Thank you very much for sharing this seminar! 12:00 Emergence of complexity 20:30 Emergence of biomolecules 31:00 Emergence of orginized molecular system (not solved yet) 47:36 Emergence of self-replicating molecular cycles 53:50 Emergence of natural selection 1:00:00 New approach 1:06:30 Questions of the audience
@@toserveman9317 burden of proof is on you. Can you show in your reductionist psychotic delusion how complex life comes from nothing. From a vacuum(absence of matter) how did life arise? We all know you like to talk about big bang, but how did that arise from nothing???
@@zuluking18 You're so dopey, you don't know that life and the "big bang" were not at the same time. Consequentially, I don't allow your ilk to challenge me. ...I test your knowledge; not the other way around. (P.S "life" is a chemical chain reaction developing from other chemical chain reactions, per the 'heat dissipation and turbulence' principles of physics. Similar to star-birth or planet formation or crystal formation ["rocks" types], only with more complex layers and thus with previously developed scaffolds needed (which are there from the previously developed chemical chain reactions developing after star-birth and planet formation).)
@@toserveman9317 you talk from your asshole, you know that? Can you please show a recent scientific study that has been able to reproduce life from simple chemical reaction as you're delusional beliefs insists. Burden of proof is on you. Please show us how we are able to create the simplest bacteria in a lab from nucleic acid,, fatty acids, simple proteins and carbohydrates. I'm waiting. I'll cut straight to the point and simply suggest you believe in magic. Abiogenesis. The appearance of something from nothing. Pretty crazy.
No, he teaches you how to present data free theories as if they are gawd's truth fact while ignoring the real data. The real data shows that life always and only comes from life and life of the same kind period. Real science uses real data and doesn't try to present data-free theories from the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past as facts. Pseudoscience does that, though. There is a fast and easy way for you to convince me that evolution happens. You only have to use 1 or 2 sentences to do that. Just provide the information I request below. . First, we are told that the two forces behind evolution are natural selection and "beneficial" mutations. So fine. Name a life form. Then name an act of natural selection, or a mutation, that you can demonstrate is causing the life form to "evolve" as the result of either of those. . Now remember that the poster kids for evolution are things like antibiotic resistant bacteria, snowflake yeast, some geckos, spotted salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, sickle cell anemia victims and lactose intolerant people. The problem is - and this is always true in evolutionary claims - the so called proof proves the exact opposite of what is claimed. . The bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, fruit flies, peppered moths, and people - and all their descendants - are staying nothing but bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, and homo sapiens. Or, if that is not true, what are they "evolving" into that is not in those categories? Cite your data. . No one ever gives the data asked for, however. They may change the subject, or make excuses. They may ry to pass the buck and tell me "Your answers are out there on the net. Somewhere." At the same time they don't show that they, themsleves, have done any research at all on the topic. They may put down a glut of words, but none of those words ever names the life form, or the act of natural selection or beneficial mutation, that I asked for. . Now, there are countless life forms out there. The vast bulk of them are microscopic ones that multiply at rocket rates. Further, we are told that evolution is going on all the time. Surely, if evolution is true, you ought to be able to find just one life form, as requested, and offer your evidence that natural selection or a mutation is causing it to evolve? . Real science requires real evidence. When we are told as gawd's truth fact that such and such is true and there is zero observable data to support that idea, and when, in fact, we are told that such and such is true when it actually contradicts the data, what do we have? Pseudoscience. . But, hey, if you like thinking you have a bunch of hairy knuckle draggers hanging from your family tree, and don't want to believe you are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and loved by your Creator, who am I to burst your bubble?
The origin of life scenario is a big integration that is so large as to make major contributors like Robert Hazen a very small part of the scenario. Maybe a short paragraph in a novel length account of the origin and evolution of the modern cell.
Of the four main steps, Hazen understands and proves only Step 1. He has some "ideas" regarding Steps 2 and 4, and he doesn't attempt to tackle Step 3. So in the end, he was merely talking around the subject, without getting to any real answers. An even harder question to answer than how did self-replicating RNA first come about, is how did biologically useful information become encoded into the RNA? Why didn't every early RNA molecule contain only useless "garbage" information?
@@lrvogt1257 Another general question I wish somebody covered, is what are the general factors that seem to have been driving biology toward complexity, when thermodynamics would indicate that complexity should naturally degrade towards simplicity, everywhere, at all times. One also sees this in the formation of solar systems, where a massive ball of hydrogen and dust naturally becomes a rotating disk that is concentrated at its center, which naturally becomes a star, which is then eventually surrounded by planets and moons and meteors. I would also like to see somebody cover "Evolution versus the Cambrian Explosion". Since evolution requires a long, long series of precedent lifeforms that each receive a genetic mutation, then how does one explain the myriad of lifeforms that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion, that have no precedent lifeforms at all? Most evolutionary biologists merely wave their hands and say some vague, feel-good thing like "life expanded to fill a new niche". What? Is evolution valid or not?
@@JCAH1 : Last question first. The Cambrian "explosion" didn't happen over night. It lasted up to 25 million years. Where does complexity come from? ruclips.net/video/MTFY0H4EZx4/видео.html&vl=en Complexity comes and goes ruclips.net/video/j7k1bDMsK9s/видео.html The line between life and non-life ruclips.net/video/dySwrhMQdX4/видео.html A new physics theory of life www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
@@JCAH1I’ve heard that the life of the Cambrian explosion may have fossilized better as so many had developed hard shells etc instead of soft bodies which didn’t fossilize as well.
@@Detson404 in that case you might expect to see some form of soft to hard shell intermediate. but you don't. the explosion also occurs in a freakishly short amount of time, from essentially single cell to a massively diverse range of complexity. the usual response is: we don't know and despite the evidence pointing in a direction away from what I want to believe I will hope for some evidence that proves what I want to believe.
Urey was one of my undergrad organic chem teachers (I kept repeating it). He never seemed too impressed with himself regarding that particular experiment. I think he also has a reaction or two named after him, because he did the work. Fossil fuel, fossil fuel, oh, wait, that's the primordial sludge. Big big carbon chains made not in a lab, but in the crust. Not rare, btw. That's more dishonesty going as science. We got your number.
I recommend Nick Lane's thoughts on the subject as well as those of Bill Martin and Mike Russell, all working on real data from hydrothermal alkaline vents and incorporating chemiosmosis.
@@mcmanustony Prove to anyone reading this that life originated by a mechanical or chemical process. Left-handed amino acids don't sequence themselves outside a living cell. Impossible.
@@ThekiBoran You've never read any solution to the homochirality issue have you? Empirical science doesn't deal with proof. You're not very good at this.
If you can discover a plausible thread or continuum of causal events leading from the big bang to the singing of the Bach B Minor Mass. Then you have succeeded in disproving the hypothesis of intelligent design...or proven it.
Self-organizing property of matter not only created life, but also stars and galaxies, black holes and gamma ray bursts to the formation of organic molecules resulting from fine tuned parameter space explained by the standard model of particle physics discovered by humans as part of the purpose of the intelligent design that gifted us consciousness permitting us to go outside the universe.
If you found this interesting, check out some of Professor Nick Lane's talks. Nick Lane: Matter and Energy at the Origins of Life - ruclips.net/video/av98Brx23_4/видео.html ~~~ Nick Lane: Origin of the eukaryotic cell - ruclips.net/video/gaXhkZoOOYc/видео.html There's more: A Bioenergetic Basis for the three domains of Life | Professor Nick Lane FLS Why is life the way it is? Michael Faraday Prize Lecture - Dr Nick Lane Nick Lane - Santa Fe Institute, Community Event
I try to imagine an intelligent life form - such as humans in another several billion years -as having the capability of slime mold to disintegrate and reintegrate into and from individual cells...Life is relentlessly adaptive!
I don't want to hear a kid saying " i am late for alchemy class and i am already failing geo centric universe theory". Open minded or not , who cares ?
Creationists can’t prove anything, I don’t even know why they are in this discussion. This is not about wishful thinking. This is about finding evidence.
It shows that we dont know what materials were on earth and which atmospherical presence were at those days as the rain of life reached the earth. There are missing details of how our earth looked like 10tsd yrs ago or 50tsd yrs ago.
We have data right here and now. But evolutionism prefers to ignore, or defy the actual data, and then present evidence-free far out theories about what happened in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past. What does the data - what real science uses - show? Life comes from life and life of the same kind. Always. Only. Even when they use high tech labs with intelligent design they don't even get close to creating any life whatsoever from inorganic matter. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero. . Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches , G.I. turtles et al? Zero again. . But if you can provide data that they "evolved" from something else, please do so. Not theories presented as evidence, now, but scientific data. . Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations. . Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." . Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column. . The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. . Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a greyish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. www.bing.com/images/search?q=Marine+Fossils+On+Mountains&FORM=RESTAB ) Notice the exquisitely preserved details on it. Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains, completely intact and with perfect detail as you see in the link. It's like they never even heard of erosion. Others claim, "Well, if there are whale fossils in the Sahara, and Nautilus fossils in the Grand Canyon, etc. that shows an ocean was present." . (And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.) . The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 75% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. The one by the Aborigines of Australia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports. . So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before. . You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species moving up to the next step on the Animal (ditto for plants) Kingdom, to become a new genus. . However, if you've got any actual data to show any mutation ever caused Lifeform A to turn into Lifeform B, do include it. It is easy to present unverifiable theories about what happened in the untestable, unverifiable ancient, past. . We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. In the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into the next step up on the animal kingdom (plants ditto), a different genus. Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over. . What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense. . The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many. . Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidenceless, unverifiable descendants. We'll call that science." . This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years. . "Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious! . Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature. . Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind. . Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory. . You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
Psalm1Tree No doubt you copied all that pseudo-science bs from some creationist source. What you really mean is you believe god did it. Why is your belief (with ZERO evidence, ever, in all recorded history), in an invisible, immortal wizard with super powers waving a magic wand to magically create everything in a few days MORE plausible than a natural process over a long time period?
Amino acids, nucleobases, lipids, etc. are not the building blocks of life. They are just basic molecules. The true building blocks are RNA, proteins and vesicles. They do not form naturally and the most advanced labs have not come close to these despite highly controlled and complex processes. The more these processes are followed and refined the greater the design.
RNA HAS been synthesised. OoL research has been going on for 70 years.....one ten millionth of the time between the earths formation and the origin of life.
@@mcmanustony RNA is synthesised from non-chemical produced nucleotides (they are produced using biological compounds) that are controlled precisely each step of the way to produce RNA molecules. There is absolutely nothing natural about it. It is as natural as building a modern jet from minerals.
@@mcmanustony okay tell me two very simple questions then: 1. How they obtain the nucleotides? 2. How do they then order the nucleotides to form the RNA strands that they require? Two very simple questions. Show me how this is natural in any context whatsoever.
itsasin1969 >Question..... How do microbes live deep in solid rock? Do they move around or just stay put? Do they live and reproduce or just rest unchanging until their environment improves ?< en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endolith
This is so much better for me than I remember church to be. Time marches on and change is part of living. Church encourages people to not ask in depth questions and resist changing our views regardless of new science data. I'm still enjoying my freedom of being a free thinking humanist (atheist )
***** How typical... "doctrine"... HA! It's the refusal to recognize the difference between EVIDENCE and, well, the COMPLETE LACK of anything resembling evidence, that distinguishes the honest intellectual from the gullible dupe. I am wondering if you even know which one you are???
***** Which statement? Yours, of course! How about your replace your laughable "sketchbook" euphemism with "comet" or "thunderstorm" or "rainbow" or "sickness" or ANYTHING ELSE that the religious have, in their inanity and unearned conceit, conjured as something which, since they cannot themselves comprehend it, must be supernatural. Your example is nothing but a purposeful distortion seeped in intellectual cowardice. Your sketchbook, you see, is in reality a beautiful and intricately colored stone--a work of art to be sure. But as history has confirmed over and over, what appears a work of magic to the credulous, eventually and inevitably is shown to in fact be a wondrous but infinitely explicable natural phenomenon.
***** Sometimes I just add an observation while I do know where someone is coming from. I always try to limit the size or length of my comments so people read them.
***** Actually, I know exactly where you are coming from: a point of ignorance and credulity--and I was calling you on it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my historically accurate analogy was lost on you, if only because it would force you to admit the absurdity of your parable, so I will dumb it down for you. The "sketchbook" story you used is a tired and wildly inaccurate euphemism that creationists have used AD NAUSEAM in a vain attempt to make a supernatural joe seem like a reasonable idea. My modification was to highlight how creationists in the past have used other phenomena like comets or rainbows (which at the time, would've been considered as manifestly "designed" as your sketchbook) to "prove" that a god must exist. And my point was that now that the pool of inexplicable natural processes had dried up, the creationist is left with NOTHING except to desperately change the story to something completely inapplicable in a silly and pathetic attempt to maintain some semblance of sanity in their argument. Fortunately, not everyone is quite that gullible anymore. Honestly, I don't care what you believe, and I am perfectly happy leaving you to your delusions. I actually feel sorry for you. But when you make idiotic statements in public, you don't get a pass for stupidity just because it is clothed in the disgusting fabric of "faith"--at least not from me...
Any simple answer by Occhams Razor, first required the making of the Universe. Hence, the idea to choose the most simplicstic answer is subordinated a creation that no human can answer its origin and is according to some, mathematically impossible itself.
Sorry for my shortcomings, I appreciate your input and help, you are a great teacher and role model for this planet. Know that you add love and value to human kind.@@mcmanustony
Emergence is simply higher level structure coming from low level interactions. A flock of bird runs on the algorithm "If I'm on the outside, move toward the inside so I don't get exposed to predators". If every bird does this, you get a structured blob of birds and you can describe the blob. It's called emergence because the rules that govern the lower level interactions don't directly describe the higher level structure.
Science is not looking for certainty. The search is for a plausible pathway whereby life could have emerged via natural processes. "Creation" or "God" has been cited as a cause for multiple phenomena from tides to storms to disease to......and always a natural explanation has been found. The origin of life is no exception. "Goddidit" is not an explanation of anything.
Just like Phase transition transforms non-life matter into life and consciousness due to self-organizing and self-simulating property of matter, similarly the quantum field, self[simulates intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into fine tuned particles (matter), implying the Anthropic Principle. Man and God are entangled.
Anyone can say they baked a cake, when really they did no such thing. Life has never, ever been seen to come from inorganic matter, just as a cake has never seen to come from a bunch of empty four, sugar, etc. bags and canisters One of the many evidences for intelligent design is irreducible complexity. If someone, even a 3 year old, sees a cake for the first time, they know it didn't just compile itself. They know it had intelligent design, and action, behind it. Let's go deep into the "ingredients" for life. Now a bacterial flagellum is incredibly more complex than a cake. Irreducible complexity is seen at every level in life forms, too. I will give my favorite example. Michael Behe spoke of the i.c. of the bacterial flagellum and supposedly that got debunked. No, it didn't. His argument got misrepresented and the misrepresentation was attacked, i.e. a classic straw man logical fallacy move was done on it. But I prefer to look at another part of the bacterial flagellum anyway. . Google a picture of the b.f. and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. Now, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answer to that, how is "evolution" going to make it happen? Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to go? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. . Back to the "debunk" of the i.c. of the b.f. as described by Behe. It is the usual in evolutionary defense. There is no observable, supporting, data whatsoever, only theories piled on speculations that are presented as facts. For ex. they say that some simpler organism "evolved"into the b.f. Where is the evidence for that, or for any organism, including the b.f., ever being anything but what it is presently? They could have used the scientific method and taken a part away from the b.f. and then watched to see if it could still function. They didn't. Funny about that. . If you, with intelligence, can't figure out how to make those "evolving" stubs and nubs of a whip and motor on the b.f. be anything but pointless and useless, how are random acts of nature going to do it? If you, with intelligence, can't even make up a diagram - not to mention show any data - for coordinated ever "evolving" reproductive systems between male and female parts of animals all over the planet, how is mindless nature going to do it? . But if you think it can happen, great. Give the details. Give any fossil or current life form evidence anywhere. Not theories about the unverifiable past, now, but actual observvable data. . And while we are at it, let's think of all those male and female animals that reportedly "evolved" into different families, classes, orders and phyla. Now, while the males are making their changes in their reproductive systems during those "transitions" what kinds of miracles would it take for the females to continuously make exactly coordinated, and synchronized, matching, and compatible, changes in their own systems, in a totally other body that has no way of knowing what is going on in the male body? Over and over. With vast numbers of animals? . Now we'ere not talking about synchronized changes in just, say, sperm and eggs, but the essential and related changes also required for things like muscles, nerves, hormones, etc. etc. etc. And of course, with billions and billions of fossils and trillions of living animals around us, we see no example whatsoever for any such coordinated changes. In fact, we never even see any species moving into a new family, order, class or phyla. Or if any of that is wrong, cite your data. . Evolutionism is a tragicomedy. It is all based on theories piled on hypotheses, which are heaped on speculation and loaded with logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience. That package is then presented as gawd's truth scientific fact. . Anyone: Who designed that b.f. with its whip and motor and other irreducibly complex, interdependent, parts? How tiny it is. How magnificently...DESIGNED. Like you, my friend, lovingly designed by your Heavenly Father. Get to know Him, and real science - which He designed, too.
