Problem has it that at best, evolution and abiogenesis has only been proven possible. It simply cannot be proven 100% that it actually created life, no better than the Bible can stand as evidence for God.
Well, abiogenesis hasn't even been proven possible yet. There's all these possibilities they consider, without actually knowing if they really are possibilities.
@TheColaGoodfellow "Well, abiogenesis hasn't even been proven possible yet."
Well, yes it has. Many experiments have resulted in abiogenesis in a lab. It is, therefore, possible. Evolution, on the other hand, is demonstrable fact. There is no question the process occurs.
You're exaggerating the discoveries for abiogenesis, alot. They've never created life using conditions that actually existed 4 billion years ago.
And even the experiments that did produce anything close to what would be required for life, they only created some of the required compounds, and also some which are toxic towards the other kinds.
Consider, they have evidence that free oxygen (which oxidises and destroys all organic molecules needed for life) existed back then.
@TheColaGoodfellow "the experiments that did produce anything close to what would be required for life, they only created some of the required compounds"
Therefore, there is evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis. That's all we can ask for so early in the investigative phase.
"There's no question that evolution can occur....But little solid to say it has been occuring for millions of years...and that we all have a common ancestor."
But that's what's the mountains of evidence shows.
Mountains of evidence? A few peices of bones don't necasserily show signs that we evolved. Yeah, they could be mutations alright, one-off mutations that have no relation between the two whatsoever.
Finding the compunds needed isn't the same as finding out how they would organise themselves on their own, or finding a force of nature that could do it. Or even finding out how they would survive despite the toxic right hand molecules which would be just as equally distributed.
The problem with evolution is that most things can be equally good & bad towards survival, and yet there are still specific differences between all life.
If we had a common ancestor with chimps, we ought to be able to interbreed with chimps. Because the first step towards chimp/man hood and every step since then would have been able to breed constantly with the common ancestor.
We'd be connected by a living man-chimp ancestor who would survive better than us.
@TheColaGoodfellow And your degree in genetics came from...? I thought so. You've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about how stupid you choose to remain. Why didn't you just say you're a creationist? You should know I don't bother with such idiots.
I love the respect oozing from your comment, it's refreshing. >_>
I believe the universe and earth is billions of years old if that makes you happy, the speed of light is hard to argue with. I just don't fall for abiogenesis or the idea that all life came from evolution for all those scientifically valid reasons as said below.
But don't get me wrong, I COULD argue with the speed of light, Scientists have good reason to think it's subject to change under yet not well understood conditions.
But the dating systems seem to back up the ancient universe too so I don't see much reason to argue with it. Before God created the day and the night there was no measure of time that a human of 1500 BC would easily comprehend.
There's no question that evolution can occur, that's why I said there's evidence it is possible. But little solid to say it has been occuring for millions of years, or that it created all life completely from scratch and that we all have a common ancestor.
Dating systems could show the age of the earth, but not necasserily the life that lived on it.
Even if there wasn't oxygen, there'd be no o-zone, the destructive ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy the organic molecules.
An experiment they haven't tried because they know it wont work: Filling sealed glass apparatus with methane, ammonia, hydrogen AND Oxygen, striking it with electricity to represent thunder. Because it would produce nought. Yet, they were the conditions during that time.
The amount of mis-information, deliberate omissions, obfuscations and sheer total ignorance is to much to respond to without the medium of a book. You malevolent idiot meter struck red when the "Proteins have to be folded" part gobbled out. No they do not. When formed they fold themselves due to their chemical molecular attributes. But instead this retard remark conjures up images of little robots folding the damn things. What ever clue you have, you are abusing it for evil.
The RNA World Hypothesis isn't 'tossed out there and left there hanging'. There are thousands of scientists in hundreds of research groups actively performing experiments to nail down the details of abiogenesis, and much of this work revolves around RNA and RNA-like polymers. It's a highly investigated field with a diverse range of scientific opinion. Nobody in science is saying, 'it's done, it's over" or any variation on this theme. It's creationists who rest on their laurels, not scientists.
@TheColaGoodfellow Of course I was bring provocative so as to keep my comment in the same spirit as the video. The sad truth about these types of videos is that either he is deliberately spreading false information or simply is ignorant. Nether option makes him look very good.
Abiogenesis is an extremely dynamic study and it has many proposed models. It is also one of the youngest fields of study in science. We know more about time travel and anti-matter than we know about abiogenesis!
Stick to Law dude cause your scientific knowledge doesn't cut it. 1st abiogenesis is the study of how biological organisms arise from inorganic material through natural processes. 2nd, In order for that to happen scientists know that biological organisms need organic materials to have been formed naturally without biological agents already present, and we do know that such organic matter like amino acids can form naturally in nature without organic processes.
(4th) Atheist drones can chew on these "quote-mines".
ScienceDaily:
“The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze.”
Scripps Institution of Oceanography chemist Jeffrey Bada cautioned:
“it still leaves the problem of how RNA first came about. Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point."
(3rd) so, uh, "see" other arguments (given by DARWINISTS THEMSELVES) who doubt or question this notion that RNA would have been enough to catalyze all that was needed in some imaginary "pre-biotic soup" of Atheist mythology. The existence of the RNA world, where RNA acted as a catalyst as well as an informational macromolecule, assumes a large prebiotic source of ribose or the existence of pre-RNA molecules with backbones different from ribose-phosphate. But that would be too UNSTABLE.
(2nd) Darwinsits are such drones. More desperation appeals to stuff like "Chech". Which again misses the point, and again appeals to neurotic speculation. The "RNA World hypothesis" is A) just a "hypothesis" (or a GUESS), and B) has a number of critics WHO ARE NOT EVEN CREATIONISTS AT ALL. It's SPECULATED that life MAY have originated from an RNA molecule which contained the information to copy itself and acted as an "enzyme" back then. That's not "science" though, but desperate conjecture.
I'm familiar with that old Darwinist gas too. (I've heard them all basically...for real.) and it's just neurotic SPECULATION, with zero actual observable proof that A) there was any "RNA" in the very beginning, that even formed accidentally, or B) that they could act as "enzymes" in that original supposed environment. Also, again, you miss the part that they had to get together JUST RIGHT, luckily, with Amino Acids, to just rightly form PROTEIN. Protein itself is complex.
U dumb book worms should stop ur insecure agressive approach, 2wards creationists, by appealing for majority vote from other bots like urselves who have been brainwashed since kindy by the HocusPocus 'gazzilion years ago' theories. Just the fact that you get so pissed off is proof enough that you are still trying to gain the recognition of people who believe in a creator & 'convince' them - (actually by convincing yourselves that there is no God) not to believe in a creator - of your ignorance.
It's funny how certain christians have a problem accepting things that are tested and are supported by these tests, yet they have no problem believing in a book that is full of contradictions, written by several authors from stories told from person to person several years before they were written down. They abiogenesis is impossible, but virgin birth is plausible.
He incorrectly assumes that DNA is essential for life @1.00 This is a false assumption - the earliest stages of life would require only a self-replicating molecule - other complexities would develop later.
what i dont get is this...lets just say it did happen the way rna world proposes...wouldnt dna still have to come into existence at a later point? adn woultn teh whole chicken adn egg question simply re arise then?
@zenithar6666 "wouldnt dna still have to come into existence at a later point? adn woultn teh whole chicken adn egg question simply re arise then?" Yes it would come along later, and we know how that happens as well. . .
And NO the whole "chicken and egg "question doesn't need to come up because we now know which came first.
I love how people try and pick holes in solid science which aren't really there. They're only picking holes in their own ignorance.
first off, if you think there is no holes in abiogenises theories(i assume thats what your reffering to?) then you need to go straight back to high school, becuase that is bogus sciecne freind!
second, you have simply stated we know what came first when infact we do not, it is a thoery!
no, since dna would then arise after rna, surely we come across teh chicken adn egg again in terms of protins and dna? how do we not?
