@Zero9656 96 bible nuts that clicked on the video just to 'dislike' without actually watching. If their brains were capable of taking in new information and learning something, they wouldn't be bible nuts.
If there is a creator, shouldn't everything be irreducible complex??? Not just a tiny bacteria with a flagellum? Why is it that they can only provide one example of something irreducible complex?
Thank you. Excellently made as ever. I suspect people who fail to see the arguments given in this video are surely determined that they cannot be true.
@villontre, i suppose you believe in witches, and wizards and fairies at the end of the garden as wel!? Amazes me everytime someone can be so ignorant about the origin of the 2nd century text they base their 21st century life on.. A simple question? Jesus alsolutly guafanteed is disciples he woild retun on judgement day and this event would occur, "before they new death" i. e. in their lifetimes... what happened?
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, I have never heard an evolutionist use this point I have thought of: When creationists say only when a creature has all the parts of its beneficial property will that property be beneficial. So that means a dinosaur with no horns is fine and with horns fine. But the gradual process from no horns to horns does not benefit the animal. My point is it doesnt have to benefit it to evolve just not hinder its survival. Am I right? If you dont get what I am saying PM me
"the gradual process from no horns to horns does not benefit the animal"
Unless there are circumstances under which it does.
For instance, suppose some behavioural change makes males compete for females by butting their heads together. A possible adaptation would be a thickening of the skull. This might result in an arms-race of sexual selection and adaptation, ultimately resulting in a horned skull.
@Themegalogical yes i think this is the case, aslong a mutation is no disadvantage in natural or sexual selection it should be no problem, but it is also not selected for so it's chance to become a permanent feature is pretty small.
@Themegalogical A harmless mutation will probably not affect an organism either way; mutations like that happen all the time. In order for it to be selected for, though, more animals with horns need to be the top breeding animals. Otherwise it would just remain an occasional variation forever, or until it becomes either advantageous or disadvantageous.
@villontre "Atheists seem to be the only ones disputing the existence of the supernatural, while the rest of the world accepts it as a factual reality."
Yes, an example of how the human mind works, and how superstitious belief evolved as a survival mechanism for earlier humans, but nothing more. It's use today provides more harm than good. The argument ad populum you're trying to evoke here, that the majority believing in something is evidence of its existence, is fallacious.
@villontre Atheists aren't the only ones disputing religious claims. Do you not dispute religious claims about Zeus? Ra? Shiva? I agree with your sentiments on all those 1000s of other gods claimed. I just disagree on your claim that God is any different. There's a book full of demonstrably incorrect statements that says a God exists, and I don't find a book full of errors to be compelling evidence of an omniscient being. I find it evidence that ancient relatively uneducated people wrote it.
@HarshColby Those people who worshiped and believed in Zeus, Ra, Shiva, did so because that was the practice in their respective region at that time. You and I would have been believers in ancient deities too if we lived along with them many thousands of years ago. It's kind of hard being a Christian (me) and an Atheist (you) 5000 yrs ago in ancient Egypt (don't you think? ). The people who wrote the Bible and other religious literature were educated. How else could they write it.
@villontre Perhaps you would have been a believer in Zeus, etc. I wouldn't. Why would I believe unsupported claims?
None of this speaks to whether the gods are real. Ancient beliefs, then as now, unsupported by facts, are not evidence of any gods.
The people that wrote, edited, and chose which books should be part of the bible were educated according to what was known at that time. A child now days knows more about the world than any of them did, however. Compared to us, they were uneducated.
@HarshColby The reason that you enjoy science fiction in the first place is because it is based on many religions and myths. My religious beliefs are completely legitimate (so don't even go there). Christianity is based on facts and not on superstitions and myths. The Bible is the most sophisticated religious literature that has ever been written. I don't think a young child is capable of comprehending its truths and poetic complexity.
@villontre Why would you presume to know why I like sci fi? I like sci fi because I like fiction and I like science.
All religions are just stories you tell each other. If there was anything to it, there'd be evidence to support belief and people wouldn't overwhelmingly believe whatever their peer group and parents believe. The bible is a joke. It's full of errors only ancient tribesmen would have made. If you don't want to talk about religion, then don't bring it up. You know I won't.
@alphaenemy Why would nature evolved a superstitious survival mechanism for early humans? Even today people are superstitious. Maybe is the tap water that is making them superstitious.LOL. Yeah, one of your comments didn't post.
@villontre If you really want to know why we evolved a belief in superstitions, and what it would benefit, I'd suggest reading Why We Believe In God(s) by Andy Thomson. I don't think you'd really like to know, and would rather assume what you like to assume, but therein lies your answer.
@villontre "Why would nature evolved a superstitious survival mechanism for early humans?" Coping mechanisms may have increased survival chance in certain early homo sapiens, leading to natural selection in their favor, but this in no way proves a god or more specifically, your god.
@villontre Christianity is not based on facts as it is a version of faith. Faith by definition is "belief without evidence" so you have no basis on which to state that Christianity is based on facts. Also, the Bible may be "the most sophisticated religious literature that has ever been written" in YOUR OPINION, however what of all of the other religions that claim their holy text is the most sophisticated and true? The Qu'ran, the Tripitaka, the Talmud?Oh and nice "ad hominem" fallacy.
@villontre "Those people who worshiped and believed in Zeus, Ra, Shiva, did so because that was the practice in their respective region at that time."
You confirm this, yet see no possible erroneous parallels between your belief and these more ancient beliefs.
@villontre I can write stories if I can simply read and write, can't you? Note that being educated does not necessarily determine the validity of an outdated, non-scientific document. Also, anyone can feel that something is real when it really is not. There are flaws in your claims that can be exposed with these anecdotes.
Because Hitler could read and write, does that make all of his claims, advocations, accusations, and beliefs true? No, it doesn't.
@villontre That would be the definition of atheist. We don't accept your claims because you have not shown them to be based on anything real. If you'd like to provide evidence, that would be different. But no one has shown anything more than their heart felt belief based on faith, not facts or logic. If you don't require facts to base your beliefs on, that's fine, but I require them. I have no problem being free from supernatural beliefs.
Science fiction is great! But we don't think it's real.
Part2) Example: i tell u to make something to see far away (telescope), and u start stiking together pieces of anything u find (what u call: evolution, which u say is random), u will never make a telescope. For such, u need an IDEA and this is the source of creationism. So based on that, the person would not stick anyshit together to see what it give, but would use math and physics (which is abstrac, an idea) to build it.
Part3) Now u'll tell me that sticking pieces together for billions of years would have worked, but NO. Just by proportionality, decades for people to build the first working telescope (a pretty simple thing for us) and a cell, which is a billion times more complex, so what would have needed much more time, but which was still based on ideas... Creationism is needed for the basic living things, then later Adaption took place.
The evolution of the complex systems of DNA that we see today has been calculated to be mathematically impossible, as has the origin of the first cell, the likelihood of our universe supporting life and similar requirements for our existence. Beyond that, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate the mathematically required hundreds/thousands of examples of information increasing mutations that are necessary for life to have arisen by chance.
@TepidTyrant Don't you find it strange that the people that are educated in the field of evolutionary biology, all calculate that evolution of complex systems is possible and likely? They can even outline the details. Don't you question why it is that only religious fanatics and people that don't understand biology refuse to accept evolution?
Show us a peer reviewed paper published in a respected science journal that supports your claim. If you can't support your claim, then don't claim it.
@HarshColby I was not referring to the likelihood of complex systems in general, but specifically the multi-layered (at least four dimensions of interaction) nature of DNA and its relationship with cell activity. The typical answer for 'it's exceedingly improbable/impossible' is usually "well, it happened, so it must be probable for specified complexity to arise from chaos" despite that being a direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.
@TepidTyrant You didn't answer my question. Why is it that only the ignorant seem to think evolution is improbable, while the educated understand why it's highly probable?
The reason opinion papers don't get into peer reviewed journals is because they're not science. Show me one paper that is science that was rejected. No more of your opinions please. Support your statements with facts, not stuff you just heard somewhere on a non-science religious site.
That is an enormous list of highly respected and qualified scientists, all of whom accept creationism. You'll notice that many are professors involved in biology (with quite a few being experts in the field of genetic research), which really should be a fair enough response to your question about creationist scientists.
@TepidTyrant From that list, eliminate everyone who is not a biologist, since expertise in one field does not convey expertise in other fields. How many are left that might be credible experts?
Once again, you simply claim that scientific papers exist. I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm interested in what can be demonstrated to be true. Demonstrate your claim that scientific papers have been rejected...find just one rejected paper that reaches its conclusions using the scientific method.
@HarshColby I got to 64 before I stopped being bothered to count. That's 64 people with doctorates in biological science who agree that biblical, young-earth creationism is the most logical standpoint.
I don't have a rejected paper on hand, I'm just pointing out that the peer review process is notoriously subject to bias and agenda-driven rejections.
