Another excellent presentation from Dr. Meyer. I’ve spent the last 6 years immersing myself in this subject, having read everything I can get my hands on and watching these fascinating videos. Sometimes I reflect on my past atheistic views and evolutionary leanings and just wonder what the hell I was ever thinking. Looking back at those ideas and concepts, it’s blatantly apparent that they just make no sense anymore. I feel like I’ve been awakened from a dark sleep.
Outside of his obvious intelligence, Dr. Meyer has an excellent teaching style: calm, conversational, easy to listen to, down to Earth, etc. I wish I could present as well as he does.
I can, and I've lead out in discussions without reviewing what was being discussed prior to the discussions. Those were several years ago The first it blew me away that I was able to do as well as I did. Fortunately I was well familiar with what was being discussed. God is good!!!
The one thing I'd ask is that you guys have someone narrate the questions in each segment so those who listen to the videos as a podcast can know what questions are being addressed. Thank you
The alternative would be the constant evolution of random useless body parts and then 2 or more coincidentally sync up to create an advantage. Natural selection tends to weed out useless body parts, so definitely a paradox.
I agree. The other thing is that mutations are the partial dysfunction or complete breaking of a gene. Most dog mutations have been thusly mapped. Even in the test at mich state, where they have been breeding e coli (due to short generations) for thirty years, no mutation has ever added info. (They are swirled and lost their flagellum and bred faster, touted as “evolution” in the media). From the book Not by Chance: “Of all the point mutations ever observed, not a single one has added even a little information to the genome.” Yet it created all this complex info Billions of pairs long.
I've studied this topic thoroughly and to the best of my ability. I conclude that,regardless of timelines,there's no getting around one thing- INFORMATION. Causal agent and information can't be denied.
Anti theists are sneaky, they will just say that information is an integrated part of physical laws that drive all matter to information give it billions of year LOL
when you go over a topic like 'evolution' on the base it sounds correct, or any topic, but the more you look into it the more problems it has, the more you learn, the more you learn how much you don't know
2:46 they will always come back with whale evolution, their “clearest case”. It is actually four small fossils where one of them appears to be a skull with a hole between the mouth and upper back. (Transition to the blow hole). And then complete, totally distinct animals on either side. That’s all. And they make complicated, detailed renderings from that. Among the millions of species these are the transitions we’ve found?
I have never needed to go as far as whale evolution. Have you heard of Tiktaalik or archaeopteryx for example? Perhaps you might find it interesting if you are looking at refuting evolution. You could also look into retroviruses in primate evolution and see how you can tackle that. It would be interesting to see how you respond.
Creationism : a forest of family trees where the information in the branches is in the trunks. Evolution : one family tree where the information in the branches is added during growth and not in the trunk. If evolution were true the information would have to be added by nature essentially performing magic.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine that you are assigned the task of selectively breeding a pack of dogs into a whale species -- in similitude of Pakicetus evolving into modern whales. You will live for as many years as it takes to accomplish this feat. You can even select a team of the world's best evolutionary biologists to join you. Your team will be taking the place of natural selection as you intelligently select the random genetic mutations that are most likely to lead to the invention of, for example, a blow hole, waterproof skin, flippers, a fluke, etc. Then you will selectively breed the dogs in favor of those mutations -- those "numerous, successive, slight modifications." Unlike natural selection, you have a goal in mind. You have foresight and foreknowledge. So it should, presumably, take you less time than it took Pakicetus. How long do you think it would take your team to accomplish this goal?
Reading a lot about the Darwinian theory and I’m amazed by hoe much of a dogma it is. How they try do to whatever just to keep the theory alive. Even the language they use to describe natural selection is full of “design language”
Good point. Good though. You would also have the problem, not mentioned in this video, that no mutation has ever added information. Natural selection is either weeding out unfit forms, or it’s the dysfunction or complete breaking of a gene that luckily confers advantage in rare occasions. But not new form or finction. From the book Not by Chance: “Of all the point mutations ever observed, not a single one has added even a little information to the genome.”
A similar line of thought to this I think would serve as the basis for an excellent doctoral dissertation: place the “known” dates (those the evolutionary theorists all agree on with relative certainty) for various organisms alive at those times. Compare the DNA structures and determine the minimum number of genetic mutations needed to get from the closest relative to the next. Do this for the top ten non-homo-sapien line species to species proposed mutations. I believe assigning the shortest reasonable interval of successive mutations, even ignoring all bad mutations, and assuming only beneficial mutations, would still not have enough time to get from one specie to the next within the “known” date intervals.
You guys should do more on origin of life, mainly the central thing that we ACTUALLY need to find out (information) and not chemistry and physics alone. The James tour, professor dave feud only made farinas fans see the material aspect of it from his dogmatic perspective. More talks with or about Paul Davies and Sara Walker and their thoughts, and how you think (though similar) intellect design stands on top at the end of the day. Just suggestions! Keep up the great work and God bless
The only morphing we see in evolution is the ever changing speculations required to explain this lack of morphological evidence . Perhaps they should be looking at Greek Mythology since the basis for both are actually very similar.
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of “a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row.” Sounds a little bit like a lyric in the iconic Kenny Rogers song, "The Gambler". Yes evolution certainly knows how to play the game - "You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away And know when to run Is it reasonable to believe that evolution is “A Game of Chance”? The theory of evolution is certainly a gambler’s dream. Why? Because according to the evolutionist, it wins every single time even with, in many cases, astoundingly astronomical odds against it. Robert Naeye wrote: “Because evolution is primarily a game of chance, any seemingly minor past event could have gone slightly different, cutting off our evolutionary line before humans evolved.” But no, says the evolutionist, we are supposed to believe that every gamble, often with insurmountable, or immeasurable odds against it, paid off millions of times. Naeye admits: “The long series of bottlenecks makes it clear that the emergence of intelligent life is far more difficult than scientists once thought. There are probably more obstacles that scientists haven’t even stumbled across yet.” Well, he was right about that and as far as "obstacles" go, obstacles which demonstrate the improbability of evolution being the reason for our existence, "the hits just keep on comin' ".
