I've always admired your serious yet non-agressive responses to these angry questions and especially when you point out when it's a legitimately good question like this one, even if it came from a place of dismissal rather than curiosity.
It's the best way to respond in most situations. That is, if your goal is to be most effective at persuading others and/or being the bigger person. Paulogia has a similar approach. There's a certain satisfaction that comes from being able to calmly and succinctly shut down fallacious arguments.
Especially when the guys are so cocky and emotional. I have to admit, though, that I enjoy watching Professor Dave debunk pseudoscience while also mocking it to a degree.
@@infinitemonkey917 Professor Dave is great, but I feel like being calm an rational is the better approach overall, although I agree that Dave's approach is very entertaining to watch. Ultimately though, most YEC will never be convinced, no matter how you present the information. I would be curious how many people out there are like me though. I grew up believing in YEC and thought Kent Hovind was great. We watched his lecture series in high school back in the early 2000s as part of religion class. It's channels like these that finally pulled me out of those delusions.
BISMILLAH There is a philosophical objection to the theory of Evolution which no atheist can answer. I call it the atheist trilemma. Here's how the trilemma goes. When you ask atheists where did everything in our universe come from? There are only 3 possible options available to them, all of which indirectly disprove Darwins theory of Evolution. Option 1: everything in our universe popped into existence from absolute nothingness. Option 2: everything in our universe has come from something which has always existed, a Necessary Existence, which has existed eternally forever. Option 3: everything in our universe comes from something which existed before it. But this thing which existed before our universe itself came from another thing which existed before it. And that thing came into existence from something that existed even before it, and this goes on for infinity......................(infinite regression) Now let's go through each of these three options and show why all are logically impossible, which in turn disprove Evolution. Option 1 is impossible because you obviously cannot get something from absolute nothing. How can something be made of nothing? And how can something come into existence when nothing made it come into existence? This option is easily discounted and no serious atheist would ever consider it a plausible scientific explanation, especially because science as we know it today is based on Methodological Naturalism, a philosophy which claims that everything has a naturalistic explanation. Therefore, Darwin's theory of evolution could not possibly work under option 1. Option 2 is impossible because if everything, including the natural processes that created our universe, go back to a Necessary Existence which has existed eternally. Then that actually creates the problem of an infinite regress. Think about it, If the chain of natural processes that created our universe and eventually led to the creation of us humans goes back to a Necessary Existence which has existed FOREVER. Then that means there is no limit to how far back this chain of natural processes go back into the past. They go back into the past forever infinitely. There can never be a limit to how far back these natural processes go back because that would negate the idea of the Necessary Existence being eternal without beginning. So logically you'll be forced to conclude that this chain of natural processes go back forever infinitely. But if the chain of natural processes that created the universe and eventually led to the creation of us humans goes back infinitely, then how could it ever reach the stage where humans were created? Can an infinite number of processes ever get completed? Can you even reach stages in infinity? Can you reach half way to infinity? The answer is NO. The very idea is a logical contradiction and impossibility. Therefore Darwin's theory of evolution would also be impossible under option 2. Option 3 is also impossible for the same reason that option 2 was impossible, and that is the problem of infinite regression. For example, if you say A came into existence from B, and B came into existence from C, and C came into existence from D and so on and so forth for infinity. Then the question has to be asked, how did A ever come into existence when there is a infinitely long chain of processes that need to be completed? Infinity cannot be completed by definition. Therefore under option 3 Darwin's theory of evolution is also impossible. This is my philosophical objection to the theory of evolution which so many atheists rely on to justify their atheism. I have shown through logic that all three options are impossible, which in turn means evolution would be impossible if it is based on any of these three options. And these three options are the only options available to an atheist who believes only in a materialistic natural explanation for our existence. What do you think?