@TepidTyrant You're pointing out that your opinion. Great. Why should I accept that your opinion is correct when you can't even produce any data to back up that claim. That's how religious arguments run, but it's not acceptable in science. If you want to claim that evolution is wrong on scientific grounds, then you'll need to provide scientific evidence to support the claim.
@HarshColby I was not claiming that evolution is wrong without evidence, I was stating that it is mathematically impossible. Would you like me to show you links and bring out my usual arguments?
@TepidTyrant I would like any links that are scientific. Please don't post any links which are opinion pieces. The data must be supported by observation. If you can find any of those, I'll read them. If you post non-scientific links, I'll assume you just don't know what you're talking about.
@TepidTyrant Only if it uses the scientific method and basis the calculations on known facts. If it uses opinion-based claims, then it's not science. If it makes claims contradicted by scientific research, then it's not science. Only provide links that are scientific. I don't even care the person's title, or how many letters are after the name, or whether they call themselves a scientist.
@TepidTyrant Once you remove the people that don't belong on the list, you're left with a few that really are qualified and reject evolution. These are highly religious people with a bias. And, not that the number of people who accept something as true is important, but compare those scant few against this list: ncseDOTcom/taking-action/project-steve
Are you really going to believe a few fringe opinions and ignore the virtual unity of expert opinion? In what other field would you do that?
@HarshColby Which people don't belong on that list, exactly? I was responding to your claim that only uneducated, ignorant people believe in creationism with a coherent list of extremely qualified, educated people that believe in creationism. That's me proving you wrong, right there. Beyond that, you can't ask me to produce a list of religious educated people without religious bias, just as you can't produce a list of atheist educated people without materialist bias.
@TepidTyrant Watch the link. That's the reason I used it as a reference. What is the first name on your list that you think is qualified to comment on evolutionary biology?
You can't "prove people wrong" by claiming that you have.
Mathematically impossible would mean it's wrong, would it not? Can you produce this calculation? No need to restate your opinion that it's impossible. Provide data showing it's impossible.
I will accept religious people. I accept Francis Collins, for example.
@HarshColby Those scientists write papers that, due to their qualifications, are highly likely to be scientific. They are educated and yet reject evolution- are you defining 'ignorance' as 'a rejection of evolution'? Because that is rather unfair.
@HarshColby Furthermore, a creationist paper attempting to breach an evolutionist peer review group (nearly all of them) would never get through, no matter how logical or scientific their methodology and conclusions are. Beyond that, I can easily acquire a long list of people with relevant PhDs who are firm believers in creationism.
@HarshColby And where within The Origin of Species is the scientific method used? Where within the evolutionary assumption of biogenesis is the law of abiogenesis proven to be incorrect?
creation.com/mutations-new-information
I don't have access to the scientific papers but if you can find a paper to contradict this one, I'll gladly read it.
@TepidTyrant Everywhere. A better question would be "where is it not scientific?" There has been 150 years of research since Darwin. Even if Darwin had not used the scientific method, all the evidence still supports evolution. It's been observed, after all.
I'll read that. It's not the topic we were discussing however. Stay on topic. You need to support each claim, not just move on because researching whether your claim is true is too difficult. Research your claims to establish validity.
@HarshColby Evolution (particles-to-people-via-the-petstore) has not been observed. Natural selection has been observed. Natural selection does not equate to evolution, evolution requires information-increasing mutations, of which an insignificant number have been observed.
@TepidTyrant "Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!" More opinion
Let me skip ahead to some really important claim, but since he starts out with a series of assertions contrary to what research has established, he's on shaky ground
"Thus, a large, yet immeasurable, part of biological information resides in living organisms outside DNA" Quite a claim. Demonstrably wrong. DNA creates the proteins that make up every part of every cell. If this isn't obvious, I'll find a link.
@TepidTyrant "sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms". This is an opinion claim. If you disagree, find a scientific paper (or article if you don't have access to science journals) that supports this assertion.
"but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory". This is an opinion claim. It is directly refuted by the fact that evolution is a theory, so does meet the requirements of a theory.
the examples fall short of the requirements of the theory because the theory of evolution has certain logical consequences that have failed to materialize. As a result of X occurring, Y will be observed. Y has not been observed. Therefore, X has not occurred.
Evolution requires information-increasing mutations. Information-increasing mutations have not been observed in significant numbers. Therefore evolution cannot have occurred.
Your X and Y are nice, but meaningless. What are you claiming should be observed (Y) that has not been? What (X) occurred?
As the article you linked states, "Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’." And biologists use the scientific definitions, of course. Therefore, yes, new information is created all the time.
@HarshColby Evolution is X, information-increasing mutations are Y. The first cell ever to exist, according to evolutionary theory, would contain only a bare minimum of DNA instructions for it to recreate and repair itself. Between that cell and the ones in my body are a great deal of DNA instructions that need to appear within the genome of the cell. Those instructions, according to the theory, appear in the form of genetic mutations which add to/modify the genome.
@HarshColby What I mean by 'information' is sets of instructions for building limbs, organs, cells, feathers, hair, etc. Mice lack the information for wings that birds have.
@TepidTyrant To clarify, then, the generation of a new protein is not new information? It's only new limbs, etc? E.g., a new digestive enzyme is not "new information" under your definition?
Y has been observed. X has been observed. Where's the problem?
You still haven't supported your claim that there's scientific evidence that evolution "has been calculated to be mathematically impossible". Don't forget to support each claim. If you can't, then don't make the claim until you can support it.
@HarshColby If you start with the information for a wing and lose some (making it unable to flap effectively, for example) then, despite the wing still being useful for other things, the information involved has still decreased. Degenerate eyes and wingless beetles are examples of information-losing mutations which, depending on the environment, may be beneficial- they are still information-losing.
@TepidTyrant From your link "The phrase, “Mutations cannot create new information” is almost a mantra among some creationists, yet I do not agree."
You didn't answer my question about the definition of "information", thus I can't comment whether your claims are true or not. Under the scientific definition, you're wrong, but it seems you're not using the scientific definition, so let's be clear what you're claiming, by defining your use of the term.
Well. Good video but I don't think you really understood what this is all about.
Evolution can always be there... but it can't happen without a Creationism fact.
Instead of disagree towards Creationism by using only easy facts, ask your self how can dead matter become living... The answer is: Creationism. Dead matter need a basis, info of what to become and how to live. Then, within a limited range, it can evolve by it self... that's why the origins and links between many species still unknown.
@LaQueNiQueSi Do you think that if we're not smart enough to figure out how life started, that means all other explanations are to be considered correct by default? There's a video on abiogenesis here: watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
The problem with ancient Creation stories is that none of them are backed up by any evidence at all. That's not a good start for an explanation of any kind.
All species are linked by phylogeny. Origins may be an unknown, but it's much better understood than you seem to think.
@LaQueNiQueSi That is special pleading, and the beginning of life does not have any influence on evolution. Which is the differences that we see in life and how life has progressed after it started.
We are so absolutely intelligently designed. Though part of me hopes i'm wrong because if i am...well, i will have lived a happy life & return to dust, same as you. But if you're wrong... how many people who may have believed in God, decide to follow atheism because of yours & other 'intelligent and scientific' videos. Intelligent design is scientifically plausable but of course instead of researching that, 'science' is afraid of it so will cling to this theory regardless of other possibilities
@82becbec Do you follow a-Zeus-ism? Atheism is not something that is followed. It's lack of belief in things with no evidence of existence.
As for your assumption that we're designed, many have tried to find evidence of this, but so far only opinions have been stated. If ID is scientifically plausible, then find evidence to support the hypothesis. No one has.
Pascal's Wager: What if you're wrong and Zeus is the One True God? Then Christians have been forcing other's to live by the wrong rules.
@82becbec acceptance of intelligent design would lead to a halt in all sientific research in the area of the origins of life. "science" is not an organism, to be afraid of anything. it is the search for knowledge. if we had accepted geocentrism or any of the other wrong ideas religion has offered, we would not have advanced scientifically. how does intelligent design explain the presence of genetic diseases?
i hope you pursue that "hope" that you are wrong, because you would be right!
Thanks for the awesome videos! It's nice to see simpler approaches to these issues and you did so very well. Can't wait to show people this on in particular!
Regarding the bombadier beetle example, I don't see the issue even were it the case that altering the chemicals would cause the beetle to explode. Such a beetle would not live to breed. For all we know, an evolutionary cul-de-sac like this could, in theory, have lived at some point.
Love your videos @QualiaSoup , I'm only 17 and I only have an A-level understanding of my subjects (Phys, Chem, Maths and Further Maths) but you make your videos very easy to understand. Thanks again for the videos :)
the argument of the mouse traps irreducible complexity is flawed, because different parts of that trap can perform different minor tasks independently, those parts have evolved due to an external catalyst (human help) to perform a higher function
@fantasticshokh Different parts of an organism can perform less complex functions. Organisms did evolve due to an external mechanism: natural selection. Sounds the same so far. Where is the difference you're trying to relate? While no analogy will be exactly the same, the mousetrap analogy is pretty close.