This may be a nitpick but...I wish you wouldn't put the questions up silently as text on these videos. Many people listen to them without watching them... all these silent gaps inbetween ...and guessing at the question based on the answer.
If there is a single common ancestor what are the chances for life to originate. A single common ancestors suggests the same immense difficulties in creating life. To have multiple life origins may suggest a less difficult problem or originating life. If the common ancestor was a pinching point of extinction then this suggests the immense difficulty sustaining life or pre-life. Why do we not have multiple ancestors on the tree of life’s origins? How Did a single cell survive alone at its origin? How Did a single form of pre-life continue on its own at its origins? Did it take simultaneous ( or even simply close in time) origins of metabolism, DNA, amino acids, proteins, lipids? Could one of these processes continued alone until the other was accidentally introduced? If something can only come about by emergent processes does that eliminate the consideration purpose, design or intent? Instantaneous, spontaneous, emergence can they not all be actual processes? Did the universe instantaneously occur? Did the galaxies spontaneously occur? Did wetness emerge? Does anything accidentally occurring have intent? Is accidental intentional or intent accidental ? Is free will accidentalism and determinism intentionallism?Is free will a process of determinism or is determinism a process of free will? Have you ever noticed that as the real number line of the Mandelbrot set ( the logistics map) becomes more complex that the complex numbers plane of the set become less complex and Vise versa ? Which is first the real number line or the complex plane ? A rabbit population dynamics is a logistics map. The environment ( conditions)of the rabbit population dynamics is the complex plane. Who can know the mind of God?
Fossilization is extremely rare, and fossils remaining intact to present day is even more rare. You can cherry pick a specific example where a softbody gets preserved, but the fact is that it takes extraordinarily rare circumstances to do so. The fact that it is possible for a softbody form to be preserved, is in no way a refutation of the artifact hypothesis because the artifact hypothesis is not the claim "softbodies can not be preserved", it would be the claim "softbodies are only preserved under extremely rare circumstances", and this is still a logical explanation as to why we have so few fossilized examples from when older life was only softbodies. Of course we have pre-cambrain softbody fossils, just not as many as after the cambrain *explosion*. That's why it's called an explosion...
Unbelievable effort and scrupulous research , compilation of information by intelligent design team (discovery science team).. Forever grateful for their work ....god bless them...👌👌❤️❤️🙏🙏
It’s worth keeping in mind that Ptolemaic celestial spheres were in the day the “best explanation” of what we observed in the sky. As is always the case in scientific discovery, the “best” explanation remains the best until some better explanation comes along. Given the new discoveries in molecular biology and genetics, it is becoming clear that Darwin’s theory is in need of an upgrade. How exciting to imagine what new theories are currently being crafted!
My understanding of Darwinian evolution is that the theory is an explanation of the change over time of life forms. It was never an explanation for the origin of life, only for the origin of species derived from an existing life form. Its strength arose from the presumption of more than enough time for life forms to develop incrementally into what we observe today and in the fossil record. Recent science questions this presumption and indeed argues that not only has there been inadequate time for observed changes to have come about by evolution by mutation and natural selection, there has in fact been way way too little time. It looks like the Darwinian theory of evolution is losing credibility as a best explanation and some better explanation needs to be put forward. One would hope that while searching for a better explanation of the observable changes in life forms that lead to the origin of new species, one will also seek to unify evolutionary theory with a theory of the origin of life. We are searching for a mechanism that credibly explains the “Darwinian tree” of new species arising out of old species in a time frame younger than the universe while ideally also explaining from whence the dirt came in which this metaphorical tree is planted. To be asking the gardener’s name, as it were, is missing the point and jumping the gun. Let’s stick to repairing Darwin’s theory where it doesn’t work anymore and keep an eye out for an explanation of the origin of life itself (not just the origin of the species).
I do not have the qualifications to respond to Meyer when he contends that there is/was “no discernible pattern” between body plans of a certain point and those that preceded them. However, I do see that any number of biologists, who are qualified to speak on the subject, have expressed strong disagreement with this contention. So I’m listening to him, and I’m listening to them.
I dont know exactly which biologists youre catching, as that can be a problem, but most evolutionary biologists who work on foundations have concluded that neo-darwinism (aka modern synthesis) is not even possibly sufficient. They are scrambling to come up with extended synthesis models to salvage a naturalistic explanation. It’s easy to catch someone below that level who is not even aware the cutting edge is at that point. If you see this ive give references if requested
Yeah I’m one of them. Not only are there macroscopic patterns such as skeletons, but even more convincingly, micro scale patterns such as DNA sequences. The case is closed for all practical purposes - only the details remain to be worked out.
The thing that really gets me is how people take Darwin seriously at all. He wasn’t a scientist. He was a theology graduate who had a bunch of armchair theories that didn’t stand up to science. He contributed absolutely nothing to science. His primal pond type scenario had no evidence. His belief that tiny Finch beak changes showed they were evolving has no evidence. His eager and unquestioned acceptance of the admittedly fraudulent Haeckel drawings showed he didn’t even do basic research. The only time he apparently used the scientific method was when he was breeding pigeons to try to prove his evolutionary theory. Once again, he acted contrary to science. All he had to do was do a tiny bit of research to see that pigeons have been changing for thousands of years, but they have stayed pigeons. Just like his pigeonsstayed pigeons. When people talk about neo Darwinian science, they are talking about something that absolutely does not exist.
