Part 1/3 Why evolution theory could be wrong?

[howlifebegan]

Part 3: =SLUooWH5Wv8

[USHOULDTHINK]

You see an enormous number when thinking of the probability of life happening on its own. I get that its hard to understand numbers that big. BUT THEY EXIST. THERE IS A NUMBER, NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT HURTS YOUR HEAD TO THINK ABOUT IT, IT CAN BE CALCULATED AS BEING POSSIBLE. Then, given the ample opportunity throughout this vast universe due to the sheer size of it and how long its been around, not only is it PROBABLE, but, there's PROBABLY life elsewhere in the universe as well. Use math.

[howlifebegan]

@USHOULDTHINK Thank you. I actually love to see that reasoning. It makes it even more interesting for me to explaining my reasoning. As usual it is critics that is the whole point. Hopefully this weekend I make one of the probability. At least my understanding..

[USHOULDTHINK]

Looking at the rest of the universe and its rediculous size, if we are the only lifeforms out here then we are the rarest of the rare. Mathematically speaking, using those same overwhelming probability numbers for what it would take for all the ingredients to come together to create life in the simplest form, if applied.to the enormous.size of the universe and.the.amount of.time its been around, there should have been plenty of opportunities for all the things necessary to come together for lif

[howlifebegan]

@USHOULDTHINK I will post a new video soon on the universe itself and its adaptations to create life.. and reduce the probabilty of our existence to so minutely zero it will defeat the very value of zero.. zero is not strong enough...but absolute impossibility.

[USHOULDTHINK]

Did the video.say in there somewhere to throw out mathematics and just use common sense. Nice! It's nice that you try.to make this complicated argument and when it comes to a little math, you say "Just use common sense instead." I'm pretty sure the law of probability says its mathematically possible, just not likely. Do you see life anywhere else in the.universe? What is the probability of that? There is your answer. We are extremely rare and MATHEMATICALLY improbable, yet we're here.

[howlifebegan]

@USHOULDTHINK To be honest I do not like to discuss the probabilty. As you say..we are here,then it is possible.. end of story. Our mathematics and logic does not allow us to see the probabilty clearly or understand it. But the central point of my arguments is focussing on the design itself and my absolute non understanding of how it could have evolved by itself. In part 2 i give my own examples. I think these are the best examples.. original and i did not see anyone else give those arguments..

[howlifebegan]

Something important.. I hit at this idea of " random" evolution. I am not against evolution.. but just a type of evolution. The random is what I am against. Random would mean there is no purpose to life.. but a purposeful evolution changes everything.

[Impaler1815]

Your "better view of science" shows a misinterpretation of what science actually is. Science is, always has been, and always will be about understanding the world. No science has ever tried to prevent people from understanding the world.

Scientists are free to talk about spiritual matters as much as they like, but it's not part of science, because there isn't a shred of evidence for anything supernatural.

The biology behind religious near death experiences are well understood.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 I agree with scientific thinking.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan That's good, but do you really think scientific thinking should include completely unevidenced, and as far as we know impossible, mechanisms like the supernatural?

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 NDE is the pathway to understanding the concept of God. This is what changes everything.. go and read the accounts.. go and find out..then come back .. dont be shocked tho.. it could trouble you ;)

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan I've seen and heard plenty of near death experience accounts. The biology behind them is well understood. The light at the end of a tunnel is a hallucination caused by your brain shutting down. Out of body experiences are errors in the part of your brain responsible for sensing your bodies position.

The rest is simply dreaming, and the emotional experience of almost dying. It's not surprising people get religious feelings from it.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 I think it is a choice you make. You choose to not believe I chose to believe. There will always be a counter argument. All I can say is that the counter arguments do not convince me.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan In other words it's your personal opinion that God exists, and you dismiss all opposing arguments. So your belief in God is based on being unscientific, and closed minded. Doesn't sound like a very reliable system.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 I refute the randomness of life formation. That is all. The only random event I found in genetics is in antigen specificity in antibodies. There seems to be other things at work for the rest. There are frames too in reading DNA.. you must consider that all the info are in one frame and in other frames there are also meaningful info.. the logistics is beyond evolution.. thats why ID came up. We are scientists just like u.. just more rational.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan You don't have to refute the randomness of abiogenesis. We've all known for some time it's not a random process.

Again, you repeat the claim that everything complex had to be designed. Like I said, if that were the case you'd have to believe in an infinite regression of gods. Do you?

Some IDists may have qualifications that say they're scientists, but they practice little actual science. Just like you, their best argument is their opinion.

[Impaler1815]

You are assuming there is only one possible working arrangement for the first ribozyme. We know from observation that this is blatantly false, else there would only be one ribozyme in existence. Your probability completely breaks down when you realise its not an all or nothing thing.