I really like your explanation of the eye, I think that is something tangible people can argue with. You can't argue dna, or germs with people because that feels intangible to them.
its also an excellent example of confirmation bias. Wh
en Darwin said things evolve and presents his evidence, the creationists/IDers would dismiss it.
But when Darwin would have said the eye could not possibly have evolved without presenting any evidence for this claim. the same people would directly accept that as a fact.a
I agree there that in respect to the definition of the term itself "irreducible complexity", Behe has made a few mistakes. Although your video as a whole contains very weak evidence for evolution.
Haven´t read the book yet (Darwins black box, but I will soon) but the core of the idea of extremely complex systems in favour of ID, is that if you remove a part from it, the function intended for the system actually ceases to exist and that´s a fact.
@UfoFrilla Behe's argument isn't compelling to any published, respected biologists. Behe claims IC evo is unlikely, but fails to show it. Several detailed explanations of the reasons for this are explained. Google it.
To offer anything in "favour of ID", he'd have to show evidence for ID. He hasn't.
If you remove a part it simply performs a different function, not no function at all.
The evidence for evolution is contained in 303657 published, peer reviewed scientific papers, not a YT video.
@UfoFrilla "Behe has made a few mistakes. Although your video as a whole contains very weak evidence for evolution."
The mistakes Behe makes are critical ones, not small. Each example by Behe is shown not to be irreducably complex, but having evolutionary precursors.
The purpose of the video is not to show evolution, but to disprove IC (as any scientific review does). Disproof of evolution has yet to be done, tho Behe et al try. IC is easily disproved and ID in kind fails scientific rigor.
After watching a documentary called "metamorphosis", I debated that the chrysalis stage of the catepillar-butterfly lifespan could have arose through evolution (I was arguing for evolution, another for 'intelligent design'). I find it relatively easy to demonstrate how this evolution could've occurred (through stages), but since the chrysalis is one of the ideas leaped on by creationists as 'proof' of intelligent design, I'd love to see a video explaining this from an evolutionary standpoint.
The ColaGoodfellow is pointing out that it's unlikely that IC systems evolve (slow or fast). I'm religious, so it's OK for me to bring in the idea of miracles and just admit that it's an unproven assertion based on a worldview.
But you've said that IC systems do evolve, and that's just the way it is. Well, there is no evidence that it's "the way it is" so you (like I did) will have to admit that such is a belief of materialists, but it's very far from being verified science.
@tubewatch59 compared to most other animals we are extremely UN-COMPLEX, all we really have are apposable thumbs and a understanding of how tools work, that isn't much compared to venomous snakes, nocturnal animals, charmelians, fish, aquatic mammals and birds, our eyes are extremely simple compared to other species.
If you don't go into any of the details, ths video makes a "lot" of sense. But consider the details more carefully, and it falls far short of a rebuttal. Still, if one really wants to believe that irreducible complexity is nonsense, nothing I or anyone else could say will convince you. You'd have to be actually wanting to find out if the claim (IC) truly has any merit, or not.
The bottom hull of Noah's ark was irreducibly complex. If just one plank of that ship was to come apart, it would have been a catastrophe for all those cute animals inside the ark. It was a miracle that they all survived.
"The bottom hull of Noah's ark was irreducibly complex."
That may or may not be the case. Perhaps the common ancestral ark was designed after all. But I'm as sure as HECK, that house sized floating zoos with advantageous holes in the roof for giraffes and elephants - evolved from the ancestral Noah's ark in only several thousand years. Today you'll find them in Sunday Schools everywhere. (Phylogenetic analysis remains inconclusive ... )
This video uses the wrong definition of irreducible complexity. The definition you used was:
'a system where a single part being removed will cause the system to effectively cease functioning.'
The actual definition is:
'a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.'
The idea of "basic function" or "characteristic function" is key in the true definition of IC. To be an IC system means if any parts are removed from the IC core, then the characteristic function of the IC system, will cease.
As you pointed out, that doesn't mean that individual parts or subsets of the total IC machine cannot have different characteristic functions of their own for the whole system to still be IC. It means there can be IC systems within larger IC systems.
@tubewatch59 You're missing my point. Components can be added to an irreducibly complex system to improve the performance of that system, but such components do not contribute to performing the actual function. They just make the system perform better than it would otherwise.
The problem IC poses for an evolutionary origins scenario, isn't that it is theoretically impossible for IC systems to "somehow" evolve step by step - it's that such a scenario is infeasible given the astronomical numbers of nonfunctional possible systems relative to the few functional systems that could arise.
Darwinists mostly fail to grasp the extreme problems that come on board with indirect Darwinian pathways, which is what IC requires evolution to be able to carry out.
@tubewatch59 Okay, can you clarify what you are saying here? Seems like you're talking from a Creationist perspective. I am a Creationist. I'm just trying to point out that the definition of Irreducible Complexity is overly simplified. Actually, it can't be simplified without changing the meaning.
Yes, I'm a creationist. I was pointing out some additional properties of irreducibly complex systems. Things Darwinists don't seem to want to figure out for themselves.
I agree that their main way of trying to refute irreducible complexity is by redefining it to mean something like this: "If after removal of any parts, a so called irreducibly complex system is capable of any functioning at all, then the system was never irreducibly complex" - which is a strawman defintion!
"The cell does that. Yet the cell comes from DNA and DNA can't be read without the cell. So which came first? Both."
- once again, your talking about MODERN DNA.
Modern RNA doesnt arise on it's own either, however the experiment indicates the FIRST RNA did. if this occurred with RNA then what basis do you have for saying it cant with a directly analogous substance (DNA)?
"Go ahead and prove that IF. Natural/random conditions are detrimental to forming any type of productive proteins much less something as organized as DNA. You have to control "
- incorrect, the experiment i provided clearly demonstrates how RNA (exactly the same as DNA can arise via purely naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth. it's already been proven.
"You have to control temperature, rates of reactions" - no you dont, refer to the experiment!
@types10000 Also, the longest carbon chain made synthetically in controlled lab conditions is about 130 carbon atoms long. DNA or RNA is a chain of nucleotide components and not single carbon atoms. How long is DNA/RNA anyway? Now tell us all how something that long can be formed without cell machinery or autonomously from random bombarding atoms.
"Also, the longest carbon chain made synthetically in controlled lab conditions is about 130 carbon atoms long."
- So?
"DNA or RNA is a chain of nucleotide components and not single carbon atoms. How long is DNA/RNA anyway...Now tell us all how something that long can be formed without cell machinery"
- how about you readup on the experiment where it was produced (via unguided naturalistic means): wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
"- how about you readup on the experiment where it was produced (via unguided naturalistic means): wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/"
How about you read your links beforehand to ensure they address the objections raised!
There are a number of reasons why your quoted link doesn't address the objection of zzap999.
He had asked:
"Now tell us all how something that long can be formed without cell machinery or autonomously from random bombarding atoms?"
"How about you read your links beforehand to ensure they address the objections raised! There are a number of reasons why your quoted link doesn't address the objection of zzap999."
- like what? the fact they have produced ribonucleotides makes the majority of it whatif questions completly redundant ie. hecan just check the scientific literature.
Herre are some reasons the Sutherland work, while fine chemistry, isn't as great a breakthrough as you seem to believe it was:
1. Only 1 kind of ribonucleotide was produced.
2. The chirality problem wasn't addressed.
3. RNA fragments don't do anything by themselves, they need to be combined into long (and functional) sequences - which is what zzap999 asked you about originally).
4. The experimental setup was highly tweaked, thus not a realistic simulation of nature.
- the fact it didnt demonstrate the formation of every kind of ribonulceotide in existence does not change the fact it has shown that ribonuceotides can form via undirected processes.
"The chirality..."
- yeh, because it didnt pose a problem
"fragments don't..."
- Incorrect, what was produced WAS RNA (a self-replicating molecule)
"highly tweaked..."
- incorrect, the experiment replicated basic naturalistic processes (as detailed in the link i provided)
"- yeh, because [ the chirality ] it didnt pose a problem"
Wanna bet? This is like saying that gravity comes from a spinning earth.
This is one reason why I said you're making an argument from stupid. You can't say stuff like this if you want to be taken seriously. You do have to know at least the basics of the topic. I'm no expert myself, but I have read enough to know what the issues are. You need to do quite a bit more reading before saying such things.
"Wanna bet? This is like saying that gravity comes from a spinning earth.This is one reason why I said you're making an argument from stupid"
- incorrect, chirality did not provide any problem for the experiment (it was accomplished via unguided naturalistic processes) and the TESTABLE PREDICTION this experiment CONFIRMED is evidnece IRRESPECTIVE of unknowns.
The only one here making an argument 'from stupid' here is you.
"- incorrect, chirality did not provide any problem for the experiment"
Duh! Because they didn't bother trying to get homochirality naturally. They engineered it that way.
