As a former forty-year programmer, I can tell you that you don't want to be reinventing the wheel for every program. You want as much reusable code as possible.
That quote is a wild oversimplification. ENCODE's findings don't "disprove" evolution at all. ENCODE suggested a lot of DNA might have a function we don’t fully understand yet, but that doesn't mean evolution is "wrong." In fact, evolution is supported by mountains of evidence-fossil records, genetic similarities across species, observed adaptations in real time, and more. The idea that some DNA might be more functional than we thought doesn't change the fact that these processes explain biodiversity and life's complexity better than any other model. And what about real-world applications of creationism? I mean, there's none that I've seen. Evolution, on the other hand, is central to biology, medicine, and agriculture. Understanding how bacteria evolve, for example, helps us fight antibiotic resistance. Studying genetic changes in crops also lets us grow food in harsher conditions. And sure, creationists can try to point to perceived flaws in evolution, but they're usually misunderstandings or out-of-context claims. What creationism doesn't do is offer testable predictions or solve problems. It just says, "God did it," which isn't exactly helpful for science or anything else. Though please prove me wrong.
Appreciate this series, but giving the impression that the c-value paradox is explained by polyploidy is misleading: “Some organisms with large genomes are not polyploid. For example, lungfish and salamanders have enormous genome sizes but are not consistently polyploid. Their large genomes are attributed more to the accumulation of repetitive elements and other non-coding sequences.”
Can someone please tell me what sequence-independent functions most ERVs, transposons, and pseudogenes are doing? That wasn’t mentioned in this video nor in either of the two companion articles on Evolution News. Remember, almost all of the aforementioned sequences in the human genome are unconstrained, which is to say they do not experience purifying selection. (This is similar to but distinct from evolutionary conservation and must be addressed separately.) Since these sequences make up over half the human genome, if there is little or no junk DNA, then almost all such sequences must be functional. But since they are unconstrained, those functions must be sequence-independent. So. What are those functions, and what is the evidence for them?
Out of 17000 pseudogenes we have found function for about a dozen A few hundred more show signs of function but we shouldn't write home about them just yet. The papers that you forgot to link in the description are about one such famous case, out of 17000, and the other paper is about a scientist cautioning us to keep looking for function. I am glad to do that because pseudogenes are the neutral starting material that shows you how evolution works. Functional pseudogenes are evidence for evolution Sorry!
Your videos are always great, but please consider removing the caricatures of the people you disagree with. Your artists do a great job at the caricatures - and as a cartoonist, I enjoy a good caricature as much as the next guy - but it seems mean spirited. Not that you intended this. It’s natural for you to feel angry at these people, just as it’s natural for them to feel angry at you, but please try to get beyond that. I’m a Christian who loves science, and I really appreciate the work you are doing!
(from the video) Kevin Padian "[Intelligent design] makes people stupid" ... It is exactly the other way around -- the theory of evolution makes people stupid ... -- an engineer
What makes people stupid is to make them believe that they have no free will, that they are a random creation, that life has no meaning, that everything can be explained by time, that their emotions are adaptations of evolution, that they are just good at working in society and dying 👍🏽
Thank you, thank you, thank you for slowing down your rate of speech. Makes it even easier to grasp the important info you are sharing. I am amazed at how long the non-junk status of “junk DNA” has been known by scientists and it is just now making a blip on mainstream radars. And I am saddened and dumbfounded that the idea of Junk DNA is STILL being clung to by scientists who are more invested in their careers and past claims than in accepting the invitation to make new discoveries.
What makes people stupid is to make them believe that they have no free will, that they are a random creation, that life has no meaning, that everything can be explained by time, that their emotions are adaptations of evolution, that they are just good at working in society and dying 👍🏽
Please consider addressing Graeme Finlay's 2021 book, looking at shared ERV's across time and phylogenic lines. Virus intrusions were not helpful or useful at first intrusion.
I think the main problem with ERVs is the circularity nature of the argument. It is simply impossible for an evolutionist to know which evidence she should expect for universal comon descent since no human have ever had any experience with such a thing.
