@MrGrandDragon I totally agree. to actually think this universe and all in it happened on its own is beyond illogical. what are the chances that a car could make itself, or a house. laws in this universe don't even agree with self creation, without a Maker or Creator .
Suppose there was no intelligence behind the making of the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. How then can I trust my own thinking to be true? If I can’t trust my own thinking, I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God
@rs2fifa10 ''I can only trust my brain if it is designed''' How is that even begin as an argument. If your brain was designed or not it would still be the same brain the the same defects.
If you believe that the human animals on this little spec of dust within the universe are important to any deity then you are simply a foolish idiot! Atheists accept reality; theists wallow in fantasy! Believe in a deity if you must but when you place your faith in a religion then you are one of the dumbest morons of the human race for these idiot have convinced you they know what your god expects of you.
2 youtube channels debunk the Quran's 'scientific miracles', and the creed of Islam check them out; therationalizer and CEMBadmins. I'd also advise you to check out the channels theramintrees and evid3nc3 for general well-presented, respectful, and insightful critiques of religion in general. I'm an apostate BTW.
Peace for Humanity Conference, Muhammad (peace & blessings be upon him) the Merciful. 24 September 2011 @ Wembley Arena, London. Shaykh-ul-Islam Tahir-ul-Qadri, Shaykh Yahya Ninowy, Abdal Hakim Murad, Mesut Kurtis and more. wwwdotpeaceforhumanitydotcodotuk
Actually its faith and creationism vs. Atheism vrs Evolution, evolution does not support atheism.
faith and creationism vs. Atheism and Evolution
faith and creationism vs. Atheism vrs Evolution
faith vrs creationism vs. Atheism vrs Evolution
u get picture.
just that what there to stop scientology claim that Alien just used evolution and stuff to create alien spirits to cling onto our bodys stuff. Just i dont think science should be treated as faith or beleif, it none its tool we use in life.
science supports no one. its not thing to use to help ur faith or hinder, accuse on faith. It proves nothing, it’s our understanding so it can never be wrong. its not a faith. its only tool we used to help us understand world around us, its not wrong.
@soMeRandoM670 i know it's a tool, that we used to Understand the world around us, and it's the only way to get answers. but all lot of religious people state that science is a religion. i really don't know why they say that. but your comment confused me and i didn't understand it.
ahh, i think reason why religious people are stating science is a religion, this on assumption they right is because you have to faith that they are wrong. however i think thats not case my interpatation is, that they saying people treating it as religion and not what it truely is, something to help us our own mind to understand world around us and make sense in it. however i think they think most if all, are using it as means to justify themself that we wrong. Char limit -_-
Of course it's not the only way to get answers. Science doesn't answer philosophical questions, it doesn't answer mathematical questions, it depends on logical axioms, science can't prove logic, its the other way around. So no, science isn't the only way to get answer about the world, it has improved our lives, but its not the only way.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
WOW you seem really confused. To call this man an idiot just shows how ignorant you are, he is a professor of Cambridge university AKA much smarter than you. What do u know about islam anyway.
@nbastar187187 Abraham's God does not leave room for other ideas. Presenting Islam as the solution to man's problems is highly questionable. Unless God's existence is proven with concrete evidence, all these lectures are blowing in the wind. Man has reached a state where it needs no Deity to help / hinder in its affairs. It is quite capable of sort them out with trial and error. The gulf between you & askegg is Insuperable. I tend to agree with him. Believers have to accept reality.
@amoralis123 If what you say is true then why is there a much higher rate of crime in western countries compared with majority muslim countries, things like rape,pedophilia, and racism are almost unheard of in muslim majority countries and the worst thing is the state if the west is getting worse.
@nbastar187187 You do not understand the issue: Evolution. Islam's Kun fa yakoon is nonsense. Religions have brought Man to it present understanding. It is standing on its own feet needing no Deity to help/hinder to solve its problems. US Constitution is Man Made to govern Freed Man. A sub-specie of Man is evolving. Nmachi is the compelling evidence of Evolution indicating, present humans' ancestors were Africans: Y chromosome proof
Rapes/Paedophila are in Muslim countries: Muslims are racists.
Your telling me that the amount of rapes and pedophilia in the west can even be compared with the numbers of cases in muslim majority countries. Islam is growing fast its only a matter of time...
@nbastar187187 If there were a delusion, Muslims like you suffer. Islam's growth is due to its high birth rate. Even so, UN Census of '91 puts the figures at 997 million, 1.2 billion Christians. 10 years later Muslim population was 1.1 bn, Christian population was 1.9 bn. Latest estimates are Muslims 1.3 billion, Christiana 2.2 billions. Nigeria was 67 : 30 Muslim / Christian. Today it is 51 : 44, Christianity in Pakistan has grown to 5 folds in 20 years. Keep on living in a dreamland.
@arcz10 Agreed with reservations. I tried to find figures of those who became Muslims & then reverted, especially in the UK, USA & Canada. It is becoming quite fashionable to convert to Islam, get a bit of limelight & then fade away or revert or become atheistic/agnostic..Of course, there are quite a significant number who stay. According to US stats, the fastest growing religion is Falun in China & South Korea, from 2m in '99 to 100 m. Good luck to world domination. I don't think so.
@amoralis123 world domination is not what I personally would want. The preservation of other faiths to me is important. Islam never claimed to be a new religion even during its initial stages.
In the UK, Islam or atheism is filling the void left by the numbers who have left Christianity.
