Highly complex... yet to be understood how it COULD have evolved...
Place a Creator Principle for "irreducible complexity" -the Ribosome is, after the famous flagellum, another good example. BTW: Internal Parasitism is a very good example TOO!
You are entitled to call the unknown Mechanism of Evolution (that you btw "JUST" compress by replacing it through CREATION) [due to] a Creator Principle. You are not entitled to identify this Principle with the evolved, mutated Abrahamic G-D though.
It may be the cell is like a human being?apart from organs & chemicals produced by our cells, the body made (information is in our genome) parasites like EColi that lives in intestines & gives us vitamin K.So the fist cell made was nothing like the ones known today, but eventually things like mitochondria,chloroplasts were absorbed by those cells.So our "cell ancestors" absorbed something like a ribosome,gave it the form it wants & tada! That cell might have been more efficient & evolved .
to make it clearer as my punctuation was not quite right, it should of read like this .
"apart from organs & chemicals produced by our cells that the body made (information is in our genome). Parasites like EColi that lives in intestines etc etc" its amazing what a few periods & commas can do , Its an ongoing problem because of the editing needed to do, to fit in to the 500 character limit..
cdk007 actually answered this question in one of his videos.
He shows in vivid detail how early lifeforms (or is it proto-lifeforms?) could have survived without ribosomes, allowing them to evolve ribosomes later. With ribosomes, the older version was obsolete and vanished from all terran lifeforms.
What you're doing here is - you create a gap of information (which probably isn't there anyway, you've just failed to notice all of the relevant information)
After you create a gap - you put god in this gap...
This is called "the god of the gaps" argument...
And it's a foolish one - just because you don't know/understand something there is no reason to fill the gap with the supernatural / superstition..
It's pathetic to attemt to fill a gap of information by saying - "poof - magic man did it"
@imarchello God created life. This is only a gap for you because you don't believe in God. It is you then who has a "gap" argument because you can't explain the origin of life but with every new scientific discovery the gap grows wider, not smaller. You disbelieve in the Creator of Life not because you can otherwise explain the origin of living organisms but rather in spite of the fact that you can't.
You fill your gap with God - but in the end it doesn't explain anything.
You say "goddidit" - well, how exactly? You have no explanation, all you do is say "goddidit" and then brush it off. Your explanation has no informative/scientifical value.
I have the guts to admit that I don't yet know everything. You, however, spitefully insist that you do know.
But like i said before - your "knowledge" has no value. It's just a string of words without a process behind it. Let's continue.
Any unexplained phenomenon can technically be attributed to God's power and no complex natural explanations are needed, however, from the view of simplicity, a creator would have to be incredibly complex in the first place, more complex than the universe, so invariably, a naturalistic explanation can only be simpler. For example - Is the refrigerator empty because it is an alien artifact that makes food disappear or because my roommates were hungry last night?
So you take Intel Core 2 CPU which contains 291 million transistors and then argue that it's evidence for space aliens because no human could design so complex microchip without a computer. That's the argument from your video in a nutshell.
No. I would argue that the Intel core processor is the product of design by an intelligent agent which is known. In the video I argue that because of the logical conundrum (Catch22) presented by the fact that proteins are needed to make proteins (as per the 55 ribosomal structural proteins) then we know that it did not arise from a random process but rather was designed .
@hugenex2000 So? Exactly the same Catch 22 applies to microchips as well. Microchips are required to build more microchips. So how did we get the first one?
It turns out that simpler microchips can be used to build much more compilcated microchips and this line goes back to the point where the first microchip could be made without microchips. And the same applies to ribozomes. Just because we can see only 10 000 years out of 3 billion years of ribozome evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen.
We know that the first microchip was designed, intentionally configured and manufactured by someone with the intelligence, ability and desire to do so and we know who the designer is. If you agree that the first microchip was designed then why can't you deduce that ribosomes were likewise designed? Just follow the evidence.
@hugenex2000 You're dodging the argument. Irreducible complexity is not an argument about designed vs non-designed things. It's an argument about impossibility of iterative increase in complexity regardless of whether the increase in complexity is driven by deliberate design decisions or by natural forces. The only difference between those two is how far you can go in one step. But in an inherently iterative process, you can't go from nothing to the last step in one giant leap.
@hugenex2000 So let's jump a thousand years ahead into a hypothetical future where the only known microchip technology is 10th generation (I'll borrow the name isolinear chips from Star Trek, vacuum tubes being the first generation, silicon the second and graphene possibly the third) and records of all previous generations were lost. Does irreducible complexity apply now? Of course.
@hugenex2000 Going from nothing to isolinear chips is one impossible giant leap because you need a computer just to build the theory behind those chips and nobody has any idea what a simpler computer migth have looked like. Therefore space aliens must have done it, even if nobody has ever seen a real space alien. And does the lack of records change anything on the fact that there were 9 other generations of simpler computers before? No. Irreducible complexity: busted.
@nextghost You said, "Exactly the same Catch 22 applies to microchips as well" and it is known that microchips were designed so the logical conclusion is that ribosomes were also designed.
The question then is, "By whom were they designed?"
This is a question that would only arise AFTER concluding that it was actually designed. Now, if you agree that it is the same catch22 then you agree that ribosomes were designed but you believe it was by space aliens. I believe God created them.
@hugenex2000 How many times do I have to repeat that irreducible complexity argument says nothing about whether something is designed or not? It's an argument about general impossibility of incremental increase in complexity based on incomplete records and lack of imagination. It starts there, it ends there, and as I've shown on the example of microchips, it *FAILS* there.
@nextghost Irreducible complexity(IC) says that all the components of a mechanism must be present and functional for the mechanism to function. IC is indicative of design when components are assembled by an intelligent agent to form a mechanism that would otherwise not arise. Your example of a computer microchip is such a mechanism whether you like it or not. Also, your attempt to refute involves interlinear chips which do not exist. Otherwise, computer chips are DESIGNED! Capiche?