Psalm1Tree " One of the many evidences for intelligent design is irreducible complexity. " So you did not see the video. Irreducible complexity is debunked in all kind of experiments and observations. "Michael Behe spoke of the i.c. of the bacterial flagellum and supposedly that got debunked. No, it didn't. His argument got misrepresented and the misrepresentation was attacked," Not really, do you even know how much time was given to creationists at the Kitzmiller Dover trial. It is Behe who misrepresents the subject. It goes something like this, it is impossible for this complex organelle to exist in one go, half a flagellum is no use, so it had to be there in one go. Well, "half a flagellum" could and is observed as a waste disposal unit. Who says that precursors must have the same function as the endproduct? They did observe bacteria with this excretion pump that has most proteins in place that are also in the flagellum. "There is no observable, supporting, data whatsoever, only theories piled on speculations that are presented as facts." So, when we speak of observable data. You just debunked your bible. You did not observe when it was written. Therefor you cannot be sure it is true. "They could have used the scientific method and taken a part away from the b.f. and then watched to see if it could still function. They didn't. Funny about that. " They do not need to, without the flagellum it is an excretionary organelle. " how are random acts of nature going to do it?" And where is the natural selection in your argument? " If you, with intelligence, can't even make up a diagram - not to mention show any data - for coordinated ever "evolving" reproductive systems between male and female parts of animals all over the planet, how is mindless nature going to do it? " Who is building a strawmen now? Again, natural selection. A very powerful mechanism, no intelligence needed. "Not theories about the unverifiable past, now, but actual observvable data. " Again, if you really want to go there, you have again disproven your own bible. How can you know that Jesus lived? Where you there? Who wrote the bible? Where you there? Do not use this argument, we at least have genetics that shows common ancestry even though we where not there. For instance, explain to me ERV's (endogenic retrovirus) from a creationist point of view. There are a dozen or so in apes and humans. "what kinds of miracles would it take for the females to continuously make exactly coordinated, and synchronized, matching, and compatible, changes in their own systems, in a totally other body that has no way of knowing what is going on in the male body? Over and over. With vast numbers of animals? " Do you really think that from one moment to the next a new species would emerge? Go follow a course on Biology and see where this argument fails beyond me being able to explain why in one comment. . "Evolutionism is a tragicomedy. It is all based on theories piled on hypotheses, which are heaped on speculation and loaded with logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience. That package is then presented as gawd's truth scientific fact. " So, simply show why the great apes have the same defect in the vitamine C gene as we do. Get an education, so far you only present typical debunked creationist claims. Did you ever bother to go to sites like talkorigins to see what they had to say about it? Did you ever bother to try to understand what they mean? I do not expect you to accept it, understanding would be enough. But you will not even try that.
You haven't addressed my points at all about the bacterial flagellum. You simply refer to a video and cite things others have said, which have no observable supporting data at all. Why didn't you even address how that b.f. is going to be able to function when the whip and motor are barely "evolving"? Not with someone-says-so but with observable data? As for the Dover trial, there again you don't refer to actual data, but just think a court case says it all. If you want to settle science questions, guess where you go? Not to a courtroom with a politically correct, politically appointed, non science trained judge or any other judge. You go to the lab or to the field. The Dover Trial had zero impact on the creation movement. We saw how Kenneth Miller used the strawman logical fallacy to make his points against Behe. That is, he first misrepresented Behe's points, then attacked the misrepresentations. . As for the chromosome 2 argument that cell biologist Ken Miller seemed so impressed by in his Dover court statements... . The whole chromosome 2 "evidence" for common ancestry is actually a beautiful little example of how evolutionary defense is always based on logical fallacies. Most people - including myself in the past - couldn't tell logical fallacies from a hole in the ground. Thus they are easily confused. . Okay, so if you fuse those two of our chromosomes together you could say there is a superficial match - in number only - with the 48 chromosomes of apes. Uh, tobacco, potatoes and other life forms have 48 chromosomes, too. Ever heard of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy? . Also, other chromosome fusions do occur which are not being mentioned. For example 1 in 1,000 people, who function like others, have an additional fusion, the Robertsonian Translocation. However, no one is claiming it comes from some ape type creature. Cows and some other animals have fusions but no one says that shows they evolved from something else. Ever heard of the Cherry Picking logical fallacy? . Also, the Chromosome 2 fusion is human in every way. There is no ape type info in it. In fact, apes have chromosomes that are larger in size than those of homo sapiens. Ever heard of the Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy? . We have exactly zero data - you know, what real science uses, unlike evolutionism which always presents theories as gawd's truth facts - to show when or how that fusion got there. Yet we are being told as scientific truth that we do know! Is there even a fragment of a toe bone from that murky, mythical, hairy creature that supposedly gave us a fusion? No, there is absolutely zero evidence any such life form ever existed. But you aren't being told maybe it existed. You are being told it DID exist and that it DID give us our chromosome 2 fusion. Ever hear of the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy? . Every bit of evolutionism is based on logical fallacies, theories presented as evidence, data ignored or spun, and lots and lots of...faith...all stirred well with sophistry. If you truly learn your logical fallacies, and take them seriously - which most evolutionism defenders refuse to do - you will see that they under gird every evolutionary peer review. . In addition to the logical fallacies, we have a claim about Chromosome 2 which I have found no verification for. We were told the Chromosome 2 fusion was predicted before it was found, thus showing evotuionism is based on reality. I have asked quite a few people to cite any science publication that demonstrates the fusion was predicted before a science publications that shows it was found. They never get back to me. Can you find any such confirmation? . As for the touted so called 2% difference between apes and people, that is a perfect example of skewing the data. Get a female ape. Have a hair stylist work on her. Put her in a long, slinky dress. Teach her to wear high heels. Add some makeup and perfume. Then bring her to the Prom. See how many guys ask her to dance. Or... try getting Kongella a blind date. Tell the prospective guy that you can't say much about her, but that she is only 2% different from all the hot chicks he knows. If he is dumb or desperate enough to still go on the date, see how he reacts when he sees her. . Take an ape or chimp to a preschool. Will it perform only 2% differently from the children there in terms of learning the alphabet, standing in line to go potty, drawing, coloring, singing, speaking? Will it have social skills that are only 2% below theirs? And will the children only be 2% different from the beast in terms of strength, hairiness, dentition - well, the list just goes on and on. . Evolutionism teaches you to drop your common sense on the floor as soon as they give you a "science" fact. . And btw, from the Colbert Show I saw a clip of Ken Miller - who is the most famous proponent of ape ancestry based on Chromsome 2's fusion - where he said that as a Roman Catholic he believes "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen." In this exact same time period he was running around the country giving lectures on the so called collapse of intelligent design. So...his Deity is dumb and design free, yet created all that is seen and unseen? Wow. What a miracle! . Anyone: You are not part ape. You are made in the image and likeness of your Creator, Who loves you and wants you to love Him, too, and to know Him for Who He is, the Father of Mercies. I know because, as a former atheist, He showed so much mercy to me.
I don't see why an Inteligent Designer (ID) should necessarily need to put in use 'supernatural processes' to create a life. An ID can use natural laws to create a life. But also those natural laws may support self-organization of life under suitable constraints. So, ID and spontaneous self-organization are both viable hypotheses on their own.
+TheGarrymoore "Rubbish" Think about what ID lunies are saying. They're saying the earth is 5000 years old, an utter fantasy, derived from the ignorant ramblings of a 17th century protestant bishop James, Ussher. They are saying God created all things in seven earth days. "Really"? Without resorting to metaphor, that is completely insane. They think the human eye is so complex it couldn't have been made without divine intervention, ridiculous, absurd, and utterly provably incorrect to any intelligent 12 year old science student. What I think you may be getting at, is some cosmic multiverse, multidimensional occurrence that somehow sparked the ability, for amino acids, or other molecules to self replicate, leading to natural selection. Obviously in the world of theoretical physics, and theoretical biology, one can conceive of such possibility given the immensity of space time for it to occur. In the multiverse, theoretical world, all things are indeed possible. Unfortunately for you and me, we're presently stuck here in the temporal world of 21st century earth reality. In an infinite universe, of infinite complexity, infinite abundance, infinite possibilities, anything, not only can happen, but does happen in all of it's theoretical forms , simultaneously, or chronologically. When you've got forever, what prevents it? Don't get trapped by these fools, into admitting the irresponsible fraud, and lunacy of a 5000 year old earth, and irreducible complexity.They are nuts, plain and simple. Don't let them get away with such ridiculous frauds that endanger us all by their criminally negligent denial of reality.
What the billions and billions cells do in my body and what I am as an individual are two completely different things. Do they (ab)use me to feed and replicate them? I seek for a purpose in my existence called life, and I do not know if this has to do anything what the particles in my body do or want.
This is how i think it happened: Lets say you have organic and inorganic molecules, together with energy. The organic and inorganic molecules would start reacting. Then the spatial conformations, folding, hydrophobicity, would increase the 3D spatial complexity and equillibrium would have been difficult. Organic chemistry would react with inorganics and further increase the organic reserve and the 3D complexity. Then stable conformations would prevail (membrane covered entities, long nucleotides, packing, fast reacting components, division of heavy organic load containing membrane covered sacs, etc, etc, and so on) in a form of step-wise multi-focal evolution and chemical natural selection that would continue in the long term. Now imagine that some portion of the end results like us are the observers. What would they see and how would they perceive the whole system? For an objective outsider observer the entire system would have been chaotic and he would not see machines that are trying to preserve themselves. But for an insider observer that is a part of the results, well.......he would have just cherry picked the anabolic reactions, (maybe separating into individual organisms, etc) and think that life is about order and self-organization.
When people talk about the universe as 'designed' or 'created' they are really using apt and valid anthropomorphic analogies, but ultimately what is, is, and probably in some way, always has been. It corresponds to what humans understand as 'design' and 'creation,' but it is not exactly the same thing. It is the same with human concepts like, 'chance' and 'accident' or, 'spontaneous,' or 'random,' or whatever. Reality is kind of all such things and probably a great deal of shit we have never imagined. I mean, 'It just happens!' What does that even mean? It is typical Earth apes scratching their heads for comfort.
The fact matter has a self-organising principle is mysterious and miraculous per se. But of course, what is, is. Obviously it corresponds to human creation and design: the latter is obviously a reflection or image of the former. The fact you can point out how everything practically exploded from nothing into everything, including an intelligible world of intelligent beings, does not explain it or explain it away. Nobody has any idea why reality is or how it does what it does. We just know it does and point out how it does. Noting a marvellously ordered pattern within a plenum of infinite possibility does not exactly reduce the miraculous quality of the universe. As Blake said, history is nothing but miracle and prodigy, which we would say, was impossible, were it not always present before our eyes.
Welcome, please help me explain the origins of life .I will talk about the emergence of single cell objects . Please explain the phases of the (first cell) .These are compounds in the same cell 1-amino acids 2-peptides 3 - chains of nucleic acids 4-nucleotides .Question Who is the former? Is it amino acids or nucleotides? .The second question is who is the former Are they nucleic acids or peptides? .There are contradictions in the stages of the components of life .We ask you to develop explanations for the origin of life .We ask you to develop explanations free of contradictions .Please send me my letter to biologists and chemistry
Can someone please tell me how or why it matters that there is any human life on this planet? How will it make a difference if there is or is not a god who created the universe? If there is a heaven or hell, will all the good animals go to heaven and all bad ones go to hell or will that only apply to the human species? If god does not interfere with what we do here on earth, what is the point in praying!, or is that just to make us feel good? Not only do I realize that I cannot comprehend the complexities of nature and the beginning of life, I realize that I am incapable of comprehending it. Finally why would a god create such a magnificent planet and then put such a flawed species such as humans on it to systematically destroy it? The only species on the planet who destroy the same very planet that provides for them. That one definitely does not add up to me. At the end of the day, planet earth is just a tiny blue speck in the universe. I am in Australia and live with my dog away from the city with no TV, radio or buy newspapers. I watch wildlife and ants go about their business and I see no waste. I see mushrooms come up and push a stone out of the ground much heavier than it, an wonder how. I wonder how tiny seeds can lie submerged for years at the bottom of a dam, and when a drought comes weeds appear from nowhere. Mankind has accomplished much, but yet still unable to make a human hair grow on a bald man's head. 500 million rhinoviruses on the head of a pin makes the brain of an ant look big. All way over my head, but does it matter to me or my dog? I think not. So to all the atheists and believers just do the right thing by the planet and your fellow man and "nature " will do the rest and keep on wondering.
Any Origin of Life Theory that postulate that cells and cell membranes are required for a living systems is already off on the wrong foot. They aren't. The same "surface tension" produced by hydrogen bonding in water will produce the same compartmentalization; beads of pure water can sit on a surface of the same water- THAT is enough compartmentalization to allow a living *system* to endure. What IS required is a self-assembled liquid crystalline mineral *surface* that can act as a catalytic site for the CHIRAL assembly of a polymer. You heard me: the first living systems were *polymerases* that caused a templated reaction. It is also not appreciated that the weak nuclear force CAN be felt outside the atomic nucleus *when a regular array of atoms* reinforce the incredibly weak asymmetric electrical effects. Calculations have shown that the bias on peptide linkage assembly amounts to a 0.003% preference for levo-rotary assembly and dextro-rotary assembly for sugar linkages. And that is the origin of the handedness we see today. And that was LONG before cells evolved.
You choose. If someone wants to believe a man with a beard and a magic wand created the universe six thousand years ago be my guest. But don't expect us to accept the theory without evidence or possibility to falsify the idea. Thunder and lightning where long times perfectly explained by angry gods.
Ever notice that every academic, intellectual, technologist, futurist, scientist... basically anyone giving a lecture...uses a MacBook Pro? So what that suggests is that not only are Mac laptops cool, smart people use them...exclusively. Yes, I have a MacBook Pro. I bet you do too. Ok, let the hating begin.
The Earths' volume percentage of water to dirt and rock is just 0.02%: A slight variation in the percentage of moisture on each accumulating meteorite and the planet would be completely submerged under water. At 0.04%- double the current volume of oceans and lakes and rivers and ice- there would be only a few small islands of terra firma being the tops of the Himalayas, Andes and maybe the Alps. I suspect this may well have been the case - but for a planetary collision which gave us our moon. Earths water volume was pretty much complete at the time of impact, although the vast majority of it would have been atmosphere bound as the planets' surface was molten lava for the most part. Viewed from space the seething molten hell on Earth surface would have been completely concealed beneath a fluffy white cocoon of cloud about 50,000 feet thick. The Mars sized impacting planet which threw a tremendous volume of earth into orbit - probably 2-3 times the volume of the current moon, with most of it falling back to earth - would also have blasted a massive volume of water - and atmosphere -into space - most of which would not fall back but would evaporate into space. It seems likely that the atmosphere on this planet would be similar to Venus in volume and pressure. In that case it may well have a similar runaway green house effect and the water volume would still be trapped in the atmosphere. The mother of all Finish Saunas!
That might be too simplistic. Not all the water that arrived on Earth sits on the surface today. There are multiple processes - maybe more water would result in more water lost to space and more entombed in bedrock, resulting in similar oceans. I'm not claiming that, just saying it's more complex than just adding water. Also, maybe beside the point, based on isotopic analysis of cometary material, it's now disputed whether Earth's water could have come from comets.
Do any of these fairytales matter..? Who cares if a god created the universe or there was a big bang? We are just here to fuck the planet and doing a great job. Let's get on with the job at hand so we can get into the after dinner drinks.
@@mcmanustony Related topics, it should not be considered as spam. Check out the references under the video and you will realise, what is this about. I also encourage for you to act like a normal person. Be polite takes you to longer roads. Have a great day.
@@mcmanustony All right did you watch it and understand the references then the video? I know where you come from and it is easy and might be necessary. Time will tell, people will decide.
@@mcmanustony You took the time for comment. So let's make a thought experiment. If what I shared is related it would be allowed to do or not, how do you think? To take an effort to comment is really easy to look into it not so much.
Action potential is instantaneous when electrolytes are present in a cell. Therefore, without electrolytes or action potential, a fully assembled "dry" cell would certainly not be a life-form. The only logical conclusion we can draw is, abiogenesis is spontaneous and therefore a fallacy.
Kevin Chamberlain Huh? You make an assertion that implies that you believe that abiogenesis demands a fully assembled cell complete with electrolytes to kick off with. It doesn't. You have constructed a straw man.
Organ Farm Wrong! I say that if something has action potential, then the action potential is an immediate physical phenomena, and so could not have occurred over millions of years as claimed.
Kevin Chamberlain Sorry. You're not at all clear. What is "action potential"? If its the ability to self organise then no, self organization is an important concept for initial abiogenesis. If you are talking about a functioning proto-cell how do you know how it would have worked?
"A sequence of emergent chemical events led to a Universe that is learning to know itself..." The man has just described an ORDER which is the opposite of randomness. ORDER means there's an intellect behind it, a guide. How then these people say the origin of Life is a random event is beyond me.
Some things are beyond me, too. The difference between us is that I recognize that as a shortcoming in myself rather than a shortcoming in those who understand these things better than I.
That has more to do with your misunderstanding - "randomness" is a misnomer - you need to do a little more homework before dismissing the experts who have thought about this long and hard. What we're learning is this "randomness" behaves within specific restrains in countless ways. Here it comes down to your own goal. Do you want to learn about it; or do you just want to confuse and make fun of things you don't understand because they threaten your sense of self.
Order is a natural phenomena produced as the universe moves from simple and low entropy to simple and high entropy. It is the nature of physics... not intent. www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/10/07/67-kate-jeffery-on-entropy-complexity-and-evolution/
This is 10 years old! All the conjecture, all the hand waving, and all the dogma about life emerging from synthetic chemistry is still not realized at any level. We are no closer to a breakthrough than Miller was 70 years ago. In fact, if anyrhing, we are farther away since biology has shown that the molecular processes of life are orders of magnitude more complex than was imagined even 10 years agp!
@@mcmanustony Are you kidding? Go take a course in molecular biology 101. Everything you learn about DNA, RNA, transcription, translation, protein synthesis, transport mechanisms, cellular signaling pathways, vesicle transportation, electron transport chain ect.., ect.., ect.. was discovered or elucidated since Miller-Urey!! And the last ten years have seen breakthroughs in molecular imaging which have further elucidated the atomic interactions responsible for every one of these complex systems. The more they look the more complicated it became. That's why after after 70 years, OoL research is still trying to create bricks for a building nobody can even imagine how to build.
@@lastchance8142 take a seat and work on your manners. Miller Urey was 70 years ago not 10. Your path seems to be to mischaracterize then dismiss the entire field of OoL research and sit on your backside chanting “complexity therefore god”. I’m sure if your input is needed the research community will be in touch. Make yourself comfortable
Yep it’s a hard problem. If you have a testable solution please publish it. People like James Tour promote this defeatist attitude that is antithetical to science.