Creationists believe Adam was created from dust and dirt, and magically brought to life with a higher powers breath, and then using one of his ribs created a woman. Sounds just as stupid (if not more) than a magical daddy.
@@PortmanRdnot everybody who believe in god believes every word in the Bible. We are all made from stardust. The breath of life is a metaphor that makes perfect sense.
That’s a strange question. The Creator can choose to create or not to create. Why would He be compelled to keep creating continuously? Also, for you to say we don’t see new species is saying we have all the knowledge of the Earth. There’s much to discover and new life forms (new to us) are still being discovered
I think we do but not in the way one might see we could see change within ones own species yet not as far as one might claim like in the 44 day ant experiment
There is no doubt that mutations are rarely beneficial to the organism. Mutations are not desirable in almost all cases. Riddle me this: Where did the genetic code come from? The code that is required for every cell to function. A eukaryotic cell is immensely complex and requires the information in DNA/RNA. Mathematically impossible for random mutations acting on natural selection to have given rise to the complexity life. Darwinian evolution is dead!!
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Jesus Christ created all things. I understand from what Paul says here. I don't have to prove anything to atheists or those who are Darwinian or evolutionists or any belief system that is contrary to what God says.
You’re right: you don’t have to prove anything. I do have to correct you that evolution is not a belief system. It is an observed and tested understanding of a condition in the natural world. There are Christians who accept evolution. I am interested to know how you categorise those people?
If you are going to use your reasoning to lead you all the way to your recognition of a "mind," it is only natural to ask the next obvious question ... whose mind? It is foolish not to ask, whose mind.
At the 7:55 make Stephen says that "each Cambrian form is lacking any discernible connection to ancestral forms" This is not true, for example Cambrian Trilobites have the likely ancestor of the Ediacaran Spriggina. Then from 1 form of Trilobite it evolved into 64 different forms within 40 million years. If interested, watch The Trouble with Trilobites on the PBS Eons youtube channel.
Thanks for your comment! Stephen Meyer actually addressed this issue in his book Darwin's Doubt, and others have written on it as well. For an explanation of why the Spriggina is not likely to be an ancestor of the Trilobites, see: evolutionnews.org/2021/12/was-spriggina-an-evolutionary-ancestor-of-arthropods/
These were already done, unfortunately. But for the next Science Uprising, which comes out later this year, the bonus interviews will all have the questions read aloud. Thanks to you and others for making the suggestion!
Okay guys, you’ve come to the conclusion that there is a Creator. What is the most important now is researching the main religions and figuring out which one is true. Spoiler alert: it’s not christianity.
Vincent Explain to us all how you unequivocally know Christianity is not true for all mankind and what you believe is. Maybe explain exactly what Christianity is first so we can see you know what your talking about ) 🙏
@@KenJackson_US This is a religious issue disguised as ‘science’, the Discovery Institute obviously biased due to the fact that many of its founders are known to be deeply religious. ‘Intelligent Design’ is just biblical creationism with a new brand.
Looking Up, Not Down, for Answers EVOLUTION teaches that a series of changes gradually fashioned us into a higher form of animal. On the other hand, the Bible says that we started off perfect, in God’s image, but that shortly thereafter, imperfection was introduced and mankind began a long downhill ride. Our original parents, Adam and Eve, began this descent when they sought moral independence and wounded their consciences through willful disobedience to God. They deliberately drove, as though in a vehicle, through the protective guardrail of God’s law and plunged down to where we are now, suffering sickness, old age, and death, not to mention racial prejudices, religious hatreds, and horrible wars.-Genesis 2:17; 3:6, 7. Animal Genes or Flawed Genes? Of course, the Bible does not explain in scientific language what happened to Adam and Eve’s perfect bodies when they sinned. The Bible is not a science book, just as a car owner’s manual is not a textbook on automotive engineering. But like the owner’s manual, the Bible is accurate; it is not myth. When Adam and Eve crashed through the protective barrier of God’s law, their organisms were damaged. Thereafter, they began a slow descent toward death. Through the laws of heredity, their children, the human family, inherited imperfection. Thus, they die too.-Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12. Sadly, our inheritance includes a tendency toward sin, which surfaces as selfishness and immorality. Sex, of course, is proper in its place. God commanded the first human pair: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) And as a loving Creator, he made fulfilling that command a pleasure for husband and wife. (Proverbs 5:18) But human imperfection has led to the abuse of sex. In fact, imperfection touches every facet of our lives, including the function of our mind and body, as all of us are aware. But imperfection has not stamped out our moral sense. If we really want to, we can grip the “steering wheel” and avoid life’s pitfalls by fighting the tendency to veer off into sin. Of course, no imperfect human can fight sin with complete success, and God mercifully takes this into account.-Psalm 103:14; Romans 7:21-23. Why We Don’t Want to Die The Bible also sheds light on another puzzle that evolution does not satisfactorily explain: the normal human unwillingness to accept death, even though death may seem natural and inevitable. As the Bible reveals, death was triggered by sin, by disobedience to God. Had our original parents remained obedient, they would have lived forever, along with their children. God, in effect, had programmed the human mind with the desire for eternal life. “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men,” says Ecclesiastes 3:11, according to the New International Version. Their condemnation to death, therefore, raised an internal conflict in humans, a persisting disharmony. To reconcile this internal conflict and to appease the natural yearning to live on, humans have fabricated all sorts of beliefs, from the doctrine of the immortality of the soul to belief in reincarnation. Scientists peer into the mystery of aging because they too want to ward off death or at least put it off. Atheistic evolutionists dismiss the desire for everlasting life as an evolutionary trick, or deception, because it clashes with their view that humans are simply higher animals. On the other hand, the Bible statement that death is an enemy harmonizes with our natural yearning to live.