Shortly after the talk, Dr. Sahai was instructed to write "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." on the blackboard 500 times.
+bloui1033 *HILARIOUS*! And she still got it wrong after using "carefully selected" as if that's a mode of natural selection. We know that is what intelligence does when things need to be done properly and correctly, trying to leave no room for error.
I can almost taste the fear that you and all creationists have. It's been repeated thousands of times in history. You can no longer attribute god to something in nature or explain nature with your hero. God's involvement, responsibility and credit has been shrinking steadily and you are scared shit-less that soon the very essence of what you are and where you came from is caused by nothing but incomprehensible, mind-less, soul-less material processes.
Jonathan A. I second this. gods ass gets kicked out of one gap, and he goes running off to hide in the next. science will hunt him down and banish him from any gap remaining. the pattern can only sustain for a limited time...infirmation age has arrived, times up 🤗
I was going to kick some Ghost Worshiper ass but I see that a couple of commenters already humiliated them. Funny how their God refuses to help them avoid embarrassment. You'd think He would at least give them some hints. It almost seems like ... He isn't really there.
Roby - You should listen to Dr. James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, discuss the impossibility of life emerging from non-life. Also Michael Behe, mathematician David Berlinski on Darwin’s delusion. So tired of hearing nonsense talks like this. Life emerged from a primordial soup. No it didn’t. Academia - stop lying to people to perpetuate your pride and grant funding. You have no clue.
@@lawnmowerman716 Tour does not work on the Origin of Life. He is a synthetic organic chemist who does not know this field. Behe is a mundane biochemist whose research was completely mainstream and dried up years ago. His fame rests on pop science books that have been taken to pieces by his peers- some from his own department. Berlinski is not and never has been a mathematician- or a scientist of any kind. You could do better than sitting on your duff calling scientists "liars" because their work conflicts with your religious fanaticism.
@@mcmanustony these are ad hominem arguments which are logical fallacies and therefore are unpersuasive. You cannot refute their arguments so you’re attacking their background. The corollary to this is “everyone important I know whose been indoctrinated in OOL believes this-they even have PhDs.” That is a logical fallacy also-the ad populism fallacy and Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Again, you have to actually interact with the facts presented by these brilliant scholars and make a counter-argument. That takes critical thinking skills and judgment. You have failed to do that in this post, just succeeded in using lots of classic fallacies.
It amazes me how so many people who know the answer to everything scientific before they even hear the problem come to proclaim the wisdom of pre-Iron Age myth-makers (who explained how the Creator separated the water in the sky from the water below the earth. Shouldn't you guys be working on the problems in your field, like how a benevolent all knowing and powerful creator ended up with a world full of evil? Or is that explained by a woman eating a fruit?
Excellent presentation. Anyone questioning the 'scientific method' or the natural and spontaneous origin of the molecules of life (vs mythology) should remember two things (1) While all the answers are far from being 'in', look at how much has been figured out and not by means of some mystic but by science (2) While the exact mechanisms and sequences have not been unravelled (most people don't even know much about their own family tree back, say 10 generations) think of the various hypothesis that can now be eliminated by this research - my point being that its complicated and we have lost all most all of the evidence through billions of years and yet we are still making progress. Nita got it right with the key step - hope. Unfortunately, just as we are on the brink of understanding our molecular origins, more energy and funding is going into our mutual self destruction. Please do not vote for Trump. Time is very limited. Climate change must be addressed - now. Cheers.
If you're like me and wondering what everyone is fussing about, go to 48:40 and listen for a couple of sentences. She stumbles over the phrase "we need to use intelligent design" and then is corrected by someone in the audience with "careful selection." It is kind of sad that she can't even say it.
hbk - You are proof that God doesn't exist. No God would have ever allowed anyone as ignorant as you to survive the period of impregnation. My guess is that, had your father been more skilled with that coat hanger, you wouldn't be here - stinkin' up the joint.
neo theskepticarena - Thank you for all you've done in proving the truth of atheism to me. Your belligerent, hateful comments sure did the trick of persuading me to disavow not only a belief in God, but every positive experience I've ever had to due to my belief in God. Great job!
amosclan, you wrote, "If you're like me and wondering what everyone is fussing about, go to 48:40 and listen for a couple of sentences. She stumbles over the phrase "we need to use intelligent design" and then is corrected by someone in the audience with "careful selection." It is kind of sad that she can't even say it." Good catch. This is the segment: th-cam.com/video/CeVk9yC0_vk/w-d-xo.htmlm40s Her brief candor reminds me of the time Richard Dawkins, during a conversation with Steven Weinberg, revealed he is not an atheist. This is Dawkins:
_"I don't believe in God, but it does seem to me that you've got to care about it. because, if it's true . . ."_
_(Weinberg interrupts with) . . . it's the most important thing in the world! I agree."_
This is that segment. Hear it for yourself:
th-cam.com/video/8Q5AsHJJArg/w-d-xo.htmlh02m28s
I guess those two are what are called "Fair Weather Atheists".
I don't think we have a chance to understand the origin of life until we find a second genesis to compare to. We need probes to the ocean worlds of the outer solar system to look for a second genesis!
The Hadean world was not a bare surface as was the moon; it would have been completely invisible beneath an envelope of massive billowing cloud; The waters of all the oceans, and every drop, of water on Earth was suspended in the atmosphere. The thunder and lightening was continuous and of a scale unimaginable on our modern world.
+MosheMYY M "What have you seen evolution do?" For obvious reasons, very little as far as in my life time and actually witnessed. " If it is possible to get evolutionists to be logical, rational and honest, they might just come to their senses." Unlike religion, we are logical and honest. It's called science. In other words, not discluding evidence despite it not following what you expect. Reply
You sure do claim great things for evolution when you've only seen very little that it could do. What you have seen and witnessed is logical and honest. The things you believe evolution has done is in your view, like religion. It's more like false religion.
@@moshemyym4627 the orbit of Pluto is 248 years. It was discovered in 1930. No one has witnessed an orbit. Is that religion too? Why are you people so utterly and hopelessly dishonest?
@@mcmanustony YOUR """"THEORY"""" IS SUPPOSED TO REST ON OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE AND REPEATABLE DATA. We have examples of planets revolving around the sun, we know their distances and their movement. Because of the examples it was easy to plot Pluto's revolution around the sun. We have absolutely no examples of evolution whether macro or micro. We can't observe it and we the tests we have used to see what it can do have completely been contrary to your hypothesis (that's what it really is, an hypothesis not a theory). All you evolutionists do is take the data and INTERPRET IT TO SUPPORT YOUR EVOLUTIONARY DOCTRINE, YOUR DOGMA! Your analogy fails. Why even use that analogy instead of something that directly supports your faith in evolution? Because you have nothing.
@@moshemyym4627 It's not my theory. It is the explanation arrived at over 16 decades by tens of thousands of biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, micro biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, comparative anatomists, mathematicians, biophysicists.....it is presented in 250,000 research papers of which you've read not a single fucking one. You could not define macroevolution with a gun to your head. The rest of your post is shameful ignorance delivered with the arrogance that comes to the weak minded by way of religion. Grow up and stop making such an utter fool of yourself. Try reading. Try books. Try restricting you comments to subjects you might know something about.....it sure as hell isn't this.
The word "evolution" is an umbrella term referring to many things and thus can be a cause of great confusion if not defined correctly in the course of discussion and debate. The first meaning of "evolution", that living organisms have a built in propensity to adapt and undergo changes, is an observed and undeniable reality. The environment clearly has an effect on the traits and qualities of living organisms, however, the propensity for change lies within living organisms itself (due to the DNA-gene-cell system). This type of evolution accounts for variation within the type, however, the true and real source of variation is the in-built propensity to adapt to the environment, living organisms are designed with that in-built feature and ability. That which is touted as "the fact of evolution" is based upon this observable reality (in-built adaptability within boundaries). However, an extrapolation is made from this empirical observation, to support a metaphysical belief which has no scientific basis, but is merely a preferred explanation based upon a prior assumption of naturalism. That metaphysical belief is: The second and contested meaning of "evolution" which is the "blind watchmaker thesis" popularized by Richard Dawkins in his support of the modern synthesis (natural selection acting upon random mutations). This meaning of evolution purports that unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes are completely sufficient to account for the "appearance" of design in living organisms and the diversity of life through random mutations in genetic information. This is a fallacy and is an insult to intelligence. It is a discredited metaphysical belief, an explanation demanded by a prior commitment to materialism and naturalism. It should be noted that as it stands in current scientific knowledge about the genome and nature of mutations, the modern synthesis (natural selection acting on random mutations as the explanation for all life's diversity) has been proven false and impossible. In light of this, evolutionary biologists are devising what they call an "extended evolutionary synthesis" to move away from the gene-centric neo-Darwinian view (because they know it is false). It is impossible to account for life's diversity through random mutations in genes alone, it is probabilistically unfeasible and practically impossible. This has been proven without any shadow of doubt. Meanwhile, as this is kept hidden from the public, evolutionists are frantically trying to devise a new "synthesis" to explain life's diversity away from gene-centric explanations. In short, there is currently no agreed upon, proven, evolutionary mechanism on the table because the modern synthesis (as an all explanatory mechanism) is proven to be a fallacy. Despite this the public are misled through smoke and mirrors with the fallacious claim of "natural selection acting on random mutations as an explanation of life's diversity" being a fact. For more reading: www.aboutatheism.net/articles/jqpdadp-a-muslims-guide-to-naturalism-atheism-and-evolution.cfm
It is truly bizarre to me, to say that "progress has been made" in figuring out how life began from minerals/chemicals and such. Progress has been made in understanding how incredibly complex life is, no doubt, but in turn how far we are from figuring out how it could have "self-assembled". Simply put, we now know/understand that we are much further away from understanding how a living thing could have arisen from chemicals/minerals self-assembling, than we knew/understood we were before the "origin science" specialty field was initiated. But, talk is cheap ; )
@@mcmanustony - Like I said, talk is cheap. Anyone can say they are "making progress" toward understanding something no one understands. It wasn't that long ago that scientists believed living things were very simple, such that flies "spontaneously" formed on meat, for instance. If I had said that scientists today realize they are further from solving the problem of how life can form spontaneously, than scientists thought they were then, would you be here telling me to learn some science? All I'm really saying is that technology has advanced enough to make the problem of how life can form spontaneously radically more difficult, since we can see that it's radically more sophisticated than was ever imagined a few decades ago. It's BECAUSE I learned some science (as you put it) that I said what I did. Perhaps if you learned some of that science stuff yourself, you would realize anyone can claim they are making progress toward solving a problem they haven't solved. (Commonly called bullshiting, though scientists probably call it something "better" ; )
@@johnknight3529 She does a damn sight more than talk. How much of her research have you actually read? How much of Szostak's? How much of ANY OoL researcher? I'm going with: none. " it's radically more sophisticated than was ever imagined a few decades ago."- Citation required. imagined by whom? how much do you know about the state of the field in say, 1980? I'm going with: fuck all.
@@mcmanustony- PS, a very good example of bullshitting, is when Ms. Sahai said "It's hard enough to build one (a synthetic protocell) under awkward conditions, but one needs to be able to build this under actual environmental conditions." She said "under awkward conditions", but what she was not saying is ``under ANY conditions anyone has ever attempted to build one in, using ANY materials anyone has ever tried to build one with, including ANY actual materials from ANY living things``. As in, not "awkward" at all, but utterly ideal, in every way any scientist has ever wished for. They don't even try to "make" a cell anymore, under any conditions, with any materials in any form, because they know they can't. (they'd win a Nobel prize in a heartbeat if they did make one) So how far from plausible is it to say they are "making progress" toward understanding how it happened under highly constrained conditions, using s highly constrained set of materials? It's like a proverbial rocket scientist saying; "We are making progress in understanding how to build a ship that can travel faster than the speed of light, using only tools and materials available in the tenth century." Would you not think that was rather . . awkward? ; )
@@johnknight3529 Why can't you give an honest answer to this simple question. " How much of her research have you actually read? How much of Szostak's? How much of ANY OoL researcher? I'm going with: none. " Is it because the answer is in fact: NONE.
@@whatabouttheearth Hiya, could you kindly share with me such findings, (an article) appreciate...once I got it might continue the response..Ty. the link is enough.
You should listen to Dr. James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, discuss the impossibility of life emerging from non-life. Also Michael Behe, mathematician David Berlinski on Darwin’s delusion. So tired of hearing nonsense talks like this. Life emerged from a primordial soup. No it didn’t. Academia - stop lying to people to perpetuate your pride and grant funding. You have no clue.
@@lawnmowerman716 Let's have a look at these 3 guys shall we? Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).[2][3] He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the *_Discovery Institute's_* Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where *_his views were cited in the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is religious in nature."_* Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[5][6] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.[7][8] So a totally religious agenda rejected by the scientific community. *_NEXT_* Dr. James Tour "To those who are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001" he responded "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools- the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design." David Berlinski An opponent of biological evolution, Berlinski is a senior fellow of the *_Discovery Institute's_* Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement's rejection of the evidence for evolution, but *_does not openly avow intelligent design_* and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."[1] Berlinski is a critic of evolution, yet, "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute,...[he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life." So again not only a religious agenda but he himself avoids the intelligent design hypothesis. *_Look if you want to hang onto your superstitious beliefs and ignore the REAL science go for it but don't expect anyone else to swallow that bullshit!_*
@@warren52nz wow you know how to use Wikipedia?! You win. You can add to the list of scientists calling BS on macro-evolution: David Galerntner, professor of computer science at Yale. See Hoover Institution interview with him, Berlinski and Stephen Meyer on the mathematical challenges to evolution. macro evolution is dead you just don’t know it yet. 100% dead. The really high level apolitical honest scientists know it. The religious zealot evolutionists know it too and so started proposing life was seeded from another planet or dimension decades ago 😂😂. What a joke. Pre-biotic origin of life studies are pure nonsense. just the protein-protein interactions within a single yeast cell, the 3000 proteins, is 10 to the 79 billion possible combinations. The number of elemental particles in the known universe is only estimated to be 10 to the 90th power. pre-biotic theories for the origin of life are really a joke. I truly feel badly for academics that have wasted their life on these lies. Sorry you can’t smear people just because you don’t like the Discovery Institute-you actually have to interact with their ideas. Your whole post is a logical fallacy. Ad hominem attack and association fallacy. Your post is a great example of universities failing to educate scientists in the liberal arts of logic and philosophy. Sir, you lack the intellectual tools to take these men down. Blame the university that produced your mindless post. Universities have been suppressing speech and scientific dialogue for decades and they’re becoming political and even irrelevant as a result. The intellectual elite are becoming jokes of their own making as our knowledge of origins recedes in light of new discoveries and their blubbering denials of reality make them dumber by the day.