@@mcmanustony Really? Where did I mention "god"? And yes, the video is 10 years old and virtually irrelevant now. I have a degree in biology and followed this science going on 50+ years. We are still clueless about the chemical origin of life, despite all our efforts. I'm sorry that you are ignorant of this fact.
The first step is how do you make the biomolecules - The first question is : why make the biomolecules. There was nothing in existence which had an understanding - or interest - in the construction of a final product of living tissue. The Earth produced a colossal array of random " jig-saw puzzle " pieces, until, inevitably, enough of them hapstancely clicked together to make a living organizm. Apparently.
When Tour starts providing scientific explanations and mechanisms for his creation myths instead of just misrepresenting science as it is I'll listen again. Just repeating "no it isn't" or "it's magic" isn't enough.
The world renowned chemist Dr. James Tour gives technical insight to just how ridiculous these claims and assumptions are. I would love to see this guy have a debate with him.
I guess that you should make sure that Rice University in Houston Texas is on the loop, they have him as a professor of chemistry... You should also send a memo to Purdue Univ, Stanford Univ & Syraccuse Univ, you know, because of the Bs and Phds in Chemistry that they granted to him. Also make sure that the guys that give away the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (2008) and The Centenary Prize (2020), well, apparently the made a mistake also 😁😉😎🤣...
@@nicoliderringer9990 you are completely ignorant. he is like a plumber talking about how all car mechanics are scammers. and he claims to know it because cars have pipes. you are so ignorant that you think he is world renowned scientists. as i said, he is completely ignorant on origin of life research.. he uses his actual degree(which are usually non existant in creationist community) to lie to you about it, and he knows you will never check for yourself what origin of life research says. so you will believe tour who says that origin of life is that life came from a rock, or similar retarded stuff because he missed his profession, and went into science instead of priesthood. but he missed part of science as well. he is doing little molecular robots for a living. and in free time he is lying in churches about totally unrelated subjects so that he can evangelize.
@@ThekiBoran Sorry Kroban3, but you are so wrong. That is exactly the attitude that's allowed the Faith-blinded-delusionals to create their alternate-reality uni-directional-faux "science" and sell it to so many fearful un-critical-thinking devotees. K, I believe we sure as hell need to do more than entertain it! Lets start confronting it! Don't look now but they have made an unholy union with the bully vandal known as Trump President of the US and they want to destroy rational thinking, replace it with absolutism, racism and their personal "God". confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/12/confronting-faith-based-delusions.html
@@petermiesler9452 Nice speech but I make no claims as to the origin of life because I don't know and neither does anyone else. No scientist has shown how dead matter can self organize into living organisms. If you believe matter can spontaneously come to life please educate us. Again, please leave religion out of this discussion unless that's your only argument.
Problem with that question is that it leads to another. Who is behind the who is behind all of it? If god "just is" then the universe can be "just is." Otherwise you have an infinite regress of gods.
Didivs Ivlianvs It would prove that if the same or similar conditions were to naturally occur, life can start without the need for a supernatural sky wizard casting a magic spell. We can make diamonds also, because we understand the conditions that cause them to form naturally. That doesn't imply that diamonds are "intelligent designed", only that we understand the natural processes that cause them.
So basically you're saying that you would never accept any evidence for abiogenesis. Creationists always say "well you can't prove that it happened... you don't know you weren't there [therefore God]"... and I now keep reading that if we prove the concept in the lab (since the earth 3.5years ago is quite different to the earth of today) it won't be accepted as evidence of the plausibilty of abiogenesis? because the conditions needed to be intelligently designed... You have literally set yourself up so they never have to accept the evidence... becuase short of a time machine that's the only way we an get any... I remind that these theories aren't trying to disprove God, they're testing the plausiblity of theoretical pathways between early earth geochemistry, and the origin of the first proto-cells.
try watching the lecture again. if you hold the same impressions even after watching it more than 10 times....just give up. Observing how simple rules in nature force matter to self organize in experiments which simulate possible conditions...has nothing to do with intelligent design mate.
@@damianclark1763 You write "if we prove the concept in a lab..." Exactly-that's the problem. You need to create a lab, and in fact you also need to create the concept of a lab.
We are even further away today from discovering how life arose than when this video was made because of our increasing knowledge. The more we learn, the more difficult the problem comes.
@@andrewdouglas1963 We know more than we did. Hazen's work on mineralogy shows that naturally occurring conditions near hydrothermal vents can produce large numbers of organic molecules necessary for life. John Sutherland and Matthew Powner have demonstrated the natural synthesis of nucleotides. Lee Cronin has shown chemical pathways to prebiotic molecules in the absence of complex catalysts I suspect your "increasing knowledge" is heading towards "goddidit".
@@mcmanustony RNA and DNA are complex and exact codes that work with in only very specific parameters. It is impossible for these codes to write themselves. Codes are a written language that transfer information back and forth to various recipients. Codes are exclusively authored by intelligence. "How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.” Paul Davies,
_"We take it as an assumption there is a natural process by which you can go from geochemical simplicity to biological complexity"_ None such process has been demonstrated to date September 2022. On emergent complexity he mentions stars and galaxies.. well that also failed to even get a suitable mathematical model; *STAR FORMATION Dr David Wallace 2009:* _"So: suppose we consider a large, cold gas cloud. If the total energy of the cloud is positive, expansion will always increase its entropy; this is probably unsurprising, as the average velocity of the gas particles exceeds the escape velocity. If it is negative, it may be entropically favourable for the cloud to contract somewhat, but the effect is not normally that marked: for instance, on this model even a cloud which begins at absolute zero will only contract to half its initial radius before reaching its maximum-entropy state."_ And gravity presents another problem.. *BIG BANG Gravity Problem:* 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.* Then Sir Fred Hoyle wrote 'The Mathematics of Evolution' *SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution:* 1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist 2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution) 3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection; 4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_ 5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution 6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_ 7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_ 8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle 9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ? 10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem 11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!*
It's interesting to hear this talk about the how small things can multiple. Small things which can't be seen without special equipment. The best place to understand about the origin of life is the book given to us by the Holy God who made the World and everything in it.
Hoyle was a crank regarding evolution...and many other things too. Try reading some work of people who actually work in these fields. It might help you with your ignorance and hysteria.
@@mcmanustony But you can't say where Hoyle was wrong? BUTTERFLIES Falsify Evolution: 1- The butterfly has two distinctly different body plans 2- Only the second one has the means of fertilisation and reproduction 3- Evolution assumes it evolved from a creature with one body plan and its own means of fertilisation and reproduction 4- The second body plan cannot function until it is complete in both a male and a female simultaneously 5- Evolution must develop complimentary second body plans in male and female by random mutations without the aid of natural selection over generations 6- Evolution cannot by definition develop a whole body plan without the benefit of natural selection contradicting the basis of the theory 7- It is fanciful to imagine the random process could time the moment of transfer of the complex reproductive mechanism from the first to the second body plan in both a male and female to coincide exactly at the moment when those body plans were complete! 8- _"We can often learn about evolution from the fossil record, but there are relatively few butterfly fossils. Those that do exist, like the 40-million-year-old Prodryas persophone, are remarkably similar to modern-day forms-so the fossil record sheds little light on the origin of today's butterflies."_ American Museum of Natural History *Evolution by Natural Selection is falsified by contradiction of its most basic premise!* Q.E.D. METAMORPHOSIS by David Klinghoffer: _"If one wanted an example of a biological system that could never be explained by natural selection, butterfly metamorphosis would stand at the head of the line."_ Alfred Russel Wallace; _"Contemplating butterflies was among the considerations that drove evolutionary theory’s codiscoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, to doubt the sufficiency of natural selection to account for the most wondrous aspects of animal life."_ _"In The World of Life, Wallace wrote of how he could satisfyingly account for this only as a feature intended by design"_ *"to lead us to recognize some guiding power, some supreme mind, directing and organizing the blind forces of nature in the production of this marvellous development of life and loveliness"*
@@mikebellamy The mathematics has nothing to do with reality. That has been explained to you before. There is no evidence supporting panspermia. He is wrong. Given that there are tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, botanists, zoologists, anthropologists, biophysicists, mathematicians etc. who WORK on evolutionary biology, your morbid obsession with a distinguished astronomer and astrophysicist who did ZERO actual scientific work on evolution is pretty funny. The evolution of new genes has been observed and is explained by evolution- not by Hoyle
I have no problem at all with investigating the complexities of living things, and naturally it seems to me, those operating on the premise of coming to understand how it could have arisen "spontaneously" on a primitive earth, examine the complexities of living things. I do have some problem with assuming progress toward a demonstration that it did arise "spontaneously", simply because what is learned/discovered on that postulate gives rise to various hypotheses which incorporate some of the "details" observed. Obviously, it seems to me, that simply because it is extremely complex and is something going on within in the material world, there will be component aspects that lead to such hypotheses, whether or not it arose spontaneously. The ongoing discovery that what is going on, is vastly more "sophisticated" than anything ever imagined, is the (muted) truth of the matter, it seems to me. Which is to say that it has become far less likely to have arisen spontaneously with what has been observed, than it was with what was expected to be observed. A few "basic building blocks" laying around, seems about as relevant to life commencing, as they are to a fusion reactor commencing. Handy perhaps, but hardly a proof-of-concept demonstration.
Given your relentless posting of this word salad, you seem to think you're on to something. You're not. "Spontaneously"- by which you mean: in the absence of the supernatural. Maybe you can think on an example of a physical phenomenon where a natural scientific explanation has been superseded by a supernatural one of greater explanatory power. I can't.
Given your relentless posting of this word salad, you seem to think you're on to something. You're not. "Spontaneously"- by which you mean: in the absence of the supernatural. Maybe you can think on an example of a physical phenomenon where a natural scientific explanation has been superseded by a supernatural one of greater explanatory power. I can't.
Conclusion: nobody knows how life emerged. Correction: life did not emerge, it was spoken into existence. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. There you have it, time, space and matter were created by God all at once.
Reminds me of God and scientists trying to make a man from mud. God said uh-uh. You get your own mud. So you break up RNA and you get self-replicating molecules that you can use for selection. God said get your own RNA and stop using mine.
Didivs Ivlianvs I guess you think god made Teflon, kevlar, plastic, vaccines and plutonium too? did he also make liver cancer, botulism, gangrene, small pox, aids, parasites and hep c? Or, maybe he let the devil use his dirt to make those. What a nice guy.
+James waltemath - if you believe in gods, then you'll find explanations for everything, with "mysterious ways" bringing up the rear. Never a problem. No one ever dropped their faith when one its facts didn't own out. Au contraire, since there is no rational premise to dislodge, accepting and even grappling with falsehoods only reinforces faith. Not just gods, of course. 9/11 truthers can explain everything too. So can committed communists, and free market fanatics, and people who believe Elvis Lives. With zealots, there's no such thing as disproof, only blasphemy.
What we still ignore is mostly how the immaterial genetic coding of RNA/DNA occurs (is created?) naturally in order to figure out how it all started. It's one thing to say where the first living cell came from or how it came about, but the information is primary, without the DNA sequencing in the nucleus of the cell, how does the cell know what to do? Someone or something has to code that information, right? People will say, if you wait long enough everything will happen, even life from lifelessness. I say once you have that living cell you need to preserve it somewhere or it will die, then you need to start over . . . how does nature know how to start over. In the lab nobody has come close to creating a simple living cell, NOBODY. The closest we've come is a simple nanotech machines doing simple things. Nowhere as complicated as a living cell. Yet somewhere in some pond on some planet it happened. The only way to explain this is thru intelligent design. Call it God or whatever you want, there had to have been some divine intervention. Just listen to Dr. James Tour, the world's foremost authority on Bio-synthetic chemistry, @
A cell doesn't "know" anything.......good grief...... Tour does not work in this area. His expertise isn't in Bio anything. He is in synthetic organic chemistry- outside of that area his antics are an utter professional disgrace- not least for his nurturing of a claque of science hating ignoramuses such as yourself.
It’s just chemistry. The immaterial is an incoherent concept. If I can write out some chemical reaction on paper, does that make that reaction immaterial?
In the end, this will shake out religion on a big scale. Because religion has no evidence behind the position. Hope they find out how life emerged from chemical procesesses.
Meanwhile there are great advances in genomic research and other evolutionary science based medical advancements that scientifically ignorant people still get to benefit from.
@@eschwarz1003 Enlighten us rubes as to how evolutionary theory moves forward medical research. Do you have a specific example that shows a breakthrough in medicine because of an assumption about our development over time?
"The emergence of life on Earth" Well, the creator of animals thought and thought and came up with different sequences of nucleotide bases for different kinds of animals and then popped them into existence.
It didn't need to be immortal, just to live long enough. And maybe the first one didn't live long enough. Maybe the first billion didn't live long enough. One did.
You fail to ask the right question. Most of what you say is almost right, but mostly it is not starting at the right place. You look at RNA DNA and amino acids and proteins. You ramble on and ramble on about events that happened much later than self replicating molecules. You fail to notice that there needs to be a source of energy to drive the life process. Before you have anything before you have RNA, you need an energy source. You speculate about random connections between molecules, you could not be more wrong. The energy for all and every form of life is to this very day, driven by proton gradients. Without a source of energy life is not possible. Law of entropy requires a flow of energy for complexity to self assemble. In the deep oceans were alkaline proton energy gradients inherent in flow of deep water ocean vents, the structure of the vents had pores the size of cells. The self replicating molecules had a source of energy in the proton gradients between the alkaline water in the vents and the ocean water. Within the pores the first self replicating molecules formed , essentially they are viruses , then the first cells could form to be released into the ocean. Most of the first cells failed but eventually the cells in the pores of the vents competetivly evolved to be able to survive when they escaped their home in the vent pores. Live self replicating cells are born.
1. Virus's need life to exist first, they cannot precede it. Virus's need cells in order to reproduce. 2. You went from self replicating molecules forming, to cells forming. What? The step between a molecule and a cell forming is MASSIVE. Molecules do not just turn into cells. Let alone loads of cells. Cells are incredibly complex and superbly engineered creations that need millions of different parts to be formed by many different bio molecules all to be assembled in sequence specific order. You can't say here is a molecule that could be used as a bio molecule and then magic it into a cell.
@@rl7012 "You can't say here is a molecule that could be used as a bio molecule and then magic it into a cell"- Isn't that what Jesus did? If cells are so superbly "engineered" why is so much of our genome junk?
I get there is a soup. I get there are ingredients in the soup. Who got the ingredients right and who did the stirring? Who sipped it? Random? How much time you got? How much time do you need? Random, right? So no chef, just some idiot throwing in ingredients and some idiot stirring. Like monkeys at typewriters, I first thought an INFINITE number of pairs would end up with a copy of War and Peace at some point. Now I understand all you get is an infinite amount of banana peels and an infinite amount of monkey shit. War and Peace ain't happening. But a Darwinian tells his prospective graduate students "Believe, Science, believe me."
Natural Selection is another way of saying random inevitability. Perhaps Darwinians are mangling the story of life, yes? If only I could find the missing link in the great chain of being....
@@CPHSDC "Natural Selection is another way of saying random inevitability"- yes, an ill thought out and hopelessly inaccurate way. Natural selection is the OPPOSITE of random. I hate to break it too you but.....Darwin died. Some time ago. It was in all the papers. Have you tried reading books?
He's ignoring consciousness and talking about self constructing molecules. Even if we stick to his scientific limitations, we got issues. There are missing links so evolution is not the whole story. Example : How did a swordfish hunt when the sword was half evolved? too many examples of such jumps in evolution that are unexplained.
Add 4.5 billion years into the equation and if you can comprehend that, then you should be able to work out how the swordfish got by with only half a sword. Maybe his mate had the other half.
@@ashwadhwani no, I have watched so many different scientific and religious takes on this that it simply doesn't matter what is right and what is wrong. How it is possible for all the different species to know instinctively what there role they have to play to my mind at least, is beyond comprehending. I simply cannot see why it matters if there is a heaven or hell or a god who created the universe. There is overwhelming evidence of evolution everywhere, but does it matter how it all started? Not to me it doesn't. My take is that life is no more than survival of the mind. Keep your mind occupied and the body healthy and accept your lot. If you believe in god, good luck to you but don't try to force it on to other people.
If the development of real life happened with such ease in a primordial soup, not a clean laboratory with lab coat personnel purchasing every component perfectly synthesized ready to go. Then just go do it out in a dirty puddle somewhere that would be real science then I could believe something you’re saying, otherwise this absolute nonsense
From the forming of the planet the emergence of life too 700,000,000 years. Why do you voluntarily make such a fool of yourself with such jaw droppingly stupid comments?
Only James Tour makes that argument and it never made sense there either. When ever does life make use of laboratory pure chemicals? James Tour thinks chemistry can only happen like in his lab.
Yes there is a flood of chemistry and that is a disaster for all the right conditions to come together. After they do, if they do, time is your enemy. I hope your molecule kept notes before entropy breaks it down or it randomly combines with the numerous elements in its very non-sterile environment. Replication of those first critical conditions is mandatory for life to begin.
Molecules have never been shown to move towards life, The fact he is trying to say let's take that as a given shows he does not understand organic chemistry
@@mcmanustony does not talk about the homochirallty issue, skip happly over the fact that many systems depend on each other, so they have to be formed at the same time, I could go on, he is telling half the story
@@brianclark2542 He also doesn't talk about Sunderland winning the FA Cup in 1973. Szostak addresses the chirality issue elsewhere. You'd probably sneer at him for not addressing something else....
What a rubbish argument. I don't think he believes his own theory himself and he would be right not to as it is weak, full of holes, full of presumption and full of the same old same old just mixed up.
@@byronshutt Darwinism is totally full of holes. It is mostly holes. I can't believe that people still believe it as even a five year old could see right through that rubbish theory.
