@julzabro Interestingly, the fellow I addressed in this video is currently undergoing a change of heart - he's starting to actually question his religion, not based on anything I have said, but based on behavior of some of his "friends." On the other hand the funny things this guy indicated were that amoebas were multicellular (they are not) and that they have mates (ummm...no, they're asexual). So he responded to my video about how creationists reject what they don't understand with ...
@TheFallibleFiend ... with a video demonstrating he doesn't understand. I note this was more than a year ago and he is undergoing a change. If the other fellow's argument is that we haven't created any sort of amoeba ... well, there are thing to say to that as well. I need to make some new vids. Anyway, good luck.
TheFallibleFiend I'm watching your videos from times to times, I always find it rational and interesting. And it has been so, for quite a long time now.
Just wanted to tell you that you're brave to discuss with those people with very dogmatic views, even on youtube.
Congratulations to a scientist like you for your knowledge, amazing patience and persistence. And thank you for the vids
@TheFallibleFiend: The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) - materials which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere.
But he left out co2 (oxygen) why did he do that? Perhaps he knew if he added oxygen, things would start to oxidise and therefore die. He did cause a spark and there was some organic compound, but what he had was 93% poisonous to life. But I can not prove this for sure...
@QAndyJack CO2 is carbon dioxide. There is a 2005 nature article that explains why M-U tried these chemicals titled "Rethinking Earth’s Early Atmosphere" by a guy named Chyba. The upshot is they don't know for sure what the prebiotic Earth was like, but think it may not be what M-U thought it was - but that doesn't discount M-Us work.
@TheFallibleFiend: Good answer, all they can go on is what they knew and build a hypothesis from that.
We believe the atmosphere is at is it now, but with more co2, but this is difficult to prove, it's interesting to see the trapped co2 in amber has 50% more concentrated, but I can not prove it, I read this on the web..
@QAndyJack 1)While it is understood that the UM experiment was off in the exact composition of the early Earth atmosphere, it was important because it showed that many amino acids could form under abiotic conditions 2)Hundreds of more recent experiments with different starting atmospheres have shown the same thing - amino acids are easy to make by purely natural means. 3)All other building blocks for life have now been shown to be possible by abiotic processes. So the parts are there.
And the two largest bridges in the science of abiogenesis have been found. The first is most recent, a new paper shows that nucleoitides can be formed abiotically through the degradation of formaldehydes in the presence of glucose and the second is that self-replicating RNA chains can spontaneously form on mononitrilite clay matrices. These findings show that life from non-life is not only possible but highly likely on any planet with carbon chemistry and liquid water.
@LithodidMan: How do we know what the early atmosphere was like? We don't, all we can do is make assumptions, there were not many amino acids, there were a few, not enough to make a protein, and you need at least 50 proteins to make a cell..
Antibiotics were not around in the early atmosphere, the conditions were not favourable for life back then..
@QAndyJack We know that all 20 amino acids needed for life can easily be made under a wide range of possible atmospheres, and nearly all have been found in abiotic conditions so we know they existed. And we know that simple RNA's can behave like proteins, so complex proteins not important to early life. And what do antibiotics have to do with anything about the formation of life? I think you misspoke here. Understand that it is not chemicals then a cell, there is a continuum. Think viroids.
@QAndyJack Wrong, CO2 is included in pretty much any model of atmosphere formation (I suspect you are thinking free oxygen, O2). No such thing as simple RNA? So an eight nucleotide self replicator isn't simple? Really curious about your background in this field. And to your previous comment, it does not take all 20 amino acids to make a protein, some proteins have just a few, others have all or most of them. Irrelevent anyhow as current models are pointing towards RNA world.
@LithodidMan: If oxygen was present, the amino acid would have start to decay, RNA is very complex when you look at what needs to happen, especially when it's undirected.
Many of the vital proteins need at least 20 amino's, and at least 50 proteins to make a so called simple cell.
I have done some research in this subject, but it's not my profession....Thankfully.
But I find it very interesting, and I want to spend more time studying this subject when I get the chance.
@LithodidMan: There are 20 differing types of Amino acids, you would need all these to get a protein.
Amino acids get together and form peptides or polypeptides and all in the correct order, you would then need at least 50 proteins to make a complexed simple cell, in a reducing atmosphere which was mostly poisoned to life, it would be impossible, but we don't know for sure.