Rather than numbers, what for me is interesting is that in the uk you now have intelligent highly educates woman converting. And this is something which i doubt anyone when was young could of foreseen.
I did not know that Islam and Muslims are separate? Thanks.
nbastar187187
Homosexuality among both gender is rampant among Muslims. Men rape boys. Women perform 'jufti'. Due to harsh sentences & societal shame, these acts are swept under the carpet.
Religions are the curse on humanity. They shackle free people into submission to a non existing entity for the benefit of clergy and rulers.
Religions are constrictive. They stifle human thoughts & progress of Mind.
what a stupidity of attempting to read mind of god. Attempts of knowing and mathematically modelling the human mind have not been achieved and they are trying to read the mind of god.
The anthropic principle is often advanced in an unscientific, "tautological" form, which boils down to the argument: "we're here because were here". Tautologies can often appear to provide a deep insight or explanation for some observation, but under closer inspection, they are found to be true by definition. Tautologies are logically garunteed to be true. example: "boys will be boys". In contrast, science requires hypotheses to be testable, based on observation, and open to refutation.
I am a Muslim and any Muslim who says that evolution is false has not studied properly. Evolution is a fact, it is up to Islam to find it in the Qur'an.
Why does the improbability of an event indubitably attributable to the workings of a higher being? There's nothing scientific about this. Here you find scientific facts put side by side and a religious person saying "Who else could have done this?". The "coherence of theism" as the "best available explanation" is a subjective evaluation, but at least he acknowledges that there's no way for theists to prove something that supposedly lies beyond the reach of our knowledge.
How can someone not believe in God? The most likely explanation is that the society today is structured and ruled by people who know that belief in God will lead to a better, stronger and more intelligent population and this can only be detrimental to their position and then it goes on from there. Look at the Science, it proves that there is a supernatural power at work? People think they're 'open minded' when they refuse to believe in God when in fact Science proves God's existence.
Well it is not a solution to conclude that since 'the universe is too improbable to exist' GOD DID IT. This is like trying to figure out an equation and going 'Fuck it. x = God, solved'. I'm not sure you'd get many marks.
An actual solution could be to say, ok since the probability of the universe is (1 x 10^-50) . If 1x10^50 other universes exist, the probability of our universe is actually very probable. This guy is clearly intelligent and interesting, but very wrong on this point.
@SegaFanClub his argument of this matter wouldnt mean much if you didnt understand and research the religion with its core meanings. for a person that did.. it means everything you see..
@weedo84 He explains why the anthropic principle requires 'more faith' than Islam because it is so improbable. This is exactly his point. My point was it is not a requirement to have more faith because it is simply an openness to different scientific hypotheses which explain how such a high improbability could come about. People win the lottery every week, some of whom do not deserve, if we take the probability of all these people winning, it is a ridiculously probability, is this Allah's work?
@SegaFanClub I see your point... and I agree, from your standpoint. but lets not forget that he is explaining this to mostly muslims or people that have researched this vast religion... and understood its underlying meanings, so with that you listen to what he is saying in a more broader sense.. logically speaking. excuse the cliche but like a puzzle falling into place if you will.. and its not a 'god of the gaps' issue im talking here.
@rational1512 No Shia Rafidah is a brother of a true Muslim! The Shia curse our beloved mother Aisha (ra) and also make takfir on the companions of our Prophet (saw). May Allah (swt) protect Ahlasunnah from these filthy liars and guide them to the truth of Islam.
@Parvez86 Yeah Shias cursed Aisha, but Mohamed violated her at the age of 9. You follow a blood thirsty, homophobic, xenophobic pedophiliac. You are as dumb as an ape, I can't believe you would doubt evolution.
@rational1512 You are a hate preacher. In your comment above, you have preached against Israel and USA. We all have 1 beating heart, one moving tounge, & 1 liver.
How dare you preach hate against our Christian Jewish and secular brothers and sisters.
"The vague assertion that species change over time to some extent " is not at issue. The sufficiency of the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation, to explain the phenominal complexity of life is heavily disputed. Nowhere has the blundering, tinkering mechanism proposed by Darwin, and expanded by subsequent generations of biologists, been observed to produce anything like the phenominally intricate biochemical systems we find in even the simplest lifeforms
@IDtaksovr Darwin's theory is not heavily disputed by the main scientific body. His theory has been independently confirmed by every school of biology.
We have observed evolution in laboratory conditions. The predictions, of this theory, have yielded incredibly accurate results.
Unfortunately, at the same time Intelligent Design yielded no successful predictions, laboratory successes, or been confirmed by a single school of biological study.
"His theory has been independently confirmed by every school of biology....."
There is no evidence that the darwinian mechanism has the power to produce any of the significant changes that must have occurred in the evolution of life. Having said that, there is plent evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can produce extremely trivial changes. The argument is not that "evolution is wrong", but that evolution, if true, cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism.
"if we "for the sake of argument" say that Darwin's theory is totally wrong."
Before going off on a tangent, it's important to establish what we can agree on. Darwinian theory can explain trivial changes, such as oscillations in finch beak sizes, and it can explain loss of function. What it cannot do is explain the appearance of information and information processing systems, quality control mechanisms, production lines, turbines, rotary motors, power plants etc, in the first place
@IDtaksovr Yes it can explain all of the above mentioned. It would take too long to do so, in the 500 characters permitted by Youtube's commenting page. It is the best theory we have (at this time) to account for the remarkable biodiversity we see around us. If you want an explanation i suggest you pic a specific example of an occurrence, which evolutionary theory can't account for, and I'll try to provide one.