Oh, onions have so much extra DNA for cell structure, huh? Interesting. I wonder why that's only true for ~some~ onions (also, most onions are diploids, not polyploids). Genome sizes range in onions from 7-35 Gb. Why does one species of onion need five times more DNA for "structural reasons" than another? This is also not even just about plants - krill have a 48 Gb genome. Their structural integrity is due to chitin, so there's no "structural" reason to have so much DNA, nor is it due to polyploidy as it's also a diploid. The biggest failure of the functionalist hypothesis is its complete inability to explain the immense variation in genome size across the Tree of Life. If the genome is entirely or mostly functional, why does an amoeba need so much more than a human, or a pufferfish so much less than a carp?
Hey Zachary Hancock, you were wrong when you claimed that evolutionary biologists predicting that genome is functional in the 1970s because those same biologists changed their position in the 1980s and 1990s in order to keep the new data to be consistent with the theory of evoloution.
Also this comment is an argument from ignorance. Why jump to the conclusion that functionalist hypothesis is a failure when there isn't enough scientific data to jump to such conclusions? The absence of evidence does not equal to an evidence of absence.
Try rewatching @3:24 more carefully/charitably. Also - let's address your objection in analogy to computational complexity: do you expect all algorithms designed to solve the same kind of problem (say, factoring integers into primes) to be written in the exact same amount of code - even if we assume the same language is used? Would there be any valid reason to pick a demonstrably more 'wordy' code for a particular situation - or we should only use fully optimized algorithms all the time? Is redundancy ever useful for programmers?
I'm thinking we mistakenly assume that microscopic (or body size in general) correlates to overall complexity. But there is no logical reason that has to be so. And the 'structural' aspect of the larger genome would have to do with the internal workings of each single cell itself, (likely the nucleus,) not macrolevel 'skeletal' type features like an exoskeleton. But I have to admit that it is next level meta-design genius to use the hardware that the information is encoded into as a useful structural element in the overall machines functionality. We don't really do that with our computers, or even blade-servers. But as you miniaturize things, it becomes more and more necessary for material efficiency. (ask any nano-robot designer.)
This video touches on an interesting topic, but I wanted to clarify a few points for those curious about the discussion surrounding "junk DNA." The term "junk DNA" doesn't mean "useless" but rather refers to DNA that isn't under strong evolutionary constraint (i.e., doesn't directly affect fitness). While ENCODE found biochemical activity in ~80% of the genome, many scientists argue that activity doesn’t necessarily mean evolutionary function. Current estimates suggest about 10% of the genome is under purifying selection, which fits well with evolutionary theory. It’s also worth noting that the study of "junk DNA" wasn’t hindered by evolutionary biology. Concepts like neutral theory (introduced by Motoo Kimura) expanded our understanding of how noncoding DNA evolves and helped spark research into these regions. Many discoveries about noncoding DNA were made by scientists motivated by curiosity and rigorous research rather than a specific framework like intelligent design.
What the difference between function and evolutionary function? If a non-coding region displays activity but we don’t yet know its function, are we presuming its activity is functionally redundant, therefore not contributing to the well-being of the organism? If so, excluding ignorance of function, why draw this conclusion as default?
The term "junk DNA" doesn't mean "useless" NOW, but prior to the ENCODE project that is precisely what it meant. DNA that (supposedly) had no useful function.
"When I said your car radio is junk I wasn't saying it's useless. Why on earth would you think that? All I meant was that it doesn't affect whether or not the car can get you from A to B. See? So I'm going to keep calling it junk, OK?"
No. This "prediction" didn't even come true. You can't do anything with intelligent design and creationism. You can't test it or refine it. All you can do is post navel gazing and tortured nonsense arguments on the internet.
Intelligent Design has proven evolutionists wrong over and over again, while evolutionists continue to make conclusions based on incomplete understandings of brand new information.
Even before any discovery of cells, DNA, genes, there was no excuse to anyone that there was a Designer behind this creation (Romans 1:19-20). Now?.........