@hugenex2000 In other words, IC says that x86 CPU can't work without integrated memory controller, SSE units, MMX unit, superscalar scheduler unit, cache and virtual address translation unit. Now tell me how could the 286 CPU have worked 30 years ago when it didn't have any of those things? If you want me to believe the IC crap, you'll have to show me first that it works for things which we already know to be designed. I have more than enough examples that it doesn't.
I have no idea what these things are; integrated memory controller, SSE units, MMX unit, superscalar, etc. Nor do I know what any of these things have to do with ribosomes. You are arguing against something which I did NOT present in the video. My argument is that we know ribosomes were created because there is no logistical pathway to their arising without the intervention of an intelligent agent. They were designed/created/invented. So were computer chips. It's just that Simple.
@hugenex2000 did you bother even looking into this? I just googled it and found a number of sites that explained they evolution of the ribosome - it would seem that you're the only one stumped by this one
@floyd316 Yes, I have looked into extensively. So, you say that the structural problem has been explained but you fail to say how it is explained. Tell me then where proteins have been observed forming without a ribosome. Be specific; what proteins formed, who observed the proteins forming and how do you know no ribosomes were involved?
"The answer, Dr. Berg said, is that the active core of the ribosome is made of RNA. The protein seems to have been added later, which means the ribosome is “an RNA-based machine that evolved the ability to make proteins.”
If ribosomes depended on proteins to function, that would have been a paradox.
“This is a key point in evolution,” Dr. Berg said, “when RNA learned to make proteins.”"
@nextghost (cont.) So if the irreducible complexity argument breaks when you apply it to deliberate but inherently iterative design process, it's equally broken when applied to evolution.
So what's the difference between evolution and microchip design history right now that changes the game for irreducible complexity? It's the fact that we have complete records about microchip design history while we have detailed records of only the last one millionth of the entire evolutionary history.
In one word: Ribozyme. FYI a ribozyme is catalytic RNA (no protein req'd). They can self replicate and perform simple protein synthesis. From there it's "off to the horse races" so to speak. You don't NEED proteins to construct proteins. RNA can serve as both information storage and catalyzing agent.
My only beef with this vid is the corruption of science "in the name of God." Believe what you want; celebrate life. Just be careful how you interpret science.
Exactly what "PROTEINS" have been produced by ribozymes? Where is your evidence? Which of the 55 proteins needed for the construction of a ribosome have been synthesized by a ribozyme? Do ribozymes explain how the DNA instructions for producing ribosomes and proteins were encoded into DNA? If so, how is it explained? Science is observation and experimentation. Ribozymes have never been observed producing proteins because RNA enzymes are not proteins.
@hugenex2000 Two articles about ribozyme mediated protein synthesis.
Chem Biol. 1996 Sep;3(9):717-25.
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006 Jun;63(11):1278-93
Discovery of ribozymes in 1982 earned the Nobel prize (not an easy task.) No, ribozymes (to my knowledge) do not construct ribosomal associated peptides. But that's a moot point.
According to RNA world hypothesis; fully functional modern ribosomes were not needed for primordial protein synthesis. Your argument is akin to (cont)
@rusman74x (cont) akin to saying the Apollo moon landing never happened because the Wright brothers never invented the moon lander. RNA-world is a far more plausible explanation then just throwing one's arms up in frustrated ignorance and claiming "God did it."
You: argumentum ad ignorantiam. Scientists: open minded seekers of truth.
The truth is that living organisms where first created in the beginning. We can trace mitochondrial DNA back to Eve. We can trace Y chromosome markers back to Adam. RNA World is an unsubstantiated HYPOTHESIS which for some reason you present as plausible. It isn't. RNA breaks down as does the hypothesis. If you could produce a single protein without a ribosome composed of structural proteins then we can talk. Until then my position on creation is surely based on what is known.
"Nucleotide synthetase ribozymes may have emerged first in the RNA world",
'Though the “RNA world” hypothesis has gained a central role in ideas concerning the origin of life, the scenario concerning its emergence remains uncertain.'
So, for evidence you give me an "uncertain" "maybe"???
@hugenex2000 Yes, RNA world is a hypothesis, I freely admit that because I am an honest scientist. You however boast creation as TRUTH, with absolutly no evidence. You completely ignored my point about argumentum ad ignorantiam (aka logical fallacy). You posit a null hypothesis.
I have presented evidence about the structure and function of ribosomes and the evidence says that living cells were created because of the logistical conundrum posed. This is an argument from what is currently known about living cells. How then do you say it is an argument from ignorance? Because YOU don't know by your theories how else to explain the miracle of life. It defies all natural law yet here we are. "God did it" is the only answer you reject, but is the correct answer.
@hugenex2000 "Because YOU don't know by your theories how else to explain the miracle of life. It defies all natural law yet here we are. "God did it" is the only answer you reject, but is the correct answer.' Interesting, so do you think you obtain justified explanations by eliminating all other possibilities and NOT "prove" your claim? Meaning, I've eliminated B, C, D, E, F, etc. therefore A is the right answer (and not provide evidence for A) is a correct way to get to the truth?
There are two possibilities being examined. Either ribosomes were created or they weren't. I have shown evidence that they were. To show that they weren't you could show where the proteins to construct a ribosome came from and how they were incorporated into the structure. Statistical probability is profoundly in favor of creation not only because the odds of the genetic sequences but also because you need proteins to make proteins. There's no way around it.
You've presented a problem (which to be honest I really haven't looked into, so I do not know exactly what you are talking about) that is not currently understood. You then "logically" conclude creation. How do you make this jump?
Sir Isaac Newton couldn't figure out planetary orbit when including all the planets. He concluded "God dun it". Pierre-Simon Laplace came after him and explained how this planetary orbit works. You seem to be doing the same.
Piss poor argument. Explain away the rybozyme if you can. Irreducible complexity is a valid argument only for those who find science too complex to understand.
