Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 5 of 12)

[jamiefhr]

@massflavour lmfao

[jimmyjaqmmer]

i did it it was me

[8marioch]

To see more devastating refutations of the evolution hoax, please visit the website, vaticancatholic, or youtube channel: mhfm1.

[machandxb]

..It's not that the truth is not out there. It's that the truth is suppressed (in unrighteousness)

[killerboyfoolz]

Uhm, I can prove all those scientist wrong by showing them the body and structure of a normal animal cells, which has a flagellum. Plus, darwin theory did improve the world's thinking. Even so, some ignorance people still won't accept any of it. I agree with mutation and adaption in darwin's theory. I'm not too sure about natural selection, I think natural selection can be proven wrong.

[hutchings000]

---To quote "Jamiefhr"---

"people who believe in darwins theory are believing in an archaic theory that can't exist with today's findings"

Well thats why we don't believe in his theories, we used them to build upon and improve the ideas. Darwin started it, his words arent holy, and his work isn't collected in a "Bible of Darwin" It changes, and we have new examples and information to draw on...

Google TalkOrigins, its a website full of information about evolution, creationist arguments etc

[ChrisnStarry]

We ARE NOT accidental animals!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@ChrisnStarry If the Moronic atheist studied Homochirality and Racemic mixtues, they would know life could never arise by chance!!!

[MorgoSargas]

@5tonyvvvv And if you knew about Miller–Urey experiment, then you would know that it actually could.

[5tonyvvvv]

@MorgoSargas LOL!! The miller experiment failed abysmally! Miller produced a Toxic Tar! with ZERO building blocks! it also lacked INFORMATION!!! and chirality! You are just another indoctrinated Fool. Molecules "amino acids" never organize themselves!! EVER!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@MorgoSargas I think you are missing something. The soupists seem to think that proteins self-assembled from a mixture of amino acids in the primordial soup. If true, how do you explain the fact that the earliest proteins only formed from L-amino acids? The soupists try to get around this by supposing that there was natural enrichment for L-amino acids over D-amino acids in the soup. Either way Racemic Mixtures NEVER WORK!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@MorgoSargas Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!

Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!

[BlackFloyd94]

@ChrisnStarry You don't seem to realize that Natural Selection has absolutely nothing to do with "accidents".

[amaiyar]

@jamiefhr . that's why you need to study Eldridge and Gould's Punctuated equilibrium. No theory is perfect and all the theories need to be continually revised from time to time. Fortunately for us, the Punctuated equilibrium theory explains all that they are pointing out + I am so sorry to say, but these scientists are unnnecessarily complicating it to make it sound "wow,so amazing!". Please read yourself and dont be misled by "foolish" scientist. This is actually HILARIOUS!

[peptidedoc22]

@amaiyar how is this funny? this is far more complex than you are giving credit? in what way do you think subst./delet. of mer composit in pep/pro signalling at gpcrs is funny or random? i'd suggest that you spend time in the lab and dawkins as well and not writing books, as we do not see random

[cathy356]

@amaiyar Let's see you "replicate" one in a lab, if you think it is so unnecessarily complicated, why hasn't this been done?

[amaiyar]

@cathy356 It;s already been done. Check Eckard and Wimmer, 2002.

Its been done for so many decades.. in pieces, because they labs require particular sequences not the whole. But even the whole thing has been replicated. Check your facts.

[blattt188]

Jesus Christ is the creator of all things. -John 1.

[blattt188]

Romans 1

19.Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[fadbaguni]

This video can be comprehensively dicredited by reading pages 130-133 of Richard Dawkins' book THE GOD DELUSION.

[thebig1]

@fadbaguni Richard Dawkins has already debated ID experts and was made to look like a whipping boy.

[gregrutz]

It is complex, I don't understand, so god dun it.

[blattt188]

@gregrutz they're sayig that the only alternative for chance is intelligence.

[blattt188]

@gregrutz they use facts, you use arrogant sarcasm.

[peptidedoc22]

@gregrutz mmm not god (possibly)..but why and how do you rule out desigh ? and how do you include random mutation ? given the timeframe and fractions, how? lets do some basic math and look at random mutations, gpcr, nuclear signalling and mutations which exclude agonism/ant. it just does not make sense, does it?

[sgd1213]

It's pretty clear that if Darwin were alive today, even he would have scrapped his own theory by now.

[MaxSafeheaD]

lol, it might be clear to you but not to anyone with a knowledge of modern Biology.

[gregrutz]

Yes, the theory got much better as we learned more.

[sintissimo]

the priority of the actual ?

[wgbutler777]

What a brilliant video. There is absolutely plenty of scientific evidence to affirm the existence of an Intelligent Designer of life and the Universe, if one is open to seeing that truth.

Those that have shut themselves off from any such possibility will of course never be convinced no matter how compelling the evidence.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Scientists are not shutting themselves off to the possibility of god, it simply isn't something you can test scientifically - it simply is not science, it's a faith. For example maybe there was more than one "intelligent designer" or maybe there was a not-so intelligent designer ... how could you possibly know!

[TheSamueljm]

This is pernicious and deceptive. Not because it has faith at its core, but because it is masquerading as a viable alternative to real science. The makers of this video know this. It is designed to baffle and impress people who know nothing of biology - most significantly, it is aimed at those who have a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Do not swallow it.

[waketherabble]

Truth. I'll note that none of these people posit any evidence of a viable naturalistic, scientifically observable alternative to evolution.