"It would take too long to do so, in the 500 characters ...."
What about providing a detailed testable account for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. I don't mean a wishy washy "just-so" story, full of speculations, of how it might have evolved, but instead one that can be checked experimantally. Failing that, why not provide your very best observed example of the Darwinian evolution of novel biological complexity at the biochemical level.
@teamsigned I am simply asking for the very best example you can provide, where novel complexity has been observed to arise by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic variation. I can't really put it more clearly. Once you have provided your best example of novel bio complexity arising by this mechanism, we can compare it to the unfathomably complex sytems found in nature. You must have hundreds of examples if Darwinism is so well established as you claim.
@IDtaksovr OK, Here is the current explanation for the evolution of bacterial flagellum. An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system. Currently this is the best scientific explanation we have. If we did not have this explanation it would still not disprove evolution. And even if you disprove evolution, this does not mean ID is right.
"the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system."
So you have two items, the flagellum (around 40 proteins) and the TTSS (around 10 proteins), and no testable pathway to connect the two. Which came first? The flagellum or the TTSS? Did they share a common ancestor? Where is the detailed testable model linking the two via the Darwinian mechanism. This seems like wishful speculations,
@IDtaksovr OK, even if there is no explanation (and there is one, I am simply unfamiliar with it). Because we have no explanation (according to you and a bunch of creationists), does not imply that the evolutionary theory does not have the power to explain this evolutionary occurrence.
PROVE ID. where is the evidence for it. Evolutionary theory is the best CURRENT explanation, the evidence for it is massive. During the Dover trail the arguments for irreducible complexity were annihilated.
.. does not imply that the evolutionary theory does not have the power to explain this evolutionary occurrence"
If Darwinian theory cannot explain the evolution of biochemical systems like the flagellum, then you believe it can, based purely on faith. Faith is fine, but it's not quite the same as asserting that Darwinism is a fact. If the flagellum, or any other of the myriad of biochemical processes had credible Darwinian explanations, rest assured, we would all know about it
@IDtaksovr STOP. Darwinism is not the same as the theory of evolution by natural selection. No faith is needed to agree with the fact that the theory of evolution is the best current scientific explanation. Kenneth Miller provided an incredible explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. DO SOME READING FROM CREDIBLE BIOLOGISTS, not some creationists PRing the bible. I do not faith to think evolution is true. I have evidence for it.
"No faith is needed to agree with the fact that the theory of evolution is the best current scientific explanation"
You're unable to show a single concrete example, in which the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and selection (aka the "designer" substitute), can be seen to "design" anything remotely similar to the complex biochemical systems we find in biology. You believe that it can do so based on pure faith. Millers "explanation" is wishful speculation, as I have already explained.
@IDtaksovr Miller's explanation is not wishful thinking, study biology instead of reading creationist propaganda. Creationists use to say the same exact thing about the human eye, yet we NOW have an explaination (backed up by evidence) of how the human eye evolved.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS THE BEST CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR BIODIVERSITY ON THIS PLANET?????????????????????????????????/
"Miller's explanation is not wishful thinking,...."
Unless you can prove that random mutation and natural selection can take us from the bacterial flagellum to the TTSS, or vice versa, then it IS wishful speculations. Why should I believe you? Where are the detailed testable models? Millers argument is an example of speculating in areas of current ignorance. Prove me wrong. Show me how the Darwinian mechanism connects the flagellum and the TTSS,
"NOW have an explaination (backed up by evidence) of how the human eye evolved."
If you have given up trying to explain how the flagellum evolved via the Darwinian mechanism, we can move onto the eye. I can explain why evolutionary accounts of eye evolution are just rubbish.
Stop ignoring my question and answer it. I have answered plenty of your questions and derve an answer to 1 of mine.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS THE BEST CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR BIODIVERSITY ON THIS PLANET?????????????????????????????????/
The mechanism of evolution has never been shown to do much beyond trivial tinkering. As such, it provides NO explanation for the real complexity in biology. If we cannot observe this mechanism actually producing complex biochemistry, then we would need to believe it can do so based on pure faith. Do you accept that the word "evolution" is extremely vague, and that the main mechanism proposed to explain the transformation of species has broken down in all but the most trivial cases?
The best explanation for an event that happened in the distant past, would be one that appeals to causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question. What cause do we know of, in our uniform and repeated experience, that has the power to produce libraries of information, information processing systems, quality control mechanisms, production lines, turbines, motors, trucks and highways, recycling plants etc?
@IDtaksovr Now you are lying. Evolution is the best current scientific explanation. If you think that ID is a better explaination, then where is your proof for it. Disproving evolution is does not prove ID.
You are still struggling with my argument. At some point we were not here, but now we're here. You can call that "evolution" if you like, but unless you can produce a plausible naturalistic mechanism for "evolution", then you are merely pointing to a mystery. We know of only one cause that has the power to produce intricate machinery, whether by a guided evolutionary process, or some other creative process i.e. an intelligent cause
@IDtaksovr I suggest you study biology some more. If you think that ID is the best scientific explanation than bring forth the proof for it, not just assumptions. If you think evolutio. Is a failed theory, then the intellectually answer is "I don't know" not "god did it"
Stop reading creationist propaganda and grow up.