You're not helping your side you know. You can't just brush aside statements of scientists (saying it's just opinion) when you don't know enough of the topic to even address their criticisms.
It's the kind of logic you'd likely accuse religious people of being guilty of. Smug willful ignorance.
@tubewatch59 But claiming problems with natural explanations doesn't make them real problems either. You seem fine with brushing aside science when it suits you.
Left handed chirality may be favored naturally, even in space:
With respect, science articles claiming that these kinds of problems "might" be resolved by some special conditions, have been doing the rounds for many years. Nothing wrong with speculation, but you have to realize that such tantalizing headlines fail 99.99% of the time to make good on their optimism.
Look up "Science News" and you'll always find several headlines giving the impression that abiogenesis problems are on the brink of a solution. (But the problems remain!)
@tubewatch59 So your tact of proclaiming pessimism is so much more accurate? You saying something is a "definite problem" when that's simply your opinion is more accurate than science saying "the solution might be" based on observation and experimentation?
I'm not saying that this article is an outright lie, or that it's definitely wrong - but I do have the right to wait and see if it actually holds up over time, because such claims that such and such a problem is on the brink of a solution, have a pretty lousy track record. (As do "guaranteed" get rich quick schemes.)
We'll see if it holds up.
What you'll also find in these articles is that scientists have many differing opinions as to what scenario works, and what doesn't.
@tubewatch59 So, until you see evidence that an observation or possible explanation is wrong, you shouldn't be saying it is. Your assertion was the chirality definitely is a problem. You don't know that to be the case. You claim that Sutherland brings up relevant issues which have no explanation. You claim that since one experiment didn't explain chirality, that no experiment ever has (or can). This is not the case. A single experiment does not need to show all aspects of every situation.
You think about it. You said: "So, until you see evidence that an observation or possible explanation is wrong, you shouldn't be saying it is".
You seem to be saying in effect, that problems aren't problems. That any proposed solution to a problem should be accepted, until it's shown not be not a solution.
That's just a little bizzare! We don't take promises as true until proven false. Instead, we typically doubt promises, until they're demonstrated to be true. No?
@tubewatch59 I'm saying that what you claim to be problems, aren't problems. Any proposed explanation should be accepted to the extent the evidence supports it. There are no absolutes in science. All statements are statements of a measure of confidence based on the amount of evidence which supports a conclusion. What you're doing is ignoring evidence of all other experiments so that you can complain about the inadequacy of a single experiment. No experiment is required to cover all issues.
"I'm saying that what you claim to be problems, aren't problems."
Which problems do you doubt are real problems? Are you referring to chirality?
"What you're doing is ignoring evidence of all other experiments so that you can complain about the inadequacy of a single experiment."
As far as I am aware there are no experiments which have solved the chirality problem. You referred to an article postulating that in space meteorites can slightly favour left handedness...
It doesn't seem to be very likely that trace excesses of chirality in amino acids (not RNA) in space is going to be able to solve the chirality problem on earth. First they'd have to make sure that it's not coming from bacteria that got transported from earth to the meteorites and produced the excess left handed amino acids. Secondly, it doesn't seem as if there is all that much of it in any case. It may turn out to be something, but it's a longshot at the moment...
"Any proposed explanation should be accepted to the extent the evidence supports it. There are no absolutes in science. All statements are statements of a measure of confidence based on the amount of evidence which supports a conclusion."
I agree. The current attempts to deal with the many problems of abiogenesis (at the moment) must be ruled as being extremely unlikely scenarios, due to the lack of solid evidence. They're kind of grasping at straws at this time.
"What you're doing is ignoring evidence of all other experiments so that you can complain about the inadequacy of a single experiment."
I'm saying that Sutherland's work, though very good work, and extremely interesting, doesn't deal with the chirality problem (because life only works if all the chemicals have the same handedness). And in light of the fact that NO OTHER EXPERIMENTS deal with it either, I'm simply stating that the chirality problem hasn't yet been solved.
@tubewatch59 Have I mentioned I won't respond to long series of claims? It would take days. No thanks.
I already gave you one study that shows monochirality may be favored in nature. Why else would asteroids show it? There's another "Possible origin of chirality in the RNA world" which shows that a slight imbalance will result in a preponderance of monochirality. Your claim that it's not been adequately addressed is unfounded. Many studies are available on the subject. Pubmed shows at least 83.
It's a matter of degree. I already said that these findings may turn out to be valid. But for now I'm skeptical. We'll wait and see what becomes of them.
For example, a few findings in the RATE project show that radioactive decay has had accelerated decay periods. It also shows that in a mineral the radioisotope clock dates it has hundreds of millions of years old, but the clock measuring helium diffusion gives the age at 6000 years...
@tubewatch59 Unfortunately the RATE project is not published science. The scientific reviews of it have shown its conclusions do not follow from the data. It's pure religious dogma wrapped up to look like science to fool those who don't know any better. Radioactive decay rates have been shown to be remarkably stable over geologic timescales. The RATE project even assumes Noah's Flood happened, which also has been shown by the data to be false.
Awesomesauce. Dude talking about mating a strat and telly: squier 51
Theyounggiants113 2 days ago
Damn, I wish I COULD mate my Strat with my Tele and get a hybrid...although with my luck I'd get a guitar with all the recessive traits.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 week ago 2
So fucking genius.
TWSYFree 2 weeks ago
Do a video about how quote mining is unethical!!
Or maybe you have one and I haven't seen it yet.
CLbrs23 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CLbrs23 "a video about quote mining is unethical!! you have one and I have seen it."
:)
kandtell 2 weeks ago
Fantastic video
tlwestrope 2 weeks ago
Only 96 dislikes restores some of my faith in humanity.
Zero9656 2 weeks ago
@Zero9656 96 bible nuts that clicked on the video just to 'dislike' without actually watching. If their brains were capable of taking in new information and learning something, they wouldn't be bible nuts.
cvanunen 2 weeks ago
If there is a creator, shouldn't everything be irreducible complex??? Not just a tiny bacteria with a flagellum? Why is it that they can only provide one example of something irreducible complex?
baldurus1 3 weeks ago
@baldurus1 The problem is that they cannot even provide that. As the argument of the flagellum was debunked many times over.
NathanWubs 2 weeks ago
@NathanWubs I know i used the wrong wording, i should have said one example that they think is irreducible complex.
baldurus1 2 weeks ago
Thank you. Excellently made as ever. I suspect people who fail to see the arguments given in this video are surely determined that they cannot be true.
St00sh13 3 weeks ago
@villontre, i suppose you believe in witches, and wizards and fairies at the end of the garden as wel!? Amazes me everytime someone can be so ignorant about the origin of the 2nd century text they base their 21st century life on.. A simple question? Jesus alsolutly guafanteed is disciples he woild retun on judgement day and this event would occur, "before they new death" i. e. in their lifetimes... what happened?
psycho3968 3 weeks ago
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, I have never heard an evolutionist use this point I have thought of: When creationists say only when a creature has all the parts of its beneficial property will that property be beneficial. So that means a dinosaur with no horns is fine and with horns fine. But the gradual process from no horns to horns does not benefit the animal. My point is it doesnt have to benefit it to evolve just not hinder its survival. Am I right? If you dont get what I am saying PM me
Themegalogical 1 month ago
@Themegalogical
"the gradual process from no horns to horns does not benefit the animal"
Unless there are circumstances under which it does.
For instance, suppose some behavioural change makes males compete for females by butting their heads together. A possible adaptation would be a thickening of the skull. This might result in an arms-race of sexual selection and adaptation, ultimately resulting in a horned skull.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@Themegalogical yes i think this is the case, aslong a mutation is no disadvantage in natural or sexual selection it should be no problem, but it is also not selected for so it's chance to become a permanent feature is pretty small.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Themegalogical A harmless mutation will probably not affect an organism either way; mutations like that happen all the time. In order for it to be selected for, though, more animals with horns need to be the top breeding animals. Otherwise it would just remain an occasional variation forever, or until it becomes either advantageous or disadvantageous.
Greenwickpress 1 month ago
@LaQueNiQueSi "Evolution proves Creationism."
Sure if slap on a different definition then what is meant in this context.
What you call adaption is what the theory of evolution is about. So this is a strawman.
SuperMerlin100 1 month ago
Excellent video. Thank you.
splifford 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@villontre "Atheists seem to be the only ones disputing the existence of the supernatural, while the rest of the world accepts it as a factual reality."