I dunno, I have a pretty thorough education in Biochemistry, and I've repeatedly looked at this video to see if I missed something (and I'm a fairly perceptible guy), and I fail to see how you cold possibly consider it a "catch 22".....sorry, but you fail.
@hugenex2000 NO, you need Ribosomes to construct proteins WITHIN A CELL, Proteins can be synthesized in many, many ways, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with the initial creation of ribosomes. It is NOT a "chicken or the egg" question.
You say that "Proteins can be synthesized in many, many ways" without a ribosome. Can you provide the amino acid sequence for just the primary structure of a single protein which was produced without a ribosome? Can you also show the folding of the secondary structure outside of a cell? How about the tertiary and quaternary structures? Many, many ways would indicate more than three but all I am asking is for you to give me just one protein sequence and how it was made.
@hugenex2000 Yeast, research it for yourself, I'm not going to type out the equivalent of a textbook here. Want something else? Protein B23. Something else? Well, it is a recent (meaning in the past decade) discovery, I got the yeast one out of one of my old textbooks... the bottom line is 1) most proteins may be synthesized now by ribosomes, because it is the more efficient way to produce them, but that doesn't mean it's always been that way. cont'd...
You said that there are many, many ways to produce proteins without ribosomes. I am asking you for the amino acid sequence for just one and how it was made without a ribosome. If you are saying that a protein "B23" is it then back it up with some data and methodology. Was "B23" produced without a ribosome and if so then how?
@hugenex2000 I do not know how they were formed, all I know is that they were formed, and there are plenty of other examples that have been discovered. The fact remains, Ribosomes were not required for the formation of the proteins.
@darthjader08 The fact is indeed that ribosomes were not required for the formation of the first proteins, even the proteins of which ribosomes are composed, because the first ribosomes, proteins, and all life was initially created, deliberately designed and assembled by the Creator whom you deny. Of course you do not know how they were first formed because the only way they could have been formed is the only way you will not accept. They were Created.
@hugenex2000 BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa....yes, fill in the blanks with a fictional character portrayed in a fictional work of literature....makes perfect sense.....so....because you don't know who carved Stone Henge...."god must have dunnit"? Because you don't know why your car starts it must be "a mirical of god"?
You're wrong btw, I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a "god", don't make so many assumptions. I just won't believe in something so preposterous.
@darthjader08 You dismiss creation not because you have an alternative but in spite of the fact that you don't. To disprove creation would be simple enough, demonstrate how a protein (esp. the ribosomal structural proteins) form without a ribosome. Also, you should be able to explain how the nucleotide sequences which code for these proteins were encoded into DNA. I asked you for the sequence and method for just one but you were intentionally vague because there aren't any and you know it.
@hugenex2000 WTF does it have to do or not do with Creation???? it would achieve ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, you would come back at me denouncing Evolution, by denying some other piece of solid evidence. I don't want to spend hours, possibly days researching it enough to have a thorough understanding of how exactly those non-ribosomal proteins were produced, to explain it to you in simplistic enough terms that you would understand.
@darthjader08 You mean you haven't researched it already, and you don't understand it well enough to explain it??? To be sure, I don't need anyone to explain it in "simplistic terms" since I have already done my homework. You try to appear as if you know more about this than I do but you have yet to advance the first intelligible argument. My argument here is for the initial creation of ribosomes. My argument here is NOT against evolution. Stay on point if you can.
@hugenex2000 No, I mean I couldn't possibly care less, not nearly enough to type out an entire essay on the subject, which would require a minimum of 50 posts. My time is more valuable than to waste 5 hrs. (or more) consecutively showing every little detail why some crackpot creationist is wrong.
@hugenex2000 uhhh...YOU present an intelligible argument, then I will....all you've presented thus far is a more complex variation on the age old "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question...we all know the answer to that, and I presented a similar answer: the protein.
I'm guessing then that you personally are stumped when someone asks whether the chicken or the egg came first?
@darthjader08 I don't need to know exactly who carved Stone Henge to know that somebody did. By examining the structure, function and design we can conclude that it was created by someone with the desire, intelligence and ability to do so. Likewise the first living organism was created by some entity with the desire, intelligence and ability to do so.
@hugenex2000 so......why wouldn't you say god built stone henge? that's what you're saying about the ribosomes.....it's no less ridiculous of a statement....
People carve statues out of rock all the time. There are plenty of examples throughout history and plenty of statues to show for it and the design of the statues says something about the artist who sculpted them. The design of ribosomes and their integral function within living cells also says something about the one who designed them.
@hugenex2000 Yes, because so many creationist (read delusional people) say so, there is such clear indication that some magic man in the sky must have created something that much more likely occurred through a series of chemical reactions...you got it....ROFL...(that means I'm laughing at you, not my own joke)
@darthjader08 You said, "You're wrong btw, I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a "god", don't make so many assumptions. I just won't believe in something so preposterous."
Is that supposed to make any sense?
You don't disbelieve, you just won't believe.
What evidence would you expect to find if God created life?
@hugenex2000 Sorry, poor word choice, I forgot you can't read btwn the lines and take EVERYTHING too literally, I should have said "I don't know for a fact that god doesn't exist", but I'm sure as hell not believing in IT until I see the slightest shred of evidence supporting the possibility of one.
If god created life....how about a stamp on every organism that says "made in paradise"....or...better yet.....DNA protein strands encoded in binary, it is the most comprehensive numeric language
It is not even remotely rational to blame me for your poor choice of words or your illogical reasoning. I have shown you more than "the slightest shred of evidence supporting the possibility" and this was just one of many. The "stamp" on every organism is there in what I have already explained. In addition, the code for these genes are encoded in a 4 digit, self replicating, repairable, dynamic and most comprehensive numeric code.
@hugenex2000 My word choice was perfectly fine, so why would I blame anything other than your poor reading comprehension? As for reasoning, mine is a whole lot more logical than yours....it's really quite evident. You haven't shown me anything more than basic grade 10 scientific knowledge....pretty juvenile, it's not very scientific when you leave out half the story. Do you even know what you're talking about?
