, my perspective on life has completely shifted. A must-read!
The part kf you that thinks and reasons measures and counts and then buikds laws for describing nature based on this and it works well in classical physics and computers but in quantum its not proven the bedrock works like that. This algorythmic part of nature is out there and works on dead physics like a cup but nkt a cat. Since that is alive thus mind thus problems.
Your. Ot built inside this system. You have a body here. The mind or spirit cannot be built on atoms or quantum physics mechanisms in the sense that it originates here. But a mind can express itself into the universe through quantum mechanisms and your body is a machine for that interface.
That does not necessarily follow. It would require part of the premise to be that all things that run on complex code are machines. However, to say that (all) machines run on complex code; you are a machine; therefore, you run on complex code -- would be logically valid.
@@user-mk9qy4yd5t i was being sarcastic. However... by the same logic given this cherry picked, simplistic, (but admittedly wonderful artistic visual explanation of genetic code) this most certainly doesn't follow the course of "hence it's impossible for evolution to be correct", in fact this doesn't reflect the most mordern bio-evolutionary theory at all. Regardless. There is much debate in physics concerning if reality is a mere simulation (Simulation Theory) which has been taken very seriously amongst some of our brightest physicists and even many biologists. It's fascinating but I'm not quite sold yet, nor am I inclined to dismiss God. I'm not what creationists would call "Luke warm" either, no I'm actually factual. I only care about what is fact. I only present the facts hence why evolution simply cannot be shrugged off as "Well c'mon guys that's pretty far fetched". The science proves otherwise. Thanks for the reply. May all be well with you sir. 🌝👍🏻
Imagine 256 inputs from a 4 different digits in groups of 3 giving 20 outputs which lessens the chance of a mutation which modifies protein production. Which makes making heteropalindromes way easier
Ahh, yes. Such magnificent code that's read with ridiculous error rates, and needs several correction systems (including the ability to read in various orders, because it can't even guarantee the order lol) in place to keep working. You know, unlike almost every other piece of software ever written.
@@a2sbestos768WHAT?? lmao. First of all, a code that can be read with ANY amount of error and still function as intended, is not an inferior code to one that cannot. The reason we view "errors" or imperfect/failed reads so negatively is because our man-made systems rely on perfect code and perfect reads to function. That is objectively inferior to a system that can tolerate errors and still function normally. DNA having "ridiculous error rates" isn't really a valid criticism considering that system is robust enough to withstand those ridiculous error rates without loss of function. It's like an organism that requires a totally sterile environment to live arguing that an organism with an immune system is inferior because it comes into contact with bacteria.
@@WillyOrca There is a loss of function though, it's called ageing and cancer. If the reading systems don't work half the time, they are crappy and inferior. If code has a lot of redundancies, aka same things implemented in tens of different ways, it's a crappy code. There's no comparison in elegance between 1 mb and 10 gb software doing the same thing.
Long time coming hahaha this is the same stinky poo poo Kitzmiller v. Dover was pushing back in 2005 and for the last few years these guys Micheal Behe, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Johnothan Wells have taken the mantel. What rock have you been under Sorry I forgot the Most High The Honorable James Toure
This is one of the most tired, worn out and discredited arguments for creationism there is. RUclips is packed to the gills with videos from actual scientists that can demolish this one in the first few minutes. Note: he has to use science to try to discredit science to try to prove a disembodied alien brain made everything. How is this useful? What diseases can we cure, or medicines can we make from what is demonstrated here? None. There is no demonstrable gain from creationism because it provides zero theory and zero experiments upon which to build any repeatable results. It's flat earth. It has no model, thus can explain nothing, thus we do not benefit from it.
It's wild that the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest isn't more mainstream. After engaging with it, I feel empowered in ways I never have before. Seriously transformative!
Psalm 139:16 describes the body as developing according to a plan, as if written in a book. How is it possible that, some 3000 years ago, the writer of that verse (David) was so accurate in his description of human development? His words were not his own but rather came from someone who knows life best. (2 Timothy 3:16)(2 Samuel 23:2)
Evolutionists: “DNA is nothing like computer code because it’s chemical!” By that logic, the cookie recipe written on paper is not the same as the one written in my phone because one is electronic and the other is paper. Except they both convey the information necessary to make cookies Evolutionists: “YoU dOnT uNdErStAnD dNa!”
Why isn’t more attention given to the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest? After absorbing its teachings, I've noticed changes in my mindset and daily routines. It's a true treasure.
For an engineering person this might seem impressive until you understand how a genetic algorithm works, Deliberately Duplicating randomization and artificial selection, You can modify the design of a machine and produce superior functionality. This is how cellphone and tennis shrank, It's also been used to develop innovative windmill designs. Neither of the designs are intuitive at first, The power of artificial selection can indeed produce powerful innovations in technology and biology.
I confess it's not obvious what you're trying to say. But if you're saying random mutations can produce novel body plans I would need evidence that this is so.
@@jon__doe Look for evo devo and embryology papers. Developmental biology studies exactly what you are looking for, the impact of genes and their mutations on development.
Your animations are cool, and your videos are well researched. Which is rare to see on RUclips. Many other channels will results to half-truths, uncited claims and straightforward lies to push their ideas. I wish I could support your channel but I'm a jobless idiot at the moment. Once I get a job I will donate to your channel.
You tubes algorithm shanks the circulation of these fantastic video's . Any questioning of darwins 19th century child like theory( or the lhe origin of life scientism cult theories ) is verboten
As genius as ever but I do think LSS sense of humour (humor) just gets better. Keep up the fabulous myth busting work! However Americans want to spell. A British fan x
The recurrent laryngeal nerve by itself disproves intelligent design. There's no intelligent reason to route a nerve all the way down through the neck and around the aorta and then back to the larynx. Not in humans and especially not in giraffes.
This argument is called theory laden. It means you interpret biology strictly through the lens of evolution making you blind to what could be obvious to an unbiased observer. You impose your own bias for what should be a better design without knowing the full significance of what is. The laryngeal nerve, according to Gray's Anatomy, says that it sends filaments to the cardiac plexus and branches to the mucous membrane, esophagus, and trachea. Have you looked into what this means? Perhaps it's inefficient, perhaps not. Either way, that's not evidence for evolution or against design.
@@ohandy1 Religious believers don't get to call others biased. You can't get any more hypocritical than that. I haven't committed my life to a particular book being the absolute, unchanging, and unquestionable truth. This is just my opinion, but if I were an omnipotent designer of everything, I would have done things better and simpler.
@@reformCopyright Your lack of self-awareness is stunning. You can't know there is a better design. It's your opinion, by your own words. Opinions are an expression of bias by their nature. I know what bias means so I'll use this word when it applies.
@@ohandy1 At the same time you skip the fact how this nerve runs. A cranial nerve that has to connect larynx with brain is twisted behind an aorta. And it just so happnes that in fish it's not so bizzare due to them having gills and having no neck. By extending the neck only this nerve gets twisted and it quite neatly explains why it is the only cranial nerve that goes not directly. The fact that it has a very crucial function shows why selection pressures had trouble of rerouting it directly, which would enable the signals to be moved more quickly and use less energy for it.
@@caviramus0993 Once upon a time, not so long ago, noncoding DNA was determined t be junk. This was a huge prediction of evolution and that there was noncoding DNA was "proof" that evolution was a fact. Fast forward and we know that noncoding DNA plays vital roles in gene expression among other things. If you want to believe this nerve is evidence against design, and I still don't see how, you will regardless what I say. However, if you want to pursue truth wherever it may lead, this doesn't mitigate the obvious evidences of design. It's a very weak argument that doesn't address the overwhelming evidence that an intelligent agency was necessary for life to exist. What happens should this nerve be found to serve another function in tandem that requires it's current path? Will you then devote your life to Christ? Of course not, you'll seek out another objection. Truth requires a willing mind. The appearance of flawed or inefficient design as evidence against creation is only fed to anti-theists like you, it's not argued in the serious debates. it's as unserious as if I were to ask why there are still monkeys, or why evolution is only a theory. These things are not arguments or evidence, they are incredulity. Which is why I simply denounce your argument as one from incredulity. By all means, bring a serious argument. If you can.
i can’t say i know much about the evolution precess, but i am confident in saying you don’t know much more about it, your own confidence in your ignorance is proof of it.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Well, does more "intelectual" terms or better explanations make a whale turning into a dog more sensible? I don't think so 😂
You mean besides countless historical records, the Jews (including not believing in His son) and how different humans are from every animal on planet Earth? And computer code in general? Wow.
Evolution is so magic and beautiful up until you learn about the second law of thermodynamics. It's like the time when you were a child and still believed in Santa Claws.
Not just dna appearing by chance but necesssry for such dna to be able to also reproduce itself within the estimated time frame. Also the dna must be alive dna. What are the odds? Its more likely that the very forces of existence have fundamental self will and self awareness, than for it to be random chance. This means random chance is an illusion created by our limited understanding.
"Its just like computer code." No DNA is analogous to computer code. What that means is that its enough like computer code for it to be a useful analogy. There are some pretty bad differences, but to get a very simple understanding of what DNA does its useful to compare it to computer code. But that's it, the analogy provides a surface level understanding of what DNA does. I really wish these creationists would listen when these things are explained to them.