@@rolo5424 : And yet, evolution by natural selection is the most widely accepted and most robust theory in all of science despite your inability to understand or accept it.
@@lrvogt1257 I am not questioning evolution, I am questioning first life. Evolution didn't make first life did it? If you think it does then you are the one who has no understanding of it. And micro evolution I s self evident, but macro evolution is not. There are no tradition fossils. Fact.
@@rolo5424 : Wow. Did you forget your own words already? They are just above in the comments. It was you who just wrote about Darwinism which is evolution by natural selection and has nothing to do with abiogenesis. And you are wrong about it.
My goodness, gravity alone cannot develop and maintain a spiral galaxy. Electric currents and their subsequent magnetic fields are critical to just about everything we observe in space. The 26 letters of our alphabet are highly complex data bits but say nothing without a very high level of prescribed instructions. Life is far more complex and chiral purity is an enormous issue.
Biological life could not originate and evolve randomly or cycle by cycle on planets or other non-star modern flying bodies of universe because it would require too many try and error cycles. There are not enough resources in the universe for such a huge number of cycles. For example, let’s consider a big protein molecule that consists of 40000 atoms. The number of atom types is 10. This is close to reality. Let’s replace network structure of the molecule with chain structure. The molecule becomes simpler. To obtain the right molecule structure 10 in power of 40000 cycles is needed. Let’s say a genome consists of only the gene for this molecule. The number of tests to obtain the right sequence is 10 in powers of 40000 that are equal the same number of test tubes to check if it is right. Testing lasts 10 billion years. The average lifespan of (non-activated human) neutrophils in the circulation is about 5.4 days. The number of atoms in the universe is 10 in power of 70. Let’s assume that we need 1 atom for a test tube (In reality many more). Let’s count the possible number of tests generations 10000000000*365/5.4=675925925925. If we multiply it by number of atoms we obtain a number that is considerably smaller than 10 in power of 40000.
Consider that the human is a product of an intelligent creator with an intellect far superior to the human's. Examining the complexity of just one system within the human body certainly confirms we are not the result of a random occurrence like the big bang theory. I have never understood why it has to be an "either/or" debate of evolution or creation - consider that we were created to evolve. You sure are going to extremes in your attempt to avoid creation as our origin when creation does not have to be confined to this entity they call "God" that has always been linked to "religion." Maybe God is just an extraterrestrial - and the only reason God has to be religious in nature is because scientists say it does. The Bible has been translated by so many people from one language to another that it makes sense a lot of information has been lost through translation. If one really wants to understand what was originally written and said in the text, then they should learn Aramaic and explore reading the Dead Sea Scrolls which allegedly is where the original text in The Bible was obtained from. Proof of the existence of God is simply acquired - just look at the complexity within us and realize we indeed are a product of an intelligent creator named God - for to believe we could be the result of random chance with the complexity inherent within, makes no sense. Remember that the only limitation is your imagination ... and He gave you that too!
you are filling gaps in your knowledge with this "god" instead of saying i have no idea, you say god did it you have no other reason to believe god even exist. besides the fact that it helps you sleep at night because it fills your ignorance with make believe knowledge.
In light of the Great Silence in the rest of the galaxy, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the origin of life is any kind of very simple chemical process. We should be looking for a ten-sigma fluke, or we would be seeing evidence of alien civilizations.
Stop! The emergence of life, whether it is as easy as simple chemical reactions or a more complicated and rarer and yet undiscovered process, has no bearing on whether or not intelligent and technologically advanced life will emerge or survive long enough to be detected. All indications are that life on Earth began about 4.2 billion years ago, and it took 4.1998 billion years (about 1/3 the apparent age of the universe) before the homo sapien genus emerged, and yet it took another 200 thousand years before the homo sapien genus developed advanced technology and began transmitting signals detectable from beyond Earth. How many extinction level events had to occur on Earth for life to diversify enough and to allow for the homo sapien genus to arise? 5. And as a species we are causing what might be the 6th extinction level event that may in fact end our species in the next 50-100 years, not to mention the different historical geopolitical events and natural events that posed considerable risk of eliminating our species. The Kepler satellite scanned a small patch of the galaxy, observed over 500,000 stars and only detected just over 2,000 confirmed planets, 550 of those are potentially rocky planets and only 9 of those planets were in their star's "habitable" zone. The fact is, even if the emergence of life is extremely easy, it takes time for intelligent life to arise, many factors can impede the emergence of intelligent life and even bring it to premature extinction, there is the apparent rarity of habitable planets for life as we know it, and then there is the vast empty distance of space between star systems that detectable signals have to travel for us to actually detect them, not to mention that the signals get exponentially weaker the farther they travel (inverse square law), so the chances of us detecting an intelligent alien civilization without developing faster than light travel and leaving the Earth are extremely low to non existent.
These self-styled geniuses all have long-winded 'theories' about how, on a sterile planet bathed in lethal solar radiation; Life somehow 'spontaneously generated' itself into existence from a random mix of inert chemicals …. BUT …. None of them can demonstrate that their theory works can they ?
@@mcmanustony Rather than merely hurling personal abuse at those questioning your chosen belief system; why don't you simply cure my supposed 'ignorance' by explaining how/why/where those first self-replicating living cells 'spontaneously generated' themselves into existence from a random collection of inert chemicals ? Perhaps you avoid this question because you know full well that it's utterly unanswerable by the ideology you clearly look upon as modern-day 'gospel truth' ?? Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation OverviewDescription and terminologyAntiquityMiddle AgesModern testsSee also Spontaneous generation is a body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from non-living matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapewormsarose f…
@@cedricworthingtonbroadaxe2287 If you don't like having your atrocious manners questioned why not work on having better manners? If you start bumping your gums about "self styled geniuses" when you've not the faintest idea what you're talking about, you'll get what you deserve. The earliest life dates to 3.8 billion years ago. Why do you use language like "spontaneously generate themselves"? Do ice crystals spontaneously generate themselves? The collection of chemicals on the early earth gave rise to life- somehow. Why do you say "random"? There are known laws of physics and chemistry that account for many of the steps involved- formation of lipids: easy, bilipid membranes: easy, amino acids: easy, homochiral from racemic mixtures: less easy but understood....etc. Your approach is: complex therefore god. Thankfully no one takes or gives a toss about your approach. Your comments about gospel truth are just pathetic. NOTHING in science is beyond question or considered "gospel". Darwin was wrong about: the mechanism of inheritance, whales evolving from bear like mammals and much more besides. What he got wrong was tossed decades ago. Maybe stop trying to learn science from the backs of cereal packets and give books a chance.
@@mcmanustony An interesting reply from which I'm lost for choice as to which points to develop, so; I'll go for the simplest two:- 1. "Your comments about gospel truth are just pathetic." ??? These words are a perfect illustration of the sheer narrow minded bigotry exhibited by both sides of the Evolution versus Divine Creation debate. Why ? Because as I'm prepared to question the possibility of 'spontaneous generation'; you've immediately jumped to the completely erroneous conclusion that I'm a Bible/Koran based Divine Creationist; which is so wildly wrong it's pathetic. I've no more time for the magical/mystery type Bronze Age/Medieval Era interpretations of humanities ancient memories than you have. I'm actually an advocate of Francis Crick's Panspermia Theory; explained in the article shown below (and many others! ):- Directed panspermia Francis Crick Leslie Orgel PANSPERMIA ... www.panspermia-theory.com/panspermia-theories/directed-panspermia The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally. Crick posed that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, could be loaded on a brace of … 2a. "The collection of chemicals on the early earth gave rise to life- somehow." ??? Meaning that despite all the waffle about lipids, amino acids etc …. you (just like every devout believer in 'Evolutionary Theory' including Richard Dawkins) haven't actually got a clue as to how something as awesomely complex/precise as the DNA/Code of Life, could possibly have fallen together by random chance. Dr. Dawkins, Tear down This Wall! | Answers in Genesis answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/dr-dawkins-tear-down-this-wall 18/04/2008 · The film’s entry into the culture war, ... Dawkins admits that science knows nothing about the origin of life itself. But he startles Stein even more when he announces the possibility that life and its apparent design could have been the result of intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe (who themselves had evolved, he adds). 2b. Francis Crick was also a convinced Atheist, but having researched the DNA/Code of Life, was so shocked at it's awesome chemical/biological and genetic complexity that he ultimately proposed the Panspermia Theory to prevent the world's religious establishments from using his discovery to destroy the credibility of 'Abiogenesis'; upon which the whole materialistic Atheistic world order rests. What is the theory of directed panspermia? | GotQuestions.org www.gotquestions.org/directed-panspermia.html 26/04/2021 · One early promoter of directed panspermia was Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of DNA. A committed atheist, Crick once resigned from a collegiate position because the college elected to build a chapel. Crick found his belief in an undesigned, naturally-controlled universe challenged by …
You cannot resist the facts and the logic: THIS WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY AN INTELLIGENT AND ALMIGHTY BEING, GOD. The Solar system, this magnificent planet Earth, every plant, animal and human has a well-considered / thoughtful structure. That means an Intelligent Being created them all, not blind nature. For the building particles - atoms and molecules COULD NOT organize themselves in such a way to cause a rose to form, or a deer, or a girl - with all the complex organs and systems they have. Even in a billion years! Therefore , a Creator, a Designer, an Architect really exists. There is no other way. (Evolution is NOT confirmed by the fossils)(Radiocarbon dating is NOT reliable)(Cosmic panspermia just shift the problem). THE WORLD CREATOR SPEAKS TO THE PEOPLE AND ACTS. Information about His words and deeds has been collected in the Bible. Predictions of important events many centuries before they happen prove this book comes from God. No one else could know the world history in advance. THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE IN ALL TIMES. God, the Creator of all things, guarantees (in the Bible) complete forgiveness of the sins and eternal life to everyone who (first) repents, rejects lies, thievery, murder, lechery as well as everything that is wrong, (second) believes in Jesus Christ and confesses him as a Lord and Savior. 2000 years ago, Christ came to Judea according to the plan of God to accept upon himself the punishement we deserve for our sins. Even though not guilty, Jesus was beaten, insulted and killed on the cross - to pay our debt to God. Three days later he rose from the dead and all power in heaven and on earth was given to him. Everyone who accepts these terms of God must be baptized and take part in Eucharist with Christians. When the determined time comes such a person (no matter alive or asleep in death) will be given a new body not subject to disease and death any more. All authority of God stands behind this promise! Put all your problems in prayer in the name of Christ and soon you will realize that He is a real person. And a very good friend ! Christ will return to Еarth to judge the people. A lot of signs indicate the event will be soon. Note: Fortune-tellers, astrologers, magicians, soothsayers/spiritists, "aliens" (masked demons, evil spirits) and similar to them have nothing in common with God and Christ. On the contrary - they are servants of Satan whose purpose is to deceive and ruin. Be on your guard ! I have an anthology/collection of quotes "50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists for Their Faith in God." They all believe in an intelligent Creator of the Universe, and many of them are convinced Christians. Newton: "This extremely beautiful system, which includes the Sun, planets and comets, could have emerged solely as a result of the design and decision of an Intelligent and Almighty Being." Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (London, 1687) Newton: "I firmly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, written by inspired men, and I study it every day." (Cited in Tiner, 1975) Einstein: "I want to know how God created this world." ("Einstein: The Life and Times" by Ronald Clark, London, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1973, p. 33) Einstein: Interview for Amer. magazine "The Saturday Evening Post" (26 oct. 1929) "- Do you think that Jesus is a historical person? - Certainly. It is impossible for a person to read the Gospels without feeling the real presence of Jesus. His personality is evident in every word. " (Einstein, cited in Viereck, 1929).
All unsubstantiated claims. You have every right to believe absolutely anything you choose but until you can actually demonstrate some mechanism and some source you've told us exactly nothing and there is no reason to take the idea seriously.
@@lrvogt1257 Science is great and God given and yes essential, to our mental and physical well being. Science is not so great for our Spirit man, especially when the atheistic scientist, uses it to try and prove God is a myth. Many people are unwilling and unable to believe God exists. Furthermore consider the evil brought by man using science wrongly. Even so called Christians using it amiss.
@@peterbarjona6150 : Atheism is not about disproving god. It is only that god has not been proven. Big difference. People will use whatever is at hand to their advantage. That includes science and religion. I have seen no personal or historic evidence whatsoever that the religious behave any better or worse than anyone else.
@@lrvogt1257 From your first sentence, right up to, " That includes science and religion," is not what I said. Furthermore some scientists use science to prove God, that works for me to a degree. When I see hateful, mocking , atheist scientists, using Darwin's faulty theory of evolution, which Darwin himself admitted was never, complete, and he had no way of completing it, doesn't work for me. What is more disturbing is it's piled on in the educational programs and schooling from kindergarten right on up through university and beyond. By the same token, most religion is faulty as well, including many so called Christian false doctrines. Same as false science, especially when it becomes religious, and it does in many disciplines. I agree with your last sentence, for sure, and there is much more that can be said on that subject. Your short third sentence "Big difference." True in some cases. Second sentence, sounds more like Agnostic to me. I have no problem with your first and second sentence, when the scientist, admits he is shooting in the dark. I don't know many, if any that will admit that. Both religions become corrupt for the love of money, as i'm sure you know. When all is said and done, I stand by my original statement, what a waste of tax money, which would be better used to help the poor. If science was funded by it's advocates, the way missionaries are funded by it's adherents, that would make more sense in my opinion.
Thank you very much for sharing this seminar!
12:00 Emergence of complexity
20:30 Emergence of biomolecules
31:00 Emergence of orginized molecular system (not solved yet)
47:36 Emergence of self-replicating molecular cycles
53:50 Emergence of natural selection
1:00:00 New approach
1:06:30 Questions of the audience
@Winston Grettum
The "Impossible dream" is that there is a loving invisible man in the sky who performs magic that we haven't seen.
@@toserveman9317 burden of proof is on you. Can you show in your reductionist psychotic delusion how complex life comes from nothing. From a vacuum(absence of matter) how did life arise? We all know you like to talk about big bang, but how did that arise from nothing???
@@zuluking18
You're so dopey, you don't know that life and the "big bang" were not at the same time.
Consequentially, I don't allow your ilk to challenge me. ...I test your knowledge; not the other way around.
(P.S "life" is a chemical chain reaction developing from other chemical chain reactions, per the 'heat dissipation and turbulence' principles of physics. Similar to star-birth or planet formation or crystal formation ["rocks" types], only with more complex layers and thus with previously developed scaffolds needed (which are there from the previously developed chemical chain reactions developing after star-birth and planet formation).)
@@toserveman9317 you talk from your asshole, you know that? Can you please show a recent scientific study that has been able to reproduce life from simple chemical reaction as you're delusional beliefs insists. Burden of proof is on you. Please show us how we are able to create the simplest bacteria in a lab from nucleic acid,, fatty acids, simple proteins and carbohydrates. I'm waiting. I'll cut straight to the point and simply suggest you believe in magic. Abiogenesis. The appearance of something from nothing. Pretty crazy.
You speak of theories not facts. Make sure you are able discern the difference.
This man teaches me how to teach Science in a world of Faith
No, he teaches you how to present data free theories as if they are gawd's truth fact while ignoring the real data. The real data shows that life always and only comes from life and life of the same kind period. Real science uses real data and doesn't try to present data-free theories from the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past as facts. Pseudoscience does that, though.
There is a fast and easy way for you to convince me that evolution happens. You only have to use 1 or 2 sentences to do that. Just provide the information I request below.
.
First, we are told that the two forces behind evolution are natural selection and "beneficial" mutations. So fine. Name a life form. Then name an act of natural selection, or a mutation, that you can demonstrate is causing the life form to "evolve" as the result of either of those.
.
Now remember that the poster kids for evolution are things like antibiotic resistant bacteria, snowflake yeast, some geckos, spotted salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, sickle cell anemia victims and lactose intolerant people. The problem is - and this is always true in evolutionary claims - the so called proof proves the exact opposite of what is claimed.
.
The bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, fruit flies, peppered moths, and people - and all their descendants - are staying nothing but bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, and homo sapiens. Or, if that is not true, what are they "evolving" into that is not in those categories? Cite your data.
.
No one ever gives the data asked for, however. They may change the subject, or make excuses. They may ry to pass the buck and tell me "Your answers are out there on the net. Somewhere." At the same time they don't show that they, themsleves, have done any research at all on the topic. They may put down a glut of words, but none of those words ever names the life form, or the act of natural selection or beneficial mutation, that I asked for.
.
Now, there are countless life forms out there. The vast bulk of them are microscopic ones that multiply at rocket rates. Further, we are told that evolution is going on all the time. Surely, if evolution is true, you ought to be able to find just one life form, as requested, and offer your evidence that natural selection or a mutation is causing it to evolve?
.
Real science requires real evidence. When we are told as gawd's truth fact that such and such is true and there is zero observable data to support that idea, and when, in fact, we are told that such and such is true when it actually contradicts the data, what do we have? Pseudoscience.
.
But, hey, if you like thinking you have a bunch of hairy knuckle draggers hanging from your family tree, and don't want to believe you are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and loved by your Creator, who am I to burst your bubble?
The origin of life scenario is a big integration that is so large as to make major contributors like Robert Hazen a very small part of the scenario. Maybe a short paragraph in a novel length account of the origin and evolution of the modern cell.
Was there a point you were hoping to make?
Of the four main steps, Hazen understands and proves only Step 1. He has some "ideas" regarding Steps 2 and 4, and he doesn't attempt to tackle Step 3. So in the end, he was merely talking around the subject, without getting to any real answers. An even harder question to answer than how did self-replicating RNA first come about, is how did biologically useful information become encoded into the RNA? Why didn't every early RNA molecule contain only useless "garbage" information?
These are the questions to which we are getting closer. Not knowing how something works doesn't make it magic.