Miller Urey used a closed system for there experiments, the earth is not a closed system BTW.
"Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" by Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland and John D. Sutherland
I understand how evolution is supposed to work, but I don't understand exactly how the most complex thing know to man came first?
The cell, how did it arrive first, all living things are made from cells, a simple cell is still very complex, and where there's complexity there has to be design..
@QAndyJack Evolution is a theory that explains the diversification of life - the origin of species; not one that explains the origin of life itself. No theory has to explain everything. The germ theory of disease does not explain the origin of germs. Boyle's law doesn't explain the origin of chemicals. Atomic theory doesn't explain the origin of atoms. Nevertheless there are legitimate theories of how life could have originated without magic.
@TheFallibleFiend: Magic does not explain the existence of God, but I think God explains the existence of matter and energy.
Your statements maybe true, but are in possession of all the facts? Just reading from the web, or peer reviewed papers is not fact, it's second hand information, this can be unreliable..
@QAndyJack God is magical. God doesn't "explain" anything. It's the avoidance of an explanation. Of course I'm not in possession of all the facts - and neither is anyone else. Everything written - including religious reference manuals - are unreliable.
@TheFallibleFiend But unreliable only in the sense of not to be taken as perfect. Nothing humans do is perfect. However, there are books that are relatively reliable - and neither the Bible, the Quran, nor any other Holy book is among them.
@TheFallibleFiend: Hi FalFriend, hope your well, what can I ay, it's a faith issue, I can not prove to you God, but evolution has some big problems, so has the bible, but as time goes on we may get new revelations and new evidences which will help us both, I would settle right now for evolution being true and a Creator to exist, this way we both win.
But I think i have the upper hand, as creation seems to be so obvious, and a Creator created it all.
@QAndyJack There is a lot of science behind evolution - but no science can address whether God exists. (Can't prove there is and can't prove there isn't.) While I am an atheist and actively disbelieve in any God(s) I don't claim that my position is supported by science. But lots of people accept both evolution and the existence of God - Ken Miller, Francis Collins, etc.
I think there's a lot of science behind micro, but I can not be sure, as I have not got the facts, as for macro, I really would not like to say for sure. I'm not a geneticist so I can't make a professional statement, but looking at it in my own eyes, it seems fairly unlikely, and when I listen to certain people talk, Gish for one, he seems to think it's an impossibility. Evolutionists and creationists can be friends, I'm not going to let it get to me, the evolutionists can't help it..:-)
the meaning of truth isn't the same to both christians and 'classicists'. truth to christians has to do with the maintenance of family values. truth to classisicists has to do with correlation, and validity of statements.
ie 2+2=4 to christians cause appeal to authority.to classiscists it is cause there is a constant evaluation of experimental evidence. classisicists view appeal to authority as unreasonable, if not insane; thus unacceptable. christians view attempts to be objective similarly.
I'm all for questioning scientist, but you need to have a basic understanding to do so. I myself am a scientist and constantly question any papers I read and I will refute other scientist (unfortunately there is bad science out there) but I can only do so because I understand enough to know where they made their mistake. If you don't have a basic understanding of biology there is no way you could refute evolution.
Based on the point about the 2:00 mark, I think you need to change your original statement of "you first have to understand evolution to refute it" to "you have to first have a basic understanding of biology to refute evolution".
sigh... it feels like I just did one of these. There's always another. Why don't people research evolution before commenting on issues they don't understand?
I've got a Theists arguing that same point....that scientists haven't produced this first amoeba...;) I may just direct here...;)
julzabro 2 months ago
@julzabro Interestingly, the fellow I addressed in this video is currently undergoing a change of heart - he's starting to actually question his religion, not based on anything I have said, but based on behavior of some of his "friends." On the other hand the funny things this guy indicated were that amoebas were multicellular (they are not) and that they have mates (ummm...no, they're asexual). So he responded to my video about how creationists reject what they don't understand with ...
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend ... with a video demonstrating he doesn't understand. I note this was more than a year ago and he is undergoing a change. If the other fellow's argument is that we haven't created any sort of amoeba ... well, there are thing to say to that as well. I need to make some new vids. Anyway, good luck.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend Oh, well that's good. I'll check out his vid too. ;)
julzabro 2 months ago
(sorry my comment is beside the point... anyway)
TheFallibleFiend I'm watching your videos from times to times, I always find it rational and interesting. And it has been so, for quite a long time now.