@@warren52nz hey warren. life from lifelessness is a very tough problem. you heard about how monkeys typing randomly could recreate Shakespeare? that is just impossible. even to type out a Shakespeare sonnet by randoming typing letters would take monkeys on every planet in the universe typing since planets were created billions of years ago and they still wouldn't be finished today. nobody has come up with a shortcut in 70 years of research to create anything except sludge under primordial conditions. if you start with a creature that has DNA then evolution can happen. getting to that from zero is a vast chasm. right now there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can come up with some kind of computational model that can replicate itself with variations.
@@georgeh8937 So do you have a PhD in biology? Point us to a science based web site that says Abiogenesis is impossible. If you find something, I guarantee it will have a path back to religion.
The very prominent synthetic, organic chemist James Tour truthfully refuted of all of this in his video also called The Origin of Life. Look it up on TH-cam if you want the truth.
She is so beautiful but the essence of the talk is: "we have a lot of ideas, we just can not get any of them to work. But if we get a lot of funding then we can work on them to eternity." The RNA-model has already been rejected, and mathematicians combined with biologists have proven that the chances of getting any of the functional chains compared to all those that does not work is so small, that even if all possible combinations had been tested since the beginning of the universe, the most likely outcome is not to find just one useful chain until this day - not to speak of producing any complex life form. Mathematically, such a chance scenario simply does not work. There is a good reason why there is no other life in the universe.
Interesting that you say that. Today I was finding dust bunnies in my house and as I was cleaning, I was thinking where did all of this come from? The answer is stars. Everything in nature including our bodies are all star dust.
Reading all the comments below it amazes me that so many people seem to think that an invisible immortal wizard in the sky decided to create everything in the universe because he was lonely and bored is actually MORE plausible than a natural sequence of events over billions of years.
nobody is talking about invisible, immortal wizards. What is more probable than your magical and impossible angiogenesis is that life and the the first cells therefore were designed. Your unscientific naive, but hidden presumption is that only members of the hominid species homo sapiens sapiens are capable of design. Whoever designed life is a question, but it was designed for sure, you can take it to the bank.
@@SystemUpdate310 Who designed the designer? Abiogenesis is the furthest thing from magical. It is a hypothesis based on scientific facts. What is magical is your belief in YES, an immortal, invisible wizard! Isn't that exactly what you claiim your god is? invisible, immortal, with superpowers who can do absolutely anything? You cannot "take it to the bank" Tell me, then, WHO designed it? And who designed the designer?
@@SystemUpdate310 What is your understanding of abiogenesis? Do you even know what it is? Do you realize that it is not a one-step process that just happened?
@@8698gil Want to talk about science? Let's talk science! You say abiogenesis is not a one step process. What are the steps then? What are the steps specifically? If it's possible for life to arise spontaneously, no matter how many steps it takes, it should be demonstrable by repeatable empirical experiments. Here is the biggest scientific fact for you dumbass: Such experiment has never ever been done, it has never ever been demonstrated by experiments that life can arise spontaneously. All you have is empty rhetoric and wishful thinking, you don't have science on your side, because what you claim has never ever been experimentally demonstrated. And no matter what you say, nothing will change that. You have absolutely nothing. You can run your big mouth dry we still can see through your empty rhetoric without substance. This is the scientific fact. Zero experimental evidence, zero big fat zero, that's what you have.
@@SystemUpdate310 First of all, why don't YOU have to prove that god exists? Where are YOUR demonstrable experiments? There has never been a SINGLE thing to demonstrate that a god or gods have ever existed. Abiogenesis is hypothesis at this point, not a proven scientific theory yet. Science Has recreated amino acids in the lab, which are the precursors for RNA, and subsequently, DNA (which is how it is thought life started). Did you know that? There are many, many steps, all of which take a great deal of time, millions even billions of years. IT DID NOT HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE, which is where you bible cretins get all confused. You think small. Wishing the universe into existence in six days is more your style. I am not going to explain all the details of abiogenesis iin a youtube comment. It would take far too long. Why don't you be HONEST and actually look it up in a nonbiblical source and see what it says.
What was that? Say again. In the lab, to demonstrate how life on earth originated, "...we need to use intelligence...not intelligent design...." Which is it?
The point is the demonstration of natural abiotic pathways to bio molecules. Your and your fellow zealots position is that SUPERNATURAL intervention is needed. You’re wrong
@@mcmanustonyeven that requires intelligent design… but all of the universe with all its brilliance arose out of random chance. Sure buddy, we’re the ones with “blind faith” 😂
@@fsl72 You are equivocating. "Intelligent Design" is the latest iteration of creationism coined by lying creationists to skirt the law around Edwards v Aguillard prohibiting the teaching of creationism in public school science classes in the US. It asserts that a supernatural designer or designers (they don't seem to know) did some designing at some point or points in the past (again they don't seem to know) by some mechanism (which they don't seem to know) . What this has to do with actual scientists designing and experiment I'll leave you to ponder. Good luck! You might as well criticise them for using glassware......
@@mcmanustony the woman is speaking about the level of intelligence required to design a mere miniature version of the hypothesised “conditions for life’s emergence”. I simply pointed out the obvious - they can’t even create it in a lab without intelligently designing it, but when people with common sense say that life as we know it would not exist without an intelligent agent exhibiting knowledge, will, power and wisdom behind it - simple logical reasoning - these people are accused of “blind faith”. But to believe that they all came about my itself, magically, miraculously, is falsely called “scientific thinking”. Call it creationism, intelligent design, whatever you want - it’s not about the terms.
@@mcmanustony what’s required is “intelligent design”. Intentional, intelligent design requires a conscious external agent. Nature isn’t an external agent - nature is simply the sum of the inherent properties of everything. The One who imbibed nature with its properties - He’s the one who designed life.
Accepting a Great Designer for all the extraordinary designs you see in nature will require you to accept the logical, rational thinking that is normal to conscious intelligent beings. Believing that a blind, mindless process can design anything is the most stupidest belief ever!
+MosheMYY M Well, bacteria can definitely "design" a resistance to our intelligently designed drugs. Are they intelligent? Yes, in a sense, but they don't have any human-like intelligence, no mind or thoughts, no imagination. Yet it is directly observable that they - as a population, not individual bacteria - can learn and come up with new solutions to their problems. Vast majority of billions of billions of them die in the process, but those few lucky that survive and reproduce will create a new drug-resistant population and fill in the emptied living space.. And that's what the whole evolution is about: it's a giant constant learning process. Storing the useful solutions in memory (DNA/RNA) and trying to forget the rest..
+kyjo72682 Bacteria, like other living things were designed to survive and therefore make small changes when necessary. All living things can adapt to survive. This is not evolution. It Is in fact linear change as we know no biological system becomes something it wasn't before meaning, humans will still be humans and bacteria will remain bacteria. Why do logical, rational thinking go unheard among evolutionists? You guys know that the designs in nature are real but you continue to deny it. And it's not like the designs are should be compared to putting together some lego blocks. These designs are far superior than anything we have made! This is why it's very easy for many of us to believe in an SUPER INTELLIGENCE. This is plain logic. But some evolutionists see intelligent design and are ready to hijack it for evolution sake.... *Intelligent design without a creator? Why evolution may be smarter than we thought* theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932 So yeah, it's like intelligence has done it but not the intelligence we're familiar with. We want to ascribe to evolution certain abilities that it's not known to have like all the fields of engineering combined and compounded 1,000,000 times! It's past time to get real and allow the best logical conclusion to prevail as it should.
MosheMYY M Individual bacteria don't (can't) make any changes to their structure that could help them resist the drug. But the variability is already there - in the population. There are groups of individuals that are slightly different from the rest in some way (few proteins added/removed here and there). These changes come from random mutations - errors during copying genetic memory. Most of mutations are fatal and the "different" individuals die before reproducing, but sometimes the change is small and benign. And sometimes, when it comes to it, the change cam be both benign AND beneficial - for example it can block the artificial drug from entering and killing the bacteria. So you see - we have a bunch of mindless microorganisms with no consciousness or any planning abilities whatsoever - yet they seem to display quite intelligent behavior. And combined with their sheer numbers they even seem to out compete our own intelligent designs. ;) You say "the designs are in nature". And I agree that the results of this huge natural process may seem smart and designed. But what does that actually mean "to design something"? Think about it. Design is a process of trials and errors, repeated until a useful solution to a problem is stumbled upon. An intelligent designer - engineer who wants to build a car - must first LEARN from the mistakes and solutions of others, then he learns from his own errors and successes. Which is exactly what evolution does: learning. The difference is that what we call "intelligence" and "design" is the result of this natural process, not its prerequisite.
+kyjo72682 The point of all this is it's not possible for a mindless, blind process to produce the designs we see in nature. It is a certain group of intelligent people who are probing the inner and outer workings of biological systems WAY AFTER THEY HAVE ARRIVED and try to attribute their intricate interwoven systems and their development to a process that has demonstrated absolutely nothing to validate the assumptions made by this group of people. Just because their goal is to solidify the theory of evolution and therefore state that biological systems are the result of evolution and its mechanism, until they can demonstrate how evolution did it, it's not a theory, it's not believable and it shouldn't be touted as a scientific fact. Until the process is demonstrated, you can't use fossils, you can't use fully formed, fully designed, fully functional biological systems programmed to adapt and have variation as evidence for what the process supposedly has done. That's it in a nutshell. Learning about how bacteria functions, learning about DNA, RNA, phylogeny and the many information rich processes of biological systems is fine, just don't claim that a blind, mindless process is the cause of their existence. What would evolution know about information? From what we know, information can only be understand and process through intelligence and intelligence can make things to express and relay information. Evolution is johnny-come-lately with nothing to support it.
+MosheMYY M That would be really weird to try and probe biological systems before they've arrived. :) That would be like.. speculating that something which has never been observed actually exists.. Oh, wait! :P But evolution has been observed and demonstrated, many times. I just gave you a concrete example of a "blind process" with bacteria. Its the principles that work. They work so well they're even being used in computer science to solve problems that are very hard to solve by conventional algorithms. The results of evolutionary algorithms are not exact but they will usually be precise enough to solve the problem at hand. These algorithms have no mind, they have no idea how to solve the problem, they are not even aware of any problem - yet they arrive at a smart solution. I don't think solidification of evolutionary theory is the goal. It's about finding the best way to describe and explain natural phenomena. There's no conspiracy to achieve a specific goal. The theory just matches observations. If it didn't it would have been replaced by something better a 100 years ago just like Netwon's classical mechanics has been replaced by Einstein's relativity. As for information - from a physical standpoint it's an inherent property of the universe. A physicist would say information is the state of a system, it's the way how matter/energy is distributed in a region of space. From computer-sciency perspective this is called data. Literally everything, every piece of matter and energy is a medium - a memory that holds data - piece of paper, rock, magnetized metal, radio wave / ray of light, or a chain of nucleic acid molecules. Information only comes into picture when someone reads/interprets the data in a certain way and attributes meaning to it. But this is a completely subjective process that doesn't affect the underlying physical data and processes in any way. Rock will still be a rock - a bunch of chunked atoms - whether or not there is someone to read what's chiseled into it. RNA strand will still be a molecule that can make more of itself whether or not we know how to read the genetic code.. tinyurl.com/zut5uy4
@byrdma12 - Creationism is not a theory in the way that a scientific theory is. It is a belief of faith that cannot be proved by the rigorous scientific method. --------------- And would you want priests teaching science classes or scientists teaching religion? They are completely separate realms.
I think the theory of evolution could be extended right to the beginning , where amino acids were automatically formed. It makes more sense to believe that the formation of cell was a process which happened simultaneously everywhere on earth, thus increasing the chance. Perhaps good conditions existed, heavy rains and lighting or meteor showers, abundance of organic minerals or compounds. Think of zillions tons of membrane , peptides and amino acid molecules floating around in land and water. Out of the zillions, few trillions got organized, rest disintegrated. Those which remained were of the same configuration. Then few billion tons of perfect protocell were formed, rest just dissolved. Suddenly the odds look good enough for simultaneous evolution of millions of tons of bacteria and multi cellular life. The point is everything looks impossible on a small scale, like in a laboratory experiment. But earth is big and the time scale is 4.5 billion years. A lot can happen and lot did happen. And everything happened on a large scale. What laboratory cannot possible replicate is the time period and the scale of experiments. The question that what came first,whether it was cell membrane, DNA or Mitochondria. How about if all came together at one point of time.
I dont think you understand the probability at all. I have looked. If every atom in the known universe, each processed a random combination of nucleotides every miilisecond since the dawn of time, they still wouldnt search all the possible combinations (including chirality) within a strand of rna equivalent to the simplest theoretical rna strand I could find. Not even close.
evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis! To be a theory it has to be proven by the scientific method. There is absolutely no way that life could have spontaneously arisen by chance, it is mathematically impossible.
EVERYTHING had to come first. From the single celled organisms and every different kind of life HAD to ORIGINATE 100% complete including a 100% complete DNA otherwise it could never live and reproduce. Only God's spirit could have done this. God contains all knowledge and is all-powerful. Give God all of the Glory because deserves all Glory. Appreciate God who is allowing you to live.
@anilkumar-gy1eq - Your creationist argument makes no sense. Tell me, in your view, who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? You are throwing a penny into an infinite well that will never hit the bottom.
It allows camera one to take a pee break by swapping operators or making occasional scene changes to help maintain our attention. Watch a five-minute Netflix with the sound off and count camera changes. Advertisements may have even more to dislocate our brain's executive function and buy the goods. Of course, it might be to allow camera one to establish a new position.
_"This is still an outstanding question"_ about sums it up.. since the whole idea is based on spontaneous assembly of order from disorder contrary to the second law of thermodynamics!