@zenithar6666 " if you think there is no holes in abiogenises theories(i assume thats what your reffering to?) then you need to go straight back to high school" Did I say it didn't?. . . NO. . . So what the fuck are you talking about?
" it is a thoery!" Which just shows that it is you who in fact needs to go to school. In science a "theory" is the highest status an idea can achieve.
@zenithar6666 Attitude?. . . So let me get this right, you can't respond to anything i actually say and you try and pick some pathetic little thing in order to try and weasel your way of the discussion.
And then creationists wonder why people laugh at them.
unfortunatly for you, i am not a creationist, adn i am not weasling out, you are, you didnt refute my points but just handwaved, its simple, evolutin is riddled with faith, creationism is just as bad or worse!
@zenithar6666 You're not weaseling out?. . . So is that why you just completely ignore everything said focused on something COMPLETELY irrelevant? Sure mate, sure.
"you didnt refute my points but just handwaved" and now you're simply lying, I even quote every point to which I was refuting.
"evolutin is riddled with faith" Such as?. . . It's also funny because you just prove my point about you knowing nothing of science. Because evolution is completely irrelevant. abiogensis=/=evolution.
I don't know where you get that idea from, probably from a creationist website. I would love it if there was a God and we could have an eternal existence. Prove it!
"They just toss out this RNA-World hypothesis and say: It's done, it's over"
No Randall, you're getting the positions mixed up here. THEY are in the middle of trying to work out how life on our planet began. YOU are the ones tossing out your God-did-it hypothesis and say: It's done, it's over. Now shut the hell up and let them do their work you non-contributing zero!
"OK, this from a humbled amateur, how about pointing us to a 'professional' take on biochemistry that get us organic life from inorganic matter. Send me a video of 5-minutes or less, and I'll post it as a response -- Thanks." OK Ill give it a shot :)
From your comment to bencubed "OK, this from a humbled amateur, how about pointing us to a 'professional' take on biochemistry that get us organic life from inorganic matter. Send me a video of 5-minutes or less, and I'll post it as a response -- Thanks" Well I made one. its on my channel. Sorry its about 11 mins and I would like to know what you think.
Nonsense. This is a complete misrepresentation of science and abiogenesis. If anyone watching this really wants to know the truth there are several YouTube channels that are scientifically literate and can give an overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
@Blackmark52 Thats the point anyone watching this either thinks its a bag of batshit or they dont want to hear the truth! I like how he keeps interjecting the term "life out of a rock" lol. What amazes me though is they keep going to church on sundays preaching absolute morality when they are being so willfully dishonest in videos like this one.
@Blackmark52 No this is truth, there are major problems with abiogenesis , such as Homochirality ,and the paradox of RNA, DNA forming they both need to be there together!..its called INFORMATION, something atheists hate! Stanley miller had the same problem, he could not generate one single Protein!!!
@5tonyvvvv So you read a bit of creationist propaganda and think you know all about science. Sorry, that isn't how it works. Those who don't like science, yet profess to know more it than scientists, are about as bright as a light bulb without electricity.
As I said: If anyone watching this really wants to know the truth there are several YouTube channels that are scientifically literate and can give an overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
@Blackmark52 LOL.Everything against the atheistic world view and abiogenesis and evolution, is creationist propaganda, So only atheists can be scientists?, You are just to Stubborn and Blind, and refuse to understand Chirality!, and you gave no testable chemistry to back up your nonsense. You just say no that's not how it works. Actually that is how it works , Homochirality can never come about by naturalistic means, through undirected natural processes!!
@5tonyvvvv There is no atheist world view. Unless you simply refer to not accepting myth and superstition as fact a world view. Theists can be scientists, but creationists don't practice science.
Chirality. You learn a new word and think that constitutes a whole argument. Bully for you. Thing is, you would have to know what it means yourself and not just be blowing smoke. And I didn't even mention chemistry, so do you care to elaborate on what I said is not how it works? I sense a lot of straw.
RNA is, as you state, a hypothesis. It's being worked on. That's science for you. Every step along the way in scientific discovery there are the faithful to decry it's lack of proof. It's been less than a century that people have been working on something that happened millions of years ago.
Also, please stop accepting scientific fact only when it supports your view (1:00) and then turn around to decry it altogether.
@fathergrimes RNA forming on a primordial earth is laughable and not science!.. and "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction. Intelligence created life not time and chance! Moronic atheist chemistry never works!
@bencubed OK, this from a humbled amateur, how about pointing us to a 'professional' take on biochemistry that get us organic life from inorganic matter. Send me a video of 5-minutes or less, and I'll post it as a response -- Thanks.
Sromatolites are compelling evidence of the first microbial life on earth, 3.5 billion years ago. They do not establish how first life came to be, just when it did.
This is subsantive, evidence-based and professionaly presented.
Imagining that this first microbial life 'came to be by the hand' of anyone is pure mythological speculation and frankly absurd.
@reflect7 Surely you must be kidding? If you really want to learn what the latest professional take is you could start by getting yourself a degree. But if youtube videos is what you're really into my greatest tips are the videos by cdk007 and DonExodus2 seen next to your little movie to the right.
@reflect7 The short answer is this: The evidence suggests protein came before DNA. Modern abiogenesis theory proposes nucleotides and amino acids polymerized to form RNA and proteins, respectively, which became enclosed in membranes. These membrane-enclosed polymers then acquired cellular properties, and the modern DNA/RNA/protein world ultimately emerged from this primitive RNA world.
MMM NO.. this is very bad science to say taht it has been "confirmed", fisrt i ddint see any mention of how it survived outside the cell?
second its a simualtion based on "plausible" conditions and therefore an educated guess, adn therefore it could not possibley have confirmed anythign that actually happened in the past!! it proves taht scientist in a lab cotnrolled expreiment can coem up with a result based on pre conceived notions...this kind of experiment says nothign of origin of adaptions
@zenithar6666 "i ddint see any mention of how it survived outside the cell" They don't need to, it's common knowledge that it's more then possible. Take Cyanobacteria Archaea, a Prokariote no nucleus, no DNA, no organelles, no protein, no cell. Just RNA coiled over to enclose a space and they're one of the largest phyla on Earth.
"based on "plausible" conditions and therefore an educated guess" . . . A: EVERYTHING in science is an "educated guess".
@zenithar6666 "it proves taht scientist in a lab cotnrolled expreiment can coem up with a result based on pre conceived notions" No it shows that if you take the conditions of early eath and leave it you WILL eventually get life.
They weren't TRYING to get that result, that only shows that you don't understand how science works, they test things to try and FALSIFY them not to prove them.
@reflect7 A 'Professional take' would for be someone with no formal training or experience within a field not to create a video, or indeed an entire website, pretending to be such an expert. Creating material designed to give the impression that you are an expert in a field in which you have no expertise is deeply unprofessional - and demonstrates Zero Humility.
.
Randell Niles has incidently never worked in the field of science, and his education is principally in that of an Attorney.
@reflect7 To answer this question- I'm a secular humanist with a new channel and i actually plan on one of my vids being about start of life on earth. But the general idea is not life arising from rock. Very briefly- we NOW depend on DNA to organize protein synthesis, because we require organic catalysts to lower the activation energy of protein construction. However, in primordial earth, UV radiation from an ozone-less atmosphere, lightning, heat from the planets formation, and so on... cont'd
@reflect7 and so on... provided the activation energy needed to spontaneously induce the formation of peptide bonds and thereby create large proteins. In fact, it is a similar case for spontaneous nucleic acid chain formation. The legitimacy of this claim was proven years ago in the 1920s-30s by the experiments of Oparin, a Russian biochemist. There's of course much more to the story... but don't worry- the rocks didn't pull much influence in the primordial seas. Enjoy!