@hugenex2000 Or....I don't know...maybe APPEAR BEFORE ALL OF US, AND SAY "HEY, ALL YOU FUCKERS, MADE YOU, EVOLUTION IS A LIE, you all came from a ball of mud, and that guy's rib, my son was a cosmic zombie who can...blah blah blah" Only, that couldn't possibly happen, because the god of any bible could not possibly be correct, and therefore, your theories on evolution being false make absolutely no sense whatsoever....so....a god could not possibly come and state that very fact
@hugenex2000 How ridiculous would life be if we filled in the gaps of every thing we don't know by saying "god dunnit".....oh, wait, I forgot THAT'S WHAT CREATIONISTS DO!
First, just because I don't want to waste my time figuring out where the proteins for yeast came from, doesn't mean "god did it" it means I personally don't want to spend my valuable time figuring out something so irrelevant to me.
And no, god didn't do it, it was a series of atomic level bonds that took place..pretty basic.
You don't know and you personally don't want to spend your valuable time figuring out something so irrelevant to you. So, you don't know and you don't want to know making you willfully ignorant.
You don't know yet you draw a conclusion, that God didn't do it.
You say, "atomic level bonds" but I asked you for the primary amino acid sequence for a protein produced without a ribosome and you gave me nothing but intentionally vague garble because there isn't any.
@hugenex2000 On the contrary, I LOVE knowledge, and learning new things, I just kind of have more pressing matters than to spend my entire day, thoroughly learning something that is just as simply explained by the knowledge that it developed by natural biochemical reactions. Matters like CRUCIAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT.
I didn't give you any garble, you're just too lazy to look up a couple clear examples I gave you, that or just in denial.
@darthjader08 The problem is that the origin of ribosomes can not be explained by natural biochemical reactions because you need proteins to make proteins. This is a blunt force fact. Also you need energy in the form of ATP to form the necessary chemical bonds but you also need ATP to make ATP, another conundrum. You also need the RNA transcripts which require other RNA transcripts working in unison. You just say "yeast" and have the nerve to call me lazy? Could you be any less specific?
@hugenex2000 WTF are you talking about? the origin is perfectly explicable by natural biochemical reactions, simply by the fact that proteins are present in nature WITHOUT having been created by ribosomes, I would have thought that would be quite clear to you? Are you ignoring what I presented to you? Are you ignoring what is commonly known in the scientific community? So I'm lazy because I presented to you what is commonly known in the Scientific community?....cont'd....
@hugenex2000 ....cont'd....the fact that yeast contains non-ribosomal proteins is more than enough to explain why your theory presented in the vid is WRONG, and if you truly ARE looking at it from a scientific perspective, it should be MORE than enough for you.
@hugenex2000 2) We do not yet know everything, we are learning more every day, and simply because we cannot comprehensively understand things now, with our current knowledge, doesn't automatically mean Creationism is legit, it simply means we will learn how it works in the future, based on new information.
Lets say for the sake of the argument ET is wrong. That doesnt proove creation is right, not even the slightest. You are right that evolution cant answer every question. Perhaps you will understand this if i use another example. There are currently severall tries to find a quantum theory of gravity. Say you can proof that string theory is wrong and not the answer, that doesnt proof any other theory, it only prooves string theory wrong THATS IT.
Your video shows is that life could not have started as complexly as it is now; not creation. Ribosomes are necessary for modern protein synthesis, but they were not necessary for most simple protein production. There are proteins that will spontaneously polymerize, such as Phosphoramidate DNA. Please review cdk007's video called The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak where he shares Szostak's findings in the field of abiogenesis.
@lhvinny - Phosphoramidate is not a ribosomal protein. In fact it isn't even a protein so to say that it is a protein that can spontaneously polymerize is not only meaningless but an outright deception. I am familiar with Dr Szostak's work in genetics, especially concerning ncRNAs and RNA enzyme activity. If you could show a ribosome without binding proteins OR explain how the DNA code for these proteins became encoded into DNA OR produce these proteins without a ribosome it would be a start.
@transtlantic - You don't know BECAUSE God did it, an answer that you are reluctant to accept. As it stands about 55 ribosomal proteins are required to produce a single protein so to disprove creation you should be able to demonstrate how the code for all of these proteins was encoded into DNA and how these proteins formed without ribosomes. Until then I feel no shame because the evidence is on my side.
Random odds are 1 in 5.77 ^ 514 for just ONE of these proteins so you still have a problem.
Correction, I don't know because the Pink Elves did it! an answer that YOU are reluctant to accept. wait.... maybe because i do know! I know it had a NATURAL cause instead of a made up Elf/God supernatural cause. I am not for disproving stuff, i am more for PROVING. And till now you didn't prove creation, you are ASSUMING creation.
Btw... Random mutations originating the information for Rybosomes IS an answer.
And your "random odds"? completly falacious. A hoyle's falacy.
New research matrial has shown us that most of the ribosomes' s functional parts are mad from RNA.
which gives better odds for the abiogenesis theory and RNA world.
omri9325 4 days ago
Highly complex... yet to be understood how it COULD have evolved...
Place a Creator Principle for "irreducible complexity" -the Ribosome is, after the famous flagellum, another good example. BTW: Internal Parasitism is a very good example TOO!
You are entitled to call the unknown Mechanism of Evolution (that you btw "JUST" compress by replacing it through CREATION) [due to] a Creator Principle. You are not entitled to identify this Principle with the evolved, mutated Abrahamic G-D though.
kleenex3000 2 months ago
It is complex, I don't understand it, so gawd dunit that way!
gregrutz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from hugenex2000
It may be the cell is like a human being?apart from organs & chemicals produced by our cells, the body made (information is in our genome) parasites like EColi that lives in intestines & gives us vitamin K.So the fist cell made was nothing like the ones known today, but eventually things like mitochondria,chloroplasts were absorbed by those cells.So our "cell ancestors" absorbed something like a ribosome,gave it the form it wants & tada! That cell might have been more efficient & evolved .
paulspydar 3 months ago
Comment removed
paulspydar 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to make it clearer as my punctuation was not quite right, it should of read like this .