@@mcmanustony *WRONG!* JK^-1 = E/T but T = E/N (average energy per molecule) so JK^-1 = E/E/N = N (just a number) Entropy has *NO UNITS!* Now would you like to try for the term *entropy* without using the term energy; _"your point caller?"_
@@mikebellamy you are incorrect. Which of the mathematician Hoyle's contributions to mathematics do you think is the most significant? Take all the time you need.
frankos rooni -- this comment is not worthy. It's as if you are saying that Darwin's Origins, or Copernicus' writings or Newton's Principia are worthless until a scientific elite agree with them and allow them to publish. Any institution can set up a gatekeeping system to protect their dogmas and self-interest. For heaven's sake this is not new--it's common in all disciplines and throughout history. Your comment is goofy. The sciences that do not found themselves on the philosophy and faith of evolution, could never work within the confines of biological sciences and their censorship. If bridges, rockets, telephones, highrises, and tunnels, medical procedures don't work, there is a backlash--because the results kill people (or inconvenience them).
Wow. A whole room full full of dumb people. I'm an engineer. I design, build, install and fine tune very sophisticated machine systems. My machines often integrate electric power, steam, hydraulics, pneumatics, and logic controllers. They do work, perform tasks, perform diagnostics and often speak to the operators. I can't imagine any of my designs assembling themselves by random chance and I certainly haven't figured out how to make them self replicate. My intelligently designed machines are like junk compared to a single celled living organism. And over time my machines will breakdown. I'll say it again, WOW! A whole room full of dummies. Highly educated dummies. I'd ask any of them to show me their inventions. I have hundreds. I'm just an engineer. I'm sure glad I wasn't held back by being educated in the same fashion as these people.
Paul Allison All living organisms are now known to be progrmmed, replicating nano machines. These pinheads haven't a clue how things are invented or built. Your design intuition is correct.
When i go see a movie i dont expect to see a true story but a made up one because it feels good ,many of the spectators are paying to hear what they like , they are not dumb is just their choice, payed liars or not is a big business and hollywood knows it well , the quest for knowledge and science is a painful endeavour
Okay, lets just say this, no biologist should be allowed a degree until they take a semester in mathematical probability or statistics. She seems to be constantly saying, well we have so many places and lots and lots of years, and since we are here and since, well, we can't have been created by an intelligence, and well, you know, like I said, well lots of stuff, and, hence--origins. AND THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENED!
To evolutionists *What have you seen evolution do? If it is possible to get evolutionists to be logical, rational and honest, they might just come to their senses.*
+MosheMYY M ... You and your cult of alienation are, first and foremost, characterized by your willful and unrelenting perversity, and by your profound moral depravity. You make no meaningful effort whatsoever to actually LEARN anything about the relevant science from legitimate sources of knowledge... you ignore virtually 100% of the overwhelming empirical evidence... you manufacture false & fraudulent "evidence"... you abuse your children with your mendacious fear mongering... and you are, completely without a shred of apology or repentance, a ceaseless spewer of lies and slanders... seeming to claim some special dispensation from having to live by the moral standards of normal people of sincere goodwill, standards understood all over the planet. Your narcissicism is overwhelming; your humility before any creator god as might exist (being generous), a sham. You are the very definition of a willful sinner.
+Frederick J. And you derived your meaning of things from where? And yeah, talk all about the overwhelming empirical evidence but make sure you don't answer my question.
We have seen evolution mutate the genes to adapt to the environment and to adapt to threats of life. We have seen evolution modify a specie into racesWe have seen evolution transform a cell into complex forms of life that all share a nearly identical DNA, being a plant, a human or another kind of animal. ** AMONG OTHER THINGS ** Happy? And YES. We have seen it in action in front of one's (and others') eyes. Read ''The Greatest Show on Earth'' from Richard Dawkins for 4-5 examples of this (foxes in russia, e. coli bacterium in a lab, fishes in captivity and in nature, elephants and their tusks, and some kind of lizard). And I agree with Frederick J.
Cave Woman You haven't seen evolution do a thing. We may have documentation of small changes here and there but nothing evolutionary. Evolution isn't the reason for cells transforming to complex forms of life, cells are designed and they follow certain programs. DNA is the software of life and therefore changes are programmed within biological systems, to adapt and have variation. Sharing the same substances with all life will never be an aid of evolution because we pretty much know of the small changes that take place. And thanks for establishing the fact that evolution designs nothing. Scientists hi-jack these natural small changes that are designed to happen and attribute them to something that can't design a thing. Only imagination and faith can change small changes into drastic changes over millions of years. ConservativeAnthem is right, it seems like evolution has skidded to a halt. I think it's even worse than that, evolution as taught in science today, NEVER WAS! ;~D
@@alexandrepereira3902 How much of Dr Sahai's work have you read? How much of Lee Cronin's? How much of Jack Szostak's? How much of John Sutherland's? How much of Addy Pross's? How much of Nick Lane's? Why is sitting on your ass chanting stupid slogans about Tour (who does NOT work in this field) preferable to getting off your ass and learning some science?
@@alexandrepereira3902 Origin of Life researcher Jack Szostak, unlike Tour, HAS won the Nobel Prize. Who should give a toss about what a lying fanatic who works in a different field has to say about anything outside that field?
What a name, the institute for the signs of origin, or was it Oregon? No one knows how life started. And I suspect, unless someone replicated in the lab, no one will know
Maybe if you could stop sneering long enough you'd learn what it known....and that the absence of a complete answer is not an excuse for doing nothing.
I think the good dr was, for a sec, confessing she had to use intelligent design (careful selection) in the lab but quickly caught herself before the high priests of evolution fired her...shame on you dr. 50 hail Darwins and an act of contrition.
+Jason Wolf Please name the high priest of evolution - what an absurd strawman. Listen to the talk as a whole, rather than playing word games. English is much easier to use if you talk like 'the cell wants to....', since English evolved to discuss everyday discussions, not scientific precision.
Interesting decision to give up tenure at Wisconsin Maddog to go to the University of Akron, working hard and producing lots of papers there so good for her and her collaborators.
R NA, DNA, protein Mutualism under RNA, =DNA=protein but at the RNA is basic Evolution of Ribosomes Fundamental RNA and DNA might Might have remixes at point of origin of life.
Nick Lane suggested, in his book: The Vital Question, that a vital clue to life's origin might be the universality of chemoosmosis --the separation of charge across membranes -- first proposed by Peter Mitchell. Lane suggests that this electrochemical transmembrane gradient could provide the energy needed to drive the assembly of chains of monomers into oligomers. Such gradients could form in alkaline vents. Have you examined this in any of your hypotheses or experiments?
Did life originate on Earth only once? Could there have been more than one LUCA? More than one tree of life? If life could have originated more than once, must it necessarily have been DNA/RNA based? Could there have been another means of heredity and evolution? Why aren't there new trees of life "originating" now?
It is a scientific impossibility for small molecules to connect together to form the required building blocks of a cell. The laws of chemistry prevent such and if one could form it would decay apart again in a few days. Evolutionism is quackery.
@@danminer5343 and you’ve published this astounding, counter factual discovery where? Polymerisation of peptides is well understood and in the absence of enzymes that catalyst the reactions in biotic scenarios. Evolution does not address the origin of life. You are confused. You clearly haven’t the faintest glimmer of a clue what you’re talking about. What’s that like?
@@danminer5343 and you’ve published this astounding, counter factual discovery where? Polymerisation of peptides is well understood and in the absence of enzymes that catalyst the reactions in biotic scenarios. Evolution does not address the origin of life. You are confused. You clearly haven’t the faintest glimmer of a clue what you’re talking about. What’s that like?
@@mcmanustony - Nobody has ever found how even one ste0p of the story of evolution could occur. Never has a scientific theory been invented to explain how any step could occur. Thousands of scientific papers show this. The proof is everywhere showing how the story of evolution is nonsense. Evolutionists ignore the details and just say "Evolution did it" as a "god of the gaps" using the image of evolution as their 'god'. Every one of their 'predictions have failed. They have spent billions of dollars trying to find a way that 'evolution' could occur with every experiment showing how evolution is impossible.
Make rna in the lab and im with you bacteria is advaced life how did lipids carbohydrates membranes made this is a simple lecture 70yrs after miller exp and rna has not been made in the labwith supercomputers this is everywhere on earth but how do you get the proteins to match no we dont know if mars was suitable for life we dont know what life is how did bacteria start
Well, I see all the arguments below between the "Creationists" and the "Evolutionists". LOL! But for me, I don't care how Dr.Sahai got created! Gawd damn! I am gob smacked! I am now into some serious Sahaiology!
@@mcmanustony Childish remarks like that do not give you any credibility. You have made not point at all that responds to or reflects upon what I have said. If you have something of concern or support to say then I am happy to do you the honour of replying. Writing others off without any evidence says more about you than it does your "target". Enjoy your day !
@@tamaking7104 It's not the least bit childish. You can't say anything about the science because your religious fanaticism has ruined your brain. "Writing others off without any evidence ....."- and yet you dismiss decades of work by thousands of scientists not a syllable of which you've actually read. Adorable..... Grow up....
@@mcmanustonyAdopting a patronising arrogant does not make your views any more credible. Rather, such a mask draws attention to why there may be a need to employ one. I am a trained ecologist so do in fact have a good understanding of scientific methodology and natural respect for scientific endeavour. Like many other scientists, this does not mean that I close my mind, soul and spirit to our Creator or to the extraordinary life of Christ. Not every scientist follows a blind faith in pure materialistic explanation of life. Fanaticism is not confined to the religious. Neither are all creationists or religious folk fanatics. Richard Dawkins is a good example of a scientist who is not only fanatical in his humanistic, atheistic pursuits but is so to the point of being also a religious zealot. Balance in scientific and spiritual experience of life is healthy and mutually beneficial. Believers in God vastly outnumber atheists among Nobel Prize Laureates in science, and the great early scientist such as Sir Isaac Newton were all believers in God. These facts provide ample evidence that science and faith in God are not incompatible. When both are approached with an open mind and interpreted properly, they will be mutually supportive. It's not hard to find symmetry. Unfortunately it is also all too easy to find dogma in both camps that restricts the discovery and enjoyment of symmetry that exists between science and Christian theism.
In the beginning (Time) God (Cause) Created the heavens (Space) And the earth (physical) You're welcome! To book me for an event just use the contact form
Eric Wood ... "No one shall disagree with evolution, physics, bio, chem and all that intelligent and superb mankind stuff or thy shall burn in the accretion disk of the nearest black hole". Hawking's Letter to Flat Earthers, chapter 9, verse XXII.
Manuel Bolivar , you wrote, "No one shall disagree with evolution, physics, bio, chem and all that intelligent and superb mankind stuff or thy shall burn in the accretion disk of the nearest black hole". Hawking's Letter to Flat Earthers, chapter 9, verse XXII." Why would Hawking write that to Flat Earthers? They are mostly atheists and evolutiionists? Dan
This topic is really deeply interesting.I never considered that geochemistry could be on a continuum with biochemistry.Where do the biogeochemical cycles fit into all of this?
I'm glad they mentioned the partner Universities, because "The Origins Science Scholars Program" of "The Institute for the Science of Origins" *really* sounds like crypto-Intelligent Design.
"We take it as an assumption there is a natural process by which you can go from geochemical simplicity to biological complexity" No such process has been demonstrated to date September 2022. On emergent complexity consider 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!
@@mikebellamy I went to school in Paisley, Scotland. I went to university at the University of Glasgow and then did research in pure mathematics at the University of Exeter. Here's a chronological list of Hoyle's publications on mathematics. . . . . . . . . .. . .Here, in case you missed it is that list again, this time in alphabetical order. . . . . . . . . . Hoyle was a distinguished ASTRONOMER who contributed nothing to mathematics and knew little of biology.
@@mcmanustony You missed one.. The Mathematics of Evolution Publisher Brig Klyce 1987 in which he concluded: _"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"_ Also the review by T Fowler in 2018 _"Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit"_ (the only alternative Fowler offered was large mutations contradicting the theory!)
@@mikebellamy Careful while you clutch at those straws....you might hurt yourself. Hate to break it to you. Darwin died. Don't know how you missed it. It was in all the papers. He died before the development of genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology....etc. he's dead. Have you read any evolutionary science from....oh, I dunno....the last 40 years? Or is bumping your gums about Darwin as good as it's going to get?
Life arising from unliving materials is a statistical impossibility. But lets say that it did happen by some miracle, how did the first life live long enough to evolve a way to self replicate? And I'm not coming at this from a religious point of view.
Ah, she slipped into a word of blasphemy there, but someone in the audience was quick to restore her faith. Thank Go…. I mean peer-reviewed research papers! We need to carefully select based on our knowledge just to attempt to make something so miniscule, but to even consider the possibility that the conditions for all the marvellous diversity of life would also have to been chosen by an entity with knowledge and intent… now that, that’s blasphemy - that is not allowed. You must submit to the unscientific assumption of naturalism. Or else.
Consciousness/Spirit came from God. God created life. We will NEVER be able to create what God has CREATED. We can on replicate from what God has given us. We can not CREATE life from nonlife. We con only replicate life from life.
This video, and others, show how ignorant and almost certainly dshonest he is. And what is the prob that one synthetic chemist, who loudly trumpets his faith, is right and the hundreds of serious researcher who actually work in the field are wrong. th-cam.com/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/w-d-xo.html =
They have NO IDEA or are even close to explaining the Origin of Life. Dr. James Tour shows us that The Emperor has NO Clothes. If they say they do, they are lying through their teeth.
@@jamesbradley582 How much of the work of Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, Leslie Orgel, Lee Cronin, John Sutherland, Addy Pross etc. have you actually read? You are in a cult. Grow up..
Wrong. YOU have no idea. Find something better to do that sitting in a pile of your own dung hurling childish abuse at scientists you are to scared to learn from .
Huh, not sure if this helps the debate or hurts it. Got to have something to put in those textbooks though I guess. I watched the James tour vids as well but I'm sure he's not considered a scientist due to his belief. All his education useless because he doesn't believe we came from a rock.
He is considered a scientist because he's a scientist. His subject is synthetic organic chemistry. When he speaks outside of that area he is beyond foolish. He's a smart man with some serious ethical issues. You sound like someone who should have spent more time READING textbooks.....