@bencubed how bout u stop your prejudiced propaganda that people who dont believe in 'Crapulution' theory arent smart enough to even be consider? that in itself reveals most of your ignorance around which you develop your fairy tale theories?
This video and your response to me is incredibly sad as one massive strawman argument.
Taking the existing complexity of life today as an argument against what took place over 3 billiion years ago simply defies rational consideration. By elemental reasoning, science does not ever saying 'life sprang from a rock'. It talks about the most minimal chemical interactions and conditions conducive to the simplest self-metabolizing organisms. Religion postulates otherwise.
@bencubed and also dont flatter ursleves by thinking evolution and big gang are even science. Just cause you try harder to make BS look like pudding it doesnt make it the perfect alibi for custard. We are yet to find 000.0001% evidence for either of these biased political ego-centric idealogies
the theory of evolution is supported by the thoery of abiogenesis which supported by the big bang theory. a theory supported by another theory and they call it science.
@roniepao Haha! That's good. I'm angry that I didn't see that first. lol
Is see "scientists", these days, almost practicing divination. The Big Bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are appearing very similiar to the conjurer telling of past events, past lives and dead relatives, who've since been long gone. Don't forget Man Made Global Warming, where the charlatan tells them what the future holds, even if they can't give an accurate five day forcaste. Oh, yeah. And, they want your money.
1) The egg came first. And by hundreds of millions of years.
Chickens were not the first birds; they evolved from earlier birds, which were already producing eggs. And the first birds evolved from certain reptiles, which also laid eggs. And the first reptiles evolved from certain amphibians, which also laid eggs. And the first amphibians evolves from certain fish, which had eggs.
To think RNA is simple and testable science..why is it that scientist cant break it down?..all they take it from is living organisms ..so its already pre existing complex information...Evolution is a Faith fore sure..and Laughable at this point
Science cant even make one single protein!!!!..they cant even get all LEFT handed amino acids to form the one protein ,,what a joke!!!!..its a huge paradox..why is it when scientists break down simple chemicals they get more complex????..it should be the opposite
God is always the option of choice for people too lazy to think about how things work. In a few decades some people may start teaching us god created computers, too.
@kasuha LOL..ok man,great answer scientists cant get all LEFT handed amino acids to make one single protein!!!..why is it that when they break down simple chemicals they get more complex??..do u understand the word paradox?
This is typical dishonest rhetoric. You say the RNA solution is "left hanging" as if no one actually researches the catalytic properties of RNA molecules. Then to go one step further and say that it was announced on Youtube? Yep that was the forum of the big announcement.
By the way what was the mainstream scientififc site you were quoting from? Might it have been a good idea to mention the name?
great vid ...it didnt nead a scientist, to prove, the chicken egg theory ,common sense /basic understanding of nature ,tells u ,an egg needs incubation ,ie...the chicken to sit on the egg ,so it can form,and eventually hatch out to be a chicken
I've seen many very plausible explanations as to how the first replicators could have come into existence and evolved into more complex systems. It's infinitely more plausible than any creation myth from any religions I've ever experienced.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with a goddamn chicken or egg - which came first. It is theory that biotic matter (living cells) came from non-biotic organic self-replicating matter DNA. RNA was not as successful as DNA in replicating so DNA became the genetic source while other kinds of RNA made proteins. and holy Jeebus!!! Life came from a rock? That is one of the worst oversimplifications of all time. You are clearly blinded by religion and can't comprehend real science! *facepalm* u r pathetic
I think it's hilarious that he believes that the scientists who determined that RNA came before DNA did so out of some rationalization to satisfy intelligent designer people, rather than because it appears to be position most substantiated by actual evidence. Like geneticists give a flying f*ck what people who have no idea what their field is actually about think...
Yes, life is a miracle. And of course you want your worldview to be the cause of it.
What about your worldview? Adam came from dirt and Eve came from Adam's rib. Now, THAT makes sense! You can be sarcastic about scientific explanations, but at least they are scrutiness and self-correcting.
I think the reason Christians are so deceptive is because the foundation of their world requires the ability to prop up a web of lies through mass delusion and social reinforcement. They probably don't even realize what liars they are because they have been indoctrinated with these tools since birth.
1st off what has been reciently suggested about RNA is a hypothesis. It's called the RNA world hypothesis implying that its NOT used to explain anything, its there to be tested. My bio professor told us to write a paper about it. "I'll quote this from a main streem scientific source..." yeah thats reliable, this guy is a moron. Its dudes like this that give Christians a bad name.
This is like watching a squirrel try to drive a car. This moron is a moron nothing else needs to be said. He knows nothing about the science of Abiogenesis - NOTHING!
@lapantera8 Yup, Scientists have discovered a protein in the shell of an egg that can only be produced by the fowl. Therefore, it takes a host to create an egg, solving the long-asked riddle... I liked how an interviewer later asked, "How did the chicken get here... magic?"
@reflect7 If there's anyone here who's interested in Science: Randall Niles is a member of Creation Ministries, a Y.E. creationist movement, hiding under the cover of different sites, like: Allaboutscience, Allaboutphilosophy, Allabouttruth, and last but not least: Allaboutgod. Hiding behind the false flag of science, they try to lure unsuspected, not too critical readers into the trap of magical thinking. So be aware, and don't give them to much credits.. Or status by debating them. Peace.
This life is only the now of each moment in time. When that moment passes, it's finished and gone. The future does not exist and the past is gone forever. The energy that holds the "now" together is created each moment that goes by, seamlessly and without interruption. Our existence of "now" only exists because something forms it each moment in the fourth dimension. Life is therefore created each moment and held together by the designer and architect of reality. Moot Question
@TheDarwinman u are the fuckin moron..this is science..let me know when science can make DNA code or RNA, or even get all LEFT handed amino acids to assemble anything.how is that not science..??..your just a stubborn asshole that hates intelligence,u rely on time and chance.what Bullshit
@FlyingSoloSV Hey. Try this video "3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy " its by potholer54 it explains the formation of life pretty clearly. It goes from lipids clumping together through RNA reproducing then evolving into DNA and so on, very good videos.
....LOL..u fukin morons and your assumptions..there is no such thing as simple life...Now here is what i keep hearing.life was so simple millions of years ago,that 1 cell.needed only 1 amino acid and 1 protein,and one tiny chain of RNA to live....
ok, where are these organisms? make them in a test tube if thats all the ingredients u need? only in the minds of atheists and evolutionists..do these so called primitive cells exist..and thats some FAITH!!!!..NOT TESTABLE SCIENCE !!!
@greeny202a Cells without these molecular machines would be doomed at the first sign of trouble. The machines are the repair mechanism as well as reproductive capacity. If those go, life ends and is never propagated...a cell could live with just one protein..what bullshit
scientists have tried to assemble DNA AND RNA and bases outside of the cell ..and its impossible,,they both dissolve in water..
@TheDarwinman Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart..
evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then.
I can understand why creationists get so upset when scientists come up with new theories. It must seem like "oh well we were about to debunk them but then they made something else up!" But such is the nature of science. Rather than binding ourselves to a 2000 year old book, we're always learning, growing... evolving. ;)
@PliestoceneDreams The 2000 year old book only gets stronger with new scienctific discoveries. Now dont get me wrong, it;s okay to teach science...as long as you balance it with something like the theory of evolution.
@camaroontree I'm sorry my friend but you are woefully wrong about that. As a historical document, yes, the Bible has *some* accuracy recording certain events. As a cultural relic, yes, the Bible has *some* value studying ancient cultures (Western only. :( ). But as far as "science making it stronger" - lol in your dreams.