Just wanted to tell you that you're brave to discuss with those people with very dogmatic views, even on youtube.
Congratulations to a scientist like you for your knowledge, amazing patience and persistence. And thank you for the vids
wkta1 1 year ago
@wkta1 Thanks for the kind words, but I want to be clear that I'm not a scientist. My education and experience are in engineering.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking: As I am aware, Urey Millers experiment was a flop, it seemed encouraging early on, but they eventually abandoned the idea.
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack They did not abandon the idea - and the experiment was not a flop. It didn't create life, but that wasn't its purpose.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend: The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) - materials which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere.
But he left out co2 (oxygen) why did he do that? Perhaps he knew if he added oxygen, things would start to oxidise and therefore die. He did cause a spark and there was some organic compound, but what he had was 93% poisonous to life. But I can not prove this for sure...
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack CO2 is carbon dioxide. There is a 2005 nature article that explains why M-U tried these chemicals titled "Rethinking Earth’s Early Atmosphere" by a guy named Chyba. The upshot is they don't know for sure what the prebiotic Earth was like, but think it may not be what M-U thought it was - but that doesn't discount M-Us work.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend: We do not know for sure what the " early atmosphere" would have been like.
We are not in possession of all the facts, they presumed it was this way, but it turns out they were wrong. (probably?)
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack Scientists are often wrong. They didn't "presume" it. They concluded it based on other things they thought they knew, but didn't.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend: Good answer, all they can go on is what they knew and build a hypothesis from that.
We believe the atmosphere is at is it now, but with more co2, but this is difficult to prove, it's interesting to see the trapped co2 in amber has 50% more concentrated, but I can not prove it, I read this on the web..
Thanks..
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend: This was and is part one of the talk, I don't know if you have seen it? I know you have seen part two..
watch?v=hPuKVU6Zdrw
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack 1)While it is understood that the UM experiment was off in the exact composition of the early Earth atmosphere, it was important because it showed that many amino acids could form under abiotic conditions 2)Hundreds of more recent experiments with different starting atmospheres have shown the same thing - amino acids are easy to make by purely natural means. 3)All other building blocks for life have now been shown to be possible by abiotic processes. So the parts are there.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
And the two largest bridges in the science of abiogenesis have been found. The first is most recent, a new paper shows that nucleoitides can be formed abiotically through the degradation of formaldehydes in the presence of glucose and the second is that self-replicating RNA chains can spontaneously form on mononitrilite clay matrices. These findings show that life from non-life is not only possible but highly likely on any planet with carbon chemistry and liquid water.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
@LithodidMan: How do we know what the early atmosphere was like? We don't, all we can do is make assumptions, there were not many amino acids, there were a few, not enough to make a protein, and you need at least 50 proteins to make a cell..
Antibiotics were not around in the early atmosphere, the conditions were not favourable for life back then..
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack We know that all 20 amino acids needed for life can easily be made under a wide range of possible atmospheres, and nearly all have been found in abiotic conditions so we know they existed. And we know that simple RNA's can behave like proteins, so complex proteins not important to early life. And what do antibiotics have to do with anything about the formation of life? I think you misspoke here. Understand that it is not chemicals then a cell, there is a continuum. Think viroids.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
@LithodidMan : not a wide range of atmosphere's, only certain types, excluding co2.
No such thing as simple RNA, even backward forms are very complex.
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack Wrong, CO2 is included in pretty much any model of atmosphere formation (I suspect you are thinking free oxygen, O2). No such thing as simple RNA? So an eight nucleotide self replicator isn't simple? Really curious about your background in this field. And to your previous comment, it does not take all 20 amino acids to make a protein, some proteins have just a few, others have all or most of them. Irrelevent anyhow as current models are pointing towards RNA world.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
@LithodidMan: If oxygen was present, the amino acid would have start to decay, RNA is very complex when you look at what needs to happen, especially when it's undirected.
Many of the vital proteins need at least 20 amino's, and at least 50 proteins to make a so called simple cell.
I have done some research in this subject, but it's not my profession....Thankfully.
But I find it very interesting, and I want to spend more time studying this subject when I get the chance.