@er5343 - In my experience, such a faith belief BLINDS persons to science. Science is a never-ending process of enlightenment, one step building on another (like amino acids' journey to cell-hood). Religion is cemented shut in dogma. Few are willing to embrace any new scientific findings (Buddhism being an exception) - it a dead end to the truth.
Why did the Y chromosomes come out to be so similar between them and us? Let's take a look. When they make statements of Neanderthal DNA vs. human DNA in their comparisons, it is misdirection. In actuality, it is common gene expression between us. Neanderthals WERE human with mere gene expression modification differences with NO implied evolving of DNA mutations being involved. It's sleight of hand. Actual tabulation of our DNA sequences with theirs showed a result of 99.84% commonality. We are 99.90% identical to each other. Why the 00.10% difference between each human being? It's mutation load. Why the 00.06% difference between us and them? Again...its the mutation load accumulation over the thousands of years since we co-existed. Subtract the thousands of years, then we would be 99.9% identical All this is evolution-impertinent. What is pertinent about the disseminators of evolution information and the resulting confused public who selects to listen to them? It shows misdirection and propagandization. It's control of the information to make a false impression of 'evolving DNA mutations'...general evolution to the fans of evolution. The problem? Genes modify by chemical tagging, largely by methylation, ABOVE the DNA sequences without mutations to them. It's a 2nd information code called the 'epigenome'. Purveyors of evolutionary theory makes it seem there is only ONE information code, being the DNA code. It's lying by simplifying, accidentally for many who only memorized what their professors wanted for a passing grade, and pass on this misdirection to others. For a pretty good paycheck, too. Want to know another misdirection? It's implying that chimpanzee's DNA sequence 'similarity' to humans of '98.5%' would be from the same scientific method applications as the 99.84% Neanderthal-human similarity. Is it? No. The chimpanzee comparison is between similar genes while EXCLUDING the non-coding DNA regions. With the Neanderthals, it's comparing ALL of the DNA sequence. Not ending there, the chimpanzee's Y chromosome in the sex-specific regions was compared to us, the pro-evolution researcher was surprised to find they were missing 33% of the total human genes. He said the difference was 'horrendous'! He said the difference between us and them was as large as the difference between a chicken's Y chromosome and ours. So how TODAY'S male chimp offspring be 98.5% similar to human's male offspring when 33% of the genes are missing? The scientific prediction before the study was done, the two Y chromosomes should have been 98%+ similar. What was their rescue excuse to this intelligent design-friendly finding? What is the rescue excuse for just looking at a fraction of the chimp DNA, not the entire sequence, for the 98.5% similarity? Why imply just DNA in Neanderthal comparisons when it's common gene expression instead? It looks like a degree in evolutionary biology and theory is made of misdirection and memorization of rescue excuses. 'Evolution' is misrepresentation of gene expression, epigenetics, and the epigenome's capabilities and claims of gene degeneration causes evolutionary generation. What is the root of this claim of degeneration leading to generation? It is in the above sentence! it's taking these epigenome-derived gene expression capabilities and THE ASSUMPTION OF EVOLVING DNA MUTATIONS when...by definition...no mutations happen with this biological system. What else does this epigenome's capability do? It makes adaptations to changed environment, diet, or new threats for hundreds of generations, if needed. It can do it for one or two generations if the change switches back. This includes the Darwin Finch beaks WITHOUT the theorized 'engine' of evolution. This is a post-2014 new-info THIRD ASPECT of epigenetic ability. Thusly, it is an intelligent design signature by its logistics and common sense when no bias is applied. The science-specific information above is web search retrievable and verifiable. Why does people like me have more scientific information than the innocent consumers of the evolution theory do? It is because the evolution-unfriendly information is withheld or piecemealed. It shows propagandization, not rationalization. It shows people like me gets the truth demonstrated while others take it dictated by their mentors they selected to listen to. There you go. There's your science. Evolution is not happening. We are a creation. The creator? Jesus Christ beyond doubt. I have put decades of research in this truth demonstrated to me. The 'dots of the picture' that the theory of evolution gives is the illusion of there being no God. It produces a much higher suicide rate in kids raised in this fatalism. The accompanying depression is not good in trying to foster a successful civilization to pass on to our children. The 'science' of evolution disrupts the sciences of other applications of science such as in psychology and social science aspects. It has selfish political science benefits to those who push the theory.
Why not do this. Now that scientists claim to know what are the ingredients to make life from non-living things and now that scientists have all the modern equipments and the labs to do their work, put a team of the greatest scientists together, give them all the ingredients and equipment they need, and challenge them to produce life. Yes, ask them to use the knowledge they now know to make life out of non-living things. If they cannot do it, then surely they must concede that only a creator, ie. God, can produce life. If scientists, armed with ingredients and equipment and scientific knowledge cannot produce life, what more of life happening by itself by sheer chance ?
@@mcmanustony No one has any idea how life started on earth period . NO ONE! We are no closer to learning how life began on earth then Darwin was when he published Origin of Species in 1859 . No one has ever created a single strand of DNA or RNA much less a cell from non living matter . Nobody . And until we know how to create life ourselves it is impossible to figure out how it could happen naturally.
@@johnathanmiller3033 you can scream till you're red white and blue in the face about NO ONE KNOWS......there are several plausible pathways to natural synthesis of biotic molecules. That was not known in Darwin's time. You are simply wrong about this. Never heard of of synthetic RNA? How much Origin of Life research have you read? Any?
@@mcmanustony Ummm . No there's not . That's what science has proven since Darwin's day . And black holes are dead matter . We can tell you how dead matter will react . But we have no idea what makes life . None what so ever . We can tell you some of the parts . We can tell you what the basic building blocks are . But we have never built a cell from non living matter . Not once . Oh and BTW ... a " plausible pathway " is a fancy way of saying "I'm taking a guess" or " I have no idea ". That's NOT science . The whole Origin of life field is a scam . They typically use terms like could , may have , possibly , probably and so many other words that never fit into any scientific research paper in other fields of science . One field that NEVER uses these term is Organic Chemistry . Which is the exact field that that deals with creating life (new types of life) . And they say it is impossible . Life comes from life period . There has never been a single example of this scientific law being proven wrong . Also information can only come from a intelligence . Therefore without intelligence DNA , RNA the cell itself could not exist . These are basic laws of science that have never been proven wrong .
Claiming that the problem of RNA or DNA can be solved if we could find a way of making RNA chains a few thousand nucleotides long, as needed for any useful function, rather than the present best of about 50 long is like saying we could write a useful iPad app if we could just get enough programming instructions to appear in a line. It’s a false summit, we will still need the proteins to replicate it, read it, a membrane to protect it, and the chain of RNA to actually have useful instructions that make sense and can make a cell that can survive and make a copy of itself. This is jumping up on a rock and saying “look, we are nearly at the top of the mountain”.
Naturalism is pushed by biologists who believe that abiogenesis is possible because they have no indepth knowledge of the field. Abiogenesis is purely molecular interactions which is understood by chemists, the problem is chemists all understand that life by pure chance in nature is impossible.
+waterborne 'Naturalism is pushed by biologists who believe that abiogenesis is possible because they have no indepth knowledge of the field.' Biologists who have a wealth more education on the subject than you ever will. . . 'Abiogenesis is purely molecular interactions which is understood by chemists, the problem is chemists all understand that life by pure chance in nature is impossible.' *Citation required
To@@rubberlegs15's request for a citation on abiogenesis: Dr James Tour gives a good lecture called "The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - 2016 Lectures (with James Tour)" ( th-cam.com/video/_zQXgJ-dXM4/w-d-xo.html ) on how difficult it would be for non-living chemicals to evolve into life.
I'm laughing at all these scientist. Why? They think the origins of life and intelligent life came from cells, bacteria and other organism billions of years ago. It is wrong!!! The question is i will ask, where did all this cells, bacteria and organism all came from in the first place? Because all life in different forms all came from ONE SUPREME BEING. If that is the result of your research and your argument then it would be easy to find other life forms on other planets in other galaxies or other planets in our own galaxy.
Mathematically it makes more sense for nothing to exist than for anything to exist. Zero is the most perfectly balanced number and there is no reason for zero to explode into a big bang but yet here we are. -4 + 4 = 0 now do that in reverse to create something out of nothing. Zero would have to become unstable which is impossible.
Nature can create a crystal. A picture (Mona Lisa) is more complex than a crystal (it contains information). However, it cannot replicate itself. A computer program is more complex than a picture because it can create a picture. It contains both information and instructions to replicate something. However, it was created by a programmer who told it what to do. DNA (life) is much more complex than any computer program. It can replicate itself and it can build a complex organism. It seems to me that (DNA) life would require something much more than a programmer.
The major problem with the Intelligent Design movement is that it's proponents try to refer to certain things in nature such as microscopic 'motors' and such and then try to compare them to motors that humans have made *with our hands* and then conclude "this must have been made, *teleologically!"* The problem is, however, we know how we design things *again -- with our hands!* Intelligent Design proponents _do not_ know how disembodied minds (or mere minds, if you like) do _anything,_ let alone BUILD something that we could later interpret as "very special". We would need a theory of consciousness for that. Something the Discovery Institute is NOT even trying to develop, I suspect.
that poor woman is lost , she still can t answer what could had decided and programmed the synergie in all living cells...........so sad..studying so much and not understanding a thing...she has no clue ,and those applauding this are the same,they just don t get the point.....
@@mcmanustony i meant ,she cant answer what had programmed all living things ......and the synergy of our cosmology and quantum biology and physics........if this is vacuous and incoherent ,you must have water instead of a brain........plug a brain in and try again........
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent presentation! Bravo! Thank you.
Q: What did they Archaea say to the Bacteria when they came upon an an abandoned orphan virus? A: Youcarryit.
What I say to Prokaryotes is: Monerans unite!
Excellent speaker, thank you!
ON THE FEELINGSIDE OF HUMANITY FUNGALITY IS RECOGNIZED WALKING TOWARDS CENOBITES AS THE FUTURE INHERITANTS OF FORMER HUMANITY...
"You need not only genes..but also the mutations that lead to evolution (diversity)"
😊😊😊😊😂😂और सब ठीक है न हम कैसे दोहरा सकते हैं
Shortly after the talk, Dr. Sahai was instructed to write "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." on the blackboard 500 times.
+bloui1033 *HILARIOUS*!
And she still got it wrong after using "carefully selected" as if that's a mode of natural selection. We know that is what intelligence does when things need to be done properly and correctly, trying to leave no room for error.
I can almost taste the fear that you and all creationists have. It's been repeated thousands of times in history. You can no longer attribute god to something in nature or explain nature with your hero. God's involvement, responsibility and credit has been shrinking steadily and you are scared shit-less that soon the very essence of what you are and where you came from is caused by nothing but incomprehensible, mind-less, soul-less material processes.
Jonathan A. I second this. gods ass gets kicked out of one gap, and he goes running off to hide in the next. science will hunt him down and banish him from any gap remaining. the pattern can only sustain for a limited time...infirmation age has arrived, times up 🤗
I was going to kick some Ghost Worshiper ass
but I see that a couple of commenters already humiliated them.
Funny how their God refuses to help them avoid embarrassment.
You'd think He would at least give them some hints.
It almost seems like ... He isn't really there.
The idea that science is not logical enough but magic is is ludicrous.
Wow! what an amazing talk and grasp of the buildings blocks of life. Why have I not heard of Dr. Sahai, ever! Thank you so much.
Watch ID videos - you'll learn the reality of life.
@@igotstoknow2 Their deceptive
Roby - You should listen to Dr. James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, discuss the impossibility of life emerging from non-life. Also Michael Behe, mathematician David Berlinski on Darwin’s delusion. So tired of hearing nonsense talks like this. Life emerged from a primordial soup. No it didn’t. Academia - stop lying to people to perpetuate your pride and grant funding. You have no clue.
@@lawnmowerman716 Tour does not work on the Origin of Life. He is a synthetic organic chemist who does not know this field.
Behe is a mundane biochemist whose research was completely mainstream and dried up years ago. His fame rests on pop science books that have been taken to pieces by his peers- some from his own department.
Berlinski is not and never has been a mathematician- or a scientist of any kind.
You could do better than sitting on your duff calling scientists "liars" because their work conflicts with your religious fanaticism.
@@mcmanustony these are ad hominem arguments which are logical fallacies and therefore are unpersuasive. You cannot refute their arguments so you’re attacking their background. The corollary to this is “everyone important I know whose been indoctrinated in OOL believes this-they even have PhDs.” That is a logical fallacy also-the ad populism fallacy and Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Again, you have to actually interact with the facts presented by these brilliant scholars and make a counter-argument. That takes critical thinking skills and judgment. You have failed to do that in this post, just succeeded in using lots of classic fallacies.
It amazes me how so many people who know the answer to everything scientific before they even hear the problem come to proclaim the wisdom of pre-Iron Age myth-makers (who explained how the Creator separated the water in the sky from the water below the earth. Shouldn't you guys be working on the problems in your field, like how a benevolent all knowing and powerful creator ended up with a world full of evil? Or is that explained by a woman eating a fruit?
Excellent presentation. Anyone questioning the 'scientific method' or the natural and spontaneous origin of the molecules of life (vs mythology) should remember two things (1) While all the answers are far from being 'in', look at how much has been figured out and not by means of some mystic but by science (2) While the exact mechanisms and sequences have not been unravelled (most people don't even know much about their own family tree back, say 10 generations) think of the various hypothesis that can now be eliminated by this research - my point being that its complicated and we have lost all most all of the evidence through billions of years and yet we are still making progress. Nita got it right with the key step - hope. Unfortunately, just as we are on the brink of understanding our molecular origins, more energy and funding is going into our mutual self destruction. Please do not vote for Trump. Time is very limited. Climate change must be addressed - now. Cheers.
God, not man is in control. Evolutionism is the most quackery unscientific story ever told.
Excellent!! Thank you Dr Sahai for the wonderful talk with clear visuals!
If you're like me and wondering what everyone is fussing about, go to 48:40 and listen for a couple of sentences. She stumbles over the phrase "we need to use intelligent design" and then is corrected by someone in the audience with "careful selection."
It is kind of sad that she can't even say it.
hbk - You are proof that God doesn't exist. No God would have ever allowed anyone as ignorant as you to survive the period of impregnation.