@PliestoceneDreams i dont think we are angry about the fact that "scientists" (i put it between quotation marks because there are a lot of scientist, people who study the universe, that are creationists too) come up with new theories. It's perfectly natural to try to solve the whole mistery of the universe. Human kind invests millions of dollars and hundreds of years trying to find out where we come from, why are we here and if its something else out there...
@TheYellowAna We are not blinded by a book, we are amazed by a God thats greater than our thoughts. Maybe you can't understand it; but you can't judge it, or say we are stupid because we believe there is something greater than our brains, because you haven't known God. Maybe it sounds stupid and you'll think i have no brain, but you haven't live it as i have.
"we are amazed by a God thats greater than our thoughts."
sounds like an excuse not to think to me.
there are things in reality that may be too complex to ever understand, but when it comes to the origin and diversity of life, we are pretty damn sure that biblical stories of creation are bullshit.
@itzahazylife i do think, i am studying science and i have to deal everyday with people that think the same way you do. and im not mind closed to arguments like yours, and i respect what you want to believe. but you need to support your arguments with scientifical evidence, not just by saying what the bible says is bullshit. when they prove evolution is a fact with solid evidence, its going to be believable, but (leaving a side what the bible says) scientifical evidence supports creationism.
i do not want to sound mean, but u are ignorant to the science behind evolution..99% of scientists support evolution..there is mountains of evidence in favor of evolution..it's not my responsibility to provide u with the evidence..the information is at your fingertips everywhere on the internet..i can however point u in a good direction.
potholer54
cdk007
donexodus2
these users all have very good videos demonstrating the evidence for evolution and abiogenesis.
@PliestoceneDreams WRONG..Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart..
evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then.
@5tonyvvvv Actually homochirality does not disprove evolution. It always makes me smile happily to see desperate creationists haphazardly invoking scientific terms and saying it "disproves" evolution.
@PliestoceneDreams LOL..ok man..whatever u have faith in...so what came first RNA..or the repair mechanisms..or the molecular machines??...u have a Major Paradox....lets hear some more of your bullshit assumptions..
@5tonyvvvv Um yeah kid, you talk about my "assumptions" yet you have the biggest assumption of them all: If science can't explain it, GODDIDIT. You are so desperate to find a little gap to sneak your fairytale into that you cited homochirality. lolololol
@PliestoceneDreams LOL..Get mad Moron..great .explanation...still waiting on the imaginary atheist chemistry that never happened..anything to avid a super natural explanation...what else u got moron..panspermia..thats laughable and pathetic..
Problem has it that at best, evolution and abiogenesis has only been proven possible. It simply cannot be proven 100% that it actually created life, no better than the Bible can stand as evidence for God.
Well, abiogenesis hasn't even been proven possible yet. There's all these possibilities they consider, without actually knowing if they really are possibilities.
TheColaGoodfellow 5 days ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "Well, abiogenesis hasn't even been proven possible yet."
Well, yes it has. Many experiments have resulted in abiogenesis in a lab. It is, therefore, possible. Evolution, on the other hand, is demonstrable fact. There is no question the process occurs.
fdasherv 4 days ago
@fdasherv
You're exaggerating the discoveries for abiogenesis, alot. They've never created life using conditions that actually existed 4 billion years ago.
And even the experiments that did produce anything close to what would be required for life, they only created some of the required compounds, and also some which are toxic towards the other kinds.
Consider, they have evidence that free oxygen (which oxidises and destroys all organic molecules needed for life) existed back then.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 days ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "the experiments that did produce anything close to what would be required for life, they only created some of the required compounds"
Therefore, there is evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis. That's all we can ask for so early in the investigative phase.
"There's no question that evolution can occur....But little solid to say it has been occuring for millions of years...and that we all have a common ancestor."
But that's what's the mountains of evidence shows.
fdasherv 4 days ago
@fdasherv
Mountains of evidence? A few peices of bones don't necasserily show signs that we evolved. Yeah, they could be mutations alright, one-off mutations that have no relation between the two whatsoever.
Finding the compunds needed isn't the same as finding out how they would organise themselves on their own, or finding a force of nature that could do it. Or even finding out how they would survive despite the toxic right hand molecules which would be just as equally distributed.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 days ago
@fdasherv
The problem with evolution is that most things can be equally good & bad towards survival, and yet there are still specific differences between all life.
If we had a common ancestor with chimps, we ought to be able to interbreed with chimps. Because the first step towards chimp/man hood and every step since then would have been able to breed constantly with the common ancestor.
We'd be connected by a living man-chimp ancestor who would survive better than us.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 days ago
@TheColaGoodfellow And your degree in genetics came from...? I thought so. You've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about how stupid you choose to remain. Why didn't you just say you're a creationist? You should know I don't bother with such idiots.
fdasherv 3 days ago
@fdasherv
I love the respect oozing from your comment, it's refreshing. >_>
I believe the universe and earth is billions of years old if that makes you happy, the speed of light is hard to argue with. I just don't fall for abiogenesis or the idea that all life came from evolution for all those scientifically valid reasons as said below.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 days ago
@fdasherv
But don't get me wrong, I COULD argue with the speed of light, Scientists have good reason to think it's subject to change under yet not well understood conditions.
But the dating systems seem to back up the ancient universe too so I don't see much reason to argue with it. Before God created the day and the night there was no measure of time that a human of 1500 BC would easily comprehend.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 days ago
@fdasherv
There's no question that evolution can occur, that's why I said there's evidence it is possible. But little solid to say it has been occuring for millions of years, or that it created all life completely from scratch and that we all have a common ancestor.
Dating systems could show the age of the earth, but not necasserily the life that lived on it.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 days ago
@fdasherv
Even if there wasn't oxygen, there'd be no o-zone, the destructive ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy the organic molecules.
An experiment they haven't tried because they know it wont work: Filling sealed glass apparatus with methane, ammonia, hydrogen AND Oxygen, striking it with electricity to represent thunder. Because it would produce nought. Yet, they were the conditions during that time.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 days ago
Very enjoyable thank you
jjclassjj 5 days ago
....am i ignorant... when people refer to the chicken and the egg are they usually using it as a metaphor for dna and protein??
cookrealfood 5 days ago
good work here
rodswebdesign 1 week ago
He sounds like a member of the God Squad - I checked him out online and sure enough he is.
GeorgeMoonie 2 weeks ago
Life from a rock??? where the hell does that come from?
Hermy1138 2 weeks ago
@Hermy1138 maybe he meant iraq.....
cookrealfood 5 days ago
TARD.....
oregonatheist 3 weeks ago
Stupid and smug is such an annoying combination.
fdasherv 3 weeks ago
@fdasherv haha
cookrealfood 5 days ago
The stupidity is mindnumbing.
baldurus1 1 month ago
The amount of mis-information, deliberate omissions, obfuscations and sheer total ignorance is to much to respond to without the medium of a book. You malevolent idiot meter struck red when the "Proteins have to be folded" part gobbled out. No they do not. When formed they fold themselves due to their chemical molecular attributes. But instead this retard remark conjures up images of little robots folding the damn things. What ever clue you have, you are abusing it for evil.
Voxnulla 1 month ago
The RNA World Hypothesis isn't 'tossed out there and left there hanging'. There are thousands of scientists in hundreds of research groups actively performing experiments to nail down the details of abiogenesis, and much of this work revolves around RNA and RNA-like polymers. It's a highly investigated field with a diverse range of scientific opinion. Nobody in science is saying, 'it's done, it's over" or any variation on this theme. It's creationists who rest on their laurels, not scientists.
mrpocock 2 months ago 2
guess Randall is off to hell for bearing false witness.
Hufflewaffle 3 months ago
@Hufflewaffle
Even if he is innacurate, that doesn't mean he is on purposely lieing. Atheists like you do my nut in.
Thing is, the commandment is against bearing false witness against a person, what YOU are doing.