Yes, an example of how the human mind works, and how superstitious belief evolved as a survival mechanism for earlier humans, but nothing more. It's use today provides more harm than good. The argument ad populum you're trying to evoke here, that the majority believing in something is evidence of its existence, is fallacious.
alphaenemy 1 month ago
@villontre Atheists aren't the only ones disputing religious claims. Do you not dispute religious claims about Zeus? Ra? Shiva? I agree with your sentiments on all those 1000s of other gods claimed. I just disagree on your claim that God is any different. There's a book full of demonstrably incorrect statements that says a God exists, and I don't find a book full of errors to be compelling evidence of an omniscient being. I find it evidence that ancient relatively uneducated people wrote it.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Those people who worshiped and believed in Zeus, Ra, Shiva, did so because that was the practice in their respective region at that time. You and I would have been believers in ancient deities too if we lived along with them many thousands of years ago. It's kind of hard being a Christian (me) and an Atheist (you) 5000 yrs ago in ancient Egypt (don't you think? ). The people who wrote the Bible and other religious literature were educated. How else could they write it.
villontre 1 month ago
@villontre Perhaps you would have been a believer in Zeus, etc. I wouldn't. Why would I believe unsupported claims?
None of this speaks to whether the gods are real. Ancient beliefs, then as now, unsupported by facts, are not evidence of any gods.
The people that wrote, edited, and chose which books should be part of the bible were educated according to what was known at that time. A child now days knows more about the world than any of them did, however. Compared to us, they were uneducated.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby The reason that you enjoy science fiction in the first place is because it is based on many religions and myths. My religious beliefs are completely legitimate (so don't even go there). Christianity is based on facts and not on superstitions and myths. The Bible is the most sophisticated religious literature that has ever been written. I don't think a young child is capable of comprehending its truths and poetic complexity.
villontre 1 month ago
@villontre Why would you presume to know why I like sci fi? I like sci fi because I like fiction and I like science.
All religions are just stories you tell each other. If there was anything to it, there'd be evidence to support belief and people wouldn't overwhelmingly believe whatever their peer group and parents believe. The bible is a joke. It's full of errors only ancient tribesmen would have made. If you don't want to talk about religion, then don't bring it up. You know I won't.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@villontre just lol...this whole post...lol
alphaenemy 1 month ago
@alphaenemy Why would nature evolved a superstitious survival mechanism for early humans? Even today people are superstitious. Maybe is the tap water that is making them superstitious.LOL. Yeah, one of your comments didn't post.
villontre 1 month ago
@villontre If you really want to know why we evolved a belief in superstitions, and what it would benefit, I'd suggest reading Why We Believe In God(s) by Andy Thomson. I don't think you'd really like to know, and would rather assume what you like to assume, but therein lies your answer.
alphaenemy 1 month ago
@villontre "Why would nature evolved a superstitious survival mechanism for early humans?" Coping mechanisms may have increased survival chance in certain early homo sapiens, leading to natural selection in their favor, but this in no way proves a god or more specifically, your god.
zthomasack 1 month ago
@villontre Christianity is not based on facts as it is a version of faith. Faith by definition is "belief without evidence" so you have no basis on which to state that Christianity is based on facts. Also, the Bible may be "the most sophisticated religious literature that has ever been written" in YOUR OPINION, however what of all of the other religions that claim their holy text is the most sophisticated and true? The Qu'ran, the Tripitaka, the Talmud?Oh and nice "ad hominem" fallacy.
zthomasack 1 month ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
@villontre "Those people who worshiped and believed in Zeus, Ra, Shiva, did so because that was the practice in their respective region at that time."
You confirm this, yet see no possible erroneous parallels between your belief and these more ancient beliefs.
alphaenemy 1 month ago
@villontre I can write stories if I can simply read and write, can't you? Note that being educated does not necessarily determine the validity of an outdated, non-scientific document. Also, anyone can feel that something is real when it really is not. There are flaws in your claims that can be exposed with these anecdotes.
Because Hitler could read and write, does that make all of his claims, advocations, accusations, and beliefs true? No, it doesn't.
zthomasack 1 month ago
@villontre That would be the definition of atheist. We don't accept your claims because you have not shown them to be based on anything real. If you'd like to provide evidence, that would be different. But no one has shown anything more than their heart felt belief based on faith, not facts or logic. If you don't require facts to base your beliefs on, that's fine, but I require them. I have no problem being free from supernatural beliefs.
Science fiction is great! But we don't think it's real.
HarshColby 1 month ago
Why do I feel like it's politically incorrect to use actual logic in an argument?
Spritorade 2 months ago 27
@Spritorade In the modern world, "argument" is shorthand for "shouting competition". Having actual points has left the window. It's all about volume.
TheHeidelbergKid 1 month ago
@Spritorade Logic is the Devil.
OfWrathAndGrace 6 days ago 2
@Spritorade Because you spend too much time with theists.
jackhwo1 5 days ago
Part2) Example: i tell u to make something to see far away (telescope), and u start stiking together pieces of anything u find (what u call: evolution, which u say is random), u will never make a telescope. For such, u need an IDEA and this is the source of creationism. So based on that, the person would not stick anyshit together to see what it give, but would use math and physics (which is abstrac, an idea) to build it.
LaQueNiQueSi 2 months ago
Part3) Now u'll tell me that sticking pieces together for billions of years would have worked, but NO. Just by proportionality, decades for people to build the first working telescope (a pretty simple thing for us) and a cell, which is a billion times more complex, so what would have needed much more time, but which was still based on ideas... Creationism is needed for the basic living things, then later Adaption took place.
LaQueNiQueSi 2 months ago
The evolution of the complex systems of DNA that we see today has been calculated to be mathematically impossible, as has the origin of the first cell, the likelihood of our universe supporting life and similar requirements for our existence. Beyond that, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate the mathematically required hundreds/thousands of examples of information increasing mutations that are necessary for life to have arisen by chance.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant Don't you find it strange that the people that are educated in the field of evolutionary biology, all calculate that evolution of complex systems is possible and likely? They can even outline the details. Don't you question why it is that only religious fanatics and people that don't understand biology refuse to accept evolution?
Show us a peer reviewed paper published in a respected science journal that supports your claim. If you can't support your claim, then don't claim it.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby I was not referring to the likelihood of complex systems in general, but specifically the multi-layered (at least four dimensions of interaction) nature of DNA and its relationship with cell activity. The typical answer for 'it's exceedingly improbable/impossible' is usually "well, it happened, so it must be probable for specified complexity to arise from chaos" despite that being a direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant You didn't answer my question. Why is it that only the ignorant seem to think evolution is improbable, while the educated understand why it's highly probable?
The reason opinion papers don't get into peer reviewed journals is because they're not science. Show me one paper that is science that was rejected. No more of your opinions please. Support your statements with facts, not stuff you just heard somewhere on a non-science religious site.
Show a list of PhD biologists. Just try.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby
creation.com/creation-scientists
That is an enormous list of highly respected and qualified scientists, all of whom accept creationism. You'll notice that many are professors involved in biology (with quite a few being experts in the field of genetic research), which really should be a fair enough response to your question about creationist scientists.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant From that list, eliminate everyone who is not a biologist, since expertise in one field does not convey expertise in other fields. How many are left that might be credible experts?
Once again, you simply claim that scientific papers exist. I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm interested in what can be demonstrated to be true. Demonstrate your claim that scientific papers have been rejected...find just one rejected paper that reaches its conclusions using the scientific method.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby I got to 64 before I stopped being bothered to count. That's 64 people with doctorates in biological science who agree that biblical, young-earth creationism is the most logical standpoint.
I don't have a rejected paper on hand, I'm just pointing out that the peer review process is notoriously subject to bias and agenda-driven rejections.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant Research on the list you're talking about, or a very similar list:
watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
HarshColby 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant You're pointing out that your opinion. Great. Why should I accept that your opinion is correct when you can't even produce any data to back up that claim. That's how religious arguments run, but it's not acceptable in science. If you want to claim that evolution is wrong on scientific grounds, then you'll need to provide scientific evidence to support the claim.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby I was not claiming that evolution is wrong without evidence, I was stating that it is mathematically impossible. Would you like me to show you links and bring out my usual arguments?
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant I would like any links that are scientific. Please don't post any links which are opinion pieces. The data must be supported by observation. If you can find any of those, I'll read them. If you post non-scientific links, I'll assume you just don't know what you're talking about.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby Is it acceptable to post to the CMI site, to articles written by scientists?
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant Only if it uses the scientific method and basis the calculations on known facts. If it uses opinion-based claims, then it's not science. If it makes claims contradicted by scientific research, then it's not science. Only provide links that are scientific. I don't even care the person's title, or how many letters are after the name, or whether they call themselves a scientist.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant Once you remove the people that don't belong on the list, you're left with a few that really are qualified and reject evolution. These are highly religious people with a bias. And, not that the number of people who accept something as true is important, but compare those scant few against this list: ncseDOTcom/taking-action/project-steve
Are you really going to believe a few fringe opinions and ignore the virtual unity of expert opinion? In what other field would you do that?
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby Which people don't belong on that list, exactly? I was responding to your claim that only uneducated, ignorant people believe in creationism with a coherent list of extremely qualified, educated people that believe in creationism. That's me proving you wrong, right there. Beyond that, you can't ask me to produce a list of religious educated people without religious bias, just as you can't produce a list of atheist educated people without materialist bias.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant Watch the link. That's the reason I used it as a reference. What is the first name on your list that you think is qualified to comment on evolutionary biology?