Not only would evolutionists have to explain new information within the DNA, they would also have to explain how we lose information in our DNA along the way as well. How do I no longer have some of the DNA once held by an evolutionary predecessor?
Oh no, you lost some DNA? Did you check under the couch cushions? Seriously though, losing or gaining DNA isn't some big mystery. Mutations, deletions, and duplications happen all the time-that's just how DNA works, mate. Evolution doesn't require that every single piece of DNA from our ancestors sticks around forever. Some DNA gets lost because it's not useful anymore. Why waste energy keeping genes that don't do anything? Other times, new DNA gets added-through mutations, viral insertions, or even duplication of existing sequences. That's how evolution builds complexity, mate. So yeah, if you're wondering why your DNA isn't identical to, say, a chimpanzee or an early primate ancestor, it's because evolution doesn't have a rulebook saying, "Keep everything forever." It's about what works, not what sticks. Simple stuff, mate.
So nice to actually have videos that explain the reality of OOL research and evolutionary theory instead of the barnum and bailey grant chasing Paradigm we get from the darwinist cult gate keepers .
If it's a junk term then answer this. What applications in the real world can creationism be applied to? Also, can a creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
Motte-and-bailey. You believe in microevolution? Well, then I guess you have no choice but buying the Tree of Life, LUCA and all the rest as part of the package we're selling...
If God created the different kinds of living beings with the ability to become diverse , it means that one kind of animal can become many different species (micro-evolution), micro-evolution does not refutes genesis, but genesis refutes macro-evolution that (all living beings come from a single-cell organism who arose by it self) We can observe micro-evolution all the time , but not macro-evolution, which confirms genesis. ❤ Most Christians believe in micro-, but not in macro.
Cute video. Your beliefs about science are completely delusional. I suspect you know you're wrong because you delete comments that point out the inaccuracy in your claims.
You could have spared all the time to make this video and have done some research in the literature. We have experimental proof of the existence of junk DNA, you can like it or not, but it won't change facts. But I know you get paid by the Discovery Institute to make this videos, so I guess learning and communicating facts is not one of your concerns
"We have experimental proof of the existence of junk DNA" So much so, you didn't bother making your own research, and provide said sources yourself. But it would seem that must be evidence that you get paid by the opponents of the Discovery Institute to make this sort of comments - at least according to your logic, right?
L@@thstroyur what if I told you that scientists (and with "scientists" I mean real scientists, not content creators who produce videos for the Discovery Institute) have performed experiments with lab rats where the researchers deleted millions of base pairs from their genomes and the rats went on living as nothing had happened?
I merely wonder why pro-evolution comment appears to be the first in the line under the video? At least for me. It's not most recent and far from most commented or liked
In evolution, life is random, organs are vestigial, and DNA is junk. Science stops. But when we appreciate design, function, and purpose, we can actively seek it to understand it. Science begins .
That's nowhere near accurate. Evolution isn't random-mutations are random, but natural selection isn't. It's a process where organisms with traits that help them survive and reproduce pass on those traits. Far from "science stopping," evolution has driven huge discoveries, like understanding antibiotic resistance or mapping the human genome. And about "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA"-vestigial doesn't mean useless; it means the structure has changed function over time. For example, the human appendix plays a role in gut health. As for "junk DNA," scientists have found that much of it regulates gene activity or has other roles. Evolution actually inspires questions like these, which is the opposite of stopping science!
Even at a base level of thought, differences in DNA (even IF non-coding) are still differences between species - millions of pairs (how much more if they have OTHER functions, too). How dare we call it junk. That is ludicrous and stupid.
Using operational science to investigate historical science, nice.... Concerning Intelligent Design, I prefer to be Biblical Creation (to they may sound and have some similarities but they are different).
Great content! Those scientists are arrogant and will never question their own presumptions. How many times does this happen in science? They're the most dogmatic religious people God ever created!
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26-27, KJV)
As a former forty-year programmer, I can tell you that you don't want to be reinventing the wheel for every program. You want as much reusable code as possible.
I Love your videos!
I second that. I’m always so excited to see a new video. These are so mentally stimulating.
I like the quote by the evolutionist:
"If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong."