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Of course I was bring provocative so as to keep my comment in the same spirit as the video. The sad truth about these types of videos is that either he is deliberately spreading false information or simply is ignorant. Nether option makes him look very good.
Hufflewaffle 2 weeks ago
@TheColaGoodfellow You can't put down an atheist by telling them they're not following the ten commandments.
cookrealfood 5 days ago
@cookrealfood
Pointing that out is not doing Atheists any favours.
TheColaGoodfellow 5 days ago
this guy is b. s. us
TheWonzy2009 3 months ago
fucking retard, stop misinform people!!
ray4ix 3 months ago
@ray4ix amen.
cookrealfood 5 days ago
Abiogenesis is an extremely dynamic study and it has many proposed models. It is also one of the youngest fields of study in science. We know more about time travel and anti-matter than we know about abiogenesis!
xm377Moyocoyatzin 3 months ago
Stick to Law dude cause your scientific knowledge doesn't cut it. 1st abiogenesis is the study of how biological organisms arise from inorganic material through natural processes. 2nd, In order for that to happen scientists know that biological organisms need organic materials to have been formed naturally without biological agents already present, and we do know that such organic matter like amino acids can form naturally in nature without organic processes.
xm377Moyocoyatzin 3 months ago
(4th) Atheist drones can chew on these "quote-mines".
ScienceDaily:
“The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze.”
Scripps Institution of Oceanography chemist Jeffrey Bada cautioned:
“it still leaves the problem of how RNA first came about. Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point."
sweetmikser 3 months ago
(3rd) so, uh, "see" other arguments (given by DARWINISTS THEMSELVES) who doubt or question this notion that RNA would have been enough to catalyze all that was needed in some imaginary "pre-biotic soup" of Atheist mythology. The existence of the RNA world, where RNA acted as a catalyst as well as an informational macromolecule, assumes a large prebiotic source of ribose or the existence of pre-RNA molecules with backbones different from ribose-phosphate. But that would be too UNSTABLE.
sweetmikser 3 months ago
(2nd) Darwinsits are such drones. More desperation appeals to stuff like "Chech". Which again misses the point, and again appeals to neurotic speculation. The "RNA World hypothesis" is A) just a "hypothesis" (or a GUESS), and B) has a number of critics WHO ARE NOT EVEN CREATIONISTS AT ALL. It's SPECULATED that life MAY have originated from an RNA molecule which contained the information to copy itself and acted as an "enzyme" back then. That's not "science" though, but desperate conjecture.
sweetmikser 3 months ago
I'm familiar with that old Darwinist gas too. (I've heard them all basically...for real.) and it's just neurotic SPECULATION, with zero actual observable proof that A) there was any "RNA" in the very beginning, that even formed accidentally, or B) that they could act as "enzymes" in that original supposed environment. Also, again, you miss the part that they had to get together JUST RIGHT, luckily, with Amino Acids, to just rightly form PROTEIN. Protein itself is complex.
sweetmikser 3 months ago
U dumb book worms should stop ur insecure agressive approach, 2wards creationists, by appealing for majority vote from other bots like urselves who have been brainwashed since kindy by the HocusPocus 'gazzilion years ago' theories. Just the fact that you get so pissed off is proof enough that you are still trying to gain the recognition of people who believe in a creator & 'convince' them - (actually by convincing yourselves that there is no God) not to believe in a creator - of your ignorance.
PlatinumParade 4 months ago
Excellent Points, the cutting edge of science backs you up. A new peer reviewed article in the "BioComplexity Journal" adds more detail.
Galmozzi99 5 months ago
It's funny how certain christians have a problem accepting things that are tested and are supported by these tests, yet they have no problem believing in a book that is full of contradictions, written by several authors from stories told from person to person several years before they were written down. They abiogenesis is impossible, but virgin birth is plausible.
GoaHead80 5 months ago
RNA!
pilocrates 5 months ago
Rna came first. Rna doesnt require protein to replicate.
mslovethedead 6 months ago
If your best argument against abiogenesis requires you to totally misrepresent the actual science (straw man) then you don't have an argument.
If the errors are out of ignorance then learn about the most recent work on the subject and don't post "reBUTTals" until you have understood it.
If the errors are a deliberate attempt to bear false witness, well I think your Jehovah had something to say about that.
Terncote 6 months ago
He incorrectly assumes that DNA is essential for life @1.00 This is a false assumption - the earliest stages of life would require only a self-replicating molecule - other complexities would develop later.
neverfearchrisishere 6 months ago
Comment removed
neverfearchrisishere 6 months ago
what i dont get is this...lets just say it did happen the way rna world proposes...wouldnt dna still have to come into existence at a later point? adn woultn teh whole chicken adn egg question simply re arise then?
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 "wouldnt dna still have to come into existence at a later point? adn woultn teh whole chicken adn egg question simply re arise then?" Yes it would come along later, and we know how that happens as well. . .
And NO the whole "chicken and egg "question doesn't need to come up because we now know which came first.
I love how people try and pick holes in solid science which aren't really there. They're only picking holes in their own ignorance.
manhunt48 7 months ago
first off, if you think there is no holes in abiogenises theories(i assume thats what your reffering to?) then you need to go straight back to high school, becuase that is bogus sciecne freind!
second, you have simply stated we know what came first when infact we do not, it is a thoery!
no, since dna would then arise after rna, surely we come across teh chicken adn egg again in terms of protins and dna? how do we not?
zenithar6666 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zenithar6666 " if you think there is no holes in abiogenises theories(i assume thats what your reffering to?) then you need to go straight back to high school" Did I say it didn't?. . . NO. . . So what the fuck are you talking about?
" it is a thoery!" Which just shows that it is you who in fact needs to go to school. In science a "theory" is the highest status an idea can achieve.
manhunt48 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 you keep saying "becuase that is bogus sciecne"
A: You just seem to say that to everything that you disagree with. . . Which is dishonest and not infact bogus, it's just you disagree with it.
B: you've already shown with your "it just a theory" crap that you don't even know what true science is about.
manhunt48 7 months ago
WOW, this is bad, how can you reconcile that kind of attitude with tryign to discover about life..go back to sleep please
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 Attitude?. . . So let me get this right, you can't respond to anything i actually say and you try and pick some pathetic little thing in order to try and weasel your way of the discussion.
And then creationists wonder why people laugh at them.
I'm sorry but it's pathetic.
manhunt48 7 months ago
unfortunatly for you, i am not a creationist, adn i am not weasling out, you are, you didnt refute my points but just handwaved, its simple, evolutin is riddled with faith, creationism is just as bad or worse!
wake up...or go back to sleep
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 You're not weaseling out?. . . So is that why you just completely ignore everything said focused on something COMPLETELY irrelevant? Sure mate, sure.
"you didnt refute my points but just handwaved" and now you're simply lying, I even quote every point to which I was refuting.
"evolutin is riddled with faith" Such as?. . . It's also funny because you just prove my point about you knowing nothing of science. Because evolution is completely irrelevant. abiogensis=/=evolution.
manhunt48 7 months ago
Right on! Atheist claim all the time that science has proved god does not exist, that is so laughable. Keep up the good work.
Micahthetatter 7 months ago
I don't know where you get that idea from, probably from a creationist website. I would love it if there was a God and we could have an eternal existence. Prove it!
eckyhen 8 months ago
Why are creationists so afraid of science. Is their faith so shaky that they have to keep telling each other these lies.
eckyhen 9 months ago
@eckyhen I feel the other way. What is so scary about there being a God. I mean why do Athiests get so angry when people say there is a God. lol
UndercoverCracker 8 months ago
What can First? The human or the womb?
Courteousness 9 months ago
THE STUPID, IT BURNS!