@@lrvogt1257 Another general question I wish somebody covered, is what are the general factors that seem to have been driving biology toward complexity, when thermodynamics would indicate that complexity should naturally degrade towards simplicity, everywhere, at all times. One also sees this in the formation of solar systems, where a massive ball of hydrogen and dust naturally becomes a rotating disk that is concentrated at its center, which naturally becomes a star, which is then eventually surrounded by planets and moons and meteors. I would also like to see somebody cover "Evolution versus the Cambrian Explosion". Since evolution requires a long, long series of precedent lifeforms that each receive a genetic mutation, then how does one explain the myriad of lifeforms that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion, that have no precedent lifeforms at all? Most evolutionary biologists merely wave their hands and say some vague, feel-good thing like "life expanded to fill a new niche". What? Is evolution valid or not?
@@JCAH1 : Last question first. The Cambrian "explosion" didn't happen over night. It lasted up to 25 million years.
Where does complexity come from?
ruclips.net/video/MTFY0H4EZx4/видео.html&vl=en
Complexity comes and goes
ruclips.net/video/j7k1bDMsK9s/видео.html
The line between life and non-life
ruclips.net/video/dySwrhMQdX4/видео.html
A new physics theory of life
www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
@@JCAH1I’ve heard that the life of the Cambrian explosion may have fossilized better as so many had developed hard shells etc instead of soft bodies which didn’t fossilize as well.
@@Detson404 in that case you might expect to see some form of soft to hard shell intermediate. but you don't. the explosion also occurs in a freakishly short amount of time, from essentially single cell to a massively diverse range of complexity.
the usual response is: we don't know and despite the evidence pointing in a direction away from what I want to believe I will hope for some evidence that proves what I want to believe.
There is no problem with single cells communicating, grouping, emerging etc. The trick is getting inert chemicals to begin the process.
Ernest Townsend Did you miss the part about the complexity of the eye?
False premise. The initial chemicals were not inert, but quite reactive.
Science: “Give me one miracle and I’ll explain the rest”.
Urey was one of my undergrad organic chem teachers (I kept repeating it). He never seemed too impressed with himself regarding that particular experiment. I think he also has a reaction or two named after him, because he did the work. Fossil fuel, fossil fuel, oh, wait, that's the primordial sludge. Big big carbon chains made not in a lab, but in the crust. Not rare, btw. That's more dishonesty going as science. We got your number.
Amazing lecture!! 👨🏫
Amazing lecture!
I wish my friends could handle watching this.
Maybe i need new friends
Very enlightening.
Paints himself into a corner...quite honestly....I like that!
Really enjoyed this talk, got a lot from it :)
I recommend Nick Lane's thoughts on the subject as well as those of Bill Martin and Mike Russell, all working on real data from hydrothermal alkaline vents and incorporating chemiosmosis.
Foolishness. Lots of talk but zero answers.
@@ThekiBoran you mean RUclips comments?
@@ThekiBoran How much origin of life research have you actually read?
@@mcmanustony
Prove to anyone reading this that life originated by a mechanical or chemical process.
Left-handed amino acids don't sequence themselves outside a living cell. Impossible.
@@ThekiBoran You've never read any solution to the homochirality issue have you?
Empirical science doesn't deal with proof.
You're not very good at this.
From 32 mins it becomes really interesting
Excellent lecture
Superb.
If you can discover a plausible thread or continuum of causal events leading from the big bang to the singing of the Bach B Minor Mass. Then you have succeeded in disproving the hypothesis of intelligent design...or proven it.
Self-organizing property of matter not only created life, but also stars and galaxies, black holes and gamma ray bursts to the formation of organic molecules resulting from fine tuned parameter space explained by the standard model of particle physics discovered by humans as part of the purpose of the intelligent design that gifted us consciousness permitting us to go outside the universe.
The Emergence of Life on Earth
/loved it/
Don't worry, if there was a more efficient form of life possible it would have eaten us already.
Else we are the stepping stone to it.
cool stuff
If you found this interesting, check out some of Professor Nick Lane's talks. Nick Lane: Matter and Energy at the Origins of Life - ruclips.net/video/av98Brx23_4/видео.html ~~~ Nick Lane: Origin of the eukaryotic cell - ruclips.net/video/gaXhkZoOOYc/видео.html
There's more:
A Bioenergetic Basis for the three domains of Life | Professor Nick Lane FLS
Why is life the way it is? Michael Faraday Prize Lecture - Dr Nick Lane
Nick Lane - Santa Fe Institute, Community Event
I try to imagine an intelligent life form - such as humans in another several billion years -as having the capability of slime mold to disintegrate and reintegrate into and from individual cells...Life is relentlessly adaptive!
Fascinating. All humans should be taught this stuff
I don't want to hear a kid saying " i am late for alchemy class and i am already failing geo centric universe theory". Open minded or not , who cares ?
Sorry I'm late. I had a stork theory of obstetrics class.
Creationists can’t prove anything, I don’t even know why they are in this discussion. This is not about wishful thinking. This is about finding evidence.
It shows that we dont know what materials were on earth and which atmospherical presence were at those days as the rain of life reached the earth. There are missing details of how our earth looked like 10tsd yrs ago or 50tsd yrs ago.
We have data right here and now. But evolutionism prefers to ignore, or defy the actual data, and then present evidence-free far out theories about what happened in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past. What does the data - what real science uses - show? Life comes from life and life of the same kind. Always. Only. Even when they use high tech labs with intelligent design they don't even get close to creating any life whatsoever from inorganic matter.
Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
.
Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches , G.I. turtles et al? Zero again.
.
But if you can provide data that they "evolved" from something else, please do so. Not theories presented as evidence, now, but scientific data.
.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations.
.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
.
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland.
.
Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a greyish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. www.bing.com/images/search?q=Marine+Fossils+On+Mountains&FORM=RESTAB ) Notice the exquisitely preserved details on it. Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains, completely intact and with perfect detail as you see in the link. It's like they never even heard of erosion. Others claim, "Well, if there are whale fossils in the Sahara, and Nautilus fossils in the Grand Canyon, etc. that shows an ocean was present."
.
(And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.)
.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 75% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. The one by the Aborigines of Australia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports.
.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before.
.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species moving up to the next step on the Animal (ditto for plants) Kingdom, to become a new genus.
.
However, if you've got any actual data to show any mutation ever caused Lifeform A to turn into Lifeform B, do include it. It is easy to present unverifiable theories about what happened in the untestable, unverifiable ancient, past.
.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. In the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into the next step up on the animal kingdom (plants ditto), a different genus. Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over.
.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidenceless, unverifiable descendants. We'll call that science."
.
This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years.
.
"Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
.
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature.
.
Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
.
You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
Psalm1Tree No doubt you copied all that pseudo-science bs from some creationist source.
What you really mean is you believe god did it.
Why is your belief (with ZERO evidence, ever, in all recorded history), in an invisible, immortal wizard with super powers waving a magic wand to magically create everything in a few days MORE plausible than a natural process over a long time period?
Amino acids, nucleobases, lipids, etc. are not the building blocks of life. They are just basic molecules. The true building blocks are RNA, proteins and vesicles. They do not form naturally and the most advanced labs have not come close to these despite highly controlled and complex processes. The more these processes are followed and refined the greater the design.
RNA HAS been synthesised.
OoL research has been going on for 70 years.....one ten millionth of the time between the earths formation and the origin of life.
@@mcmanustony RNA is synthesised from non-chemical produced nucleotides (they are produced using biological compounds) that are controlled precisely each step of the way to produce RNA molecules.
There is absolutely nothing natural about it. It is as natural as building a modern jet from minerals.
@@iain5615 your claim is false. Grow up and move on.
@@mcmanustony okay tell me two very simple questions then:
1. How they obtain the nucleotides?
2. How do they then order the nucleotides to form the RNA strands that they require?
Two very simple questions. Show me how this is natural in any context whatsoever.
@@iain5615 what a hopeless analogy
itsasin1969 >Question..... How do microbes live deep in solid rock? Do they move around or just stay put? Do they live and reproduce or just rest unchanging until their environment improves ?<
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endolith
Some people are so upset at the prospect of their magic being taken away. Sorry Virginia; there is no Santa Claus.
This is so much better for me than I remember church to be. Time marches on and change is part of living. Church encourages people to not ask in depth questions and resist changing our views regardless of new science data. I'm still enjoying my freedom of being a free thinking humanist (atheist )
***** How typical... "doctrine"... HA! It's the refusal to recognize the difference between EVIDENCE and, well, the COMPLETE LACK of anything resembling evidence, that distinguishes the honest intellectual from the gullible dupe. I am wondering if you even know which one you are???
***** Which statement? Yours, of course! How about your replace your laughable "sketchbook" euphemism with "comet" or "thunderstorm" or "rainbow" or "sickness" or ANYTHING ELSE that the religious have, in their inanity and unearned conceit, conjured as something which, since they cannot themselves comprehend it, must be supernatural. Your example is nothing but a purposeful distortion seeped in intellectual cowardice. Your sketchbook, you see, is in reality a beautiful and intricately colored stone--a work of art to be sure. But as history has confirmed over and over, what appears a work of magic to the credulous, eventually and inevitably is shown to in fact be a wondrous but infinitely explicable natural phenomenon.
*****
Sometimes I just add an observation while I do know where someone is coming from. I always try to limit the size or length of my comments so people read them.
***** Actually, I know exactly where you are coming from: a point of ignorance and credulity--and I was calling you on it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my historically accurate analogy was lost on you, if only because it would force you to admit the absurdity of your parable, so I will dumb it down for you.
The "sketchbook" story you used is a tired and wildly inaccurate euphemism that creationists have used AD NAUSEAM in a vain attempt to make a supernatural joe seem like a reasonable idea. My modification was to highlight how creationists in the past have used other phenomena like comets or rainbows (which at the time, would've been considered as manifestly "designed" as your sketchbook) to "prove" that a god must exist. And my point was that now that the pool of inexplicable natural processes had dried up, the creationist is left with NOTHING except to desperately change the story to something completely inapplicable in a silly and pathetic attempt to maintain some semblance of sanity in their argument.
Fortunately, not everyone is quite that gullible anymore. Honestly, I don't care what you believe, and I am perfectly happy leaving you to your delusions. I actually feel sorry for you. But when you make idiotic statements in public, you don't get a pass for stupidity just because it is clothed in the disgusting fabric of "faith"--at least not from me...
***** I know where you're coming from. And i will call the institution and inform them that you have now been located :)
Any simple answer by Occhams Razor, first required the making of the Universe. Hence, the idea to choose the most simplicstic answer is subordinated a creation that no human can answer its origin and is according to some, mathematically impossible itself.
mindless word salad.
Thank you for your valuable and insightful comment. Have a nice day!@@mcmanustony
@@theDNAfactory having a great day. You, on the other hand, can't even spell, let alone grasp the concept of OCCAM'S razor.
Would you like another go?
Sorry for my shortcomings, I appreciate your input and help, you are a great teacher and role model for this planet. Know that you add love and value to human kind.@@mcmanustony
@@theDNAfactory have you ever considered learning some science?
So a helix is involved in making quartz and DNA? Sounds like a clue ; _)_
Emergence... Sound a lot like a miracle!
Gerhard moeller people say the same exact thing when people win the lottery. Yet it happens.
Thats why i keep playing it..
Emergence is simply higher level structure coming from low level interactions. A flock of bird runs on the algorithm "If I'm on the outside, move toward the inside so I don't get exposed to predators". If every bird does this, you get a structured blob of birds and you can describe the blob. It's called emergence because the rules that govern the lower level interactions don't directly describe the higher level structure.
That's what I thought about thunder & lightning.
@22:55 "...then NASA came along" NASA! and the whole Construct had to be, altered! I Love that :O)
What's the problem? New data leads to new understanding. That's how science is supposed to work. If it didn't we'd learn nothing.
Excellent lecture, thank you
Professor….. dance on toes
Emergence…. Is from where…. To make the feedback bio system and sensory system…
If it wasn't creation, no one knows and there is no certainty as of 7/2022
Science is not looking for certainty. The search is for a plausible pathway whereby life could have emerged via natural processes. "Creation" or "God" has been cited as a cause for multiple phenomena from tides to storms to disease to......and always a natural explanation has been found. The origin of life is no exception. "Goddidit" is not an explanation of anything.
Apt video title. Yes, life is emergent.
A natural process still does not get around the ghost in the machine.
Just like Phase transition transforms non-life matter into life and consciousness due to self-organizing and self-simulating property of matter, similarly the quantum field, self[simulates intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into fine tuned particles (matter), implying the Anthropic Principle. Man and God are entangled.
I watched it all and we don't know how life began. There are a lot of ingredients and a lot of mixing, but no cake.
Haha. Good one.
Michael Harris - Anyone can bake a cake. Few can explain the chemical interactions during baking. None complain when they enjoy the end result.
Anyone can say they baked a cake, when really they did no such thing. Life has never, ever been seen to come from inorganic matter, just as a cake has never seen to come from a bunch of empty four, sugar, etc. bags and canisters
One of the many evidences for intelligent design is irreducible complexity. If someone, even a 3 year old, sees a cake for the first time, they know it didn't just compile itself. They know it had intelligent design, and action, behind it. Let's go deep into the "ingredients" for life. Now a bacterial flagellum is incredibly more complex than a cake.
Irreducible complexity is seen at every level in life forms, too. I will give my favorite example. Michael Behe spoke of the i.c. of the bacterial flagellum and supposedly that got debunked. No, it didn't. His argument got misrepresented and the misrepresentation was attacked, i.e. a classic straw man logical fallacy move was done on it. But I prefer to look at another part of the bacterial flagellum anyway.
.
Google a picture of the b.f. and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. Now, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answer to that, how is "evolution" going to make it happen? Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to go? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now.
.
Back to the "debunk" of the i.c. of the b.f. as described by Behe. It is the usual in evolutionary defense. There is no observable, supporting, data whatsoever, only theories piled on speculations that are presented as facts. For ex. they say that some simpler organism "evolved"into the b.f. Where is the evidence for that, or for any organism, including the b.f., ever being anything but what it is presently? They could have used the scientific method and taken a part away from the b.f. and then watched to see if it could still function. They didn't. Funny about that.
.
If you, with intelligence, can't figure out how to make those "evolving" stubs and nubs of a whip and motor on the b.f. be anything but pointless and useless, how are random acts of nature going to do it? If you, with intelligence, can't even make up a diagram - not to mention show any data - for coordinated ever "evolving" reproductive systems between male and female parts of animals all over the planet, how is mindless nature going to do it?
.
But if you think it can happen, great. Give the details. Give any fossil or current life form evidence anywhere. Not theories about the unverifiable past, now, but actual observvable data.
.
And while we are at it, let's think of all those male and female animals that reportedly "evolved" into different families, classes, orders and phyla. Now, while the males are making their changes in their reproductive systems during those "transitions" what kinds of miracles would it take for the females to continuously make exactly coordinated, and synchronized, matching, and compatible, changes in their own systems, in a totally other body that has no way of knowing what is going on in the male body? Over and over. With vast numbers of animals?
.
Now we'ere not talking about synchronized changes in just, say, sperm and eggs, but the essential and related changes also required for things like muscles, nerves, hormones, etc. etc. etc. And of course, with billions and billions of fossils and trillions of living animals around us, we see no example whatsoever for any such coordinated changes. In fact, we never even see any species moving into a new family, order, class or phyla. Or if any of that is wrong, cite your data.
.
Evolutionism is a tragicomedy. It is all based on theories piled on hypotheses, which are heaped on speculation and loaded with logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience. That package is then presented as gawd's truth scientific fact.
.
Anyone: Who designed that b.f. with its whip and motor and other irreducibly complex, interdependent, parts? How tiny it is. How magnificently...DESIGNED. Like you, my friend, lovingly designed by your Heavenly Father. Get to know Him, and real science - which He designed, too.
Psalm1Tree
" One of the many evidences for intelligent design is irreducible complexity. "
So you did not see the video.
Irreducible complexity is debunked in all kind of experiments and observations.
"Michael Behe spoke of the i.c. of the bacterial flagellum and supposedly that got debunked. No, it didn't. His argument got misrepresented and the misrepresentation was attacked,"
Not really, do you even know how much time was given to creationists at the Kitzmiller Dover trial.
It is Behe who misrepresents the subject.
It goes something like this, it is impossible for this complex organelle to exist in one go, half a flagellum is no use, so it had to be there in one go.
Well, "half a flagellum" could and is observed as a waste disposal unit.
Who says that precursors must have the same function as the endproduct?
They did observe bacteria with this excretion pump that has most proteins in place that are also in the flagellum.
"There is no observable, supporting, data whatsoever, only theories piled on speculations that are presented as facts."
So, when we speak of observable data. You just debunked your bible.
You did not observe when it was written. Therefor you cannot be sure it is true.
"They could have used the scientific method and taken a part away from the b.f. and then watched to see if it could still function. They didn't. Funny about that.
"
They do not need to, without the flagellum it is an excretionary organelle.
" how are random acts of nature going to do it?"
And where is the natural selection in your argument?
" If you, with intelligence, can't even make up a diagram - not to mention show any data - for coordinated ever "evolving" reproductive systems between male and female parts of animals all over the planet, how is mindless nature going to do it?
"
Who is building a strawmen now? Again, natural selection. A very powerful mechanism, no intelligence needed.
"Not theories about the unverifiable past, now, but actual observvable data.
"
Again, if you really want to go there, you have again disproven your own bible.
How can you know that Jesus lived? Where you there? Who wrote the bible? Where you there?
Do not use this argument, we at least have genetics that shows common ancestry even though we where not there.
For instance, explain to me ERV's (endogenic retrovirus) from a creationist point of view. There are a dozen or so in apes and humans.
"what kinds of miracles would it take for the females to continuously make exactly coordinated, and synchronized, matching, and compatible, changes in their own systems, in a totally other body that has no way of knowing what is going on in the male body? Over and over. With vast numbers of animals?
"
Do you really think that from one moment to the next a new species would emerge?
Go follow a course on Biology and see where this argument fails beyond me being able to explain why in one comment.
.
"Evolutionism is a tragicomedy. It is all based on theories piled on hypotheses, which are heaped on speculation and loaded with logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience. That package is then presented as gawd's truth scientific fact.