-1 Corinthians 15:26. Well, then, do our bodies give any clues that we were meant to live forever? The answer is yes! The human brain alone dazzles us with evidence that we were made to live much longer than we do. Made to Live Forever The brain weighs some three pounds [1.4 kg], and it comprises 10 billion to 100 billion neurons, no two of which, it is said, are exactly alike. Each neuron can communicate with up to 200,000 other neurons, making the number of different circuits, or pathways, in the brain astronomical. And as if that were not enough, “each neuron is a sophisticated computer” in itself, says Scientific American. The brain is bathed in a chemical soup, which influences the way neurons behave. And the brain has a much higher level of complexity than even the most powerful computer. “In every head,” write Tony Buzan and Terence Dixon, “is a formidable powerhouse, a compact, efficient organ whose capacity seems to expand further towards infinity the more we learn of it.” Quoting Professor Pyotr Anokhin, they add: “No man yet exists who can use all the potential of his brain. This is why we don’t accept any pessimistic estimates of the limits of the human brain. It is unlimited.” These staggering facts fly in the face of the evolution model. Why would evolution “create” for simple cave dwellers, or even for today’s highly educated, an organ with the potential to serve a million or even a billion lifetimes? Truly, only everlasting life makes sense! But what about our body? The book Repair and Renewal-Journey Through the Mind and Body states: “The way that damaged bones, tissues, and organs patch themselves up is nothing short of miraculous. And if we stopped to think about it, we would find the quiet regeneration of skin and hair and nails-and other parts of the body as well-profoundly astonishing: It goes on 24 hours a day, week in and week out, literally remaking us, biochemically speaking, many times during the course of our lives.” In God’s due time, it will be no problem for him to keep this miraculous process of self-renewal going indefinitely. Then, at last, “death [will] be brought to nothing.” (1 Corinthians 15:26) But to be truly happy, we need more than everlasting life. We need peace-peace with God and with our fellow humans. Such peace can be realized only if people truly love one another. How can such a goal be achieved? That's a discussion for another day.
When you have EVOLUTION, including intelligent design in the same conversation is like asking what time it is and you are given an answer of how to make ice cream…..intelligent design?? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🙏🙏
Interesting comment you make. This is Brian Josephson's (Nobel Laureate in physics) response to Stephen Meyer's book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis' "This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science." BRIAN JOSEPHSON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY; EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
“Fossil records lack discernible connections.” But in a crossword puzzle, you don’t see every letter of a word. But you can still recognize there’s a pattern. And every word is connected to another word, even though you don’t see every letter of each word. So there’s a pattern - and in evolution that pattern is change from simple to complex.
Exactly, evolution needs simple to complex. We need a method by which this can happen. All we see is degradation of the original information. After 500 million years this building up of the genome should be observed, it isn't.
Slightly more than one word is this response to Stephen Meyer's book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis': "A marvelous compendium of indisputable scientific evidence in support of the existence of God." DR. MARCOS N. EBERLIN, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, MACKENZIE UNIVERSITY. BRAZILIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, THOMSON MEDALIST, INTERNATIONAL MASS SPECTROMETRY FOUNDATION
Again, more than one word, another response to the same book...this time from a Nobel Laureate in physics, Brian Josephson: "This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science." BRIAN JOSEPHSON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY; EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
@@rutasa3182 Brian Josephson is a specialist in superconductivity and quantum tunnelling and nothing anywhere close to do with biology. Would you ask a concrete engineer to make chiffon cakes if they have never even set foot in a kitchen before?
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Another excellent presentation from Dr. Meyer. I’ve spent the last 6 years immersing myself in this subject, having read everything I can get my hands on and watching these fascinating videos. Sometimes I reflect on my past atheistic views and evolutionary leanings and just wonder what the hell I was ever thinking. Looking back at those ideas and concepts, it’s blatantly apparent that they just make no sense anymore. I feel like I’ve been awakened from a dark sleep.
Outside of his obvious intelligence, Dr. Meyer has an excellent teaching style: calm, conversational, easy to listen to, down to Earth, etc. I wish I could present as well as he does.
I can, and I've lead out in discussions without reviewing what was being discussed prior to the discussions. Those were several years ago
The first it blew me away that I was able to do as well as I did. Fortunately I was well familiar with what was being discussed. God is good!!!
The one thing I'd ask is that you guys have someone narrate the questions in each segment so those who listen to the videos as a podcast can know what questions are being addressed. Thank you
Noted!
It seems to me that the concept of coordinated mutation itself refutes neo-Darwinism.
The alternative would be the constant evolution of random useless body parts and then 2 or more coincidentally sync up to create an advantage. Natural selection tends to weed out useless body parts, so definitely a paradox.
I agree.
The other thing is that mutations are the partial dysfunction or complete breaking of a gene. Most dog mutations have been thusly mapped. Even in the test at mich state, where they have been breeding e coli (due to short generations) for thirty years, no mutation has ever added info. (They are swirled and lost their flagellum and bred faster, touted as “evolution” in the media). From the book Not by Chance: “Of all the point mutations ever observed, not a single one has added even a little information to the genome.” Yet it created all this complex info Billions of pairs long.
I always look forward to videos from you guys, and especially Meyer's. Keep it up brothers and Merry Christmas ⛄🎄
I've studied this topic thoroughly and to the best of my ability. I conclude that,regardless of timelines,there's no getting around one thing- INFORMATION. Causal agent and information can't be denied.