My guess is that, had your father been more skilled with that coat hanger, you wouldn't be here - stinkin' up the joint.
neo theskepticarena - Thank you for all you've done in proving the truth of atheism to me. Your belligerent, hateful comments sure did the trick of persuading me to disavow not only a belief in God, but every positive experience I've ever had to due to my belief in God. Great job!
Get a room you two
amosclan, you wrote, "If you're like me and wondering what everyone is fussing about, go to 48:40 and listen for a couple of sentences. She stumbles over the phrase "we need to use intelligent design" and then is corrected by someone in the audience with "careful selection." It is kind of sad that she can't even say it."
Good catch. This is the segment:
th-cam.com/video/CeVk9yC0_vk/w-d-xo.htmlm40s
Her brief candor reminds me of the time Richard Dawkins, during a conversation with Steven Weinberg, revealed he is not an atheist. This is Dawkins:
_"I don't believe in God, but it does seem to me that you've got to care about it. because, if it's true . . ."_
_(Weinberg interrupts with) . . . it's the most important thing in the world! I agree."_
This is that segment. Hear it for yourself:
th-cam.com/video/8Q5AsHJJArg/w-d-xo.htmlh02m28s
I guess those two are what are called "Fair Weather Atheists".
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools No, they are atheists. They know their position better than you.
subtitles, please. english is not my native language.
@olekike - Yes, Case University! Captions are also needed for person with hearing difficulties.
Which came first? Metabolism or replication? Enzymes need DNA and DNA requires enzymes...
either could work.
it doesnt matter
DNA?
life predates DNA
I don't think we have a chance to understand the origin of life until we find a second genesis to compare to. We need probes to the ocean worlds of the outer solar system to look for a second genesis!
i am betting AI will solve it in the next 25 years (if we are still around)
@@bfyrth Creating AI might at least let us make some insights into how intelligence works. "What I cannot create, I do not understand" 🙂
The Hadean world was not a bare surface as was the moon; it would have been completely invisible beneath an envelope of massive billowing cloud; The waters of all the oceans, and every drop, of water on Earth was suspended in the atmosphere. The thunder and lightening was continuous and of a scale unimaginable on our modern world.
+MosheMYY M
"What have you seen evolution do?" For obvious reasons, very little as far as in my life time and actually witnessed.
" If it is possible to get evolutionists to be logical, rational and honest, they might just come to their senses." Unlike religion, we are logical and honest. It's called science. In other words, not discluding evidence despite it not following what you expect.
Reply
You sure do claim great things for evolution when you've only seen very little that it could do. What you have seen and witnessed is logical and honest. The things you believe evolution has done is in your view, like religion. It's more like false religion.
@@moshemyym4627 the orbit of Pluto is 248 years. It was discovered in 1930. No one has witnessed an orbit. Is that religion too? Why are you people so utterly and hopelessly dishonest?
@@mcmanustony
YOUR """"THEORY"""" IS SUPPOSED TO REST ON OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE AND REPEATABLE DATA. We have examples of planets revolving around the sun, we know their distances and their movement. Because of the examples it was easy to plot Pluto's revolution around the sun. We have absolutely no examples of evolution whether macro or micro. We can't observe it and we the tests we have used to see what it can do have completely been contrary to your hypothesis (that's what it really is, an hypothesis not a theory). All you evolutionists do is take the data and INTERPRET IT TO SUPPORT YOUR EVOLUTIONARY DOCTRINE, YOUR DOGMA!
Your analogy fails. Why even use that analogy instead of something that directly supports your faith in evolution? Because you have nothing.
@@moshemyym4627 It's not my theory. It is the explanation arrived at over 16 decades by tens of thousands of biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, micro biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, comparative anatomists, mathematicians, biophysicists.....it is presented in 250,000 research papers of which you've read not a single fucking one.
You could not define macroevolution with a gun to your head.
The rest of your post is shameful ignorance delivered with the arrogance that comes to the weak minded by way of religion.
Grow up and stop making such an utter fool of yourself. Try reading. Try books. Try restricting you comments to subjects you might know something about.....it sure as hell isn't this.
@@mcmanustony Again, no evidence. Just the usual mantra of evolutionists. Is this the best you can do to witness your faith? Smh.
The word "evolution" is an umbrella term referring to many things and thus can be a cause of great confusion if not defined correctly in the course of discussion and debate. The first meaning of "evolution", that living organisms have a built in propensity to adapt and undergo changes, is an observed and undeniable reality. The environment clearly has an effect on the traits and qualities of living organisms, however, the propensity for change lies within living organisms itself (due to the DNA-gene-cell system). This type of evolution accounts for variation within the type, however, the true and real source of variation is the in-built propensity to adapt to the environment, living organisms are designed with that in-built feature and ability. That which is touted as "the fact of evolution" is based upon this observable reality (in-built adaptability within boundaries). However, an extrapolation is made from this empirical observation, to support a metaphysical belief which has no scientific basis, but is merely a preferred explanation based upon a prior assumption of naturalism. That metaphysical belief is: The second and contested meaning of "evolution" which is the "blind watchmaker thesis" popularized by Richard Dawkins in his support of the modern synthesis (natural selection acting upon random mutations). This meaning of evolution purports that unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes are completely sufficient to account for the "appearance" of design in living organisms and the diversity of life through random mutations in genetic information. This is a fallacy and is an insult to intelligence. It is a discredited metaphysical belief, an explanation demanded by a prior commitment to materialism and naturalism. It should be noted that as it stands in current scientific knowledge about the genome and nature of mutations, the modern synthesis (natural selection acting on random mutations as the explanation for all life's diversity) has been proven false and impossible. In light of this, evolutionary biologists are devising what they call an "extended evolutionary synthesis" to move away from the gene-centric neo-Darwinian view (because they know it is false). It is impossible to account for life's diversity through random mutations in genes alone, it is probabilistically unfeasible and practically impossible. This has been proven without any shadow of doubt. Meanwhile, as this is kept hidden from the public, evolutionists are frantically trying to devise a new "synthesis" to explain life's diversity away from gene-centric explanations. In short, there is currently no agreed upon, proven, evolutionary mechanism on the table because the modern synthesis (as an all explanatory mechanism) is proven to be a fallacy. Despite this the public are misled through smoke and mirrors with the fallacious claim of "natural selection acting on random mutations as an explanation of life's diversity" being a fact.
For more reading: www.aboutatheism.net/articles/jqpdadp-a-muslims-guide-to-naturalism-atheism-and-evolution.cfm
It is truly bizarre to me, to say that "progress has been made" in figuring out how life began from minerals/chemicals and such. Progress has been made in understanding how incredibly complex life is, no doubt, but in turn how far we are from figuring out how it could have "self-assembled". Simply put, we now know/understand that we are much further away from understanding how a living thing could have arisen from chemicals/minerals self-assembling, than we knew/understood we were before the "origin science" specialty field was initiated. But, talk is cheap ; )
This is utter nonsense. Why is sitting on your duff sneering at your betters a more attractive option than....say, learning some science.
@@mcmanustony - Like I said, talk is cheap. Anyone can say they are "making progress" toward understanding something no one understands.
It wasn't that long ago that scientists believed living things were very simple, such that flies "spontaneously" formed on meat, for instance. If I had said that scientists today realize they are further from solving the problem of how life can form spontaneously, than scientists thought they were then, would you be here telling me to learn some science?
All I'm really saying is that technology has advanced enough to make the problem of how life can form spontaneously radically more difficult, since we can see that it's radically more sophisticated than was ever imagined a few decades ago. It's BECAUSE I learned some science (as you put it) that I said what I did.
Perhaps if you learned some of that science stuff yourself, you would realize anyone can claim they are making progress toward solving a problem they haven't solved. (Commonly called bullshiting, though scientists probably call it something "better" ; )
@@johnknight3529 She does a damn sight more than talk. How much of her research have you actually read? How much of Szostak's? How much of ANY OoL researcher? I'm going with: none.
" it's radically more sophisticated than was ever imagined a few decades ago."- Citation required. imagined by whom? how much do you know about the state of the field in say, 1980? I'm going with: fuck all.
@@mcmanustony- PS, a very good example of bullshitting, is when Ms. Sahai said "It's hard enough to build one (a synthetic protocell) under awkward conditions, but one needs to be able to build this under actual environmental conditions." She said "under awkward conditions", but what she was not saying is ``under ANY conditions anyone has ever attempted to build one in, using ANY materials anyone has ever tried to build one with, including ANY actual materials from ANY living things``. As in, not "awkward" at all, but utterly ideal, in every way any scientist has ever wished for. They don't even try to "make" a cell anymore, under any conditions, with any materials in any form, because they know they can't. (they'd win a Nobel prize in a heartbeat if they did make one)
So how far from plausible is it to say they are "making progress" toward understanding how it happened under highly constrained conditions, using s highly constrained set of materials? It's like a proverbial rocket scientist saying; "We are making progress in understanding how to build a ship that can travel faster than the speed of light, using only tools and materials available in the tenth century." Would you not think that was rather . . awkward? ; )
@@johnknight3529 Why can't you give an honest answer to this simple question.
" How much of her research have you actually read? How much of Szostak's? How much of ANY OoL researcher? I'm going with: none. "
Is it because the answer is in fact: NONE.
You need proteins, enzymes and genes...how do you get them from a simple monomer...
Emergent properties.
Why do we find so many molecules like amino acids in space? Amino acids form proteins.
@@whatabouttheearth Hiya, could you kindly share with me such findings, (an article) appreciate...once I got it might continue the response..Ty. the link is enough.
RNA finding a place in a free floating membrane is one thing, creating code for future membranes is another.
You should listen to Dr. James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, discuss the impossibility of life emerging from non-life. Also Michael Behe, mathematician David Berlinski on Darwin’s delusion. So tired of hearing nonsense talks like this. Life emerged from a primordial soup. No it didn’t. Academia - stop lying to people to perpetuate your pride and grant funding. You have no clue.
@@lawnmowerman716 Let's have a look at these 3 guys shall we?
Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).[2][3] He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the *_Discovery Institute's_* Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where *_his views were cited in the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is religious in nature."_*
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[5][6] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.[7][8]
So a totally religious agenda rejected by the scientific community. *_NEXT_*
Dr. James Tour "To those who are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001" he responded "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools- the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design."
David Berlinski An opponent of biological evolution, Berlinski is a senior fellow of the *_Discovery Institute's_* Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement's rejection of the evidence for evolution, but *_does not openly avow intelligent design_* and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."[1] Berlinski is a critic of evolution, yet, "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute,...[he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."
So again not only a religious agenda but he himself avoids the intelligent design hypothesis.
*_Look if you want to hang onto your superstitious beliefs and ignore the REAL science go for it but don't expect anyone else to swallow that bullshit!_*
@@warren52nz wow you know how to use Wikipedia?! You win. You can add to the list of scientists calling BS on macro-evolution: David Galerntner, professor of computer science at Yale. See Hoover Institution interview with him, Berlinski and Stephen Meyer on the mathematical challenges to evolution.
macro evolution is dead you just don’t know it yet. 100% dead. The really high level apolitical honest scientists know it. The religious zealot evolutionists know it too and so started proposing life was seeded from another planet or dimension decades ago 😂😂. What a joke.
Pre-biotic origin of life studies are pure nonsense. just the protein-protein interactions within a single yeast cell, the 3000 proteins, is 10 to the 79 billion possible combinations. The number of elemental particles in the known universe is only estimated to be 10 to the 90th power. pre-biotic theories for the origin of life are really a joke. I truly feel badly for academics that have wasted their life on these lies.
Sorry you can’t smear people just because you don’t like the Discovery Institute-you actually have to interact with their ideas. Your whole post is a logical fallacy. Ad hominem attack and association fallacy. Your post is a great example of universities failing to educate scientists in the liberal arts of logic and philosophy. Sir, you lack the intellectual tools to take these men down. Blame the university that produced your mindless post.
Universities have been suppressing speech and scientific dialogue for decades and they’re becoming political and even irrelevant as a result. The intellectual elite are becoming jokes of their own making as our knowledge of origins recedes in light of new discoveries and their blubbering denials of reality make them dumber by the day.
@@warren52nz hey warren. life from lifelessness is a very tough problem. you heard about how monkeys typing randomly could recreate Shakespeare? that is just impossible. even to type out a Shakespeare sonnet by randoming typing letters would take monkeys on every planet in the universe typing since planets were created billions of years ago and they still wouldn't be finished today. nobody has come up with a shortcut in 70 years of research to create anything except sludge under primordial conditions. if you start with a creature that has DNA then evolution can happen. getting to that from zero is a vast chasm. right now there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can come up with some kind of computational model that can replicate itself with variations.
@@georgeh8937 So do you have a PhD in biology?
Point us to a science based web site that says Abiogenesis is impossible. If you find something, I guarantee it will have a path back to religion.
The very prominent synthetic, organic chemist James Tour truthfully refuted of all of this in his video also called The Origin of Life. Look it up on TH-cam if you want the truth.
no he didn't.
Tour intentionally lies, all the AIG and DI associated people do.
She is so beautiful but the essence of the talk is: "we have a lot of ideas, we just can not get any of them to work. But if we get a lot of funding then we can work on them to eternity." The RNA-model has already been rejected, and mathematicians combined with biologists have proven that the chances of getting any of the functional chains compared to all those that does not work is so small, that even if all possible combinations had been tested since the beginning of the universe, the most likely outcome is not to find just one useful chain until this day - not to speak of producing any complex life form. Mathematically, such a chance scenario simply does not work. There is a good reason why there is no other life in the universe.
Please prove your claim that there is no other life in the universe
Right. Theres such a low probability that abiogenesis can happen, that it probably didnt happen at all. So its quite likely that you dont exist.
kim burley Its ok that you didnt get it Kim. :)
@@superduck97 there is actually a pretty high probability that it does.
@@jesseriker3076 You are claiming so you had to prove
Dustology, is an up coming science about particles and time. just a new way to investigate life as it is.
Interesting that you say that. Today I was finding dust bunnies in my house and as I was cleaning, I was thinking where did all of this come from? The answer is stars. Everything in nature including our bodies are all star dust.
Eureka!
I've got it!
We'll call it...
...the Theory of CAREFUL SELECTION!
48:55
Ahaha amazing.... Incredible idiocy, insanity, complete dumbness. The length to which atheists will deny logic is incredible!!
