I thought this was going to be good but you are an idiot. You do not need the entire human fucking genome to have replicating life. this has been shown in abiogenesis studies. What's needed to get where we are is the mechanism of DNA that causes the production of something else useful, and through NATURAL SELECTION it can become increasingly useful and efficient. You should attack the transition from simple life to an organism that can copy and process DNA. That's why I am presently a deist.
DNA is not code. It's a crude analogy for the model we use to describe molecular reactions. Even if we assigned different letters than A, T, G or C to the nitrogenous base molecules it would still work. It's a metaphor you idiot. This would be like saying Jesus walked on all four feet because the Bible says he was a lamb.
Evolution, stupidity on wheels, I havent found one evolutionist with human intelligence, i am starting thinking that they really come from monkey. Perhaps they are also children of Pinocchio.
Random letter-mashing is not subject to natural selection.
Chemistry is subject to tendencies and selective pressures that will 'reward' certain configurations - if they occur - with greater numbers. Imagine if every time a monkey got the right letter - even a single letter - that letter would 'stick'. You'd have a sonnet quite soon.
SO WHAT IS THIS 'SOMETHING' THAT CREATED THE INFORMATION CODE? GOD? EVERY THEORY SEEMS TO BE VERY COMPLICATED...BUT FROM THE PAST TILL NOW WE'VE SEEN AND WITNESSED SCIENTIFIC INVETIONS..MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED VIA ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY...TODAY NO DOUBT ABOUT REALITY OF SCIENCE POWER..IT'S EVERYWHERE..
FOR MORE THAN 26YEARS I'VE PREACHED AND TALKED ABOUT GOD BUT I NEVER KNEW/SEEN THE GOD I BELIEVED IN...READING RELIGION BOOKS ETC NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE GOD..SHOW GOD TO WORLD ..
To date, the universe encodes on the order of 10^120 bits of information, so the probability of the universe being in the current state is 1 in 2^(10^120). Now THAT'S unlikely! heh
I don't think this video makes much sense, certain viruses replicate without DNA.
That fact doesn't address the question of God, it just proves people who try to prove God are fools. As are those who think they can disprove God by proving the religious fools wrong.
Darwin: Random mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest ... or Religion: "God did it." Technically, I do believe that "God did it" but not in a simplistic Biblical sense but rather in a greater Cosmic Scale sense.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
There's also a bit of a chicken and eggshell game here. If something HAS active DNA then it is already life. Proto-life would be expected to have precursors of DNA, probably something more similar to RNA.
If you genuinely wish to come to an accurate conclusion make you should make sure you don't start with a faulty premise. Common mistake. Don't beat yourself up over it. But you should look into being more honest with yourself and your viewers.
This analogy completely overlooks the mechanism of natural selection. Hopefully this is due to ignorance rather than dishonesty.
If every trial started from scratch + ignored previous successes then the typewriter analogy COULD be partially insightful. But we do know that life exists. Natural selection has been observed repeatedly. We do know (well, some of us know) how natural selection works.
Further, we can't compare the odds of NS versus magic because magic has never been observed.
You most certainly DO NOT need DNA prior to the "first life". The first protocells were most likely self-replcating lipid microspheres similar to those that are routinely created in the lab today. Modern viruses protein coats still self-assemble in much the same way, due to nothing but chemical forces.
im always amazed that people dont understand the monkey theorem.
they would have an infinite amount of time and would type everything that it is possible to type. so they would type every possible combination of letters that there are and thus would type everything that has already been written, and things that have not been written yet.
even if it took 1 billion monkeys 1 billion years to type a single word that wouldnt matter because the time is infinite
the diffrence between the monkey theorem and real life is that if the monkey's would type the first real word of the sonate (or even type the first "correct" letter), then this word (/letter) would be automatically copied on to all pages and the monkey's would start from there and so on. so thene chances would be increased incredibly. Also what IHasChannel said ;D
the diffrence between the monkey theorem and real life is that if the monkey's would type the first real word of the sonate (or even type the first "correct" letter), then this word (/letter) would be automatically copied on to all pages and the monkey's would start from there and so on. so thene chances would be increased incredibly.
The first simple celled organisms didn't have DNA. They didn't have a "code" until RNA developed. When you stated that, it was pretty clear your ignorance of science would be phenomenal, so I stopped watching.
6 monkeys and one month is not really close to infinite monkeys OR time... Besides, evolution works incrementally, not randomly. That's the whole point of "natural selection". Mutations which are beneficial tend to be passed on. So in the metaphor, each time a monkey "randomly" gets closer to a word or phrase, that particular mutation is kept. I'd recommend watching Dawkins' "Growing up in the Universe" Episode 3. It gives a fine example of this process.
@ferrett78 It wasn't infinite trials over infinite time -- We've now got a calc of the max possible trials over the max possible time since the singularity popped into existence. It's still a small number relative to the complexity of DNA code (and only 600 M yrs if you start with the Cambrian). Also, where were these trials occurring, and under what circumstances? Why would each "success" in the random process maintain structure in the nasty pre-life environment of chemicals, tars, and acids?
@reflect7 Actually, the conditions of early earth are easily replicated in a laboratory. If you mix the gases that were present in the atmosphere at that time, and expose them to energy in the form of ultraviolet light (to replicate that portion of sunlight) OR electrical discharge, they form organic chemicals. So the precursors to DNA aren't that difficult to make. This vastly reduces the odds of "random chance" forming DNA and 600M years is still a LONG time!
@ferrett78 scientists have done the tests, they collected the radiation that mutates animals and tested it on fruit flies(animals with the the highest radiation capacity) and the ones that SURVIVED to reproduced had deformed babies. In any biological system, if you remove one part, the system fails. So saying that natural selection "improved" animals over time is like saying limbless horses move faster than limbed ones. DNA is built with a preset code, that has a limit, changing it destroys life
@ferrett78 doesn't matter how much time they were given, they would have died before they made one letter word, just as the evolution of enzymes was HIGHLY unlikely unless they were aided along...
@GREATGAIWAIN See that's where the "natural selection" part comes in. Those organisms that are less adapted to their environment tended to be taken out of the gene pool more often than those organisms that had mutations which aided their survival.
@ferrett78 but if natural selection is to be believed ALL organisms would have not been acclimatized and therefore NEEDED to adjust and would have died before given that chance.
