This guy just stats loads of shitt, "everyone, this just happened, deal with it" I really cant find anyone with absolutely no evidence to back their theory up convincing, he could at least said: "we know this because of," or : "there's evidence for this here and here..," but no, he just says it as if its proved already, BS
@xXsakkelaoXx Wow, you fucking retard. These aren't "his" theories, these are the theories of some of the greatest minds our world has known. These claims have been supported in countless tests. And since this is still an accepted theory, that means that it has yet to be falsified. This guy is just condensing very complicated ideas into a format that untrained people can understand, what he's saying is nothing new.
@Shaboynka "And since this is still an accepted theory, that means that it has yet to be falsified" Not really, the probability of the first cell emerging from random chance alone is 10^570
thats such a big number our minds can't fathom it
the theory is only cept alive by uneducated tards with no basis in what real science is.
If abiogenesis is anything, it is a religion as it requires probably more belief than christianity does lol
@xXsakkelaoXx Would you mind telling me where you got that number from? Because I'm pretty sure you pulled it out of your ass. And our minds can't fathom many things. Even just a million years- a geologic timescale's blink of the eye- is unfathomable.. imagine what can happen in a billion!
And you're right, a BA in geology isn't a basis in science. I forgot.
P.S. Making up a large number is in no way falsification- I figured an obviously superior intellectual would have known that.
@Shaboynka To give you an idea of the probability against the first cell emerging from random chance, think of trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, that adds up to 10^96
Even if I gave you the source and shoved it up your ass where it could get past your head you wouldn't take it as a falsification of your unscientific theory
@xXsakkelaoXx You don't know that a scource wouldn't cause me tp question my ways of thinking and cause me to change my mind. I respond to evidence and justification, and so far I've recieved none. I already know that you made this number up, and you have no clue since you've failed twice to support your claim, but what I've seen in my studies, in the field, and from the works of people I greatly respect, the trends in the fossil and geologic record remain visible. The only reason we haven't
@Shaboynka dropped our interpretations of abiogenesis, or the theory of an RNA world, is because it has not been falsified. It has however been subjected to much peer review, and the scrutiny of many in the scientific community. But it still remains a theory, and will.
Now's your chance, show me some good evidence (from an actual scientist), or at least a good alternate explanation, and you could change my mind.
"Even the most improbable events will occur with time" Dr. Thomas Handler.
@Shaboynka ""Even the most improbable events will occur with time" Dr. Thomas Handler."
well thats stupid, not in trillion x 10 years will abiogenesis happen when the odds are stacked against you, I KNOW for sure that even if I stuck the probability up your ass you won't change your worldview, but i'll do it anyway incase someone reading our comments will understand:
source:
iscid . org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302 . pdf
@xXsakkelaoXx Was that so hard? Mullan does provide good points, and I appreciate that a Catholic scientist attempted to provide solely quantatative support. However, if you examine the last several pages he lists the set of assumptions involved in his paper, one crucial one being that the 20 amino acids that occur in the primitive Earth were the 20 that occur today- for which he gave no justification. Another crucial assumption (one he didn't mention) is his assumption that the first living
@Shaboynka cell is what resulted from the primordial soup. Nobody believes that the first self replicating molecule appeared as a cell. Cells are considered in the theory to come after that.
@Shaboynka "one crucial one being that the 20 amino acids that occur in the primitive Earth were the 20 that occur today"
but isn't that just better for the theory? O.o
I seem to recall that he said that we had to remember that he was giving it the best possible scenarios, this is so that it can actually be plausible, not something you should attack lol
And have you considered the fact that water actually hinderes further bonding of amino acids?and that the number was NOT pulled out of my ass?
@Shaboynka "Cells are considered in the theory to come after that."
good thing you said theory, but this doesn't really change anything does it? the probabilty remains the same :/
have you heard of the atp synthase enzyme? it is vital for life and was needed in the first cell as well as the kinesin linear motor, these are extremely complex and highly improbable to evolve by mutations alone yes? This is clear proof of design wouldn't you say?
I did do research would you like me to start adding my references? Don't forget methane. But they have tried this experiement and it does not work, with what scienctist now believe was in the earths early atmosphere...
@ColtonC85 "And where do you suppose the right conditions came from?"
All you need is time, liquid water (hydrogen/oxygen), heat and two extra elemets (carbon/nytrogen) to spontaneously form fatty- and amino acids.. all that was very apparent on the newly formed earth some billions of years ago..
"also the link between species isnt found in fossils but in the DNA of existing animals" If you took a blood sample from are closest realitive is the kidney bean. All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record
@ColtonC85 "There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record.. [...]"
Again, fossils are largely irrelevant. We don't need a single one to show that life evolved. DNA is what proves that evolution happened and still happens without any reason to doubt it.
@R18111983 Really??? Go watch some of their conferences or read a book. Fossils are huge to evolutionist, and also one of the biggest flaws to. Don't tell me fossils are not important.
@ColtonC85 "Don't tell me fossils are not important. [...]"
They are not. They are very helpful and I'm glad we have them but the theory of evolution would be standing strong even if we didn't have a single fossilized bone.
These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible
Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
Ok...Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all....
maybe, just maybe, fossilization is a rare event, this would explain the gaps since not all stages of evolution are recorded in fossel record's, also the link between species isnt found in fossils but in the DNA of existing animals...
@ColtonC85 "Absolutely no transitional forms...[...]"
Typical creationist lie. There are tons of so called 'transitional forms' (In fact, EVERY species is a transitional form). Take Tiktaalik as an example of how an in-between stage of sea and land vertebrate looks like. How did we find it? We predicted the layer of sediment and region in which we should find such an animal based on the theory of evolution. Then we went there, dug around and found it.
@ColtonC85 The transitions from land mammals to whales and from our ancestors to homo sapiens are also well documented in the fossil record. Nevermind the fact that evolution would be true regardless of fossils. We are lucky that we have a 'few' and they represent further evidence for evoultion but we don't need them to prove that evolution happened without any reasonable doubt.
@ColtonC85 Are you fucking kidding?... look up Tiktaalik, or look up the transition from rhipidistians to tetrapods. Open your eyes dude. We actually have a pretty beautiful set of fossils marking the transition from land dwellers to whales. We also know quite a bit about the evolution of horses. If you need more than that I'm happy to get into some details.
CARL SAGAN - "Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - CARL SAGAN
@TheProdigy7777 What I always thought really. The bible could easily be also translated into aliens teaching us. For example, god speaking from the sky, Jesus walking on water. Easily done.
Genes of Isis=genesis. The surface of all suns is black. Isis is mother nature, the black Madonna. Black Athena. You better know what actuality is? versus reality?
THIS VIDEO IS COMPLETE SHIT!!!! Scientists haven't a fucking clue how nonliving matter turns into life. I suggest the person who made this video should read the February issue of the scientific American.
@AegeanKing They're very close now. Amino acids are actually common in meteorites, just like water is, so it won't be long before we know where it came from now, and it probably won't be many years before we've explained/duplicated the original processes in laboratories. Synthetic life has already been made, so it would be strange if we don't see natural life arising in the lab soon too. Science is great, science has answered the questions that led to religions/superstitions in ancient times!: )
@AegeanKing And I don't understand the problem you have with "living/non-living matter. There are viruses that are nothing but big molecules until they find suitable DNA in a host cell. Those are good examples of non-living becoming living, aren't they? Everything is made up of particles, of atoms/molecules, and so is our brain where we fantasize about "gods" or "meanings of life" or not, it's all chemistry/physics regardless of whether something is alive or not alive: )
@winterstellar Nonsense. The scientific American in their February issue put an article out that affirms that scientists still do not have a single viable theory on the origin of life and that the RNA world hypothesis has basically led to a dead end and that many scientists are now jumping on the panspermia ship. Lastly, opinions differ on whether viruses constitute life or not.
@AegeanKing Oh, I'm no supporter of panspermia. I was a bit clumsy in formulating that comment. But amino acids come in meteorites, that has been confirmed by NASA. So there are fewer and fewer places left where any God could do his magic, and my guess is that it won't be long now before abiogenesis is completely explained and even seen in laboratories.
@winterstellar Why do yo insist on being a condescending prick? There is nothig magic about creating and manipulating the laws of physics. In fact, i do believe that the first life was made from non-living matter that was part of the earth, just like Genesis 1:24 says. God commanded the EARTH to bring forth life. You have a very childish and surface layer understanding of who the Judeo-Christian God is. (continued)
@AegeanKing My first comment did sound like pan-spermia, yes. But I don't believe in it. The building blocks came from elsewhere but abiogenesis happened here.
@winterstellar There are many famous theologians that pre-date darwin like Augustine and Nahmanides who said that life on earth began from very basic organisms and developed and grew into everything else. In fact, in his homilie "a literal reading of Genesis", Augustine says that its not appropriate to read Genesis in a literal fashion and this was said in the 4th century. He is not the only theologian to say those things.
The calculations of British mathematician Sir Roger Penrose show that the probability of a universe conducive to life occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the10th power to the 123rd power. This makes it a mathematical impossibility.Evolution is the atheist creation myth. Atheism is irrational, illogical and impossible. Do the math:)
@moonlightbateman how is atheism irrational, being an athiest is simply saying that you don't acknowledge concepts without any viable truth. lets just say this, have you found any mathematical evidence for god?
h t t p : / / en. wikipedia . o r g /wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
if your an atheist, a believer in God, or other.. my question is why did it work? simple enough.. life in it's microscopic form could have failed, but it didn't.. you don't have to be a scientist to use "logic" life on earth may have not been created by evolution.... your combustible engine will not start without an electric signal ... you see darkness before you see the light. We had picture before sound.. so where does the importance come in.. it's a rhetorical quesion.. what you see is/hear?