THAT REALLY SUMS IT UP
That quote is a wild oversimplification. ENCODE's findings don't "disprove" evolution at all. ENCODE suggested a lot of DNA might have a function we don’t fully understand yet, but that doesn't mean evolution is "wrong." In fact, evolution is supported by mountains of evidence-fossil records, genetic similarities across species, observed adaptations in real time, and more. The idea that some DNA might be more functional than we thought doesn't change the fact that these processes explain biodiversity and life's complexity better than any other model.
And what about real-world applications of creationism? I mean, there's none that I've seen. Evolution, on the other hand, is central to biology, medicine, and agriculture. Understanding how bacteria evolve, for example, helps us fight antibiotic resistance. Studying genetic changes in crops also lets us grow food in harsher conditions.
And sure, creationists can try to point to perceived flaws in evolution, but they're usually misunderstandings or out-of-context claims. What creationism doesn't do is offer testable predictions or solve problems. It just says, "God did it," which isn't exactly helpful for science or anything else. Though please prove me wrong.
keep them coming guys! So thankful for your work! :) Encouraging!
These videos are awesome
Excellent video. Thank you for this dear DI.
Appreciate this series, but giving the impression that the c-value paradox is explained by polyploidy is misleading: “Some organisms with large genomes are not polyploid. For example, lungfish and salamanders have enormous genome sizes but are not consistently polyploid. Their large genomes are attributed more to the accumulation of repetitive elements and other non-coding sequences.”
MORE LSS VIDEOS❗️❗️❗️
These videos are pseudoscientific and spread misinformation. Educate yourself regarding evolutionary research.
Can someone please tell me what sequence-independent functions most ERVs, transposons, and pseudogenes are doing? That wasn’t mentioned in this video nor in either of the two companion articles on Evolution News.
Remember, almost all of the aforementioned sequences in the human genome are unconstrained, which is to say they do not experience purifying selection. (This is similar to but distinct from evolutionary conservation and must be addressed separately.)
Since these sequences make up over half the human genome, if there is little or no junk DNA, then almost all such sequences must be functional. But since they are unconstrained, those functions must be sequence-independent.
So. What are those functions, and what is the evidence for them?
@@CreationMyths Hi there, I'm a big fan of yours! Will you be addressing the claims made in LSS videos like this at your own channel?
The algorithm just randomly recommended this video to me, and you've got a new sub.
13:36 thanks for the video. Awesome as it always was, thanks for your effort to produce this 14 min masterpiece.
Yes! Another masterpiece, keep it up!!
A new Long Story Short!!!!
Thank you
Yes, you’re videos are very informative & the humor thrown in is a perfect mixture. Please keep them coming!
Great video, thank you from France !
This is such an accessible and thought-provoking series. It's logic, elegance and intelligent design are breathtaking.😊
As always, thank you for your work.
Out of 17000 pseudogenes we have found function for about a dozen A few hundred more show signs of function but we shouldn't write home about them just yet. The papers that you forgot to link in the description are about one such famous case, out of 17000, and the other paper is about a scientist cautioning us to keep looking for function. I am glad to do that because pseudogenes are the neutral starting material that shows you how evolution works. Functional pseudogenes are evidence for evolution Sorry!
Hey! Fancy seeing you here. You didn’t expect an LSS video to be accurate, did you?
Great summary of how belief in evolution holds real science back. I loved the basic logic of your illustrations.
Evolution is mainstream science that is taught and confirmed in colleges and labs every day.
Your videos are always great, but please consider removing the caricatures of the people you disagree with. Your artists do a great job at the caricatures - and as a cartoonist, I enjoy a good caricature as much as the next guy - but it seems mean spirited. Not that you intended this. It’s natural for you to feel angry at these people, just as it’s natural for them to feel angry at you, but please try to get beyond that. I’m a Christian who loves science, and I really appreciate the work you are doing!
(from the video)
Kevin Padian "[Intelligent design] makes people stupid" ...
It is exactly the other way around -- the theory of evolution makes people stupid ...
-- an engineer
So you’re an engineer that doesn’t understand biology?