To quote the paper: "The bioenergetic costs of a gene" by Lynch and Marinov: "For a larger cell size of 2,500 μm3, more typical of a multicellular eukaryote, and a diploid genome, the relative cost of DNA declines to ≃10^−11Lg, so even a 10^5-bp segment of DNA has a relative cost of just 10^−6. The effective population sizes of invertebrates tend to be in the neighborhood of 10^6, with that of some vertebrates (including humans) ranging down to 10^4, and in such cases the power of random genetic drift is sufficient to overwhelm the ability of natural selection to eliminate quite large insertions on the basis of DNA-level costs." In other words, a 10,000bp insertion has a relative cost of around 1 in a million, similar to your calculated 1 in 300,000, and this is typically below the threshold for selection of many vertebrates, including humans.
Your videos are awesome and they're excellent examples of what kind of knowledge-base, detail, and time it takes to fully debunk the endless nonsense of young earth creationist. Ain't nobody got time for that! But you do it so well. Thanks.
Seems like a big problem these two have, at least from the brief clips you've shown, is their attributing some sort of agency to these processes. It's called natural "selection" but I don't think cells aren't going around picking and choosing this stuff...
I took your challenge for the rice. Being a math guy, I first thought less than 5 grains, but when I quickly went back to the numbers you presented, realized the difference in the number of zeros and guessed 1/2 of a grain.
My guess was more general. I guessed not even a grain of rice. But it occurred to me that it could be like a hundredth of a grain to one grain. I was right cos I guessed a way larger margin, it wasn't a specific guess, it was a (less than one grain) guess.
My spontaneous guess to the question was a quarter of a grain of rice. After some back of the envelope calculation (assuming a pound = 500g and rounding up the 0,008something grams to 0.01g) and google telling me a grain of rice weigh 0.028 g. So, around a third of a grain. Pretty close I'd say. - Now, I'll unpause.
I guessed quarter of a grain, I swear. And I am a failure in Maths, but probably my intuition is good. RUclips should start putting a star button next to each video because this one is nothing less than STELLAR! So insightful and so great.
Super analogy, and the variance in human dna length was really surprising, another great response. As a software developer I sometimes think of the genome in terms of a codebase. I know that’s risky because the code itself is intelligently created, but in large systems the growth has a sort of organic and emergent quality. There are small pieces of code that might have have no effect (unused) or even an extremely rare negative effect (obscure bug contortions) so they they go unnoticed and persist.
Okay, I guessed at the size of a grain of rice (long grain) as about 2mm thick by 5mm to 10mm long, so you could conceivably stack 25-50 in a cubic centimetre. Rice itself is heavier than water, so the density could be 2 grams per cm3. In a 2.2-ish kilo bag of rice, there would therefore be 1100-ish 2g cubic centimetres, so the number of grains would be 1100 x 50 grains of rice (high end) which is very roughly 50000 grains in a bag. Three billion base pairs divided by 50,000 is 60,000, so 1 grain of rice is equivalent to 60,000 base pairs. So the viral base pairs can be represented by 1 grain of rice, or 0.2 grains, depending how finicky you want to get (not very, in my case). Edit: Oh, I wasn't supposed to do _any_ math? Not even a Fermi estimate? Well, what's the fun in that?
Also considering unlike bacteria eucariote replication starts in multiple points the marginally longer genome won't effect much in time of replication that would matter in single cell organisms
@@Erufailon42 I was a mig vague what ment was time to replicate matters most in single cell organisms like bacteria than multi cell ones . In humans I doubt there is a time that it goes full throttle cell replication that ther individual will benefit from 0.1 percent faster replication speed . The reproduction is much slower in them anyways . But in bacteria one that can replicate a bit faster would out compete the slower ones.
Hi Jon, Great video, I have some (fairly) accurate scales, the regular rice I buy in Australia weighs 30mg, so your figure seems accurate. I accidentally did the math before I realised you wanted an intuitive answer!
What amazes me is how utterly differently I did the math, but I still came up with virtually the same answer. And I found a different value for the weight of one grain.