@neilpeartripley this is because our minds can only work within our realm of possibilities. we can not conceive something that is entirely unbeknownst to us or completely out of the grasp of our capabilities. there can be a perfectly logical explanation, we just may never have the tools to figure out why. this is the same reason we have created a god in our image, because we can not conceptualize beyond what we experience in the natural world.
@neilpeartripley there is no such thing as abstract thinking and therefore we will never be able to understand how or why the universe was perfectly, or imperfectly depending on how you view it, set up the way it us. we believe that nothing existed and that it seems implausible that all of what we know and see can come from nothing, but that is because we simply can not fathom the idea. the human mind, though it is very evolved, is still limited and in need of improvement.
Carbon atoms link together to form complex molecules such as DNA? Never observed. Still can't create complex DNA structures and create life. In science you have to observe and test a hypothesis before it can be proclaimed as truth. If you can't, it's a theory. In other words, evolution is a religion being touted as science. Now that is bad science. Look into this people.
@Biblehastheanswer first, look up what theory means in scientific world. Secondly, research in detail how DNA forms, this video skipped a lot due to lack of time. Thirdly, look up practical applications of evolution in modern day world. Fourthly, stop being a hypocrite by calling evolution a religion when your name contains "bible" in it.
@Sweddude Simple fact. If it isn't observed it isn't science. Empty speculations based on unproven theories aren't science. Pretty soon Darwinism will be a thing of the past. Look into why.
@Biblehastheanswer If it has to be observed then its rather safe since we have observed evolution happening several times.
But according to you then we can just kiss the theory of gravity byebye, or protons and electrons as well, no one has seen those and yet we know how they work.
@Biblehastheanswer actually evolution is still presented as the Evolution Theory, it has more proof behind it than creationism though (all that has behind it is 1 1700 year old book...) so shouldn't be ignored just like that.
@lopendepaddo also ther have been numerous major universities such as cambridge that have completly thrown it out because its non since. Even the found him self said this and I quote Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." Evolution is losing ground
ok how about not just claiming this statistics but actually showing some sources, as for the quotes i would ask in what year Darwin wrote the letters this was in, it wouldn't be strange for him to doubt himself in a time where his theory's where under constant scrutiny by representatives of the church, also i do not know in what context that quote was made or if it was even made since i only find references to it on theology site filled with creationist BS.
@lopendepaddo There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
@lopendepaddo I've got pages of quotes, statements and evidence against evolution, its one of those things I have had fun researching. I have found these quotes and evidence over the past year or so. So if you think its true why? Not trying to be rude this stuff interests me and I like other peoples thoughts
There is no evidence against evolution. But it is so easy to produce eveidence to utterly destroy evolution.. just dig up a cambrian fossil-guinea pig.
@ColtonC85 As I read through your comments I cannot help but wonder if you even understand evolution on any basic level. Actually I don't wonder.. I know that you don't have the slightest clue about it..
All you do is repeat million-times refuted creationist bullshit..
Pick up a fucking biology textbook and study. Read peer-reviewed scientific articles. Though I sincerely doubt that you even have the intellect to understand anything fundamental about natural sciences..
@R18111983 4 comments and you say I repeat a millions times? Look at cells; this will be something different.The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order.
@ColtonC85 "[...] billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time [...]"
Early primitive cells are much different from the complex machines we see today. The first cells where simple polymers surrounded by fatty acids. Both spontaneously form under the right conditions by purely chemical processes. There were NO complex cells at the beginning.
@R18111983 ok what Plitdown hoax? Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years
Funny that you mention this. The Piltdown hoax was exposed BECAUSE OF the theory of evolution. Piltdown man was never fully accepted in the scientific community and many evolutionary scientists where very skeptical from the beginning until it could finally be shown to be a forgery in 1953.
This is actually a PERFECT example of how science works and how evolution is true.. way to shoot yourself in the foot..
@R18111983 I read on that a few years ago....evolutionist were so caught up in there theories the didn't even realize it was a hoax....pretty bad don't you think. Why would I believe this, I have pages of stuff I researched a few years ago, I know enough to know its false
@ColtonC85 " [...] I know enough to know its false [...]"
No, you don't. Since your 'knowledge' obviously comes from creationist propaganda webpages you are highly unlikely to have understood anything fundamental about evolution or science in general. And given that you spout the most easily to refute bullshit arguments I highly doubt that you honestly researched anything at all.
Your ignorant line of argument is a 1:1 copy of creationist bullshit.
@R18111983 There are many scientific problems with your cell scenario, the timing involved may prove most problematic. Before 3.8 billion years ago scientists believe that the Earth's surface was still in a state of considerable upheaval, as the last of the nebular debris bombarded the Earth. The appearance of life at that time is puzzling to many scientists, since it is not believed that the precursors of life could have survived such an inhospitable environment.
@R18111983 Yet, life managed to make its appearance at the conclusion of that turbulent time and survive. This allows an almost a negligible time-frame for the building-blocks of life to progress naturally into living organisms...
But I have some business to take care of, ill be back tomorrow have a great day
@ColtonC85 "Even the found him self said this and I quote Darwin: [...]"
Evolution is true regardless of what Darwin did or did not say. Natural laws don't change because of what the people say who discovered them. Even if Darwin had a deathbed conversion, became a creationist and personally stated all his discoveries where false, evolution would still be true. Evidence is important, not statements.
im an atheist but I have a question for any one who can answer it with a rational responser. Since abiogenesis has happened b4 and as a result we share DNA with all living animals. why hasn't abiogenesis happened more than once and spawned totally diffident DNA then the rest of us. producing a species that we are not at all related to. i have a theory or 2 but looking if any one really knows, thanks
What might have happened is that life arose and changed the environment making abiogenesis impossible before it happened again. Another possibility is that the other life forms that formed simply didn't survive natural selection. It is certainly possible that unrelated lifeforms did emerge and that their descendants are alive today, it is simply not known.
I have given u lofty evidence & u have not been able to refute it, ignored it, & pretend that it doesn't exist, & that is the fine tuning that everyone agrees exist whether or not their willing to accept it as evidence for a designer. We do have nano technological molecular machines & digital encoded information & a mechanism that can read & transcribe this information within our genomes which is more complex than any super computer or program that ever existed. This is observable evidence.
@myco578 "a large majority of physicists support M-theory"
OK please cite your source on above statment.
"so are you denying recent scientific progresses"
Of course not, I welcome scientific progress but for you to think that scientific progress supports your position by default is kind of silly, especially if you cannot provide evidence and instead feel that trying to predict the future or keeping an open mind is the key.
@benthemiester my source is the book the grand design. in it hawking says that a good majority of modern physicists support M theory. if you look at technologys being reaserched right now, with very tangible results from that research, its completly plausible that within the next 50 years, all of theses technologys will exsist.
@myco578 I have seen all these videos before. I have checked out every citation you have given me except for the broken link. Ill tell you what. When I have some time, I will watch and critique this video and try to keep my opinions scientific and not personel, if you would do the same, and watch "The Privileged Planet" in its entirety, then critique it also, and stay away from personel views as I will try.
Then we can break down what was said in both. If u cant find it, ask & I tell u where.
@benthemiester so i watched "the privileged planet". a lot of there arguments fell flat. especially the one about the requirements for life. that list they provided accounts for requirements for human life, not life in general. and about half of those are fairly common. you don't need a terrestrial planet for life, you don't need oxygen for life, you don't need to be in a habitable zone for life, you don't need a moon for life etc. i'm assuming you watched all the parts of M-theory?
"my source is the book the grand design" Fair enough please give me the direct quote and I will check it out and please give foot notes to verify. Your own paraphrasing doesn't seem to come up on any search. By the way, I still dont see what this has to do with a designer. Hawkins personel philosophy is his own. He is a well known atheist, this is not a surprise. Has he published any empirical evidence in a peer review journals concerning testable evidence for this paradigm?
I love how presentations like this have the "...and at some level of complexity, particles become organinc molecules become biology...and then...life!" Understand entropy? So why would such random formations (and dissolutions) of particles somehow "arrive" at life? We skipped over the part explaining where billions of PRECISELY-ordered bits of machine-code quality DNA information, far more advanced than any computer code we've ever devised, came to be already present in the primordial cell.
@befuturenow its not by chance, its by chemistry, its called permutations and electro magnetism. thats how dna came into being. your "skipping" the billions of years that incredibly simple, self replicating, equations slowly became more complex eventually becoming single celled organisms. only in the last 500 million years out of a 4.54 billion year existance have more complex organisms occured, and simple life has already been on this planet for 3 billion years.
@befuturenow coming from someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old? do i need to say more. this world is constrained by religion. we can only move forward if we leave the past behind.
@myco578 Never be so ignorant to think that religious bigotry is the only alternative to your "DNA by accident" rubbish. "Evolutionists" assume their hopeless paradigm is dignified just because religious fundamentalist ideas are even more stupid than theirs are. It is not . Try matching your accidental DNA against someone who is truly informed, unhindered by religion, and no more afraid of intelligent design than their own intelligence. Then again, you might NOT want to do that.
@befuturenow but you see thats the fundemental axiom of evolution. evolution is a science, and religion is a belief. and who said accident? please give me the name of the woefully missinformed "scientist" who said dna was an "accident". as i have already explained to you, the process by which dna formed was not accidental. also, all your giving me are opinions, not arguments against evolution. religion is this worlds crutch. it is the dividing factor between the primative and the advanced.