What makes people stupid is to make them believe that they have no free will, that they are a random creation, that life has no meaning, that everything can be explained by time, that their emotions are adaptations of evolution, that they are just good at working in society and dying 👍🏽
Thanks so much for sharing! You guys are the best!!!
Great stuff, Discovery Institute!!! 🎉🎉🎉
Great video. Love the shout out to Jonathan Wells at the end. I always loved his books.
These videos are absolutely great. Packed with great information and so well produced. Kudos to the DS team!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for slowing down your rate of speech. Makes it even easier to grasp the important info you are sharing. I am amazed at how long the non-junk status of “junk DNA” has been known by scientists and it is just now making a blip on mainstream radars. And I am saddened and dumbfounded that the idea of Junk DNA is STILL being clung to by scientists who are more invested in their careers and past claims than in accepting the invitation to make new discoveries.
Very informative .... again.
Commenting for the algorithm. Fantastic video, Discovery Science.
Dude! I love these videos! Im so excited for a new one! So well done. On point.
Thanks for another great video!
Thank you for keeping on making videos. Please, do not stop!
Keep it up! Love it!
Great information!
Keep it up guys!
amazing video thank you
What makes people stupid is to make them believe that they have no free will, that they are a random creation, that life has no meaning, that everything can be explained by time, that their emotions are adaptations of evolution, that they are just good at working in society and dying 👍🏽
Keep up guys. Thanks a lot
Good job
Sharing ---thank you
Please consider addressing Graeme Finlay's 2021 book, looking at shared ERV's across time and phylogenic lines. Virus intrusions were not helpful or useful at first intrusion.
I think the main problem with ERVs is the circularity nature of the argument. It is simply impossible for an evolutionist to know which evidence she should expect for universal comon descent since no human have ever had any experience with such a thing.
This is a spoof, right? You're trying to make ID look ridiculous?
Could you list the articles in the notes? They are very useful when debating an evolutionist. Thanks
It’s great that you call out the evo divas by name.
Oh, onions have so much extra DNA for cell structure, huh? Interesting. I wonder why that's only true for ~some~ onions (also, most onions are diploids, not polyploids). Genome sizes range in onions from 7-35 Gb. Why does one species of onion need five times more DNA for "structural reasons" than another? This is also not even just about plants - krill have a 48 Gb genome. Their structural integrity is due to chitin, so there's no "structural" reason to have so much DNA, nor is it due to polyploidy as it's also a diploid. The biggest failure of the functionalist hypothesis is its complete inability to explain the immense variation in genome size across the Tree of Life. If the genome is entirely or mostly functional, why does an amoeba need so much more than a human, or a pufferfish so much less than a carp?
Hey Zachary Hancock, you were wrong when you claimed that evolutionary biologists predicting that genome is functional in the 1970s because those same biologists changed their position in the 1980s and 1990s in order to keep the new data to be consistent with the theory of evoloution.
Also this comment is an argument from ignorance. Why jump to the conclusion that functionalist hypothesis is a failure when there isn't enough scientific data to jump to such conclusions? The absence of evidence does not equal to an evidence of absence.
Also, you are making an arguemnt from ignorance and hence its a no-sequtur.
Try rewatching @3:24 more carefully/charitably. Also - let's address your objection in analogy to computational complexity: do you expect all algorithms designed to solve the same kind of problem (say, factoring integers into primes) to be written in the exact same amount of code - even if we assume the same language is used? Would there be any valid reason to pick a demonstrably more 'wordy' code for a particular situation - or we should only use fully optimized algorithms all the time? Is redundancy ever useful for programmers?
I'm thinking we mistakenly assume that microscopic (or body size in general) correlates to overall complexity. But there is no logical reason that has to be so. And the 'structural' aspect of the larger genome would have to do with the internal workings of each single cell itself, (likely the nucleus,) not macrolevel 'skeletal' type features like an exoskeleton.
But I have to admit that it is next level meta-design genius to use the hardware that the information is encoded into as a useful structural element in the overall machines functionality. We don't really do that with our computers, or even blade-servers. But as you miniaturize things, it becomes more and more necessary for material efficiency. (ask any nano-robot designer.)