@GREATGAIWAIN remembering of course that all organisms would have originally come from single-celled prokaryotic life, and before that, some kind of self-replicating chemistry (RNA, DNA, etc). Therefore it's a little hard to say that chemistry was "not acclimatised" to wherever it originated.
@ferrett78 well even that is proof of biogenisis because the organisms responded to and adapted to their surroundings. Sounds like a contradiction. But back to the main point, if the creatures through some miracle become acclimatised while possessing some sentience, why would they move to different areas altogether to risk themselves?
@GREATGAIWAIN Not a contradiction at all. It just means the initial environment was suitable for the initial chemistry, and as the chemistry became more complex, it was able to adjust to a larger variety of environments. Chemistry that was able to adjust flourished, while chemistry that couldnt adjust "died off". I guess it's like natural selection for chemistry.
@GREATGAIWAIN It's not like a population moves to a completely different environment. They move to a slightly different one for whatever reason (more abundant food, etc). Over time, the population becomes more adapted to that new environment, and gradually, sections move yet further afield. Over time, the great-great-grandchildren organisms become less and less like the original species. It's not like one day they suddenly evolve into a new one - it's a gradual process
@GREATGAIWAIN Weather might vary, and quite possibly kill off some of the chemistry or organisms, but overall climate usually only changes fairly slowly, giving organisms time to adjust. Also, there are environments where the climate changes very little even when the weather does (in the soil, for example)
@ferrett78 Even Darwin realised natural selection was merely the mechanism of how it seemed to work but not why. Scince only shows us the how, not the why.
It can provide facts, but not truth.
Facts ain't the same as truth.
Facts are not what sets us free.
For truth to set us free you must learn what it sets us free from.
@jonesgerard Thats an extremely metaphorical response... Who says we need to be set free from anything, let alone the method needed to hypothetically "set us free"?
The only thing Id consider people have a need to be set free from is ignorance, and that is done by the acquisition of knowledge. And the most effective method of knowledge acquisition is science.
u really should take this video down. this isn't a problem in science anymore..it has already been demonstrated how dna could have formed thru very simple methods..the best explanation i've seen of this was by a user cdk007..he's a scientist. he has a video called "origin of the genetic code"
The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. (Richard Dawkins)
@akaei0 They both require such precision to make sense. If I take "the" out of a sentence, it won't make grammatical sense.
Cat jumped over fence.
If I scrambled some of those words, it would lose meaning
Jumped fence cat over.
It's the same thing with DNA, it requires exact placement, exact precision. Was it a "god" that did this coding? I have no clue. Something intelligent, and that's a fact you have to realize eventually.
It's called deductive reasoning. Also Miller-Urey demonstrated that simple self-replicating proteins would have been what started the evolutionary process, which eventually clumped into groups, and then mad small simple cells. Look it up.
What he demonstrated was the creation of amino acids. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't the sufficient amount, and not all of them are the correct type essential to the most basic self replicating structure.
To add to the commotion, it's in a controlled environment where electricity is constantly being provided, at a constant voltage, in a sterile test-tube environment. I would like a more plausible experiment.
If proto-life had fully developed DNA we would recognize it as life, not a precursor of life. The earliest polypeptide chains need not have had any utility to exist. However, any that formed a sequence that contributed to the production of amino acids useful to its host pre-biotic organism, would increase the survivability of that organism and the probability of self replication. To assume evolution began whole-cloth is to miss the point.
This so-called 'problem' has been already been solved mathematically. It's in hundreds of books - surely someone interested in the subject would have noticed by now ?
FFS - after one 'generation' of the monkey text, the one closest to a sonnet is kept and the others discarded, thus in a only a few 'generations' a sonnet is created.
Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable' is probably the clearest, accessible resource to understand this basic concept.
There is enough evidence not just for the existence of God but also for the truth of Islam. Would you dare "follow the evidence wherever it leads" in this case too?
one who dont believe on evolution not guided by GOD are real stupids on earth. Evolution has to be guided by a divine power, or GOD otherwise all make non-sense.
In order for there to be DNA there needs to be natural selection, but in order for there to be natural selection, there needs to be DNA. If they claim that the first cells didn't have it. This supports me more than a antheist because this only proves that the first cell was "superior" to todays cells because they didn't require DNA in the first place.
wow, that's deep yo..If any Atheists can understand what he's sayin, he basically says that life on this earth is NOT chance, and there is a GOD in which we were created...makes me happy to see that this cannot be busted, and that were on the right track
Seriously, this is the extent of your arguments -- calling me names? At least Pang00lin tossed out something of substance... However, the large number of thoughful poets typing poetry and selecting the right words and letters for the right place in the overall sonnet makes my exact point. These were thoughtful poets seeking collective poetry -- Where does naturalistic/materialistic process allow for such thoughtful writing, selection, and collaboration? Yes, "under such conditions" I agree --
This argument is so ridiculous, do you horrible disgusting, morally reprehensible people have to come up with this crap to condone your belief in a non-existent God...
I think a fairer analogy would be if you had a large number of poets, typing poetry, and having words and letters selected for being in the right place in the sonnet. Under such conditions, I think you'll agree, it's actually likely that they'd produce a Shakespearian sonnet.
If you want to learn more about the origin of DNA, check out cdk007's series on the subject. If you do, and keep an open mind, you might see what I mean.
This video works as a solemn warning about the dangers of religion and how it poisons the mind, closing down insight & rational analytical ability.
This is nothing more than a dressed up version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity: "I don't understand something, therefore God exists & the Bible is true."
Oh purleeeease!! This is one of the very weakest "proofs" of God.
@BoneySkylord since you have the insight and rational analytical ability then you must have proof and facts about the origin of life and the universe.. so enlighten me and correct me "oh BoneySky Lord"
This video works as a solemn warning about the dangers of religion and how it poisons the mind, closing down insight & rational analytical ability.
This is nothing more than a dressed up version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity: "I don't understand something, therefore God exists & the Bible is true."
Oh purleeeease!! This is one of the very weakest "proofs" of God.
a practicer of the judea/christian faith doesn't need to prove a damn thing to you.
a faith and tradition thousands of years old that has produced entire societies with any number of brilliant thinkers and YOU--a guy on youtube--are the arbiter of it?
just because you don't understand something, loser, doesn't mean that it aint so? what do you bring to the discussion?
Is this satire, of is this man really taking a generic metaphor as literal?