"apart from organs & chemicals produced by our cells that the body made (information is in our genome). Parasites like EColi that lives in intestines etc etc" its amazing what a few periods & commas can do , Its an ongoing problem because of the editing needed to do, to fit in to the 500 character limit..
paulspydar 3 months ago
this is contingent on the fact that nothing else anywhere can create proteins
collinnicholas1 4 months ago
cdk007 actually answered this question in one of his videos.
He shows in vivid detail how early lifeforms (or is it proto-lifeforms?) could have survived without ribosomes, allowing them to evolve ribosomes later. With ribosomes, the older version was obsolete and vanished from all terran lifeforms.
theuncalledfor 5 months ago
What you're doing here is - you create a gap of information (which probably isn't there anyway, you've just failed to notice all of the relevant information)
After you create a gap - you put god in this gap...
This is called "the god of the gaps" argument...
And it's a foolish one - just because you don't know/understand something there is no reason to fill the gap with the supernatural / superstition..
It's pathetic to attemt to fill a gap of information by saying - "poof - magic man did it"
imarchello 7 months ago 5
@imarchello God created life. This is only a gap for you because you don't believe in God. It is you then who has a "gap" argument because you can't explain the origin of life but with every new scientific discovery the gap grows wider, not smaller. You disbelieve in the Creator of Life not because you can otherwise explain the origin of living organisms but rather in spite of the fact that you can't.
hugenex2000 6 months ago
@hugenex2000
You fill your gap with God - but in the end it doesn't explain anything.
You say "goddidit" - well, how exactly? You have no explanation, all you do is say "goddidit" and then brush it off. Your explanation has no informative/scientifical value.
I have the guts to admit that I don't yet know everything. You, however, spitefully insist that you do know.
But like i said before - your "knowledge" has no value. It's just a string of words without a process behind it. Let's continue.
imarchello 6 months ago
@hugenex2000
I would like to add:
Any unexplained phenomenon can technically be attributed to God's power and no complex natural explanations are needed, however, from the view of simplicity, a creator would have to be incredibly complex in the first place, more complex than the universe, so invariably, a naturalistic explanation can only be simpler. For example - Is the refrigerator empty because it is an alien artifact that makes food disappear or because my roommates were hungry last night?
imarchello 6 months ago
So you take Intel Core 2 CPU which contains 291 million transistors and then argue that it's evidence for space aliens because no human could design so complex microchip without a computer. That's the argument from your video in a nutshell.
nextghost 9 months ago
@nextghost
No. I would argue that the Intel core processor is the product of design by an intelligent agent which is known. In the video I argue that because of the logical conundrum (Catch22) presented by the fact that proteins are needed to make proteins (as per the 55 ribosomal structural proteins) then we know that it did not arise from a random process but rather was designed .
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@nextghost
The same as we know that the Intel processor was designed.
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 So? Exactly the same Catch 22 applies to microchips as well. Microchips are required to build more microchips. So how did we get the first one?
It turns out that simpler microchips can be used to build much more compilcated microchips and this line goes back to the point where the first microchip could be made without microchips. And the same applies to ribozomes. Just because we can see only 10 000 years out of 3 billion years of ribozome evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen.
nextghost 9 months ago
@nextghost
We know that the first microchip was designed, intentionally configured and manufactured by someone with the intelligence, ability and desire to do so and we know who the designer is. If you agree that the first microchip was designed then why can't you deduce that ribosomes were likewise designed? Just follow the evidence.
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 You're dodging the argument. Irreducible complexity is not an argument about designed vs non-designed things. It's an argument about impossibility of iterative increase in complexity regardless of whether the increase in complexity is driven by deliberate design decisions or by natural forces. The only difference between those two is how far you can go in one step. But in an inherently iterative process, you can't go from nothing to the last step in one giant leap.
nextghost 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 So let's jump a thousand years ahead into a hypothetical future where the only known microchip technology is 10th generation (I'll borrow the name isolinear chips from Star Trek, vacuum tubes being the first generation, silicon the second and graphene possibly the third) and records of all previous generations were lost. Does irreducible complexity apply now? Of course.
nextghost 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 Going from nothing to isolinear chips is one impossible giant leap because you need a computer just to build the theory behind those chips and nobody has any idea what a simpler computer migth have looked like. Therefore space aliens must have done it, even if nobody has ever seen a real space alien. And does the lack of records change anything on the fact that there were 9 other generations of simpler computers before? No. Irreducible complexity: busted.
nextghost 9 months ago 2
@nextghost You said, "Exactly the same Catch 22 applies to microchips as well" and it is known that microchips were designed so the logical conclusion is that ribosomes were also designed.
The question then is, "By whom were they designed?"
This is a question that would only arise AFTER concluding that it was actually designed. Now, if you agree that it is the same catch22 then you agree that ribosomes were designed but you believe it was by space aliens. I believe God created them.
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 How many times do I have to repeat that irreducible complexity argument says nothing about whether something is designed or not? It's an argument about general impossibility of incremental increase in complexity based on incomplete records and lack of imagination. It starts there, it ends there, and as I've shown on the example of microchips, it *FAILS* there.
nextghost 9 months ago
@nextghost Irreducible complexity(IC) says that all the components of a mechanism must be present and functional for the mechanism to function. IC is indicative of design when components are assembled by an intelligent agent to form a mechanism that would otherwise not arise. Your example of a computer microchip is such a mechanism whether you like it or not. Also, your attempt to refute involves interlinear chips which do not exist. Otherwise, computer chips are DESIGNED! Capiche?
You Fail.