Mattysmyth0593 9 months ago
"They just toss out this RNA-World hypothesis and say: It's done, it's over"
No Randall, you're getting the positions mixed up here. THEY are in the middle of trying to work out how life on our planet began. YOU are the ones tossing out your God-did-it hypothesis and say: It's done, it's over. Now shut the hell up and let them do their work you non-contributing zero!
truelazerlight 10 months ago 10
@IntelligentBluebird
I wonder then...
Why would such simple cells have ever felt the need to become more complex?...
That is so odd...
rilo154 10 months ago
ok who came first, egg or chicken?
meteorox010 11 months ago
No, life did not come from inorganic rocks.
No, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.
No, just because it is complex does not mean it did not evolve.
gregrutz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"OK, this from a humbled amateur, how about pointing us to a 'professional' take on biochemistry that get us organic life from inorganic matter. Send me a video of 5-minutes or less, and I'll post it as a response -- Thanks." OK Ill give it a shot :)
powerm1985 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From your comment to bencubed "OK, this from a humbled amateur, how about pointing us to a 'professional' take on biochemistry that get us organic life from inorganic matter. Send me a video of 5-minutes or less, and I'll post it as a response -- Thanks" Well I made one. its on my channel. Sorry its about 11 mins and I would like to know what you think.
powerm1985 1 year ago
What the eff is wrong with this guys eyebrows?
odinata 1 year ago
5tonyvvvv is an even bigger moron than the guy in this video.
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
Nonsense. This is a complete misrepresentation of science and abiogenesis. If anyone watching this really wants to know the truth there are several YouTube channels that are scientifically literate and can give an overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
Blackmark52 1 year ago 12
@Blackmark52 Thats the point anyone watching this either thinks its a bag of batshit or they dont want to hear the truth! I like how he keeps interjecting the term "life out of a rock" lol. What amazes me though is they keep going to church on sundays preaching absolute morality when they are being so willfully dishonest in videos like this one.
greeny202a 11 months ago
@Blackmark52 No this is truth, there are major problems with abiogenesis , such as Homochirality ,and the paradox of RNA, DNA forming they both need to be there together!..its called INFORMATION, something atheists hate! Stanley miller had the same problem, he could not generate one single Protein!!!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
@5tonyvvvv So you read a bit of creationist propaganda and think you know all about science. Sorry, that isn't how it works. Those who don't like science, yet profess to know more it than scientists, are about as bright as a light bulb without electricity.
As I said: If anyone watching this really wants to know the truth there are several YouTube channels that are scientifically literate and can give an overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
Blackmark52 7 months ago
@Blackmark52 LOL.Everything against the atheistic world view and abiogenesis and evolution, is creationist propaganda, So only atheists can be scientists?, You are just to Stubborn and Blind, and refuse to understand Chirality!, and you gave no testable chemistry to back up your nonsense. You just say no that's not how it works. Actually that is how it works , Homochirality can never come about by naturalistic means, through undirected natural processes!!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
@5tonyvvvv There is no atheist world view. Unless you simply refer to not accepting myth and superstition as fact a world view. Theists can be scientists, but creationists don't practice science.
Chirality. You learn a new word and think that constitutes a whole argument. Bully for you. Thing is, you would have to know what it means yourself and not just be blowing smoke. And I didn't even mention chemistry, so do you care to elaborate on what I said is not how it works? I sense a lot of straw.
Blackmark52 7 months ago
Man watching the creationists trying to "disprove" evolution is hilarious.
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
RNA is, as you state, a hypothesis. It's being worked on. That's science for you. Every step along the way in scientific discovery there are the faithful to decry it's lack of proof. It's been less than a century that people have been working on something that happened millions of years ago.
Also, please stop accepting scientific fact only when it supports your view (1:00) and then turn around to decry it altogether.
fathergrimes 1 year ago
@fathergrimes RNA forming on a primordial earth is laughable and not science!.. and "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction. Intelligence created life not time and chance! Moronic atheist chemistry never works!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I appreciate your sarcasm.
fathergrimes 8 months ago
Comment removed
fathergrimes 8 months ago
Look into RNA. Also, the earth is not flat.
bobbyblasphemy 1 year ago
This layman's attempt to refute science in such an emphatic manner is pathetic.
His amateur take on biochemistry demonstrates zero Christian humility.
-
bencubed 1 year ago 7
@bencubed OK, this from a humbled amateur, how about pointing us to a 'professional' take on biochemistry that get us organic life from inorganic matter. Send me a video of 5-minutes or less, and I'll post it as a response -- Thanks.
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7 ..
Sromatolites are compelling evidence of the first microbial life on earth, 3.5 billion years ago. They do not establish how first life came to be, just when it did.
This is subsantive, evidence-based and professionaly presented.
Imagining that this first microbial life 'came to be by the hand' of anyone is pure mythological speculation and frankly absurd.
- watch?v=4opsN_iQdEs
bencubed 1 year ago
@reflect7 Surely you must be kidding? If you really want to learn what the latest professional take is you could start by getting yourself a degree. But if youtube videos is what you're really into my greatest tips are the videos by cdk007 and DonExodus2 seen next to your little movie to the right.
lobban2 1 year ago
@reflect7 a video entitled "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak"
the work is already done with many sources. here is quite an easily understandable explanation. sorry it isn`t 5 minutes or less.
find it funny how you could accept RNA which would in turn imply molecular evolution to DNA.
you are entitled to keep your opinion but you should watch it so you can better understand an opposing view.
I assume you know the difference between organic and inorganic molecules.
nippondancing 1 year ago
@reflect7 homochirality proves intelligence,evolution could never have happened..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv What???!!! how does it????? Please explain.
greeny202a 1 year ago
@reflect7 "Organic" life does not evolve from "inorganic" matter. "Organic" simply means it contains carbon. Carbon is found everywhere in nature.
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
@reflect7 How about doing a bit of research, asking some real inquiring questions, and not trying to set up a strawman?
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@reflect7 miller urey experiment.
myco578 11 months ago
@reflect7 The short answer is this: The evidence suggests protein came before DNA. Modern abiogenesis theory proposes nucleotides and amino acids polymerized to form RNA and proteins, respectively, which became enclosed in membranes. These membrane-enclosed polymers then acquired cellular properties, and the modern DNA/RNA/protein world ultimately emerged from this primitive RNA world.
nichtmuttersprachler 10 months ago
@reflect7
Abiogenesis confirmed:
Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland1 & John D. Sutherland Published online 13 May 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.471
There is no excuse for ignorance.
manhunt48 7 months ago
MMM NO.. this is very bad science to say taht it has been "confirmed", fisrt i ddint see any mention of how it survived outside the cell?
second its a simualtion based on "plausible" conditions and therefore an educated guess, adn therefore it could not possibley have confirmed anythign that actually happened in the past!! it proves taht scientist in a lab cotnrolled expreiment can coem up with a result based on pre conceived notions...this kind of experiment says nothign of origin of adaptions
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 "i ddint see any mention of how it survived outside the cell" They don't need to, it's common knowledge that it's more then possible. Take Cyanobacteria Archaea, a Prokariote no nucleus, no DNA, no organelles, no protein, no cell. Just RNA coiled over to enclose a space and they're one of the largest phyla on Earth.
"based on "plausible" conditions and therefore an educated guess" . . . A: EVERYTHING in science is an "educated guess".
B: So what? they shown it DOES happen.
manhunt48 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 "it proves taht scientist in a lab cotnrolled expreiment can coem up with a result based on pre conceived notions" No it shows that if you take the conditions of early eath and leave it you WILL eventually get life.
They weren't TRYING to get that result, that only shows that you don't understand how science works, they test things to try and FALSIFY them not to prove them.
manhunt48 7 months ago
@reflect7 nature*com /nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013
experimental proof for Abiogenesis being possible.
neverfearchrisishere 6 months ago
@reflect7 A 'Professional take' would for be someone with no formal training or experience within a field not to create a video, or indeed an entire website, pretending to be such an expert. Creating material designed to give the impression that you are an expert in a field in which you have no expertise is deeply unprofessional - and demonstrates Zero Humility.