You can't "prove people wrong" by claiming that you have.
Mathematically impossible would mean it's wrong, would it not? Can you produce this calculation? No need to restate your opinion that it's impossible. Provide data showing it's impossible.
I will accept religious people. I accept Francis Collins, for example.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby Shall I pick the geneticists, the biologists, the physiologists or the biochemists?
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant Just pick the first one you counted as 'credible' when you were counting them.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby That list is not the list that I used.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@HarshColby Those scientists write papers that, due to their qualifications, are highly likely to be scientific. They are educated and yet reject evolution- are you defining 'ignorance' as 'a rejection of evolution'? Because that is rather unfair.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@HarshColby Furthermore, a creationist paper attempting to breach an evolutionist peer review group (nearly all of them) would never get through, no matter how logical or scientific their methodology and conclusions are. Beyond that, I can easily acquire a long list of people with relevant PhDs who are firm believers in creationism.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@HarshColby And where within The Origin of Species is the scientific method used? Where within the evolutionary assumption of biogenesis is the law of abiogenesis proven to be incorrect?
creation.com/mutations-new-information
I don't have access to the scientific papers but if you can find a paper to contradict this one, I'll gladly read it.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant Everywhere. A better question would be "where is it not scientific?" There has been 150 years of research since Darwin. Even if Darwin had not used the scientific method, all the evidence still supports evolution. It's been observed, after all.
I'll read that. It's not the topic we were discussing however. Stay on topic. You need to support each claim, not just move on because researching whether your claim is true is too difficult. Research your claims to establish validity.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby Evolution (particles-to-people-via-the-petstore) has not been observed. Natural selection has been observed. Natural selection does not equate to evolution, evolution requires information-increasing mutations, of which an insignificant number have been observed.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant "Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!" More opinion
Let me skip ahead to some really important claim, but since he starts out with a series of assertions contrary to what research has established, he's on shaky ground
"Thus, a large, yet immeasurable, part of biological information resides in living organisms outside DNA" Quite a claim. Demonstrably wrong. DNA creates the proteins that make up every part of every cell. If this isn't obvious, I'll find a link.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant "sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms". This is an opinion claim. If you disagree, find a scientific paper (or article if you don't have access to science journals) that supports this assertion.
"but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory". This is an opinion claim. It is directly refuted by the fact that evolution is a theory, so does meet the requirements of a theory.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby are you illiterate?
the examples fall short of the requirements of the theory because the theory of evolution has certain logical consequences that have failed to materialize. As a result of X occurring, Y will be observed. Y has not been observed. Therefore, X has not occurred.
Evolution requires information-increasing mutations. Information-increasing mutations have not been observed in significant numbers. Therefore evolution cannot have occurred.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant No. Are you illiterate?
What are the requirements of a theory?
Your X and Y are nice, but meaningless. What are you claiming should be observed (Y) that has not been? What (X) occurred?
As the article you linked states, "Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’." And biologists use the scientific definitions, of course. Therefore, yes, new information is created all the time.
Define "information" as you're using it.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby Evolution is X, information-increasing mutations are Y. The first cell ever to exist, according to evolutionary theory, would contain only a bare minimum of DNA instructions for it to recreate and repair itself. Between that cell and the ones in my body are a great deal of DNA instructions that need to appear within the genome of the cell. Those instructions, according to the theory, appear in the form of genetic mutations which add to/modify the genome.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@HarshColby What I mean by 'information' is sets of instructions for building limbs, organs, cells, feathers, hair, etc. Mice lack the information for wings that birds have.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant To clarify, then, the generation of a new protein is not new information? It's only new limbs, etc? E.g., a new digestive enzyme is not "new information" under your definition?
Y has been observed. X has been observed. Where's the problem?
You still haven't supported your claim that there's scientific evidence that evolution "has been calculated to be mathematically impossible". Don't forget to support each claim. If you can't, then don't make the claim until you can support it.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby If you start with the information for a wing and lose some (making it unable to flap effectively, for example) then, despite the wing still being useful for other things, the information involved has still decreased. Degenerate eyes and wingless beetles are examples of information-losing mutations which, depending on the environment, may be beneficial- they are still information-losing.
TepidTyrant 2 months ago
@TepidTyrant From your link "The phrase, “Mutations cannot create new information” is almost a mantra among some creationists, yet I do not agree."
You didn't answer my question about the definition of "information", thus I can't comment whether your claims are true or not. Under the scientific definition, you're wrong, but it seems you're not using the scientific definition, so let's be clear what you're claiming, by defining your use of the term.
Your example is about losing, not gaining info.
HarshColby 2 months ago
Well. Good video but I don't think you really understood what this is all about.
Evolution can always be there... but it can't happen without a Creationism fact.
Instead of disagree towards Creationism by using only easy facts, ask your self how can dead matter become living... The answer is: Creationism. Dead matter need a basis, info of what to become and how to live. Then, within a limited range, it can evolve by it self... that's why the origins and links between many species still unknown.
LaQueNiQueSi 2 months ago
@LaQueNiQueSi Do you think that if we're not smart enough to figure out how life started, that means all other explanations are to be considered correct by default? There's a video on abiogenesis here: watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
The problem with ancient Creation stories is that none of them are backed up by any evidence at all. That's not a good start for an explanation of any kind.
All species are linked by phylogeny. Origins may be an unknown, but it's much better understood than you seem to think.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@LaQueNiQueSi
do you know what "special pleading" is?
castelgandalf 2 months ago
@LaQueNiQueSi That is special pleading, and the beginning of life does not have any influence on evolution. Which is the differences that we see in life and how life has progressed after it started.
Also Abiogenesis WTF.
NathanWubs 2 months ago
We are so absolutely intelligently designed. Though part of me hopes i'm wrong because if i am...well, i will have lived a happy life & return to dust, same as you. But if you're wrong... how many people who may have believed in God, decide to follow atheism because of yours & other 'intelligent and scientific' videos. Intelligent design is scientifically plausable but of course instead of researching that, 'science' is afraid of it so will cling to this theory regardless of other possibilities
82becbec 2 months ago
@82becbec Do you follow a-Zeus-ism? Atheism is not something that is followed. It's lack of belief in things with no evidence of existence.
As for your assumption that we're designed, many have tried to find evidence of this, but so far only opinions have been stated. If ID is scientifically plausible, then find evidence to support the hypothesis. No one has.
Pascal's Wager: What if you're wrong and Zeus is the One True God? Then Christians have been forcing other's to live by the wrong rules.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@82becbec acceptance of intelligent design would lead to a halt in all sientific research in the area of the origins of life. "science" is not an organism, to be afraid of anything. it is the search for knowledge. if we had accepted geocentrism or any of the other wrong ideas religion has offered, we would not have advanced scientifically. how does intelligent design explain the presence of genetic diseases?
i hope you pursue that "hope" that you are wrong, because you would be right!
castelgandalf 2 months ago
Great video. solid logic and perfect workarounds to common Theistic techniques.
GibsonRock4All 2 months ago
Thanks for the awesome videos! It's nice to see simpler approaches to these issues and you did so very well. Can't wait to show people this on in particular!
DreamstateMind 2 months ago
r/atheism sent me here!
bribri12497 2 months ago
Regarding the bombadier beetle example, I don't see the issue even were it the case that altering the chemicals would cause the beetle to explode. Such a beetle would not live to breed. For all we know, an evolutionary cul-de-sac like this could, in theory, have lived at some point.
snackajack117 2 months ago
This is boring to me.
Old discussion, already solved.
Could have been presented much more compact.
r2d2rx 2 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von QualiaSoup
Love your videos @QualiaSoup , I'm only 17 and I only have an A-level understanding of my subjects (Phys, Chem, Maths and Further Maths) but you make your videos very easy to understand. Thanks again for the videos :)
J03H123 2 months ago
the argument of the mouse traps irreducible complexity is flawed, because different parts of that trap can perform different minor tasks independently, those parts have evolved due to an external catalyst (human help) to perform a higher function
fantasticshokh 2 months ago
@fantasticshokh Different parts of an organism can perform less complex functions. Organisms did evolve due to an external mechanism: natural selection. Sounds the same so far. Where is the difference you're trying to relate? While no analogy will be exactly the same, the mousetrap analogy is pretty close.
HarshColby 2 months ago
I really like your explanation of the eye, I think that is something tangible people can argue with. You can't argue dna, or germs with people because that feels intangible to them.
joshrocks11 2 months ago
i fucking love your videos. incredibly intelligent and very interesting to watch. keep it up boss
nopacsnone 2 months ago 17
@nopacsnone Thanks very much for your kind words, nopacsnone. They're most appreciated.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago 9
Great video again!
klasop 2 months ago
you are AMAZING
DonRico333 2 months ago
Best youtube channel EVER
heavymetaldeath4life 2 months ago
its also an excellent example of confirmation bias. Wh
en Darwin said things evolve and presents his evidence, the creationists/IDers would dismiss it.