Does 6 monkeys really equate in any way to INFINITE?
also,if you gave a primate an infinite length of time, evolution would be plausable (depending on the habitat), thus creating an intellectually superior species who could type.
LOL come on! You (assuming you're Christian), don't fear the hells of other religions or their Gods. Just like you don't fear Allah, Odin, or Zeus I don't fear the Christian God or it's hell.
Don't have the arrogance to say I don't understand something than make the claim that the odds of someone being wrong about the existence of God is 1/2. You're either right or wrong, but the odds aren't 50/50.
Any God who values faith in his existence over leading a good life is not worthy of worship.
RNA is less complex than DNA and served for replication. An RNA strand comprised of a small number of nucleotides formed under the conditions of the so-called "primordial soup" from less complex proteins. The fact we are here is proof of that life rose from non life.
There, I guess arrogant certainty makes a better point than leaving any room for doubt.
Now you say "how do you know _____. Prove it." Right?
We misunderstand each other and I have no issue with science not having all the answers. Many times, science can explain what, when and how, but we venture into religion to answer "why".
I simply wish both sides of this equation could say, "Let's agree to disagree," on the issue of unprovable origins rather than steadfastly, adamantly and dogmatically pound their respective side of the table and shout, "I'M RIGHT. Maybe."
Let's just say that it takes an element of faith on both sides?
AJ, do you like to argue about things you don't understand? The probability of any two independent sequential events BOTH happening is the product of the probability of both; (1/n)x
Is that what you mean? Patterns in nature? Sure, it WILL happen - given enough time right? What is the probability of someone being wrong about God? 1/2 - and 100 people? Same concept, new results! If you're right - you die and become worm food. If you're wrong - you're judged.
Why does pretty much everyone that believe in God think that "chance" had anything to do with scientific explanations for the origin of life or evolution. It's a mistake to say that just because something is unlikely it couldn't have happened (especially that it couldn't have happened without divine intervention)
If you flipped a coin 100 times and got only heads you would think it incredible, but it's the exact same odds as getting any other order of H&T, it just wouldn't appear significant
This is so silly, so misleading, and downright ignorant. However, the my-mind-is-made-up-don't- bother-me-with-the-facts creationists will love it. You no more understand about Anthony Flew than you understand your own Hovind . "Intelligent Design" mumbo jumbo was blown out of the water in the DOVER trial.
and that some thing is a bearded guy sitting on a cloud!!! what created god , was it another god a bigger god ????
I was a christian but since I've been in America and listened to all you people trying to disprove evolution with terrible science and argument , I became atheist You made me realise how stupid it was to believe in God.
that's right, crissy, guys like this are always of the mindset "Science doesn't explain every single thing, every teeny tiny minutia, so therefore....God-did-it". Twisted, mangled, pseudo "scientific" sounding gobbley-gook, which ONLY the also "god-did-it" folks will so eagerly believe. Wonder if reflect has spent any time on TalkOrigins website? Naw...he'd never do that. He might learn a thing or two.
I fear you are mistaken with the naturalist materialists mentioned in the video. The argument in this video is flawless unless you actually believe chance could be responsible for God's perfection on this planet Earth.(after watching this video and you still believe that, they you're very ignorant.)
By the way, since you apparently don't agree with the naturalist materialist and still claim to be an atheist, then how do you believe we came to existence? There is truly no other way to be sane.
the math in the video is so flawed its unbelievable, Infinite has a meaning!
the experiment with 6 monkeys and one type writer. that like pouring out 6 M&Ms and not getting a blue one then saying if I times the results of this experiment by infinity I still get no blue M&Ms. if you do the proper math and pour out an infinite amount of M&Ms you will find BLUE ones you IDIOTS. doing an experiment wrong doesn't prove a GOD did anything IDIOTS
your argument fails immediately - you do not, in fact, need DNA before you have life (in order to have the replication process to occur). RNA is less complex than DNA and could have served for replication. You could potentially reduce an RNA strand to a small number of nucleotides that could have formed by any number of means given the state of the early-earth. Science doesn't know exactly how it happened, but it shows that life certainly can rise from non-life.
Funny... I do not seem to know of at least ONE so-called-organism that can grow, reproduce and maintain homeostasis, but someway, somehow YOU know the origin of life all of the sudden. Please prove to me that your sources are not the voices in your head.
I think I specifically said I don't know the origin of life. I only said how RNA is less complex than DNA and is the solution to *part* of the "problem" presented.
wth are you talking about. Humans are organisms that can grow, reproduce, and maintain homeostasis.
Sources: any biology textbook. You can probably find 100's on Amazon thx.
Everything you said throughout this argument was conjecture ("could have"), supposition ("could potentially"), wild speculation ("could have formed"), and admission (science doesn't know).
Then you end with the falsely confident statement that "life CERTAINLY CAN rise from non-life".
"Certainly can". Is this like "almost positive", or "definitely maybe"?
The probability of god creating himself and then going on to create the universe "in six days" is SO near "impossible" as to be disregarded by any intelligent person.You can actually check this out for yourself "Reflect7" but I don't suppose you will. Its simple science and Mathematics.Also check out "probability theory and chaos theory! Its all there for those who want to know the truth.
By the way, I believe evolution is a very vague theory with many gaps which is why I do not support it. When it comes down to it all though, Randall Niles is smart for asking the question " where did the first DNA code come from, how did that start." Its all a big mystery but I think religion cripples the belief of God significantly.
I find it hilarious that most atheists are actually some of the least educated people. I know people(atheist) that know NOTHING about science and when you ask them how does evolution work they answer with "survival of the fittest." Then when you ask them to elaborate on that, they come up with the ridiculous answer of " depending on the environment and climate changes, a species evolves to best fit those changes." They don't have a clue about genetic mutations which is what evolution really is.
Keep the videos coming. I think that these atheists are about to explode when you use their theories to actually support yours. I no longer believe in "religion" because every religion may be the same in one way but so different at the same time. That is why the only thing I believe in is "god" itself. A higher power.
Language is a predefined system of patterns. Evolution (and indirectly abiogenesis) describe a system of prevailing patterns that continue the survival of DNA.
I just destroyed your strongest argument with two sentences :) Back to the drawing board?
Predefined system of patterns? System of prevailing patterns? I think that actually supports my argument here -- In all known areas of information theory, something (a mindful engineer/designer/thinker) must define the system or establish the patterns. I don't think you destroyed anything -- I think you bolstered my argument.