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 In other words, IC says that x86 CPU can't work without integrated memory controller, SSE units, MMX unit, superscalar scheduler unit, cache and virtual address translation unit. Now tell me how could the 286 CPU have worked 30 years ago when it didn't have any of those things? If you want me to believe the IC crap, you'll have to show me first that it works for things which we already know to be designed. I have more than enough examples that it doesn't.
nextghost 9 months ago
@nextghost
I have no idea what these things are; integrated memory controller, SSE units, MMX unit, superscalar, etc. Nor do I know what any of these things have to do with ribosomes. You are arguing against something which I did NOT present in the video. My argument is that we know ribosomes were created because there is no logistical pathway to their arising without the intervention of an intelligent agent. They were designed/created/invented. So were computer chips. It's just that Simple.
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 did you bother even looking into this? I just googled it and found a number of sites that explained they evolution of the ribosome - it would seem that you're the only one stumped by this one
floyd316 7 months ago
@floyd316 Yes, I have looked into extensively. So, you say that the structural problem has been explained but you fail to say how it is explained. Tell me then where proteins have been observed forming without a ribosome. Be specific; what proteins formed, who observed the proteins forming and how do you know no ribosomes were involved?
hugenex2000 7 months ago
"The answer, Dr. Berg said, is that the active core of the ribosome is made of RNA. The protein seems to have been added later, which means the ribosome is “an RNA-based machine that evolved the ability to make proteins.”
If ribosomes depended on proteins to function, that would have been a paradox.
“This is a key point in evolution,” Dr. Berg said, “when RNA learned to make proteins.”"
Below is the link to the full article
source = wwwDOTnytimesDOTcom/2009/10/08/science/08nobel.html
paulspydar 3 months ago
@nextghost (cont.) So if the irreducible complexity argument breaks when you apply it to deliberate but inherently iterative design process, it's equally broken when applied to evolution.
So what's the difference between evolution and microchip design history right now that changes the game for irreducible complexity? It's the fact that we have complete records about microchip design history while we have detailed records of only the last one millionth of the entire evolutionary history.
nextghost 9 months ago
In one word: Ribozyme. FYI a ribozyme is catalytic RNA (no protein req'd). They can self replicate and perform simple protein synthesis. From there it's "off to the horse races" so to speak. You don't NEED proteins to construct proteins. RNA can serve as both information storage and catalyzing agent.
My only beef with this vid is the corruption of science "in the name of God." Believe what you want; celebrate life. Just be careful how you interpret science.
rusman74x 1 year ago
@rusman74x
Exactly what "PROTEINS" have been produced by ribozymes? Where is your evidence? Which of the 55 proteins needed for the construction of a ribosome have been synthesized by a ribozyme? Do ribozymes explain how the DNA instructions for producing ribosomes and proteins were encoded into DNA? If so, how is it explained? Science is observation and experimentation. Ribozymes have never been observed producing proteins because RNA enzymes are not proteins.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 Two articles about ribozyme mediated protein synthesis.
Chem Biol. 1996 Sep;3(9):717-25.
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006 Jun;63(11):1278-93
Discovery of ribozymes in 1982 earned the Nobel prize (not an easy task.) No, ribozymes (to my knowledge) do not construct ribosomal associated peptides. But that's a moot point.
According to RNA world hypothesis; fully functional modern ribosomes were not needed for primordial protein synthesis. Your argument is akin to (cont)
rusman74x 1 year ago
@rusman74x (cont) akin to saying the Apollo moon landing never happened because the Wright brothers never invented the moon lander. RNA-world is a far more plausible explanation then just throwing one's arms up in frustrated ignorance and claiming "God did it."
You: argumentum ad ignorantiam. Scientists: open minded seekers of truth.
rusman74x 1 year ago
@rusman74x
The truth is that living organisms where first created in the beginning. We can trace mitochondrial DNA back to Eve. We can trace Y chromosome markers back to Adam. RNA World is an unsubstantiated HYPOTHESIS which for some reason you present as plausible. It isn't. RNA breaks down as does the hypothesis. If you could produce a single protein without a ribosome composed of structural proteins then we can talk. Until then my position on creation is surely based on what is known.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@rusman74x
"Nucleotide synthetase ribozymes may have emerged first in the RNA world",
'Though the “RNA world” hypothesis has gained a central role in ideas concerning the origin of life, the scenario concerning its emergence remains uncertain.'
So, for evidence you give me an "uncertain" "maybe"???
With evidence like that, who needs evidence.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 Yes, RNA world is a hypothesis, I freely admit that because I am an honest scientist. You however boast creation as TRUTH, with absolutly no evidence. You completely ignored my point about argumentum ad ignorantiam (aka logical fallacy). You posit a null hypothesis.
What proof do you have for ribosome creation?
rusman74x 1 year ago
@rusman74x
I have presented evidence about the structure and function of ribosomes and the evidence says that living cells were created because of the logistical conundrum posed. This is an argument from what is currently known about living cells. How then do you say it is an argument from ignorance? Because YOU don't know by your theories how else to explain the miracle of life. It defies all natural law yet here we are. "God did it" is the only answer you reject, but is the correct answer.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 "Because YOU don't know by your theories how else to explain the miracle of life. It defies all natural law yet here we are. "God did it" is the only answer you reject, but is the correct answer.' Interesting, so do you think you obtain justified explanations by eliminating all other possibilities and NOT "prove" your claim? Meaning, I've eliminated B, C, D, E, F, etc. therefore A is the right answer (and not provide evidence for A) is a correct way to get to the truth?
mgt247 9 months ago
@mgt247
There are two possibilities being examined. Either ribosomes were created or they weren't. I have shown evidence that they were. To show that they weren't you could show where the proteins to construct a ribosome came from and how they were incorporated into the structure. Statistical probability is profoundly in favor of creation not only because the odds of the genetic sequences but also because you need proteins to make proteins. There's no way around it.
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@hugenex2000
You've presented a problem (which to be honest I really haven't looked into, so I do not know exactly what you are talking about) that is not currently understood. You then "logically" conclude creation. How do you make this jump?