Bye for now..
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@LithodidMan: There are 20 differing types of Amino acids, you would need all these to get a protein.
Amino acids get together and form peptides or polypeptides and all in the correct order, you would then need at least 50 proteins to make a complexed simple cell, in a reducing atmosphere which was mostly poisoned to life, it would be impossible, but we don't know for sure.
Miller Urey used a closed system for there experiments, the earth is not a closed system BTW.
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking: Thank you for your reply, can you tell me how the amino acids and the proteins came about.
How could life evolve from non living material, it sems like a long shot to me..
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack Look up the Nature article
"Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" by Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland and John D. Sutherland
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I understand how evolution is supposed to work, but I don't understand exactly how the most complex thing know to man came first?
The cell, how did it arrive first, all living things are made from cells, a simple cell is still very complex, and where there's complexity there has to be design..
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack Evolution is a theory that explains the diversification of life - the origin of species; not one that explains the origin of life itself. No theory has to explain everything. The germ theory of disease does not explain the origin of germs. Boyle's law doesn't explain the origin of chemicals. Atomic theory doesn't explain the origin of atoms. Nevertheless there are legitimate theories of how life could have originated without magic.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend: Magic does not explain the existence of God, but I think God explains the existence of matter and energy.
Your statements maybe true, but are in possession of all the facts? Just reading from the web, or peer reviewed papers is not fact, it's second hand information, this can be unreliable..
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack God is magical. God doesn't "explain" anything. It's the avoidance of an explanation. Of course I'm not in possession of all the facts - and neither is anyone else. Everything written - including religious reference manuals - are unreliable.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend But unreliable only in the sense of not to be taken as perfect. Nothing humans do is perfect. However, there are books that are relatively reliable - and neither the Bible, the Quran, nor any other Holy book is among them.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend: Hi FalFriend, hope your well, what can I ay, it's a faith issue, I can not prove to you God, but evolution has some big problems, so has the bible, but as time goes on we may get new revelations and new evidences which will help us both, I would settle right now for evolution being true and a Creator to exist, this way we both win.
But I think i have the upper hand, as creation seems to be so obvious, and a Creator created it all.
That should get you too reply. lol..
QAndyJack 1 year ago
@QAndyJack There is a lot of science behind evolution - but no science can address whether God exists. (Can't prove there is and can't prove there isn't.) While I am an atheist and actively disbelieve in any God(s) I don't claim that my position is supported by science. But lots of people accept both evolution and the existence of God - Ken Miller, Francis Collins, etc.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I think there's a lot of science behind micro, but I can not be sure, as I have not got the facts, as for macro, I really would not like to say for sure. I'm not a geneticist so I can't make a professional statement, but looking at it in my own eyes, it seems fairly unlikely, and when I listen to certain people talk, Gish for one, he seems to think it's an impossibility. Evolutionists and creationists can be friends, I'm not going to let it get to me, the evolutionists can't help it..:-)
QAndyJack 1 year ago
the meaning of truth isn't the same to both christians and 'classicists'. truth to christians has to do with the maintenance of family values. truth to classisicists has to do with correlation, and validity of statements.
ie 2+2=4 to christians cause appeal to authority.to classiscists it is cause there is a constant evaluation of experimental evidence. classisicists view appeal to authority as unreasonable, if not insane; thus unacceptable. christians view attempts to be objective similarly.
morthim 1 year ago
Good video. Makes me remember the times I've spoken to Creationists and how they are.
SamuelHans 1 year ago
I'm all for questioning scientist, but you need to have a basic understanding to do so. I myself am a scientist and constantly question any papers I read and I will refute other scientist (unfortunately there is bad science out there) but I can only do so because I understand enough to know where they made their mistake. If you don't have a basic understanding of biology there is no way you could refute evolution.
vnorthru 1 year ago 2
Based on the point about the 2:00 mark, I think you need to change your original statement of "you first have to understand evolution to refute it" to "you have to first have a basic understanding of biology to refute evolution".
Cyrathil 1 year ago
sigh... it feels like I just did one of these. There's always another. Why don't people research evolution before commenting on issues they don't understand?
anzwertree 1 year ago
refute it?
i'm sure you meant repute
:D
notNEWW 1 year ago
@notNEWW It's "refudiate" now
EdwardHowton 1 year ago