Anti theists are sneaky, they will just say that information is an integrated part of physical laws that drive all matter to information give it billions of year LOL
when you go over a topic like 'evolution' on the base it sounds correct, or any topic, but the more you look into it the more problems it has, the more you learn, the more you learn how much you don't know
Title should be “Steven Meyer Fells Darwin’s Tree”
2:46 they will always come back with whale evolution, their “clearest case”. It is actually four small fossils where one of them appears to be a skull with a hole between the mouth and upper back. (Transition to the blow hole). And then complete, totally distinct animals on either side. That’s all. And they make complicated, detailed renderings from that. Among the millions of species these are the transitions we’ve found?
I have never needed to go as far as whale evolution. Have you heard of Tiktaalik or archaeopteryx for example?
Perhaps you might find it interesting if you are looking at refuting evolution.
You could also look into retroviruses in primate evolution and see how you can tackle that. It would be interesting to see how you respond.
Thanks for your work Steven! It takes courage to go against the scientific materialist cult.
Creationism : a forest of family trees where the information in the branches is in the trunks.
Evolution : one family tree where the information in the branches is added during growth and not in the trunk.
If evolution were true the information would have to be added by nature essentially performing magic.
Your definition of "information" is tautological.
You obviously don't understand evolution
You REALLY need to have someone read the questions. Some of us can multitask, watch the video AND do something else.
Was just thinking the same thing
You don't want to lift a finger.
Clear and precise presentation. Thank you for your work.
Thanks for your hard work.
Excellent as always. I highly recommend his “Return of the God Hypothesis “ book. Excellent read
Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine that you are assigned the task of selectively breeding a pack of dogs into a whale species -- in similitude of Pakicetus evolving into modern whales. You will live for as many years as it takes to accomplish this feat. You can even select a team of the world's best evolutionary biologists to join you.
Your team will be taking the place of natural selection as you intelligently select the random genetic mutations that are most likely to lead to the invention of, for example, a blow hole, waterproof skin, flippers, a fluke, etc. Then you will selectively breed the dogs in favor of those mutations -- those "numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Unlike natural selection, you have a goal in mind. You have foresight and foreknowledge. So it should, presumably, take you less time than it took Pakicetus.
How long do you think it would take your team to accomplish this goal?
Reading a lot about the Darwinian theory and I’m amazed by hoe much of a dogma it is. How they try do to whatever just to keep the theory alive. Even the language they use to describe natural selection is full of “design language”
Good point. Good though.
You would also have the problem, not mentioned in this video, that no mutation has ever added information. Natural selection is either weeding out unfit forms, or it’s the dysfunction or complete breaking of a gene that luckily confers advantage in rare occasions. But not new form or finction. From the book Not by Chance: “Of all the point mutations ever observed, not a single one has added even a little information to the genome.”
A similar line of thought to this I think would serve as the basis for an excellent doctoral dissertation: place the “known” dates (those the evolutionary theorists all agree on with relative certainty) for various organisms alive at those times. Compare the DNA structures and determine the minimum number of genetic mutations needed to get from the closest relative to the next. Do this for the top ten non-homo-sapien line species to species proposed mutations. I believe assigning the shortest reasonable interval of successive mutations, even ignoring all bad mutations, and assuming only beneficial mutations, would still not have enough time to get from one specie to the next within the “known” date intervals.
I didn’t realize that was the very thing he was going to discuss! Awesome!
Forever 🙂
Fantastic lecture! Thank you so much, Stephen!
Excellent lecture. Keep up the good work👍
You guys should do more on origin of life, mainly the central thing that we ACTUALLY need to find out (information) and not chemistry and physics alone. The James tour, professor dave feud only made farinas fans see the material aspect of it from his dogmatic perspective. More talks with or about Paul Davies and Sara Walker and their thoughts, and how you think (though similar) intellect design stands on top at the end of the day. Just suggestions! Keep up the great work and God bless
The only morphing we see in evolution is the ever changing speculations required to explain this lack of morphological evidence . Perhaps they should be looking at Greek Mythology since the basis for both are actually very similar.
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of “a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row.” Sounds a little bit like a lyric in the iconic Kenny Rogers song, "The Gambler". Yes evolution certainly knows how to play the game - "You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
Is it reasonable to believe that evolution is “A Game of Chance”?
The theory of evolution is certainly a gambler’s dream. Why? Because according to the evolutionist, it wins every single time even with, in many cases, astoundingly astronomical odds against it.
Robert Naeye wrote: “Because evolution is primarily a game of chance, any seemingly minor past event could have gone slightly different, cutting off our evolutionary line before humans evolved.” But no, says the evolutionist, we are supposed to believe that every gamble, often with insurmountable, or immeasurable odds against it, paid off millions of times. Naeye admits: “The long series of bottlenecks makes it clear that the emergence of intelligent life is far more difficult than scientists once thought. There are probably more obstacles that scientists haven’t even stumbled across yet.”
Well, he was right about that and as far as "obstacles" go, obstacles which demonstrate the improbability of evolution being the reason for our existence, "the hits just keep on comin' ".
Complex coordinated mutations is another way to say an intelligent entity input information.
where is Dr douglas axe these days i am waiting for his videos...
This may be a nitpick but...I wish you wouldn't put the questions up silently as text on these videos. Many people listen to them without watching them... all these silent gaps inbetween ...and guessing at the question based on the answer.
If there is a single common ancestor what are the chances for life to originate.
A single common ancestors suggests the same immense difficulties in creating life.
To have multiple life origins may suggest a less difficult problem or originating life.
If the common ancestor was a pinching point of extinction then this suggests the immense difficulty sustaining life or pre-life.
Why do we not have multiple ancestors on the tree of life’s origins? How Did a single cell survive alone at its origin? How Did a single form of pre-life continue on its own at its origins? Did it take simultaneous ( or even simply close in time) origins of metabolism, DNA, amino acids, proteins, lipids?
Could one of these processes continued alone until the other was accidentally introduced?
If something can only come about by emergent processes does that eliminate the consideration purpose, design or intent?