@@serjstol6695 How do you know they are atheists? More Christians than atheists accept evolution
Yeah - boiling point for h2o was around 250c in archean due to much higher atmospheric pressure ..
Reading all the comments below it amazes me that so many people seem to think that an invisible immortal wizard in the sky decided to create everything in the universe because he was lonely and bored is actually MORE plausible than a natural sequence of events over billions of years.
nobody is talking about invisible, immortal wizards. What is more probable than your magical and impossible angiogenesis is that life and the the first cells therefore were designed. Your unscientific naive, but hidden presumption is that only members of the hominid species homo sapiens sapiens are capable of design. Whoever designed life is a question, but it was designed for sure, you can take it to the bank.
@@SystemUpdate310 Who designed the designer? Abiogenesis is the furthest thing from magical. It is a hypothesis based on scientific facts. What is magical is your belief in YES, an immortal, invisible wizard! Isn't that exactly what you claiim your god is? invisible, immortal, with superpowers who can do absolutely anything?
You cannot "take it to the bank" Tell me, then, WHO designed it? And who designed the designer?
@@SystemUpdate310 What is your understanding of abiogenesis? Do you even know what it is? Do you realize that it is not a one-step process that just happened?
@@8698gil Want to talk about science? Let's talk science!
You say abiogenesis is not a one step process. What are the steps then? What are the steps specifically?
If it's possible for life to arise spontaneously, no matter how many steps it takes, it should be demonstrable by repeatable empirical experiments.
Here is the biggest scientific fact for you dumbass: Such experiment has never ever been done, it has never ever been demonstrated by experiments that life can arise spontaneously.
All you have is empty rhetoric and wishful thinking, you don't have science on your side, because what you claim has never ever been experimentally demonstrated. And no matter what you say, nothing will change that. You have absolutely nothing. You can run your big mouth dry we still can see through your empty rhetoric without substance. This is the scientific fact. Zero experimental evidence, zero big fat zero, that's what you have.
@@SystemUpdate310 First of all, why don't YOU have to prove that god exists? Where are YOUR demonstrable experiments? There has never been a SINGLE thing to demonstrate that a god or gods have ever existed.
Abiogenesis is hypothesis at this point, not a proven scientific theory yet.
Science Has recreated amino acids in the lab, which are the precursors for RNA, and subsequently, DNA (which is how it is thought life started). Did you know that?
There are many, many steps, all of which take a great deal of time, millions even billions of years. IT DID NOT HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE, which is where you bible cretins get all confused. You think small. Wishing the universe into existence in six days is more your style.
I am not going to explain all the details of abiogenesis iin a youtube comment. It would take far too long. Why don't you be HONEST and actually look it up in a nonbiblical source and see what it says.
What was that? Say again. In the lab, to demonstrate how life on earth originated, "...we need to use intelligence...not intelligent design...." Which is it?
The point is the demonstration of natural abiotic pathways to bio molecules.
Your and your fellow zealots position is that SUPERNATURAL intervention is needed.
You’re wrong
@@mcmanustonyeven that requires intelligent design… but all of the universe with all its brilliance arose out of random chance. Sure buddy, we’re the ones with “blind faith” 😂
@@fsl72 You are equivocating. "Intelligent Design" is the latest iteration of creationism coined by lying creationists to skirt the law around Edwards v Aguillard prohibiting the teaching of creationism in public school science classes in the US. It asserts that a supernatural designer or designers (they don't seem to know) did some designing at some point or points in the past (again they don't seem to know) by some mechanism (which they don't seem to know) . What this has to do with actual scientists designing and experiment I'll leave you to ponder. Good luck!
You might as well criticise them for using glassware......
@@mcmanustony the woman is speaking about the level of intelligence required to design a mere miniature version of the hypothesised “conditions for life’s emergence”. I simply pointed out the obvious - they can’t even create it in a lab without intelligently designing it, but when people with common sense say that life as we know it would not exist without an intelligent agent exhibiting knowledge, will, power and wisdom behind it - simple logical reasoning - these people are accused of “blind faith”. But to believe that they all came about my itself, magically, miraculously, is falsely called “scientific thinking”. Call it creationism, intelligent design, whatever you want - it’s not about the terms.
@@mcmanustony what’s required is “intelligent design”. Intentional, intelligent design requires a conscious external agent. Nature isn’t an external agent - nature is simply the sum of the inherent properties of everything. The One who imbibed nature with its properties - He’s the one who designed life.
Accepting a Great Designer for all the extraordinary designs you see in nature will require you to accept the logical, rational thinking that is normal to conscious intelligent beings. Believing that a blind, mindless process can design anything is the most stupidest belief ever!
+MosheMYY M Well, bacteria can definitely "design" a resistance to our intelligently designed drugs. Are they intelligent? Yes, in a sense, but they don't have any human-like intelligence, no mind or thoughts, no imagination. Yet it is directly observable that they - as a population, not individual bacteria - can learn and come up with new solutions to their problems. Vast majority of billions of billions of them die in the process, but those few lucky that survive and reproduce will create a new drug-resistant population and fill in the emptied living space.. And that's what the whole evolution is about: it's a giant constant learning process. Storing the useful solutions in memory (DNA/RNA) and trying to forget the rest..
+kyjo72682 Bacteria, like other living things were designed to survive and therefore make small changes when necessary. All living things can adapt to survive. This is not evolution. It Is in fact linear change as we know no biological system becomes something it wasn't before meaning, humans will still be humans and bacteria will remain bacteria.
Why do logical, rational thinking go unheard among evolutionists? You guys know that the designs in nature are real but you continue to deny it. And it's not like the designs are should be compared to putting together some lego blocks. These designs are far superior than anything we have made! This is why it's very easy for many of us to believe in an SUPER INTELLIGENCE. This is plain logic.
But some evolutionists see intelligent design and are ready to hijack it for evolution sake....
*Intelligent design without a creator? Why evolution may be smarter than we thought* theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932
So yeah, it's like intelligence has done it but not the intelligence we're familiar with. We want to ascribe to evolution certain abilities that it's not known to have like all the fields of engineering combined and compounded 1,000,000 times! It's past time to get real and allow the best logical conclusion to prevail as it should.
MosheMYY M Individual bacteria don't (can't) make any changes to their structure that could help them resist the drug. But the variability is already there - in the population. There are groups of individuals that are slightly different from the rest in some way (few proteins added/removed here and there). These changes come from random mutations - errors during copying genetic memory. Most of mutations are fatal and the "different" individuals die before reproducing, but sometimes the change is small and benign. And sometimes, when it comes to it, the change cam be both benign AND beneficial - for example it can block the artificial drug from entering and killing the bacteria.
So you see - we have a bunch of mindless microorganisms with no consciousness or any planning abilities whatsoever - yet they seem to display quite intelligent behavior. And combined with their sheer numbers they even seem to out compete our own intelligent designs. ;)
You say "the designs are in nature". And I agree that the results of this huge natural process may seem smart and designed. But what does that actually mean "to design something"? Think about it. Design is a process of trials and errors, repeated until a useful solution to a problem is stumbled upon. An intelligent designer - engineer who wants to build a car - must first LEARN from the mistakes and solutions of others, then he learns from his own errors and successes. Which is exactly what evolution does: learning.
The difference is that what we call "intelligence" and "design" is the result of this natural process, not its prerequisite.
+kyjo72682 The point of all this is it's not possible for a mindless, blind process to produce the designs we see in nature. It is a certain group of intelligent people who are probing the inner and outer workings of biological systems WAY AFTER THEY HAVE ARRIVED and try to attribute their intricate interwoven systems and their development to a process that has demonstrated absolutely nothing to validate the assumptions made by this group of people. Just because their goal is to solidify the theory of evolution and therefore state that biological systems are the result of evolution and its mechanism, until they can demonstrate how evolution did it, it's not a theory, it's not believable and it shouldn't be touted as a scientific fact.
Until the process is demonstrated, you can't use fossils, you can't use fully formed, fully designed, fully functional biological systems programmed to adapt and have variation as evidence for what the process supposedly has done. That's it in a nutshell. Learning about how bacteria functions, learning about DNA, RNA, phylogeny and the many information rich processes of biological systems is fine, just don't claim that a blind, mindless process is the cause of their existence. What would evolution know about information? From what we know, information can only be understand and process through intelligence and intelligence can make things to express and relay information. Evolution is johnny-come-lately with nothing to support it.
+MosheMYY M That would be really weird to try and probe biological systems before they've arrived. :) That would be like.. speculating that something which has never been observed actually exists.. Oh, wait! :P
But evolution has been observed and demonstrated, many times. I just gave you a concrete example of a "blind process" with bacteria. Its the principles that work. They work so well they're even being used in computer science to solve problems that are very hard to solve by conventional algorithms. The results of evolutionary algorithms are not exact but they will usually be precise enough to solve the problem at hand. These algorithms have no mind, they have no idea how to solve the problem, they are not even aware of any problem - yet they arrive at a smart solution.
I don't think solidification of evolutionary theory is the goal. It's about finding the best way to describe and explain natural phenomena. There's no conspiracy to achieve a specific goal. The theory just matches observations. If it didn't it would have been replaced by something better a 100 years ago just like Netwon's classical mechanics has been replaced by Einstein's relativity.
As for information - from a physical standpoint it's an inherent property of the universe. A physicist would say information is the state of a system, it's the way how matter/energy is distributed in a region of space.
From computer-sciency perspective this is called data. Literally everything, every piece of matter and energy is a medium - a memory that holds data - piece of paper, rock, magnetized metal, radio wave / ray of light, or a chain of nucleic acid molecules. Information only comes into picture when someone reads/interprets the data in a certain way and attributes meaning to it. But this is a completely subjective process that doesn't affect the underlying physical data and processes in any way. Rock will still be a rock - a bunch of chunked atoms - whether or not there is someone to read what's chiseled into it. RNA strand will still be a molecule that can make more of itself whether or not we know how to read the genetic code..
tinyurl.com/zut5uy4
Creation and evolution are both theories. It depends on which one you believe in will be the one you can accept.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not.
@byrdma12 - Creationism is not a theory in the way that a scientific theory is. It is a belief of faith that cannot be proved by the rigorous scientific method.
---------------
And would you want priests teaching science classes or scientists teaching religion? They are completely separate realms.
Awesome video! I want more!
I think the theory of evolution could be extended right to the beginning , where amino acids were automatically formed. It makes more sense to believe that the formation of cell was a process which happened simultaneously everywhere on earth, thus increasing the chance. Perhaps good conditions existed, heavy rains and lighting or meteor showers, abundance of organic minerals or compounds. Think of zillions tons of membrane , peptides and amino acid molecules floating around in land and water. Out of the zillions, few trillions got organized, rest disintegrated. Those which remained were of the same configuration. Then few billion tons of perfect protocell were formed, rest just dissolved. Suddenly the odds look good enough for simultaneous evolution of millions of tons of bacteria and multi cellular life.
The point is everything looks impossible on a small scale, like in a laboratory experiment. But earth is big and the time scale is 4.5 billion years. A lot can happen and lot did happen. And everything happened on a large scale.
What laboratory cannot possible replicate is the time period and the scale of experiments.
The question that what came first,whether it was cell membrane, DNA or Mitochondria. How about if all came together at one point of time.
I dont think you understand the probability at all. I have looked. If every atom in the known universe, each processed a random combination of nucleotides every miilisecond since the dawn of time, they still wouldnt search all the possible combinations (including chirality) within a strand of rna equivalent to the simplest theoretical rna strand I could find. Not even close.
evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis! To be a theory it has to be proven by the scientific method.
There is absolutely no way that life could have spontaneously arisen by chance, it is mathematically impossible.
Or how about life was created? Would you consider that idea?
EVERYTHING had to come first. From the single celled organisms and every different kind of life HAD to ORIGINATE 100% complete including a 100% complete DNA otherwise it could never live and reproduce. Only God's spirit could have done this. God contains all knowledge and is all-powerful. Give God all of the Glory because deserves all Glory. Appreciate God who is allowing you to live.
@anilkumar-gy1eq - Your creationist argument makes no sense. Tell me, in your view, who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? You are throwing a penny into an infinite well that will never hit the bottom.
I have never understood the need to cut in shots of people fidgeting in the audience... 😝
It allows camera one to take a pee break by swapping operators or making occasional scene changes to help maintain our attention.
Watch a five-minute Netflix with the sound off and count camera changes. Advertisements may have even more to dislocate our brain's executive function and buy the goods.
Of course, it might be to allow camera one to establish a new position.
_"This is still an outstanding question"_ about sums it up.. since the whole idea is based on spontaneous assembly of order from disorder contrary to the second law of thermodynamics!
You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.
@@mcmanustony What are the units of entropy?
@@mikebellamy JK^-1mol^-1.....your point caller?
You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.
@@mcmanustony *WRONG!*
JK^-1 = E/T but T = E/N (average energy per molecule)
so JK^-1 = E/E/N = N (just a number)
Entropy has *NO UNITS!*
Now would you like to try for the term *entropy* without using the term energy; _"your point caller?"_
@@mikebellamy you are incorrect.
Which of the mathematician Hoyle's contributions to mathematics do you think is the most significant? Take all the time you need.
"Some progress had been made". On a scale of one to a billion we're at negative one thousand.
I'm sure it's not an easy thing to solve, unless you have the answer to the origins of life?
nice lacture but I have little problem how lipid are servive before origin of life
Huh?
'...we need to use intelligent...not intelligent design'. No, we must stick to the dogma and not consider all possibilities...it seems.
frankos rooni -- this comment is not worthy. It's as if you are saying that Darwin's Origins, or Copernicus' writings or Newton's Principia are worthless until a scientific elite agree with them and allow them to publish. Any institution can set up a gatekeeping system to protect their dogmas and self-interest. For heaven's sake this is not new--it's common in all disciplines and throughout history.
Your comment is goofy. The sciences that do not found themselves on the philosophy and faith of evolution, could never work within the confines of biological sciences and their censorship. If bridges, rockets, telephones, highrises, and tunnels, medical procedures don't work, there is a backlash--because the results kill people (or inconvenience them).