@trippinlikegod I already told you he copied the code from preexisting DNA and inserted it into a living bacterium. "Other than the fundamental order of the DNA" DNA is a code. I dont need to hold my breath. I knew you were bullshiting from the beginning, but on that spelling error, you really taught me a lesson. Now run along now young man. Go educate yourself with more Donexodus videos.
@trippinlikegod "You are of the school that believes the research by Miller and Co. actually proves intelligent design"
When did I say this? Miller didn't prove anything. He used the wrong reducing atmosphere ratio. He aso used a electrical spark and a trap as a filter, and in the end he got 98% tar and 2% percent amino acids, and they were all racemic. Proteins are not, & cannot be put together by racemic amino acids. Unfortunately this was fed to gullible young minds like yours.
@benthemiester after the initial miller urey experiment, subsequent experiments have been done throughout the years, each one harboring incrimentally more success. the experiment has evolved far beyond its simple origins since its inception in the 50's.
@myco578 It is true that subsequents experiments produced even more amino acids than Miller initial test, in fact, we now know that Miller produced even more AA's than he was initially given credit for. Three problems, they used the wrong reducing atmospheric conditions. They used a trap which mean it wasn't a true OOL simulation, & every experiment produced a racemic mixture, inert & incapable of producing the homochiral properties required for complex proteins. This method has been abandon.
@benthemiester the intention of the experiment was to prove that the organic building blocks for life could be produced from essentailly non organic materials. so while gaps in this exiperment are being improved, (atmospheric condition and the like) it does not negate the fact that abiogenises is the most impericly supported conclusion for the origin of life on this planet. if you like to throw out some well thought out alternative theorys, please do by all means.
@myco578 The gaps, yeah that was very amusing. You have a great sense of humor. Abiogenesis is not a theory. Abiogenesis is a concept, nothing more, and to date there is no scientific data that supports it. There are no empirical theories on this subject period. Biogenesis is a fundamental principle of biology in that life only comes from other living thing. As for alternative theories, sometime its ok to be honest and admit that we just don't know yet. Organic material does not mean life.
@benthemiester to the contrary there is actaully a lot of indirect evidence that points to abiogenises. just like evolution may not be completely observable, it is still a fact. this we can prove through in-direct evidence. you can deny evolution but you'd really only be making a fool of yourself. the protobionts, prokaryotes, coacervate the Iron–sulfur world theory, and the RNA world hypothesis are good examples of in-direct evidence and solid deductive reasoning.
@myco578 Not according to science. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of any kind. There is plenty of evidence for micro evolution, but only extrapolations and conjecture for macro evolutionary change, and this has been well known for many decades. Please tell me what forms of life or anything close to a living cell was produced by OOL simulation experiments using the RNA hypothesis without the use of pre existing genetic information or an intelligent agent.
@benthemiester really? spontaneus generation? is that really what you think i'm talking about? that theory was commonly used in the 1700's. if you think modern science has anything to do with spontaneous generation i suggest you educate yourself. SP refers to life sprouting from literally nothing. magic, if you will, not forming from previously existing material.also micro evolution is macro evolution.
please explain where this aforementioned intelligence came from.
@myco578 Spontaneous generation doesn't or didn't mean spouting from nothing. In fact there were supposed recipes for how you could get mice to form and so on. All wives tales but accepted by the scientist of that day.
Chemical evolution which is the modern hypothesis still has to deal with spontaneous generation at the point that inert organic matter becomes life. The only difference is that the current hypothesis takes longer and supposedly uses a molecular reductionist model.
@benthemiester sorry i should rephrase. spouting from hay, logs, dirt and other nonsensical things. the mechanism behind Spontaneous generation generation was never explained, it was attributed to magic. the method that modern biologists use to explain abiogenises is the exact opposite. it strives for the mechanism and process by which life formed. also abiogenises is a study, not a concept.
@myco578 I disagree, as I said before, chemical evolution which according to the modern hypothesis still maintains that spontaneous generation occurs at a given point where inert non animated matter becomes living matter. The only difference is, that it supposed to take much longer. Science doesn't use a method because science doesn't know of any such method. I'm not sure what your source is but it wouldn't hurt to check and verify to see if its correct before just accepting it a face value.
@benthemiester if evolution is false, please explain, junk dna vestigial organs succeful dna sequencing the entire fossil record the acceptence of evolution by 95% of all scientists and universitys 98% of our genome shared with chimps bacteria/insects evolving immunities to vaccines/pesticides observable speciation the list goes on, there is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution compared to what creationists provide for their argument. evolution being a fact is whats well known.
@myco578 Sure Ill start with vestigial organs such as wings, eye, & other body parts that have lost their ability to function. This is called entropy & loss of function not novel evolutionary function. Vestigial should not be confused with "we dont know what its for so therefore it must be vestigial". German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim made a list 100 years ago of one hundred supposed vestigial organs that we now know are not, which included the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow etc,
@myco578 Now if you can please back up your statement and tell me of anything near a living cell that has been confirmed in any OOL/origin of life experiment even using the RNA world model. Please do this and I will be happy to respond to the rest of your questions.
@benthemiester to achieve such a result with no interference after the creation of the organic material, would require hundreds of millions of years. it took a billion years after the earth came about for life to show up on the earths surface. your request could feasebly be carried out in a computer simulation, but for the parameters to be fully met in a lab setting, the experiment would have be left untouched for millions of years.
@myco578 "Pseudogene sequences appear to accumulate mutations more rapidly than coding sequences due to a loss of selective pressure. This allows for the creation of mutant alleles that incorporate new functions that may be favored by natural selection; thus, pseudogenes can serve as raw material for evolution and can be considered "protogenes"
Please at least cite date and author. Your citation above is tentative and use the word may. Secondly just yesterday you were calling this stuff Junk.
@benthemiester i got this from your favorite site wikipedia. you know the one you get qoutes from to try to disprove evolution? even though wikipedia shows full support of the theory of evolution. the point i'm trying to make is that if your going to use quotes to disprove evolution, take them from sites that disagree with evolution. you know, answers in genises, ray comforts home page, westboro baptist church etc.
@myco578 The fact that Wikipedia is evolutionary friendly is one of the reasons why I choose from it, although thats not my only source. I dont quote from creationist cites. I also cite from Nature and other science Journal. It doesn't matter what a publication supports. What matters is what can be proven scientifically. I dont mean to be rude but you dont seem very knowledgable on this subject. The neo Darwinism question clearly demonstrates this.
@benthemiester what your doing is almost like qoute mining. you ignore the mountain of evidence presented by the site you use no less, and pick and choose small pieces of evidence that support your cause. i doubt you've contributed anything to biology. "It doesn't matter what a publication supports" it really does. what it supports is why there presenting the information in the first place.
cont...have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter"
Do you notice the phrase "no apparent ills"
apparent |əˈparənt; əˈpe(ə)r-|
adjective
clearly visible or understood; obvious : [with clause ] it became apparent that he was talented | for no apparent reason she laughed.
• seeming real or true, but not necessarily so : his apparent lack of concern.
@myco578 cont...There is an old saying, The devil is in the details. You didn't even address the fact that these regions are highly conserved which really if not needed, is a theoretical problem. Neither did you address the redundancy issue.
Please tell me where in the study does it say that this suggest the DNA removed is useless. This what the the abstract which is the only thing you have quoted actually says. I strongly urge you to read it very carefully. "US researchers
@myco578 cont... and natural selection working on phenotype which I described before, including pollution, predation, parasites, and other selective pressures that lab mice are not exposed to. Scientist have already made the mistake of regarding non protein coding regions as Junk DNA by saying "I don't know what its there for so it must be junk" If you feel you can figure this out by only reading the abstract and not paying for the article, then maybe you are a genius who knows?
@myco578 cont..... because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal" Yes over your head. You also cited another Junk DNA study that indicated that Junk DNA may provide raw material for evolution. You didn't bother taking that into consideration. As I said before I have no problem with evolution in terms of adaptation and micro change using natural selection. That is, the ability for these mice to adapt to real world pressure
@benthemiester micro evolution is macro evolution. all macro evolution is, is a lot of micro evolution. if you repeatedly introduce toxins to bacteria in a petri dish eventually they will become imune. go to any museum in europe and look at the armor. you'll see that human beings have gotten taller over a few hundred years
Micro to macro evo has been replaced by saltation or punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. "if you repeatedly introduce toxins to bacteria in a petri dish eventually they will become imune" Bacteria produce toxins and can feed on them also. Are you speaking of ant biotics?
@benthemiester or insects. insects evolve immunites to pesticides through repeated exposure. why do you think america adopted DDT as its new favorite multi use chemical. look how well that went. and no i don't mean anti biotics. newscientist (dot) com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab (dot) html
@myco578"insects evolve immunites to pesticides through repeated exposure. why do you think america adopted DDT as its new favorite multi use chemical. look how well that went. and no i don't mean anti biotics"
You originally said bacteria not bugs. That is why I asked if you were referring to anti biotics which can be lethal to bacteria. Please take my advise. Do some research and then come back.
@benthemiester and if you want an exmaple of the insects evoling immunites look at the bed bug and Pyrethroid pesticides. the bed bugs offspring are now becoming immune to Pyrethroid pesticides.