"
So, simply show why the great apes have the same defect in the vitamine C gene as we do.
Get an education, so far you only present typical debunked creationist claims.
Did you ever bother to go to sites like talkorigins to see what they had to say about it? Did you ever bother to try to understand what they mean? I do not expect you to accept it, understanding would be enough. But you will not even try that.
You haven't addressed my points at all about the bacterial flagellum. You simply refer to a video and cite things others have said, which have no observable supporting data at all. Why didn't you even address how that b.f. is going to be able to function when the whip and motor are barely "evolving"? Not with someone-says-so but with observable data?
As for the Dover trial, there again you don't refer to actual data, but just think a court case says it all.
If you want to settle science questions, guess where you go? Not to a courtroom with a politically correct, politically appointed, non science trained judge or any other judge. You go to the lab or to the field. The Dover Trial had zero impact on the creation movement. We saw how Kenneth Miller used the strawman logical fallacy to make his points against Behe. That is, he first misrepresented Behe's points, then attacked the misrepresentations.
.
As for the chromosome 2 argument that cell biologist Ken Miller seemed so impressed by in his Dover court statements...
.
The whole chromosome 2 "evidence" for common ancestry is actually a beautiful little example of how evolutionary defense is always based on logical fallacies. Most people - including myself in the past - couldn't tell logical fallacies from a hole in the ground. Thus they are easily confused.
.
Okay, so if you fuse those two of our chromosomes together you could say there is a superficial match - in number only - with the 48 chromosomes of apes. Uh, tobacco, potatoes and other life forms have 48 chromosomes, too. Ever heard of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy?
.
Also, other chromosome fusions do occur which are not being mentioned. For example 1 in 1,000 people, who function like others, have an additional fusion, the Robertsonian Translocation. However, no one is claiming it comes from some ape type creature. Cows and some other animals have fusions but no one says that shows they evolved from something else. Ever heard of the Cherry Picking logical fallacy?
.
Also, the Chromosome 2 fusion is human in every way. There is no ape type info in it. In fact, apes have chromosomes that are larger in size than those of homo sapiens. Ever heard of the Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy?
.
We have exactly zero data - you know, what real science uses, unlike evolutionism which always presents theories as gawd's truth facts - to show when or how that fusion got there. Yet we are being told as scientific truth that we do know! Is there even a fragment of a toe bone from that murky, mythical, hairy creature that supposedly gave us a fusion? No, there is absolutely zero evidence any such life form ever existed. But you aren't being told maybe it existed. You are being told it DID exist and that it DID give us our chromosome 2 fusion. Ever hear of the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy?
.
Every bit of evolutionism is based on logical fallacies, theories presented as evidence, data ignored or spun, and lots and lots of...faith...all stirred well with sophistry. If you truly learn your logical fallacies, and take them seriously - which most evolutionism defenders refuse to do - you will see that they under gird every evolutionary peer review.
.
In addition to the logical fallacies, we have a claim about Chromosome 2 which I have found no verification for. We were told the Chromosome 2 fusion was predicted before it was found, thus showing evotuionism is based on reality. I have asked quite a few people to cite any science publication that demonstrates the fusion was predicted before a science publications that shows it was found. They never get back to me. Can you find any such confirmation?
.
As for the touted so called 2% difference between apes and people, that is a perfect example of skewing the data. Get a female ape. Have a hair stylist work on her. Put her in a long, slinky dress. Teach her to wear high heels. Add some makeup and perfume. Then bring her to the Prom. See how many guys ask her to dance. Or... try getting Kongella a blind date. Tell the prospective guy that you can't say much about her, but that she is only 2% different from all the hot chicks he knows. If he is dumb or desperate enough to still go on the date, see how he reacts when he sees her.
.
Take an ape or chimp to a preschool. Will it perform only 2% differently from the children there in terms of learning the alphabet, standing in line to go potty, drawing, coloring, singing, speaking? Will it have social skills that are only 2% below theirs? And will the children only be 2% different from the beast in terms of strength, hairiness, dentition - well, the list just goes on and on.
.
Evolutionism teaches you to drop your common sense on the floor as soon as they give you a "science" fact.
.
And btw, from the Colbert Show I saw a clip of Ken Miller - who is the most famous proponent of ape ancestry based on Chromsome 2's fusion - where he said that as a Roman Catholic he believes "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen." In this exact same time period he was running around the country giving lectures on the so called collapse of intelligent design. So...his Deity is dumb and design free, yet created all that is seen and unseen? Wow. What a miracle!
.
Anyone: You are not part ape. You are made in the image and likeness of your Creator, Who loves you and wants you to love Him, too, and to know Him for Who He is, the Father of Mercies. I know because, as a former atheist, He showed so much mercy to me.
I don't see why an Inteligent Designer (ID) should necessarily need to put in use 'supernatural processes' to create a life. An ID can use natural laws to create a life. But also those natural laws may support self-organization of life under suitable constraints. So, ID and spontaneous self-organization are both viable hypotheses on their own.
+TheGarrymoore "Rubbish" Think about what ID lunies are saying. They're saying the earth is 5000 years old, an utter fantasy, derived from the ignorant ramblings of a 17th century protestant bishop James, Ussher. They are saying God created all things in seven earth days. "Really"? Without resorting to metaphor, that is completely insane. They think the human eye is so complex it couldn't have been made without divine intervention, ridiculous, absurd, and utterly provably incorrect to any intelligent 12 year old science student.
What I think you may be getting at, is some cosmic multiverse, multidimensional occurrence that somehow sparked the ability, for amino acids, or other molecules to self replicate, leading to natural selection. Obviously in the world of theoretical physics, and theoretical biology, one can conceive of such possibility given the immensity of space time for it to occur. In the multiverse, theoretical world, all things are indeed possible. Unfortunately for you and me, we're presently stuck here in the temporal world of 21st century earth reality.
In an infinite universe, of infinite complexity, infinite abundance, infinite possibilities, anything, not only can happen, but does happen in all of it's theoretical forms , simultaneously, or chronologically. When you've got forever, what prevents it? Don't get trapped by these fools, into admitting the irresponsible fraud, and lunacy of a 5000 year old earth, and irreducible complexity.They are nuts, plain and simple. Don't let them get away with such ridiculous frauds that endanger us all by their criminally negligent denial of reality.
@@geezerdombroadcast Well well, here it is 6 years later. Do you still cling to the theory of evolution?
@@tmo4330 no one clings to the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact explained by one of the most powerful scientific theories in human history.
A lecture on how to give a lecture.
What the billions and billions cells do in my body and what I am as an individual are two completely different things. Do they (ab)use me to feed and replicate them?
I seek for a purpose in my existence called life, and I do not know if this has to do anything what the particles in my body do or want.
You can decide what your purpose is but chemistry created you.
No. You are 'emergent' from these billions off cells. There is no 'you' without them.
It's really that simple.
This is how i think it happened:
Lets say you have organic and inorganic molecules, together with energy.
The organic and inorganic molecules would start reacting. Then the spatial conformations, folding, hydrophobicity, would increase the 3D spatial complexity and equillibrium would have been difficult. Organic chemistry would react with inorganics and further increase the organic reserve and the 3D complexity. Then stable conformations would prevail (membrane covered entities, long nucleotides, packing, fast reacting components, division of heavy organic load containing membrane covered sacs, etc, etc, and so on) in a form of step-wise multi-focal evolution and chemical natural selection that would continue in the long term.
Now imagine that some portion of the end results like us are the observers. What would they see and how would they perceive the whole system? For an objective outsider observer the entire system would have been chaotic and he would not see machines that are trying to preserve themselves. But for an insider observer that is a part of the results, well.......he would have just cherry picked the anabolic reactions, (maybe separating into individual organisms, etc) and think that life is about order and self-organization.
minas s all conjecture no fact or way of showing it did
When people talk about the universe as 'designed' or 'created' they are really using apt and valid anthropomorphic analogies, but ultimately what is, is, and probably in some way, always has been. It corresponds to what humans understand as 'design' and 'creation,' but it is not exactly the same thing. It is the same with human concepts like, 'chance' and 'accident' or, 'spontaneous,' or 'random,' or whatever. Reality is kind of all such things and probably a great deal of shit we have never imagined. I mean, 'It just happens!' What does that even mean? It is typical Earth apes scratching their heads for comfort.
The fact matter has a self-organising principle is mysterious and miraculous per se. But of course, what is, is. Obviously it corresponds to human creation and design: the latter is obviously a reflection or image of the former. The fact you can point out how everything practically exploded from nothing into everything, including an intelligible world of intelligent beings, does not explain it or explain it away. Nobody has any idea why reality is or how it does what it does. We just know it does and point out how it does. Noting a marvellously ordered pattern within a plenum of infinite possibility does not exactly reduce the miraculous quality of the universe. As Blake said, history is nothing but miracle and prodigy, which we would say, was impossible, were it not always present before our eyes.
Welcome, please help me explain the origins of life .I will talk about the emergence of single cell objects . Please explain the phases of the (first cell) .These are compounds in the same cell
1-amino acids
2-peptides
3 - chains of nucleic acids
4-nucleotides
.Question Who is the former? Is it amino acids or nucleotides? .The second question is who is the former Are they nucleic acids or peptides? .There are contradictions in the stages of the components of life .We ask you to develop explanations for the origin of life .We ask you to develop explanations free of contradictions .Please send me my letter to biologists and chemistry
He begins seemingly flaky, but I suppose there are still supernatural lingerers so he is being thorough.
Can someone please tell me how or why it matters that there is any human life on this planet? How will it make a difference if there is or is not a god who created the universe? If there is a heaven or hell, will all the good animals go to heaven and all bad ones go to hell or will that only apply to the human species? If god does not interfere with what we do here on earth, what is the point in praying!, or is that just to make us feel good? Not only do I realize that I cannot comprehend the complexities of nature and the beginning of life, I realize that I am incapable of comprehending it. Finally why would a god create such a magnificent planet and then put such a flawed species such as humans on it to systematically destroy it? The only species on the planet who destroy the same very planet that provides for them.
That one definitely does not add up to me. At the end of the day, planet earth is just a tiny blue speck in the universe. I am in Australia and live with my dog away from the city with no TV, radio or buy newspapers. I watch wildlife and ants go about their business and I see no waste. I see mushrooms come up and push a stone out of the ground much heavier than it, an wonder how. I wonder how tiny seeds can lie submerged for years at the bottom of a dam, and when a drought comes weeds appear from nowhere. Mankind has accomplished much, but yet still unable to make a human hair grow on a bald man's head. 500 million rhinoviruses on the head of a pin makes the brain of an ant look big. All way over my head, but does it matter to me or my dog? I think not. So to all the atheists and believers just do the right thing by the planet and your fellow man and "nature " will do the rest and keep on wondering.
Any Origin of Life Theory that postulate that cells and cell membranes are required for a living systems is already off on the wrong foot. They aren't. The same "surface tension" produced by hydrogen bonding in water will produce the same compartmentalization; beads of pure water can sit on a surface of the same water- THAT is enough compartmentalization to allow a living *system* to endure. What IS required is a self-assembled liquid crystalline mineral *surface* that can act as a catalytic site for the CHIRAL assembly of a polymer. You heard me: the first living systems were *polymerases* that caused a templated reaction. It is also not appreciated that the weak nuclear force CAN be felt outside the atomic nucleus *when a regular array of atoms* reinforce the incredibly weak asymmetric electrical effects. Calculations have shown that the bias on peptide linkage assembly amounts to a 0.003% preference for levo-rotary assembly and dextro-rotary assembly for sugar linkages. And that is the origin of the handedness we see today. And that was LONG before cells evolved.
58:30 why would you use intelligent design when you could use evolution:
Who is choosing which one to use?
You choose. If someone wants to believe a man with a beard and a magic wand created the universe six thousand years ago be my guest. But don't expect us to accept the theory without evidence or possibility to falsify the idea.
Thunder and lightning where long times perfectly explained by angry gods.
And the hilarious part is that he was describing a controlled and directed form of evolution.
TKE EO 903! Wuts hatninin?!?!?!
Ever notice that every academic, intellectual, technologist, futurist, scientist... basically anyone giving a lecture...uses a MacBook Pro?
So what that suggests is that not only are Mac laptops cool, smart people use them...exclusively. Yes, I have a MacBook Pro. I bet you do too.
Ok, let the hating begin.
No need to hate. Just google "Louis Rossmann" :D
"Any one who thinks that they are smart is a loser." Stephen Hawking
The Earths' volume percentage of water to dirt and rock is just 0.02%: A slight variation in the percentage of moisture on each accumulating meteorite and the planet would be completely submerged under water. At 0.04%- double the current volume of oceans and lakes and rivers and ice- there would be only a few small islands of terra firma being the tops of the Himalayas, Andes and maybe the Alps. I suspect this may well have been the case - but for a planetary collision which gave us our moon. Earths water volume was pretty much complete at the time of impact, although the vast majority of it would have been atmosphere bound as the planets' surface was molten lava for the most part. Viewed from space the seething molten hell on Earth surface would have been completely concealed beneath a fluffy white cocoon of cloud about 50,000 feet thick.
The Mars sized impacting planet which threw a tremendous volume of earth into orbit - probably 2-3 times the volume of the current moon, with most of it falling back to earth - would also have blasted a massive volume of water - and atmosphere -into space - most of which would not fall back but would evaporate into space. It seems likely that the atmosphere on this planet would be similar to Venus in volume and pressure. In that case it may well have a similar runaway green house effect and the water volume would still be trapped in the atmosphere. The mother of all Finish Saunas!
That might be too simplistic. Not all the water that arrived on Earth sits on the surface today. There are multiple processes - maybe more water would result in more water lost to space and more entombed in bedrock, resulting in similar oceans. I'm not claiming that, just saying it's more complex than just adding water.
Also, maybe beside the point, based on isotopic analysis of cometary material, it's now disputed whether Earth's water could have come from comets.
Do any of these fairytales matter..? Who cares if a god created the universe or there was a big bang? We are just here to fuck the planet and doing a great job. Let's get on with the job at hand so we can get into the after dinner drinks.
There's no such thing as Gravity, as a FACT, even the air we breathe Debunks Gravity !
If you interested in these topics:
ruclips.net/video/ERR82MePb4g/видео.html
Take your spam and piss off.
@@mcmanustony Related topics, it should not be considered as spam.
Check out the references under the video and you will realise, what is this about.
I also encourage for you to act like a normal person.
Be polite takes you to longer roads.
Have a great day.
@@danielvarga_p Your post is spam and nothing else.
@@mcmanustony All right did you watch it and understand the references then the video?
I know where you come from and it is easy and might be necessary.
Time will tell, people will decide.
@@mcmanustony You took the time for comment. So let's make a thought experiment. If what I shared is related it would be allowed to do or not, how do you think?
To take an effort to comment is really easy to look into it not so much.
Action potential is instantaneous when electrolytes are present in a cell. Therefore, without electrolytes or action potential, a fully assembled "dry" cell would certainly not be a life-form. The only logical conclusion we can draw is, abiogenesis is spontaneous and therefore a fallacy.
_The only logical conclusion_? If correct all it proves is that particular model is wrong.
Organ Farm And no alternative is offered, thus tumbling evolution as a non starter.
Kevin Chamberlain
Huh? You make an assertion that implies that you believe that abiogenesis demands a fully assembled cell complete with electrolytes to kick off with. It doesn't. You have constructed a straw man.
Organ Farm Wrong! I say that if something has action potential, then the action potential is an immediate physical phenomena, and so could not have occurred over millions of years as claimed.
Kevin Chamberlain
Sorry. You're not at all clear. What is "action potential"? If its the ability to self organise then no, self organization is an important concept for initial abiogenesis. If you are talking about a functioning proto-cell how do you know how it would have worked?
Mr. Hazen is of a rare breed...a scientist respectful of those who conclude a creator is indispensable in the genesis of life.
"A sequence of emergent chemical events led to a Universe that is learning to know itself..." The man has just described an ORDER which is the opposite of randomness. ORDER means there's an intellect behind it, a guide. How then these people say the origin of Life is a random event is beyond me.
Some things are beyond me, too. The difference between us is that I recognize that as a shortcoming in myself rather than a shortcoming in those who understand these things better than I.
That has more to do with your misunderstanding - "randomness" is a misnomer - you need to do a little more homework before dismissing the experts who have thought about this long and hard. What we're learning is this "randomness" behaves within specific restrains in countless ways.
Here it comes down to your own goal. Do you want to learn about it; or do you just want to confuse and make fun of things you don't understand because they threaten your sense of self.
Order is a natural phenomena produced as the universe moves from simple and low entropy to simple and high entropy. It is the nature of physics... not intent. www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/10/07/67-kate-jeffery-on-entropy-complexity-and-evolution/
Random in the sense there’s no evidence of intent, of conscious purpose. Limestone forming is equally “random.”
This is 10 years old! All the conjecture, all the hand waving, and all the dogma about life emerging from synthetic chemistry is still not realized at any level. We are no closer to a breakthrough than Miller was 70 years ago. In fact, if anyrhing, we are farther away since biology has shown that the molecular processes of life are orders of magnitude more complex than was imagined even 10 years agp!
"biology has shown"- which biologists are you referring to? Published where?
@@mcmanustony Are you kidding? Go take a course in molecular biology 101. Everything you learn about DNA, RNA, transcription, translation, protein synthesis, transport mechanisms, cellular signaling pathways, vesicle transportation, electron transport chain ect.., ect.., ect.. was discovered or elucidated since Miller-Urey!! And the last ten years have seen breakthroughs in molecular imaging which have further elucidated the atomic interactions responsible for every one of these complex systems. The more they look the more complicated it became. That's why after after 70 years, OoL research is still trying to create bricks for a building nobody can even imagine how to build.
@@lastchance8142 take a seat and work on your manners.
Miller Urey was 70 years ago not 10.
Your path seems to be to mischaracterize then dismiss the entire field of OoL research and sit on your backside chanting “complexity therefore god”. I’m sure if your input is needed the research community will be in touch.