A question about ERVs: Are there any examples of an ERV insertion into a genome where the insertion point just happens to be in a stretch of base pairs where an older ERV had already been inserted? I'm thinking such a thing might be termed a "nested ERV" or something like that. Maybe viruses evolved first, then began infecting each other again and again, ad infinitum, to the point where the genome resulting from such multi-infectionary events became complex enough to produce the major distinguishing characteristics of more complex lifeforms -- such as the emergence of Vertebrates . . . of sexual dimorphism . . . etc. etc.? Even if the vast majority of these infectious events of Virus-on-Virus were to lead to the death of each Host virus, those few which survived would pass on their changed natures to the next generation. Maybe the beginnings of Evolution were all about viruses infecting other viruses...?
In around 1:30:00 into there video on you they play the part where you show that we have MANY ervs in the same location and they didn’t address it because they couldn’t.
This goes into the larger discussion about junk DNA. I think it's pretty clear that unicellular organisms are much better than humans at getting rid of extraneous DNA. Part of this may be due to shorter generation times, but I also wonder if unicellular organisms actually do feel the cost of dragging all that extra DNA around. In other words, junk DNA might actually be fairly strongly selected against.
@Akki Sci channel But that is exactly what I said. The creationist fool says the cell is intelligently designed and full of junk in the same breath. Quite the paradox.
I'm thinking a couple of grains of rice. 10^4 vs 3x10^9 is a pretty huge difference. It's 1 day vs 800 years. Maybe even less than a single grain, idk.
i think of uncooked rice, which has roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd of the mass cooked rice has when you give me its weight in grams, but when i think of single grains of rice, my mind jumps to cooked ones. so... it's roughly a third grain of rice. ;) nah, i actually guessed 1 grain, i watched the vid in the background, and 2268g was oddly specific to metric me.
Just a guess without doing any math I'm going to say 1/8 of one grain of rice to the bag. And I have this feeling that I'm way off, it probably is a much smaller amount. Ok, continuing with the video.
1. Humans and chimpanzees were separately created. 2. Humans and chimpanzees have a large number of ERVs in the same corresponding locations in both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. 3. When a retrovirus inserts itself into the genome it lands in a random location. 4. The probability that retroviruses would land that way is basically 0. 5. Therefore, ERVs are not from viruses.
SFT and RawMatt (mattman) have made many videos and I have seen many people respond to these two. One response that is very well done by Ration al mind did a response to him called “DNA barcoding and the phylogeny challenge - response to Raw Matt.” on Jackson Wheat’s channel. He edited out parts of his video because he knew he was wrong. And the barcoding differences between most of the animals he was talking about was wrong.
SfT is deleting comments and censoring different outlines of discussions and runs away. The excuse tries are beyond ridiculous - similar to flatearthers arguing that when you see a ship to move over the horizon with your very own eyes or record it with your telelense camera it must be a delusion - ultimately satan himself or God himself sends into your eyes or the camera a deception "to test your faith". I had a debate once with SfT, where I pointed 8000 year old pine trees out by dendrochronology. He tried to excuse them away with ring disturbing & doubling events used to be seen at different locations - I explained that the ring doublings actually look different even for laypeople by photoexamples, but for his argument to fly - the trees must have been teleported around from an ice tundra to desert and back and from high hills to deep valleys numerous times. So that teleporting pine trees shall be a viable excuse for them not to be 8000 years old. You see from that acting alone that reality shall not be real at all given cost. There is no apology absurd enough and no excuse fantastic enough.
Not really pure "intuition", because I'd already worked out the ratio, before the "rice" thing was mentioned, but (according to my sketchy mental arithmatic) the ratio makes it less that 1/100th of gram- I'm guessing there's maybe 5 to 10 grains of rice, to a gram, so it should be under 1/10th of a single grain; I'd say between 1/15th to 1/30th of a grain.