Well I'm not too surprised at the desperate attempt to defelct.
The assertion that DNA is a product of design is the primary fault. A product of prevailing patters is the result of molding to an environmental factor, not a design. You know that, as do I. Your victims AKA 'market' may not though.
What? A desperate attempt to deflect? You're just changing the focus and using rhetoric. Your response is "the result of molding to environmental factor" -- What does that even mean?
Interesting use of probability theory. To me, it doesn't even have to go that far. DNA is an INSTRUCTION set. Word of God is "DDNA" (term I use in my webseries). Any instruction set must have a Programmer make it. So the very existence of DNA, means there is DDNA. Case closed.
Even if the monkey theorem is the only other explination it is far more reasonable than the "god did it" explination. God makes the problem worse because now you have to account for the existance of god; which you have not done. FAIL.
I actually first found your allaboutthejourney website when attempting to find the actual odds of Christ matching up to every previously made prophesy about Him. As suspected they were well beyond random chance.
But that is the great irony in the atheist's position. So long as they argue random chance but dismiss the actual odds, I cannot reasonably accept their position.
I've seen Dawkins response and it brings up a few questions for me. First, it seems that there's no naturalistic way to account for this accumulative process. As correct "letters" are finally struck, what holds those letters in place while all the others are accumulated? Why would they stay in place for no purpose? It seems the tars and acids in the primordial goo would actually destroy such efforts prior to the next accumulative change (letter) being produced --
Also, what's declaring the "reward"? It seems that this accumulative process is a "thinking" process. Something (Nature, I presume) is "rewarding" positive additions to the genetic code, while this same something is "punishing" negative contributions. Of course, all of this happening before there's any notion of genetic code at all -- There would be no mechanism (not even close) for generating, maintaining, and reproducing such accumulations until the code (or most of it) was functional --
Say you have a hole in a river 5 inches wide, and you have a lot of rocks flowing through the river, some larger, some smaller. When the rocks are disturbed by the water, the small ones will enter the hole, right?
Who is "rewarding" the rocks for being small? Is there any need for genetic accumulation of information?
"There would be no mechanism"
How do you know? All that is needed is change, time, and a selection mechanism. Simple chemistry provides these possibilities.
"what holds those letters in place while all the others are accumulated?"
In the case of evolution, natural selection. As far as abiogenesis goes, the process may be similar, and there are some competing theories, but nobody really knows.
However, the basic idea is that any change that leads to the increased probability of the survival of any self-replicating system will ensure that more of them are replicated.
I thought this was going to be good but you are an idiot. You do not need the entire human fucking genome to have replicating life. this has been shown in abiogenesis studies. What's needed to get where we are is the mechanism of DNA that causes the production of something else useful, and through NATURAL SELECTION it can become increasingly useful and efficient. You should attack the transition from simple life to an organism that can copy and process DNA. That's why I am presently a deist.
Daghead 2 months ago
DNA is not code. It's a crude analogy for the model we use to describe molecular reactions. Even if we assigned different letters than A, T, G or C to the nitrogenous base molecules it would still work. It's a metaphor you idiot. This would be like saying Jesus walked on all four feet because the Bible says he was a lamb.
foxlake02 5 months ago
Evolution, stupidity on wheels, I havent found one evolutionist with human intelligence, i am starting thinking that they really come from monkey. Perhaps they are also children of Pinocchio.
xchris1800 6 months ago
Because letters and DNA are the same thing.
elisk2 8 months ago
Standard Creationist Idiocy:
Step 1: Find something complex or unknown
Step 2: Default to God
Step 3: Stick fingers in ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA"
Xerock 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerock Standard Evo Idiocy:
Step 1: Find something complex or unknown
Step 2: Default to Time and Teenage Mutation NINJA monkeys
Step 3: Stick fingers in ears and say "TIMEEEEEEEEE"
Drebln893 2 months ago
Random letter-mashing is not subject to natural selection.
Chemistry is subject to tendencies and selective pressures that will 'reward' certain configurations - if they occur - with greater numbers. Imagine if every time a monkey got the right letter - even a single letter - that letter would 'stick'. You'd have a sonnet quite soon.
taicleis 8 months ago
SO WHAT IS THIS 'SOMETHING' THAT CREATED THE INFORMATION CODE? GOD? EVERY THEORY SEEMS TO BE VERY COMPLICATED...BUT FROM THE PAST TILL NOW WE'VE SEEN AND WITNESSED SCIENTIFIC INVETIONS..MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED VIA ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY...TODAY NO DOUBT ABOUT REALITY OF SCIENCE POWER..IT'S EVERYWHERE..
FOR MORE THAN 26YEARS I'VE PREACHED AND TALKED ABOUT GOD BUT I NEVER KNEW/SEEN THE GOD I BELIEVED IN...READING RELIGION BOOKS ETC NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE GOD..SHOW GOD TO WORLD ..
peopleswave 9 months ago
To date, the universe encodes on the order of 10^120 bits of information, so the probability of the universe being in the current state is 1 in 2^(10^120). Now THAT'S unlikely! heh
sparkloweb 10 months ago
I don't think this video makes much sense, certain viruses replicate without DNA.
That fact doesn't address the question of God, it just proves people who try to prove God are fools. As are those who think they can disprove God by proving the religious fools wrong.
jonesgerard 10 months ago
All atheists had something happen to them to hurt their feelings, and make them reject God. But God didn't do that to them.
IronHorsez88 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IronHorsez88 "All atheists had something happen to them "
I was atheist, my ego was running my life.
Ego thinks it IS God and it hates God, thats why so many atheists appear so defient and abrasive.
One mention of God and they start vomiting venom, its their ego talking , they are insane.
The insanity is evident in their twisted logic, like trying to disprove God with science.
Thats just illogical scienceism. A perverse religion.
jonesgerard 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since We ALL can argue as much as we would like:
THIS proves God exists.
IronHorsez88 11 months ago
I love Dr Schroeders depth of reasoning on the chances of evolution occuring! Great recap of a great mans work. Thankyou.
SparrowAmongMany 11 months ago
nice information!
atheists are dumb indeed!!!!!
kidomar1000 11 months ago
Logical fail - Equivocation
smegmasaurus 1 year ago
this video makes me want to punch people
xxxtacoman 1 year ago
Darwin: Random mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest ... or Religion: "God did it." Technically, I do believe that "God did it" but not in a simplistic Biblical sense but rather in a greater Cosmic Scale sense.
dmhewey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
jehallhelo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
jehallhelo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
jehallhelo 1 year ago
How in the world do we know how many particles there are in the universe ??