That is PRETTY GOOD...I'll have to write that one down. :)
Wow. A whole room full full of dumb people. I'm an engineer. I design, build, install and fine tune very sophisticated machine systems. My machines often integrate electric power, steam, hydraulics, pneumatics, and logic controllers. They do work, perform tasks, perform diagnostics and often speak to the operators. I can't imagine any of my designs assembling themselves by random chance and I certainly haven't figured out how to make them self replicate. My intelligently designed machines are like junk compared to a single celled living organism. And over time my machines will breakdown. I'll say it again, WOW! A whole room full of dummies. Highly educated dummies. I'd ask any of them to show me their inventions. I have hundreds. I'm just an engineer. I'm sure glad I wasn't held back by being educated in the same fashion as these people.
Maybe you can find the engineer who constructed the cell. Nobel prize is still waiting
Paul Allison
All living organisms are now known to be progrmmed, replicating nano machines.
These pinheads haven't a clue how things are invented or built.
Your design intuition is correct.
When i go see a movie i dont expect to see a true story but a made up one because it feels good ,many of the spectators are paying to hear what they like , they are not dumb is just their choice, payed liars or not is a big business and hollywood knows it well , the quest for knowledge and science is a painful endeavour
Oh she’s so very pretty :)
In the beginning GOD......!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's lifestyle 🤔 circle.....geowhether ?step of nature's organics
Blank stares from the audience wondering why there is no mention of miracles, magic, or gods.
I don't think Case Western Reserve is a creationist or religious university at all.
@jesseriker3076 - Please! People attending this lecture series do not fall into that group.
Awesome talk!
Okay, lets just say this, no biologist should be allowed a degree until they take a semester in mathematical probability or statistics. She seems to be constantly saying, well we have so many places and lots and lots of years, and since we are here and since, well, we can't have been created by an intelligence, and well, you know, like I said, well lots of stuff, and, hence--origins. AND THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENED!
Its' actually creationists that are abusing probability and statistics....but thanks for playing.
I'm pretty sure molecular biologists have to take statistics.
You are the best I have ever heard thanks
Look up Dr. James Tour.
To evolutionists
*What have you seen evolution do? If it is possible to get evolutionists to be logical, rational and honest, they might just come to their senses.*
+MosheMYY M ... You and your cult of alienation are, first and foremost, characterized by your willful and unrelenting perversity, and by your profound moral depravity. You make no meaningful effort whatsoever to actually LEARN anything about the relevant science from legitimate sources of knowledge... you ignore virtually 100% of the overwhelming empirical evidence... you manufacture false & fraudulent "evidence"... you abuse your children with your mendacious fear mongering... and you are, completely without a shred of apology or repentance, a ceaseless spewer of lies and slanders... seeming to claim some special dispensation from having to live by the moral standards of normal people of sincere goodwill, standards understood all over the planet.
Your narcissicism is overwhelming; your humility before any creator god as might exist (being generous), a sham. You are the very definition of a willful sinner.
+Frederick J. And you derived your meaning of things from where?
And yeah, talk all about the overwhelming empirical evidence but make sure you don't answer my question.
We have seen evolution mutate the genes to adapt to the environment and to adapt to threats of life.
We have seen evolution modify a specie into racesWe have seen evolution transform a cell into complex forms of life that all share a nearly identical DNA, being a plant, a human or another kind of animal. ** AMONG OTHER THINGS **
Happy?
And YES. We have seen it in action in front of one's (and others') eyes. Read ''The Greatest Show on Earth'' from Richard Dawkins for 4-5 examples of this (foxes in russia, e. coli bacterium in a lab, fishes in captivity and in nature, elephants and their tusks, and some kind of lizard).
And I agree with Frederick J.
Seems like Evolution has skidded to a halt.
Cave Woman You haven't seen evolution do a thing. We may have documentation of small changes here and there but nothing evolutionary. Evolution isn't the reason for cells transforming to complex forms of life, cells are designed and they follow certain programs. DNA is the software of life and therefore changes are programmed within biological systems, to adapt and have variation. Sharing the same substances with all life will never be an aid of evolution because we pretty much know of the small changes that take place.
And thanks for establishing the fact that evolution designs nothing. Scientists hi-jack these natural small changes that are designed to happen and attribute them to something that can't design a thing.
Only imagination and faith can change small changes into drastic changes over millions of years.
ConservativeAnthem is right, it seems like evolution has skidded to a halt. I think it's even worse than that, evolution as taught in science today, NEVER WAS! ;~D
The best explanation so far is Mr James Tour… 15 episodes…
Tour does not work in this field. He works in synthetic organic chemistry. He is also an ethically challenged zealot.
@@mcmanustony I am sorry… we do not have a clue… Tour is right… we do not have a clue…
@@alexandrepereira3902 How much of Dr Sahai's work have you read? How much of Lee Cronin's? How much of Jack Szostak's? How much of John Sutherland's? How much of Addy Pross's? How much of Nick Lane's?
Why is sitting on your ass chanting stupid slogans about Tour (who does NOT work in this field) preferable to getting off your ass and learning some science?
@@mcmanustony as Mr Tour has stated anyone who can make a cell will get the Nobel…
@@alexandrepereira3902 Origin of Life researcher Jack Szostak, unlike Tour, HAS won the Nobel Prize.
Who should give a toss about what a lying fanatic who works in a different field has to say about anything outside that field?
What a name, the institute for the signs of origin, or was it Oregon? No one knows how life started. And I suspect, unless someone replicated in the lab, no one will know
Maybe if you could stop sneering long enough you'd learn what it known....and that the absence of a complete answer is not an excuse for doing nothing.
I think the good dr was, for a sec, confessing she had to use intelligent design (careful selection) in the lab but quickly caught herself before the high priests of evolution fired her...shame on you dr. 50 hail Darwins and an act of contrition.
+Jason Wolf Please name the high priest of evolution - what an absurd strawman. Listen to the talk as a whole, rather than playing word games. English is much easier to use if you talk like 'the cell wants to....', since English evolved to discuss everyday discussions, not scientific precision.
She meant very specific properties, it's pretty obvious if you haven't shut your brain off.
Interesting decision to give up tenure at Wisconsin Maddog to go to the University of Akron, working hard and producing lots of papers there so good for her and her collaborators.
And I must say, I stand in AWE of the MASTER ENGINEER!
In the primordial soup, before there was life, there was selection. .. More stable organic molecules were selected for. ..
Read it again.
1 hour of ignorance displaying... waste of time
R NA, DNA, protein
Mutualism under RNA, =DNA=protein but at the RNA is basic
Evolution of Ribosomes
Fundamental
RNA and DNA might
Might have remixes at point of origin of life.
Nick Lane suggested, in his book: The Vital Question, that a vital clue to life's origin might be the universality of chemoosmosis --the separation of charge across membranes -- first proposed by Peter Mitchell. Lane suggests that this electrochemical transmembrane gradient could provide the energy needed to drive the assembly of chains of monomers into oligomers. Such gradients could form in alkaline vents. Have you examined this in any of your hypotheses or experiments?
Did life originate on Earth only once?
Could there have been more than one LUCA? More than one tree of life?
If life could have originated more than once, must it necessarily have been DNA/RNA based? Could there have been another means of heredity and evolution? Why aren't there new trees of life "originating" now?
It is a scientific impossibility for small molecules to connect together to form the required building blocks of a cell. The laws of chemistry prevent such and if one could form it would decay apart again in a few days. Evolutionism is quackery.
@@danminer5343 and you’ve published this astounding, counter factual discovery where?
Polymerisation of peptides is well understood and in the absence of enzymes that catalyst the reactions in biotic scenarios.
Evolution does not address the origin of life. You are confused.
You clearly haven’t the faintest glimmer of a clue what you’re talking about. What’s that like?
@@danminer5343 and you’ve published this astounding, counter factual discovery where?
Polymerisation of peptides is well understood and in the absence of enzymes that catalyst the reactions in biotic scenarios.
Evolution does not address the origin of life. You are confused.
You clearly haven’t the faintest glimmer of a clue what you’re talking about. What’s that like?
@@mcmanustony - Nobody has ever found how even one ste0p of the story of evolution could occur. Never has a scientific theory been invented to explain how any step could occur. Thousands of scientific papers show this. The proof is everywhere showing how the story of evolution is nonsense. Evolutionists ignore the details and just say "Evolution did it" as a "god of the gaps" using the image of evolution as their 'god'. Every one of their 'predictions have failed. They have spent billions of dollars trying to find a way that 'evolution' could occur with every experiment showing how evolution is impossible.
@@danminer5343 not a work of this is true including “the” and “of”.
Why do you lie so much? What do you get out of this hopeless dishonesty?
Make rna in the lab and im with you bacteria is advaced life how did lipids carbohydrates membranes made this is a simple lecture 70yrs after miller exp and rna has not been made in the labwith supercomputers this is everywhere on earth but how do you get the proteins to match no we dont know if mars was suitable for life we dont know what life is how did bacteria start
RNA has been synthesised. Maybe you missed it when you skipped grammar class....
Watch this. th-cam.com/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/w-d-xo.html
Well, I see all the arguments below between the "Creationists" and the "Evolutionists". LOL! But for me, I don't care how Dr.Sahai got created! Gawd damn! I am gob smacked! I am now into some serious Sahaiology!
The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell
bwahahaha
Great
She does not say how the first cell came about !!
It came about by the Word of God. The language of DNA, language of life affirms the biblical revelation on this issue.
@@tamaking7104 Grow up.
@@mcmanustony Childish remarks like that do not give you any credibility. You have made not point at all that responds to or reflects upon what I have said. If you have something of concern or support to say then I am happy to do you the honour of replying. Writing others off without any evidence says more about you than it does your "target". Enjoy your day !
@@tamaking7104 It's not the least bit childish. You can't say anything about the science because your religious fanaticism has ruined your brain.
"Writing others off without any evidence ....."- and yet you dismiss decades of work by thousands of scientists not a syllable of which you've actually read. Adorable.....
Grow up....
@@mcmanustonyAdopting a patronising arrogant does not make your views any more credible. Rather, such a mask draws attention to why there may be a need to employ one.
I am a trained ecologist so do in fact have a good understanding of scientific methodology and natural respect for scientific endeavour. Like many other scientists, this does not mean that I close my mind, soul and spirit to our Creator or to the extraordinary life of Christ.
Not every scientist follows a blind faith in pure materialistic explanation of life. Fanaticism is not confined to the religious. Neither are all creationists or religious folk fanatics. Richard Dawkins is a good example of a scientist who is not only fanatical in his humanistic, atheistic pursuits but is so to the point of being also a religious zealot. Balance in scientific and spiritual experience of life is healthy and mutually beneficial. Believers in God vastly outnumber atheists among Nobel Prize Laureates in science, and the great early scientist such as Sir Isaac Newton were all believers in God. These facts provide ample evidence that science and faith in God are not incompatible. When both are approached with an open mind and interpreted properly, they will be mutually supportive.
It's not hard to find symmetry. Unfortunately it is also all too easy to find dogma in both camps that restricts the discovery and enjoyment of symmetry that exists between science and Christian theism.
In the beginning (Time)
God (Cause)
Created the heavens (Space)
And the earth (physical)
You're welcome! To book me for an event just use the contact form
book you for what? To chant idiotic slogans as you're too lazy to learn any science?
Sorry, but this is a story. Ask a chemist in private and they will tell you this.
th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html
Watch this video of a biomolecular chemist saying exactly that.
@@gittarfin James tour is not a biochemist. His work has nothing to do with OoL research
Eric Wood ... "No one shall disagree with evolution, physics, bio, chem and all that intelligent and superb mankind stuff or thy shall burn in the accretion disk of the nearest black hole". Hawking's Letter to Flat Earthers, chapter 9, verse XXII.
Manuel Bolivar
, you wrote, "No one shall disagree with evolution, physics, bio, chem and all that intelligent and superb mankind stuff or thy shall burn in the accretion disk of the nearest black hole". Hawking's Letter to Flat Earthers, chapter 9, verse XXII."
Why would Hawking write that to Flat Earthers? They are mostly atheists and evolutiionists?
Dan
This topic is really deeply interesting.I never considered that geochemistry could be on a continuum with biochemistry.Where do the biogeochemical cycles fit into all of this?
Watch at 48:30. She slipped. Like all of them. COSMIC AUTHORITY SYNDROME right there. xD
hilarious. thanks for the heads up.
I'm glad they mentioned the partner Universities, because "The Origins Science Scholars Program" of "The Institute for the Science of Origins" *really* sounds like crypto-Intelligent Design.
ON THE FEELINGSIDE OF HUMANITY FUNGALITY IS RECOGNIZED WALKING TOWARDS CENOBITES AS THE FUTURE INHERITANTS OF FORMER HUMANITY...
NCMR Inventing Method book Discovery chapter Consciousness is the origin of life and has been experimentally verified.
A person trying to show her ability to turn into a frog by proving that she used to be one.
Remember the 'lung-fish' that can survive without 'aquatic oxygen'. Cat-fish and 'snake-head' can bury themselves in mud and stay alive.
They were designed that way. Unless an organism is designed to live in a particular place, in a particular way, it WILL die.
Dipnoi are sarcopterygii while catfish are actinopterygii
@simonsimon2888 - The results of a long, steady evolution!
"We take it as an assumption there is a natural process by which you can go from geochemical simplicity to biological complexity" No such process has been demonstrated to date September 2022.
On emergent complexity consider 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!
Fred Hoyle was neither a mathematician nor a biologist. He did not falsify evolution. Have you considered READING books?
@@mcmanustony _"Fred Hoyle was neither a mathematician ..."_ *LOL!!!* Where did you go to school?
I suggest you *read* the Wikipedia article on Hoyle?
@@mikebellamy I went to school in Paisley, Scotland. I went to university at the University of Glasgow and then did research in pure mathematics at the University of Exeter.
Here's a chronological list of Hoyle's publications on mathematics.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.Here, in case you missed it is that list again, this time in alphabetical order.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hoyle was a distinguished ASTRONOMER who contributed nothing to mathematics and knew little of biology.
@@mcmanustony You missed one..
The Mathematics of Evolution Publisher Brig Klyce 1987 in which he concluded:
_"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"_
Also the review by T Fowler in 2018 _"Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit"_
(the only alternative Fowler offered was large mutations contradicting the theory!)
@@mikebellamy Careful while you clutch at those straws....you might hurt yourself.