@myco578 cont..... it loses it. In the end you still have a bug and a bacteria. Immune response and redundancy is a good indicator of design. Secondly this immunity comes with a fitness cost which means that they are less robust than there counter parts that have not been exposed to these "poison" and since they are less fit they do not do well competing, which is not a very good long term evolutionary prognosis. If you want more info on bacteria check out 'Shapiro bacteria self engineering"
@myco578 cont......First let me correct you. If u introduce anti biotic to bacteria or toxins to bugs the first thing that happens is that many or most die. The ones that do survive over time build up an immunity, and they do this losing certain proteins that were susceptible to the (lets just use the word poison). Bacteria is a little more complicated but it also has to lose genetic information to survive. It does not evolve new information,
You avoided answering another question concerning bacteria. But I wont bust your balls I know what you mean, and for what ever its worth, I think you are finally starting to ask the right questions. This is a fair one.
@myco578 The problem with your citation was that a mutation happend by blind chance. Evolution says that NS pressure are not blind or randome. U also left this part out. "In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories"
Check out "James Shapiro bacteria self engineering"
@benthemiester of course evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. there are many examples of this. this is a basic principle in biology. creatures evolve to best suit their enviroment. not evolve for supeririority.
@myco578 Losing genetic info is not really evolution even if it is to gain a functional advantage. In this case it came at a great cost to other bacteria strains and a functional advantage was not even necessary because it was thriving well on the glucose already being fed to it. This is whats so surprising, and they're still not done analyzing the results in spite of the spin by the popular media.
@benthemiester it's not like it would stay that way forever. it would regain its losses in a diffrent way through further evolution. and i think you should watch this
@myco578 I did not take anything out of context u just dont understand what your reading. Your citation only indicates that there may be even more of a differential because of unknown factors. What I cited are the known ones. Your actually making a case that there could be more differences, thanks. I can't give you a crash course in biology. 98% only applies to single nucleotide polymorphism. The citation I gave included other factors that were once ignored until recently.
@benthemiester my original argument is that your taking the whole website out of context. the number of full pages devoted to explaining the fact of evolution and its intricacies, versus the amount of pages devoted to discussing it's small number of controversies and unknowns is enormous. so when you pick and choose but blatently ignore the rest of the evidence presented, your not being very scientific.
cont......beautiful villa with servants and full access to his lab and eventually allowed to continue his work because of his scientific views. The church originally welcomed his science. It was his broken promise to the pope not to meddle in church business that got him into trouble. Even he said that he was treated fairly. He was a theologian who remained a devout Christian until his death. Please check out the myth of Galileo. Educate yourself.
@benthemiester "Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture."
contrary to holy scripture.
and of course he was a devout christian until death.
@myco578 Please read the "Myth of Galileo". It will give you a much better perspective than just quote mining out of context. It will only take a few hours to research maybe less. There is much more to the story than what you were told by your 6th grade teacher. As I said before he said he was treated fairly, and allowed to live in a beautiful villa with servants, and eventually allowed back all his freedoms including acces to laboratory. Hell, prosecute me please.
@benthemiester what i just posted were the readings by which he was convicted. i'm not denying where he was put into house arrest. i'm saying he was put into house arrest for denying "holy scripture".
@myco578 "he was put into house arrest for denying "holy scripture".
Again unless you put some time and effort into researching you will not understand that he never denied scripture, because there is nothing in scripture that says that the sun revolves around the earth. He publicly challenged the Pope's interpretation of scripture and church dogma. If he had stuck to science he would have never got into trouble, and he was told this. He broke his promise not to get involved in church dogma.
Telic thought vs naturalism concerning origins can be traced back to ancient Greece. The concept of evolution existed among scholars long before Darwin. 2. The first in Europe to teach mathematics, natural philosophy or what later came to be known as science & scientific principles were theologians, who established the first Universities & were the founders of the Modern western sciences. This is a fact.
@benthemiester i'm not talking about ancient greece. i'm talking about christianity in the 1500's. ancient greece was much much more open to new sciences (of course there were limits, look at the Trial of Socrates) then christianity dominted europe. and back then, the root of all sciences led to the supernatural. they didn't know any better.
"galileo was prosecuted for his revolutionary scientific discoveries by religious zeolets not unlike yourself"
Your the only one mentioning religion. I have not preached to or tried to condemned you, but you continually try to condem me. If you don't study you will remain ignorant all your life. Galileo was not put under house arrest in a .............
@benthemiester i've read some of your previous posts. it seems your ultimate goal is the support of an "intelligent agent". this argument alone really dosen't make sense. where did this intelligence come from. your saying our intelligence comes from other intelligence. its an endless chain with no beginning.
cont..... Hoyle and even Einstein believed in a higher power based on the observable evidence, and now we have even more evidence of a fine tuned universe with probability factors that are exponentially small and in orders of several magnitudes. The universe itself has been called an information wave. I don't think it unreasonable to deduce a primary cause of this vast information wave including life.
@benthemiester the universe is a violent, unorganised, unpredictable, place. random is really the more suited descriptor for the universe. not "fine tuned".
@myco578 Violence in the universe is one of the reasons why we're here. This is how stars are born & die. The Universe is not unpredictable. It is so ordered we know exactly where our galactic, solar & even our planetary position will be in ten million years. Paul Davies "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"
Look up the fine tuning problem especially the exponentially low probability factors involved.
@benthemiester Victor stenger "Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory" the fine tuned argument definetly goes both ways. just like god, you can't disprove it. yes we can estimate orbits and trajecorys and paths etc. does that mean everything about the universe is predictable? no. again when aplied to quantum physics, everything changes.
@myco578 As for unknowns I say again, this does not negate anything I've said. I dont know who Stenger is referring to, but if you have a beef with who ever is saying this, then prove them wrong. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
If were going to quote then, Carl Sagan "Im not an atheist, because in order to be an atheist you have to no a lot more than I do"
@benthemiester stenger was refering to the fine tuned universe theory as a whole. the was part of a longer quote. and i'm sure i could quote a good majority more atheist scientists than agnostic or even christian ones, because an overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.
@myco578 There is a video on youtube of Academy members singing happy birthday to Darwin with cake & candles. After they sang him a song they each gave a religious like testimony to what Darwin meant in their lives and even spoke to him as if he was in the same room. It was a little freaky man. I'm sure you can find it on you tube somewhere. I also wrote to Ayala once and asked him if he could back up a claim he maid with Eugenie Scott. His response was polite but he could not back up his claim.
@benthemiester and back to abiogenises, here's a really nice video explaining and adressing alot of issues you bring up. you can skip past the first 3 mins maybe.
@myco578 cont..... He hasn't even come close to creating life. He is a great scientist and I have some of his work filed including the invitro selection studies using pool RNA, but again he hasn't even come close, and he himself admits that we may never know know life began. He also believes that homochirality maybe be found in comets one day, but till this day we havent found any. Only racemic or close to racemic mixtures have been found and thats only a tiny fraction of the problems.
@benthemiester this is really only a matter of time until technology progresses to the point where comets can be probed thoroughly. esa's mission rosetta to comet 46P/wirtanen was scrapped but i'm sure some time in the near future if we find the interest to carry out another such mission, success will be had.
as is, comets still remain a viable sound explanation.
@myco578 "look at where we were 50 years ago with abiogenisis, and look where we are now"
Good point, Fifty years ago we thought Miller had figured it out, but we had no clue to how complex the living cell was fifty years ago. Today we are even further from trying to fathom a natural process because the more we discover, the more we realize the less we know. Lets turn that around. What would u say if I told you we cant prove Unicorns right now, but someday we will able to? You would laugh.
@myco578 I'm not sure if you were listening but I have mentioned Szostac work several times. He himself doesn't even make the claims that CDK007 makes. These so called stable vesicles are not true phospholipds. They dont have the surface & transport proteins necessary to maintain function, as a result they ware down rapidly. 2. Szostac himself admits that he was never able to create the original strand of RNA. There to many problems to mention in this thread.......
Very enjoyable thank you
khijasmith 1 month ago
really informative and interesting
xtremetom180 1 month ago
This guy just stats loads of shitt, "everyone, this just happened, deal with it" I really cant find anyone with absolutely no evidence to back their theory up convincing, he could at least said: "we know this because of," or : "there's evidence for this here and here..," but no, he just says it as if its proved already, BS
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Wow, you fucking retard. These aren't "his" theories, these are the theories of some of the greatest minds our world has known. These claims have been supported in countless tests. And since this is still an accepted theory, that means that it has yet to be falsified. This guy is just condensing very complicated ideas into a format that untrained people can understand, what he's saying is nothing new.
Shaboynka 1 month ago
@Shaboynka "And since this is still an accepted theory, that means that it has yet to be falsified" Not really, the probability of the first cell emerging from random chance alone is 10^570
thats such a big number our minds can't fathom it
the theory is only cept alive by uneducated tards with no basis in what real science is.
If abiogenesis is anything, it is a religion as it requires probably more belief than christianity does lol
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Would you mind telling me where you got that number from? Because I'm pretty sure you pulled it out of your ass. And our minds can't fathom many things. Even just a million years- a geologic timescale's blink of the eye- is unfathomable.. imagine what can happen in a billion!
And you're right, a BA in geology isn't a basis in science. I forgot.
P.S. Making up a large number is in no way falsification- I figured an obviously superior intellectual would have known that.
Shaboynka 1 month ago
@Shaboynka To give you an idea of the probability against the first cell emerging from random chance, think of trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, that adds up to 10^96
Even if I gave you the source and shoved it up your ass where it could get past your head you wouldn't take it as a falsification of your unscientific theory
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx You don't know that a scource wouldn't cause me tp question my ways of thinking and cause me to change my mind. I respond to evidence and justification, and so far I've recieved none. I already know that you made this number up, and you have no clue since you've failed twice to support your claim, but what I've seen in my studies, in the field, and from the works of people I greatly respect, the trends in the fossil and geologic record remain visible. The only reason we haven't
Shaboynka 1 month ago
@Shaboynka dropped our interpretations of abiogenesis, or the theory of an RNA world, is because it has not been falsified. It has however been subjected to much peer review, and the scrutiny of many in the scientific community. But it still remains a theory, and will.