Instantaneous, spontaneous, emergence can they not all be actual processes? Did the universe instantaneously occur? Did the galaxies spontaneously occur? Did wetness emerge?
Does anything accidentally occurring have intent? Is accidental intentional or intent accidental ? Is free will accidentalism and determinism intentionallism?Is free will a process of determinism or is determinism a process of free will?
Have you ever noticed that as the real number line of the Mandelbrot set ( the logistics map) becomes more complex that the complex numbers plane of the set become less complex and Vise versa ? Which is first the real number line or the complex plane ? A rabbit population dynamics is a logistics map. The environment ( conditions)of the rabbit population dynamics is the complex plane.
Who can know the mind of God?
Doesn’t animals have to be buried suddenly and alive to form a fossil? If already dead wouldn’t they decompose before their fossilized
Fossilization is extremely rare, and fossils remaining intact to present day is even more rare. You can cherry pick a specific example where a softbody gets preserved, but the fact is that it takes extraordinarily rare circumstances to do so.
The fact that it is possible for a softbody form to be preserved, is in no way a refutation of the artifact hypothesis because the artifact hypothesis is not the claim "softbodies can not be preserved", it would be the claim "softbodies are only preserved under extremely rare circumstances", and this is still a logical explanation as to why we have so few fossilized examples from when older life was only softbodies. Of course we have pre-cambrain softbody fossils, just not as many as after the cambrain *explosion*. That's why it's called an explosion...
Unbelievable effort and scrupulous research , compilation of information by intelligent design team (discovery science team).. Forever grateful for their work ....god bless them...👌👌❤️❤️🙏🙏
What a brilliant mind.
It’s worth keeping in mind that Ptolemaic celestial spheres were in the day the “best explanation” of what we observed in the sky. As is always the case in scientific discovery, the “best” explanation remains the best until some better explanation comes along. Given the new discoveries in molecular biology and genetics, it is becoming clear that Darwin’s theory is in need of an upgrade. How exciting to imagine what new theories are currently being crafted!
There is a theory as old as time, that seems to be the most likely or” best” explanation. God.
I fully welcome the assisted creation of man by lizard nation.
You're right Hal, except that it almost sounds like you're trying to breathe new oxygen into the dead concept of life by natural processes.
My understanding of Darwinian evolution is that the theory is an explanation of the change over time of life forms. It was never an explanation for the origin of life, only for the origin of species derived from an existing life form. Its strength arose from the presumption of more than enough time for life forms to develop incrementally into what we observe today and in the fossil record. Recent science questions this presumption and indeed argues that not only has there been inadequate time for observed changes to have come about by evolution by mutation and natural selection, there has in fact been way way too little time. It looks like the Darwinian theory of evolution is losing credibility as a best explanation and some better explanation needs to be put forward. One would hope that while searching for a better explanation of the observable changes in life forms that lead to the origin of new species, one will also seek to unify evolutionary theory with a theory of the origin of life.
We are searching for a mechanism that credibly explains the “Darwinian tree” of new species arising out of old species in a time frame younger than the universe while ideally also explaining from whence the dirt came in which this metaphorical tree is planted. To be asking the gardener’s name, as it were, is missing the point and jumping the gun. Let’s stick to repairing Darwin’s theory where it doesn’t work anymore and keep an eye out for an explanation of the origin of life itself (not just the origin of the species).
Could you name me some of the new discoveries in molecular biology and/or genetics, please?
I do not have the qualifications to respond to Meyer when he contends that there is/was “no discernible pattern” between body plans of a certain point and those that preceded them. However, I do see that any number of biologists, who are qualified to speak on the subject, have expressed strong disagreement with this contention. So I’m listening to him, and I’m listening to them.
I dont know exactly which biologists youre catching, as that can be a problem, but most evolutionary biologists who work on foundations have concluded that neo-darwinism (aka modern synthesis) is not even possibly sufficient. They are scrambling to come up with extended synthesis models to salvage a naturalistic explanation. It’s easy to catch someone below that level who is not even aware the cutting edge is at that point. If you see this ive give references if requested
Yeah I’m one of them. Not only are there macroscopic patterns such as skeletons, but even more convincingly, micro scale patterns such as DNA sequences. The case is closed for all practical purposes - only the details remain to be worked out.
The thing that really gets me is how people take Darwin seriously at all. He wasn’t a scientist. He was a theology graduate who had a bunch of armchair theories that didn’t stand up to science.
He contributed absolutely nothing to science. His primal pond type scenario had no evidence. His belief that tiny Finch beak changes showed they were evolving has no evidence.
His eager and unquestioned acceptance of the admittedly fraudulent Haeckel drawings showed he didn’t even do basic research.
The only time he apparently used the scientific method was when he was breeding pigeons to try to prove his evolutionary theory. Once again, he acted contrary to science.
All he had to do was do a tiny bit of research to see that pigeons have been changing for thousands of years, but they have stayed pigeons. Just like his pigeonsstayed pigeons.
When people talk about neo Darwinian science, they are talking about something that absolutely does not exist.
Is there a possible unconformity above the Doushantuo shale hiding the ancestors? Some erosional event? How continuous is the transition?
What do you think about the creation of canyons and setiment from Mount Saint Helens?
If you'd like to know some more arguments you can try U. and then share your thoughts about it here.
Welcome!
10:37 thank you.11:15 Thank you
Atheists believe all things are possible through their magical time daddy.
Why do you assume only atheists believe this?
I call it the randomness fairy.
Creationists believe Adam was created from dust and dirt, and magically brought to life with a higher powers breath, and then using one of his ribs created a woman. Sounds just as stupid (if not more) than a magical daddy.