.
Randell Niles has incidently never worked in the field of science, and his education is principally in that of an Attorney.
neverfearchrisishere 6 months ago
@reflect7 To answer this question- I'm a secular humanist with a new channel and i actually plan on one of my vids being about start of life on earth. But the general idea is not life arising from rock. Very briefly- we NOW depend on DNA to organize protein synthesis, because we require organic catalysts to lower the activation energy of protein construction. However, in primordial earth, UV radiation from an ozone-less atmosphere, lightning, heat from the planets formation, and so on... cont'd
secularguide 6 months ago
@reflect7 and so on... provided the activation energy needed to spontaneously induce the formation of peptide bonds and thereby create large proteins. In fact, it is a similar case for spontaneous nucleic acid chain formation. The legitimacy of this claim was proven years ago in the 1920s-30s by the experiments of Oparin, a Russian biochemist. There's of course much more to the story... but don't worry- the rocks didn't pull much influence in the primordial seas. Enjoy!
secularguide 6 months ago
@bencubed man your being emphatic your comment!!!
better go to The Bank of Eternity and insure your eyeballs...
love love love
misterdeeeep 9 months ago
@bencubed how bout u stop your prejudiced propaganda that people who dont believe in 'Crapulution' theory arent smart enough to even be consider? that in itself reveals most of your ignorance around which you develop your fairy tale theories?
PlatinumParade 4 months ago
@PlatinumParade ..
This video and your response to me is incredibly sad as one massive strawman argument.
Taking the existing complexity of life today as an argument against what took place over 3 billiion years ago simply defies rational consideration. By elemental reasoning, science does not ever saying 'life sprang from a rock'. It talks about the most minimal chemical interactions and conditions conducive to the simplest self-metabolizing organisms. Religion postulates otherwise.
bencubed 4 months ago
@bencubed and also dont flatter ursleves by thinking evolution and big gang are even science. Just cause you try harder to make BS look like pudding it doesnt make it the perfect alibi for custard. We are yet to find 000.0001% evidence for either of these biased political ego-centric idealogies
PlatinumParade 4 months ago
@33 come out of an inorganic world.'' No, life came out of an Organic world.
Organic, before the health nuts got a hold of it, means 'Carbon based' Carbon being the most 'inventive' atom and making many complex molecules.
Organic Chemistry is the study of carbon. First there was an Organic soup, not a rock.
Earth and Life evolved together.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I think he forget to mention that God created life. Is the trying to hide the fact that he's a christian?
flemjob 1 year ago
the theory of evolution is supported by the thoery of abiogenesis which supported by the big bang theory. a theory supported by another theory and they call it science.
roniepao 1 year ago
@roniepao Haha! That's good. I'm angry that I didn't see that first. lol
Is see "scientists", these days, almost practicing divination. The Big Bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are appearing very similiar to the conjurer telling of past events, past lives and dead relatives, who've since been long gone. Don't forget Man Made Global Warming, where the charlatan tells them what the future holds, even if they can't give an accurate five day forcaste. Oh, yeah. And, they want your money.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
everything has a natural cause
starlogic99 1 year ago
the egg came first, what ever the chicken came from laid an egg that hatch into a chicken.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) The egg came first. And by hundreds of millions of years.
Chickens were not the first birds; they evolved from earlier birds, which were already producing eggs. And the first birds evolved from certain reptiles, which also laid eggs. And the first reptiles evolved from certain amphibians, which also laid eggs. And the first amphibians evolves from certain fish, which had eggs.
DNAunion 1 year ago
The chicken-and-egg paradox was solved in the 70s. Check out the first related video, the one by CDK007.
MarshmallowRadiation 1 year ago
To think RNA is simple and testable science..why is it that scientist cant break it down?..all they take it from is living organisms ..so its already pre existing complex information...Evolution is a Faith fore sure..and Laughable at this point
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science cant even make one single protein!!!!..they cant even get all LEFT handed amino acids to form the one protein ,,what a joke!!!!..its a huge paradox..why is it when scientists break down simple chemicals they get more complex????..it should be the opposite
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Even if I were to say that abiogenesis was false, that still proves nothing about your believes; it only speaks about abiogenesis.
AJBuwalda 1 year ago
Is this Randall Niles some guy who has an an explanation or is he a backseat driver just complaining?
vmelkon 1 year ago
he must be friends with Kurt Cameron !
tulipsontheorgan 1 year ago
God is always the option of choice for people too lazy to think about how things work. In a few decades some people may start teaching us god created computers, too.
kasuha 1 year ago
@kasuha LOL..ok man,great answer scientists cant get all LEFT handed amino acids to make one single protein!!!..why is it that when they break down simple chemicals they get more complex??..do u understand the word paradox?
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This is typical dishonest rhetoric. You say the RNA solution is "left hanging" as if no one actually researches the catalytic properties of RNA molecules. Then to go one step further and say that it was announced on Youtube? Yep that was the forum of the big announcement.
By the way what was the mainstream scientififc site you were quoting from? Might it have been a good idea to mention the name?
snakeguy76 1 year ago
great vid ...it didnt nead a scientist, to prove, the chicken egg theory ,common sense /basic understanding of nature ,tells u ,an egg needs incubation ,ie...the chicken to sit on the egg ,so it can form,and eventually hatch out to be a chicken
Frankyre1972 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups.
lapantera8 1 year ago
I've seen many very plausible explanations as to how the first replicators could have come into existence and evolved into more complex systems. It's infinitely more plausible than any creation myth from any religions I've ever experienced.
DarwinsChihuahua 1 year ago
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with a goddamn chicken or egg - which came first. It is theory that biotic matter (living cells) came from non-biotic organic self-replicating matter DNA. RNA was not as successful as DNA in replicating so DNA became the genetic source while other kinds of RNA made proteins. and holy Jeebus!!! Life came from a rock? That is one of the worst oversimplifications of all time. You are clearly blinded by religion and can't comprehend real science! *facepalm* u r pathetic
prophetofpeace2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so which one was it?
assassin7707 1 year ago
...does it feel good to make a site called "all about science" and then display your ignorance on the subject just to further a christian agenda?
talk about lying for jezus....
thinkppl 1 year ago
"From a rock" this is where you lost me.
holymoose69 1 year ago
I think it's hilarious that he believes that the scientists who determined that RNA came before DNA did so out of some rationalization to satisfy intelligent designer people, rather than because it appears to be position most substantiated by actual evidence. Like geneticists give a flying f*ck what people who have no idea what their field is actually about think...
NoQuarterZp 1 year ago
Yes, life is a miracle. And of course you want your worldview to be the cause of it.
What about your worldview? Adam came from dirt and Eve came from Adam's rib. Now, THAT makes sense! You can be sarcastic about scientific explanations, but at least they are scrutiness and self-correcting.
DrDtalks 1 year ago
I think the reason Christians are so deceptive is because the foundation of their world requires the ability to prop up a web of lies through mass delusion and social reinforcement. They probably don't even realize what liars they are because they have been indoctrinated with these tools since birth.
shangobah 1 year ago
You are a fool. I love it when non scientific minded people "debunk" scientific theories with circular logic.
Proteins do not need DNA to form, i made some protein in chemlab. We used chemicals, not a vat of DNA. Fool.
jib1000 1 year ago 2
1st off what has been reciently suggested about RNA is a hypothesis. It's called the RNA world hypothesis implying that its NOT used to explain anything, its there to be tested. My bio professor told us to write a paper about it. "I'll quote this from a main streem scientific source..." yeah thats reliable, this guy is a moron. Its dudes like this that give Christians a bad name.