From then you conclude other protein structures, being more complex that, couldn't evolve. The problem there is you ignore the fact that evolution produced those, not abiogenesis. Evolution is not random.

[Impaler1815]

First, what's your deal with Dawkins? He's not the only proponent of evolution you know. In fact, there are scientists that are more qualified to answer these specific questions than him.

So you claim this is why the theory of evolution is wrong, yet it seems to be entirely a question of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis being falsified would not falsify evolution. Evolution requires life, and it's pretty obvious we have life.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 I took it from the beginning and in the middle.. it is like we have a big confusing story.. In order to have evolution, you need a replicating system. I am questioning the foundations of evolution theory. But in the end, it is totally correct to say evolution happened! But the design.. this is it.. I say it is a design.. I say it is impossible that it happened without a thoughtful mind behind it.. and I give reasons why.. I will provide more arguments soon.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan Abiogenesis is not a foundation of evolution. If abiogenesis was falsified evolution wouldn't change at all. If we found out life was created by a god or aliens, evolution would still be true. By all means argue against abiogenesis, but don't say you're arguing against evolution when you do.

Having a personal opinion that things look designed isn't scientific evidence.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 Something important.. I hit at this idea of " random" evolution. I am not against evolution.. but just a type of evolution. The random is what I am against. Random would mean there is no purpose to life.. but a purposeful evolution changes everything.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan Evolution, since Origin of Species, has been known to be non-random. It sounds like you have an emotional need for divine purpose in your life. Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's true. Why does your purpose have to be divine? Isn't it better to have a purpose that's actually logical and evident?

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 Then a logical and evident purpose can lead you to harm someone....and rule the world by eliminating a whole race of people.. u see what I mean?

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan People have caused harm in the name of all sorts of beliefs and ideals. Your more likely to do good if you actually logically consider the needs and feelings of others, rather than blindly doing what you think an omnipotent being in another dimension wants you to do.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 Yes those muslim idiots.. It took me a long time to settle those ideas.. it is not all obvious. What NDEers say is that when they are out of their body towards the tunnel everything becomes obvious.. then I have to assume these " obvious" things are not obvious to me right now.. because I do not know things.. It is the NDE phenomena that makes me think in theistic possibilities.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan Read up on your history, many acts of evil have been committed in the name of Christianity. Most of the time it's not as overt as blowing yourself up, but it's happened, and continues to.

From someone who claims to be interested in biology you seemingly haven't read very much about the biology behind NDEs. When your brain is shutting down it has weird psychological effects. Would you expect a failing brain to behave normally? cont...

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan cont...People often experience new perspectives, and a different understanding when they experience something very emotional. Almost dying would be pretty emotional.

Are you aware that these things have been tested on healthy subjects, very much alive? People in high G-force experience those effects because of the loss of blood from their brain. Out of body experiences can been induced by stimulating the parts of the brain responsible for sensing your body's position.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 Yes of course. I appreciate your arguments but I am looking at facts as I told you. You missed the part where the experiments show that while the G force people got the NDE they had no life changing feeling and did not see any tunnel or light.. or anything like this.. It was aspriritual event. Second all the other things you say are right. But I chose to see it different. Because there could be more complex realities and the basis of our thinking cannot support.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan So in other words NDEs are fully explainable by natural causes, yet it's your opinion that they're supernatural anyway. Like I said, opinion isn't science.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 To believe in something supernatural, you need a supernatural explanation. I think NDE more than qualifies for that. Surgeons have given proof that these experiences have been made when the person was clinically dead. How can hypersurealism happen in a dead brain? Second the accounts given by the people have been proven to be true. I will post soon on my channel those videos that convinced me.

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan Considering the supernatural can do literally anything, it doesn't mean much for something just being explainable by the supernatural. I would have thought it would be reasonable to believe in the supernatural when there is actual evidence of the supernatural.

No one has ever lost full function in their brain and lived. The accounts are true because these people dream things they know. If they dream their operating room it's because they know they're in one.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 NDE of a neurosurgeon: =4qUGV4n23dY I will be uploading more with time.. at least the specific ones...

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 basically my view is that if it had to occur at all ... it would not occur by snapping the fingers.. even a mindful designer cannot do that.. he needs to make it evolve.. so evolution is true.. but the process was not random.. it was a careful mindful process... my videos are all about that..but the aweful thing is I do not know where this designer comes from.. I cannot explain that at all... i do not know..

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan If life had to be designed because it's complex, God had to be designed too. You can say you don't know where God came from, but that doesn't change the argument. God is complex, therefore, according to your rules, God would have to be designed. The only response is ether complexity can form from natural processes, or there is an infinite chain of increasingly complex designers.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 I thought of the same issue too... I got whooped into this loop.. until I read and saw the accounts of NDE people.. then I thought maybe this designer exists.. but I cannot know beyond that.. I concede a God exists... from the accounts of those people.. some are neuroscientists.. surgeons etc...