But when Darwin would have said the eye could not possibly have evolved without presenting any evidence for this claim. the same people would directly accept that as a fact.a
Amating, Creationists think in mysterious ways :D
Aanthanur 2 months ago
Totally off-topic, but the images of Darwin and Behe make them look like Colonel Sanders.
tifforo1 2 months ago
Amazing video again, Qualia.
karadan100 2 months ago 17
@karadan100 Thanks very much, karadan!
QualiaSoup 2 months ago 4
got the PZ Myers bump.
zellfalcon31 2 months ago 2
@zellfalcon31 "got the PZ Myers bump."
Yes, it's an honour to be included on PZ's Pharyngula website again.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
I need a "love" button.
miketwo345 3 months ago 2
I agree there that in respect to the definition of the term itself "irreducible complexity", Behe has made a few mistakes. Although your video as a whole contains very weak evidence for evolution.
Haven´t read the book yet (Darwins black box, but I will soon) but the core of the idea of extremely complex systems in favour of ID, is that if you remove a part from it, the function intended for the system actually ceases to exist and that´s a fact.
UfoFrilla 3 months ago
@UfoFrilla Behe's argument isn't compelling to any published, respected biologists. Behe claims IC evo is unlikely, but fails to show it. Several detailed explanations of the reasons for this are explained. Google it.
To offer anything in "favour of ID", he'd have to show evidence for ID. He hasn't.
If you remove a part it simply performs a different function, not no function at all.
The evidence for evolution is contained in 303657 published, peer reviewed scientific papers, not a YT video.
HarshColby 3 months ago 14
@UfoFrilla "Behe has made a few mistakes. Although your video as a whole contains very weak evidence for evolution."
The mistakes Behe makes are critical ones, not small. Each example by Behe is shown not to be irreducably complex, but having evolutionary precursors.
The purpose of the video is not to show evolution, but to disprove IC (as any scientific review does). Disproof of evolution has yet to be done, tho Behe et al try. IC is easily disproved and ID in kind fails scientific rigor.
drfoxcourt 2 months ago
@UfoFrilla only a little problem there, nobody was ever able to show that to be a fact.
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@UfoFrilla and btw, there was never an itend discovered in Evolution, only changes and their survival or extinction.
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@UfoFrilla Repeating a dead argument doesn't make it come to life. Just let the zombie lie down.
vaiyt 2 months ago
HAHAHA People believe this shit? I'm waiting for the punch line.....LOL
6630mcdo 3 months ago
After watching a documentary called "metamorphosis", I debated that the chrysalis stage of the catepillar-butterfly lifespan could have arose through evolution (I was arguing for evolution, another for 'intelligent design'). I find it relatively easy to demonstrate how this evolution could've occurred (through stages), but since the chrysalis is one of the ideas leaped on by creationists as 'proof' of intelligent design, I'd love to see a video explaining this from an evolutionary standpoint.
JFergification 3 months ago
One would have thought that if DNA and life in general wasn't irreducibly complex, that the entirety of human DNA could have occured at once.
I consider them equally as likely because it shouldn't inherently require millions of years for something to be possible.
The comnbination of womb, ovaries, clitoris, penis and testes are a irreducibly complex group. Take one away and none of it is impossible.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow And yet IC systems do evolve. Evolution is slow. It's takes millions of years. That's just the way it is.
@Ingmatter lol. yeah, pick on typos :)
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby
The ColaGoodfellow is pointing out that it's unlikely that IC systems evolve (slow or fast). I'm religious, so it's OK for me to bring in the idea of miracles and just admit that it's an unproven assertion based on a worldview.
But you've said that IC systems do evolve, and that's just the way it is. Well, there is no evidence that it's "the way it is" so you (like I did) will have to admit that such is a belief of materialists, but it's very far from being verified science.
tubewatch59 3 months ago
A+
KOakaKO 3 months ago
the human eye is not very complex
doombybbr 3 months ago
@doombybbr
The human eye, the ear, you name is it, is frighteningly complex! You don't think so? Do some (more) reading on it.
tubewatch59 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59 compared to most other animals we are extremely UN-COMPLEX, all we really have are apposable thumbs and a understanding of how tools work, that isn't much compared to venomous snakes, nocturnal animals, charmelians, fish, aquatic mammals and birds, our eyes are extremely simple compared to other species.
doombybbr 3 months ago
I think this is one of the best videos on youtube explaining why the concept of irreducible complexity is nonsense! Well done!
NisseHult101 3 months ago
@NisseHult101
If you don't go into any of the details, ths video makes a "lot" of sense. But consider the details more carefully, and it falls far short of a rebuttal. Still, if one really wants to believe that irreducible complexity is nonsense, nothing I or anyone else could say will convince you. You'd have to be actually wanting to find out if the claim (IC) truly has any merit, or not.
tubewatch59 3 months ago
again, so much sense was made in this.
make more, or continue to make these.
Bloodyidit 3 months ago
I'm not gay... But I really want to give you a hug...
KeithKurt00 3 months ago
The bottom hull of Noah's ark was irreducibly complex. If just one plank of that ship was to come apart, it would have been a catastrophe for all those cute animals inside the ark. It was a miracle that they all survived.
villontre 3 months ago
@villontre
"The bottom hull of Noah's ark was irreducibly complex."
That may or may not be the case. Perhaps the common ancestral ark was designed after all. But I'm as sure as HECK, that house sized floating zoos with advantageous holes in the roof for giraffes and elephants - evolved from the ancestral Noah's ark in only several thousand years. Today you'll find them in Sunday Schools everywhere. (Phylogenetic analysis remains inconclusive ... )
tubewatch59 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also, check out this page:
creationwiki(.)org/(Talk.Origins)_Some_systems_are_irreducibly_complex
TChapman500 4 months ago
This video uses the wrong definition of irreducible complexity. The definition you used was:
'a system where a single part being removed will cause the system to effectively cease functioning.'
The actual definition is:
'a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.'
Your definition is an attempt to deceive.
TChapman500 4 months ago
@TChapman500
The idea of "basic function" or "characteristic function" is key in the true definition of IC. To be an IC system means if any parts are removed from the IC core, then the characteristic function of the IC system, will cease.
As you pointed out, that doesn't mean that individual parts or subsets of the total IC machine cannot have different characteristic functions of their own for the whole system to still be IC. It means there can be IC systems within larger IC systems.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 To be an IC system means if any parts are removed from the IC core, then the characteristic function of the IC system, will cease.
When something is evolving for the first time, crude function out competes no function.
Bacteria would not fail to replicate just because they didn't have a flagellum.
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 You're missing my point. Components can be added to an irreducibly complex system to improve the performance of that system, but such components do not contribute to performing the actual function. They just make the system perform better than it would otherwise.
TChapman500 4 months ago
@TChapman500
The problem IC poses for an evolutionary origins scenario, isn't that it is theoretically impossible for IC systems to "somehow" evolve step by step - it's that such a scenario is infeasible given the astronomical numbers of nonfunctional possible systems relative to the few functional systems that could arise.
Darwinists mostly fail to grasp the extreme problems that come on board with indirect Darwinian pathways, which is what IC requires evolution to be able to carry out.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 Okay, can you clarify what you are saying here? Seems like you're talking from a Creationist perspective. I am a Creationist. I'm just trying to point out that the definition of Irreducible Complexity is overly simplified. Actually, it can't be simplified without changing the meaning.
TChapman500 4 months ago
@TChapman500
Yes, I'm a creationist. I was pointing out some additional properties of irreducibly complex systems. Things Darwinists don't seem to want to figure out for themselves.
I agree that their main way of trying to refute irreducible complexity is by redefining it to mean something like this: "If after removal of any parts, a so called irreducibly complex system is capable of any functioning at all, then the system was never irreducibly complex" - which is a strawman defintion!
tubewatch59 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59 so you admit that an IC system could evolve and somehow that still supports 'design'?
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
@zzap999
"The cell does that. Yet the cell comes from DNA and DNA can't be read without the cell. So which came first? Both."
- once again, your talking about MODERN DNA.
Modern RNA doesnt arise on it's own either, however the experiment indicates the FIRST RNA did. if this occurred with RNA then what basis do you have for saying it cant with a directly analogous substance (DNA)?
types10000 4 months ago
@zzap999
"Go ahead and prove that IF. Natural/random conditions are detrimental to forming any type of productive proteins much less something as organized as DNA. You have to control "
- incorrect, the experiment i provided clearly demonstrates how RNA (exactly the same as DNA can arise via purely naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth. it's already been proven.