Icantdecided 1 year ago 2
"they just toss out this RNA world hypothesis and say it's done-"
you're a moron, even getting to 3 minutes of factually wrong material is amazing though
Sutskoen 1 year ago 2
Maybe when I find about a scientific theory being dodgy I can complain about it on Youtube and become a famous envangelical too.
gobiorrowan 1 year ago
lol every living creature is made up of dead chemicals and the egg first they evolved very early dumbass creationist
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Haha. From a rock.
20emesiecle 1 year ago
No one said life started from a rock, IDiots.
It's complex, I don't understand, god dun it. Sounds just like IC or ID.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This is like watching a squirrel try to drive a car. This moron is a moron nothing else needs to be said. He knows nothing about the science of Abiogenesis - NOTHING!
TheDarwinman 1 year ago 15
@TheDarwinman You are so wrong. Watching a squirrel trying to drive a car would be cute, funny and not make me stop watching after one minute.
wearealltubes 1 year ago
@TheDarwinman Yea now scientist have proved the chicken came first.
lapantera8 1 year ago
@lapantera8 Yup, Scientists have discovered a protein in the shell of an egg that can only be produced by the fowl. Therefore, it takes a host to create an egg, solving the long-asked riddle... I liked how an interviewer later asked, "How did the chicken get here... magic?"
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7 zomg!!! magic chickens, I want some for dinner
yamborghini3 1 year ago
@reflect7 If there's anyone here who's interested in Science: Randall Niles is a member of Creation Ministries, a Y.E. creationist movement, hiding under the cover of different sites, like: Allaboutscience, Allaboutphilosophy, Allabouttruth, and last but not least: Allaboutgod. Hiding behind the false flag of science, they try to lure unsuspected, not too critical readers into the trap of magical thinking. So be aware, and don't give them to much credits.. Or status by debating them. Peace.
Skoda130 1 year ago
@lapantera8
This life is only the now of each moment in time. When that moment passes, it's finished and gone. The future does not exist and the past is gone forever. The energy that holds the "now" together is created each moment that goes by, seamlessly and without interruption. Our existence of "now" only exists because something forms it each moment in the fourth dimension. Life is therefore created each moment and held together by the designer and architect of reality. Moot Question
88tuner 1 year ago
@lapantera8 what scientists? creationists, lol?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@TheDarwinman u are the fuckin moron..this is science..let me know when science can make DNA code or RNA, or even get all LEFT handed amino acids to assemble anything.how is that not science..??..your just a stubborn asshole that hates intelligence,u rely on time and chance.what Bullshit
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
5tonyww, I already told you how the amino acids became all left.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@TheDarwinman Then you tell me how that first living organism came into being. And how the heck did humans "evolve" from this prokaryote?
FlyingSoloSV 1 year ago
@FlyingSoloSV Hey. Try this video "3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy " its by potholer54 it explains the formation of life pretty clearly. It goes from lipids clumping together through RNA reproducing then evolving into DNA and so on, very good videos.
greeny202a 1 year ago
....LOL..u fukin morons and your assumptions..there is no such thing as simple life...Now here is what i keep hearing.life was so simple millions of years ago,that 1 cell.needed only 1 amino acid and 1 protein,and one tiny chain of RNA to live....
ok, where are these organisms? make them in a test tube if thats all the ingredients u need? only in the minds of atheists and evolutionists..do these so called primitive cells exist..and thats some FAITH!!!!..NOT TESTABLE SCIENCE !!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@greeny202a Cells without these molecular machines would be doomed at the first sign of trouble. The machines are the repair mechanism as well as reproductive capacity. If those go, life ends and is never propagated...a cell could live with just one protein..what bullshit
scientists have tried to assemble DNA AND RNA and bases outside of the cell ..and its impossible,,they both dissolve in water..
so how did they form on some primordial earth?
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDarwinman In regards to RNA/DNA - could you please explain the problem of Chirality?
Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments in 1952 - all the amino acids that formed lacked Chirality.!!
It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube
they believe in some chemistry unknown to science.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@TheDarwinman Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart..
evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv Homochirality does not disprove evolution.
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
@TheDarwinman U are the moron..U have nothing more than assumptions..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
I can understand why creationists get so upset when scientists come up with new theories. It must seem like "oh well we were about to debunk them but then they made something else up!" But such is the nature of science. Rather than binding ourselves to a 2000 year old book, we're always learning, growing... evolving. ;)
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago 24
@PliestoceneDreams The 2000 year old book only gets stronger with new scienctific discoveries. Now dont get me wrong, it;s okay to teach science...as long as you balance it with something like the theory of evolution.
camaroontree 1 year ago
@camaroontree I'm sorry my friend but you are woefully wrong about that. As a historical document, yes, the Bible has *some* accuracy recording certain events. As a cultural relic, yes, the Bible has *some* value studying ancient cultures (Western only. :( ). But as far as "science making it stronger" - lol in your dreams.
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams Spoken like a true believer in evolution!
camaroontree 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams lol theories arnt fact so whats to be upset about ?seems scientists are still hoplessly trying to disprove god lol
prime440 1 year ago
@prime440 HAHAHA how can you disprove something that has never been proved in the first place???!!! You tool!
greeny202a 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams i dont think we are angry about the fact that "scientists" (i put it between quotation marks because there are a lot of scientist, people who study the universe, that are creationists too) come up with new theories. It's perfectly natural to try to solve the whole mistery of the universe. Human kind invests millions of dollars and hundreds of years trying to find out where we come from, why are we here and if its something else out there...
TheYellowAna 1 year ago
@TheYellowAna We are not blinded by a book, we are amazed by a God thats greater than our thoughts. Maybe you can't understand it; but you can't judge it, or say we are stupid because we believe there is something greater than our brains, because you haven't known God. Maybe it sounds stupid and you'll think i have no brain, but you haven't live it as i have.
TheYellowAna 1 year ago
@TheYellowAna
"we are amazed by a God thats greater than our thoughts."
sounds like an excuse not to think to me.
there are things in reality that may be too complex to ever understand, but when it comes to the origin and diversity of life, we are pretty damn sure that biblical stories of creation are bullshit.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife i do think, i am studying science and i have to deal everyday with people that think the same way you do. and im not mind closed to arguments like yours, and i respect what you want to believe. but you need to support your arguments with scientifical evidence, not just by saying what the bible says is bullshit. when they prove evolution is a fact with solid evidence, its going to be believable, but (leaving a side what the bible says) scientifical evidence supports creationism.
TheYellowAna 1 year ago
@TheYellowAna
i do not want to sound mean, but u are ignorant to the science behind evolution..99% of scientists support evolution..there is mountains of evidence in favor of evolution..it's not my responsibility to provide u with the evidence..the information is at your fingertips everywhere on the internet..i can however point u in a good direction.
potholer54
cdk007
donexodus2
these users all have very good videos demonstrating the evidence for evolution and abiogenesis.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife thank you! i'll check them out (:
TheYellowAna 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams WRONG..Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart..
evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Actually homochirality does not disprove evolution. It always makes me smile happily to see desperate creationists haphazardly invoking scientific terms and saying it "disproves" evolution.
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams LOL..ok man..whatever u have faith in...so what came first RNA..or the repair mechanisms..or the molecular machines??...u have a Major Paradox....lets hear some more of your bullshit assumptions..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Um yeah kid, you talk about my "assumptions" yet you have the biggest assumption of them all: If science can't explain it, GODDIDIT. You are so desperate to find a little gap to sneak your fairytale into that you cited homochirality. lolololol
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams LOL..Get mad Moron..great .explanation...still waiting on the imaginary atheist chemistry that never happened..anything to avid a super natural explanation...what else u got moron..panspermia..thats laughable and pathetic..