I don't think we can possibly know how many particles the universe has.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
There's also a bit of a chicken and eggshell game here. If something HAS active DNA then it is already life. Proto-life would be expected to have precursors of DNA, probably something more similar to RNA.
If you genuinely wish to come to an accurate conclusion make you should make sure you don't start with a faulty premise. Common mistake. Don't beat yourself up over it. But you should look into being more honest with yourself and your viewers.
akaei0 1 year ago
This analogy completely overlooks the mechanism of natural selection. Hopefully this is due to ignorance rather than dishonesty.
If every trial started from scratch + ignored previous successes then the typewriter analogy COULD be partially insightful. But we do know that life exists. Natural selection has been observed repeatedly. We do know (well, some of us know) how natural selection works.
Further, we can't compare the odds of NS versus magic because magic has never been observed.
akaei0 1 year ago
Anthony Flew is not a scientist.
Most statisticians and scientists reject ID's odds arguments.
This example is even poor for the Discovery Institutes standards.
Natural selection isn't like a monkey.
DNA isn't irreducibly complex.
.............
The list can go on and on.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
You most certainly DO NOT need DNA prior to the "first life". The first protocells were most likely self-replcating lipid microspheres similar to those that are routinely created in the lab today. Modern viruses protein coats still self-assemble in much the same way, due to nothing but chemical forces.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
im always amazed that people dont understand the monkey theorem.
they would have an infinite amount of time and would type everything that it is possible to type. so they would type every possible combination of letters that there are and thus would type everything that has already been written, and things that have not been written yet.
even if it took 1 billion monkeys 1 billion years to type a single word that wouldnt matter because the time is infinite
its inevitable by definition
jamieconon 1 year ago
the diffrence between the monkey theorem and real life is that if the monkey's would type the first real word of the sonate (or even type the first "correct" letter), then this word (/letter) would be automatically copied on to all pages and the monkey's would start from there and so on. so thene chances would be increased incredibly. Also what IHasChannel said ;D
Tutterkop 1 year ago
the diffrence between the monkey theorem and real life is that if the monkey's would type the first real word of the sonate (or even type the first "correct" letter), then this word (/letter) would be automatically copied on to all pages and the monkey's would start from there and so on. so thene chances would be increased incredibly.
Tutterkop 1 year ago
The first simple celled organisms didn't have DNA. They didn't have a "code" until RNA developed. When you stated that, it was pretty clear your ignorance of science would be phenomenal, so I stopped watching.
IHasChannel 1 year ago 9
@IHasChannel Prove it.
Show me that organism.
shortperson1026 1 year ago
This guy's obsessed with monkeys.
planeshaperman 1 year ago
6 monkeys and one month is not really close to infinite monkeys OR time... Besides, evolution works incrementally, not randomly. That's the whole point of "natural selection". Mutations which are beneficial tend to be passed on. So in the metaphor, each time a monkey "randomly" gets closer to a word or phrase, that particular mutation is kept. I'd recommend watching Dawkins' "Growing up in the Universe" Episode 3. It gives a fine example of this process.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 It wasn't infinite trials over infinite time -- We've now got a calc of the max possible trials over the max possible time since the singularity popped into existence. It's still a small number relative to the complexity of DNA code (and only 600 M yrs if you start with the Cambrian). Also, where were these trials occurring, and under what circumstances? Why would each "success" in the random process maintain structure in the nasty pre-life environment of chemicals, tars, and acids?
reflect7 1 year ago 3
@reflect7 Actually, the conditions of early earth are easily replicated in a laboratory. If you mix the gases that were present in the atmosphere at that time, and expose them to energy in the form of ultraviolet light (to replicate that portion of sunlight) OR electrical discharge, they form organic chemicals. So the precursors to DNA aren't that difficult to make. This vastly reduces the odds of "random chance" forming DNA and 600M years is still a LONG time!
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 scientists have done the tests, they collected the radiation that mutates animals and tested it on fruit flies(animals with the the highest radiation capacity) and the ones that SURVIVED to reproduced had deformed babies. In any biological system, if you remove one part, the system fails. So saying that natural selection "improved" animals over time is like saying limbless horses move faster than limbed ones. DNA is built with a preset code, that has a limit, changing it destroys life
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@ferrett78 doesn't matter how much time they were given, they would have died before they made one letter word, just as the evolution of enzymes was HIGHLY unlikely unless they were aided along...
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@GREATGAIWAIN See that's where the "natural selection" part comes in. Those organisms that are less adapted to their environment tended to be taken out of the gene pool more often than those organisms that had mutations which aided their survival.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 but if natural selection is to be believed ALL organisms would have not been acclimatized and therefore NEEDED to adjust and would have died before given that chance.
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@GREATGAIWAIN remembering of course that all organisms would have originally come from single-celled prokaryotic life, and before that, some kind of self-replicating chemistry (RNA, DNA, etc). Therefore it's a little hard to say that chemistry was "not acclimatised" to wherever it originated.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 well even that is proof of biogenisis because the organisms responded to and adapted to their surroundings. Sounds like a contradiction. But back to the main point, if the creatures through some miracle become acclimatised while possessing some sentience, why would they move to different areas altogether to risk themselves?
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@GREATGAIWAIN Not a contradiction at all. It just means the initial environment was suitable for the initial chemistry, and as the chemistry became more complex, it was able to adjust to a larger variety of environments. Chemistry that was able to adjust flourished, while chemistry that couldnt adjust "died off". I guess it's like natural selection for chemistry.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@GREATGAIWAIN It's not like a population moves to a completely different environment. They move to a slightly different one for whatever reason (more abundant food, etc). Over time, the population becomes more adapted to that new environment, and gradually, sections move yet further afield. Over time, the great-great-grandchildren organisms become less and less like the original species. It's not like one day they suddenly evolve into a new one - it's a gradual process
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 but what about the earth's wild weather swings on occasion? How would they adjust in time?
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@GREATGAIWAIN Weather might vary, and quite possibly kill off some of the chemistry or organisms, but overall climate usually only changes fairly slowly, giving organisms time to adjust. Also, there are environments where the climate changes very little even when the weather does (in the soil, for example)
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 Even Darwin realised natural selection was merely the mechanism of how it seemed to work but not why. Scince only shows us the how, not the why.