It was a long wait for the episode. Please don't let us wait so long for the next one.
A new one, yeah. Blessings
This video touches on an interesting topic, but I wanted to clarify a few points for those curious about the discussion surrounding "junk DNA." The term "junk DNA" doesn't mean "useless" but rather refers to DNA that isn't under strong evolutionary constraint (i.e., doesn't directly affect fitness). While ENCODE found biochemical activity in ~80% of the genome, many scientists argue that activity doesn’t necessarily mean evolutionary function. Current estimates suggest about 10% of the genome is under purifying selection, which fits well with evolutionary theory.
It’s also worth noting that the study of "junk DNA" wasn’t hindered by evolutionary biology. Concepts like neutral theory (introduced by Motoo Kimura) expanded our understanding of how noncoding DNA evolves and helped spark research into these regions. Many discoveries about noncoding DNA were made by scientists motivated by curiosity and rigorous research rather than a specific framework like intelligent design.
What the difference between function and evolutionary function? If a non-coding region displays activity but we don’t yet know its function, are we presuming its activity is functionally redundant, therefore not contributing to the well-being of the organism? If so, excluding ignorance of function, why draw this conclusion as default?
The term "junk DNA" doesn't mean "useless" NOW, but prior to the ENCODE project that is precisely what it meant. DNA that (supposedly) had no useful function.
what is "purifying selection"?
"When I said your car radio is junk I wasn't saying it's useless. Why on earth would you think that? All I meant was that it doesn't affect whether or not the car can get you from A to B. See? So I'm going to keep calling it junk, OK?"
Actually Moto Kimura is wrong because neutral drift is deadly.
I hope these never end!
In fact it is impossible the way current Evolution says. It's mathematically impossible.
Hey Discovery Science, is there any other predictions that you have made including those that have also come true? I would like to know.
No. This "prediction" didn't even come true. You can't do anything with intelligent design and creationism. You can't test it or refine it. All you can do is post navel gazing and tortured nonsense arguments on the internet.
Intelligent Design has proven evolutionists wrong over and over again, while evolutionists continue to make conclusions based on incomplete understandings of brand new information.
Even before any discovery of cells, DNA, genes, there was no excuse to anyone that there was a Designer behind this creation (Romans 1:19-20). Now?.........
Not only would evolutionists have to explain new information within the DNA, they would also have to explain how we lose information in our DNA along the way as well. How do I no longer have some of the DNA once held by an evolutionary predecessor?
Oh no, you lost some DNA? Did you check under the couch cushions? Seriously though, losing or gaining DNA isn't some big mystery. Mutations, deletions, and duplications happen all the time-that's just how DNA works, mate. Evolution doesn't require that every single piece of DNA from our ancestors sticks around forever.
Some DNA gets lost because it's not useful anymore. Why waste energy keeping genes that don't do anything? Other times, new DNA gets added-through mutations, viral insertions, or even duplication of existing sequences. That's how evolution builds complexity, mate.
So yeah, if you're wondering why your DNA isn't identical to, say, a chimpanzee or an early primate ancestor, it's because evolution doesn't have a rulebook saying, "Keep everything forever." It's about what works, not what sticks. Simple stuff, mate.
So nice to actually have videos that explain the reality of OOL research and evolutionary theory instead of the barnum and bailey grant chasing Paradigm we get from the darwinist cult gate keepers .
What’s the “reality” of the theory of evolution?
Thanks for promoting Intelligence!
I mean, in a few years they'll talk ID but still call
It evolution.
So good!!
is it just me or is 'evolution' a junk term....
If it's a junk term then answer this. What applications in the real world can creationism be applied to? Also, can a creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
Motte-and-bailey. You believe in microevolution? Well, then I guess you have no choice but buying the Tree of Life, LUCA and all the rest as part of the package we're selling...
Evolution refutes genesis.
Science supports genesis and refutes evolution - sorry, God wins again.