[Impaler1815]

@howlifebegan Saying "I don't know" still doesn't answer the question. The only way out is infinite regression, or to accept that complexity doesn't require a designer.

[howlifebegan]

@Impaler1815 I give u something to think on... before Einstein no one would ever have thought possible that space and time could be related which opened up the 4 th dimension. So this was out of this world thinking. And As you know..you cannot see... UV light for example.. these are outside our range. There are all kinds of waves.. brain waves too.. how do you know that you dont see these things.. maybe they are there.. we dont see it.. " waves" maybe in other dimensions..

[Ryan1468]

Additionally, you are applying probability to inevitability. Probability is only useful for predicting future events, not for past ones. I can pick any event and keep applying variables until its probability reaches astronomical odds. But that event still happened. Incredibly high odds do not change the fact that that event happened. It is a very simple concept that you do not quite understand. You must not be doing very well in your mathematics class, either.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 you need a heater before you get the water to boil. We are talking about issues when the water is boiling. Let's not get too far. I am asking how does the heater get there in the first place? I am talking about the replicating system. Once we agree on that.. we can talk about the boiling water..

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan If you have any education at all, you know that genes can duplicate themselves and fuse together. This is a very well known principle of biology, but you must have slept through that lesson.

If you are referring to the origin of the first cell, evolution does not suggest anything on the origin of life (you must be looking for abiogenesis). It could have been god, it could have been abiogenesis, it could have been an alternative theory; it does not discredit evolution.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 I will make a part 3 and explain some deep concepts in genetic shifts.. it is way too designed to believe in ur evolution thing.. I need to make those videos.. I also will make some vids on the incredible design in some immune systems... it is like u have this thing right there.. when you need it.. and it goes when u dont need it anymore.. this is design.. i will make those videos then u will see urself how far u can stick with evolution.

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan Yes, the immune system is so perfect. I mean, especially in Africa, where all the innocent children are dying of AIDS. Diseases and viruses kill millions of people all around the world, especially in places where the people do not have access to medicine. If the immune system was so perfect, then why do antibiotics exist? Shouldn't the immune system have driven every disease/bacteria/virus on the planet to extinction already?

This issue can be perfectly explained with evolution.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 no no no... u see u are speaking of something completely not science anymore.. see I see a reason in these ... maybe there is a philosophical reason why things are like this.. a designer would not make like perfect... I believe in medecine and research.. I believe in all science and tech.. maybe.. it is what we need to do.. I see other reasons in those things.. life is an emotional battle.. I believe it has a meaning.. u cant extrapolate atheism in these..

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan Then how did you come to the conclusion that the immune system was designed? As you put it, "the incredible design". It isn't very incredible if it fails so often. The immune system can and has been explained using the process of evolution. It fits perfectly, and explains the "tug of war" battle between evolving bacteria/viruses and the evolving immune system of multicellular organisms. Is the design process continuing today? I think not. Evolution is how the viruses gain immunity.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 I will make a video on this.. I see it completely different.. it is all a design.. one example i can give u right now is this.. when a baby is born.. his immune system.. ( the adaptative one) is zero... very weak.. and guess what? the milk of the mother is super rich in antibodies.. this is one example.. I will make a video soon...

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan I can pick many things in nature and assume they signify a designer. If you drop a pebble in a pond, the wave expands in a perfect circle. All planets and stars in the universe are all circles. If you dive some distance underwater and look up, you will see something called Snell's window; a perfect circle you can see through. Do these examples point towards an all powerful circle god? Of course not. But it is not hard to assume such a thing if you are not educated in physics.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 I thumbed up your comment. This why I say.. if u check in part 2 of my vid.. that science is beautiful and amazing.. and must not be destroyed by ID issues. But in all my sanity I could not find evolution a satisfying answer. See the other issue is this..you need to compare like with like. Your philosophy can be good, but it can be missleading to yourself by giving you an intellectual bias.

[howlifebegan]

@howlifebegan by intellectual bias... I mean that if something is true enough in one case ..then we patch it and apply it in all context without looking at it at face value...

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan Explain to me how my argument gives me an intellectual bias.I used the ID argument, applied it to physics,and came to the conclusion that the universe was created by an all powerful circle god(see previous comment).Both arguments are equally ridiculous and require the believer to ignore all the explanations given by biology/physics in favour of the supernatural.The believer must also ignore all of the contradictory evidence.ID can not compete with evolution in the realm of science.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 In the beginning man thought that eclipses were manifestation of supernatural powers. The ancient Chinese believed that solar eclipses occur when a legendary celestial dragon devours the Sun. Now we know it is all nonsense. This is an intellectual knowledge. But can you push it to all levels at all levels to explain everything? Maybe you think you are. Then you might be prone to an intellectual bias.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 As a proof, I read biology and I saw it 100% a design amongst explanation of physical properties like bonding etc.. but the actual method was in my view all a design.. it does not look like a design at first.. in my smaller classes i wud have never thought it was.. but now everything is a design.. I want to make videos to explain my point of view.. it will come up.. i need to do a number of things at the same time.. including a thesis at the moment.. but I guarantee ..i am making them.