Make yourself comfortable
Yep it’s a hard problem. If you have a testable solution please publish it. People like James Tour promote this defeatist attitude that is antithetical to science.
@@mcmanustony Really? Where did I mention "god"? And yes, the video is 10 years old and virtually irrelevant now. I have a degree in biology and followed this science going on 50+ years. We are still clueless about the chemical origin of life, despite all our efforts. I'm sorry that you are ignorant of this fact.
The first step is how do you make the biomolecules - The first question is : why make the biomolecules. There was nothing in existence which had an understanding - or interest - in the construction of a final product of living tissue. The Earth produced a colossal array of random " jig-saw puzzle " pieces, until, inevitably, enough of them hapstancely clicked together to make a living organizm. Apparently.
Yes it’s called “chemistry”. Just chemistry we don’t understand yet.
He forgot to say light
This guy needs to talk to James Tour.
When Tour starts providing scientific explanations and mechanisms for his creation myths instead of just misrepresenting science as it is I'll listen again. Just repeating "no it isn't" or "it's magic" isn't enough.
Why? Tour would just shout at him and tell him to give up.
The world renowned chemist Dr. James Tour gives technical insight to just how ridiculous these claims and assumptions are.
I would love to see this guy have a debate with him.
he is not "world renowned chemist"
he is creationist lying about aspect of chemistry he knows nothing about.
I guess that you should make sure that Rice University in Houston Texas is on the loop, they have him as a professor of chemistry... You should also send a memo to Purdue Univ, Stanford Univ & Syraccuse Univ, you know, because of the Bs and Phds in Chemistry that they granted to him. Also make sure that the guys that give away the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (2008) and The Centenary Prize (2020), well, apparently the made a mistake also 😁😉😎🤣...
@@spatrk6634 Thank you for demonstrating your complete ignorance on the subject. Lol
@@nicoliderringer9990 you are completely ignorant.
he is like a plumber talking about how all car mechanics are scammers. and he claims to know it because cars have pipes.
you are so ignorant that you think he is world renowned scientists.
as i said, he is completely ignorant on origin of life research..
he uses his actual degree(which are usually non existant in creationist community) to lie to you about it, and he knows you will never check for yourself what origin of life research says.
so you will believe tour who says that origin of life is that life came from a rock, or similar retarded stuff
because he missed his profession, and went into science instead of priesthood.
but he missed part of science as well.
he is doing little molecular robots for a living. and in free time he is lying in churches about totally unrelated subjects so that he can evangelize.
@@spatrk6634 The guy in the video is a mineralogist. Lol
There was absolutely no reason to entertain religion in this lecture.
Why is that? Religions do love to make epistemic claims on the ontology of nature.
No shit.
There is zero chance for a chemical or mechanical beginning to life.
@@ThekiBoran Sorry Kroban3, but you are so wrong. That is exactly the attitude that's allowed the Faith-blinded-delusionals to create their alternate-reality uni-directional-faux "science" and sell it to so many fearful un-critical-thinking devotees.
K, I believe we sure as hell need to do more than entertain it! Lets start confronting it!
Don't look now but they have made an unholy union with the bully vandal known as Trump President of the US and they want to destroy rational thinking, replace it with absolutism, racism and their personal "God".
confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/12/confronting-faith-based-delusions.html
@@petermiesler9452
Nice speech but I make no claims as to the origin of life because I don't know and neither does anyone else. No scientist has shown how dead matter can self organize into living organisms. If you believe matter can spontaneously come to life please educate us.
Again, please leave religion out of this discussion unless that's your only argument.
1:20:07
did any scientist replicate even a unisingular organism in a laboratory? If anyone did, I will worship him
rjedommel poli Scientists don’t have billions of years. Nature does.
Question is still there,who is behind all of it
Problem with that question is that it leads to another. Who is behind the who is behind all of it?
If god "just is" then the universe can be "just is." Otherwise you have an infinite regress of gods.
"Self Organization " is deceptive.... like putting two magnets together... self organization is not life
Correct. It is nowhere near life.
@@rl7012 Who said otherwise?
@@mcmanustony Scientists who deliberately mislead as they know their abiogenesis theory is a fairy tale that could never have happened.
@@rl7012 you are a liar.
@@mcmanustony that's his "hypothesis"....
SO, if you don't want to sit through this fawning, dull, yawn of an introduction, the actual talk begins at 2:50.
The problem with creating life in a laboratory is that the result was intelligently designed and doesn't prove anything.
Didivs Ivlianvs It would prove that if the same or similar conditions were to naturally occur, life can start without the need for a supernatural sky wizard casting a magic spell. We can make diamonds also, because we understand the conditions that cause them to form naturally. That doesn't imply that diamonds are "intelligent designed", only that we understand the natural processes that cause them.
So basically you're saying that you would never accept any evidence for abiogenesis. Creationists always say "well you can't prove that it happened... you don't know you weren't there [therefore God]"... and I now keep reading that if we prove the concept in the lab (since the earth 3.5years ago is quite different to the earth of today) it won't be accepted as evidence of the plausibilty of abiogenesis? because the conditions needed to be intelligently designed... You have literally set yourself up so they never have to accept the evidence... becuase short of a time machine that's the only way we an get any...
I remind that these theories aren't trying to disprove God, they're testing the plausiblity of theoretical pathways between early earth geochemistry, and the origin of the first proto-cells.
That's just plain dumb.
try watching the lecture again. if you hold the same impressions even after watching it more than 10 times....just give up. Observing how simple rules in nature force matter to self organize in experiments which simulate possible conditions...has nothing to do with intelligent design mate.
@@damianclark1763 You write "if we prove the concept in a lab..." Exactly-that's the problem. You need to create a lab, and in fact you also need to create the concept of a lab.
The materials are all around us...but how do they turn into houses? (I have a bias against intelligent intervention) it's such a mystery!
We are even further away today from discovering how life arose than when this video was made because of our increasing knowledge.
The more we learn, the more difficult the problem comes.
You appear not to have the faintest idea what you're talking about. What's that like?
Exactly. The target is moving further away from us the more we learn.
@@mcmanustony
Please explain?
@@andrewdouglas1963 We know more than we did. Hazen's work on mineralogy shows that naturally occurring conditions near hydrothermal vents can produce large numbers of organic molecules necessary for life. John Sutherland and Matthew Powner have demonstrated the natural synthesis of nucleotides. Lee Cronin has shown chemical pathways to prebiotic molecules in the absence of complex catalysts
I suspect your "increasing knowledge" is heading towards "goddidit".
@@mcmanustony
RNA and DNA are complex and exact codes that work with in only very specific parameters.
It is impossible for these codes to write themselves.
Codes are a written language that transfer information back and forth to various recipients.
Codes are exclusively authored by intelligence.
"How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …
There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”
Paul Davies,
_"We take it as an assumption there is a natural process by which you can go from geochemical simplicity to biological complexity"_ None such process has been demonstrated to date September 2022.
On emergent complexity he mentions stars and galaxies.. well that also failed to even get a suitable mathematical model;
*STAR FORMATION Dr David Wallace 2009:*
_"So: suppose we consider a large, cold gas cloud. If the total energy of the
cloud is positive, expansion will always increase its entropy; this is probably
unsurprising, as the average velocity of the gas particles exceeds the escape
velocity. If it is negative, it may be entropically favourable for the cloud to
contract somewhat, but the effect is not normally that marked: for instance, on
this model even a cloud which begins at absolute zero will only contract to half
its initial radius before reaching its maximum-entropy state."_
And gravity presents another problem..
*BIG BANG Gravity Problem:*
1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation
2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite
3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny
4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light
5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon
6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg
7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2
8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs
9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter
10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known
11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..*
*The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*
Then Sir Fred Hoyle wrote 'The Mathematics of Evolution'
*SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution:*
1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist
2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution)
3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection;
4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_
5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution
6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_
7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_
8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle
9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ?
10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem
11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!*
It's interesting to hear this talk about the how small things can multiple. Small things which can't be seen without special equipment. The best place to understand about the origin of life is the book given to us by the Holy God who made the World and everything in it.
Hoyle was a crank regarding evolution...and many other things too. Try reading some work of people who actually work in these fields. It might help you with your ignorance and hysteria.
@@mcmanustony But you can't say where Hoyle was wrong?
BUTTERFLIES Falsify Evolution:
1- The butterfly has two distinctly different body plans
2- Only the second one has the means of fertilisation and reproduction
3- Evolution assumes it evolved from a creature with one body plan and its own means of fertilisation and reproduction
4- The second body plan cannot function until it is complete in both a male and a female simultaneously
5- Evolution must develop complimentary second body plans in male and female by random mutations without the aid of natural selection over generations
6- Evolution cannot by definition develop a whole body plan without the benefit of natural selection contradicting the basis of the theory
7- It is fanciful to imagine the random process could time the moment of transfer of the complex reproductive mechanism from the first to the second body plan in both a male and female to coincide exactly at the moment when those body plans were complete!
8- _"We can often learn about evolution from the fossil record, but there are relatively few butterfly fossils. Those that do exist, like the 40-million-year-old Prodryas persophone, are remarkably similar to modern-day forms-so the fossil record sheds little light on the origin of today's butterflies."_ American Museum of Natural History
*Evolution by Natural Selection is falsified by contradiction of its most basic premise!* Q.E.D.
METAMORPHOSIS by David Klinghoffer:
_"If one wanted an example of a biological system that could never be explained by natural selection, butterfly metamorphosis would stand at the head of the line."_
Alfred Russel Wallace;
_"Contemplating butterflies was among the considerations that drove evolutionary theory’s codiscoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, to doubt the sufficiency of natural selection to account for the most wondrous aspects of animal life."_
_"In The World of Life, Wallace wrote of how he could satisfyingly account for this only as a feature intended by design"_ *"to lead us to recognize some guiding power, some supreme mind, directing and organizing the blind forces of nature in the production of this marvellous development of life and loveliness"*
@@mikebellamy The mathematics has nothing to do with reality. That has been explained to you before.
There is no evidence supporting panspermia. He is wrong.
Given that there are tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, botanists, zoologists, anthropologists, biophysicists, mathematicians etc. who WORK on evolutionary biology, your morbid obsession with a distinguished astronomer and astrophysicist who did ZERO actual scientific work on evolution is pretty funny.
The evolution of new genes has been observed and is explained by evolution- not by Hoyle
You’re very incensed about something you don’t think is true. Either it’s true or it isn’t. Wanting doesn’t figure into it.
I have no problem at all with investigating the complexities of living things, and naturally it seems to me, those operating on the premise of coming to understand how it could have arisen "spontaneously" on a primitive earth, examine the complexities of living things. I do have some problem with assuming progress toward a demonstration that it did arise "spontaneously", simply because what is learned/discovered on that postulate gives rise to various hypotheses which incorporate some of the "details" observed. Obviously, it seems to me, that simply because it is extremely complex and is something going on within in the material world, there will be component aspects that lead to such hypotheses, whether or not it arose spontaneously.
The ongoing discovery that what is going on, is vastly more "sophisticated" than anything ever imagined, is the (muted) truth of the matter, it seems to me. Which is to say that it has become far less likely to have arisen spontaneously with what has been observed, than it was with what was expected to be observed. A few "basic building blocks" laying around, seems about as relevant to life commencing, as they are to a fusion reactor commencing. Handy perhaps, but hardly a proof-of-concept demonstration.
Given your relentless posting of this word salad, you seem to think you're on to something. You're not.
"Spontaneously"- by which you mean: in the absence of the supernatural. Maybe you can think on an example of a physical phenomenon where a natural scientific explanation has been superseded by a supernatural one of greater explanatory power. I can't.
Given your relentless posting of this word salad, you seem to think you're on to something. You're not.
"Spontaneously"- by which you mean: in the absence of the supernatural. Maybe you can think on an example of a physical phenomenon where a natural scientific explanation has been superseded by a supernatural one of greater explanatory power. I can't.
Thank you! I am now believing in ID
lol good one
Conclusion: nobody knows how life emerged.
Correction: life did not emerge, it was spoken into existence. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
There you have it, time, space and matter were created by God all at once.
This is a video of science. It's clearly above your paygrade. Go play with your invisible friends elsewhere.
Eru Iluvatar, supreme being of the universe gave rise to all creatures.
its all written in the books of Lord of the Rings.
@@spatrk6634A better cosmology than the Christian one
This guy is talking about molecules. Why the religious butthurt? You don't believe in molecules now?
Reminds me of God and scientists trying to make a man from mud. God said uh-uh. You get your own mud. So you break up RNA and you get self-replicating molecules that you can use for selection. God said get your own RNA and stop using mine.
Didivs Ivlianvs I guess you think god made Teflon, kevlar, plastic, vaccines and plutonium too? did he also make liver cancer, botulism, gangrene, small pox, aids, parasites and hep c? Or, maybe he let the devil use his dirt to make those. What a nice guy.
+James waltemath - if you believe in gods, then you'll find explanations for everything, with "mysterious ways" bringing up the rear. Never a problem. No one ever dropped their faith when one its facts didn't own out. Au contraire, since there is no rational premise to dislodge, accepting and even grappling with falsehoods only reinforces faith.
Not just gods, of course. 9/11 truthers can explain everything too. So can committed communists, and free market fanatics, and people who believe Elvis Lives. With zealots, there's no such thing as disproof, only blasphemy.
try reading different books Sidivs.... Reading the bible won't help your epistemology on life.
Let’s realize ancient faiths are fading away and stop bringing up this old mistaken anti-science stuff.
What we still ignore is mostly how the immaterial genetic coding of RNA/DNA occurs (is created?) naturally in order to figure out how it all started. It's one thing to say where the first living cell came from or how it came about, but the information is primary, without the DNA sequencing in the nucleus of the cell, how does the cell know what to do? Someone or something has to code that information, right? People will say, if you wait long enough everything will happen, even life from lifelessness. I say once you have that living cell you need to preserve it somewhere or it will die, then you need to start over . . . how does nature know how to start over. In the lab nobody has come close to creating a simple living cell, NOBODY. The closest we've come is a simple nanotech machines doing simple things. Nowhere as complicated as a living cell. Yet somewhere in some pond on some planet it happened. The only way to explain this is thru intelligent design. Call it God or whatever you want, there had to have been some divine intervention.
Just listen to Dr. James Tour, the world's foremost authority on Bio-synthetic chemistry,
@
A cell doesn't "know" anything.......good grief......
Tour does not work in this area. His expertise isn't in Bio anything. He is in synthetic organic chemistry- outside of that area his antics are an utter professional disgrace- not least for his nurturing of a claque of science hating ignoramuses such as yourself.
It’s just chemistry. The immaterial is an incoherent concept. If I can write out some chemical reaction on paper, does that make that reaction immaterial?
In the end, this will shake out religion on a big scale. Because religion has no evidence behind the position. Hope they find out how life emerged from chemical procesesses.
Eh they’ll just move god back to the next pocket of ignorance
What a crying shame that so much time gets wasted on superstitions and associated woo woo.
cheers
or youtube comments.
believe in yourself
Origins science hasn't moved forward in 60 years. It's a dead end pursuit.
Meanwhile there are great advances in genomic research and other evolutionary science based medical advancements that scientifically ignorant people still get to benefit from.
@@eschwarz1003
Enlighten us rubes as to how evolutionary theory moves forward medical research. Do you have a specific example that shows a breakthrough in medicine because of an assumption about our development over time?
"The emergence of life on Earth"
Well, the creator of animals thought and thought and came up with different sequences of nucleotide bases for different kinds of animals and then popped them into existence.
I thought you all were supposed to be about the facts, and real science. None of this actually works or adds up.
Unless it was immortal, how did the first life form live long enough to be able to evolve the ability to recreate itself?
It didn't need to be immortal, just to live long enough. And maybe the first one didn't live long enough. Maybe the first billion didn't live long enough. One did.
You fail to ask the right question.
Most of what you say is almost right, but mostly it is not starting at the right place.
You look at RNA DNA and amino acids and proteins.
You ramble on and ramble on about events that happened much later than self replicating molecules.
You fail to notice that there needs to be a source of energy to drive the life process.
Before you have anything before you have RNA, you need an energy source.
You speculate about random connections between molecules, you could not be more wrong.
The energy for all and every form of life is to this very day, driven by proton gradients.
Without a source of energy life is not possible.
Law of entropy requires a flow of energy for complexity to self assemble.
In the deep oceans were alkaline proton energy gradients inherent in flow of deep water ocean vents, the structure of the vents had pores the size of cells. The self replicating molecules had a source of energy in the proton gradients between the alkaline water in the vents and the ocean water. Within the pores the first self replicating molecules formed , essentially they are viruses , then the first cells could form to be released into the ocean. Most of the first cells failed but eventually the cells in the pores of the vents competetivly evolved to be able to survive when they escaped their home in the vent pores.
Live self replicating cells are born.
1. Virus's need life to exist first, they cannot precede it. Virus's need cells in order to reproduce.
2. You went from self replicating molecules forming, to cells forming. What? The step between a molecule and a cell forming is MASSIVE. Molecules do not just turn into cells. Let alone loads of cells. Cells are incredibly complex and superbly engineered creations that need millions of different parts to be formed by many different bio molecules all to be assembled in sequence specific order. You can't say here is a molecule that could be used as a bio molecule and then magic it into a cell.
@@rl7012 "You can't say here is a molecule that could be used as a bio molecule and then magic it into a cell"- Isn't that what Jesus did?
If cells are so superbly "engineered" why is so much of our genome junk?
I get there is a soup. I get there are ingredients in the soup. Who got the ingredients right and who did the stirring? Who sipped it? Random? How much time you got? How much time do you need? Random, right? So no chef, just some idiot throwing in ingredients and some idiot stirring. Like monkeys at typewriters, I first thought an INFINITE number of pairs would end up with a copy of War and Peace at some point. Now I understand all you get is an infinite amount of banana peels and an infinite amount of monkey shit. War and Peace ain't happening. But a Darwinian tells his prospective graduate students "Believe, Science, believe me."
That is the most utterly hopeless strawman mangling of the theory of evolution I have ever seen.
Well done
Good god….
Natural Selection is another way of saying random inevitability. Perhaps Darwinians are mangling the story of life, yes? If only I could find the missing link in the great chain of being....
@@CPHSDC "Natural Selection is another way of saying random inevitability"- yes, an ill thought out and hopelessly inaccurate way. Natural selection is the OPPOSITE of random.
I hate to break it too you but.....Darwin died. Some time ago. It was in all the papers.
Have you tried reading books?
Make your point and I'll confirm it in the book of your choosing. Otherwise you are unclear as shit, literally.
He's ignoring consciousness and talking about self constructing molecules. Even if we stick to his scientific limitations, we got issues.
There are missing links so evolution is not the whole story. Example : How did a swordfish hunt when the sword was half evolved? too many examples of such jumps in evolution that are unexplained.
It half stunned baitfish with its half evolved sword. But in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Add 4.5 billion years into the equation and if you can comprehend that, then you should be able to work out how the swordfish got by with only half a sword. Maybe his mate had the other half.
@@davidflaws8994 Maybe mate had the other half and between them, they got the job done. ..just a thought 😊
@@bartholomewchuzzlewit4356 Did you only read the last part???
@@ashwadhwani no, I have watched so many different scientific and religious takes on this that it simply doesn't matter what is right and what is wrong. How it is possible for all the different species to know instinctively what there role they have to play to my mind at least, is beyond comprehending. I simply cannot see why it matters if there is a heaven or hell or a god who created the universe. There is overwhelming evidence of evolution everywhere, but does it matter how it all started? Not to me it doesn't. My take is that life is no more than survival of the mind. Keep your mind occupied and the body healthy and accept your lot. If you believe in god, good luck to you but don't try to force it on to other people.
If the development of real life happened with such ease in a primordial soup, not a clean laboratory with lab coat personnel purchasing every component perfectly synthesized ready to go. Then just go do it out in a dirty puddle somewhere that would be real science
then I could believe something you’re saying, otherwise this absolute nonsense
From the forming of the planet the emergence of life too 700,000,000 years.
Why do you voluntarily make such a fool of yourself with such jaw droppingly stupid comments?
Only James Tour makes that argument and it never made sense there either. When ever does life make use of laboratory pure chemicals? James Tour thinks chemistry can only happen like in his lab.
Yes there is a flood of chemistry and that is a disaster for all the right conditions to come together. After they do, if they do, time is your enemy. I hope your molecule kept notes before entropy breaks it down or it randomly combines with the numerous elements in its very non-sterile environment. Replication of those first critical conditions is mandatory for life to begin.
Molecules have never been shown to move towards life, The fact he is trying to say let's take that as a given shows he does not understand organic chemistry
I think he may have a better grasp than some belter on RUclips
@@mcmanustony does not talk about the homochirallty issue, skip happly over the fact that many systems depend on each other, so they have to be formed at the same time, I could go on, he is telling half the story
@@brianclark2542 He also doesn't talk about Sunderland winning the FA Cup in 1973. Szostak addresses the chirality issue elsewhere. You'd probably sneer at him for not addressing something else....
@@mcmanustony are you for real?, recemic aminos are all we have been able to make using earth like conditions 3 billion years ago
@@brianclark2542 And you've checked out Szostak?
What a rubbish argument. I don't think he believes his own theory himself and he would be right not to as it is weak, full of holes, full of presumption and full of the same old same old just mixed up.
Ro Lo are you talking about Darwinism? Because it IS full of holes
@@byronshutt Darwinism is totally full of holes. It is mostly holes. I can't believe that people still believe it as even a five year old could see right through that rubbish theory.
@@rolo5424 : And yet, evolution by natural selection is the most widely accepted and most robust theory in all of science despite your inability to understand or accept it.
@@lrvogt1257 I am not questioning evolution, I am questioning first life. Evolution didn't make first life did it? If you think it does then you are the one who has no understanding of it. And micro evolution I s self evident, but macro evolution is not. There are no tradition fossils. Fact.
@@rolo5424 : Wow. Did you forget your own words already? They are just above in the comments. It was you who just wrote about Darwinism which is evolution by natural selection and has nothing to do with abiogenesis. And you are wrong about it.
My goodness, gravity alone cannot develop and maintain a spiral galaxy. Electric currents and their subsequent magnetic fields are critical to just about everything we observe in space. The 26 letters of our alphabet are highly complex data bits but say nothing without a very high level of prescribed instructions. Life is far more complex and chiral purity is an enormous issue.
You’re not aware of ANY solutions to the chirality issue?
Biological life could not originate and evolve randomly or cycle by cycle on planets or other non-star modern flying bodies of universe because it would require too many try and error cycles. There are not enough resources in the universe for such a huge number of cycles. For example, let’s consider a big protein molecule that consists of 40000 atoms. The number of atom types is 10. This is close to reality. Let’s replace network structure of the molecule with chain structure. The molecule becomes simpler. To obtain the right
molecule structure 10 in power of 40000 cycles is needed. Let’s say a genome consists of only the gene for this molecule. The number of tests to obtain the right sequence is 10 in
powers of 40000 that are equal the same number of test tubes to check if it is right. Testing lasts 10 billion years. The average lifespan of (non-activated human) neutrophils in the circulation is about 5.4 days. The number of atoms in the universe is 10 in power of 70. Let’s assume that we need 1 atom for a test tube (In reality many more). Let’s count the possible number of tests generations 10000000000*365/5.4=675925925925. If we multiply it by number of atoms we obtain a number that is considerably smaller than 10 in power of 40000.
well you don't understand chemistry do you....
lol....what are you talking about deckuofm. Did you receive a Nobel Prize for your "math" lol.
Evolve "randomly"? what does that even mean dude?
Consider that the human is a product of an intelligent creator with an intellect far superior to the human's. Examining the complexity of just one system within the human body certainly confirms we are not the result of a random occurrence like the big bang theory. I have never understood why it has to be an "either/or" debate of evolution or creation - consider that we were created to evolve. You sure are going to extremes in your attempt to avoid creation as our origin when creation does not have to be confined to this entity they call "God" that has always been linked to "religion." Maybe God is just an extraterrestrial - and the only reason God has to be religious in nature is because scientists say it does. The Bible has been translated by so many people from one language to another that it makes sense a lot of information has been lost through translation. If one really wants to understand what was originally written and said in the text, then they should learn Aramaic and explore reading the Dead Sea Scrolls which allegedly is where the original text in The Bible was obtained from. Proof of the existence of God is simply acquired - just look at the complexity within us and realize we indeed are a product of an intelligent creator named God - for to believe we could be the result of random chance with the complexity inherent within, makes no sense. Remember that the only limitation is your imagination ... and He gave you that too!
you are filling gaps in your knowledge with this "god"
instead of saying i have no idea, you say god did it
you have no other reason to believe god even exist.
besides the fact that it helps you sleep at night because it fills your ignorance with make believe knowledge.
In light of the Great Silence in the rest of the galaxy, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the origin of life is any kind of very simple chemical process. We should be looking for a ten-sigma fluke, or we would be seeing evidence of alien civilizations.
How close are we to wiping ourselves out? Will it be global climate change, pollution or nuclear war?
Stop! The emergence of life, whether it is as easy as simple chemical reactions or a more complicated and rarer and yet undiscovered process, has no bearing on whether or not intelligent and technologically advanced life will emerge or survive long enough to be detected.
All indications are that life on Earth began about 4.2 billion years ago, and it took 4.1998 billion years (about 1/3 the apparent age of the universe) before the homo sapien genus emerged, and yet it took another 200 thousand years before the homo sapien genus developed advanced technology and began transmitting signals detectable from beyond Earth.
How many extinction level events had to occur on Earth for life to diversify enough and to allow for the homo sapien genus to arise? 5. And as a species we are causing what might be the 6th extinction level event that may in fact end our species in the next 50-100 years, not to mention the different historical geopolitical events and natural events that posed considerable risk of eliminating our species.
The Kepler satellite scanned a small patch of the galaxy, observed over 500,000 stars and only detected just over 2,000 confirmed planets, 550 of those are potentially rocky planets and only 9 of those planets were in their star's "habitable" zone.
The fact is, even if the emergence of life is extremely easy, it takes time for intelligent life to arise, many factors can impede the emergence of intelligent life and even bring it to premature extinction, there is the apparent rarity of habitable planets for life as we know it, and then there is the vast empty distance of space between star systems that detectable signals have to travel for us to actually detect them, not to mention that the signals get exponentially weaker the farther they travel (inverse square law), so the chances of us detecting an intelligent alien civilization without developing faster than light travel and leaving the Earth are extremely low to non existent.
These self-styled geniuses all have long-winded 'theories' about how, on a sterile planet bathed in lethal solar radiation; Life somehow 'spontaneously generated' itself into existence from a random mix of inert chemicals ….
BUT ….
None of them can demonstrate that their theory works can they ?
We will 😃
Why don't you spend less time sneering in pitiful ignorance and more time trying to salvage an education.
@@mcmanustony
Rather than merely hurling personal abuse at those questioning your chosen belief system; why don't you simply cure my supposed 'ignorance' by explaining how/why/where those first self-replicating living cells 'spontaneously generated' themselves into existence from a random collection of inert chemicals ?
Perhaps you avoid this question because you know full well that it's utterly unanswerable by the ideology you clearly look upon as modern-day 'gospel truth' ??
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
OverviewDescription and terminologyAntiquityMiddle AgesModern testsSee also
Spontaneous generation is a body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from non-living matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapewormsarose f…
@@cedricworthingtonbroadaxe2287 If you don't like having your atrocious manners questioned why not work on having better manners? If you start bumping your gums about "self styled geniuses" when you've not the faintest idea what you're talking about, you'll get what you deserve.
The earliest life dates to 3.8 billion years ago. Why do you use language like "spontaneously generate themselves"? Do ice crystals spontaneously generate themselves?
The collection of chemicals on the early earth gave rise to life- somehow. Why do you say "random"? There are known laws of physics and chemistry that account for many of the steps involved- formation of lipids: easy, bilipid membranes: easy, amino acids: easy, homochiral from racemic mixtures: less easy but understood....etc. Your approach is: complex therefore god. Thankfully no one takes or gives a toss about your approach.
Your comments about gospel truth are just pathetic. NOTHING in science is beyond question or considered "gospel". Darwin was wrong about: the mechanism of inheritance, whales evolving from bear like mammals and much more besides. What he got wrong was tossed decades ago. Maybe stop trying to learn science from the backs of cereal packets and give books a chance.
@@mcmanustony
An interesting reply from which I'm lost for choice as to which points to develop, so; I'll go for the simplest two:-
1.
"Your comments about gospel truth are just pathetic." ???
These words are a perfect illustration of the sheer narrow minded bigotry exhibited by both sides of the Evolution versus Divine Creation debate.
Why ?
Because as I'm prepared to question the possibility of 'spontaneous generation'; you've immediately jumped to the completely erroneous conclusion that I'm a Bible/Koran based Divine Creationist; which is so wildly wrong it's pathetic. I've no more time for the magical/mystery type Bronze Age/Medieval Era interpretations of humanities ancient memories than you have. I'm actually an advocate of Francis Crick's Panspermia Theory; explained in the article shown below (and many others! ):-
Directed panspermia Francis Crick Leslie Orgel PANSPERMIA ...
www.panspermia-theory.com/panspermia-theories/directed-panspermia
The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally. Crick posed that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, could be loaded on a brace of …
2a.
"The collection of chemicals on the early earth gave rise to life- somehow." ???
Meaning that despite all the waffle about lipids, amino acids etc …. you (just like every devout believer in 'Evolutionary Theory' including Richard Dawkins) haven't actually got a clue as to how something as awesomely complex/precise as the DNA/Code of Life, could possibly have fallen together by random chance.
Dr. Dawkins, Tear down This Wall! | Answers in Genesis
answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/dr-dawkins-tear-down-this-wall
18/04/2008 · The film’s entry into the culture war, ... Dawkins admits that science knows nothing about the origin of life itself. But he startles Stein even more when he announces the possibility that life and its apparent design could have been the result of intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe (who themselves had evolved, he adds).
2b.
Francis Crick was also a convinced Atheist, but having researched the DNA/Code of Life, was so shocked at it's awesome chemical/biological and genetic complexity that he ultimately proposed the Panspermia Theory to prevent the world's religious establishments from using his discovery to destroy the credibility of 'Abiogenesis'; upon which the whole materialistic Atheistic world order rests.
What is the theory of directed panspermia? | GotQuestions.org
www.gotquestions.org/directed-panspermia.html
26/04/2021 · One early promoter of directed panspermia was Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of DNA. A committed atheist, Crick once resigned from a collegiate position because the college elected to build a chapel. Crick found his belief in an undesigned, naturally-controlled universe challenged by …
You cannot resist the facts and the logic:
THIS WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY AN INTELLIGENT AND ALMIGHTY BEING, GOD.
The Solar system, this magnificent planet Earth, every plant, animal and
human has a well-considered / thoughtful structure. That means an
Intelligent Being created them all, not blind nature. For the building
particles - atoms and molecules COULD NOT organize themselves in such
a way to cause a rose to form, or a deer, or a girl - with all the
complex organs and systems they have. Even in a billion years!
Therefore , a Creator, a Designer, an Architect really exists. There
is no other way.
(Evolution is NOT confirmed by the fossils)(Radiocarbon dating is NOT reliable)(Cosmic panspermia just shift the problem).
THE WORLD CREATOR SPEAKS TO THE PEOPLE AND ACTS.
Information about His words and deeds has been collected in the Bible.
Predictions of important events many centuries before they happen
prove this book comes from God. No one else could know the world
history in advance.
THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE IN ALL TIMES.
God, the Creator of all things, guarantees (in the Bible) complete
forgiveness of the sins and eternal life to everyone who (first)
repents, rejects lies, thievery, murder, lechery as well as everything
that is wrong, (second) believes in Jesus Christ and confesses him as
a Lord and Savior. 2000 years ago, Christ came to Judea according to
the plan of God to accept upon himself the punishement we deserve for
our sins. Even though not guilty, Jesus was beaten, insulted and
killed on the cross - to pay our debt to God. Three days later he rose
from the dead and all power in heaven and on earth was given to him.
Everyone who accepts these terms of God must be baptized and take part
in Eucharist with Christians. When the determined time comes such a
person (no matter alive or asleep in death) will be given a new body
not subject to disease and death any more.
All authority of God stands behind this promise!
Put all your problems in prayer in the name of Christ and soon you
will realize that He is a real person. And a very good friend !
Christ will return to Еarth to judge the people. A lot of signs
indicate the event will be soon.
Note: Fortune-tellers, astrologers, magicians, soothsayers/spiritists,
"aliens" (masked demons, evil spirits) and similar to them have nothing in common with God and Christ. On the contrary - they are servants of Satan whose purpose is to deceive and
ruin. Be on your guard !
I have an anthology/collection of quotes "50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists for Their Faith in God."
They all believe in an intelligent Creator of the Universe, and many of them are convinced Christians.
Newton: "This extremely beautiful system, which includes the Sun, planets and comets, could have emerged solely as a result of the design and decision of an Intelligent and Almighty Being."
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (London, 1687)
Newton: "I firmly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, written by inspired men, and I study it every day." (Cited in Tiner, 1975)
Einstein: "I want to know how God created this world." ("Einstein: The Life and Times" by Ronald Clark, London, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1973, p. 33)
Einstein: Interview for Amer. magazine "The Saturday Evening Post" (26 oct. 1929)
"- Do you think that Jesus is a historical person?
- Certainly. It is impossible for a person to read the Gospels without feeling the real presence of Jesus. His personality is evident in every word. "
(Einstein, cited in Viereck, 1929).
All unsubstantiated claims. You have every right to believe absolutely anything you choose but until you can actually demonstrate some mechanism and some source you've told us exactly nothing and there is no reason to take the idea seriously.
only one here who is resisting facts and logic is you.
going on videos that you dont want to hear and trying to reinforce your beliefs
What a waste of time, energy, and money, this is. Our tax money should be used to feed the poor and down cast.
Basic science is absolutely essential to the well-being and advancement of humanity.
@@lrvogt1257 Science is great and God given and yes essential, to our mental and physical well being.
Science is not so great for our Spirit man, especially when the atheistic scientist, uses it to try and prove God is a myth. Many people are unwilling and unable to believe God exists. Furthermore consider the evil brought by man using science wrongly. Even so called Christians using it amiss.
@@peterbarjona6150 : Atheism is not about disproving god. It is only that god has not been proven. Big difference. People will use whatever is at hand to their advantage. That includes science and religion. I have seen no personal or historic evidence whatsoever that the religious behave any better or worse than anyone else.
@@lrvogt1257 From your first sentence, right up to, " That includes science and religion," is not what I said.
Furthermore some scientists use science to prove God, that works for me to a degree. When I see hateful, mocking , atheist scientists, using Darwin's faulty theory of evolution, which Darwin himself admitted was never, complete, and he had no way of completing it, doesn't work for me. What is more disturbing is it's piled on in the educational programs and schooling from kindergarten right on up through university and beyond. By the same token, most religion is faulty as well, including many so called Christian false doctrines. Same as false science, especially when it becomes religious, and it does in many disciplines.
I agree with your last sentence, for sure, and there is much more that can be said on that subject.
Your short third sentence "Big difference." True in some cases. Second sentence, sounds more like Agnostic to me. I have no problem with your first and second sentence, when the scientist, admits he is shooting in the dark. I don't know many, if any that will admit that. Both religions become corrupt for the love of money, as i'm sure you know.
When all is said and done, I stand by my original statement, what a waste of tax money, which would be better used to help the poor. If science was funded by it's advocates, the way missionaries are funded by it's adherents, that would make more sense in my opinion.
@@peterbarjona6150 : It sounds to me like America needs a much better education system.