Now's your chance, show me some good evidence (from an actual scientist), or at least a good alternate explanation, and you could change my mind.
"Even the most improbable events will occur with time" Dr. Thomas Handler.
Shaboynka 1 month ago
@Shaboynka ""Even the most improbable events will occur with time" Dr. Thomas Handler."
well thats stupid, not in trillion x 10 years will abiogenesis happen when the odds are stacked against you, I KNOW for sure that even if I stuck the probability up your ass you won't change your worldview, but i'll do it anyway incase someone reading our comments will understand:
source:
iscid . org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302 . pdf
page 33
Good luck with the truth! ^^
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Was that so hard? Mullan does provide good points, and I appreciate that a Catholic scientist attempted to provide solely quantatative support. However, if you examine the last several pages he lists the set of assumptions involved in his paper, one crucial one being that the 20 amino acids that occur in the primitive Earth were the 20 that occur today- for which he gave no justification. Another crucial assumption (one he didn't mention) is his assumption that the first living
Shaboynka 1 month ago
@Shaboynka cell is what resulted from the primordial soup. Nobody believes that the first self replicating molecule appeared as a cell. Cells are considered in the theory to come after that.
Shaboynka 1 month ago
@Shaboynka "one crucial one being that the 20 amino acids that occur in the primitive Earth were the 20 that occur today"
but isn't that just better for the theory? O.o
I seem to recall that he said that we had to remember that he was giving it the best possible scenarios, this is so that it can actually be plausible, not something you should attack lol
And have you considered the fact that water actually hinderes further bonding of amino acids?and that the number was NOT pulled out of my ass?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@Shaboynka "Cells are considered in the theory to come after that."
good thing you said theory, but this doesn't really change anything does it? the probabilty remains the same :/
have you heard of the atp synthase enzyme? it is vital for life and was needed in the first cell as well as the kinesin linear motor, these are extremely complex and highly improbable to evolve by mutations alone yes? This is clear proof of design wouldn't you say?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
I did do research would you like me to start adding my references? Don't forget methane. But they have tried this experiement and it does not work, with what scienctist now believe was in the earths early atmosphere...
ColtonC85 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColtonC85 "[...] would you like me to start adding my references? " Yes, please.
R18111983 4 months ago
And where do you suppose the right conditions came from? You do know that experiment is now void right?
ColtonC85 4 months ago
Comment removed
R18111983 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColtonC85 "And where do you suppose the right conditions came from?"
All you need is time, liquid water (hydrogen/oxygen), heat and two extra elemets (carbon/nytrogen) to spontaneously form fatty- and amino acids.. all that was very apparent on the newly formed earth some billions of years ago..
R18111983 4 months ago
@R18111983 You do realize they treid that experiment and it doesn't work that has been proved years ago, where have you been?
ColtonC85 3 days ago
"also the link between species isnt found in fossils but in the DNA of existing animals" If you took a blood sample from are closest realitive is the kidney bean. All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record.. [...]"
Again, fossils are largely irrelevant. We don't need a single one to show that life evolved. DNA is what proves that evolution happened and still happens without any reason to doubt it.
R18111983 4 months ago
@R18111983 Really??? Go watch some of their conferences or read a book. Fossils are huge to evolutionist, and also one of the biggest flaws to. Don't tell me fossils are not important.
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "Don't tell me fossils are not important. [...]"
They are not. They are very helpful and I'm glad we have them but the theory of evolution would be standing strong even if we didn't have a single fossilized bone.
R18111983 4 months ago
These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible
Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
Pg. 46
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "Evolution demands "integration and development" [...]"
The 2nd law of thermodynamics works only for closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. There is new energy coming in all the time.
R18111983 4 months ago
Ok...Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all....
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85
maybe, just maybe, fossilization is a rare event, this would explain the gaps since not all stages of evolution are recorded in fossel record's, also the link between species isnt found in fossils but in the DNA of existing animals...
lopendepaddo 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "Absolutely no transitional forms...[...]"
Typical creationist lie. There are tons of so called 'transitional forms' (In fact, EVERY species is a transitional form). Take Tiktaalik as an example of how an in-between stage of sea and land vertebrate looks like. How did we find it? We predicted the layer of sediment and region in which we should find such an animal based on the theory of evolution. Then we went there, dug around and found it.
R18111983 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 The transitions from land mammals to whales and from our ancestors to homo sapiens are also well documented in the fossil record. Nevermind the fact that evolution would be true regardless of fossils. We are lucky that we have a 'few' and they represent further evidence for evoultion but we don't need them to prove that evolution happened without any reasonable doubt.
R18111983 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 Are you fucking kidding?... look up Tiktaalik, or look up the transition from rhipidistians to tetrapods. Open your eyes dude. We actually have a pretty beautiful set of fossils marking the transition from land dwellers to whales. We also know quite a bit about the evolution of horses. If you need more than that I'm happy to get into some details.
Shaboynka 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CARL SAGAN - "Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - CARL SAGAN
TheLogicalBrain 5 months ago
and where order comes from?
kachetil 5 months ago
@kachetil
order is a purely human concept, this doesn't prove order, it proves chaos.
lopendepaddo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lopendepaddo
"order is a purely human concept, this doesn't prove order, it proves chaos."
Likewise "chaos" is a "human concept"...
So... since we're playing around with "human concepts" the following is just as true...
Chaos is a purely human concept, this doesn't prove chaos, it proves order.
Hammersley1967 4 months ago
@lopendepaddo chaos from a human eyes maybe!and a littlebit ...logic!!you can see same allan watts videos!
kachetil 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kachetil
"and where order comes from?"
All we know is that order (pattern) comes from chaos (less patterned)...
Is there something behind this transformation?
Maybe... But there is no tangible evidence for it...
So, your guess is as good as mine...
That is all we know...
Hammersley1967 4 months ago
we are probably a science experiment from some alien or higher power
TheProdigy7777 5 months ago
@TheProdigy7777 What I always thought really. The bible could easily be also translated into aliens teaching us. For example, god speaking from the sky, Jesus walking on water. Easily done.
Shuffle2dMax 5 months ago
U didn't this school due to the Jesuits lying to us thru the corporate schools systems.
MrBluntbox420 7 months ago
Genes of Isis=genesis. The surface of all suns is black. Isis is mother nature, the black Madonna. Black Athena. You better know what actuality is? versus reality?
MrBluntbox420 7 months ago
Why didn't I see this in school?
EgoNamahaNemoRex 9 months ago
THIS VIDEO IS COMPLETE SHIT!!!! Scientists haven't a fucking clue how nonliving matter turns into life. I suggest the person who made this video should read the February issue of the scientific American.
AegeanKing 9 months ago
@AegeanKing They're very close now. Amino acids are actually common in meteorites, just like water is, so it won't be long before we know where it came from now, and it probably won't be many years before we've explained/duplicated the original processes in laboratories. Synthetic life has already been made, so it would be strange if we don't see natural life arising in the lab soon too. Science is great, science has answered the questions that led to religions/superstitions in ancient times!: )
winterstellar 9 months ago
@winterstellar *where life came from, how it arose*, was what I meant. Sorry I made it a bit unclear there.: )
winterstellar 9 months ago
@AegeanKing And I don't understand the problem you have with "living/non-living matter. There are viruses that are nothing but big molecules until they find suitable DNA in a host cell. Those are good examples of non-living becoming living, aren't they? Everything is made up of particles, of atoms/molecules, and so is our brain where we fantasize about "gods" or "meanings of life" or not, it's all chemistry/physics regardless of whether something is alive or not alive: )
winterstellar 9 months ago
@winterstellar Nonsense. The scientific American in their February issue put an article out that affirms that scientists still do not have a single viable theory on the origin of life and that the RNA world hypothesis has basically led to a dead end and that many scientists are now jumping on the panspermia ship. Lastly, opinions differ on whether viruses constitute life or not.
AegeanKing 9 months ago
@AegeanKing Oh, I'm no supporter of panspermia. I was a bit clumsy in formulating that comment. But amino acids come in meteorites, that has been confirmed by NASA. So there are fewer and fewer places left where any God could do his magic, and my guess is that it won't be long now before abiogenesis is completely explained and even seen in laboratories.
winterstellar 9 months ago
@winterstellar Why do yo insist on being a condescending prick? There is nothig magic about creating and manipulating the laws of physics. In fact, i do believe that the first life was made from non-living matter that was part of the earth, just like Genesis 1:24 says. God commanded the EARTH to bring forth life. You have a very childish and surface layer understanding of who the Judeo-Christian God is. (continued)
AegeanKing 9 months ago
@AegeanKing Ouch, have I sounded condescending? Sorry if I have. Thank you for that info on Augustine and Nahmanides, by the way. Interesting.: )
winterstellar 9 months ago
@AegeanKing My first comment did sound like pan-spermia, yes. But I don't believe in it. The building blocks came from elsewhere but abiogenesis happened here.
winterstellar 9 months ago
@winterstellar There are many famous theologians that pre-date darwin like Augustine and Nahmanides who said that life on earth began from very basic organisms and developed and grew into everything else. In fact, in his homilie "a literal reading of Genesis", Augustine says that its not appropriate to read Genesis in a literal fashion and this was said in the 4th century. He is not the only theologian to say those things.