@@darrylelam256 Oh no, I'm good on analogies. That wasn't what I meant at all. Please explain what dna does below that surface level. I was really hoping you would explain where the video went wrong. How does DNA behave differently from computer code? I know computers can't create their own medium like DNA does, but it's conceivable in a Skynet world that it could. But the real question is where did it come from? The best part of the analogy is that computer code doesn't write itself, perhaps one day AI will, but there was a necessary origin at the hands of people.
@jon__doe So you want me to explain a complex science that people study for years to understand in the comment section of a RUclips video? Yea that's not going to happen. There are plenty of legitimate sources on the internet. And no, your skynet analogy doesn't work. We know that the chemicals required for Amino chains can form naturally, we know those Amino chains can form RNA naturally, we know that RNA can form DNA naturally and while we are still missing a few key processes we do know it can happen naturally. Computer code has no such mechanisms to form naturally. Someone or something has to write computer code, but no one has to 'write' DNA because that's not how DNA works. There are a number of ways that DNA can and does change that are completely natural, there are selective pressures that 'guide' which changes stick around and which ones die out. These are just some of the ways that DNA is very different from computer code. But the two are close enough for the analogy to be useful getting a basic understanding of what DNA does.
@@darrylelam256 We do not know these things. If we did we would have a theory. The fact that none of these things work is the reason there is no theory of abiogenesis. There is so much wrong with your comment. RNA world doesn't work. It's more than a "few mission processes". Just saying something happened doesn't make it so, it has to be possible. Nothing about RNA world has been shown possible.
The Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest is something more people need to be talking about. I found the book life-altering. It opened doors I didn’t even know existed!
@@kemicalhazard8770 Feel free to show us how pulsar radio waves emit intelligent functional information.... Go ahead...I'll wait!😂😂😂😂 Code is NOT the waves we utilize! Code is the INTENTIONALLY ARRANGED WAVES! Random Holes in cards are meaningless. Yet...Computer Punchcards have MEANINGFUL ARRANGEMENTS of holes which proves FUNCTIONAL CODE! These NONREGULAR arrangements are proof of CODE. The lack of functional arrangements of pulsars make them regular like crystals. They are complex but NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPLEX. Only living beings utilize functionally complex Code! NOT spacedust! 😂😂😂
@@kemicalhazard8770 Pulsars by their very nature require a designer. No one has ever seen a star come into existence. Yet every theory of star formation requires stars to already exist. What created the first star and where would the material to create it come from?
@@kemicalhazard8770the problem is that not only is there information in DNA but there is a network of information encode/decode software as well. That type of information does not form naturally.
Ever heard of coevolutionary adaptations or mosaic evolution? You clearly don't understand evolution, because you prefer believing in some mythological god.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 For sure you do my friend. Your theory makes perfect sense up to the point it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Up until then it was really beautiful, but now get to the real world 😂
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 yeah, just keep making up crap to fill in your bs theory. I've looked into all the nonsense in regards to evolution. It's the most absurd "theory" to ever exist. So dumb. The assume bones of similar looking animals must be ancestors.... ummm did they ever even consider its more likely its just a EXTINCT animal? Lol. Never even crossed their big Brian's. Then the question is how do you determine such. Well you can't. That's how.
Psalms 139:13-14 NKJV [13] For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. [14] I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. All I can think When I learn of this stuff (which is a lot because I have a Molecular and cellular biology degree) are those verses
So we all agree that the simplest computer scripts were written by an intelligent being, but an infinitely far more complex code (DNA) was just put together by random forces of nature and "evolution". Makes sense.
I know many YECs, and they are nice people, but I personally love the idea of theistic evolution, God did indeed bring forth life in this way and did design the DNA. Really cool.
@@jeremysmetana8583 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". I would wish to see your face when trying to explain your nonsense theories about evolution (that are centuries still waiting to be proven) to the Lord Almighty Jesus Christ. P.S.: No I'm not trolling, I don't build up fantasies based on bones with extremely dubious dating.
What is truly unfortunate is the sheer number of people that are fully unwilling to even think about the content of these videos. Most of the replies to these videos that are in opposition to them very rarely contain any actual refutation of what is said. Well, beyond the standard two: "This is purposely over simplifying the topic, so that they can leave out a lot of complexity in this argument!" _(K - you realize that this makes their argument stronger on every topic they cover, right?)_ Or, my favorite "Only stupid people believe any of this nonsense!" _(They... are almost always giving an exact explanation of these various biological processes. The same explanations that I was taught over 6 years at University. The only difference is the conclusion of origin.)_ I don't always agree with the conclusions of these videos, but in most they often make extremely good points. Usually, in my case, because I have never looked at some information in certain ways.
Thank you soo much I pray to God that he guides you and shows you the truth and increases your knowledge, wisdom and loyalty to spread real facts may God give you a fortune of happiness, beautiful kids and wealth. Please, never give up your message of truth no matter how hard life becomes and know that God is with those who are patient.
These frauds do not have a "message of truth". They are pushing creationist propaganda and science denial. If you seek truth, look for evidence, not the bullshit in the bible.
I can't *wait* for the next one! The #1 objection I get for why intelligent design needs to be rejected is that it doesnt make predictions the way scientific theories do. I want to see that proven wrong.
Go and read Laboratory evidence: messengers like noah, Muhammad etc come and warn their nation. They, i.e disbelievers amoung the direct audiance are punished telling them how it will happen on a grand scale. it is a very amazing concept called itmam e hujjat. Predictions: 1. their are many predictions messengers did. They were fulfilled. Why do ya think its called prophet. 2. Evolution hasn't any prediction full filled. so tell them to show it.
I like the work you do, when people come to be "why Islam is wrong" they come with out of context stuff and if they are atheist they come with evolution. I already knew about these problems in Evolution. But you are doing good work here for those do don't know.
I can see how in the past we could have gotten things wrong. New discoveries are showing us how little we know much less understand about our planet and the universe. How can anyone say evolution has been proven but not creation? Seems logical to think there are things beyond our understanding. Like...FAR beyond. In a galaxy far far away...Some can believe in aliens and movies and TV shows, but get their heads around intelligent design. Movies and all that are written quite recently, but there's a book that was written thousands of years ago. Some of the writers of the Bible described things they saw that sounds like UFOs. Which comes back to how little we know and understand. Very interesting video you have here. Entertaining and informative as well as humorous. Even humor is part of our code. Amazing.
Even if evolution were true, design is always an option. God has worked through many things throughout history and can surely bring forth life in evolution.
This video is without sources but the older ones link to ID and creationist (let's skip the fact that they are the same thing) sites, so there you have it.
Computer programs don`t have to be big, data in an executable that are larger can contain alot of other data then CPU instructions, alot of the times it does not matter if you change some numbers, it may change a color pixel value of a picture in the program file.. but if you look at CPU instructions and the instructions are 16 bits, it means you have 64000 possible combinations for one instruction, so if two instructions have to be correct for a random program of data code then the chance will drop alot. that is 64000x64000 and give you a chance in 1 of a 4 billion for it to be correct.. and a program needs alot of instructions to do something meaningful.. program will also crash easly...
Yet NOTHING matches the 3-dimensional Hypercomplex CODE that is the most voluminous and sophisticated in the known world...DNA CODE! Man CAN'T even do what has allowed all life on earth to exist. Mankind with all his computers CAN'T make DNA CODE from chemicals. Impossible. We haven't begun to understand it's massive complexity!
@@BlueFlameFK There is a difference between combining DNA sections, changing DNA values on purpose , writting whole new DNA from scratch or random changes to DNA code..
@@BlueFlameFK i am not saying DNA mutations can`t happen or else it cant work, it depends where in the DNA code changes are happening, some is no problem at all, but it can happen it is a hugh problem. if you start from scratch and evolution would produce an animal with a good working brain.. how many time you need for this to happen through natural selection, some of the DNA have to be accurate to make it work. keep in mind that brain functions are very complex.. they also give an age range for the earth.. you also need to wait till a cell could form by chance if evolution is true. what time is left over for evolution process to produce humans? is the time not very short for this to happen?
@BlueFlameFK No silly... we have PREEXISTING EPIGENETIC PREPROGRAMMING and damaging mutations. You BELIEVE by FAITH alone! Even Darwin's finches can all still mate...different "species" aren't supposed to be able to mate. You silly naturalists view every change as accidentally wrought! I am surprised you don't look at a Salamander end exclaim "EVOLUTION"...every time he changes color!😂😂😂 No silly PREPROGRAMMED EPIGENETIC CODE!😉 Feel free to show us what you TRULY BELIEVE BY FAITH ALONE! Just post your best peer reviewed scientific paper DEVOID OF FAITH STATEMENTS AND CIRCULAR REASONING that proves me wrong. Go ahead...I'll wait.... 😂😂😂 Instead of simply posting their unassumed observational scientific evidence, the silly FAITH-FILLED naturalists will complain and demand I BELIEVE what they faithfully BELIEVE!🤔🤔🤔
Life is too complex to have evolved. Therefore, it had to be created by something capable of designing such complexity, which, in turn, doesn’t actually need an explanation itself. At least not to us, much less worthy beings. Because logic doesn’t need to work, which is why this explanation should never have been attempted in the first place. And… the intelligent design argument has successfully defeated itself.