@@PortmanRdnot everybody who believe in god believes every word in the Bible. We are all made from stardust. The breath of life is a metaphor that makes perfect sense.
What is the best evidence against a Catastrophic global about 5000 years ago?
Nice
'Designed' without a designer is convoluted thinking.
How would you expect our universe to look if it wasn’t designed?
After constructing all the billion of life forms on this planet in the past, why has the designer stopped now? Why don't we see new species appearing?
That’s a strange question. The Creator can choose to create or not to create. Why would He be compelled to keep creating continuously? Also, for you to say we don’t see new species is saying we have all the knowledge of the Earth. There’s much to discover and new life forms (new to us) are still being discovered
Might be a good question for the religion department.
That’s a fair question.
I think we do but not in the way one might see we could see change within ones own species yet not as far as one might claim like in the 44 day ant experiment
God finished His work in six days
If there was a great bloom is it safe to say that the Flood happened in the Spring time?
They don’t even know the exact year within the millions
One side's spring is the other side's fall.
Evidence for Design:
Cast doubt on natural mechanisms and hope nobody notices that there is no evidence for the existence of a Designer.
There is no doubt that mutations are rarely beneficial to the organism. Mutations are not desirable in almost all cases. Riddle me this: Where did the genetic code come from? The code that is required for every cell to function. A eukaryotic cell is immensely complex and requires the information in DNA/RNA. Mathematically impossible for random mutations acting on natural selection to have given rise to the complexity life. Darwinian evolution is dead!!
Strawman:
Mischaracterize an argument to make it weaker so you can wave it away without dealing with its conclusion.
I’m waiting for the X-Men to arrive!
The best evidence for macro evolution would be micro evolution IF there wasn't a gap between the two so large no scientist will ever be able to span.
Agreed! Extrapolation vs interpolation.
Could u reconsider the method u pose the questions.
As a listener rather than a viewer I’d prefer to hear the question !
Keep up the good work !
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Jesus Christ created all things. I understand from what Paul says here. I don't have to prove anything to atheists or those who are Darwinian or evolutionists or any belief system that is contrary to what God says.
You’re right: you don’t have to prove anything.
I do have to correct you that evolution is not a belief system. It is an observed and tested understanding of a condition in the natural world.
There are Christians who accept evolution. I am interested to know how you categorise those people?
there should be a discussion with a darwinist
Yeah, Design like the artist Jackson Pollock gave us perhaps. Nothing functional or obviously intentional.
If you are going to use your reasoning to lead you all the way to your recognition of a "mind," it is only natural to ask the next obvious question ... whose mind? It is foolish not to ask, whose mind.
At the 7:55 make Stephen says that "each Cambrian form is lacking any discernible connection to ancestral forms" This is not true, for example Cambrian Trilobites have the likely ancestor of the Ediacaran Spriggina. Then from 1 form of Trilobite it evolved into 64 different forms within 40 million years.
If interested, watch The Trouble with Trilobites on the PBS Eons youtube channel.
Thanks for your comment! Stephen Meyer actually addressed this issue in his book Darwin's Doubt, and others have written on it as well. For an explanation of why the Spriggina is not likely to be an ancestor of the Trilobites, see:
evolutionnews.org/2021/12/was-spriggina-an-evolutionary-ancestor-of-arthropods/
Sounds like aliens were dropping off loads every now and again hehe!
He has not understood the subject. Maybe on purpose to defend a fsiry tale book?
Life is an accident! Both breathing and heart beating arose from nothingness by mutations. And I've got some property to sell you from Florida!
Does Darwinism believe we are related to plants as plants came first.
What is Darwinism?
where are the millions upon millions transitional forms from shrew-like ancestor to; monkeys bats cats dogs horses and modern rats?
The fossil record
Do you have any idea of how rare fossils are? Also, literally any species is transitional, humans included.
Still not willing to narrate the questions? 🤔 please consider it!
These were already done, unfortunately. But for the next Science Uprising, which comes out later this year, the bonus interviews will all have the questions read aloud. Thanks to you and others for making the suggestion!
@@DiscoveryScienceChannel THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!
Again…. Narrate the questions PLEASE! I beg you.
✌️🙏
Okay guys, you’ve come to the conclusion that there is a Creator. What is the most important now is researching the main religions and figuring out which one is true. Spoiler alert: it’s not christianity.
We're talking about science here, Vincent, not world religions.
Spoiler alert: it is
Vincent Explain to us all how you unequivocally know Christianity is not true for all mankind and what you believe is. Maybe explain exactly what Christianity is first so we can see you know what your talking about ) 🙏
@@KenJackson_US This is a religious issue disguised as ‘science’, the Discovery Institute obviously biased due to the fact that many of its founders are known to be deeply religious. ‘Intelligent Design’ is just biblical creationism with a new brand.
Looking Up, Not Down, for Answers
EVOLUTION teaches that a series of changes gradually fashioned us into a higher form of animal. On the other hand, the Bible says that we started off perfect, in God’s image, but that shortly thereafter, imperfection was introduced and mankind began a long downhill ride.
Our original parents, Adam and Eve, began this descent when they sought moral independence and wounded their consciences through willful disobedience to God. They deliberately drove, as though in a vehicle, through the protective guardrail of God’s law and plunged down to where we are now, suffering sickness, old age, and death, not to mention racial prejudices, religious hatreds, and horrible wars.-Genesis 2:17; 3:6, 7.
Animal Genes or Flawed Genes?
Of course, the Bible does not explain in scientific language what happened to Adam and Eve’s perfect bodies when they sinned. The Bible is not a science book, just as a car owner’s manual is not a textbook on automotive engineering. But like the owner’s manual, the Bible is accurate; it is not myth.