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan Lets pretend for a minute that there is a designer. That does not rule out evolution. There is equal evidence for a designer creating every organism in its present state as there is for a designer making life and changing it every generation to improve it(like model numbers): absolutely zero. But there is an astronomical amount of evidence for evolution. So if you believe in a designer,it can only be one who works through natural methods(like evolution).Anything else is impossible.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 Exactly.. now we are speaking the same language.. I think exactly this happened. The same way as you say,..BUT.. I know.. Dawkins also said.. it.. where does the designer come from.. ? But in all sanity it is a tough question... We can debate for ages.. we will get no answer.. it tough when u think deeply of it..

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan Dawkins is an outspoken atheist.He doesn't believe in a god.Neither do I.Lets be honest.You didn't come to that conclusion yourself.You had the idea of a creator driven into you as a child; no matter how much evidence there is against creationism,you can't completely turn your back on "god".So you try and find a place for him in the world.Driving evolution,in places science has not yet discovered,the "cause" of the big bang. These are places where people try to find a place for god

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 I think we should not talk of belief or not belief as a scientist. Let's us leave this to others. I am looking at the facts. Have you checked the part 3? Have you understood anything of it? When you do.. please make a comment about my viewpoints.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 Please check out my new vid.. debunking the kenneth miller logic. These are not easy arguments.. but I am only showing my point of view.. which so far is unchallenged. I want to see someone challenge it.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 by intellectual bias... I mean that if something is true enough in one case ..then we patch it and apply it in all context without looking at it at face value...

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 I made part 3 of this video.. please check it out and critics much welcome.. much time invested in it.. I think this gives a best shot to my understanding and my reasoning..

[Ryan1468]

The probability argument is not any proof of anything. You are not looking at it in the context of evolution. You are completely ignoring the process of natural selection. To get 123456 is very easy if you apply natural selection. You have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the first digit, 1 in 5 to get the second, 1 in 4 to get the third, and so on. So, if we apply natural selection, it is a 1 in 21 probability. Very far off from your claim. You must not be doing very well in your biology class.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 very well.. can you please use a calculator and give me the result for a 100 aa long protein? With your method.. indeed in part 2 i mention what you say...

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 I dont think it works the way you mention.. in my logic .. it is all random..there is one in 4 chances everywhere... it is like putting 4 balls of 4 different colours in a stack with equal numbers.. and shuffling them up and down until we get a certain sequence.. I dont see how on earth we will ever get something working with it.. and as I say u need a replicating system to get that to work.. how do u get the replicating system in the first place?!

[Ryan1468]

@howlifebegan Well then, you are not the biologist student of your teacher's dream. Anyone with even a basic understanding of evolution knows that natural selection removes ALL CHANCE from the equation. Yes, mutations are random. Removing unfavourable genes and keeping favourable ones based on the criteria of survival/sexual attraction/artificially selecting traits is not random chance in the slightest. Educate yourself.

p.s. being a biology student does not make you a biologist.

[howlifebegan]

@Ryan1468 You are very correct. Being a biology student does not make you a biologist. See the day biologist made it to the real of atheism.. then they have a problem with being whatever they think they are. In my realm.. I understand biology as the science that created life.. and I try to understand how it was made.. by nature? Irrespective of how it happened until I came to the conclusion it is a design. That's all am saying.

[MythicalManMoth]

Oops! I meant to say 'chance' not 'change' in my first comment.

[MythicalManMoth]

There's a number of videos that refute irreducible complexity (which is what you seem to be alluding to). In short the most complex systems are composed of much simpler parts that had previous functions like the flagellum.

[MythicalManMoth]

Thanks for showing me to your video!

Out of the space of the 300 bases you seem to be assuming that only one combination forms a advantageous functional protein. So you're out by a huge factor there.

And also however huge the number is, it's not useful to say it's infinity - you need to consider everything, such as the number of attempts per second and the amount of time that has passed (billions of years).

Perhaps the change of such an occurence becomes significant?

[howlifebegan]

@MythicalManMoth The other issue is that these mutations need to be passed on from generation to generation... in the germ cells.. which means.. you must not look at it in terms of billions of actual years but in terms of number of generations from parent to siblngs.. and those mutations need to occur in the germ cells = in eggs and sperm.

[howlifebegan]

@MythicalManMoth I will make a new video which is much more technical some time soon to explain those small details.