DNA is not like computer code. DNA is like a recipe, not a code. Computer code typically has zero tolerance for error. If a one or a zero is misplaced, something bad happens. A recipe does have a tolerance for error. When making bread, for instance, one can use a bit less, or a bit more, of an ingredient, knead the dough for a greater or lesser time, cook it at a slightly different temperature, in fact do any number of different things, and still end up with a loaf of bread. The creation of the loaf of bread does not require absolute adherence to the recipe. DNA is like that. No reproduction is perfect. It's slightly different every time, sometimes more, and somtimes less, different but always different. Yet it still works, unless there is a major error in reproduction. Those built in errors is how evolution works. The slightly different offspring of the parents may be more or less fit is terms of passing along it's genes, given the environment it lives in. When the environment changes, what makes an organism fit will change. Changes that once provided a slight advantage may become a slight disadvantage. Over time, those differences, if advantageous will spread through the population. Most times is doesn't work, resulting in extinction. It is estimated that 99% of organisms that have lived on earth are extinct, so most of the time the changes are bad, not good. But, occasionally they are good, and that organism lives on. Now here I'm going to tell you something about yourself you may not have thought of. The DNA in your cells goes back in an unbroken line all the way to the very first organism that used DNA to reproduce on earth. You are part of the 1% of living things that have prevailed. Lucky you! Enjoy your live, and revel in the fact that you are the end result of many hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
Extinction is taking place due to genetic entropy or "mutator gemone decay" according to the NIH, PubMed, NCBI and PNAS. This process is inevitable and irreversible and shows a steady trend of genetic degradation across all genomes regardless of any assumed benefit from mutations. Eventually we will all end up with an error catastrophe which appears to only be mitigated currently due to preprogrammed autocorrect functions found within the genome itself which codes for protein based enzymes which somehow know the entire genome and know how to correct it to within 99.99999999999% accuracy. Otherwise we would already all be dead. You would be better off believing that LUCA was far genetically superior to all of existing life today and slowly decayed into what we see today but that is even more laughable considering how difficult any hopeful abiogenesis event could ever occur let alone make a near perfect being the first try. Try dealing with the data before commenting.
@@pigzcanfly444 Tell me that somehow the organisms alive today on earth are not the offspring of earlier organisms. Tell me that somewhere along the way the DNA line broke, and some new life form just popped up to take it's place. Also tell me how, if indeed the offspring copy of the parent is 99.9999999999999% accurate, how changes in organisms take place, given we know that has happened, Even the creationists accept what they call "micro-evolution". That wouldn't be possible if the figure you gave was correct. In the real world, it happens all the time. Somehow the theory you have must account for what we know to be true. We know, for instance, that all humans and monkeys come from the same ancestral lineage. Again, that would be diffiucult, if not impossible, if your perfect reproduction was a fact.
Well, our cells might be just "like" the first cell and every cell ever in that DNA proved to be a good design. Ie. All cars have wheels because the first car worked better with wheels. Computer code doesn't monitor itself as does the process that reads DNA does, so that difference does allow DNA to be correct the vast majority of time. However, if the protein does not fold correctly, or the gene is not expressed correctly, we know that the consequences will never be good. The good thing is that there is a built-in tolerance that allows for the cell to have a chance to continue (natural selection). Anything outside of that tolerance and bad things happen. However, natural selection does not have the power to create new functions or body plans, so it is not the driving force behind making new species.
I am an engineering student but i was really good at bio in high school. I can't express how wrong this is cuz it would take me way more than 12 minutes to do that and i just know high school bio. But still lets be real isn't calling everything made by god just pushing the problem. You can do all the gymnastics you want by claiming/asserting your idea of god is one that is eternal and doesn't need to be created cuz its beyond time but this is an argument from complexity. It has a very obvious refutation. If we are so complex we need a god then god is more complex than us and need another god creating an infinite regress. In the end you are just pushing the problem back. I won't even get into how wrong the bio is.
Sorry, but you got the argument wrong. God is not complex, yet capable of complex things. God is cause yet not contingent on anything. The doctrine of simplicity is a fundamental premise of Thomas Aquinas. Being a good biology student doesn't mean you understand biology, it means you were good at ingesting information and regurgitating it upon request. HS biology doesn't address the problems being raised here, they're more philosophical in nature.
@@jon__doe your god would, by definition, be the single most complex thing to ever exist. Imagine taking Aquinas seriously in this day and age lmao. And sorry but: being a good biology student necessarily means having an understanding of biology.
Informative vid but I believe you're focusing on the wrong thing regarding the complexity of DNA. First, I want you to understand I agree with you but what you should really be asking (to a person on the other side of the aisle) is: how could the redundancy and error correction for DNA arise on its own, and how does it continue to do what it does? That is, we're talking about errors here, and the occurrence of errors are inescapable. If DNA needs something to maintain it's viability, wouldn't the processes maintaining it themselves need to be maintained and so on? The answer is that a prime mover outside of natural processes has to be there somewhere and that would be a stronger argument I think for intelligent design. This reasoning can be taken all the way back to the origin of life.
Hi there, i Just Wanna thank you because you made thus so easy to understand and your are cleaning to many ignorant ideas that I had, cN you please make a video explaining how difficult Is to mutation insertion can change a proteína to sensitive protein cod and the machines needed to translate anderstand and even expresión signalization etc to debunk this none sense protein to an eye by chance
‘I reckon this is too complicated for nature to do in 14 billion years, but humans have done things vaguely similar albeit less complicated so therefore something with a brain must’ve done this.’ Intelligent Design is simply false, instead of trying to explain something you can’t explain by adding in another layer of greater abstraction (a designer) that you still can’t explain, why not settle with ‘I don’t know so I’m not making any rash judgments or vast assumptions and will follow the evidence’
Yet, you made a rash judgment or a vast assumption when you said 'Intelligent Design is simply false'. I don't think you find the issue with making rash judgments or vast assumptions just ones you don't favour the meaning or the consequences of. That's not an accusation against you just something to consider as a natural rational of what you have said.
Why do you people have such a knee-jerk reflex against intelligent design? You accuse us of "God of the Gaps", yet you commit the same fallacy. Even if there is no scientific evidence that a cell could form or evolve by chance (or even if science has soundly disproven that idea), you still demand that science will eventually find an answer one day. That's Naturalism of the Gaps.
The argument is not, "Its too complicated for us to get therefore something more intelligent must have done it" the argument is "we know the evidence of an intelligent creatures effect on an environment, this situation looks a lot like said evidence there fore it is likely an intelligent origin..." The point is if you see graffiti on a wall you can Safely assume a human origin, same thing applies when you see a super- (Dare I super natural) complicated language. Either way best of luck out there learning!
Did you notice how he's presenting tons of information from evolution experts, yet refuses to listen to the conclusions the same experts draw from that information?
Hmm, I think you did a good job with your argument, but there is a bit of a wrinkle that you should consider. The main issue I see is that we already have the ability to generate information from randomness, quite a powerful tool actually. Specifically, I am thinking reservoir computers and LLMs. I think there is an ID argument there as well, but I feel like that will take a lot of work to unpack, so it might not be worth it to you (though I would find it interesting). On a completely different topic, I would like to shill my favorite scifi at the moment, “The Nature of Predators”.
I'm not an expert, but doesn't reservoir computing require intentional fine tuning to work? A software designer sets up the system with intended outputs...right? So it's not really fully random...it's targeted and pre-programmed.
@@chrispark2698 Yes, but that fine tuning could be explained via an environmentally created incentive structure. I am not saying it is, but it is something to consider.
@@adammyers3453 But that only pushes the fine-tuning back a step. An incentive structure requires a specific, fine-tuned end goal. I don't think this can be correlated to what we see in nature - if natural selection is indeed what drives evolution, there is no "end goal" in sight. Just blind, random chance. Which is one of the reasons it doesn't make sense, to me, haha.
@@chrispark2698 Again, I can where you are coming from, but unless you are going full fine-tuning, one can bring up the complexity of multi-body systems as a source of incentives.
Why do you people never stop to think? Why would complexity be a sign of design. That doesn’t make a lick of sense. There are designed stuff that are simple. Infact, one of the goals of design is to make it as simple as possible. There are also stuff that are complex that is not designed. So what you are saying is ”I can point out complex things that are designed. Dna is complex, therefore it is designed”. You might as well say ”there are designed things that are red, therefore everything that is red is designed”.
because complexity originating from natural processes in random sequences is statically impossible, so it makes logical sense for complexity to be designed that way
@@olivermcelwee374That is demonstrably false. You are just parroting apologist nonsense. Why do you accept that uncritically? Perhaps because it validates your preferred beliefs?
so what is wrong with Francis Collins' BioLogos you quoted him & he is a Christian & he thinks that evolution is how god did it it seems like you & he would get along & maybe agree with each other
Biologos adheres to the notion of unguided evolution. The idea of theistic evolution by natural processes exists to allow Christians into the secular evolutionists' club. It doesn't address any of the problems of evolution, it addresses the problem of Christians being tolerated in academia. If evolution worked as advertised, it would be a step forward. Trouble is, evolution if fraught with issues without resolution. Honestly, if you can endure the cognitive dissonance of believing evolution while pursuing a relationship with God, then drive on.
@@jon__doe literally every syllable you’ve said about evolution is wrong and shows you do not understand it whatsoever. Evolution is a fact backed by literally all the evidence.
@@V0idFace Glad you saw it, my comment is gone for me already. Sorry that I don't take your word for it. I have examined mountains of evidence for evolution and found it wanting. If you have a particular piece of evidence you find convincing I'm happy to address it, but just telling me I'm wrong gets us nowhere. Edit: it's back
@@jon__doe then you haven’t actually “examined mountains of evidence for it.” Best case scenario you’ve watched creationist videos which also don’t understand evolution, or you’ve simply not understood what you’ve seen at all. Again: literally every piece of evidence proves evolution to be a fact, there are no such problems with it…just things on which you clearly were not educated.
There is a freaking alot of reasons to believe in a God, all powerful and all knowledgeable Especially nowadays where we have knowledge of dna on microlevel and fine tuning argument for universe at macrolevel. The arrogant does reject the truth... Indeed it's not the eyes that r blind but the heart. Quran And We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them without purpose! That is the consideration of those who disbelieve! Then woe to those who disbelieve (in Islamic Monotheism) from the Fire!. Surah saad
@@walkergarya While I don't endorse willful ignorance, when it comes to what we do and do not know, theism is far more explanatory. How is it you don't know that?
God created all seen and unseen and sustains it all. Many would rather believe the lie of origin of life 'researchers', who are really re-researching spontaneous generation, when they claim to be on the cusp of figuring it out. Entropy does not hand out favors EVER.
I’m a Christian, but I would like to say that entropy is not like some “objective rule” it is just the fact that because particles move around in random directions, the chances of energy being bunched up together is really low, so by random chance it could happen, but it is more likely that things will be more spread out because there are more random movements that lead to that outcome.
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
Discovering the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest was a game-changer for me. It's wild how something so profound can be overlooked. Highly encourage everyone to dive into it!
shirlest is amazing, i set my mindset on highest level
shirlest have some really good stuff
Thank you so much
Thank youu
As a medstudent every time I learn something about the cell, Iam always amazed by its design. Next time All I need is popcorn, its that fun to watch. Keep it up G
I just discovered your channel a couple days ago. What a breath of fresh air! You have a fantastic sense of humor and an engaging story telling style. I started sharing these with my daughters, ages 8, 11, and 13, as soon as I found them. They love them and keep asking to see more!
Please keep up the good work. We are all learning a lot!
I'm such a Nerd (yes, capital "N" level nerd) I got my first soldering iron burn fixing my mom's calculator at age 5. I wrote my first program from scratch at 8, having hacked my first program at 8 years old. The first time I saw a line of DNA code, all I could think of was two separate lines binary code that, not only overlap, but interact and mesh. The more I've learned, the more I'm convinced that none of it could be by chance. (Edit: Yes, I know it's not two intertwined binaries. But what was discovered later on, and as I've learned since, it's actually way more sophisticated than binary, trinary, or anything like that.)
That makes this channel is a wonderful echo chamber for me. I make it a practice to stay out of echo chambers as much as possible, but, when they're well educated, logical and don't attack anyone, they're very nice to hang out in. I don't hang out in chambers that focus on making the "other side" look stupid, illiterate, uneducated, or whatever. We cannot be considered reasonable if we don't take all sides into account. Especially with stuff like this. Your polymathematical knowledge of other subjects not only makes for great relatable illustrations, but demonstrates that point very well.
Thank you for this channel. I'm currently homeless, but I'll be at your Patreon as soon as I can.
Get a CDL. You're instantly not homeless, just don't drive team.
Nerd, Wunderkind and here you are....falling for the lowest of grifts, the flat earth of biology. Gratulations
@@derhafi Zero rebuttals provided...
@@DavidJohnAr Zero rebuttals needed. I just stated a fact.
Dude, this was not only informative, but wildly entertaining. Very well written and hilarious. Excellent work.
At this point in history, it almost seems more religious to have faith that Abiogenesis is remotely possible.
Read up about stereochemistry and autocatalysis. Abiogenesis is well-supported.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Until they make a living, self-replicating cell in a lab from scratch, there isn’t any support whatsoever.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 daran zu glauben ist völlig realitätsfern. Die simpelste Zelle, die die notwendigen Eigenschaften für Leben erfüllt, d. h. Abgetrenntheit von der Umwelt, eigener Stoffwechsel, Fortpflanzung, ist schon komplexer als alles gröbere, was du um dich herum siehst. Das heißt, dass es Abiogenesis ungefähr so ist, als würde man sagen, dass dein Auto aus dem Zufall heraus entstanden wäre. Hier kannst du keinen Weg zurück nehmen, weil es keine Evolution zuvor gibt, weil es kein Leben zuvor gibt. Für Viren gilt das gleiche. Ab dem Punkt wird eure ganze Theorie nur noch ein philosophisches Konstrukt.
@@Fanboy1222 Offentsichtlich wissen Sie ganz wenig von der Realität von Abiogenese und Evolution. Sie haben nur die grundlegenden Eigenschaften des Lebens aufgelistet und denken, dass Abiogenese diesen nicht erfüllen kann. Tatsächlich ist Abiogenese die Ursache für den Ursprung der ersten Protozelle, die schon die Eigenschaften des Lebens hatte.
Lassen Sie mich erklären, wie Abiogenese die erste Protozelle schaffen kann. Erst muss da, als Sie sagten, eine Abgetrenntheit zwischen dem biologischen System und der Umwelt. Eine Phospholipid-Doppelschicht, die automatisch im Wasser gebildet, ermöglichte diese Abtrennung. Als nächstes diskutieren wir über den Ursprung des Stoffwechsels. Um das zu erklären ist mehr komplexiert, aber es ist nicht unmöglich. Wir beobachtete, wie einfache Proteine neue chemische Wege finden kann, damit nützliche Produkte produzieren kann. Die Präsenz der vielfältigen Kohlenhydrate, die Abwechslung zum Erkunden gab, war auch wichtig für Auswahldruck, auf das biologische System einzuwirken. Der Ursprung der Fortpflanzung ist einfacher, zu erklären. Autocatalyse in den Nukleinsäuren, wie RNA und später DNA, erlaubte die Weitergabe der Information an die nächsten Generationen.
Biologische Systeme sind nichts wie Autos und andere kunstliche Sachen. Darwinistische Evolution ist verantwortlich für beide die Vielfalt und Komplexität des Lebens. Der Ursprung des Lebens war Abiogenese, die den Übergang von einem chemischen System zu einem biologischen System. Weder ein Gott noch ein intelligenter Agent ist erfoderlich, um den Ursprung des Lebens zu erklären.
@@Fanboy1222 Offentsichtlich wissen Sie ganz wenig von der Realität von Abiogenese und Evolution. Sie haben nur die grundlegenden Eigenschaften des Lebens aufgelistet und denken, dass Abiogenese diesen nicht erfüllen kann. Tatsächlich ist Abiogenese die Ursache für den Ursprung der ersten Protozelle, die schon die Eigenschaften des Lebens hatte.
Lassen Sie mich erklären, wie Abiogenese die erste Protozelle schaffen kann. Erst muss da, als Sie sagten, eine Abgetrenntheit zwischen dem biologischen System und der Umwelt. Eine Phospholipid-Doppelschicht, die automatisch im Wasser gebildet, ermöglichte diese Abtrennung. Als nächstes diskutieren wir über den Ursprung des Stoffwechsels. Um das zu erklären ist mehr komplexiert, aber es ist nicht unmöglich. Wir beobachtete, wie einfache Proteine neue chemische Wege finden kann, damit nützliche Produkte produzieren kann. Die Präsenz der vielfältigen Kohlenhydrate, die Abwechslung zum Erkunden gab, war auch wichtig für Auswahldruck, auf das biologische System einzuwirken. Der Ursprung der Fortpflanzung ist einfacher, zu erklären. Autocatalyse in den Nukleinsäuren, wie RNA und später DNA, erlaubte die Weitergabe der Information an die nächsten Generationen.
Biologische Systeme sind nichts wie Autos und andere kunstliche Sachen. Darwinistische Evolution ist verantwortlich für beide die Vielfalt und Komplexität des Lebens. Der Ursprung des Lebens war Abiogenese, die den Übergang von einem chemischen System zu einem biologischen System ermöglichte. Weder ein Gott noch ein intelligenter Agent ist erfoderlich, um den Ursprung des Lebens zu erklären.
DNA is going to be killer for the theory or evolution creating complex life. It was easy to picture macro evolution before DNA and understanding the irreducible complexity of cells and organs but with more we know the hard it is to accept.
yeah they can only rely on computer animations morphing a dog into a whale for so long
@@Pyr0Ben Lol fr
LMAO what are y'all yapping about? I'm a molecular biologist and DNA/genetics ultimately proves evolution. Have you ever heard of the percent similarity of genes/DNA between species?
@@Amino_Domado have you ever heard that organisms have to make similar proteins and do similar things so of course they'll have similar DNA?
What are they teaching these kids...
@Amino_Domado How come every self proclaimed "biologist" that jumps in the comments to oppose these videos always seem to resort to name calling. If you are so smart, take one or two of his points and argue it so the rest of us can become smarter. Obviously, you are threatened by the information that was put forth.
Please make more of these the world needs it
Mutations are not just random. Mutations also happen through epigenetics. Basically, the environment, for example, what you eat, influences gene expression.
You're what you eat.
Amazing! Video toward the end could've explained things better maybe but overall loved it. The humor and knowledge, fantastic. Feels like your production value has grown too. Keep going on!
Always wonderful videos from you!
Never give up making these. They are VERY informative and have the right mixture of humor!
Excellent.
The more you learn about the complexity of life and the Universe the more credible Intelligent design becomes.
it becomes credibnnle the moment a demonstrable correaltion between this designer and reality is on the table...not a moment before.
Excellent work. I'm going to be spreading this channel far and wide 😎😎
Keep these coming, very good.
🤢
Brilliant!
Keep up the great work!
Thank you. Honestly.
"The british spell words wrong all the time."
Oh you sweet American child.
Lol 😂
😅
Ask a British person to pronounce "Lieutenant" lol
the american spellings are the older british spellings, y'all changed em not us
What a colourful character
I LOVE THIS! Your videos are incredible. Thank you for sharing
This channel is incredible, wishing you all of the success. At some point, the amount of complexity across all the fields of science is so overwhelming, intelligent design can't be refuted. Personally, I think that threshold was already crossed.
I can't believe how little people discuss the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest. Ever since I uncovered its insights, my perspective on life has completely shifted. A must-read!
Thank you for a great video!
If DNA is information that turns words into a physical object, isn't that like saying: "The Word became Flesh" ...
YAY ANOTHER AMAZING VIDEO.........even if it is rerelease
😂😂😂😂
Cliff Notes:
Machines run on complex code.
You run on complex code.
You are a machine that runs on complex code.
Knock knock...Wake up Neo... 😎
The part kf you that thinks and reasons measures and counts and then buikds laws for describing nature based on this and it works well in classical physics and computers but in quantum its not proven the bedrock works like that.
This algorythmic part of nature is out there and works on dead physics like a cup but nkt a cat. Since that is alive thus mind thus problems.
Your. Ot built inside this system. You have a body here. The mind or spirit cannot be built on atoms or quantum physics mechanisms in the sense that it originates here. But a mind can express itself into the universe through quantum mechanisms and your body is a machine for that interface.
That does not necessarily follow. It would require part of the premise to be that all things that run on complex code are machines. However, to say that (all) machines run on complex code; you are a machine; therefore, you run on complex code -- would be logically valid.
@@user-mk9qy4yd5t i was being sarcastic. However... by the same logic given this cherry picked, simplistic, (but admittedly wonderful artistic visual explanation of genetic code) this most certainly doesn't follow the course of "hence it's impossible for evolution to be correct", in fact this doesn't reflect the most mordern bio-evolutionary theory at all. Regardless. There is much debate in physics concerning if reality is a mere simulation (Simulation Theory) which has been taken very seriously amongst some of our brightest physicists and even many biologists. It's fascinating but I'm not quite sold yet, nor am I inclined to dismiss God. I'm not what creationists would call "Luke warm" either, no I'm actually factual. I only care about what is fact. I only present the facts hence why evolution simply cannot be shrugged off as "Well c'mon guys that's pretty far fetched". The science proves otherwise. Thanks for the reply. May all be well with you sir. 🌝👍🏻
@@That777GuyAgain I'm assuming this is an effort to disassociate physical mind and the information from computers?
Imagine 256 inputs from a 4 different digits in groups of 3 giving 20 outputs which lessens the chance of a mutation which modifies protein production. Which makes making heteropalindromes way easier
Ahh, yes. Such magnificent code that's read with ridiculous error rates, and needs several correction systems (including the ability to read in various orders, because it can't even guarantee the order lol) in place to keep working. You know, unlike almost every other piece of software ever written.
I'm sure you can do better, get to work and show us your might mind.
@@nowhere529 Do what? Man-made are computers are vastly more efficient and robust.
@@a2sbestos768 Cool Use one to make a living organism from unliving matter with better DNA than we have. I will wait.
@@a2sbestos768WHAT?? lmao.
First of all, a code that can be read with ANY amount of error and still function as intended, is not an inferior code to one that cannot. The reason we view "errors" or imperfect/failed reads so negatively is because our man-made systems rely on perfect code and perfect reads to function. That is objectively inferior to a system that can tolerate errors and still function normally. DNA having "ridiculous error rates" isn't really a valid criticism considering that system is robust enough to withstand those ridiculous error rates without loss of function. It's like an organism that requires a totally sterile environment to live arguing that an organism with an immune system is inferior because it comes into contact with bacteria.
@@WillyOrca There is a loss of function though, it's called ageing and cancer. If the reading systems don't work half the time, they are crappy and inferior. If code has a lot of redundancies, aka same things implemented in tens of different ways, it's a crappy code. There's no comparison in elegance between 1 mb and 10 gb software doing the same thing.
Man this video has been a long time coming, look forward to the next one.
Long time coming hahaha this is the same stinky poo poo Kitzmiller v. Dover was pushing back in 2005 and for the last few years these guys Micheal Behe, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Johnothan Wells have taken the mantel. What rock have you been under Sorry I forgot the Most High The Honorable James Toure
@@mikeishome69aww, you called it stinky poo poo and yet had no intelligent reply to anything that was said. *Try again.* 🥺
@@juilianbautista4067 Do you want to learn how evolution works?
This is one of the most tired, worn out and discredited arguments for creationism there is. RUclips is packed to the gills with videos from actual scientists that can demolish this one in the first few minutes. Note: he has to use science to try to discredit science to try to prove a disembodied alien brain made everything. How is this useful? What diseases can we cure, or medicines can we make from what is demonstrated here? None. There is no demonstrable gain from creationism because it provides zero theory and zero experiments upon which to build any repeatable results. It's flat earth. It has no model, thus can explain nothing, thus we do not benefit from it.
The legend himself is back 😤💪🏽
😂😂😂😂
It's wild that the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest isn't more mainstream. After engaging with it, I feel empowered in ways I never have before. Seriously transformative!
GUYS HE HAS A PATREON
AVENGERS ASSEMBLE
Psalm 139:16 describes the body as developing according to a plan, as if written in a book. How is it possible that, some 3000 years ago, the writer of that verse (David) was so accurate in his description of human development? His words were not his own but rather came from someone who knows life best. (2 Timothy 3:16)(2 Samuel 23:2)
Really awsome content dude !!
Peace and Love in Jesus Christ
God Bless you all
..... call your mom
Call your mom dude, seriously.
call youre mom ?
SpaceY - I see what you did there. Don’t want any copyright infringement. Oh, and great video.
Evolutionists: “DNA is nothing like computer code because it’s chemical!”
By that logic, the cookie recipe written on paper is not the same as the one written in my phone because one is electronic and the other is paper. Except they both convey the information necessary to make cookies
Evolutionists: “YoU dOnT uNdErStAnD dNa!”
Why isn’t more attention given to the Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest? After absorbing its teachings, I've noticed changes in my mindset and daily routines. It's a true treasure.
For an engineering person this might seem impressive until you understand how a genetic algorithm works, Deliberately Duplicating randomization and artificial selection, You can modify the design of a machine and produce superior functionality. This is how cellphone and tennis shrank, It's also been used to develop innovative windmill designs. Neither of the designs are intuitive at first, The power of artificial selection can indeed produce powerful innovations in technology and biology.
I confess it's not obvious what you're trying to say. But if you're saying random mutations can produce novel body plans I would need evidence that this is so.
@@jon__doe
Look for evo devo and embryology papers. Developmental biology studies exactly what you are looking for, the impact of genes and their mutations on development.
Your animations are cool, and your videos are well researched. Which is rare to see on RUclips. Many other channels will results to half-truths, uncited claims and straightforward lies to push their ideas.
I wish I could support your channel but I'm a jobless idiot at the moment. Once I get a job I will donate to your channel.
These videos are jot well reaearched, it's just propaganda frkm the Diacovery Institute
Amazing video! Keep up the good job man! VERY CREATIVE !
You tubes algorithm shanks the circulation of these fantastic video's . Any questioning of darwins 19th century child like theory( or the lhe origin of life scientism cult theories ) is verboten
As genius as ever but I do think LSS sense of humour (humor) just gets better. Keep up the fabulous myth busting work! However Americans want to spell. A British fan x
The recurrent laryngeal nerve by itself disproves intelligent design. There's no intelligent reason to route a nerve all the way down through the neck and around the aorta and then back to the larynx. Not in humans and especially not in giraffes.
This argument is called theory laden. It means you interpret biology strictly through the lens of evolution making you blind to what could be obvious to an unbiased observer. You impose your own bias for what should be a better design without knowing the full significance of what is.
The laryngeal nerve, according to Gray's Anatomy, says that it sends filaments to the cardiac plexus and branches to the mucous membrane, esophagus, and trachea. Have you looked into what this means? Perhaps it's inefficient, perhaps not. Either way, that's not evidence for evolution or against design.
@@ohandy1 Religious believers don't get to call others biased. You can't get any more hypocritical than that. I haven't committed my life to a particular book being the absolute, unchanging, and unquestionable truth. This is just my opinion, but if I were an omnipotent designer of everything, I would have done things better and simpler.
@@reformCopyright Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
You can't know there is a better design. It's your opinion, by your own words. Opinions are an expression of bias by their nature.
I know what bias means so I'll use this word when it applies.
@@ohandy1
At the same time you skip the fact how this nerve runs. A cranial nerve that has to connect larynx with brain is twisted behind an aorta. And it just so happnes that in fish it's not so bizzare due to them having gills and having no neck.
By extending the neck only this nerve gets twisted and it quite neatly explains why it is the only cranial nerve that goes not directly. The fact that it has a very crucial function shows why selection pressures had trouble of rerouting it directly, which would enable the signals to be moved more quickly and use less energy for it.
@@caviramus0993 Once upon a time, not so long ago, noncoding DNA was determined t be junk. This was a huge prediction of evolution and that there was noncoding DNA was "proof" that evolution was a fact. Fast forward and we know that noncoding DNA plays vital roles in gene expression among other things. If you want to believe this nerve is evidence against design, and I still don't see how, you will regardless what I say.
However, if you want to pursue truth wherever it may lead, this doesn't mitigate the obvious evidences of design. It's a very weak argument that doesn't address the overwhelming evidence that an intelligent agency was necessary for life to exist.
What happens should this nerve be found to serve another function in tandem that requires it's current path? Will you then devote your life to Christ? Of course not, you'll seek out another objection. Truth requires a willing mind.
The appearance of flawed or inefficient design as evidence against creation is only fed to anti-theists like you, it's not argued in the serious debates. it's as unserious as if I were to ask why there are still monkeys, or why evolution is only a theory. These things are not arguments or evidence, they are incredulity. Which is why I simply denounce your argument as one from incredulity.
By all means, bring a serious argument. If you can.
Awesome job! Keep it coming❤❤❤❤
i can’t say i know much about the evolution precess, but i am confident in saying you don’t know much more about it, your own confidence in your ignorance is proof of it.
You don't know how evolution works, yet you're confident that questioning it is ignorance? Did I get that right? How does that work exactly?
Thank you for this video bro!
nah this youtube channel has simply evolved by chance and a lot of errors
And this all came together by chance? Not a chance. Intelligent design is obvious.
Yeah, you don't understand how evolution works. Also, you have no evidence for a god. Whoops!
God made live, but evolution made god. Ups no complex creator without a evolution pal. (This is a joke)
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Well, does more "intelectual" terms or better explanations make a whale turning into a dog more sensible? I don't think so 😂
You mean besides countless historical records, the Jews (including not believing in His son) and how different humans are from every animal on planet Earth? And computer code in general? Wow.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Please explain how evolution created DNA.
Evolution is so magic and beautiful up until you learn about the second law of thermodynamics.
It's like the time when you were a child and still believed in Santa Claws.
Not just dna appearing by chance but necesssry for such dna to be able to also reproduce itself within the estimated time frame. Also the dna must be alive dna. What are the odds? Its more likely that the very forces of existence have fundamental self will and self awareness, than for it to be random chance. This means random chance is an illusion created by our limited understanding.
My day gets like 532% better when LSS uploads (even if it is a little behind the DI)
"Its just like computer code."
No DNA is analogous to computer code. What that means is that its enough like computer code for it to be a useful analogy. There are some pretty bad differences, but to get a very simple understanding of what DNA does its useful to compare it to computer code. But that's it, the analogy provides a surface level understanding of what DNA does.
I really wish these creationists would listen when these things are explained to them.
Please explain. Promise I'll listen.
@@jon__doe You need me to explain what an analogy is?
@@darrylelam256 Oh no, I'm good on analogies. That wasn't what I meant at all. Please explain what dna does below that surface level. I was really hoping you would explain where the video went wrong.
How does DNA behave differently from computer code? I know computers can't create their own medium like DNA does, but it's conceivable in a Skynet world that it could. But the real question is where did it come from? The best part of the analogy is that computer code doesn't write itself, perhaps one day AI will, but there was a necessary origin at the hands of people.
@jon__doe So you want me to explain a complex science that people study for years to understand in the comment section of a RUclips video? Yea that's not going to happen. There are plenty of legitimate sources on the internet.
And no, your skynet analogy doesn't work. We know that the chemicals required for Amino chains can form naturally, we know those Amino chains can form RNA naturally, we know that RNA can form DNA naturally and while we are still missing a few key processes we do know it can happen naturally. Computer code has no such mechanisms to form naturally. Someone or something has to write computer code, but no one has to 'write' DNA because that's not how DNA works. There are a number of ways that DNA can and does change that are completely natural, there are selective pressures that 'guide' which changes stick around and which ones die out. These are just some of the ways that DNA is very different from computer code. But the two are close enough for the analogy to be useful getting a basic understanding of what DNA does.
@@darrylelam256 We do not know these things. If we did we would have a theory. The fact that none of these things work is the reason there is no theory of abiogenesis.
There is so much wrong with your comment. RNA world doesn't work. It's more than a "few mission processes". Just saying something happened doesn't make it so, it has to be possible. Nothing about RNA world has been shown possible.
Wonderfully animated video
The Hidden DNA Potential on shirlest is something more people need to be talking about. I found the book life-altering. It opened doors I didn’t even know existed!
The only source of information is intelligent mind. The End
That’s not actually true
Pulsars can create radio signals that look just like human made information.. so
@@kemicalhazard8770
Feel free to show us how pulsar radio waves emit intelligent functional information....
Go ahead...I'll wait!😂😂😂😂
Code is NOT the waves we utilize! Code is the INTENTIONALLY ARRANGED WAVES! Random Holes in cards are meaningless. Yet...Computer Punchcards have MEANINGFUL ARRANGEMENTS of holes which proves FUNCTIONAL CODE! These NONREGULAR arrangements are proof of CODE. The lack of functional arrangements of pulsars make them regular like crystals. They are complex but NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPLEX. Only living beings utilize functionally complex Code! NOT spacedust! 😂😂😂
@@kemicalhazard8770 Pulsars by their very nature require a designer. No one has ever seen a star come into existence. Yet every theory of star formation requires stars to already exist. What created the first star and where would the material to create it come from?
@@alantasman8273Didn't you know? It just kinda suddenly banged into existence without a creator! See, look at all these math equations we made up!
@@kemicalhazard8770the problem is that not only is there information in DNA but there is a network of information encode/decode software as well. That type of information does not form naturally.
A book with 6 stories in the same pages just by reading backwards and moving the spaces! Not Intelligent design, very intelligent design!
The amount of neccisary things to have to be in play at the same time is that 100% disproves the fairytale of evolution.
Ever heard of coevolutionary adaptations or mosaic evolution? You clearly don't understand evolution, because you prefer believing in some mythological god.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 For sure you do my friend. Your theory makes perfect sense up to the point it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Up until then it was really beautiful, but now get to the real world 😂
And you like making compendiums to crappy and imperfect guides on how life works. Lol!
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 yeah, just keep making up crap to fill in your bs theory. I've looked into all the nonsense in regards to evolution. It's the most absurd "theory" to ever exist. So dumb. The assume bones of similar looking animals must be ancestors.... ummm did they ever even consider its more likely its just a EXTINCT animal? Lol. Never even crossed their big Brian's. Then the question is how do you determine such. Well you can't. That's how.
So, you know nothing about DNA and genetics.
great channel
😂😂😂
Psalms 139:13-14 NKJV
[13] For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. [14] I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
All I can think When I learn of this stuff (which is a lot because I have a Molecular and cellular biology degree) are those verses
So we all agree that the simplest computer scripts were written by an intelligent being, but an infinitely far more complex code (DNA) was just put together by random forces of nature and "evolution".
Makes sense.
I know many YECs, and they are nice people, but I personally love the idea of theistic evolution, God did indeed bring forth life in this way and did design the DNA. Really cool.
Yes it does. Evolution and other nature forces that are NOT random, provide mechanisms that can and do increase complexity.
@@darrylelam256 Oh really? What about the second law of thermodynamics?
Ever heard of that?
@@fcampos10 Are you trolling? Do you know how tired and discredited your arguments are?
@@jeremysmetana8583 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".
I would wish to see your face when trying to explain your nonsense theories about evolution (that are centuries still waiting to be proven) to the Lord Almighty Jesus Christ.
P.S.: No I'm not trolling, I don't build up fantasies based on bones with extremely dubious dating.
Keep up the good work
What is truly unfortunate is the sheer number of people that are fully unwilling to even think about the content of these videos. Most of the replies to these videos that are in opposition to them very rarely contain any actual refutation of what is said. Well, beyond the standard two:
"This is purposely over simplifying the topic, so that they can leave out a lot of complexity in this argument!" _(K - you realize that this makes their argument stronger on every topic they cover, right?)_
Or, my favorite
"Only stupid people believe any of this nonsense!" _(They... are almost always giving an exact explanation of these various biological processes. The same explanations that I was taught over 6 years at University. The only difference is the conclusion of origin.)_
I don't always agree with the conclusions of these videos, but in most they often make extremely good points. Usually, in my case, because I have never looked at some information in certain ways.
God is a logical necessity.
Lol silly creatard
Definitely is
Your videos are very good and top tier💪💪💪👑👑👑👑👑
😂😂😂
video on lamarckan evolution next? 🙈🙈🙈
Why even bring that up? That has already been disproven and replaced with Darwinian evolution.
i too love tacos
Your videos are amazing!!!
Thank you soo much I pray to God that he guides you and shows you the truth and increases your knowledge, wisdom and loyalty to spread real facts may God give you a fortune of happiness, beautiful kids and wealth.
Please, never give up your message of truth no matter how hard life becomes and know that God is with those who are patient.
These frauds do not have a "message of truth". They are pushing creationist propaganda and science denial. If you seek truth, look for evidence, not the bullshit in the bible.
I can't *wait* for the next one! The #1 objection I get for why intelligent design needs to be rejected is that it doesnt make predictions the way scientific theories do. I want to see that proven wrong.
Go and read
Laboratory evidence:
messengers like noah, Muhammad etc come and warn their nation.
They, i.e disbelievers amoung the direct audiance are punished telling them how it will happen on a grand scale. it is a very amazing concept called itmam e hujjat.
Predictions:
1. their are many predictions messengers did. They were fulfilled. Why do ya think its called prophet.
2. Evolution hasn't any prediction full filled. so tell them to show it.
I like the work you do, when people come to be "why Islam is wrong" they come with out of context stuff and if they are atheist they come with evolution. I already knew about these problems in Evolution. But you are doing good work here for those do don't know.
I can see how in the past we could have gotten things wrong. New discoveries are showing us how little we know much less understand about our planet and the universe. How can anyone say evolution has been proven but not creation? Seems logical to think there are things beyond our understanding. Like...FAR beyond. In a galaxy far far away...Some can believe in aliens and movies and TV shows, but get their heads around intelligent design. Movies and all that are written quite recently, but there's a book that was written thousands of years ago. Some of the writers of the Bible described things they saw that sounds like UFOs. Which comes back to how little we know and understand. Very interesting video you have here. Entertaining and informative as well as humorous. Even humor is part of our code. Amazing.
DNA unequivocally disproved Evolution but the True Believers are still trying to deny the science 😂
Oh, please. The advent of molecular biology supports evolution.
Even if evolution were true, design is always an option. God has worked through many things throughout history and can surely bring forth life in evolution.
Hi! I'm waiting for your next video... Can you please do a video on ERVs?
Yes, soon!
Where do you get your knowledge about biology from?
This video is without sources but the older ones link to ID and creationist (let's skip the fact that they are the same thing) sites, so there you have it.
Computer programs don`t have to be big, data in an executable that are larger can contain alot of other data then CPU instructions, alot of the times it does not matter if you change some numbers, it may change a color pixel value of a picture in the program file.. but if you look at CPU instructions and the instructions are 16 bits, it means you have 64000 possible combinations for one instruction, so if two instructions have to be correct for a random program of data code then the chance will drop alot. that is 64000x64000 and give you a chance in 1 of a 4 billion for it to be correct.. and a program needs alot of instructions to do something meaningful.. program will also crash easly...
Yet NOTHING matches the 3-dimensional Hypercomplex CODE that is the most voluminous and sophisticated in the known world...DNA CODE!
Man CAN'T even do what has allowed all life on earth to exist. Mankind with all his computers CAN'T make DNA CODE from chemicals. Impossible. We haven't begun to understand it's massive complexity!
@@GreatBehoover we quite literally have modified genetic code, generated our own genetic code, and made entirely new species of plants.
@@BlueFlameFK There is a difference between combining DNA sections, changing DNA values on purpose , writting whole new DNA from scratch or random changes to DNA code..
@@BlueFlameFK i am not saying DNA mutations can`t happen or else it cant work, it depends where in the DNA code changes are happening, some is no problem at all, but it can happen it is a hugh problem. if you start from scratch and evolution would produce an animal with a good working brain.. how many time you need for this to happen through natural selection, some of the DNA have to be accurate to make it work. keep in mind that brain functions are very complex.. they also give an age range for the earth.. you also need to wait till a cell could form by chance if evolution is true. what time is left over for evolution process to produce humans? is the time not very short for this to happen?
@BlueFlameFK
No silly... we have PREEXISTING EPIGENETIC PREPROGRAMMING and damaging mutations.
You BELIEVE by FAITH alone!
Even Darwin's finches can all still mate...different "species" aren't supposed to be able to mate.
You silly naturalists view every change as accidentally wrought! I am surprised you don't look at a Salamander end exclaim "EVOLUTION"...every time he changes color!😂😂😂
No silly PREPROGRAMMED EPIGENETIC CODE!😉
Feel free to show us what you TRULY BELIEVE BY FAITH ALONE! Just post your best peer reviewed scientific paper DEVOID OF FAITH STATEMENTS AND CIRCULAR REASONING that proves me wrong.
Go ahead...I'll wait....
😂😂😂
Instead of simply posting their unassumed observational scientific evidence, the silly FAITH-FILLED naturalists will complain and demand I BELIEVE what they faithfully BELIEVE!🤔🤔🤔
That is amazing
Great video ❤
A code was made that can be used forward and backward. A code far more advanced than anything man has created. God is Great!!
Life is too complex to have evolved. Therefore, it had to be created by something capable of designing such complexity, which, in turn, doesn’t actually need an explanation itself. At least not to us, much less worthy beings. Because logic doesn’t need to work, which is why this explanation should never have been attempted in the first place.
And… the intelligent design argument has successfully defeated itself.
brillient
Imagine a theory that would still be used as evidence, even if DNA had not been discovered at the time
DNA is not like computer code. DNA is like a recipe, not a code. Computer code typically has zero tolerance for error. If a one or a zero is misplaced, something bad happens. A recipe does have a tolerance for error. When making bread, for instance, one can use a bit less, or a bit more, of an ingredient, knead the dough for a greater or lesser time, cook it at a slightly different temperature, in fact do any number of different things, and still end up with a loaf of bread. The creation of the loaf of bread does not require absolute adherence to the recipe. DNA is like that. No reproduction is perfect. It's slightly different every time, sometimes more, and somtimes less, different but always different. Yet it still works, unless there is a major error in reproduction. Those built in errors is how evolution works. The slightly different offspring of the parents may be more or less fit is terms of passing along it's genes, given the environment it lives in. When the environment changes, what makes an organism fit will change. Changes that once provided a slight advantage may become a slight disadvantage. Over time, those differences, if advantageous will spread through the population. Most times is doesn't work, resulting in extinction. It is estimated that 99% of organisms that have lived on earth are extinct, so most of the time the changes are bad, not good. But, occasionally they are good, and that organism lives on. Now here I'm going to tell you something about yourself you may not have thought of. The DNA in your cells goes back in an unbroken line all the way to the very first organism that used DNA to reproduce on earth. You are part of the 1% of living things that have prevailed. Lucky you! Enjoy your live, and revel in the fact that you are the end result of many hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
Extinction is taking place due to genetic entropy or "mutator gemone decay" according to the NIH, PubMed, NCBI and PNAS. This process is inevitable and irreversible and shows a steady trend of genetic degradation across all genomes regardless of any assumed benefit from mutations. Eventually we will all end up with an error catastrophe which appears to only be mitigated currently due to preprogrammed autocorrect functions found within the genome itself which codes for protein based enzymes which somehow know the entire genome and know how to correct it to within 99.99999999999% accuracy. Otherwise we would already all be dead. You would be better off believing that LUCA was far genetically superior to all of existing life today and slowly decayed into what we see today but that is even more laughable considering how difficult any hopeful abiogenesis event could ever occur let alone make a near perfect being the first try. Try dealing with the data before commenting.
@@pigzcanfly444 Tell me that somehow the organisms alive today on earth are not the offspring of earlier organisms. Tell me that somewhere along the way the DNA line broke, and some new life form just popped up to take it's place. Also tell me how, if indeed the offspring copy of the parent is 99.9999999999999% accurate, how changes in organisms take place, given we know that has happened, Even the creationists accept what they call "micro-evolution". That wouldn't be possible if the figure you gave was correct. In the real world, it happens all the time. Somehow the theory you have must account for what we know to be true. We know, for instance, that all humans and monkeys come from the same ancestral lineage. Again, that would be diffiucult, if not impossible, if your perfect reproduction was a fact.
@@pigzcanfly444 What are you even saying? Do you not know how mutations work?
Well, our cells might be just "like" the first cell and every cell ever in that DNA proved to be a good design. Ie. All cars have wheels because the first car worked better with wheels. Computer code doesn't monitor itself as does the process that reads DNA does, so that difference does allow DNA to be correct the vast majority of time. However, if the protein does not fold correctly, or the gene is not expressed correctly, we know that the consequences will never be good. The good thing is that there is a built-in tolerance that allows for the cell to have a chance to continue (natural selection). Anything outside of that tolerance and bad things happen. However, natural selection does not have the power to create new functions or body plans, so it is not the driving force behind making new species.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Sorry, but that's not an accurate descriptor.
I am an engineering student but i was really good at bio in high school. I can't express how wrong this is cuz it would take me way more than 12 minutes to do that and i just know high school bio. But still lets be real isn't calling everything made by god just pushing the problem. You can do all the gymnastics you want by claiming/asserting your idea of god is one that is eternal and doesn't need to be created cuz its beyond time but this is an argument from complexity. It has a very obvious refutation. If we are so complex we need a god then god is more complex than us and need another god creating an infinite regress. In the end you are just pushing the problem back. I won't even get into how wrong the bio is.
Sorry, but you got the argument wrong. God is not complex, yet capable of complex things. God is cause yet not contingent on anything. The doctrine of simplicity is a fundamental premise of Thomas Aquinas.
Being a good biology student doesn't mean you understand biology, it means you were good at ingesting information and regurgitating it upon request. HS biology doesn't address the problems being raised here, they're more philosophical in nature.
@@jon__doe your god would, by definition, be the single most complex thing to ever exist. Imagine taking Aquinas seriously in this day and age lmao.
And sorry but: being a good biology student necessarily means having an understanding of biology.
Wasnt this video already uploaded before?
Informative vid but I believe you're focusing on the wrong thing regarding the complexity of DNA. First, I want you to understand I agree with you but what you should really be asking (to a person on the other side of the aisle) is: how could the redundancy and error correction for DNA arise on its own, and how does it continue to do what it does?
That is, we're talking about errors here, and the occurrence of errors are inescapable. If DNA needs something to maintain it's viability, wouldn't the processes maintaining it themselves need to be maintained and so on? The answer is that a prime mover outside of natural processes has to be there somewhere and that would be a stronger argument I think for intelligent design. This reasoning can be taken all the way back to the origin of life.
If I were Elon tier rich, I'd donate 1 Billion USD for Long Story Shorts projects!
I wish you luck on our mutual path to great riches!
You'd throw away 1 Billion USD to promote creationist propaganda? You'd do better for the world throwing your money into a landfill.
1st Corinthians 15 1-4 KJV
Imagine thinking that a smart creator made something like a babirusa, lol
Hi there, i Just Wanna thank you because you made thus so easy to understand and your are cleaning to many ignorant ideas that I had, cN you please make a video explaining how difficult Is to mutation insertion can change a proteína to sensitive protein cod and the machines needed to translate anderstand and even expresión signalization etc to debunk this none sense protein to an eye by chance
‘I reckon this is too complicated for nature to do in 14 billion years, but humans have done things vaguely similar albeit less complicated so therefore something with a brain must’ve done this.’
Intelligent Design is simply false, instead of trying to explain something you can’t explain by adding in another layer of greater abstraction (a designer) that you still can’t explain, why not settle with ‘I don’t know so I’m not making any rash judgments or vast assumptions and will follow the evidence’
Yet, you made a rash judgment or a vast assumption when you said 'Intelligent Design is simply false'. I don't think you find the issue with making rash judgments or vast assumptions just ones you don't favour the meaning or the consequences of. That's not an accusation against you just something to consider as a natural rational of what you have said.
Why do you people have such a knee-jerk reflex against intelligent design?
You accuse us of "God of the Gaps", yet you commit the same fallacy. Even if there is no scientific evidence that a cell could form or evolve by chance (or even if science has soundly disproven that idea), you still demand that science will eventually find an answer one day. That's Naturalism of the Gaps.
Why settle for don't know when God's words in the Judaeo Christian Bible tell us exactly how things happened and when?
The argument is not, "Its too complicated for us to get therefore something more intelligent must have done it" the argument is "we know the evidence of an intelligent creatures effect on an environment, this situation looks a lot like said evidence there fore it is likely an intelligent origin..." The point is if you see graffiti on a wall you can Safely assume a human origin, same thing applies when you see a super- (Dare I super natural) complicated language.
Either way best of luck out there learning!
Evolution of the Gaps much?
A Man A Plan A Canal Panama
Madam, in Eden, I’m Adam.
Evil rats on no star live.
Evolution "experts" can give us all the evidence they want, but they will never be able to make sense that we came from a rock 😂
Huh? What are you talking about? Sound like you have a rocks for brains, so your argument is invalid 🤭
Did you notice how he's presenting tons of information from evolution experts, yet refuses to listen to the conclusions the same experts draw from that information?
@@reformCopyright Dude if you believe we came from a rock you are nuts
@@fcampos10 I don't.
Hmm, I think you did a good job with your argument, but there is a bit of a wrinkle that you should consider. The main issue I see is that we already have the ability to generate information from randomness, quite a powerful tool actually. Specifically, I am thinking reservoir computers and LLMs.
I think there is an ID argument there as well, but I feel like that will take a lot of work to unpack, so it might not be worth it to you (though I would find it interesting).
On a completely different topic, I would like to shill my favorite scifi at the moment, “The Nature of Predators”.
I'm not an expert, but doesn't reservoir computing require intentional fine tuning to work? A software designer sets up the system with intended outputs...right?
So it's not really fully random...it's targeted and pre-programmed.
@@chrispark2698 Yes, but that fine tuning could be explained via an environmentally created incentive structure. I am not saying it is, but it is something to consider.
@@adammyers3453 But that only pushes the fine-tuning back a step. An incentive structure requires a specific, fine-tuned end goal. I don't think this can be correlated to what we see in nature - if natural selection is indeed what drives evolution, there is no "end goal" in sight. Just blind, random chance. Which is one of the reasons it doesn't make sense, to me, haha.
@@chrispark2698 Again, I can where you are coming from, but unless you are going full fine-tuning, one can bring up the complexity of multi-body systems as a source of incentives.
@@adammyers3453 I am not sure what you mean.
Upload the video fast bro
Why do you people never stop to think? Why would complexity be a sign of design. That doesn’t make a lick of sense. There are designed stuff that are simple. Infact, one of the goals of design is to make it as simple as possible. There are also stuff that are complex that is not designed. So what you are saying is ”I can point out complex things that are designed. Dna is complex, therefore it is designed”. You might as well say ”there are designed things that are red, therefore everything that is red is designed”.
because complexity originating from natural processes in random sequences is statically impossible, so it makes logical sense for complexity to be designed that way
@@olivermcelwee374That is demonstrably false. You are just parroting apologist nonsense. Why do you accept that uncritically? Perhaps because it validates your preferred beliefs?
@eleventhchimp it's "demonstrably" false because?????. You're saying things and not backing them up with anything.
@@olivermcelwee374 Did you not notice that you claimed statistical impossibility without backing it up?
@@eleventhchimp I guess you just didn't watch the video or any of the other videos on this channel.
so what is wrong with Francis Collins' BioLogos
you quoted him & he is a Christian & he thinks that evolution is how god did it
it seems like you & he would get along & maybe agree with each other
Biologos adheres to the notion of unguided evolution. The idea of theistic evolution by natural processes exists to allow Christians into the secular evolutionists' club. It doesn't address any of the problems of evolution, it addresses the problem of Christians being tolerated in academia.
If evolution worked as advertised, it would be a step forward. Trouble is, evolution if fraught with issues without resolution. Honestly, if you can endure the cognitive dissonance of believing evolution while pursuing a relationship with God, then drive on.
@@jon__doe literally every syllable you’ve said about evolution is wrong and shows you do not understand it whatsoever. Evolution is a fact backed by literally all the evidence.
@@V0idFace Glad you saw it, my comment is gone for me already. Sorry that I don't take your word for it. I have examined mountains of evidence for evolution and found it wanting. If you have a particular piece of evidence you find convincing I'm happy to address it, but just telling me I'm wrong gets us nowhere.
Edit: it's back
@@jon__doe then you haven’t actually “examined mountains of evidence for it.” Best case scenario you’ve watched creationist videos which also don’t understand evolution, or you’ve simply not understood what you’ve seen at all.
Again: literally every piece of evidence proves evolution to be a fact, there are no such problems with it…just things on which you clearly were not educated.
There is a freaking alot of reasons to believe in a God, all powerful and all knowledgeable
Especially nowadays where we have knowledge of dna on microlevel and fine tuning argument for universe at macrolevel.
The arrogant does reject the truth... Indeed it's not the eyes that r blind but the heart. Quran
And We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them without purpose! That is the consideration of those who disbelieve! Then woe to those who disbelieve (in Islamic Monotheism) from the Fire!. Surah saad
Lol silly creatard
There is no good evidence for any god so there is no reason to believe in any god.
@@walkergarya silly atheist.
@@jon__doe I would far rather be a "silly atheist" than an ignorant theist.
@@walkergarya While I don't endorse willful ignorance, when it comes to what we do and do not know, theism is far more explanatory.
How is it you don't know that?
The secrets of evolution? Not, and not even close. The source is wholly different.
This is one of the worst apologetics/intelligent design videos and arguments I've ever seen.
Oh do tell! Which are better?
Great argument/ debunking .Voidface
I love u. Close all bullshit evlotion shit ❤❤❤❤
God created all seen and unseen and sustains it all. Many would rather believe the lie of origin of life 'researchers', who are really re-researching spontaneous generation, when they claim to be on the cusp of figuring it out. Entropy does not hand out favors EVER.
I’m a Christian, but I would like to say that entropy is not like some “objective rule” it is just the fact that because particles move around in random directions, the chances of energy being bunched up together is really low, so by random chance it could happen, but it is more likely that things will be more spread out because there are more random movements that lead to that outcome.
Subb'd and bell rang. "You just don't know science ie all the excuses we make to ignore the nature of DNA"
DNA is a biomolecule that is associated with specific amino acids. We understand how this works, and this supports evolution.