Hate to break it to you. Darwin died. Don't know how you missed it. It was in all the papers. He died before the development of genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology....etc.
he's dead. Have you read any evolutionary science from....oh, I dunno....the last 40 years? Or is bumping your gums about Darwin as good as it's going to get?
We are all of this planet every tree animal mold every thing is a product of earth and space it was created by the two we are all very similar
All these cuts to people in the audience are unnecessary and detract from her message.
examples of organisms that evolves on Earth.
Life arising from unliving materials is a statistical impossibility. But lets say that it did happen by some miracle, how did the first life live long enough to evolve a way to self replicate? And I'm not coming at this from a religious point of view.
Statistically impossible cuz we don't yet understand. LOL
Ah, she slipped into a word of blasphemy there, but someone in the audience was quick to restore her faith. Thank Go…. I mean peer-reviewed research papers!
We need to carefully select based on our knowledge just to attempt to make something so miniscule, but to even consider the possibility that the conditions for all the marvellous diversity of life would also have to been chosen by an entity with knowledge and intent… now that, that’s blasphemy - that is not allowed. You must submit to the unscientific assumption of naturalism. Or else.
Consciousness/Spirit came from God. God created life. We will NEVER be able to create what God has CREATED. We can on replicate from what God has given us. We can not CREATE life from nonlife. We con only replicate life from life.
Go away. this is a science video.
I don't see any consciousness over where you are, only a religious bot. ;-)
In 2021 Dr. James Tour has debunked all popular OOL scenarios.
no he hasn't.
Negative.
This video, and others, show how ignorant and almost certainly dshonest he is. And what is the prob that one synthetic chemist, who loudly trumpets his faith, is right and the hundreds of serious researcher who actually work in the field are wrong. th-cam.com/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/w-d-xo.html
=
Amen!
@@mcmanustony - Yes he has.
They have NO IDEA or are even close to explaining the Origin of Life. Dr. James Tour shows us that The Emperor has NO Clothes. If they say they do, they are lying through their teeth.
These scientists are nothing compared to Tour
@@jamesbradley582 How much of the work of Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, Leslie Orgel, Lee Cronin, John Sutherland, Addy Pross etc. have you actually read?
You are in a cult. Grow up..
Wrong. YOU have no idea. Find something better to do that sitting in a pile of your own dung hurling childish abuse at scientists you are to scared to learn from .
@@mcmanustony where's your proof... you have none.
@@dannylowery7000 proof? Proof of what? Empirical science doesn’t deal in proof. What are you babbling about?
Very vague about everything
Huh, not sure if this helps the debate or hurts it. Got to have something to put in those textbooks though I guess. I watched the James tour vids as well but I'm sure he's not considered a scientist due to his belief. All his education useless because he doesn't believe we came from a rock.
He is considered a scientist because he's a scientist. His subject is synthetic organic chemistry. When he speaks outside of that area he is beyond foolish. He's a smart man with some serious ethical issues.
You sound like someone who should have spent more time READING textbooks.....
An acceptance of the reality of God is required to do good science.
@@danminer5343 you’re clearly wrong.
@er5343 - In my experience, such a faith belief BLINDS persons to science. Science is a never-ending process of enlightenment, one step building on another (like amino acids' journey to cell-hood). Religion is cemented shut in dogma. Few are willing to embrace any new scientific findings (Buddhism being an exception) - it a dead end to the truth.
Why did the Y chromosomes come out to be so similar between them and us? Let's take a look.
When they make statements of Neanderthal DNA vs. human DNA in their comparisons, it is misdirection. In actuality, it is common gene expression between us. Neanderthals WERE human with mere gene expression modification differences with NO implied evolving of DNA mutations being involved. It's sleight of hand. Actual tabulation of our DNA sequences with theirs showed a result of 99.84% commonality. We are 99.90% identical to each other. Why the 00.10% difference between each human being? It's mutation load. Why the 00.06% difference between us and them? Again...its the mutation load accumulation over the thousands of years since we co-existed. Subtract the thousands of years, then we would be 99.9% identical
All this is evolution-impertinent.
What is pertinent about the disseminators of evolution information and the resulting confused public who selects to listen to them? It shows misdirection and propagandization. It's control of the information to make a false impression of 'evolving DNA mutations'...general evolution to the fans of evolution. The problem? Genes modify by chemical tagging, largely by methylation, ABOVE the DNA sequences without mutations to them. It's a 2nd information code called the 'epigenome'. Purveyors of evolutionary theory makes it seem there is only ONE information code, being the DNA code. It's lying by simplifying, accidentally for many who only memorized what their professors wanted for a passing grade, and pass on this misdirection to others. For a pretty good paycheck, too.
Want to know another misdirection? It's implying that chimpanzee's DNA sequence 'similarity' to humans of '98.5%' would be from the same scientific method applications as the 99.84% Neanderthal-human similarity. Is it? No. The chimpanzee comparison is between similar genes while EXCLUDING the non-coding DNA regions. With the Neanderthals, it's comparing ALL of the DNA sequence.
Not ending there, the chimpanzee's Y chromosome in the sex-specific regions was compared to us, the pro-evolution researcher was surprised to find they were missing 33% of the total human genes. He said the difference was 'horrendous'! He said the difference between us and them was as large as the difference between a chicken's Y chromosome and ours. So how TODAY'S male chimp offspring be 98.5% similar to human's male offspring when 33% of the genes are missing? The scientific prediction before the study was done, the two Y chromosomes should have been 98%+ similar.
What was their rescue excuse to this intelligent design-friendly finding? What is the rescue excuse for just looking at a fraction of the chimp DNA, not the entire sequence, for the 98.5% similarity? Why imply just DNA in Neanderthal comparisons when it's common gene expression instead? It looks like a degree in evolutionary biology and theory is made of misdirection and memorization of rescue excuses.
'Evolution' is misrepresentation of gene expression, epigenetics, and the epigenome's capabilities and claims of gene degeneration causes evolutionary generation. What is the root of this claim of degeneration leading to generation? It is in the above sentence! it's taking these epigenome-derived gene expression capabilities and THE ASSUMPTION OF EVOLVING DNA MUTATIONS when...by definition...no mutations happen with this biological system. What else does this epigenome's capability do? It makes adaptations to changed environment, diet, or new threats for hundreds of generations, if needed. It can do it for one or two generations if the change switches back. This includes the Darwin Finch beaks WITHOUT the theorized 'engine' of evolution. This is a post-2014 new-info THIRD ASPECT of epigenetic ability. Thusly, it is an intelligent design signature by its logistics and common sense when no bias is applied.
The science-specific information above is web search retrievable and verifiable. Why does people like me have more scientific information than the innocent consumers of the evolution theory do? It is because the evolution-unfriendly information is withheld or piecemealed. It shows propagandization, not rationalization. It shows people like me gets the truth demonstrated while others take it dictated by their mentors they selected to listen to. There you go. There's your science. Evolution is not happening. We are a creation. The creator? Jesus Christ beyond doubt. I have put decades of research in this truth demonstrated to me. The 'dots of the picture' that the theory of evolution gives is the illusion of there being no God. It produces a much higher suicide rate in kids raised in this fatalism. The accompanying depression is not good in trying to foster a successful civilization to pass on to our children. The 'science' of evolution disrupts the sciences of other applications of science such as in psychology and social science aspects. It has selfish political science benefits to those who push the theory.
it's not working.....
Why not do this. Now that scientists claim to know what are the ingredients to make life from non-living things and now that scientists have all the modern equipments and the labs to do their work, put a team of the greatest scientists together, give them all the ingredients and equipment they need, and challenge them to produce life. Yes, ask them to use the knowledge they now know to make life out of non-living things. If they cannot do it, then surely they must concede that only a creator, ie. God, can produce life. If scientists, armed with ingredients and equipment and scientific knowledge cannot produce life, what more of life happening by itself by sheer chance ?
bwahahahahahahaha....this is the same crap you would here in a high school science class taught by a substitute teacher with a hangover
Okay what she is really saying is " How did life start ??? We have no Idea ".
No, that's not what she's saying. No idea is a long way from no general consensus. Try more reading and less sneering.
@@mcmanustony No one has any idea how life started on earth period . NO ONE!
We are no closer to learning how life began on earth then Darwin was when he published Origin of Species in 1859 . No one has ever created a single strand of DNA or RNA much less a cell from non living matter . Nobody . And until we know how to create life ourselves it is impossible to figure out how it could happen naturally.
@@johnathanmiller3033 you can scream till you're red white and blue in the face about NO ONE KNOWS......there are several plausible pathways to natural synthesis of biotic molecules. That was not known in Darwin's time. You are simply wrong about this.
Never heard of of synthetic RNA?
How much Origin of Life research have you read? Any?
@@johnathanmiller3033 Have cosmologists created any black holes in the lab? planets?
You don't seem to understand what science is.....
@@mcmanustony Ummm . No there's not . That's what science has proven since Darwin's day . And black holes are dead matter . We can tell you how dead matter will react . But we have no idea what makes life . None what so ever . We can tell you some of the parts . We can tell you what the basic building blocks are . But we have never built a cell from non living matter . Not once .
Oh and BTW ... a " plausible pathway " is a fancy way of saying "I'm taking a guess" or " I have no idea ". That's NOT science . The whole Origin of life field is a scam . They typically use terms like could , may have , possibly , probably and so many other words that never fit into any scientific research paper in other fields of science .
One field that NEVER uses these term is Organic Chemistry . Which is the exact field that that deals with creating life (new types of life) . And they say it is impossible . Life comes from life period . There has never been a single example of this scientific law being proven wrong . Also information can only come from a intelligence . Therefore without intelligence DNA , RNA the cell itself could not exist . These are basic laws of science that have never been proven wrong .
Watched.
How the hell does something "self assemble?" And you thought the concept of Mr Potato Head was funny...
molecules self-assemble all the time. It's called chemistry.
Do you know how books work?
First bacteria 3.5 bya
Aaaaaand James Tour obliterated Abiogenesis.
Aaaaaaaaannnnnd the research continues, unaffected by the screaming and ranting of a religiously motivated, ethically challenged, lying fanatic.
Claiming that the problem of RNA or DNA can be solved if we could find a way of making RNA chains a few thousand nucleotides long, as needed for any useful function, rather than the present best of about 50 long is like saying we could write a useful iPad app if we could just get enough programming instructions to appear in a line. It’s a false summit, we will still need the proteins to replicate it, read it, a membrane to protect it, and the chain of RNA to actually have useful instructions that make sense and can make a cell that can survive and make a copy of itself. This is jumping up on a rock and saying “look, we are nearly at the top of the mountain”.
I think she is fine.
Yeah only if she was single and available. She would be fun to date wouldn't she and she is good looking too as well as highly intelligent.
Naturalism is pushed by biologists who believe that abiogenesis is possible because they have no indepth knowledge of the field. Abiogenesis is purely molecular interactions which is understood by chemists, the problem is chemists all understand that life by pure chance in nature is impossible.
+waterborne
'Naturalism is pushed by biologists who believe that abiogenesis is possible because they have no indepth knowledge of the field.'
Biologists who have a wealth more education on the subject than you ever will. . .
'Abiogenesis is purely molecular interactions which is understood by chemists, the problem is chemists all understand that life by pure chance in nature is impossible.'
*Citation required
To@@rubberlegs15's request for a citation on abiogenesis:
Dr James Tour gives a good lecture called "The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - 2016 Lectures (with James Tour)" ( th-cam.com/video/_zQXgJ-dXM4/w-d-xo.html ) on how difficult it would be for non-living chemicals to evolve into life.
Audience should not eat at a lecture.
I'm laughing at all these scientist. Why? They think the origins of life and intelligent life came from cells, bacteria and other organism billions of years ago. It is wrong!!! The question is i will ask, where did all this cells, bacteria and organism all came from in the first place? Because all life in different forms all came from ONE SUPREME BEING. If that is the result of your research and your argument then it would be easy to find other life forms on other planets in other galaxies or other planets in our own galaxy.
Mathematically it makes more sense for nothing to exist than for anything to exist. Zero is the most perfectly balanced number and there is no reason for zero to explode into a big bang but yet here we are.
-4 + 4 = 0 now do that in reverse to create something out of nothing. Zero would have to become unstable which is impossible.
Nature can create a crystal. A picture (Mona Lisa) is more complex than a crystal (it contains information). However, it cannot replicate itself. A computer program is more complex than a picture because it can create a picture. It contains both information and instructions to replicate something. However, it was created by a programmer who told it what to do. DNA (life) is much more complex than any computer program. It can replicate itself and it can build a complex organism. It seems to me that (DNA) life would require something much more than a programmer.
The major problem with the Intelligent Design movement is that it's proponents try to refer to certain things in nature such as microscopic 'motors' and such and then try to compare them to motors that humans have made *with our hands* and then conclude "this must have been made, *teleologically!"*
The problem is, however, we know how we design things *again -- with our hands!* Intelligent Design proponents _do not_ know how disembodied minds (or mere minds, if you like) do _anything,_ let alone BUILD something that we could later interpret as "very special".
We would need a theory of consciousness for that. Something the Discovery Institute is NOT even trying to develop, I suspect.
that poor woman is lost , she still can t answer what could had decided and programmed the synergie in all living cells...........so sad..studying so much and not understanding a thing...she has no clue ,and those applauding this are the same,they just don t get the point.....
You're posting vacuous, incoherent gibberish and SHE's lost? Adorable.....
@@mcmanustony i meant ,she cant answer what had programmed all living things ......and the synergy of our cosmology and quantum biology and physics........if this is vacuous and incoherent ,you must have water instead of a brain........plug a brain in and try again........
@@smithkarine9678 the other possibility is that you posted vacuous, incoherent tripe and are simply full of shit.
@@mcmanustony personally ,i think and im sure,instead of a brain ,under your scalp is full of shit ........
@@smithkarine9678 maybe take a seat and work on your manners.
Then try opening a fucking book.
A hundred "origins of life" videos on yt...and not one actually discusses chemical origins.
oohhh I am in the weird part of youtube
From already formed life to fantasy on other worlds, sprinkled with some analogies that don't match.
Trying to do it for 45 years...
When genes came first?
Mineral played a role?
Self assambled... that's the way..
"Trying to do it for 45 years...:
it took nature 700,000,000
Too simplistic
a rare piece of knowledge that can answer my curiosity. may the almighty provide you great health to continue your work.