When Adam and Eve crashed through the protective barrier of God’s law, their organisms were damaged. Thereafter, they began a slow descent toward death. Through the laws of heredity, their children, the human family, inherited imperfection. Thus, they die too.-Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12.
Sadly, our inheritance includes a tendency toward sin, which surfaces as selfishness and immorality. Sex, of course, is proper in its place. God commanded the first human pair: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) And as a loving Creator, he made fulfilling that command a pleasure for husband and wife. (Proverbs 5:18) But human imperfection has led to the abuse of sex. In fact, imperfection touches every facet of our lives, including the function of our mind and body, as all of us are aware.
But imperfection has not stamped out our moral sense. If we really want to, we can grip the “steering wheel” and avoid life’s pitfalls by fighting the tendency to veer off into sin. Of course, no imperfect human can fight sin with complete success, and God mercifully takes this into account.-Psalm 103:14; Romans 7:21-23.
Why We Don’t Want to Die
The Bible also sheds light on another puzzle that evolution does not satisfactorily explain: the normal human unwillingness to accept death, even though death may seem natural and inevitable.
As the Bible reveals, death was triggered by sin, by disobedience to God. Had our original parents remained obedient, they would have lived forever, along with their children. God, in effect, had programmed the human mind with the desire for eternal life. “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men,” says Ecclesiastes 3:11, according to the New International Version. Their condemnation to death, therefore, raised an internal conflict in humans, a persisting disharmony.
To reconcile this internal conflict and to appease the natural yearning to live on, humans have fabricated all sorts of beliefs, from the doctrine of the immortality of the soul to belief in reincarnation. Scientists peer into the mystery of aging because they too want to ward off death or at least put it off. Atheistic evolutionists dismiss the desire for everlasting life as an evolutionary trick, or deception, because it clashes with their view that humans are simply higher animals. On the other hand, the Bible statement that death is an enemy harmonizes with our natural yearning to live.-1 Corinthians 15:26.
Well, then, do our bodies give any clues that we were meant to live forever? The answer is yes! The human brain alone dazzles us with evidence that we were made to live much longer than we do.
Made to Live Forever
The brain weighs some three pounds [1.4 kg], and it comprises 10 billion to 100 billion neurons, no two of which, it is said, are exactly alike. Each neuron can communicate with up to 200,000 other neurons, making the number of different circuits, or pathways, in the brain astronomical. And as if that were not enough, “each neuron is a sophisticated computer” in itself, says Scientific American.
The brain is bathed in a chemical soup, which influences the way neurons behave. And the brain has a much higher level of complexity than even the most powerful computer. “In every head,” write Tony Buzan and Terence Dixon, “is a formidable powerhouse, a compact, efficient organ whose capacity seems to expand further towards infinity the more we learn of it.” Quoting Professor Pyotr Anokhin, they add: “No man yet exists who can use all the potential of his brain. This is why we don’t accept any pessimistic estimates of the limits of the human brain. It is unlimited.”
These staggering facts fly in the face of the evolution model. Why would evolution “create” for simple cave dwellers, or even for today’s highly educated, an organ with the potential to serve a million or even a billion lifetimes? Truly, only everlasting life makes sense! But what about our body?
The book Repair and Renewal-Journey Through the Mind and Body states: “The way that damaged bones, tissues, and organs patch themselves up is nothing short of miraculous. And if we stopped to think about it, we would find the quiet regeneration of skin and hair and nails-and other parts of the body as well-profoundly astonishing: It goes on 24 hours a day, week in and week out, literally remaking us, biochemically speaking, many times during the course of our lives.”
In God’s due time, it will be no problem for him to keep this miraculous process of self-renewal going indefinitely. Then, at last, “death [will] be brought to nothing.” (1 Corinthians 15:26) But to be truly happy, we need more than everlasting life. We need peace-peace with God and with our fellow humans. Such peace can be realized only if people truly love one another. How can such a goal be achieved? That's a discussion for another day.
What a fine educated, and scientific comment, I love it!
Well written & intelligent synopsis, explains it all in a nutshell.......
Ok this is another James Tour. He has discovered the evidence of the creator
When you have EVOLUTION, including intelligent design in the same conversation is like asking what time it is and you are given an answer of how to make ice cream…..intelligent design?? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🙏🙏
Interesting comment you make.
This is Brian Josephson's (Nobel Laureate in physics) response to Stephen Meyer's book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis'
"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."
BRIAN JOSEPHSON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY; EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Não sou robô sou de São Paulo
I'm not a robot
Lol garbage Dave destroyed you guys
“Fossil records lack discernible connections.” But in a crossword puzzle, you don’t see every letter of a word. But you can still recognize there’s a pattern. And every word is connected to another word, even though you don’t see every letter of each word. So there’s a pattern - and in evolution that pattern is change from simple to complex.
Exactly, evolution needs simple to complex. We need a method by which this can happen. All we see is degradation of the original information. After 500 million years this building up of the genome should be observed, it isn't.
same old gum you have been chewing for years
Not an argument…
One word, pseudoscience.
Describes Darwin’s theory perfectly. Thanks for sharing.
Slightly more than one word is this response to Stephen Meyer's book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis':
"A marvelous compendium of indisputable scientific evidence in support of the existence of God."
DR. MARCOS N. EBERLIN, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, MACKENZIE UNIVERSITY. BRAZILIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, THOMSON MEDALIST, INTERNATIONAL MASS SPECTROMETRY FOUNDATION
Again, more than one word, another response to the same book...this time from a Nobel Laureate in physics, Brian Josephson:
"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."
BRIAN JOSEPHSON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY; EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
@@rutasa3182 Brian Josephson is a specialist in superconductivity and quantum tunnelling and nothing anywhere close to do with biology.
Would you ask a concrete engineer to make chiffon cakes if they have never even set foot in a kitchen before?