AegeanKing 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The calculations of British mathematician Sir Roger Penrose show that the probability of a universe conducive to life occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the10th power to the 123rd power. This makes it a mathematical impossibility.Evolution is the atheist creation myth. Atheism is irrational, illogical and impossible. Do the math:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moonlightbateman how is atheism irrational, being an athiest is simply saying that you don't acknowledge concepts without any viable truth. lets just say this, have you found any mathematical evidence for god?
h t t p : / / en. wikipedia . o r g /wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
lopendepaddo 4 months ago
Nice video.
TheCaz 10 months ago
if your an atheist, a believer in God, or other.. my question is why did it work? simple enough.. life in it's microscopic form could have failed, but it didn't.. you don't have to be a scientist to use "logic" life on earth may have not been created by evolution.... your combustible engine will not start without an electric signal ... you see darkness before you see the light. We had picture before sound.. so where does the importance come in.. it's a rhetorical quesion.. what you see is/hear?
neilpeartripley 11 months ago
@neilpeartripley this is because our minds can only work within our realm of possibilities. we can not conceive something that is entirely unbeknownst to us or completely out of the grasp of our capabilities. there can be a perfectly logical explanation, we just may never have the tools to figure out why. this is the same reason we have created a god in our image, because we can not conceptualize beyond what we experience in the natural world.
tranceaddictallnight 10 months ago
@neilpeartripley there is no such thing as abstract thinking and therefore we will never be able to understand how or why the universe was perfectly, or imperfectly depending on how you view it, set up the way it us. we believe that nothing existed and that it seems implausible that all of what we know and see can come from nothing, but that is because we simply can not fathom the idea. the human mind, though it is very evolved, is still limited and in need of improvement.
tranceaddictallnight 10 months ago
Carbon atoms link together to form complex molecules such as DNA? Never observed. Still can't create complex DNA structures and create life. In science you have to observe and test a hypothesis before it can be proclaimed as truth. If you can't, it's a theory. In other words, evolution is a religion being touted as science. Now that is bad science. Look into this people.
Biblehastheanswer 11 months ago
@Biblehastheanswer first, look up what theory means in scientific world. Secondly, research in detail how DNA forms, this video skipped a lot due to lack of time. Thirdly, look up practical applications of evolution in modern day world. Fourthly, stop being a hypocrite by calling evolution a religion when your name contains "bible" in it.
eleminatus 11 months ago
@Biblehastheanswer Good that you dont even know what a scientific theory is.
Sweddude 10 months ago
@Sweddude Simple fact. If it isn't observed it isn't science. Empty speculations based on unproven theories aren't science. Pretty soon Darwinism will be a thing of the past. Look into why.
Biblehastheanswer 10 months ago
@Biblehastheanswer If it has to be observed then its rather safe since we have observed evolution happening several times.
But according to you then we can just kiss the theory of gravity byebye, or protons and electrons as well, no one has seen those and yet we know how they work.
Sweddude 10 months ago
@Biblehastheanswer actually evolution is still presented as the Evolution Theory, it has more proof behind it than creationism though (all that has behind it is 1 1700 year old book...) so shouldn't be ignored just like that.
lopendepaddo 4 months ago
@lopendepaddo also ther have been numerous major universities such as cambridge that have completly thrown it out because its non since. Even the found him self said this and I quote Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." Evolution is losing ground
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85
ok how about not just claiming this statistics but actually showing some sources, as for the quotes i would ask in what year Darwin wrote the letters this was in, it wouldn't be strange for him to doubt himself in a time where his theory's where under constant scrutiny by representatives of the church, also i do not know in what context that quote was made or if it was even made since i only find references to it on theology site filled with creationist BS.
lopendepaddo 4 months ago
@lopendepaddo There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@lopendepaddo I've got pages of quotes, statements and evidence against evolution, its one of those things I have had fun researching. I have found these quotes and evidence over the past year or so. So if you think its true why? Not trying to be rude this stuff interests me and I like other peoples thoughts
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "evidence against evolution [...]"
There is no evidence against evolution. But it is so easy to produce eveidence to utterly destroy evolution.. just dig up a cambrian fossil-guinea pig.
R18111983 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 As I read through your comments I cannot help but wonder if you even understand evolution on any basic level. Actually I don't wonder.. I know that you don't have the slightest clue about it..
All you do is repeat million-times refuted creationist bullshit..
Pick up a fucking biology textbook and study. Read peer-reviewed scientific articles. Though I sincerely doubt that you even have the intellect to understand anything fundamental about natural sciences..
R18111983 4 months ago
@R18111983 4 comments and you say I repeat a millions times? Look at cells; this will be something different.The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order.
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "[...] billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time [...]"
Early primitive cells are much different from the complex machines we see today. The first cells where simple polymers surrounded by fatty acids. Both spontaneously form under the right conditions by purely chemical processes. There were NO complex cells at the beginning.
R18111983 4 months ago
@R18111983 ok what Plitdown hoax? Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "ok what Plitdown hoax? [...]"
Funny that you mention this. The Piltdown hoax was exposed BECAUSE OF the theory of evolution. Piltdown man was never fully accepted in the scientific community and many evolutionary scientists where very skeptical from the beginning until it could finally be shown to be a forgery in 1953.
This is actually a PERFECT example of how science works and how evolution is true.. way to shoot yourself in the foot..
R18111983 4 months ago
@R18111983 I read on that a few years ago....evolutionist were so caught up in there theories the didn't even realize it was a hoax....pretty bad don't you think. Why would I believe this, I have pages of stuff I researched a few years ago, I know enough to know its false
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 " [...] I know enough to know its false [...]"
No, you don't. Since your 'knowledge' obviously comes from creationist propaganda webpages you are highly unlikely to have understood anything fundamental about evolution or science in general. And given that you spout the most easily to refute bullshit arguments I highly doubt that you honestly researched anything at all.
Your ignorant line of argument is a 1:1 copy of creationist bullshit.
R18111983 4 months ago
@R18111983 There are many scientific problems with your cell scenario, the timing involved may prove most problematic. Before 3.8 billion years ago scientists believe that the Earth's surface was still in a state of considerable upheaval, as the last of the nebular debris bombarded the Earth. The appearance of life at that time is puzzling to many scientists, since it is not believed that the precursors of life could have survived such an inhospitable environment.
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 And that abiogenesis is puzzling is evidence against evolution how?
R18111983 4 months ago
@R18111983 I AGREE
jessecamping 2 months ago
@R18111983 Yet, life managed to make its appearance at the conclusion of that turbulent time and survive. This allows an almost a negligible time-frame for the building-blocks of life to progress naturally into living organisms...
But I have some business to take care of, ill be back tomorrow have a great day
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@lopendepaddo ...
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@ColtonC85 "Even the found him self said this and I quote Darwin: [...]"
Evolution is true regardless of what Darwin did or did not say. Natural laws don't change because of what the people say who discovered them. Even if Darwin had a deathbed conversion, became a creationist and personally stated all his discoveries where false, evolution would still be true. Evidence is important, not statements.
R18111983 4 months ago
im an atheist but I have a question for any one who can answer it with a rational responser. Since abiogenesis has happened b4 and as a result we share DNA with all living animals. why hasn't abiogenesis happened more than once and spawned totally diffident DNA then the rest of us. producing a species that we are not at all related to. i have a theory or 2 but looking if any one really knows, thanks
Legaltimes 11 months ago
@Legaltimes
What might have happened is that life arose and changed the environment making abiogenesis impossible before it happened again. Another possibility is that the other life forms that formed simply didn't survive natural selection. It is certainly possible that unrelated lifeforms did emerge and that their descendants are alive today, it is simply not known.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
I have given u lofty evidence & u have not been able to refute it, ignored it, & pretend that it doesn't exist, & that is the fine tuning that everyone agrees exist whether or not their willing to accept it as evidence for a designer. We do have nano technological molecular machines & digital encoded information & a mechanism that can read & transcribe this information within our genomes which is more complex than any super computer or program that ever existed. This is observable evidence.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester everyone agrees? a large majority of physicists support M-theory.
so are you denying recent scientific progresses?
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 "a large majority of physicists support M-theory"
OK please cite your source on above statment.
"so are you denying recent scientific progresses"
Of course not, I welcome scientific progress but for you to think that scientific progress supports your position by default is kind of silly, especially if you cannot provide evidence and instead feel that trying to predict the future or keeping an open mind is the key.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester my source is the book the grand design. in it hawking says that a good majority of modern physicists support M theory. if you look at technologys being reaserched right now, with very tangible results from that research, its completly plausible that within the next 50 years, all of theses technologys will exsist.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 I have seen all these videos before. I have checked out every citation you have given me except for the broken link. Ill tell you what. When I have some time, I will watch and critique this video and try to keep my opinions scientific and not personel, if you would do the same, and watch "The Privileged Planet" in its entirety, then critique it also, and stay away from personel views as I will try.
Then we can break down what was said in both. If u cant find it, ask & I tell u where.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester so i watched "the privileged planet". a lot of there arguments fell flat. especially the one about the requirements for life. that list they provided accounts for requirements for human life, not life in general. and about half of those are fairly common. you don't need a terrestrial planet for life, you don't need oxygen for life, you don't need to be in a habitable zone for life, you don't need a moon for life etc. i'm assuming you watched all the parts of M-theory?
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578
"my source is the book the grand design" Fair enough please give me the direct quote and I will check it out and please give foot notes to verify. Your own paraphrasing doesn't seem to come up on any search. By the way, I still dont see what this has to do with a designer. Hawkins personel philosophy is his own. He is a well known atheist, this is not a surprise. Has he published any empirical evidence in a peer review journals concerning testable evidence for this paradigm?
benthemiester 11 months ago
I love how presentations like this have the "...and at some level of complexity, particles become organinc molecules become biology...and then...life!" Understand entropy? So why would such random formations (and dissolutions) of particles somehow "arrive" at life? We skipped over the part explaining where billions of PRECISELY-ordered bits of machine-code quality DNA information, far more advanced than any computer code we've ever devised, came to be already present in the primordial cell.
befuturenow 1 year ago
@befuturenow its not by chance, its by chemistry, its called permutations and electro magnetism. thats how dna came into being. your "skipping" the billions of years that incredibly simple, self replicating, equations slowly became more complex eventually becoming single celled organisms. only in the last 500 million years out of a 4.54 billion year existance have more complex organisms occured, and simple life has already been on this planet for 3 billion years.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 If this argument truly reflects your capacity for reason, there's really no help for you.
befuturenow 1 year ago
@befuturenow coming from someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old? do i need to say more. this world is constrained by religion. we can only move forward if we leave the past behind.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 Never be so ignorant to think that religious bigotry is the only alternative to your "DNA by accident" rubbish. "Evolutionists" assume their hopeless paradigm is dignified just because religious fundamentalist ideas are even more stupid than theirs are. It is not . Try matching your accidental DNA against someone who is truly informed, unhindered by religion, and no more afraid of intelligent design than their own intelligence. Then again, you might NOT want to do that.
befuturenow 1 year ago
@befuturenow but you see thats the fundemental axiom of evolution. evolution is a science, and religion is a belief. and who said accident? please give me the name of the woefully missinformed "scientist" who said dna was an "accident". as i have already explained to you, the process by which dna formed was not accidental. also, all your giving me are opinions, not arguments against evolution. religion is this worlds crutch. it is the dividing factor between the primative and the advanced.
myco578 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod I already told you he copied the code from preexisting DNA and inserted it into a living bacterium. "Other than the fundamental order of the DNA" DNA is a code. I dont need to hold my breath. I knew you were bullshiting from the beginning, but on that spelling error, you really taught me a lesson. Now run along now young man. Go educate yourself with more Donexodus videos.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod "You are of the school that believes the research by Miller and Co. actually proves intelligent design"
When did I say this? Miller didn't prove anything. He used the wrong reducing atmosphere ratio. He aso used a electrical spark and a trap as a filter, and in the end he got 98% tar and 2% percent amino acids, and they were all racemic. Proteins are not, & cannot be put together by racemic amino acids. Unfortunately this was fed to gullible young minds like yours.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester after the initial miller urey experiment, subsequent experiments have been done throughout the years, each one harboring incrimentally more success. the experiment has evolved far beyond its simple origins since its inception in the 50's.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 It is true that subsequents experiments produced even more amino acids than Miller initial test, in fact, we now know that Miller produced even more AA's than he was initially given credit for. Three problems, they used the wrong reducing atmospheric conditions. They used a trap which mean it wasn't a true OOL simulation, & every experiment produced a racemic mixture, inert & incapable of producing the homochiral properties required for complex proteins. This method has been abandon.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester the intention of the experiment was to prove that the organic building blocks for life could be produced from essentailly non organic materials. so while gaps in this exiperment are being improved, (atmospheric condition and the like) it does not negate the fact that abiogenises is the most impericly supported conclusion for the origin of life on this planet. if you like to throw out some well thought out alternative theorys, please do by all means.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 The gaps, yeah that was very amusing. You have a great sense of humor. Abiogenesis is not a theory. Abiogenesis is a concept, nothing more, and to date there is no scientific data that supports it. There are no empirical theories on this subject period. Biogenesis is a fundamental principle of biology in that life only comes from other living thing. As for alternative theories, sometime its ok to be honest and admit that we just don't know yet. Organic material does not mean life.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester to the contrary there is actaully a lot of indirect evidence that points to abiogenises. just like evolution may not be completely observable, it is still a fact. this we can prove through in-direct evidence. you can deny evolution but you'd really only be making a fool of yourself. the protobionts, prokaryotes, coacervate the Iron–sulfur world theory, and the RNA world hypothesis are good examples of in-direct evidence and solid deductive reasoning.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 Not according to science. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of any kind. There is plenty of evidence for micro evolution, but only extrapolations and conjecture for macro evolutionary change, and this has been well known for many decades. Please tell me what forms of life or anything close to a living cell was produced by OOL simulation experiments using the RNA hypothesis without the use of pre existing genetic information or an intelligent agent.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester really? spontaneus generation? is that really what you think i'm talking about? that theory was commonly used in the 1700's. if you think modern science has anything to do with spontaneous generation i suggest you educate yourself. SP refers to life sprouting from literally nothing. magic, if you will, not forming from previously existing material.also micro evolution is macro evolution.
please explain where this aforementioned intelligence came from.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 Spontaneous generation doesn't or didn't mean spouting from nothing. In fact there were supposed recipes for how you could get mice to form and so on. All wives tales but accepted by the scientist of that day.
Chemical evolution which is the modern hypothesis still has to deal with spontaneous generation at the point that inert organic matter becomes life. The only difference is that the current hypothesis takes longer and supposedly uses a molecular reductionist model.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester sorry i should rephrase. spouting from hay, logs, dirt and other nonsensical things. the mechanism behind Spontaneous generation generation was never explained, it was attributed to magic. the method that modern biologists use to explain abiogenises is the exact opposite. it strives for the mechanism and process by which life formed. also abiogenises is a study, not a concept.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 I disagree, as I said before, chemical evolution which according to the modern hypothesis still maintains that spontaneous generation occurs at a given point where inert non animated matter becomes living matter. The only difference is, that it supposed to take much longer. Science doesn't use a method because science doesn't know of any such method. I'm not sure what your source is but it wouldn't hurt to check and verify to see if its correct before just accepting it a face value.
benthemiester 1 year ago
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 Sure Ill start with vestigial organs such as wings, eye, & other body parts that have lost their ability to function. This is called entropy & loss of function not novel evolutionary function. Vestigial should not be confused with "we dont know what its for so therefore it must be vestigial". German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim made a list 100 years ago of one hundred supposed vestigial organs that we now know are not, which included the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow etc,
benthemiester 1 year ago
@myco578 Now if you can please back up your statement and tell me of anything near a living cell that has been confirmed in any OOL/origin of life experiment even using the RNA world model. Please do this and I will be happy to respond to the rest of your questions.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester to achieve such a result with no interference after the creation of the organic material, would require hundreds of millions of years. it took a billion years after the earth came about for life to show up on the earths surface. your request could feasebly be carried out in a computer simulation, but for the parameters to be fully met in a lab setting, the experiment would have be left untouched for millions of years.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 "Pseudogene sequences appear to accumulate mutations more rapidly than coding sequences due to a loss of selective pressure. This allows for the creation of mutant alleles that incorporate new functions that may be favored by natural selection; thus, pseudogenes can serve as raw material for evolution and can be considered "protogenes"
Please at least cite date and author. Your citation above is tentative and use the word may. Secondly just yesterday you were calling this stuff Junk.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i got this from your favorite site wikipedia. you know the one you get qoutes from to try to disprove evolution? even though wikipedia shows full support of the theory of evolution. the point i'm trying to make is that if your going to use quotes to disprove evolution, take them from sites that disagree with evolution. you know, answers in genises, ray comforts home page, westboro baptist church etc.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 The fact that Wikipedia is evolutionary friendly is one of the reasons why I choose from it, although thats not my only source. I dont quote from creationist cites. I also cite from Nature and other science Journal. It doesn't matter what a publication supports. What matters is what can be proven scientifically. I dont mean to be rude but you dont seem very knowledgable on this subject. The neo Darwinism question clearly demonstrates this.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester what your doing is almost like qoute mining. you ignore the mountain of evidence presented by the site you use no less, and pick and choose small pieces of evidence that support your cause. i doubt you've contributed anything to biology. "It doesn't matter what a publication supports" it really does. what it supports is why there presenting the information in the first place.
myco578 11 months ago
cont...have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter"
Do you notice the phrase "no apparent ills"
apparent |əˈparənt; əˈpe(ə)r-|
adjective
clearly visible or understood; obvious : [with clause ] it became apparent that he was talented | for no apparent reason she laughed.
• seeming real or true, but not necessarily so : his apparent lack of concern.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@myco578 cont...There is an old saying, The devil is in the details. You didn't even address the fact that these regions are highly conserved which really if not needed, is a theoretical problem. Neither did you address the redundancy issue.
Please tell me where in the study does it say that this suggest the DNA removed is useless. This what the the abstract which is the only thing you have quoted actually says. I strongly urge you to read it very carefully. "US researchers
benthemiester 11 months ago
@myco578 cont... and natural selection working on phenotype which I described before, including pollution, predation, parasites, and other selective pressures that lab mice are not exposed to. Scientist have already made the mistake of regarding non protein coding regions as Junk DNA by saying "I don't know what its there for so it must be junk" If you feel you can figure this out by only reading the abstract and not paying for the article, then maybe you are a genius who knows?
benthemiester 11 months ago
@myco578 cont..... because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal" Yes over your head. You also cited another Junk DNA study that indicated that Junk DNA may provide raw material for evolution. You didn't bother taking that into consideration. As I said before I have no problem with evolution in terms of adaptation and micro change using natural selection. That is, the ability for these mice to adapt to real world pressure
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester micro evolution is macro evolution. all macro evolution is, is a lot of micro evolution. if you repeatedly introduce toxins to bacteria in a petri dish eventually they will become imune. go to any museum in europe and look at the armor. you'll see that human beings have gotten taller over a few hundred years
can you walk a mile without taking a single step?
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578
Micro to macro evo has been replaced by saltation or punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. "if you repeatedly introduce toxins to bacteria in a petri dish eventually they will become imune" Bacteria produce toxins and can feed on them also. Are you speaking of ant biotics?
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester or insects. insects evolve immunites to pesticides through repeated exposure. why do you think america adopted DDT as its new favorite multi use chemical. look how well that went. and no i don't mean anti biotics. newscientist (dot) com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab (dot) html
myco578 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myco578"insects evolve immunites to pesticides through repeated exposure. why do you think america adopted DDT as its new favorite multi use chemical. look how well that went. and no i don't mean anti biotics"
You originally said bacteria not bugs. That is why I asked if you were referring to anti biotics which can be lethal to bacteria. Please take my advise. Do some research and then come back.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester and if you want an exmaple of the insects evoling immunites look at the bed bug and Pyrethroid pesticides. the bed bugs offspring are now becoming immune to Pyrethroid pesticides.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 cont..... it loses it. In the end you still have a bug and a bacteria. Immune response and redundancy is a good indicator of design. Secondly this immunity comes with a fitness cost which means that they are less robust than there counter parts that have not been exposed to these "poison" and since they are less fit they do not do well competing, which is not a very good long term evolutionary prognosis. If you want more info on bacteria check out 'Shapiro bacteria self engineering"
benthemiester 11 months ago
@myco578 cont......First let me correct you. If u introduce anti biotic to bacteria or toxins to bugs the first thing that happens is that many or most die. The ones that do survive over time build up an immunity, and they do this losing certain proteins that were susceptible to the (lets just use the word poison). Bacteria is a little more complicated but it also has to lose genetic information to survive. It does not evolve new information,
benthemiester 11 months ago
@myco578
You avoided answering another question concerning bacteria. But I wont bust your balls I know what you mean, and for what ever its worth, I think you are finally starting to ask the right questions. This is a fair one.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester you avoid a lot of my questions. and i didn't avoid it i posted a link which you did not follow apperently
newscientist (dot) com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab (dot) html
replace (dot) with .
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 The problem with your citation was that a mutation happend by blind chance. Evolution says that NS pressure are not blind or randome. U also left this part out. "In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories"
Check out "James Shapiro bacteria self engineering"
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester of course evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. there are many examples of this. this is a basic principle in biology. creatures evolve to best suit their enviroment. not evolve for supeririority.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 Losing genetic info is not really evolution even if it is to gain a functional advantage. In this case it came at a great cost to other bacteria strains and a functional advantage was not even necessary because it was thriving well on the glucose already being fed to it. This is whats so surprising, and they're still not done analyzing the results in spite of the spin by the popular media.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester it's not like it would stay that way forever. it would regain its losses in a diffrent way through further evolution. and i think you should watch this
youtube (dot) com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 I did not take anything out of context u just dont understand what your reading. Your citation only indicates that there may be even more of a differential because of unknown factors. What I cited are the known ones. Your actually making a case that there could be more differences, thanks. I can't give you a crash course in biology. 98% only applies to single nucleotide polymorphism. The citation I gave included other factors that were once ignored until recently.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester my original argument is that your taking the whole website out of context. the number of full pages devoted to explaining the fact of evolution and its intricacies, versus the amount of pages devoted to discussing it's small number of controversies and unknowns is enormous. so when you pick and choose but blatently ignore the rest of the evidence presented, your not being very scientific.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 Correction I meant to say "as in the beginning"
benthemiester 11 months ago
@myco578
cont......beautiful villa with servants and full access to his lab and eventually allowed to continue his work because of his scientific views. The church originally welcomed his science. It was his broken promise to the pope not to meddle in church business that got him into trouble. Even he said that he was treated fairly. He was a theologian who remained a devout Christian until his death. Please check out the myth of Galileo. Educate yourself.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester "Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture."
contrary to holy scripture.
and of course he was a devout christian until death.
1. the supernatural was the only explanation
2. how warmly was everyone else received.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 Please read the "Myth of Galileo". It will give you a much better perspective than just quote mining out of context. It will only take a few hours to research maybe less. There is much more to the story than what you were told by your 6th grade teacher. As I said before he said he was treated fairly, and allowed to live in a beautiful villa with servants, and eventually allowed back all his freedoms including acces to laboratory. Hell, prosecute me please.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester what i just posted were the readings by which he was convicted. i'm not denying where he was put into house arrest. i'm saying he was put into house arrest for denying "holy scripture".
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 "he was put into house arrest for denying "holy scripture".
Again unless you put some time and effort into researching you will not understand that he never denied scripture, because there is nothing in scripture that says that the sun revolves around the earth. He publicly challenged the Pope's interpretation of scripture and church dogma. If he had stuck to science he would have never got into trouble, and he was told this. He broke his promise not to get involved in church dogma.
benthemiester 11 months ago
"the supernatural was the only explanation"
"how warmly was everyone else received"
Telic thought vs naturalism concerning origins can be traced back to ancient Greece. The concept of evolution existed among scholars long before Darwin. 2. The first in Europe to teach mathematics, natural philosophy or what later came to be known as science & scientific principles were theologians, who established the first Universities & were the founders of the Modern western sciences. This is a fact.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester i'm not talking about ancient greece. i'm talking about christianity in the 1500's. ancient greece was much much more open to new sciences (of course there were limits, look at the Trial of Socrates) then christianity dominted europe. and back then, the root of all sciences led to the supernatural. they didn't know any better.
myco578 11 months ago
"galileo was prosecuted for his revolutionary scientific discoveries by religious zeolets not unlike yourself"
Your the only one mentioning religion. I have not preached to or tried to condemned you, but you continually try to condem me. If you don't study you will remain ignorant all your life. Galileo was not put under house arrest in a .............
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester i've read some of your previous posts. it seems your ultimate goal is the support of an "intelligent agent". this argument alone really dosen't make sense. where did this intelligence come from. your saying our intelligence comes from other intelligence. its an endless chain with no beginning.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578"
cont..... Hoyle and even Einstein believed in a higher power based on the observable evidence, and now we have even more evidence of a fine tuned universe with probability factors that are exponentially small and in orders of several magnitudes. The universe itself has been called an information wave. I don't think it unreasonable to deduce a primary cause of this vast information wave including life.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester the universe is a violent, unorganised, unpredictable, place. random is really the more suited descriptor for the universe. not "fine tuned".
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 Violence in the universe is one of the reasons why we're here. This is how stars are born & die. The Universe is not unpredictable. It is so ordered we know exactly where our galactic, solar & even our planetary position will be in ten million years. Paul Davies "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"
Look up the fine tuning problem especially the exponentially low probability factors involved.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester Victor stenger "Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory" the fine tuned argument definetly goes both ways. just like god, you can't disprove it. yes we can estimate orbits and trajecorys and paths etc. does that mean everything about the universe is predictable? no. again when aplied to quantum physics, everything changes.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 As for unknowns I say again, this does not negate anything I've said. I dont know who Stenger is referring to, but if you have a beef with who ever is saying this, then prove them wrong. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
If were going to quote then, Carl Sagan "Im not an atheist, because in order to be an atheist you have to no a lot more than I do"
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester stenger was refering to the fine tuned universe theory as a whole. the was part of a longer quote. and i'm sure i could quote a good majority more atheist scientists than agnostic or even christian ones, because an overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 There is a video on youtube of Academy members singing happy birthday to Darwin with cake & candles. After they sang him a song they each gave a religious like testimony to what Darwin meant in their lives and even spoke to him as if he was in the same room. It was a little freaky man. I'm sure you can find it on you tube somewhere. I also wrote to Ayala once and asked him if he could back up a claim he maid with Eugenie Scott. His response was polite but he could not back up his claim.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester and back to abiogenises, here's a really nice video explaining and adressing alot of issues you bring up. you can skip past the first 3 mins maybe.
youtube (dot) com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 cont..... He hasn't even come close to creating life. He is a great scientist and I have some of his work filed including the invitro selection studies using pool RNA, but again he hasn't even come close, and he himself admits that we may never know know life began. He also believes that homochirality maybe be found in comets one day, but till this day we havent found any. Only racemic or close to racemic mixtures have been found and thats only a tiny fraction of the problems.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@benthemiester this is really only a matter of time until technology progresses to the point where comets can be probed thoroughly. esa's mission rosetta to comet 46P/wirtanen was scrapped but i'm sure some time in the near future if we find the interest to carry out another such mission, success will be had.
as is, comets still remain a viable sound explanation.
myco578 11 months ago
@myco578 "look at where we were 50 years ago with abiogenisis, and look where we are now"
Good point, Fifty years ago we thought Miller had figured it out, but we had no clue to how complex the living cell was fifty years ago. Today we are even further from trying to fathom a natural process because the more we discover, the more we realize the less we know. Lets turn that around. What would u say if I told you we cant prove Unicorns right now, but someday we will able to? You would laugh.
benthemiester 11 months ago
@myco578 I'm not sure if you were listening but I have mentioned Szostac work several times. He himself doesn't even make the claims that CDK007 makes. These so called stable vesicles are not true phospholipds. They dont have the surface & transport proteins necessary to maintain function, as a result they ware down rapidly. 2. Szostac himself admits that he was never able to create the original strand of RNA. There to many problems to mention in this thread.......
benthemiester 11 months ago