Sir Isaac Newton couldn't figure out planetary orbit when including all the planets. He concluded "God dun it". Pierre-Simon Laplace came after him and explained how this planetary orbit works. You seem to be doing the same.
mgt247 9 months ago
Piss poor argument. Explain away the rybozyme if you can. Irreducible complexity is a valid argument only for those who find science too complex to understand.
rusman74x 1 year ago
@rusman74x
Perhaps you can explain why you think this is not an irreducibly complex system.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
I dunno, I have a pretty thorough education in Biochemistry, and I've repeatedly looked at this video to see if I missed something (and I'm a fairly perceptible guy), and I fail to see how you cold possibly consider it a "catch 22".....sorry, but you fail.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08
You need a ribosome to construct proteins.
You need proteins to construct a ribosome.
It is a catch22.
You fail to see the catch22.
It is you who fail to see.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 NO, you need Ribosomes to construct proteins WITHIN A CELL, Proteins can be synthesized in many, many ways, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with the initial creation of ribosomes. It is NOT a "chicken or the egg" question.
So, I reiterate, where's the catch 22?
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08
Challenge:
You say that "Proteins can be synthesized in many, many ways" without a ribosome. Can you provide the amino acid sequence for just the primary structure of a single protein which was produced without a ribosome? Can you also show the folding of the secondary structure outside of a cell? How about the tertiary and quaternary structures? Many, many ways would indicate more than three but all I am asking is for you to give me just one protein sequence and how it was made.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 Yeast, research it for yourself, I'm not going to type out the equivalent of a textbook here. Want something else? Protein B23. Something else? Well, it is a recent (meaning in the past decade) discovery, I got the yeast one out of one of my old textbooks... the bottom line is 1) most proteins may be synthesized now by ribosomes, because it is the more efficient way to produce them, but that doesn't mean it's always been that way. cont'd...
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08
You said that there are many, many ways to produce proteins without ribosomes. I am asking you for the amino acid sequence for just one and how it was made without a ribosome. If you are saying that a protein "B23" is it then back it up with some data and methodology. Was "B23" produced without a ribosome and if so then how?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 I do not know how they were formed, all I know is that they were formed, and there are plenty of other examples that have been discovered. The fact remains, Ribosomes were not required for the formation of the proteins.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08 The fact is indeed that ribosomes were not required for the formation of the first proteins, even the proteins of which ribosomes are composed, because the first ribosomes, proteins, and all life was initially created, deliberately designed and assembled by the Creator whom you deny. Of course you do not know how they were first formed because the only way they could have been formed is the only way you will not accept. They were Created.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa....yes, fill in the blanks with a fictional character portrayed in a fictional work of literature....makes perfect sense.....so....because you don't know who carved Stone Henge...."god must have dunnit"? Because you don't know why your car starts it must be "a mirical of god"?
You're wrong btw, I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a "god", don't make so many assumptions. I just won't believe in something so preposterous.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08 You dismiss creation not because you have an alternative but in spite of the fact that you don't. To disprove creation would be simple enough, demonstrate how a protein (esp. the ribosomal structural proteins) form without a ribosome. Also, you should be able to explain how the nucleotide sequences which code for these proteins were encoded into DNA. I asked you for the sequence and method for just one but you were intentionally vague because there aren't any and you know it.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 WTF does it have to do or not do with Creation???? it would achieve ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, you would come back at me denouncing Evolution, by denying some other piece of solid evidence. I don't want to spend hours, possibly days researching it enough to have a thorough understanding of how exactly those non-ribosomal proteins were produced, to explain it to you in simplistic enough terms that you would understand.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08 You mean you haven't researched it already, and you don't understand it well enough to explain it??? To be sure, I don't need anyone to explain it in "simplistic terms" since I have already done my homework. You try to appear as if you know more about this than I do but you have yet to advance the first intelligible argument. My argument here is for the initial creation of ribosomes. My argument here is NOT against evolution. Stay on point if you can.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 No, I mean I couldn't possibly care less, not nearly enough to type out an entire essay on the subject, which would require a minimum of 50 posts. My time is more valuable than to waste 5 hrs. (or more) consecutively showing every little detail why some crackpot creationist is wrong.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 uhhh...YOU present an intelligible argument, then I will....all you've presented thus far is a more complex variation on the age old "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question...we all know the answer to that, and I presented a similar answer: the protein.
I'm guessing then that you personally are stumped when someone asks whether the chicken or the egg came first?
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08 I don't need to know exactly who carved Stone Henge to know that somebody did. By examining the structure, function and design we can conclude that it was created by someone with the desire, intelligence and ability to do so. Likewise the first living organism was created by some entity with the desire, intelligence and ability to do so.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 so......why wouldn't you say god built stone henge? that's what you're saying about the ribosomes.....it's no less ridiculous of a statement....
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08
People carve statues out of rock all the time. There are plenty of examples throughout history and plenty of statues to show for it and the design of the statues says something about the artist who sculpted them. The design of ribosomes and their integral function within living cells also says something about the one who designed them.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 Yes, because so many creationist (read delusional people) say so, there is such clear indication that some magic man in the sky must have created something that much more likely occurred through a series of chemical reactions...you got it....ROFL...(that means I'm laughing at you, not my own joke)
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08 You said, "You're wrong btw, I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a "god", don't make so many assumptions. I just won't believe in something so preposterous."
Is that supposed to make any sense?
You don't disbelieve, you just won't believe.
What evidence would you expect to find if God created life?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 Sorry, poor word choice, I forgot you can't read btwn the lines and take EVERYTHING too literally, I should have said "I don't know for a fact that god doesn't exist", but I'm sure as hell not believing in IT until I see the slightest shred of evidence supporting the possibility of one.