It can provide facts, but not truth.
Facts ain't the same as truth.
Facts are not what sets us free.
For truth to set us free you must learn what it sets us free from.
jonesgerard 10 months ago
@jonesgerard Thats an extremely metaphorical response... Who says we need to be set free from anything, let alone the method needed to hypothetically "set us free"?
The only thing Id consider people have a need to be set free from is ignorance, and that is done by the acquisition of knowledge. And the most effective method of knowledge acquisition is science.
ferrett78 10 months ago
@ferrett78 ...Shut the hell up you bloody idiot. There is nothing positive in mutations you muppet.
Drebln893 2 months ago
@Drebln893 Thank you for your well-thought out and constructive comment.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@reflect7
u really should take this video down. this isn't a problem in science anymore..it has already been demonstrated how dna could have formed thru very simple methods..the best explanation i've seen of this was by a user cdk007..he's a scientist. he has a video called "origin of the genetic code"
itzahazylife 1 year ago
Excellent video, and all true -- BIG thumbs up!
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Using logic for faith is not faith. It's really sad to see society has to deal with people like this.
D4R3W 1 year ago
completely misunderstands infintity=fail
offmyface1 1 year ago
The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. (Richard Dawkins)
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7
Did Dawkins say that the genetic code, or computer code is like a sonnet? Analogies work best when the two things being compared are similar.
akaei0 1 year ago
@akaei0 They both require such precision to make sense. If I take "the" out of a sentence, it won't make grammatical sense.
Cat jumped over fence.
If I scrambled some of those words, it would lose meaning
Jumped fence cat over.
It's the same thing with DNA, it requires exact placement, exact precision. Was it a "god" that did this coding? I have no clue. Something intelligent, and that's a fact you have to realize eventually.
shortperson1026 1 year ago
@shortperson1026
It's called deductive reasoning. Also Miller-Urey demonstrated that simple self-replicating proteins would have been what started the evolutionary process, which eventually clumped into groups, and then mad small simple cells. Look it up.
IHasChannel 1 year ago
@IHasChannel
What he demonstrated was the creation of amino acids. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't the sufficient amount, and not all of them are the correct type essential to the most basic self replicating structure.
To add to the commotion, it's in a controlled environment where electricity is constantly being provided, at a constant voltage, in a sterile test-tube environment. I would like a more plausible experiment.
shortperson1026 1 year ago
@shortperson1026
If proto-life had fully developed DNA we would recognize it as life, not a precursor of life. The earliest polypeptide chains need not have had any utility to exist. However, any that formed a sequence that contributed to the production of amino acids useful to its host pre-biotic organism, would increase the survivability of that organism and the probability of self replication. To assume evolution began whole-cloth is to miss the point.
akaei0 1 year ago
Religious people have such LOW MORALS. I guess they get it from their putrid bible which teaches them disgusting practices!
They don't like it that science basically proves that Genesis is a load of crap, so they have to re-invent everything to fit with their brainwashing!
Religion and Religious people DISGUST ME with their Hypocrisy!
XMrAverageX 2 years ago
At around 4:40 when he said '... wherever it leaded ..." ?, it reminded me it is my little nephew's 4th birthday soon.
digitaljez 2 years ago
This is an intellectual joke.
This so-called 'problem' has been already been solved mathematically. It's in hundreds of books - surely someone interested in the subject would have noticed by now ?
FFS - after one 'generation' of the monkey text, the one closest to a sonnet is kept and the others discarded, thus in a only a few 'generations' a sonnet is created.
Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable' is probably the clearest, accessible resource to understand this basic concept.
skankystu 2 years ago
*facepalm* This is comedy, right?
glasshammer52 2 years ago
There is enough evidence not just for the existence of God but also for the truth of Islam. Would you dare "follow the evidence wherever it leads" in this case too?
bbnt752 2 years ago
Life only needed to start once on earth to set things off.
unlikely? yes, but not impossible.
right conditions and a few hundred million years might do the trick.
rusle 2 years ago
The fact of the matter is accepting God as a creator of the universe and us brings responsibility which does not sound good in some people ears.
2005soheyl 2 years ago
I love it how you all act like your mature when you sit there and say someone who doesn't believe the same as you believes garbage...
You know you believe a theory as well.
You would believe just as much garbage as him because yours is also a theory.
dalaxton 2 years ago
Didn't catch him saying that!
chaz4510 2 years ago
one who dont believe on evolution not guided by GOD are real stupids on earth. Evolution has to be guided by a divine power, or GOD otherwise all make non-sense.
ahnasir 2 years ago
In order for there to be DNA there needs to be natural selection, but in order for there to be natural selection, there needs to be DNA. If they claim that the first cells didn't have it. This supports me more than a antheist because this only proves that the first cell was "superior" to todays cells because they didn't require DNA in the first place.
pretoshohmoofc 2 years ago
What is so hard about saying 'I don't know'? Why assume a god or anything of the sort?
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
wow, that's deep yo..If any Atheists can understand what he's sayin, he basically says that life on this earth is NOT chance, and there is a GOD in which we were created...makes me happy to see that this cannot be busted, and that were on the right track
BrandonHawk21 2 years ago
Seriously, this is the extent of your arguments -- calling me names? At least Pang00lin tossed out something of substance... However, the large number of thoughful poets typing poetry and selecting the right words and letters for the right place in the overall sonnet makes my exact point. These were thoughtful poets seeking collective poetry -- Where does naturalistic/materialistic process allow for such thoughtful writing, selection, and collaboration? Yes, "under such conditions" I agree --
reflect7 2 years ago 2
reflect7, You are DISGUSTING!
This argument is so ridiculous, do you horrible disgusting, morally reprehensible people have to come up with this crap to condone your belief in a non-existent God...
You make me want to puke!
XMrAverageX 2 years ago
I think a fairer analogy would be if you had a large number of poets, typing poetry, and having words and letters selected for being in the right place in the sonnet. Under such conditions, I think you'll agree, it's actually likely that they'd produce a Shakespearian sonnet.
If you want to learn more about the origin of DNA, check out cdk007's series on the subject. If you do, and keep an open mind, you might see what I mean.
pang00lin 2 years ago
What a tosser!
Religious people just don't get it, do they?
This video works as a solemn warning about the dangers of religion and how it poisons the mind, closing down insight & rational analytical ability.