"You have to control temperature, rates of reactions" - no you dont, refer to the experiment!
types10000 4 months ago
@types10000 Also, the longest carbon chain made synthetically in controlled lab conditions is about 130 carbon atoms long. DNA or RNA is a chain of nucleotide components and not single carbon atoms. How long is DNA/RNA anyway? Now tell us all how something that long can be formed without cell machinery or autonomously from random bombarding atoms.
zzap999 4 months ago
@zzap999
"Also, the longest carbon chain made synthetically in controlled lab conditions is about 130 carbon atoms long."
- So?
"DNA or RNA is a chain of nucleotide components and not single carbon atoms. How long is DNA/RNA anyway...Now tell us all how something that long can be formed without cell machinery"
- how about you readup on the experiment where it was produced (via unguided naturalistic means): wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
Any other questions?
types10000 4 months ago
@types10000
"- how about you readup on the experiment where it was produced (via unguided naturalistic means): wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/"
How about you read your links beforehand to ensure they address the objections raised!
There are a number of reasons why your quoted link doesn't address the objection of zzap999.
He had asked:
"Now tell us all how something that long can be formed without cell machinery or autonomously from random bombarding atoms?"
tubewatch59 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59
"How about you read your links beforehand to ensure they address the objections raised! There are a number of reasons why your quoted link doesn't address the objection of zzap999."
- like what? the fact they have produced ribonucleotides makes the majority of it whatif questions completly redundant ie. hecan just check the scientific literature.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59
"He had asked: 'Now tell us all how something that long can be formed without cell machinery or autonomously from random bombarding atoms?'"
- via the undirected naturalistic processes of the experiment detailed in the link i just provided, DUHHH.
types10000 4 months ago
@types10000
Herre are some reasons the Sutherland work, while fine chemistry, isn't as great a breakthrough as you seem to believe it was:
1. Only 1 kind of ribonucleotide was produced.
2. The chirality problem wasn't addressed.
3. RNA fragments don't do anything by themselves, they need to be combined into long (and functional) sequences - which is what zzap999 asked you about originally).
4. The experimental setup was highly tweaked, thus not a realistic simulation of nature.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59
"Only 1 kind of..."
- the fact it didnt demonstrate the formation of every kind of ribonulceotide in existence does not change the fact it has shown that ribonuceotides can form via undirected processes.
"The chirality..."
- yeh, because it didnt pose a problem
"fragments don't..."
- Incorrect, what was produced WAS RNA (a self-replicating molecule)
"highly tweaked..."
- incorrect, the experiment replicated basic naturalistic processes (as detailed in the link i provided)
types10000 4 months ago
@types10000
"- yeh, because [ the chirality ] it didnt pose a problem"
Wanna bet? This is like saying that gravity comes from a spinning earth.
This is one reason why I said you're making an argument from stupid. You can't say stuff like this if you want to be taken seriously. You do have to know at least the basics of the topic. I'm no expert myself, but I have read enough to know what the issues are. You need to do quite a bit more reading before saying such things.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59
"Wanna bet? This is like saying that gravity comes from a spinning earth.This is one reason why I said you're making an argument from stupid"
- incorrect, chirality did not provide any problem for the experiment (it was accomplished via unguided naturalistic processes) and the TESTABLE PREDICTION this experiment CONFIRMED is evidnece IRRESPECTIVE of unknowns.
The only one here making an argument 'from stupid' here is you.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
You don't know what you're talking about. Go and read up on it.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@types10000
"- incorrect, chirality did not provide any problem for the experiment"
Duh! Because they didn't bother trying to get homochirality naturally. They engineered it that way.
You're not helping your side you know. You can't just brush aside statements of scientists (saying it's just opinion) when you don't know enough of the topic to even address their criticisms.
It's the kind of logic you'd likely accuse religious people of being guilty of. Smug willful ignorance.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59 "Because they didn't bother trying to get homochirality naturally. They engineered it that way."
Where does it say that? Where is the evidence that racemic RNA nucleotide chains can not self replicate?
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 But claiming problems with natural explanations doesn't make them real problems either. You seem fine with brushing aside science when it suits you.
Left handed chirality may be favored naturally, even in space:
astrobio.net/pressrelease/3748/meteorites-may-answer-lifes-chirality-question
HarshColby 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby You may also reference this article.
"Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces." Nat Mater. 2003 Jun;2(6):367-74.
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
@HarshColby
With respect, science articles claiming that these kinds of problems "might" be resolved by some special conditions, have been doing the rounds for many years. Nothing wrong with speculation, but you have to realize that such tantalizing headlines fail 99.99% of the time to make good on their optimism.
Look up "Science News" and you'll always find several headlines giving the impression that abiogenesis problems are on the brink of a solution. (But the problems remain!)
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 So your tact of proclaiming pessimism is so much more accurate? You saying something is a "definite problem" when that's simply your opinion is more accurate than science saying "the solution might be" based on observation and experimentation?
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby
I'm not saying that this article is an outright lie, or that it's definitely wrong - but I do have the right to wait and see if it actually holds up over time, because such claims that such and such a problem is on the brink of a solution, have a pretty lousy track record. (As do "guaranteed" get rich quick schemes.)
We'll see if it holds up.
What you'll also find in these articles is that scientists have many differing opinions as to what scenario works, and what doesn't.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 So, until you see evidence that an observation or possible explanation is wrong, you shouldn't be saying it is. Your assertion was the chirality definitely is a problem. You don't know that to be the case. You claim that Sutherland brings up relevant issues which have no explanation. You claim that since one experiment didn't explain chirality, that no experiment ever has (or can). This is not the case. A single experiment does not need to show all aspects of every situation.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby
You think about it. You said: "So, until you see evidence that an observation or possible explanation is wrong, you shouldn't be saying it is".
You seem to be saying in effect, that problems aren't problems. That any proposed solution to a problem should be accepted, until it's shown not be not a solution.
That's just a little bizzare! We don't take promises as true until proven false. Instead, we typically doubt promises, until they're demonstrated to be true. No?
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 I'm saying that what you claim to be problems, aren't problems. Any proposed explanation should be accepted to the extent the evidence supports it. There are no absolutes in science. All statements are statements of a measure of confidence based on the amount of evidence which supports a conclusion. What you're doing is ignoring evidence of all other experiments so that you can complain about the inadequacy of a single experiment. No experiment is required to cover all issues.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby
"I'm saying that what you claim to be problems, aren't problems."
Which problems do you doubt are real problems? Are you referring to chirality?
"What you're doing is ignoring evidence of all other experiments so that you can complain about the inadequacy of a single experiment."
As far as I am aware there are no experiments which have solved the chirality problem. You referred to an article postulating that in space meteorites can slightly favour left handedness...
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@HarshColby
It doesn't seem to be very likely that trace excesses of chirality in amino acids (not RNA) in space is going to be able to solve the chirality problem on earth. First they'd have to make sure that it's not coming from bacteria that got transported from earth to the meteorites and produced the excess left handed amino acids. Secondly, it doesn't seem as if there is all that much of it in any case. It may turn out to be something, but it's a longshot at the moment...
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@HarshColby
"Any proposed explanation should be accepted to the extent the evidence supports it. There are no absolutes in science. All statements are statements of a measure of confidence based on the amount of evidence which supports a conclusion."
I agree. The current attempts to deal with the many problems of abiogenesis (at the moment) must be ruled as being extremely unlikely scenarios, due to the lack of solid evidence. They're kind of grasping at straws at this time.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@HarshColby
"What you're doing is ignoring evidence of all other experiments so that you can complain about the inadequacy of a single experiment."
I'm saying that Sutherland's work, though very good work, and extremely interesting, doesn't deal with the chirality problem (because life only works if all the chemicals have the same handedness). And in light of the fact that NO OTHER EXPERIMENTS deal with it either, I'm simply stating that the chirality problem hasn't yet been solved.
tubewatch59 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59 "because life only works if all the chemicals have the same handedness"
So you have finally established that racemic nucleotide chains are incapable of self-replication?
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 Have I mentioned I won't respond to long series of claims? It would take days. No thanks.
I already gave you one study that shows monochirality may be favored in nature. Why else would asteroids show it? There's another "Possible origin of chirality in the RNA world" which shows that a slight imbalance will result in a preponderance of monochirality. Your claim that it's not been adequately addressed is unfounded. Many studies are available on the subject. Pubmed shows at least 83.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby
I'll try to keep them shorter.
It's a matter of degree. I already said that these findings may turn out to be valid. But for now I'm skeptical. We'll wait and see what becomes of them.
For example, a few findings in the RATE project show that radioactive decay has had accelerated decay periods. It also shows that in a mineral the radioisotope clock dates it has hundreds of millions of years old, but the clock measuring helium diffusion gives the age at 6000 years...
tubewatch59 4 months ago
@tubewatch59 Unfortunately the RATE project is not published science. The scientific reviews of it have shown its conclusions do not follow from the data. It's pure religious dogma wrapped up to look like science to fool those who don't know any better. Radioactive decay rates have been shown to be remarkably stable over geologic timescales. The RATE project even assumes Noah's Flood happened, which also has been shown by the data to be false.
HarshColby 4 months ago