[TheSamueljm]

I'm having trouble believing that there are people who buy this rubbish!

There is NO SUCH THING as "Irreducible Complexity". It is unscientific and does not make sense. It is a logical tautology.

Think about it! To say that X no longer functions as X, and, by extension, is in fact no longer X, because a component of it is removed, DOES NOT INDICATE DESIGN.

What if Xi (without said component) simply had a different function? What all X's components could be reconfigured to do anything?

[jamiefhr]

people who believe in darwins theory are believing in an archaic theory that can't exist with today's findings

[MaxSafeheaD]

no, evolution is reaffirmed daily. It has come a VERY long way since it was first hypothesised by Darwin and is now supported by Genetics (which was not even conceived in Darwins day) Geology (again which had barely began in Darwins day) Pharmacology ... seriously, I don't mean to be offensive, but you haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about.

[fawkUtube]

People who listen to a guy who was alive 150 years ago without the technology that we have today and the discovery of DNA and end there search for the truth arent any better then a christain in your eyes who settles for a story told 2000 years ago

[MaxSafeheaD]

I agree 100%

[gregrutz]

Darwin made mistakes, evolution is proven by DNA, IC is crap.

[gregrutz]

We don't listen to Darwin, the theory keeps getting updated,

 unlike the bible.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz The bible is proven by modern day events everyday moron. It predicted events, technology, and so on long before they happened.

[gregrutz]

@thebig1

The bible was written by men who thought the earth was flat.

What did it predict? That people would prove it wrong.

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

Only if you go out of your way to interpret it to have predicted these things.

[HappyJoyful4]

@jamiefhr

yeah-really a good sentence..for todays founded things..this theory is just OLD!

[gregrutz]

@jamiefhr Go to school and check it out, it is still there after 150 years of creationists trying to prove it wrong.

[3xamine]

@jamiefhr says the one who still believes a bronze-age myth, lol.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@jamiefhr And Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, but that doesn't change anything.

[Massflavour]

@jamiefhr that is the funniest thing i have ever read with regards to evolution. lmfao

[nicein20001]

What I find fascinating is the bias that exists on either spectrum of viewpoints. For those that argue for intelligent design (ID), the bias is to show their is a Creator. For those who dismiss ID, the bias is to reject the notion of a God. There is a heart issue in the background. Too many would rather dismiss there is a God because deep down, we know, it implies that we will be accountable to that Creator one day.

[MaxSafeheaD]

If a god created everything, then that god is responsible for everything - good, evil, Hillary Clinton, the lot!

[cgibney]

Yes, I'll agree to a point. God created humanity with a free will. And for that "free will" to be truly real, the option to choose evil must be an option. Does that make God the author of evil? Perhaps yes in an indirect way. We can debate about where morality came from, but deep down, we all know there are choices and actions that are evil (murder, rape, theft). But the responsibility for the evil actions that men choose are on the heads of those who commit those acts. The result of free will.

[MaxSafeheaD]

"God created humanity with a free will."

If our will was free from god's control then god would not be omnipotent.

I reject this notion of free will however. If god designed me and designed evil, and I was tempted to do evil, AND god deliberately allows it ... anyway you look at it, if "creator" created absolutely everything, then ultimate responsibility MUST lie there.

[cgibney]

"...then god would not be omnipotent". I think that's too limited in thought. We humans like to think that we can comprehend everything, but that's not so. I appreciate your passion but we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'll be praying for you MaxSafeheaD.

[MaxSafeheaD]

I don't know how you can assert the existence of something we can't comprehend. If it consistently breaks rules of logic and reason why should I allow it any more credibility than anything else that dose so i.e. ghosts, demons, demigods etc. once I open the door I might as well believe anything!

Anyway, thanks for the sentiment but if you really want to spend any time benefiting me donate to the world land trust.

God bless.

[MaxSafeheaD]

The evolution of the flagella has been comprehensively explained and at every stage the structure had a useful purpose that would positively select for it.

[UnderstandingCuresMe]

That only leads to another theory. Either it evolved on its own, or it was designed by a genious who never sought fame to be exposed, which is very very powerful to hide one's true intelligence, and also while others only think they are intelligent. Since true intelligence would see that fame has no use except for exposure of pride.

[condorito29]

how unbelievably pompous.

jesus christ almighty, not even richard dawkins would make such a claim, and he's a biologist!

here you are, not even a friggin' biologist, and you pull out this grandious utterly false claim straight from where the sun doesn't shine.

why I bothered responding to a guy who only writes down his own self comforting b.s. is totally beyond me...

I need a life.

[MaxSafeheaD]

"why I bothered responding to a guy who only writes down his own self comforting b.s. is totally beyond me..."

Well (somewhat predictably) I'll pompously suggest, maybe, you might learn something - I'm afraid I don't have Jesus or even Dawkins, but instead I hope you will accept Ken Miller.

watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko

[ItsSnowball]

Information from respected scientists who have been studying this in depth for decades professionally. It takes a couple of chapters to get going, and the information a little later on is superb, and superbly illustrated.

[MaxSafeheaD]

ID makes no testable predictions - therefore it is NOT a scientific theory, it's a faith.

[tj1271]

Okay, so ID is garbage. But is there any testable proof of Co-Option? If so, please tell me what it is.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Sorry, what do you mean by co-option?

[stefansv]

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.

So lets teach astrology in science classes!