This is nothing more than a dressed up version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity: "I don't understand something, therefore God exists & the Bible is true."
Oh purleeeease!! This is one of the very weakest "proofs" of God.
Grade F. Try again, with more thought.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
@BoneySkylord since you have the insight and rational analytical ability then you must have proof and facts about the origin of life and the universe.. so enlighten me and correct me "oh BoneySky Lord"
IlC4RL0SIl 2 years ago
LOL!
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
What a tosser!
Religious people just don't get it, do they?
This video works as a solemn warning about the dangers of religion and how it poisons the mind, closing down insight & rational analytical ability.
This is nothing more than a dressed up version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity: "I don't understand something, therefore God exists & the Bible is true."
Oh purleeeease!! This is one of the very weakest "proofs" of God.
Grade F. Try again, with more thought.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
@BoneySkylord
secularist don't get it, do they?
a practicer of the judea/christian faith doesn't need to prove a damn thing to you.
a faith and tradition thousands of years old that has produced entire societies with any number of brilliant thinkers and YOU--a guy on youtube--are the arbiter of it?
just because you don't understand something, loser, doesn't mean that it aint so? what do you bring to the discussion?
wise ass remarks?
grade F. try again, with more thought.
theMETALDOVE 2 years ago
Hi theMENTALDOVE,
"..a practicer of the judea/christian faith doesn't need to prove a damn thing to you."
Too right. That is generally their attitude.
However, if anyone claims something as being absolutely true it is only reasonable to ask them how they have tested their assertion.
Besides, nothing alters the fact that the guy in this video is talking a load of garbage.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
That moron is adressing an audience of other morons, christtards and creationists. I.e Garbage.
winterstellar 3 years ago
Is this satire, of is this man really taking a generic metaphor as literal?
Does 6 monkeys really equate in any way to INFINITE?
also,if you gave a primate an infinite length of time, evolution would be plausable (depending on the habitat), thus creating an intellectually superior species who could type.
(a.k.a - me and you)
godlessmessiah 3 years ago
LOL come on! You (assuming you're Christian), don't fear the hells of other religions or their Gods. Just like you don't fear Allah, Odin, or Zeus I don't fear the Christian God or it's hell.
Don't have the arrogance to say I don't understand something than make the claim that the odds of someone being wrong about the existence of God is 1/2. You're either right or wrong, but the odds aren't 50/50.
Any God who values faith in his existence over leading a good life is not worthy of worship.
AJWalton12 3 years ago
oh ok. i'll try again then.
RNA is less complex than DNA and served for replication. An RNA strand comprised of a small number of nucleotides formed under the conditions of the so-called "primordial soup" from less complex proteins. The fact we are here is proof of that life rose from non life.
There, I guess arrogant certainty makes a better point than leaving any room for doubt.
Now you say "how do you know _____. Prove it." Right?
AJWalton12 3 years ago
We misunderstand each other and I have no issue with science not having all the answers. Many times, science can explain what, when and how, but we venture into religion to answer "why".
I simply wish both sides of this equation could say, "Let's agree to disagree," on the issue of unprovable origins rather than steadfastly, adamantly and dogmatically pound their respective side of the table and shout, "I'M RIGHT. Maybe."
Let's just say that it takes an element of faith on both sides?
JTTCOLO 3 years ago
prev response was to Ischys
JTTCOLO: Fair enough.
AJWalton12 3 years ago
Name an example of an RNA.
donpatton 3 years ago
AJ, do you like to argue about things you don't understand? The probability of any two independent sequential events BOTH happening is the product of the probability of both; (1/n)x
Is that what you mean? Patterns in nature? Sure, it WILL happen - given enough time right? What is the probability of someone being wrong about God? 1/2 - and 100 people? Same concept, new results! If you're right - you die and become worm food. If you're wrong - you're judged.
Have a nice conscience!
IschysDynamis 3 years ago
Why does pretty much everyone that believe in God think that "chance" had anything to do with scientific explanations for the origin of life or evolution. It's a mistake to say that just because something is unlikely it couldn't have happened (especially that it couldn't have happened without divine intervention)
If you flipped a coin 100 times and got only heads you would think it incredible, but it's the exact same odds as getting any other order of H&T, it just wouldn't appear significant
AJWalton12 3 years ago
This is so silly, so misleading, and downright ignorant. However, the my-mind-is-made-up-don't- bother-me-with-the-facts creationists will love it. You no more understand about Anthony Flew than you understand your own Hovind . "Intelligent Design" mumbo jumbo was blown out of the water in the DOVER trial.
PaineLover 3 years ago
and that some thing is a bearded guy sitting on a cloud!!! what created god , was it another god a bigger god ????
I was a christian but since I've been in America and listened to all you people trying to disprove evolution with terrible science and argument , I became atheist You made me realise how stupid it was to believe in God.
I never questioned it before.
crissyhowes 3 years ago
that's right, crissy, guys like this are always of the mindset "Science doesn't explain every single thing, every teeny tiny minutia, so therefore....God-did-it". Twisted, mangled, pseudo "scientific" sounding gobbley-gook, which ONLY the also "god-did-it" folks will so eagerly believe. Wonder if reflect has spent any time on TalkOrigins website? Naw...he'd never do that. He might learn a thing or two.
PaineLover 3 years ago
I fear you are mistaken with the naturalist materialists mentioned in the video. The argument in this video is flawless unless you actually believe chance could be responsible for God's perfection on this planet Earth.(after watching this video and you still believe that, they you're very ignorant.)
By the way, since you apparently don't agree with the naturalist materialist and still claim to be an atheist, then how do you believe we came to existence? There is truly no other way to be sane.
megadud21 3 years ago
the math in the video is so flawed its unbelievable, Infinite has a meaning!
the experiment with 6 monkeys and one type writer. that like pouring out 6 M&Ms and not getting a blue one then saying if I times the results of this experiment by infinity I still get no blue M&Ms. if you do the proper math and pour out an infinite amount of M&Ms you will find BLUE ones you IDIOTS. doing an experiment wrong doesn't prove a GOD did anything IDIOTS
crissyhowes 3 years ago
your argument fails immediately - you do not, in fact, need DNA before you have life (in order to have the replication process to occur). RNA is less complex than DNA and could have served for replication. You could potentially reduce an RNA strand to a small number of nucleotides that could have formed by any number of means given the state of the early-earth. Science doesn't know exactly how it happened, but it shows that life certainly can rise from non-life.