If God created the different kinds of living beings with the ability to become diverse , it means that one kind of animal can become many different species (micro-evolution), micro-evolution does not refutes genesis, but genesis refutes macro-evolution that (all living beings come from a single-cell organism who arose by it self) We can observe micro-evolution all the time , but not macro-evolution, which confirms genesis. ❤ Most Christians believe in micro-, but not in macro.
@@runelund5600 evolution doesn’t address origin of life. Common mistake.
New species arise, which is macro evolution.
👌👌👌
Man what a beautiful video. Actually made me tear up. God is so great!
Thanks!!!
You should do a breakdown of how "Professor" Dave just read a paper title instead of realizing the ribozyme didn't actually self replicate.
You should do a paper about how an ark of a few thousand animals evolved to millions of different species without evolution.
Cute video. Your beliefs about science are completely delusional. I suspect you know you're wrong because you delete comments that point out the inaccuracy in your claims.
For the algorithm.
People who believe in convergent evolution can't argue that similar "broken" regions of dna are proof of common ancestry.
You aren't denying an evolutionary genealogy unifying all life with LUCA, are you?
Does he have any sort of obligation to affirm it?
You could have spared all the time to make this video and have done some research in the literature.
We have experimental proof of the existence of junk DNA, you can like it or not, but it won't change facts.
But I know you get paid by the Discovery Institute to make this videos, so I guess learning and communicating facts is not one of your concerns
Some DNA might be junk DNA but abiogenesis is still impossible.
"We have experimental proof of the existence of junk DNA" So much so, you didn't bother making your own research, and provide said sources yourself. But it would seem that must be evidence that you get paid by the opponents of the Discovery Institute to make this sort of comments - at least according to your logic, right?
Junk dna argument is dead
L@@thstroyur what if I told you that scientists (and with "scientists" I mean real scientists, not content creators who produce videos for the Discovery Institute) have performed experiments with lab rats where the researchers deleted millions of base pairs from their genomes and the rats went on living as nothing had happened?
I merely wonder why pro-evolution comment appears to be the first in the line under the video? At least for me. It's not most recent and far from most commented or liked
In evolution, life is random, organs are vestigial, and DNA is junk. Science stops.
But when we appreciate design, function, and purpose, we can actively seek it to understand it. Science begins .
Science doesn’t care about how you feel. Evolution happens.
That's nowhere near accurate. Evolution isn't random-mutations are random, but natural selection isn't. It's a process where organisms with traits that help them survive and reproduce pass on those traits. Far from "science stopping," evolution has driven huge discoveries, like understanding antibiotic resistance or mapping the human genome.
And about "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA"-vestigial doesn't mean useless; it means the structure has changed function over time. For example, the human appendix plays a role in gut health. As for "junk DNA," scientists have found that much of it regulates gene activity or has other roles. Evolution actually inspires questions like these, which is the opposite of stopping science!
Even at a base level of thought, differences in DNA (even IF non-coding) are still differences between species - millions of pairs (how much more if they have OTHER functions, too). How dare we call it junk. That is ludicrous and stupid.
Very informative even though the narrator sounds infantile, which is OK I guess. It's mostly crazy talk.
"It's mostly crazy talk" LOL - just like this remark is mostly copium, I guess...
Using operational science to investigate historical science, nice.... Concerning Intelligent Design, I prefer to be Biblical Creation (to they may sound and have some similarities but they are different).
great
Dna is a hyper high technological code for the control of nano robot's inside the designed cell and thus all life and all atoms are designed
🍿🥤
Miss thatttttt
I didn't remember the full Graur quote. Hopefully he'll be able to get out from under tenure and retire and publicly accept the data.
Great content! Those scientists are arrogant and will never question their own presumptions. How many times does this happen in science? They're the most dogmatic religious people God ever created!
Finally
483 views, 109 likes and zero comments???
The suppression is real.
God doesn't make junk DNA. All DNA has a purpose in his plan. Darwinists seek to trash his plan.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26-27, KJV)
evolution says intelligence came from non intelligence. Got it?
Then if 'evolution' is true, that remark ultimately came from non intelligence. Got it?