If god created life....how about a stamp on every organism that says "made in paradise"....or...better yet.....DNA protein strands encoded in binary, it is the most comprehensive numeric language
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08
It is not even remotely rational to blame me for your poor choice of words or your illogical reasoning. I have shown you more than "the slightest shred of evidence supporting the possibility" and this was just one of many. The "stamp" on every organism is there in what I have already explained. In addition, the code for these genes are encoded in a 4 digit, self replicating, repairable, dynamic and most comprehensive numeric code.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 My word choice was perfectly fine, so why would I blame anything other than your poor reading comprehension? As for reasoning, mine is a whole lot more logical than yours....it's really quite evident. You haven't shown me anything more than basic grade 10 scientific knowledge....pretty juvenile, it's not very scientific when you leave out half the story. Do you even know what you're talking about?
darthjader08 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 Or....I don't know...maybe APPEAR BEFORE ALL OF US, AND SAY "HEY, ALL YOU FUCKERS, MADE YOU, EVOLUTION IS A LIE, you all came from a ball of mud, and that guy's rib, my son was a cosmic zombie who can...blah blah blah" Only, that couldn't possibly happen, because the god of any bible could not possibly be correct, and therefore, your theories on evolution being false make absolutely no sense whatsoever....so....a god could not possibly come and state that very fact
darthjader08 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 How ridiculous would life be if we filled in the gaps of every thing we don't know by saying "god dunnit".....oh, wait, I forgot THAT'S WHAT CREATIONISTS DO!
First, just because I don't want to waste my time figuring out where the proteins for yeast came from, doesn't mean "god did it" it means I personally don't want to spend my valuable time figuring out something so irrelevant to me.
And no, god didn't do it, it was a series of atomic level bonds that took place..pretty basic.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08
You don't know and you personally don't want to spend your valuable time figuring out something so irrelevant to you. So, you don't know and you don't want to know making you willfully ignorant.
You don't know yet you draw a conclusion, that God didn't do it.
You say, "atomic level bonds" but I asked you for the primary amino acid sequence for a protein produced without a ribosome and you gave me nothing but intentionally vague garble because there isn't any.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 On the contrary, I LOVE knowledge, and learning new things, I just kind of have more pressing matters than to spend my entire day, thoroughly learning something that is just as simply explained by the knowledge that it developed by natural biochemical reactions. Matters like CRUCIAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT.
I didn't give you any garble, you're just too lazy to look up a couple clear examples I gave you, that or just in denial.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08 The problem is that the origin of ribosomes can not be explained by natural biochemical reactions because you need proteins to make proteins. This is a blunt force fact. Also you need energy in the form of ATP to form the necessary chemical bonds but you also need ATP to make ATP, another conundrum. You also need the RNA transcripts which require other RNA transcripts working in unison. You just say "yeast" and have the nerve to call me lazy? Could you be any less specific?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 WTF are you talking about? the origin is perfectly explicable by natural biochemical reactions, simply by the fact that proteins are present in nature WITHOUT having been created by ribosomes, I would have thought that would be quite clear to you? Are you ignoring what I presented to you? Are you ignoring what is commonly known in the scientific community? So I'm lazy because I presented to you what is commonly known in the Scientific community?....cont'd....
darthjader08 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 ....cont'd....the fact that yeast contains non-ribosomal proteins is more than enough to explain why your theory presented in the vid is WRONG, and if you truly ARE looking at it from a scientific perspective, it should be MORE than enough for you.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 2) We do not yet know everything, we are learning more every day, and simply because we cannot comprehensively understand things now, with our current knowledge, doesn't automatically mean Creationism is legit, it simply means we will learn how it works in the future, based on new information.
darthjader08 1 year ago
Lets say for the sake of the argument ET is wrong. That doesnt proove creation is right, not even the slightest. You are right that evolution cant answer every question. Perhaps you will understand this if i use another example. There are currently severall tries to find a quantum theory of gravity. Say you can proof that string theory is wrong and not the answer, that doesnt proof any other theory, it only prooves string theory wrong THATS IT.
MrRichardQED 1 year ago
Your video shows is that life could not have started as complexly as it is now; not creation. Ribosomes are necessary for modern protein synthesis, but they were not necessary for most simple protein production. There are proteins that will spontaneously polymerize, such as Phosphoramidate DNA. Please review cdk007's video called The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak where he shares Szostak's findings in the field of abiogenesis.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny - Phosphoramidate is not a ribosomal protein. In fact it isn't even a protein so to say that it is a protein that can spontaneously polymerize is not only meaningless but an outright deception. I am familiar with Dr Szostak's work in genetics, especially concerning ncRNAs and RNA enzyme activity. If you could show a ribosome without binding proteins OR explain how the DNA code for these proteins became encoded into DNA OR produce these proteins without a ribosome it would be a start.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
lol...your entire video is anothe rtry by a cretard to present an argument for complexicity.
another try to present a "we don't know-> therefore GOD!"
bullshit.
be ashamed of yourself.
btw... try this: RANDOM mutation originated the rybosome.
wow...problem solved.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic - You don't know BECAUSE God did it, an answer that you are reluctant to accept. As it stands about 55 ribosomal proteins are required to produce a single protein so to disprove creation you should be able to demonstrate how the code for all of these proteins was encoded into DNA and how these proteins formed without ribosomes. Until then I feel no shame because the evidence is on my side.
Random odds are 1 in 5.77 ^ 514 for just ONE of these proteins so you still have a problem.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
Correction, I don't know because the Pink Elves did it! an answer that YOU are reluctant to accept. wait.... maybe because i do know! I know it had a NATURAL cause instead of a made up Elf/God supernatural cause. I am not for disproving stuff, i am more for PROVING. And till now you didn't prove creation, you are ASSUMING creation.
Btw... Random mutations originating the information for Rybosomes IS an answer.
And your "random odds"? completly falacious. A hoyle's falacy.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
but let me tell you the odds for a supernatural entity that breaks ALL the known laws of the Universe: 1/infinite
how about that?
transtlantic 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 one of this proteins forming in its modern form? What evidence do you have?
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@lhvinny "but they were not necessary for most simple protein production" I admire your faith. lol
0viajante 1 year ago