AJWalton12 3 years ago
Funny... I do not seem to know of at least ONE so-called-organism that can grow, reproduce and maintain homeostasis, but someway, somehow YOU know the origin of life all of the sudden. Please prove to me that your sources are not the voices in your head.
megadud21 3 years ago
I think I specifically said I don't know the origin of life. I only said how RNA is less complex than DNA and is the solution to *part* of the "problem" presented.
wth are you talking about. Humans are organisms that can grow, reproduce, and maintain homeostasis.
Sources: any biology textbook. You can probably find 100's on Amazon thx.
AJWalton12 3 years ago
nonsense
esathegreat 3 years ago
Everything you said throughout this argument was conjecture ("could have"), supposition ("could potentially"), wild speculation ("could have formed"), and admission (science doesn't know).
Then you end with the falsely confident statement that "life CERTAINLY CAN rise from non-life".
"Certainly can". Is this like "almost positive", or "definitely maybe"?
JTTCOLO 3 years ago
lol i heard that they had a hard time keeping the monkeys from pooping on the keyboard
sumwhatparanoid 3 years ago
The probability of god creating himself and then going on to create the universe "in six days" is SO near "impossible" as to be disregarded by any intelligent person.You can actually check this out for yourself "Reflect7" but I don't suppose you will. Its simple science and Mathematics.Also check out "probability theory and chaos theory! Its all there for those who want to know the truth.
clearly 3 years ago
Reflect... Thank and bless you for your work/videos.
stevendrake01 3 years ago
By the way, I believe evolution is a very vague theory with many gaps which is why I do not support it. When it comes down to it all though, Randall Niles is smart for asking the question " where did the first DNA code come from, how did that start." Its all a big mystery but I think religion cripples the belief of God significantly.
rangedkid 3 years ago
EASY. It came from one of trillions of RNA codes that paired up. thanks.
AJWalton12 3 years ago
I find it hilarious that most atheists are actually some of the least educated people. I know people(atheist) that know NOTHING about science and when you ask them how does evolution work they answer with "survival of the fittest." Then when you ask them to elaborate on that, they come up with the ridiculous answer of " depending on the environment and climate changes, a species evolves to best fit those changes." They don't have a clue about genetic mutations which is what evolution really is.
rangedkid 3 years ago
Keep the videos coming. I think that these atheists are about to explode when you use their theories to actually support yours. I no longer believe in "religion" because every religion may be the same in one way but so different at the same time. That is why the only thing I believe in is "god" itself. A higher power.
rangedkid 3 years ago
Language is a predefined system of patterns. Evolution (and indirectly abiogenesis) describe a system of prevailing patterns that continue the survival of DNA.
I just destroyed your strongest argument with two sentences :) Back to the drawing board?
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
Predefined system of patterns? System of prevailing patterns? I think that actually supports my argument here -- In all known areas of information theory, something (a mindful engineer/designer/thinker) must define the system or establish the patterns. I don't think you destroyed anything -- I think you bolstered my argument.
reflect7 3 years ago
Well I'm not too surprised at the desperate attempt to defelct.
The assertion that DNA is a product of design is the primary fault. A product of prevailing patters is the result of molding to an environmental factor, not a design. You know that, as do I. Your victims AKA 'market' may not though.
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
What? A desperate attempt to deflect? You're just changing the focus and using rhetoric. Your response is "the result of molding to environmental factor" -- What does that even mean?
reflect7 3 years ago
If you really can not comprehend the statement:
"A product of prevailing patters is the result of molding to an environmental factor, not a design"
If not, should you be in the business of persuasion (aka rhetoric)?
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
What quasi-intellectual fluff.
Your professors must be so proud.
JTTCOLO 3 years ago
Wise up buddy - there's no fairies flying around up there.
maoldhomhnaigh 3 years ago
Interesting use of probability theory. To me, it doesn't even have to go that far. DNA is an INSTRUCTION set. Word of God is "DDNA" (term I use in my webseries). Any instruction set must have a Programmer make it. So the very existence of DNA, means there is DDNA. Case closed.
brainout1 3 years ago
Even if the monkey theorem is the only other explination it is far more reasonable than the "god did it" explination. God makes the problem worse because now you have to account for the existance of god; which you have not done. FAIL.
ElectraDescending 3 years ago
I actually first found your allaboutthejourney website when attempting to find the actual odds of Christ matching up to every previously made prophesy about Him. As suspected they were well beyond random chance.
But that is the great irony in the atheist's position. So long as they argue random chance but dismiss the actual odds, I cannot reasonably accept their position.
TheEdge012 3 years ago 4
Richard Dawkins explains why this is not a very good analogy, at least for the process of natural selection.
The monkeys don't accrue any accumulative changes. In other words, there is no "reward" for getting even one letter right, like in natural selection.
Read Dawkin's segment on "Methinks it is like a weasel", dealing with this specific Shakespearian analogy.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I've seen Dawkins response and it brings up a few questions for me. First, it seems that there's no naturalistic way to account for this accumulative process. As correct "letters" are finally struck, what holds those letters in place while all the others are accumulated? Why would they stay in place for no purpose? It seems the tars and acids in the primordial goo would actually destroy such efforts prior to the next accumulative change (letter) being produced --
reflect7 3 years ago
Also, what's declaring the "reward"? It seems that this accumulative process is a "thinking" process. Something (Nature, I presume) is "rewarding" positive additions to the genetic code, while this same something is "punishing" negative contributions. Of course, all of this happening before there's any notion of genetic code at all -- There would be no mechanism (not even close) for generating, maintaining, and reproducing such accumulations until the code (or most of it) was functional --
reflect7 3 years ago
Say you have a hole in a river 5 inches wide, and you have a lot of rocks flowing through the river, some larger, some smaller. When the rocks are disturbed by the water, the small ones will enter the hole, right?
Who is "rewarding" the rocks for being small? Is there any need for genetic accumulation of information?
"There would be no mechanism"
How do you know? All that is needed is change, time, and a selection mechanism. Simple chemistry provides these possibilities.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"what holds those letters in place while all the others are accumulated?"
In the case of evolution, natural selection. As far as abiogenesis goes, the process may be similar, and there are some competing theories, but nobody really knows.
However, the basic idea is that any change that leads to the increased probability of the survival of any self-replicating system will ensure that more of them are replicated.
Its actually fairly simple.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago