Hey C0nc0rdance Nice job! You don't actually think RM and NS could invent a system like this from dumb luck scratch do you? From a sterile Earth with no biochemical systems? The intelligence required to formulate systems like this overwhelms us all: is way beyond any person's intelligence to comprehend. You just don't realize it. Proving God didn't do it sure doesn't prove RM&NS did. Try to imagine yourself an intelligence on the Early Earth. You couldn't even come up with the notion of life.
@sngcoach "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them ..." - Thomas Jefferson.
You heard people say- "it will never be found", "it ain't true", "it just can't be".
I'm here to tell you these People are WRONG- I found it. Using Google Earth -
I found God's Watermarks of the REAL Garden of Eden. Look at my Channel and see the Video I made of it. I didn't point all of it out either- there are many things still hid for you to find. I even found 3 picture's of God. Come see.
@sngcoach You are right. People with developmental disabilities should not be marginalized... for the sake of society and our grandchildren creationists most definitely should be. My apologies to the retarded community.
Even if they were right and we could not see how organisms and structures in nature evolved it still does not prove or even suggest a god exists let alone a specific god.
I am so fucking tire do people who don't take the years to get and undergraduate degree in biochem than get a Phd while doing research than pursue real research with other pHd researchers just come along and say "hey this is irreducibly complex cause I say so and adds shit to the field of study lol im great and so is my god!!"
You know anyone that thinks that this video is wrong should just make a video on it, rather than commenting on length here. It'll show that either 1) you're smart or 2) you're ignorant.
But...but...It's so much easier to just say "god" to explain what you don't understand. It absolves you of the responsibility of actually having to think.
I object to your referencing god....er... the "Intelligent Designer" as a woman. As George Carlin pointed out, if there is a "designer", it has to be a man.
No woman could or would fuck things up this badly. :)
Excellent video, C0nc0rdance. You explain complex ideas with great economy. The term 'Darwinist' is a giveaway, isn't it. (And I think this video's thumbnail will chime with lots of people...)
@QualiaSoup Hey QualiaSoup Dude, go read my argument in the comments on this video where I show why it's impossible for vital organs to emerge via evolutionary means. GO READ IT !!
This video is fascinating, and it completely owns the claims of chemotaxis to be irreducibly complex, thing is - creationists will either ignore it or find something else that is "irreducibly complex", it seems like nothing will ever change their minds, or even give them pause...
You are engaging uneducated guesses and hand-waving. First pick up a developmental biology textbook and study it. You will realize that few sets of unspecialized cells diverge into multiple cell lines that form primitive tissues and structures. Specialization of organs result from diversification of these primitive embryonic structures. What you are implying is completely nonsensical. Stop making uneducated conjectures and study what scientists actually have discovered.
You stated that there can't be evolutionary pathway to produce vital organs because, "an organ that is NECESSARY in order to maintain life in an organism." That is unfounded, and you need to actually study developmental biology. Species don't full form without necessary vital organs and try to evolve those organs. Organ development is an integral part of development of embryos. Organs evolve as species do.
@theDracoIX What do you find about those questions that are unreasonable? Perhaps I could have come up with better points, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at the implications of your argument.
@theDracoIX I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
@theDracoIX I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
@theDracoIX I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
(cont.) and instead of actually reading it, you ask whether or not it answers your question. But that's disingenuous, because you automatically assume that your deduction MUST be the end-all, be-all way that it should happen. You should at least TRY to read what was given to you. Hell, part of the paper was quoted days ago, yet you seemed to gloss over that, too. It explained how it happened, and it showed that your reasoning was flawed.
@MGShootnanny Let's do it like this... I'll answer your mindless questions if you answer one question for me first, ok? My question for you is - why do you drink people's blood? Answer that honestly, then we'll continue... otherwise, don't even reply. I'm kind of done giving my time to fake people.
How do you explain organisms that do not have the vital organs we do, or whose organs akin to ours have different functions? What mechanism can you provide that supports Irreducible Complexity, AND can explain what we see? IC is practically hand-waving: "I don't know how this could come about naturally, so it couldn't." But there is a way something like, say, the human heart could have come through evolution. You were given an example through a scientific paper (cont.)
Okay, I'll back dowm on the eyes. Now, what evidence can you provide aside from conjecture that the body is IC? How do you explain people who can live with only one kidney? How do you explain vestigal organs? What empirical evidence do you have discrediting the papers c0nc0rdance provided?
@theDracoIX But eyes help increase the chances of survival, depending on outside pressures. What good is a heart if you are being outmanouvered by an animal with better eyes?
@MGShootnanny My argument is related to Irreducible Complexity. I'm saying that there are no natural, evolutionary pathways that can produce vital organs. And by vital organ, I mean an organ that is NECESSARY in order to maintain life in an organism.
Again, things like physical appearance that aid in survival are NOT the same as vital organs. I'm talking about the internal parts (i.e. VITAL ORGANS) of an organism that are REQUIRED in order to maintain life within the body.
@theDracoIX: the evolution of the leg would seem to fill your bill. It starts out in primitive fish as a way to naviagate and maintain balance. Was it necessary them? Probably not; other even more primitive fish lived without it, but it improved both predator and grazer ability. As the environment changed it took on more an more tasks, eventually taking the animal's weight and specializing for grasping. Today to remove a leg is to condemn the animal to quick predation, or starvation.
@puncheex A leg isn't a vital organ - because you can cut both your legs off, and your body would still function. A vital organ is something like a heart, where if you removed it - the body would instantly die.
@theDracoIX: OK, then. Even better, let's choose skin. As a cellular structure, it starts from literally nothing to separate outside from inside, later to house sense organs and temperature control structures as well as armor. It is certainly vital to immediate life processes.
@theDracoIX So when it comes to evolutionary theory, you are in complete agreement when it comes to everything except the evolution of vital organs? Or do you insist that evolution does not and has never taken place at all, and use your lack of understanding regarding evolutionary biology as your evidence?
@theDracoIX Also, eyes practically are vital. An organism doesn't nees them (since we see creatures that don't have them) but they help improve an organism's chances of surviving. This is probably just semantics, but that would make eyes be subjectively vital (it would also be dependent on environmental pressures)
@theDracoIX The answer is quite simple: it does not work that way. There is a wide spectrum between non-vital and vital. It's the small, but beneficial changes that accumulate over time to the point where they are vital. At least, that is what we would predict, and the papers c0nc0rdance showed basically outlines this.
@MGShootnanny Every organ can be described as either necessary and unnecessary in order to maintain overall function (life) in a living system. Do you disagree with that? An organ cannot be somewhat necessary or somewhat unnecessary in order to maintain life - it's ONE OR THE OTHER.
"Also, eyes practically are vital."
This is why we can't communicate. If you remove the eyes will the body die? YES OR NO? I just need a yes or no, sir. WILL THE BODY SHUT DOWN & DIE IF YOU REMOVE THE EYES?!
@theDracoIX OK then pick a vital organ that you feel is irreducibly complex. I cant think of a single organ that is universally "vital" to all living things. It follows that for any given specific organism with a vital organ, there can have been an ancestor for which the organ was NOT vital.
@theDracoIX You've been asking these same questions and making theses same statements, for more than a year now. Your sincerity is seriously questionable. If you are really sincere in getting answers and not just trolling for it's entertainment value, then take the time and actually take a course in biology. One semester at a reputable college will go a very long way toward helping you figure it out.
@theDracoIX "... can an organ switch from non-vital to vital in one generation?" Good question. The answer: Maybe, but probably not. All the evidence I'm aware of suggests that it would take a number of generations where the newer organ has not fully replaced the previous mechanism, but evolved to work better than or improve the original and contributed more to the species survival and reproduction until the old mechanism became redundant and the newer organ took over the job.
@deep "The answer: Maybe, but probably not. " We are NOT talking about beneficial and/or survival within an environment. We are talking strictly about the bio-mechanical processes of the body. There are certain things vital to any given animal or organism - meaning, w/o these things the animal's body would shut down & die.
I maintain no such vital thing can evolve, because in every gen an organ must be either non-vital or vital, it cannot be both - and so this transition must occur in one gen.
@theDracoIX Do you have any examples that would back up what you are saying? Because there are many thousands of examples that back up my statement, this video here being only one example. If you can give an example, I seriously would like to know about it. Thanks.
@theDracoIX And time and time again, people have told you that it simply does not work that way. A couple even gave you examples! It's almost as if you're completely ignoring the other side. Crazy, right?
@theDracoIX "... in every gen an organ must be either non-vital or vital, it cannot be both." You're phrasing it as if there are 2 separate organs. Big mistake. Take the heart. You would have to go back more than 500,000,000 yrs. to find one of our ancestors that didn't have a heart. The heart never went away or was swapped out one for another the way your question implies. There has only been one heart in our ancestral line. Same for all our vital organs.
@deepashtray "The heart never went away or was swapped out one for another the way your question implies." I never said it was swapped out - this is what others are trying to say... if a vital organ emerges - it must first exist as a non-vital organ - then transition to being vital... but it's an impossible transition for reasons stated in my argument.
@theDracoIX All the evidence says otherwise... which is why evolution is so fascinating. It's clear is that you're not going to find the answer you want from watching videos made by atheists like C0ncordance or AronRa; they make videos to debunk creationism and ID arguments. If you honestly want to learn what is going on you need to watch videos that specifically explain evolution for the sake of teaching evolution. There are a lot of good videos made by excellent colleges that do just that.
@deepashtray What evidence? Who gets to decide what is valid evidence for the claims made in evolution? The majority? Is this how science works? It's a vote and the majority wins? What if the majority are paid off scum like politicians? What then? Are we screwed?
I just explained very simply, why it's logically impossible for vital orders to evolve - and if that's not good enough... then you are unwilling to admit that evolution cannot explain everything we see in life.
@Atharkas Evolution explains nothing - it is a fake word. Peer-review? Yea, science works on a consensus - it's a vote, plain & simple. No, you haven't explained which premiss in my argument is false.
I didn't say what has been observed, I can observe a fossil - but who is to say this observed fossil is evidence of anything other than an animal once lived? You must INTERPRET the evidence which is where the vote comes into play. You can't empirically demonstrate how a fossil is evidence for evo.
@Atharkas Evolution explains nothing - it is a fake word. Peer-review? Yea, science works on a consensus - it's a vote, plain & simple. No, you haven't explained which premiss in my argument is false.
I didn't say what has been observed, I can observe a fossil - but who is to say this observed fossil is evidence of anything other than an animal once lived? You must INTERPRET the evidence which is where the vote comes into play. You can't empirically demonstrate how a fossil is evidence for evo.
Here's an example of evolution shown by fossils : The cetaceans. From the four legged pakicetidae to the common whale, their gradual change can be observed.
Also weird that you mention fossils when these are not the best evidence for evolution. The world of genetic has way more impact, not only with the common genes found in the family of species, but also because of the common endogenous retrovirus whose code was inserted in the code of the common ancestor of these species,
Here's an example of evolution shown by fossils : The cetaceans. From the four legged pakicetidae to the common whale, their gradual change can be observed.
Also weird that you mention fossils when these are not the best evidence for evolution. The world of genetic has way more impact, not only with the common genes found in the family of species, but also because of the common endogenous retrovirus whose code was inserted in the code of the common ancestor of these species,
Here's an example of evolution shown by fossils : The cetaceans. From the four legged pakicetidae to the common whale, their gradual change can be observed.
Also weird that you mention fossils when these are not the best evidence for evolution. The world of genetic has way more impact, not only with the common genes found in the family of species, but also because of the common endogenous retrovirus whose code was inserted in the code of the common ancestor of these species,
@theDracoIX "I just explained very simply, why it's logically impossible for vital orders to evolve-" No you dodn't explain anything. In fact, the only thing your "explaining" is that you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand the tsunami of evidence from every field of science supporting the reality of evolution, or you have willingly and deliberately chose to be ignorant. Which is it? If you're a creationist and/or believe ID then you are both.
@deepashtray If you're not going to state which premiss is wrong in my argument, then kindly go die in a fire - we're done here.
There is no evidence for evolution. Nothing has ever evolved. You know it - I know it... the only difference is that I'm a real person with a real perspective on the real world - while you're a fake person with a fake perspective on your fake world.
@theDracoIX No reason to be hasty with my passing and go jump in a fire, I figure I'll be dead soon enough. In all the time that we've enjoyed each others company I cannot recall that you have ever once offered an alternative to evolution. What is this mystery that you are working so hard to keep from the rest of us? In other words, how do YOU explain diversity? You're certainly very loud about saying everyone else is wrong, but you offer no explanation as to the "Truth". Can you answer that?
@theDracoIX You're a very sad individual, going on and on for over a year now with the same pathetic simple minded nonsense you seem to think qualifies as an "argument". I'm sure you've heard the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over... and in your case over and over and over again, and expecting different results. This shows a lack of intelligence that borders on the retarded. You are irrelevant. (You'll probably need to look up the big words.)
@TheMessianist Well, yes. What I said isn't quite true - there are RNA viruses, "life" which doesn't rely on DNA - but among true life we see no other mechanisms. From evolution you'd expect one to be selected for. The nature of the basic encoding scheme affects every part of every other trait, so there would be very strong selection pressure (as well as a very long time for that pressure to manifest) to get a *local* maximum efficiency amongst what is possible variations.
"Genomic view of the evolution of the complement system."
Mol Immunol. 2004 Jun;41(2-3):103-11.
"Primitive complement system--recognition and activation."
Again, irreducible complexity ignores the vast diversity of working complement cascades that do not rely on the 30 components in the mammalian system.
What we know is that jawless vertebrates (lamprey) have a very simplified system missing most of the components found in mammals. There's an excellent video on the topic where Kenneth Miller makes the topic a little clearer and more accessible.
For my part, I focus on the molecular evidence. Most of the components in such pathways are duplicated gene products, which is a common motif. Two copies do the same thing for a while, then begin to specialize in a single function.
Duplication and specialization are key to these interconnected systems. Imagine, by analogy, that we start with a Model A car. It can haul light freight, passengers, and can be used for racing. Now imagine an 18 wheeler, a school bus and a Formula 1 car. All are replicates of that single generalized design, but they have been adapted for specific functions done generally by the ancestral form.
Another thought experiment: Let's take a trip to somewhere even bacteria can't go. Outer space. Do we observe any kind of "primordial soup" precursors?
Yes, in fact, on comets, and nebulary clusters, we have actually detected the presence of amino acids and amido bases, the precursors of proteins and nucleic acids. Likewise, there are terrestrial processes that create all sorts of precursors. It's just that they are eaten faster than they can be made.
Bacteria, especially, are so prevalent that there is literally nowhere that a food source exists that they do not go. They are at both poles, at the bottom of the ocean, along volcanic vents, in near-boiling lakes, several miles under the Earth, on the moon in the junk we left behind.
If an energetic phosphate or reduced sulfur compound forms, they will be there to eat it. We are the result of billions of years of eating contests. The champions tolerate no new challengers.
@TheMessianist Because they're selected against? Whatever we started with is what evolution has to work with. It's not given that from the kind of life we have, there are close enough analogues that would also function. The bigger the difference in chemistry, the smaller the probability that such a mutation taking place. As for non-functional bits with different fundamental chemistry present, I think the extra energy requirement would put such bacteria at a disadvantage and be selected against.
There are certainly two way to explain the prevalence of DNA-based genetics: (note that it's not *quite* universal, as evidenced by the presence of deoxyuridine and inosine in DNA and the existence of RNA-only viruses. Prions are also arguably protein-based genetics).
One relies on divine magical intervention.
The other relies on a common origin for all or most present organisms.
The latter doesn't require new, unobserved processes to be invoked for explanation.
Hey, that's a great question. Perhaps we can do a thought experiment?
Imagine a bucket containing sterilized sugar-sweetened chicken broth (fats, protein, sugars, water, salts) is set out in the woods. What do you think would happen to it by the end of week 2, let alone a few million years?
My guess is ants, bacteria, fungus, and little animals would eat it all. The abundance of life prevents nutrients from sitting around for long, agreed?
So, I just visited the blog (sorry c0nc0rdance, first time i ever paused one of your vids, and I have seen them all) and guess what, I can't comment on that page. One of the few blogs I know of that don't support commenting on the individual posts.
...the first can take over the task it had originaly performed. nothing says that an organ must become vital when taking over for another, in the case of 15 organs doing the same thing(your example) none need be vital, once the second gained the ability to function in the same manner as the first(even if in a completly new way) the first would no longer be vital but neither would the second, they would only be vital if all others where lost or damaged.
"The Intelligent Design Creationists rely on the BEFUDDLEMENT of their target audience, using scientific SOUNDING terms to support their pseudoscience agenda."
Of course, obfuscation and inveiglement are a B.S.er's best tools.
@tctheunbeliever tinkerer: noun, an unskilled person who tries to fix or mend. It is indeed a most genteel description. I was in a charitable mood. ; )
A million crazed engineers.. I can't help but laugh at that. I picture a million guys with hardhats and tools running around conking eachother in the head..
If the "Irreducibly Complex" phrase means "I don't get it" then I'm going to use that as a response to any problem I'm asked to solve in my next calculus class.
Hey Concordance, can you please do a video on morality? I know you mostly focus on the science, but this is a good area to trespass into, don't you think?
"...gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes. Investment of the coelom by these mesodermal cells forms a "gastrovascular" structure. Further evolution of this structure in the bilaterian branches Ecdysoa and Deuterostoma culminate in a peristaltic tubular heart, without valves, without blood vessels or blood, but featuring a single layer of contracting mesoderm."
"...The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system. A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals. "
@C0nc0rdance "No step of that is irreducibly complex." Is it possible for you to stay on topic? We're not even talking about whether or not an organ like the heart can evolve - we are talking about an I.C. system evolving - COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC!
Once again - can an organ switch from non-vital to vital in one generation? Yes or no? And by NON-VITAL I mean a part you can remove without the organism dying, and by VITAL - I mean... a part that if removed will kill the whole living system.
@theDracoIX "we are talking about an I.C. system evolving"
your the only 1 talking about that because no one else believes that a biological IC system exists. so clearly you dont even know what your trying to talk about. if you want an answer to your question, look down.
please make a video refering to the document "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Design by William Dembski", which can be found on the FAQ.
If human were designed, then the designer is a retard. Human race is so flawed with built in redundancies and weaknesses. I just ask why we have an appedix, little bastard nearly killed me.
I cannot believe anyone still gives This Irreducible Complexity guy the time of day. The guy is a moron and has been ever since he first uttered a word.
Faved, not watched. View this channel page. DO NOT draw my attention in this way again - and get back to fucking school, you rank amateur.,ACAI,//2//blueblue.Dr-HDean.
When I was learning about cell signalling in college, I didn't learn very in-depth but I always did think everything looked needlessly complex. There are multiple intermediary steps going back and forth through the cell, signals pass through multiple paths and interlace with one another, and for some reason everything effects calcium ion flow.
>"...an irreducibly complex system WITHIN an irreducibly complex system..."
So...he's saying that if you take this irreducibly complex system and break it apart you'll find another irreducibly complex system inside it. Uh, a system that you CAN break apart to see how it works...IS BY DEFINITION NOT irreducable. Because you reduced it. To it's component parts.
I know what chemotaxis is but I think this video might be both too complex and too simple for laymen. The most important part is that the switches and pathways are nothing but "chemical reactions" - chemo=chemical and taxis=mover. "Sensing" gives the impression of awareness without having stressed the chemical reactions.
Even though ID is bullshit I find it hilarious that evolution has explanations for extremely complex things such as the eye but them creationist retards think by proving a tiny bacteria can't evolve (even though it can) they think that is the knock out punch to disprove evolution. It's just down right embarrassing.
ID identifies the complex eye as something with irreducible complexity too, denying it evolved from simpler and simpler eyes or means of vision. Yes, it's embarrassing.
Sigh. I have had one on one personal conversations and creationists I personally know just end up saying," well my common sense tells me doesn't make any sense, that sounds ridiculous. My truth lies in the bible, that makes sense." :: face palm :: so if they don't understand it then it's impossible, and they listen to people that try to use cool sciency words to prove ID is possible. How do you inspire lazy minded people that don't want to do their own thinking?
It's simple. In order to believe in creationism (of any stripe, including "Intelligent Design" creationism), you have to either be ignorant, or a liar.
Unfortunately most of the content of this video is too advanced for me to understand, though I fully understand the thrust of your arguments concerning 'tinkering' v 'standard unique design'. I often wonder what creationists...oops, IDers...would have said had we discovered that the human genome was unique, and unrelated to any other creature on earth. I still have not found a creationist who can sensibly explain why 'god's special creation' has the physical characteristics ot an ape, not an ant
Great video. I can see the counterargument now: The organisms' pathways and such WERE perfect when god created them; but now, after all man's dirty and sinful ways...
The sin waves, man. They radiate off us and affect everything.
C0nc0rdance, have you done or ever considering doing a vid on Pica & geophagy? I ask because I have heard of pregnant women and sometimes children craving dirt amongst other things ( a friend admitted to enjoying eating dry-wall, as a kid). I've always wondered if their bodies possess some sense that they need some nutrient found in the soil (or whatever) that they're not getting or getting enough of in their diet. Thanks.
@Jaybird196 Pica is a sypmtom of a nutritional deficiency, such as iron or zinc. Geophagia is a form of Pica. People with Pica may bite their nails, eat dirt, ice, chalk, soap, powdered laundry starch, etc.
Why do the pseudoscience fucktards at DI even have a heading like 'Evolution news' if they don't consider evolution correct or true? It's like a scientific article having a 'Creationism News' feature. Laughing, winning.
Creatards are so damn lazy. How many times do people have to destroy their pseudo-science v. 1.0. Can't they even bother with a v. 2.0? Fuck, I would like to at least see a v. 1.01!!
I really enjoyed this C0nc0rdance, as I always enjoy your videos.
One thing irked me though - toward the end of the video, you refer Evolution as a group of "tinker-ers" as differentiated from the single grand designer, and you come back to that idea multiple times. While I understand what you're trying to get across with that analogy, it implies that evolution is a conscience decision on the part of the "tinker-er", which, as I know you know, isn't true.
Lol I only understand like, 70%, and still it makes a lot of sense :-)
I'd love to create an AE simulator where new information can be added and information can be removed in a meaningful/purposeful way. How does nature do it?
@C0nc0rdance For the love of go... err... goodness. Please try to avoid using the term "Darwinist". You KNOW this is just a rhetorical device creationists try to pull off in order to try convincing their flock that we take "The Origin of Species" as an infallible holy scripture.
If you must refer to people who accept evolution, consider "Evolutionist" instead. THAT at least makes it clear that it's about evolution, not Darwin.
@boenrobot "For the love of go... err... goodness. Please try to avoid using the term "Darwinist". [...] If you must refer to people who accept evolution, consider "Evolutionist" instead."
I suggest using no such terms at all. After all, there is no "Germist" or "Gravitationist"... I suggest "normal" or "educated". IDiots can take "anormal" and "uneducated" if they want.
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
evolution has been debunked so many times now that even calling it a "theory" is a disgrace to actual REAL and credible scientific theories
buffboynick 2 months ago
Hey C0nc0rdance Nice job! You don't actually think RM and NS could invent a system like this from dumb luck scratch do you? From a sterile Earth with no biochemical systems? The intelligence required to formulate systems like this overwhelms us all: is way beyond any person's intelligence to comprehend. You just don't realize it. Proving God didn't do it sure doesn't prove RM&NS did. Try to imagine yourself an intelligence on the Early Earth. You couldn't even come up with the notion of life.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 omg you make such a substantiated argument im totally converted !!!!!!
bardiche1989 3 days ago
@sngcoach "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them ..." - Thomas Jefferson.
MrMZaccone 3 months ago
They made a response, Please reply to it.
ThePuppyTurtle 3 months ago
@ThePuppyTurtle
"They"? Equestions? Is that someone from DI?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Watch Equestion's vid, He links to it in the description.
ThePuppyTurtle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You heard people say- "it will never be found", "it ain't true", "it just can't be".
I'm here to tell you these People are WRONG- I found it. Using Google Earth -
I found God's Watermarks of the REAL Garden of Eden. Look at my Channel and see the Video I made of it. I didn't point all of it out either- there are many things still hid for you to find. I even found 3 picture's of God. Come see.
downyourtube 3 months ago
@sngcoach You are right. People with developmental disabilities should not be marginalized... for the sake of society and our grandchildren creationists most definitely should be. My apologies to the retarded community.
deepashtray 4 months ago 2
Every time I watch one of your videos, I actually feel myself get a little smarter.
Thank you, Concordance.
zEropoint68 4 months ago
I like that you call "the designer" "she"! :)
Faidros62 4 months ago
7:01 "Manufactured in a facility that also makes nuts." Yeah, religious nuts! LMAO!!!
kville105125 4 months ago
I love the analogies. Keeps it simple enough for the rest of us. Good work as usual Concordance.
burkeyatm 4 months ago
Sometimes I wish I had studied biology instead of Electronics lol.
m89733 4 months ago
@m89733 You're not dead yet. I'm 45 and changing careers from telecom into molecular biology.
NorthForkFisherman 4 months ago
Even if they were right and we could not see how organisms and structures in nature evolved it still does not prove or even suggest a god exists let alone a specific god.
peterb1968 4 months ago
This is literally beautiful... Btw found this cuz QualiaSoup favorited it!
ItsEasyIfYouThink 4 months ago
I am so fucking tire do people who don't take the years to get and undergraduate degree in biochem than get a Phd while doing research than pursue real research with other pHd researchers just come along and say "hey this is irreducibly complex cause I say so and adds shit to the field of study lol im great and so is my god!!"
Jumpinsnakes 4 months ago
You know anyone that thinks that this video is wrong should just make a video on it, rather than commenting on length here. It'll show that either 1) you're smart or 2) you're ignorant.
chasingimagination1 4 months ago
But...but...It's so much easier to just say "god" to explain what you don't understand. It absolves you of the responsibility of actually having to think.
1978atcarroll 4 months ago
I object to your referencing god....er... the "Intelligent Designer" as a woman. As George Carlin pointed out, if there is a "designer", it has to be a man.
No woman could or would fuck things up this badly. :)
Sinuev1 4 months ago
Why call it 'She'?
aliendragon17 4 months ago
@aliendragon17 Probably cause it's funny.
Reggis420 4 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
Excellent video, C0nc0rdance. You explain complex ideas with great economy. The term 'Darwinist' is a giveaway, isn't it. (And I think this video's thumbnail will chime with lots of people...)
QualiaSoup 4 months ago
@QualiaSoup Hey QualiaSoup Dude, go read my argument in the comments on this video where I show why it's impossible for vital organs to emerge via evolutionary means. GO READ IT !!
theDracoIX 4 months ago
This video is fascinating, and it completely owns the claims of chemotaxis to be irreducibly complex, thing is - creationists will either ignore it or find something else that is "irreducibly complex", it seems like nothing will ever change their minds, or even give them pause...
eran5005 4 months ago
Youtube can be entertaining and educational.
I have watched so many creationist rants and read so many fundamentalists' mental comments that it is a breath of fresh air to watch stuff like this.
revjimbob 4 months ago
@theDracoIX
You are engaging uneducated guesses and hand-waving. First pick up a developmental biology textbook and study it. You will realize that few sets of unspecialized cells diverge into multiple cell lines that form primitive tissues and structures. Specialization of organs result from diversification of these primitive embryonic structures. What you are implying is completely nonsensical. Stop making uneducated conjectures and study what scientists actually have discovered.
JaMoond 4 months ago
@JaMoond Read my argument, and point to the premiss you disagree with.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
Comment removed
JaMoond 4 months ago
@theDracoIX
You stated that there can't be evolutionary pathway to produce vital organs because, "an organ that is NECESSARY in order to maintain life in an organism." That is unfounded, and you need to actually study developmental biology. Species don't full form without necessary vital organs and try to evolve those organs. Organ development is an integral part of development of embryos. Organs evolve as species do.
JaMoond 4 months ago
Comment removed
JaMoond 4 months ago
Comment removed
JaMoond 4 months ago
A difficult field indeed. You made it intelligible for an arts candidate - well done and thanks.
Kframke 4 months ago
@theDracoIX What do you find about those questions that are unreasonable? Perhaps I could have come up with better points, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at the implications of your argument.
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
@theDracoIX I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theDracoIX I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theDracoIX I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
I drink people's blood because I can't make my own, or something. That's what vampirism is, right? I'm not completely sure. I chalk it up to a lifestyle choice, and -- wait a minute, you just obfuscated the argument again!
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
(cont.) and instead of actually reading it, you ask whether or not it answers your question. But that's disingenuous, because you automatically assume that your deduction MUST be the end-all, be-all way that it should happen. You should at least TRY to read what was given to you. Hell, part of the paper was quoted days ago, yet you seemed to gloss over that, too. It explained how it happened, and it showed that your reasoning was flawed.
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
@MGShootnanny Let's do it like this... I'll answer your mindless questions if you answer one question for me first, ok? My question for you is - why do you drink people's blood? Answer that honestly, then we'll continue... otherwise, don't even reply. I'm kind of done giving my time to fake people.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
How do you explain organisms that do not have the vital organs we do, or whose organs akin to ours have different functions? What mechanism can you provide that supports Irreducible Complexity, AND can explain what we see? IC is practically hand-waving: "I don't know how this could come about naturally, so it couldn't." But there is a way something like, say, the human heart could have come through evolution. You were given an example through a scientific paper (cont.)
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
Okay, I'll back dowm on the eyes. Now, what evidence can you provide aside from conjecture that the body is IC? How do you explain people who can live with only one kidney? How do you explain vestigal organs? What empirical evidence do you have discrediting the papers c0nc0rdance provided?
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
@theDracoIX But eyes help increase the chances of survival, depending on outside pressures. What good is a heart if you are being outmanouvered by an animal with better eyes?
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
@MGShootnanny My argument is related to Irreducible Complexity. I'm saying that there are no natural, evolutionary pathways that can produce vital organs. And by vital organ, I mean an organ that is NECESSARY in order to maintain life in an organism.
Again, things like physical appearance that aid in survival are NOT the same as vital organs. I'm talking about the internal parts (i.e. VITAL ORGANS) of an organism that are REQUIRED in order to maintain life within the body.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX name a vital organ that exists in all organisms.
vejlin 4 months ago
@vejlin Oh great, another person who doesn't understand my argument - go read my other comments before replying.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX: the evolution of the leg would seem to fill your bill. It starts out in primitive fish as a way to naviagate and maintain balance. Was it necessary them? Probably not; other even more primitive fish lived without it, but it improved both predator and grazer ability. As the environment changed it took on more an more tasks, eventually taking the animal's weight and specializing for grasping. Today to remove a leg is to condemn the animal to quick predation, or starvation.
puncheex 4 months ago
@puncheex A leg isn't a vital organ - because you can cut both your legs off, and your body would still function. A vital organ is something like a heart, where if you removed it - the body would instantly die.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX: OK, then. Even better, let's choose skin. As a cellular structure, it starts from literally nothing to separate outside from inside, later to house sense organs and temperature control structures as well as armor. It is certainly vital to immediate life processes.
puncheex 4 months ago
@theDracoIX So when it comes to evolutionary theory, you are in complete agreement when it comes to everything except the evolution of vital organs? Or do you insist that evolution does not and has never taken place at all, and use your lack of understanding regarding evolutionary biology as your evidence?
1n354a 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1n354a "use your lack of understanding regarding evolutionary biology as your evidence?" I use your lack of humanity as my evidence.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1n354a "use your lack of understanding regarding evolutionary biology as your evidence?" I use your lack of humanity as my evidence.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX Also, eyes practically are vital. An organism doesn't nees them (since we see creatures that don't have them) but they help improve an organism's chances of surviving. This is probably just semantics, but that would make eyes be subjectively vital (it would also be dependent on environmental pressures)
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
And yes, specialized does not necessarily mean vital. The key word there is "necessarily".
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
@theDracoIX The answer is quite simple: it does not work that way. There is a wide spectrum between non-vital and vital. It's the small, but beneficial changes that accumulate over time to the point where they are vital. At least, that is what we would predict, and the papers c0nc0rdance showed basically outlines this.
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
@MGShootnanny Every organ can be described as either necessary and unnecessary in order to maintain overall function (life) in a living system. Do you disagree with that? An organ cannot be somewhat necessary or somewhat unnecessary in order to maintain life - it's ONE OR THE OTHER.
"Also, eyes practically are vital."
This is why we can't communicate. If you remove the eyes will the body die? YES OR NO? I just need a yes or no, sir. WILL THE BODY SHUT DOWN & DIE IF YOU REMOVE THE EYES?!
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX OK then pick a vital organ that you feel is irreducibly complex. I cant think of a single organ that is universally "vital" to all living things. It follows that for any given specific organism with a vital organ, there can have been an ancestor for which the organ was NOT vital.
vejlin 4 months ago
@theDracoIX You've been asking these same questions and making theses same statements, for more than a year now. Your sincerity is seriously questionable. If you are really sincere in getting answers and not just trolling for it's entertainment value, then take the time and actually take a course in biology. One semester at a reputable college will go a very long way toward helping you figure it out.
deepashtray 4 months ago
@deepashtray Which premiss in my argument do you disagree with?
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX "... can an organ switch from non-vital to vital in one generation?" Good question. The answer: Maybe, but probably not. All the evidence I'm aware of suggests that it would take a number of generations where the newer organ has not fully replaced the previous mechanism, but evolved to work better than or improve the original and contributed more to the species survival and reproduction until the old mechanism became redundant and the newer organ took over the job.
deepashtray 4 months ago
@deep "The answer: Maybe, but probably not. " We are NOT talking about beneficial and/or survival within an environment. We are talking strictly about the bio-mechanical processes of the body. There are certain things vital to any given animal or organism - meaning, w/o these things the animal's body would shut down & die.
I maintain no such vital thing can evolve, because in every gen an organ must be either non-vital or vital, it cannot be both - and so this transition must occur in one gen.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX Do you have any examples that would back up what you are saying? Because there are many thousands of examples that back up my statement, this video here being only one example. If you can give an example, I seriously would like to know about it. Thanks.
deepashtray 4 months ago
Comment removed
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theDracoIX And time and time again, people have told you that it simply does not work that way. A couple even gave you examples! It's almost as if you're completely ignoring the other side. Crazy, right?
MGShootnanny 4 months ago
@theDracoIX "... in every gen an organ must be either non-vital or vital, it cannot be both." You're phrasing it as if there are 2 separate organs. Big mistake. Take the heart. You would have to go back more than 500,000,000 yrs. to find one of our ancestors that didn't have a heart. The heart never went away or was swapped out one for another the way your question implies. There has only been one heart in our ancestral line. Same for all our vital organs.
deepashtray 4 months ago
@deepashtray "The heart never went away or was swapped out one for another the way your question implies." I never said it was swapped out - this is what others are trying to say... if a vital organ emerges - it must first exist as a non-vital organ - then transition to being vital... but it's an impossible transition for reasons stated in my argument.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX All the evidence says otherwise... which is why evolution is so fascinating. It's clear is that you're not going to find the answer you want from watching videos made by atheists like C0ncordance or AronRa; they make videos to debunk creationism and ID arguments. If you honestly want to learn what is going on you need to watch videos that specifically explain evolution for the sake of teaching evolution. There are a lot of good videos made by excellent colleges that do just that.
deepashtray 4 months ago
@deepashtray What evidence? Who gets to decide what is valid evidence for the claims made in evolution? The majority? Is this how science works? It's a vote and the majority wins? What if the majority are paid off scum like politicians? What then? Are we screwed?
I just explained very simply, why it's logically impossible for vital orders to evolve - and if that's not good enough... then you are unwilling to admit that evolution cannot explain everything we see in life.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX
"What evidence?"
The one observed in every domains of biology.
"What if the majority are paid off scum like politicians?"
This is not Intelligent Design movement. Also learn of how peer review work.
"I just explained very simply, why it's logically impossible for vital orders to evolve"
And it was explained why your argument was faulty from the beginning.
Why are you so unwilling to accept that evolution explains the diversity in life?
Atharkas 4 months ago
@Atharkas Evolution explains nothing - it is a fake word. Peer-review? Yea, science works on a consensus - it's a vote, plain & simple. No, you haven't explained which premiss in my argument is false.
I didn't say what has been observed, I can observe a fossil - but who is to say this observed fossil is evidence of anything other than an animal once lived? You must INTERPRET the evidence which is where the vote comes into play. You can't empirically demonstrate how a fossil is evidence for evo.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@Atharkas Evolution explains nothing - it is a fake word. Peer-review? Yea, science works on a consensus - it's a vote, plain & simple. No, you haven't explained which premiss in my argument is false.
I didn't say what has been observed, I can observe a fossil - but who is to say this observed fossil is evidence of anything other than an animal once lived? You must INTERPRET the evidence which is where the vote comes into play. You can't empirically demonstrate how a fossil is evidence for evo.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
So many fails, so little words.
Evolution explains the diversity of life which occurs via natural selection and genetic drift.
Peer review is not a vote nor a concensus. Please, actually learn what it is before saying more nonsense.
And yes, I did point the fault in your premiss : you think that it's a black or white case, vital vs non-vital which is not what is observed.
And yes, fossils can be demosntrated as evidence when you compare it to others in earlier stratas and see the correlations.
Atharkas 4 months ago
Here's an example of evolution shown by fossils : The cetaceans. From the four legged pakicetidae to the common whale, their gradual change can be observed.
Also weird that you mention fossils when these are not the best evidence for evolution. The world of genetic has way more impact, not only with the common genes found in the family of species, but also because of the common endogenous retrovirus whose code was inserted in the code of the common ancestor of these species,
Atharkas 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's an example of evolution shown by fossils : The cetaceans. From the four legged pakicetidae to the common whale, their gradual change can be observed.
Also weird that you mention fossils when these are not the best evidence for evolution. The world of genetic has way more impact, not only with the common genes found in the family of species, but also because of the common endogenous retrovirus whose code was inserted in the code of the common ancestor of these species,
Atharkas 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's an example of evolution shown by fossils : The cetaceans. From the four legged pakicetidae to the common whale, their gradual change can be observed.
Also weird that you mention fossils when these are not the best evidence for evolution. The world of genetic has way more impact, not only with the common genes found in the family of species, but also because of the common endogenous retrovirus whose code was inserted in the code of the common ancestor of these species,
Atharkas 4 months ago
@theDracoIX "I just explained very simply, why it's logically impossible for vital orders to evolve-" No you dodn't explain anything. In fact, the only thing your "explaining" is that you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand the tsunami of evidence from every field of science supporting the reality of evolution, or you have willingly and deliberately chose to be ignorant. Which is it? If you're a creationist and/or believe ID then you are both.
deepashtray 4 months ago
@deepashtray If you're not going to state which premiss is wrong in my argument, then kindly go die in a fire - we're done here.
There is no evidence for evolution. Nothing has ever evolved. You know it - I know it... the only difference is that I'm a real person with a real perspective on the real world - while you're a fake person with a fake perspective on your fake world.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX No reason to be hasty with my passing and go jump in a fire, I figure I'll be dead soon enough. In all the time that we've enjoyed each others company I cannot recall that you have ever once offered an alternative to evolution. What is this mystery that you are working so hard to keep from the rest of us? In other words, how do YOU explain diversity? You're certainly very loud about saying everyone else is wrong, but you offer no explanation as to the "Truth". Can you answer that?
deepashtray 4 months ago
@theDracoIX You're a very sad individual, going on and on for over a year now with the same pathetic simple minded nonsense you seem to think qualifies as an "argument". I'm sure you've heard the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over... and in your case over and over and over again, and expecting different results. This shows a lack of intelligence that borders on the retarded. You are irrelevant. (You'll probably need to look up the big words.)
deepashtray 4 months ago
@theDracoIX "no evidence for evolution."
in this very video your premise is contradicted. Go take a beginners logic class to learn why you are wrong please.
MoonKittenJD 4 months ago
@TheMessianist Well, yes. What I said isn't quite true - there are RNA viruses, "life" which doesn't rely on DNA - but among true life we see no other mechanisms. From evolution you'd expect one to be selected for. The nature of the basic encoding scheme affects every part of every other trait, so there would be very strong selection pressure (as well as a very long time for that pressure to manifest) to get a *local* maximum efficiency amongst what is possible variations.
Snagabott 4 months ago
@TheMessianist
video code is 4K_WrqNiQoU
Mol Immunol. 2004 Feb;40(12):897-902.
"Evolution of the complement system."
Immunogenetics. 2006 Sep;58(9):701-13.
"Genomic view of the evolution of the complement system."
Mol Immunol. 2004 Jun;41(2-3):103-11.
"Primitive complement system--recognition and activation."
Again, irreducible complexity ignores the vast diversity of working complement cascades that do not rely on the 30 components in the mammalian system.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@TheMessianist
Y-J Kuan et al. 2003 Astrophys. J. 593:848 confirmed earlier reports of amino acids in giant stellar clouds.
NASA 2004 Mission "Stardust" recovered glycine (an amino acid) in the tail of comet Wild 2.
On blood clotting:
Thromb Haemost. 2003 Mar;89(3):420-8.
"Molecular evolution of the vertebrate blood coagulation network."
J Thromb Haemost. 2003 Jul;1(7):1487-94.
"450 million years of hemostasis."
(cont.)
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
What we know is that jawless vertebrates (lamprey) have a very simplified system missing most of the components found in mammals. There's an excellent video on the topic where Kenneth Miller makes the topic a little clearer and more accessible.
For my part, I focus on the molecular evidence. Most of the components in such pathways are duplicated gene products, which is a common motif. Two copies do the same thing for a while, then begin to specialize in a single function.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
Duplication and specialization are key to these interconnected systems. Imagine, by analogy, that we start with a Model A car. It can haul light freight, passengers, and can be used for racing. Now imagine an 18 wheeler, a school bus and a Formula 1 car. All are replicates of that single generalized design, but they have been adapted for specific functions done generally by the ancestral form.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@TheMessianist
Another thought experiment: Let's take a trip to somewhere even bacteria can't go. Outer space. Do we observe any kind of "primordial soup" precursors?
Yes, in fact, on comets, and nebulary clusters, we have actually detected the presence of amino acids and amido bases, the precursors of proteins and nucleic acids. Likewise, there are terrestrial processes that create all sorts of precursors. It's just that they are eaten faster than they can be made.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
Bacteria, especially, are so prevalent that there is literally nowhere that a food source exists that they do not go. They are at both poles, at the bottom of the ocean, along volcanic vents, in near-boiling lakes, several miles under the Earth, on the moon in the junk we left behind.
If an energetic phosphate or reduced sulfur compound forms, they will be there to eat it. We are the result of billions of years of eating contests. The champions tolerate no new challengers.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@TheMessianist Because they're selected against? Whatever we started with is what evolution has to work with. It's not given that from the kind of life we have, there are close enough analogues that would also function. The bigger the difference in chemistry, the smaller the probability that such a mutation taking place. As for non-functional bits with different fundamental chemistry present, I think the extra energy requirement would put such bacteria at a disadvantage and be selected against.
Snagabott 4 months ago
@TheMessianist
There are certainly two way to explain the prevalence of DNA-based genetics: (note that it's not *quite* universal, as evidenced by the presence of deoxyuridine and inosine in DNA and the existence of RNA-only viruses. Prions are also arguably protein-based genetics).
One relies on divine magical intervention.
The other relies on a common origin for all or most present organisms.
The latter doesn't require new, unobserved processes to be invoked for explanation.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@TheMessianist
Hey, that's a great question. Perhaps we can do a thought experiment?
Imagine a bucket containing sterilized sugar-sweetened chicken broth (fats, protein, sugars, water, salts) is set out in the woods. What do you think would happen to it by the end of week 2, let alone a few million years?
My guess is ants, bacteria, fungus, and little animals would eat it all. The abundance of life prevents nutrients from sitting around for long, agreed?
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
So, I just visited the blog (sorry c0nc0rdance, first time i ever paused one of your vids, and I have seen them all) and guess what, I can't comment on that page. One of the few blogs I know of that don't support commenting on the individual posts.
anyway, unpausing :)
N3CR1S 4 months ago
where the subtitle?
hanybackup 5 months ago
looks like you had to do a lot of hard work to produce this vid! thank you :)
jjcrazi 5 months ago
...the first can take over the task it had originaly performed. nothing says that an organ must become vital when taking over for another, in the case of 15 organs doing the same thing(your example) none need be vital, once the second gained the ability to function in the same manner as the first(even if in a completly new way) the first would no longer be vital but neither would the second, they would only be vital if all others where lost or damaged.
TheyCallMeGawd 5 months ago
"The Intelligent Design Creationists rely on the BEFUDDLEMENT of their target audience, using scientific SOUNDING terms to support their pseudoscience agenda."
Of course, obfuscation and inveiglement are a B.S.er's best tools.
steveb0503 5 months ago
I am seriously craving more videos like this one. Well done. I can't wait to see the next one. :)=
Eldrave20 5 months ago
Based upon the available evidence, any supposed 'god' would not be an intelligent designer but a 'tinkerer'. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 5 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit That's really a pretty charitable description of it.
tctheunbeliever 5 months ago
@tctheunbeliever tinkerer: noun, an unskilled person who tries to fix or mend. It is indeed a most genteel description. I was in a charitable mood. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 5 months ago
Science - 1 vs Bullshit - 0
So , who wants to party that our team won ?
:D
gaglamesh731 5 months ago
Yes, we're all very surprised to see DracoIX spewing his ignorance and lack of reading/understanding of research papers.
anglicantian 5 months ago
A million crazed engineers.. I can't help but laugh at that. I picture a million guys with hardhats and tools running around conking eachother in the head..
sogghartha 5 months ago
Jolly good show, this. I am now much more educated than I was 8 minutes ago. Thank you.
Desertphile 5 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
If the "Irreducibly Complex" phrase means "I don't get it" then I'm going to use that as a response to any problem I'm asked to solve in my next calculus class.
XD
Great video. Really interesting information.
Bear5177 5 months ago
As always, wonderful work.
otakujhp 5 months ago
Hey Concordance, can you please do a video on morality? I know you mostly focus on the science, but this is a good area to trespass into, don't you think?
SocialDissimulation 5 months ago
Amazing logic. Their ignorance is proof that the talking snake story is true.
They don't see how this could evolve so therefore it couldn't have?
WarmWeatherGuy 5 months ago
"...gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes. Investment of the coelom by these mesodermal cells forms a "gastrovascular" structure. Further evolution of this structure in the bilaterian branches Ecdysoa and Deuterostoma culminate in a peristaltic tubular heart, without valves, without blood vessels or blood, but featuring a single layer of contracting mesoderm."
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago 4
"...The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system. A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals. "
--Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Jun;1047:13-29.
No step of that is irreducibly complex.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago 7
@C0nc0rdance "No step of that is irreducibly complex." Is it possible for you to stay on topic? We're not even talking about whether or not an organ like the heart can evolve - we are talking about an I.C. system evolving - COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC!
Once again - can an organ switch from non-vital to vital in one generation? Yes or no? And by NON-VITAL I mean a part you can remove without the organism dying, and by VITAL - I mean... a part that if removed will kill the whole living system.
theDracoIX 5 months ago
@theDracoIX "we are talking about an I.C. system evolving"
your the only 1 talking about that because no one else believes that a biological IC system exists. so clearly you dont even know what your trying to talk about. if you want an answer to your question, look down.
largegrainsofsalt 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance,
please make a video refering to the document "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Design by William Dembski", which can be found on the FAQ.
cperez1000 5 months ago
If human were designed, then the designer is a retard. Human race is so flawed with built in redundancies and weaknesses. I just ask why we have an appedix, little bastard nearly killed me.
LtModigliani 5 months ago
I cannot believe anyone still gives This Irreducible Complexity guy the time of day. The guy is a moron and has been ever since he first uttered a word.
atmdusty 5 months ago
@atmdusty "The poor you shall have with you always", and the stupid, and the lazy
R4t10n4L 5 months ago
@atmdusty xkcd 386
Maxdwolf 5 months ago
Beautiful as usual. One complaint, though. The |RFID is the Mark of the Beast and would be proof of Satan, not proof of God.
The Truthers told me so.
achtungcircus 5 months ago 3
@achtungcircus Do not beleive the truthers, they spread lies.
nononsenseinrational 5 months ago
@nononsenseinrational
The /sarc tag was implied, I thought.
achtungcircus 5 months ago
@achtungcircus Proof of Satan would BE proof of god. No god, no Satan. Or so their story book says.
ZephZhang 5 months ago
"irreducibly complex systems WITHIN irreducibly complex systems"
I didn't need that kind of a mindfuck on a Saturday morning.
achtungcircus 5 months ago
Faved, not watched. View this channel page. DO NOT draw my attention in this way again - and get back to fucking school, you rank amateur.,ACAI,//2//blueblue.Dr-HDean.
fuckoverload 5 months ago
"Manufactured in a facility that also makes nuts." - Classic.
Smidge204 5 months ago
@Smidge204
I wondered if anyone would pick up on that.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
How many semesters of biology classes would I have to take to understand this?
lazyperfectionist1 5 months ago
You know what they're going to say; "If there is evidence of tinkering, there must have been a tinkerer. So, who is the tinkerer?"
*sigh*
5avan10 5 months ago
When I was learning about cell signalling in college, I didn't learn very in-depth but I always did think everything looked needlessly complex. There are multiple intermediary steps going back and forth through the cell, signals pass through multiple paths and interlace with one another, and for some reason everything effects calcium ion flow.
klutterkicker 5 months ago
calamitiesofnature[dot]com/archive/?c=559
jkor9 5 months ago
Wait wait wait waitasec....
>"...an irreducibly complex system WITHIN an irreducibly complex system..."
So...he's saying that if you take this irreducibly complex system and break it apart you'll find another irreducibly complex system inside it. Uh, a system that you CAN break apart to see how it works...IS BY DEFINITION NOT irreducable. Because you reduced it. To it's component parts.
Ye gods...will the fractal wrongness ever end?
LordCustos3 5 months ago
I know what chemotaxis is but I think this video might be both too complex and too simple for laymen. The most important part is that the switches and pathways are nothing but "chemical reactions" - chemo=chemical and taxis=mover. "Sensing" gives the impression of awareness without having stressed the chemical reactions.
PrairiePie23 5 months ago
What's funny is how the discovery institute tries to sound legit while using the term, "Darwinist."
trueleroix 5 months ago
make an animal testing video please :)
0i0ification 5 months ago
The reaal world is immensely more amazing than anything creationists can come up with.
detersgumig 5 months ago 2
Of course, this chemical process seems much more robust because of its redundancy.
davetoepfer 5 months ago
It's a chemical analog of the laryngeal nerve argument.
davetoepfer 5 months ago
Simply poetic.
TheIdealGasLaw 5 months ago
Even though ID is bullshit I find it hilarious that evolution has explanations for extremely complex things such as the eye but them creationist retards think by proving a tiny bacteria can't evolve (even though it can) they think that is the knock out punch to disprove evolution. It's just down right embarrassing.
kiddhitta 5 months ago
@kiddhitta
ID identifies the complex eye as something with irreducible complexity too, denying it evolved from simpler and simpler eyes or means of vision. Yes, it's embarrassing.
wilde77 5 months ago
"Bacteria goes up, bacteria goes down. You can't explain that."
gatorboymike 5 months ago 2
Sigh. I have had one on one personal conversations and creationists I personally know just end up saying," well my common sense tells me doesn't make any sense, that sounds ridiculous. My truth lies in the bible, that makes sense." :: face palm :: so if they don't understand it then it's impossible, and they listen to people that try to use cool sciency words to prove ID is possible. How do you inspire lazy minded people that don't want to do their own thinking?
chicarbiomed 5 months ago
@chicarbiomed
You invent a religion.
rkyeun 5 months ago
It's simple. In order to believe in creationism (of any stripe, including "Intelligent Design" creationism), you have to either be ignorant, or a liar.
thebigJ1er 5 months ago
Unfortunately most of the content of this video is too advanced for me to understand, though I fully understand the thrust of your arguments concerning 'tinkering' v 'standard unique design'. I often wonder what creationists...oops, IDers...would have said had we discovered that the human genome was unique, and unrelated to any other creature on earth. I still have not found a creationist who can sensibly explain why 'god's special creation' has the physical characteristics ot an ape, not an ant
derek24hudson 5 months ago
Great video. I can see the counterargument now: The organisms' pathways and such WERE perfect when god created them; but now, after all man's dirty and sinful ways...
The sin waves, man. They radiate off us and affect everything.
MrStillmans 5 months ago
Its the intelligent designer, they never said god O.o
PS:sarc
beswick1306 5 months ago
Its the intelligent designer, they never said god O.o
PS:sarc
beswick1306 5 months ago
C0nc0rdance, have you done or ever considering doing a vid on Pica & geophagy? I ask because I have heard of pregnant women and sometimes children craving dirt amongst other things ( a friend admitted to enjoying eating dry-wall, as a kid). I've always wondered if their bodies possess some sense that they need some nutrient found in the soil (or whatever) that they're not getting or getting enough of in their diet. Thanks.
Jaybird196 5 months ago
@Jaybird196 Pica is a sypmtom of a nutritional deficiency, such as iron or zinc. Geophagia is a form of Pica. People with Pica may bite their nails, eat dirt, ice, chalk, soap, powdered laundry starch, etc.
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133 Ah, thanks :) .
Jaybird196 5 months ago
@YY4Me133
But chalk tastes awesome.
smaakjeks 5 months ago
@smaakjeks I don't know about chalk, but I used to eat glass beads when I was a kid. :o)
YY4Me133 5 months ago
Why do the pseudoscience fucktards at DI even have a heading like 'Evolution news' if they don't consider evolution correct or true? It's like a scientific article having a 'Creationism News' feature. Laughing, winning.
saxmanchiro 5 months ago
Seriously, I love you C0nc0rdance. You touch me in the right ways.
fainjoe 5 months ago
Creatards are so damn lazy. How many times do people have to destroy their pseudo-science v. 1.0. Can't they even bother with a v. 2.0? Fuck, I would like to at least see a v. 1.01!!
no2religions 5 months ago
I really enjoyed this C0nc0rdance, as I always enjoy your videos.
One thing irked me though - toward the end of the video, you refer Evolution as a group of "tinker-ers" as differentiated from the single grand designer, and you come back to that idea multiple times. While I understand what you're trying to get across with that analogy, it implies that evolution is a conscience decision on the part of the "tinker-er", which, as I know you know, isn't true.
But, enough of my small complaints!
Ottomagne 5 months ago
Captain to engineering: Reverse the polarity on the vinegar sensor, Scotty!
IRisingFuryI 5 months ago
Lol I only understand like, 70%, and still it makes a lot of sense :-)
I'd love to create an AE simulator where new information can be added and information can be removed in a meaningful/purposeful way. How does nature do it?
FHomeBrew 5 months ago
The proportion of your videos that are "Favorite" material is staggering. Keep on kicking ass and taking names for science, C0nc0rdance.
Xalloran 5 months ago
Good job. I'm glad you are here and producing these videos. Thanks for th breath of fresh air.
wespeakforthetrees 5 months ago
Very well done! And, I should think, easy enough for the non-scientists to understand.
AthenaSchroedinger 5 months ago
"Manufactured in a facility that also makes nuts"
I LOVE it!
Darienbeagle 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance For the love of go... err... goodness. Please try to avoid using the term "Darwinist". You KNOW this is just a rhetorical device creationists try to pull off in order to try convincing their flock that we take "The Origin of Species" as an infallible holy scripture.
If you must refer to people who accept evolution, consider "Evolutionist" instead. THAT at least makes it clear that it's about evolution, not Darwin.
boenrobot 5 months ago
@boenrobot "For the love of go... err... goodness. Please try to avoid using the term "Darwinist". [...] If you must refer to people who accept evolution, consider "Evolutionist" instead."
I suggest using no such terms at all. After all, there is no "Germist" or "Gravitationist"... I suggest "normal" or "educated". IDiots can take "anormal" and "uneducated" if they want.
Meurglys33 5 months ago