When you look at a clock a lot of people see the seconds hand move, some even see the minutes hand move if they pay close attention but how many see the hours hand move? Yet we all know it's moving. Infinite small variations in the evolution of life in this planet have resulted in our present reality. How many can look back or forward to the future of the human race in this planet? "Sixty millions years ago you walked upon the planet so. Lord of all the creatures but, you didn't have future..." Sir Gordon Mathew Thomas Sumner.
@@StatedCasually sorry I sincerely doubt you do. Corrupted and losses or copied information isn't new. There is no mechanism for evolutioninary change like you want to claim. Every so called bennificial mutation is nothing more then a loss of information degrading of the genes and an overall loss of fitness for a short term gain. I asked for an example didn't I? I don't know why academics want to lie and not admit fact but you guys seem to really want to ignore it. Honestly that has nothing to do with religion or a pie in the sky fairy God. Evolution like you claim has no viable mechanism. Every generation you get degraded mutations that build up they never make new genes. They don't and can't change an organism or make it better.
I did this below in my head, THEN Jon says "you didn't do the math" .... missing: how much does one grain of rice weigh? .007 grams - say 1/4 of a grain of rice 2268/(3e9/1e4) = 2268/3e5 = 2.1e3 / 3e5 = 7e-3 =.007g REDO after Mr. Math set me straight: 2268/3e5 = 2.1e3 / 3e5 should become(two mistakes - the symbol and the rounding) 2268/3e5 ~ 2.4e3 / 3e5 = 0.8e-2 = 8e-3
Guess: 10k/10B is 1 in a million, I'm guessing the pounder rice is ... 2500 grains, so about 1 100th of a grain of rice. ... Ah, I see, 19k grains, not 2.5.
I've always admired your serious yet non-agressive responses to these angry questions and especially when you point out when it's a legitimately good question like this one, even if it came from a place of dismissal rather than curiosity.
It's the best way to respond in most situations. That is, if your goal is to be most effective at persuading others and/or being the bigger person. Paulogia has a similar approach. There's a certain satisfaction that comes from being able to calmly and succinctly shut down fallacious arguments.
Especially when the guys are so cocky and emotional. I have to admit, though, that I enjoy watching Professor Dave debunk pseudoscience while also mocking it to a degree.
@@infinitemonkey917 Professor Dave is great, but I feel like being calm an rational is the better approach overall, although I agree that Dave's approach is very entertaining to watch. Ultimately though, most YEC will never be convinced, no matter how you present the information.
I would be curious how many people out there are like me though. I grew up believing in YEC and thought Kent Hovind was great. We watched his lecture series in high school back in the early 2000s as part of religion class. It's channels like these that finally pulled me out of those delusions.
This is one of the coolest comment sections I've had in any of my videos!
Lotsa love & support. :-)
BISMILLAH
There is a philosophical objection to the theory of Evolution which no atheist can answer. I call it the atheist trilemma. Here's how the trilemma goes. When you ask atheists where did everything in our universe come from? There are only 3 possible options available to them, all of which indirectly disprove Darwins theory of Evolution.
Option 1: everything in our universe popped into existence from absolute nothingness.
Option 2: everything in our universe has come from something which has always existed, a Necessary Existence, which has existed eternally forever.
Option 3: everything in our universe comes from something which existed before it. But this thing which existed before our universe itself came from another thing which existed before it. And that thing came into existence from something that existed even before it, and this goes on for infinity......................(infinite regression)
Now let's go through each of these three options and show why all are logically impossible, which in turn disprove Evolution.
Option 1 is impossible because you obviously cannot get something from absolute nothing. How can something be made of nothing? And how can something come into existence when nothing made it come into existence? This option is easily discounted and no serious atheist would ever consider it a plausible scientific explanation, especially because science as we know it today is based on Methodological Naturalism, a philosophy which claims that everything has a naturalistic explanation. Therefore, Darwin's theory of evolution could not possibly work under option 1.
Option 2 is impossible because if everything, including the natural processes that created our universe, go back to a Necessary Existence which has existed eternally. Then that actually creates the problem of an infinite regress. Think about it, If the chain of natural processes that created our universe and eventually led to the creation of us humans goes back to a Necessary Existence which has existed FOREVER. Then that means there is no limit to how far back this chain of natural processes go back into the past. They go back into the past forever infinitely. There can never be a limit to how far back these natural processes go back because that would negate the idea of the Necessary Existence being eternal without beginning. So logically you'll be forced to conclude that this chain of natural processes go back forever infinitely. But if the chain of natural processes that created the universe and eventually led to the creation of us humans goes back infinitely, then how could it ever reach the stage where humans were created? Can an infinite number of processes ever get completed? Can you even reach stages in infinity? Can you reach half way to infinity? The answer is NO. The very idea is a logical contradiction and impossibility. Therefore Darwin's theory of evolution would also be impossible under option 2.
Option 3 is also impossible for the same reason that option 2 was impossible, and that is the problem of infinite regression. For example, if you say A came into existence from B, and B came into existence from C, and C came into existence from D and so on and so forth for infinity. Then the question has to be asked, how did A ever come into existence when there is a infinitely long chain of processes that need to be completed? Infinity cannot be completed by definition. Therefore under option 3 Darwin's theory of evolution is also impossible.
This is my philosophical objection to the theory of evolution which so many atheists rely on to justify their atheism. I have shown through logic that all three options are impossible, which in turn means evolution would be impossible if it is based on any of these three options. And these three options are the only options available to an atheist who believes only in a materialistic natural explanation for our existence.
What do you think?
To quote the paper: "The bioenergetic costs of a gene" by Lynch and Marinov:
"For a larger cell size of 2,500 μm3, more typical of a multicellular eukaryote, and a diploid genome, the relative cost of DNA declines to ≃10^−11Lg, so even a 10^5-bp segment of DNA has a relative cost of just 10^−6. The effective population sizes of invertebrates tend to be in the neighborhood of 10^6, with that of some vertebrates (including humans) ranging down to 10^4, and in such cases the power of random genetic drift is sufficient to overwhelm the ability of natural selection to eliminate quite large insertions on the basis of DNA-level costs."
In other words, a 10,000bp insertion has a relative cost of around 1 in a million, similar to your calculated 1 in 300,000, and this is typically below the threshold for selection of many vertebrates, including humans.
Intuitive answer: at most 5 grains of rice, probably closer to 1.
I enjoyed the hidden track. My best chuckle of the day so far.
I couldn't honestly answer the question because I was already doing the math in my head when you mentioned the numbers of nucleotides.
Your videos are awesome and they're excellent examples of what kind of knowledge-base, detail, and time it takes to fully debunk the endless nonsense of young earth creationist. Ain't nobody got time for that! But you do it so well. Thanks.
I guessed 1/3th of a grain of rice after watching this video twice.
Seems like a big problem these two have, at least from the brief clips you've shown, is their attributing some sort of agency to these processes. It's called natural "selection" but I don't think cells aren't going around picking and choosing this stuff...
I took your challenge for the rice. Being a math guy, I first thought less than 5 grains, but when I quickly went back to the numbers you presented, realized the difference in the number of zeros and guessed 1/2 of a grain.
My guess was more general. I guessed not even a grain of rice. But it occurred to me that it could be like a hundredth of a grain to one grain. I was right cos I guessed a way larger margin, it wasn't a specific guess, it was a (less than one grain) guess.
My spontaneous guess to the question was a quarter of a grain of rice.
After some back of the envelope calculation (assuming a pound = 500g and rounding up the 0,008something grams to 0.01g) and google telling me a grain of rice weigh 0.028 g.
So, around a third of a grain.
Pretty close I'd say. - Now, I'll unpause.
I guessed quarter of a grain, I swear. And I am a failure in Maths, but probably my intuition is good.
RUclips should start putting a star button next to each video because this one is nothing less than STELLAR! So insightful and so great.
Super analogy, and the variance in human dna length was really surprising, another great response.
As a software developer I sometimes think of the genome in terms of a codebase. I know that’s risky because the code itself is intelligently created, but in large systems the growth has a sort of organic and emergent quality. There are small pieces of code that might have have no effect (unused) or even an extremely rare negative effect (obscure bug contortions) so they they go unnoticed and persist.
Okay, I guessed at the size of a grain of rice (long grain) as about 2mm thick by 5mm to 10mm long, so you could conceivably stack 25-50 in a cubic centimetre. Rice itself is heavier than water, so the density could be 2 grams per cm3. In a 2.2-ish kilo bag of rice, there would therefore be 1100-ish 2g cubic centimetres, so the number of grains would be 1100 x 50 grains of rice (high end) which is very roughly 50000 grains in a bag.
Three billion base pairs divided by 50,000 is 60,000, so 1 grain of rice is equivalent to 60,000 base pairs. So the viral base pairs can be represented by 1 grain of rice, or 0.2 grains, depending how finicky you want to get (not very, in my case).
Edit: Oh, I wasn't supposed to do _any_ math? Not even a Fermi estimate? Well, what's the fun in that?
Yes, admirably clear and calmly explained.
Also considering unlike bacteria eucariote replication starts in multiple points the marginally longer genome won't effect much in time of replication that would matter in single cell organisms
Just to nitpick a little, there are plenty of single celled eucaryotic organisms ;)
@@Erufailon42 I was a mig vague what ment was time to replicate matters most in single cell organisms like bacteria than multi cell ones . In humans I doubt there is a time that it goes full throttle cell replication that ther individual will benefit from 0.1 percent faster replication speed . The reproduction is much slower in them anyways . But in bacteria one that can replicate a bit faster would out compete the slower ones.
@@mistakenotou7681 yeah no I got what you were saying. I'm just saying your phrasing makes it seem like all single celled organisms are bacteria.
Wow, fantastic video, keep up the good work!
A spoonful or so?!
Learning is fun! Reality is amazing! :D
Bit less than a grain of rice? Might be way off though.
Aye not too bad
Hi Jon,
Great video, I have some (fairly) accurate scales, the regular rice I buy in Australia weighs 30mg, so your figure seems accurate. I accidentally did the math before I realised you wanted an intuitive answer!
My intuitive answer was 3 or 4 grains or like half a teaspoon
A few grains, like maybe 30 grains
.33 grains, so I was only off by a couple orders of magnitude
Half of a rice grain?😅
0.25 grains of rice per 5 lb bag.
What amazes me is how utterly differently I did the math, but I still came up with virtually the same answer. And I found a different value for the weight of one grain.
Without doing the math, I’d guess 1 or 2 grains of rice.
One rice grain or less.
I thought the amount of rice would be five times less than what you calculated, but I did not do the maths.
A question about ERVs: Are there any examples of an ERV insertion into a genome where the insertion point just happens to be in a stretch of base pairs where an older ERV had already been inserted? I'm thinking such a thing might be termed a "nested ERV" or something like that.
Maybe viruses evolved first, then began infecting each other again and again, ad infinitum, to the point where the genome resulting from such multi-infectionary events became complex enough to produce the major distinguishing characteristics of more complex lifeforms -- such as the emergence of Vertebrates . . . of sexual dimorphism . . . etc. etc.? Even if the vast majority of these infectious events of Virus-on-Virus were to lead to the death of each Host virus, those few which survived would pass on their changed natures to the next generation. Maybe the beginnings of Evolution were all about viruses infecting other viruses...?
6:44 response: 1 grain
In the representation of the viral gen I would say half a grain of rice
Since ERVs have multiple insertion options, shouldn't we find different ERVs "scars" in different beings (same species)?
Clear informative answers. Love it.
In around 1:30:00 into there video on you they play the part where you show that we have MANY ervs in the same location and they didn’t address it because they couldn’t.
Thanks for the video.
Where did you all get the weight of 1 grain of rice?
One single rice.
That was my guess based entirely on Jon picking the 5 pound bag to begin with. But I was incorrect.
My guess is one grain of rice.
I can't wait to see how wrong I am
6:18 A thousandth of a rice kernel?
My guess (with limited but yet some thought) is, not even one rice grain
100 grains
Intuitiv answer to your rice question: 5 grains of rice?
My intuitive answer was the same as @Paul Ingerson....5 grains.
This goes into the larger discussion about junk DNA. I think it's pretty clear that unicellular organisms are much better than humans at getting rid of extraneous DNA. Part of this may be due to shorter generation times, but I also wonder if unicellular organisms actually do feel the cost of dragging all that extra DNA around. In other words, junk DNA might actually be fairly strongly selected against.
A tiny scratch of a grain of rice?
I guessed offhand 1 or 2 grains of rice.
Why doesn't the cell get rid of that junk? Easy, it wasn't intelligently designed. And about a grain of rice.
@Akki Sci channel ???
@Akki Sci channel But that is exactly what I said. The creationist fool says the cell is intelligently designed and full of junk in the same breath. Quite the paradox.
@@PabloSanchez-qu6ib Well said.
I'm thinking a couple of grains of rice. 10^4 vs 3x10^9 is a pretty huge difference. It's 1 day vs 800 years. Maybe even less than a single grain, idk.
6:25
about half a grain?
eh, close enough
I guessed less than 1 grain of rice before you gave the answer.
I think 2 grains?
I don't think the creationist questioner was angry.
I think its either 2 or a fraction. Not sure what fraction but its definitely small
i think of uncooked rice, which has roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd of the mass cooked rice has when you give me its weight in grams, but when i think of single grains of rice, my mind jumps to cooked ones. so... it's roughly a third grain of rice. ;)
nah, i actually guessed 1 grain, i watched the vid in the background, and 2268g was oddly specific to metric me.
I would think it would be a knife scrape of one grain of rice.
Intuitively...a single rice or less than one
My intuitive answer is 1-2 grains
A tiny piece of one grain?
Just a guess without doing any math I'm going to say 1/8 of one grain of rice to the bag. And I have this feeling that I'm way off, it probably is a much smaller amount. Ok, continuing with the video.
I'm betting one (or a fraction) of a grain of rice. 😉
EDIT: I had a strong feeling it was a fraction. I was leaning toward a half. 😊
1. Humans and chimpanzees were separately created.
2. Humans and chimpanzees have a large number of ERVs in the same corresponding locations in both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome.
3. When a retrovirus inserts itself into the genome it lands in a random location.
4. The probability that retroviruses would land that way is basically 0.
5. Therefore, ERVs are not from viruses.
1 grain?
SFT and RawMatt (mattman) have made many videos and I have seen many people respond to these two. One response that is very well done by Ration al mind did a response to him called “DNA barcoding and the phylogeny challenge - response to Raw Matt.” on Jackson Wheat’s channel. He edited out parts of his video because he knew he was wrong. And the barcoding differences between most of the animals he was talking about was wrong.
SfT is deleting comments and censoring different outlines of discussions and runs away. The excuse tries are beyond ridiculous - similar to flatearthers arguing that when you see a ship to move over the horizon with your very own eyes or record it with your telelense camera it must be a delusion - ultimately satan himself or God himself sends into your eyes or the camera a deception "to test your faith". I had a debate once with SfT, where I pointed 8000 year old pine trees out by dendrochronology. He tried to excuse them away with ring disturbing & doubling events used to be seen at different locations - I explained that the ring doublings actually look different even for laypeople by photoexamples, but for his argument to fly - the trees must have been teleported around from an ice tundra to desert and back and from high hills to deep valleys numerous times. So that teleporting pine trees shall be a viable excuse for them not to be 8000 years old.
You see from that acting alone that reality shall not be real at all given cost. There is no apology absurd enough and no excuse fantastic enough.
Much less than 1 grain of rice
Iwould guess 1/100 grain
Not really pure "intuition", because I'd already worked out the ratio, before the "rice" thing was mentioned, but (according to my sketchy mental arithmatic) the ratio makes it less that 1/100th of gram- I'm guessing there's maybe 5 to 10 grains of rice, to a gram, so it should be under 1/10th of a single grain; I'd say between 1/15th to 1/30th of a grain.
Woah, I guesstimated way too few grains, in gram. Off by a whole order of magnitude
I guessed 2 grains.
Probably no more than one grain of rice
Creationists are angry with everyone who doesn't believe in fairy tales
I am a bit late, but my estimation is one corn of rice or less.
a grain?
Half a grain of rice!!
just a couple of grains of rice.
When you look at a clock a lot of people see the seconds hand move, some even see the minutes hand move if they pay close attention but how many see the hours hand move? Yet we all know it's moving. Infinite small variations in the evolution of life in this planet have resulted in our present reality. How many can look back or forward to the future of the human race in this planet? "Sixty millions years ago you walked upon the planet so. Lord of all the creatures but, you didn't have future..." Sir Gordon Mathew Thomas Sumner.
Guess: 0.5-2.5 grains.
My intuition says 1/8th of a grain of rice. That's a bit vague as there's various grain lengths, so let's say approx. 1mm
Why is it still around isn’t as important as the question WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
3 grams
Not even a single full grain probably.
I was right!
Can you name a mechanism for any organism to gain new never before seen information and give an example of this?
I have a series of animations doing exactly this on the Stated Clearly channel: How does new genetic information evolve.
@@StatedCasually sorry I sincerely doubt you do. Corrupted and losses or copied information isn't new. There is no mechanism for evolutioninary change like you want to claim. Every so called bennificial mutation is nothing more then a loss of information degrading of the genes and an overall loss of fitness for a short term gain. I asked for an example didn't I? I don't know why academics want to lie and not admit fact but you guys seem to really want to ignore it. Honestly that has nothing to do with religion or a pie in the sky fairy God. Evolution like you claim has no viable mechanism. Every generation you get degraded mutations that build up they never make new genes. They don't and can't change an organism or make it better.
OK, I’ll bite: I paused the video, and my off-the-cuff intuition without thinking about was about 1 grain of rice, continuing the video…
Okay okay, Ima say 3 grains, but yeah I have no clue
Ope I’m off, closer then I thought though!
2 grains of rice?
I divided 10,000 by 3,000,000,000 = 0.00000333 % x 5 lb = 0.00001666 lb = .0076 g. Guess I made it more complicated than I needed to.
Instinct is 1. More so cause of context of you saying it’s gonna be little.
3 grains!
Oh wow I was pretty close.
less than one grain i would guess?
Random guess: 3 grains of rice
My guess for the virus size in the genome is.
.... 0.0001% of a grain of rice (1/10th of a percent of a rice grain).
Spoilers:
Much larger than I expected!
Fun exercise.
Half of 1 grain of rice.
id say maybe a gram of rice?
Intuitively... I'm thinking it's less than 5 grains of rice. Probably a fraction of a grain.
3 grains of rice is my guess
I did this below in my head, THEN Jon says "you didn't do the math"
....
missing: how much does one grain of rice weigh?
.007 grams - say 1/4 of a grain of rice
2268/(3e9/1e4) = 2268/3e5 = 2.1e3 / 3e5 = 7e-3 =.007g
REDO after Mr. Math set me straight:
2268/3e5 = 2.1e3 / 3e5 should become(two mistakes - the symbol and the rounding)
2268/3e5 ~ 2.4e3 / 3e5 = 0.8e-2 = 8e-3
Guess: 10k/10B is 1 in a million, I'm guessing the pounder rice is ... 2500 grains, so about 1 100th of a grain of rice.
...
Ah, I see, 19k grains, not 2.5.
i guess one grain of rice
Seem like our cells have Stockholm syndrome. ;)
I'm guessing less than a gram 🤷🏼♂️
One grain
3 rice grains?
woah