Evolution is the best current explanation, while ID is bearly a hypothesis. If you can't admit this, then you are an ignorant human being
"you would need to establish (as a fact) the existence of the creator." If you found elaborate hierogliphics on an distant planet, that could be translated into meaningful sentences, would you need to see an alien to believe that these marks were intelligently made, rather than the product of blind natural forces? Intelligent agency may be reliably inferred without any knowledge of who or what directed the process.
I'm afraid there are. The "hieroglyphs" are found in the computer code / information processing system that runs our cells, and is far more advanced than our very best intelligently designed technology. We have every reason to attribute this to design, and no reason to attribute it to natural causes acting blindly. We know from our reliable and repeated experience that intelligent agency is the only causally adequate explanation for sophisticated computing
We have no reason to think that their appearance may be attributed to design. It may appear as though they are designed, but they are (as far as we know) naturally occurring.
What reasons do we have to attribute them to a designer? The fact that they are sophisticated? Have you yet read a single piece of legitimate scientific literature on this topic?
"It may appear as though they are designed, but they are (as far as we know) naturally occurring"
We have no reason whatsoever to believe that state of the art computer technology can arise by any naturalistic process. To believe this is possible, without having any prior experience of it happening is an article of faith. We already know that human intelligent agents can design computers, albeit vastly inferior to the ones found in biological systems. You've got it back to front.
@IDtaksovr The difference is that these mechanisms are not computers. We describe them as computers. We compare them to a computer. However it does not make them computers.
Plus we do have examples of these systems occurring naturally, and you mentioned them earlier.
Put it this way; if the only ponds you've ever seen were man made, then, when you would have found a naturally occurring pond you would conclude that it was man made, BUT you would be wrong.
I would reccommend an article called: "An Imaginary Tour of a Biological Computer" by Seymour Cray, who is/was not an ID proponent, but is considered the father of the supercomputer. Cray explains the exact correlation between many components of human designed computers and cellular ones. You should find the article interesting. If you are in any doubt that our cells really are computers, then we can talk about it further.
@IDtaksovr Congratulations you are taking biology lessons from an electrical engineer, while avoiding the work of the nation's most prominent biologist.
Furthermore, correlations between components does not imply that they are the same thing or that they came into being in the same manner.
Our cells may resemble computers in some aspect, but they are not computers in the same sense as the man made machines.
"Congratulations you are taking biology lessons from an electrical engineer.."
Exactly! You need to be an engineer or a programmer to appreciate just how advanced the engineering inside the cell is. Most biologists are still stuck in this Victorian mindset, that the cell was cobbled together. People are now using cellular components to construct computers, so you are wasting your time trying to deny the obvious. As I said, you will never see a biological computer appearing naturally
@IDtaksovr Why don't we just call a plumber, an electrician and a pizza delivery man. Maybe they'll have an even better explanation of how life developed. Engineers are way too educated for this kind of work. We have to operate by utilizing our gut feelings, then we'll be able to sense the divine presence in creation.
"Engineers are way too educated for this kind of work" If each cell is packed with libraries full of information, thousands of miniature production lines, a sophisticated transport mechanism, consisting of trucks running on highways, shuttling many thousands of pieces of cargo around every moment etc, then we need specialist engineers and programmers to understand it. A Darwinian mindset, rooted in Victorian science and sustained by anti-religious fervour, is holding back progress
@IDtaksovr I see; then we need to ask a librarian, a truck driver and forklift operator. It makes sooooo much sense. Biologists know nothing of this. Librarians and truck drivers understand libraries, trucks and highways like no one else. Engineers know nothing about the life behind the wheel of a rig.
The bottom line is that nowadays biologists need advanced knowledge of computing/engineering in order to understand the workings of the cell. The cell needs to be reverse engineered, like any other super-advanced technology. Fortunately, we get clues, because cell components often parallel our own intelligent designs. You may not like it, but this is the settled position of the biological community. It's pointless to try to defend Darwinism by denying life's spectacular sophistication
"evolution" is something that many ID proponents accept e.g. Behe accepts common descent as the best explanation for our ability to arrange species into a nested hierarchy. The darwinian mechanism is the bit he dissagrees with, and the bit you desperately want to believe in. So stop wasting time by confusing the discussion, and tell me what evidence you would require, to accept ID as the best explanation for biological complexity
"it appears to be designed. Does that mean that it is?"
We make many design inferences every single day. Some of those inferences may be doubtful or wrong, such as imagining a a pattern in the clouds resembles a weasil. However, we can be as certain of other design inferences, as we can be of anything in science. e.g. if the SETI programme discovered a ET signal that correlated with the complete works of Shakespere in binary code, we would most reasonably conclude an intelligent origin
A design inference seemed like the best explanation for a snowflake until it was discovered that such patterns arise inevitably from the physical and chemical properties of matter. Similarly, it is reasonable to make a design inference with the DNA information processing system. If we can ever observe something remotely close to a natural process generating complex compuer code, then that inference would be suspect. By all means, we should certainly keep looking for natural causes
@IDtaksovr just like a snow flake can be attributed to design (wrongfully) so can the molecular machines. Just because it doesn't happen in front of our eyes; does not mean that it couldn't have happen under different conditions (that no longer exist on earth) or that it is so rare that it only happen once. Can you not see that as a possibility?
Bio machines could certainly have a fully naturalistic explanation, but we need a reason to believe this. The apparently complex snowflake patterns turn out to be due to very simple geometrical and chemical constraints and are determined entirely by chance and necessity. In contrast, biological machines are constructed using volumes of information stored in DNA, whose arrangement is entirely free from constraints. Like the letters of a language, nucleotides may be ordered in any way
@IDtaksovr NO, we need a evidence to think that they were designed, not reason to think that they were not. We have explanations for how there things can naturally arise from simpler building blocks. Stop reading things published by the Discovery Institute and read some real science.
What evidence do you need that the cells sophisticated information processing systems was designed, beyond it's astronomical improbability, and the fact that it both imitates and greatly surpasses our own efforts as programmers and design engineers? If we have naturalistic explanations for how complex biochemical systems evolved, lets see those explanations. Don't blindly accept the party line. You need to dig a little to get past the confident facade put forward by Darwinists.
The protein building blocks of life, each consist of a chains of hundreds of amino acids. The 20 varieties of amino acids found in life, are linked in precise sequences, using information stored in DNA. These correctly ordered chains then collapse into useful 3D shapes, with the reqired physical and chemical properties. The sequence of every single protein is vastly improbable, and the flagellum, say, requires 40 proteins types. There is a huge gulf between this and the humble snowflake
You realize that this is not a created cell, right? It's a cell transcribed by an existing cell, from the code of an existing cell, planted into a host cell. The code (or RNA) isn't custom, it already existed- and the scientists didn't make the cell, anther cell did. They just made it by using another cell.
FYI, I spent 7 years of research in hypertension (in undergrad and med school), and am a recent med school graduate. I understand this totally.
Arabman666, I was referring to new proteins created by random mutations, for example nylonase. According to IDtaksovr, these are vastly improbable events (in other threads he has said they are effectively impossible), but out in nature they happen rather frequently.
These are fairly common. However, they aren't passed down in progeny. Mutated proteins are common in humans as well- created by things like frame-shifts and what not. These aren't detrimental in somatic cells, and never transmit. And typically, most proteins that come out "mutated" either function normal, until they're broken down, or don't function at all and are immediately broken down.
Why are these impossible? What do they have to do with theology?
I think he may be referring to mutations in gametocytes, which are extremely rare. And he's probably talking about Eukaroyote cells, specifically ours.
Bacteria, and prokaryotes in general, are a different story. There is constant change there- adaptation, but typically always facilitated thought the transfer of plasmids. Mutations seldom "help" bacteria.
Transfer of plasmids is just one bacteria getting some genetic info from another one through some mechanism, I think it's call conjugation...? It's been a while. Sorry for the multiple posts.
Arabman666, no worries. With 500 char limit, hard to cover much in one post.
He has made the argument against the formation of early life, so it would apply to bacteria as well as inheritable mutations in human cells. It's "impossible" in his eyes, because he calculates the odds of generating a protein to be 1 in 4^(protein length), This ignores a number of factors, but that's why observations don't match his opinion.
He links them through theology through an argument from ignorance. Because he believes that it was impossible for them to come about via non-directed creation followed by mutation/natural selection/..., that the only other thing he can think of (Intelligent Design) must be correct.
I actually believe in intelligent design- I don't believe in some ridiculous bio-synthesis theory where atoms post-big-bang kinda of just formed living molecules that metabolized energy out of the blue. The big bang's a theory that's well established. Cell evolution is a theory surprisingly lacking, although natural selection and adaptivity has been demonstrated time and time again.
Without an initial manual, all you'd get is entropy. Cell formation breaks the law ofentropy.
I'm far more concerned with bio-synthesis than I am of evolution. Where as, 5 years ago someone could make a legit argument that all life came from the same initial cells (overlooking a few outliers and inconsistencies in genomes) that argument can't be made anymore. And now, those genome inconsistencies previously overlooked have more merit because of the discovery of a non-genetic code abiding organism.
What's wrong with theology? I believe in it, and I'm not an idiot.
The more you learn, with an open mind and a less than cynical heart, the more likely you are to stop viewing humans as glorified machines, and start believing in the soul. Evolution 4000 was actually the class in undergrad that made me completely believe in (100% confidence) in a God. That may be surprising, but lest you've walked in those shoes and studied those theories, you can't bash belief in a God.
Dawkins does- but he was molested by clergy as a youth- so I feel him.
Well, plasmids don't transfer mis-translated RNA. Plasmids typically have codes for protein modification that is prevalent in an existing bacterial cell that survived death from a factor because of the presence of the plasmid.
Humans and bacteria actually have little overlap, and in essence, the gene-code was broken a year ago (?) or so when a prokaryotic organism was discovered that didn't use the gene-code at all. That further distanced us.
Arabman666, I didn't say anything about IDtaksovr's intelligence... only his logic. He has used an argument from ignorance (and other logical fallacies) in place of evidence for accepting ID and theology. Likewise I would probably question your logic rather than intelligence for accepting theology, although at the moment I don't have enough data.
For myself, I started out as a theist, attending religious grammar and middle schools. Later education in science, history, and religion turned me
away from theism, not towards it. The things you mention turning you towards 100% certainty sound as if they may be similar to evidence I saw indicating the potential of a creator, but without a testable hypothesis I do not find the evidence compelling.
Biosynthesis on the other hand, does not violate the law of entropy, any more than snowflakes do. The law of entropy does not prevent patterns from appearing in chaos, and for that matter does not apply to open systems.
(for that matter, those organic patterns which are the building blocks of cells appear quite easily, and are found even in space)
With that being said, I don't think that any of the biosynthesis hypotheses are proven to anywhere near the level of Common Descent/Theory of Evolution. I think about the best that could be said for them is one might be at the level of "not impossible". However there is some research going on that may change my opinion on that - take a look at cdk007's channel.
You see, there's an element of evolution that people don't talk about, that is probably one of the most laughably ridiculous theories out there- symbiotic evolution. You know, saying that flagella (cell propulsion systems) came from spirochetes, which are other single cellular organisms, symbiotically interacting with the other cell. That's were the meat of the evolutionary argument is. And it's insane- and not only untestable- but clearly false. Things don't "Fuse" togther.
While we do have symbiotic relationships with bacteria (like in our GI tract) they are certainly not part of out genetic information.
There's also the "macro" element of evolution that seems to have pulled the wool over a lot of peoples eyes. For instance, most "transitional" specimens people claim are humans in "evolution" existed at the same time as "modern" Humans did. It's a rather false claim, that most people believe is the "truest" claim.
Snowflakes? Well, snow flakes are efficient- energy in its lowest form. Call it "Macro-stereoychemistry" (You'll know what I'm talking about if you've taken orgo and analytical classes)
That's a quite the comparison you have there, but it's insanely far off. The theory of evolution (i.e. natural selection) is observable, the theory where purple sulfur bacteria become Eurkaroytic mitochondria, is not, and is rather far fetched.
I usually don't peak into people youtube channels for information- I got to pubmed, or read a paper medical/science journal. You'll find the "pizzaz" stripped away, and the truth much clearer.
The organism I'm talking about (don't know what they called it) has Arsenic backbone for it's DNA- effectively separating any chance we have of being related to it. There are lots of theories- but this really highlighted the variances in the genetic code as more than just variances.
Well, science essentially turned me too. Putting your foot for the first time in the realm of science is like re-learning life. You see images, hear theories (without examining why they were made) and come to a point where you're basically 99.9% sure things like evolution are true. However, it's not putting your foot in the door, but diving into the pool of knowledge that gets you somewhere.
I'd say after evolution, physics in undergrad made me more of a theist.
Don't get me wrong- there are plenty of things in theology that are incompatible with proven scientific knowledge. The world is not 6000 years old. In fact, there are cities in the Holy Land that are 10,000 years old, which themselves disprove that religious viewpoint.
And there are things that make you believe in theology- like that fact that Muhammad described the soul to be in the forehead, which is where we know our definition of "morality", judgement, and emotion is.
Although, to be fair, I usually check these videos out to see how theologians form an argument, and most of the time, their arguments aren't going to appeal to the "atheist" crowd. I just check this stuff out for fun, or reference.
Once again, sorry for the long comments- bad habit, I type the way I talk- which is often rambling.
Arabman666, cdk007 has made some interesting videos summarizing where Dr Szostak's lab is going, but for the published papers, the Harvard BBS faculty page on Dr Szostak references some.
If you claim without demonstrating that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents cell formation,don't be surprised when others don't go looking for better analogies than snowflakes to refute you. However notice in the following post that I pointed out the organic molecules found in space as well.
For the halomonadaceae bacteria that can grow using arsenic, how has the followup research gone? Is that an entirely different form of genetic material (and if so, why did it get classified with bacteria that aren't)? Or is it something that has a normal phosphorus backbone, but from its environment has accumulated mutations that allow it to incorporate arsenic in place of part or all of the phosphorus? Or is it, as some have suggested, a phosphorus backbone with the arsenic as contamination?
Well, that's a very intelligent question. And that's the point here. A lot of things "dictate" what are classified as Prokaryotes/Bacteria- typically, the contents of the cell wall, and plasma membrane. Other factors too, too many to list.
Now, we've inferred a genetic "tree" based on these features- but this can't be a part of the genetic tree- it's not a mutation. GFAJ-1's classified for convenience- not lineage. This isn't my opinion- it's scientific fact.
Well, I'll check it out when I have some time. I'm answering on my phone much of the time. Well, I'll look for a better analogy.
Molecules always form to be in lowest-energy-states. Cells are not the lowest energy state. It's very black and white ; )
More importantly, there's a hypothesis of "multiple points of bio-synthesis" in other words, life was "formed" by various lines, based off of GFAJ-1. I see that as a reasonable argument- although....
.... I'd amplify the discretion in other organisms to try and argue against it. For a long time, we've made families, and orders with the "close enough" mentality. Even if the genetic code varies in these bacteria, we stick them in the group anyways. Which is why the groups are essentially remade every few years- really, it's surprising. In reality, we're making educated guesses as to what is related to what. We have no real, scientific idea. Just an inference.
So the phylogenetic tree is filled with some serious problems- beside the fact that we keep modifying it.
Friend, by your logic, you don't believe in a God because of the lack of a testable hypothesis. Well, in this case, we have absolutely no testable hypothesis either. Just because things exhibit similar appearances, or similar genetic codes and traits, inferring that they're all the same is a legit stretch- Unless you're talking about things like felines, or canines.
I'm not telling you to believe in a God. Far from it. I'm just saying the inference you make (about a common cell lineage), is just as reasonable as the inference theists make. The logic of both is reasonable- and theology shouldn't be taken as a book (at least initially) or a set of silly stories. It's a fantastic, reasonable explanation to sentient life. And when a guy like me, finds a theology that agree with his knowledge of science, atheists should never "laugh" at it.
I went cdk007 and saw the same old "Christian" creationist vs "atheist" scientific argument. Only he made an inference that abiogensis was plausible, because it was a theory, and gravity was also a theory. It was unimpressive- like it was made for a child.
Not the stupidest thing I've viewed, but it's up there with the silliest. You seem like you've got a hankerin' for knowledge- and I tell this to theists too. Learn directly from the source- not from a "publicized" source.
So when someone's talking about vesicle formation (which form spontaneously) without talking about these true constituents in detail, it's rather useless. It's what I expected. A first year undergrad scientific mindset- "Things just happen, so there. Stupid theists!"
Like I said. His explanation for bioogenesis isn't good. Or even kinda good. It's literally induced by the lack of knowledge, not the excess. It's good enough to shut up a theist though- on false grounds.
And the word "confirmed" in the scientific community isn't real. We always change our story, and always dismantle the old for the new. No matter what it's about.
What you've stumbled across is just as reliable as a preacher, with a Bible, trying to describe to you how Job was living with dinosaurs when the world was only 4000 years old.
Arabman666, If you look back, you will find that I didn't list the lab's research as confirmed, but at best proven to the level of "not impossible". I'll wait for some more research before calling it likely or confirmed. Yes, you covered the reasons you tend not to like that type of summary before. No problem, several papers on the details have been published.
Unlike the Biblical story you mention, research continues, giving this hypothesis a corrective mechanism.
Speaking of said corrective mechanism, GFAJ1 was yes, classified based off an assortment of traits. That's not classifying for convenience, that's classifying on the way that has worked quite well in the past, and should work if Common Descent is correct.
You claim that it is not correct, and while it is possible that you are correct, other possibilities exist. How do you know that it is not a mutation? How do you know that it can't be part of the genetic tree?
Since it is an oddity, research on it will no doubt continue. Once that is done, we will have a better idea of if it fits or not. Until then, while you might be correct, I am inclined to doubt it. With the vast amount of evidence supporting CD, it is rather premature to write it off at this stage.
As a point of interest, why would you say that we have no testable hypothesis of the relatedness of organisms when we are talking about a test of the hypothesis of the relatedness of organisms?
What are you doubting of GFAJ-1? It's not part of our evolutionary tree- that's everyone saying it- even people who argue for evolution. It's categorized as a different instance where "life was formed" i.e. they're saying it might belong to an alternate evolutionary tree. NASA even called it an "alien"
Give me a testable hypothesis in regards to the phylogenetic tree. It's all inference, and it keeps changing, right? So how do we test it?
The fact that your asking me "How do you know that it's not a mutation" indicates that you don't know what a Mutation is.
A Mutation has to do with DNA codon sequence changes. That's all mutation is. From cancer, to an extra finger and so on.
A Mutation has nothing to do with the base structure of the constituents of DNA. And a quick search of GFAJ1 will clearly say that it doesn't exist on our "genetic tree"- it's put there for convenience. I don't think you understand.
When walking about "confirmed" I was referring to the video in cdl007's video, not your words. In fact, I didn't really talk about anything you've said. I was just bashing the videos you steered me in the direction of. They were really, overly sub-par.
The Biblical story (actually, inference) that I mentioned wasn't being compared to scientific research, it was being compared to cdk007's video. I'm aware of research continuing, obviously. And lately, it's been on my side.
Arabman666, ah... I thought you were referring to my opinion on the status of the hypothesis. If the video says confirmed, well... now you know my view of the level to which it is confirmed.
For mutations please go back and read my original commentary on the possibility of a mutation. I did not refer to the substitution of As for P as a mutation.
Yes, I am still doubting your conclusions on GFAJ1. It is quite capable of using P, and appears more capable of using P than As.
Yes... it grows faster in a P environment than in an As environment.
So is this a bacteria that uses As instead of P? Or is this a bacteria that in a high As environment, has evolved the capacity to substitute As for some of the P it would normally use in a different environment? If you wish to propose the former as fact, why does it grow so much faster when given P?
No, the phylogenetic tree isn't just inference. It is a prediction of Common Descent. If CD is correct, there are in fact lines of decent that will create a factual phylogenetic tree. Different methods converging on a single or small group of trees is supporting evidence for CD, divergent trees would be evidence against it.
While there are assorted issues, such as the horizontal gene transfer you mentioned earlier, current trees converge on a very small number.
If you are correct about this particular finding, that would have significant impact on that line of supporting evidence for CD. The multiple instances of biosynthesis, or some other theory might become a more likely answer.
Have you looked up to see if the genes have been sequenced, and if so, what relationship they found?
It's been nice chatting, but I'm still a resident doctor, and I'm about to hit a heavy work cycle. Good luck on your quest for knowledge and truth- and remember, the perspective of theology may seem is though it is incompatible (with even the believe of CD) but in actuality, theology is what your logic dictates it is. Keep an open mind, and keep learning. Never be cynical.
There's a problem with the concept of "evolving" to use arsenic. Evolution, based on the criteria we know, has no way of modifying DNA constituents. It only modifies proteins. There's also our Mitochondria to think about, which apparently aren't things we evolved- but things we gained. I don't believe endosymbiosis is possible, so that points to a design. Anywho, I'll wait a few years more. Maybe something will develop.
Arabman666, have you considered ambulatory IV of coffee as a sleep substitute? It also makes the patients more comfortable, as they see hospital personnel using the hospital equipment personally. :)
After turning from theism to heresy and then apostasy, I did consider that some other theology might be correct. It occurred to me that if this was in fact a created universe, the one thing we could be certain of was the Word of God that the universe itself. Any other self proclaimed word of god
must agree with the Word of God, or it is not in fact the Word of God. Using that ruler, the theologies I have studied have yet to measure up. Failing that, a successful testable hypothesis demonstrating that the universe (or life, depending on the hypothesis) is a created artifact would at a minimum get me as far as Deism.
Bacteria evolving to use As instead of P does yes, seem decidedly odd, however if it is possible, that bacteria was in a place where mutations allowing the cell to make use of As would provide a selective benefit. Scientists will continue to review it, and hopefully we will have a more solid answer in a few years.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts... with the evidence they've gathered, as unlikely as it sounds I wouldn't call it impossible. If it were found to be impossible that would not point
"Plus we do have examples of these systems occurring naturally"
Such as? I would recommend a youtube video called "Journey Inside The Cell" , if you wan't to understand the way that the cells information processing system reads sequence information from the DNA database, and translates it into an end product i.e. a protein. If you can point me to any examples of such systems being observed (rather than presumed) to arise by natural causes, I will be amazed.
Wow, what a display of incoherent blather. It's nothing but white noise. And all those recited Quran verses sound uncannily like Klingon death threats.
"When atheists are faced with Muslims, they usually wind up losing"
No, what usually happens is that Muslims simply don't address their opponents' arguments and go into full denial mode. Debating theists is generally very frustrating because of their ability to totally disregard anything that doesn't fit their beliefs.
@MrGrandDragon I totally agree. to actually think this universe and all in it happened on its own is beyond illogical. what are the chances that a car could make itself, or a house. laws in this universe don't even agree with self creation, without a Maker or Creator .
swandike 3 weeks ago
Suppose there was no intelligence behind the making of the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. How then can I trust my own thinking to be true? If I can’t trust my own thinking, I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God
rs2fifa10 1 month ago
@rs2fifa10 ''I can only trust my brain if it is designed''' How is that even begin as an argument. If your brain was designed or not it would still be the same brain the the same defects.
Moh5Itachi1 1 month ago
I cant help feeling like im in a year 11 school class!
hudders128 1 month ago
If you believe that the human animals on this little spec of dust within the universe are important to any deity then you are simply a foolish idiot! Atheists accept reality; theists wallow in fantasy! Believe in a deity if you must but when you place your faith in a religion then you are one of the dumbest morons of the human race for these idiot have convinced you they know what your god expects of you.
MsWanderer1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsWanderer1
If you truly believe there is no creator then you are incredibly deluded. You are lying to your self.
MrGrandDragon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 youtube channels debunk the Quran's 'scientific miracles', and the creed of Islam check them out; therationalizer and CEMBadmins. I'd also advise you to check out the channels theramintrees and evid3nc3 for general well-presented, respectful, and insightful critiques of religion in general. I'm an apostate BTW.
strangestdude 4 months ago
Peace for Humanity Conference, Muhammad (peace & blessings be upon him) the Merciful. 24 September 2011 @ Wembley Arena, London. Shaykh-ul-Islam Tahir-ul-Qadri, Shaykh Yahya Ninowy, Abdal Hakim Murad, Mesut Kurtis and more. wwwdotpeaceforhumanitydotcodotuk
youkool432 4 months ago
Actually its faith and creationism vs. Atheism vrs Evolution, evolution does not support atheism.
faith and creationism vs. Atheism and Evolution
faith and creationism vs. Atheism vrs Evolution
faith vrs creationism vs. Atheism vrs Evolution
u get picture.
just that what there to stop scientology claim that Alien just used evolution and stuff to create alien spirits to cling onto our bodys stuff. Just i dont think science should be treated as faith or beleif, it none its tool we use in life.
soMeRandoM670 4 months ago
@soMeRandoM670 you don't even make sense. what are you stating that? that science is wrong?
gato123452 4 months ago
@gato123452
How can science be wrong when its a tool we use?
science supports no one. its not thing to use to help ur faith or hinder, accuse on faith. It proves nothing, it’s our understanding so it can never be wrong. its not a faith. its only tool we used to help us understand world around us, its not wrong.
soMeRandoM670 4 months ago
@soMeRandoM670 i know it's a tool, that we used to Understand the world around us, and it's the only way to get answers. but all lot of religious people state that science is a religion. i really don't know why they say that. but your comment confused me and i didn't understand it.
gato123452 4 months ago
@gato123452
ahh, i think reason why religious people are stating science is a religion, this on assumption they right is because you have to faith that they are wrong. however i think thats not case my interpatation is, that they saying people treating it as religion and not what it truely is, something to help us our own mind to understand world around us and make sense in it. however i think they think most if all, are using it as means to justify themself that we wrong. Char limit -_-
soMeRandoM670 4 months ago
@gato123452
''and it's the only way to get answers.''
Of course it's not the only way to get answers. Science doesn't answer philosophical questions, it doesn't answer mathematical questions, it depends on logical axioms, science can't prove logic, its the other way around. So no, science isn't the only way to get answer about the world, it has improved our lives, but its not the only way.
TheKap1an 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
5:15 “If things were different, they would be different - and that is bad.”
6:00 Atheists don’t have faith and probability doesn’t enter into it.
7:00 Please design me an instrument for determining the “whys”
7:53 Theism does not explain anything.
8:12 Demonstrate there IS a metaphysical.
8:40 Now he’s claiming a non-coporal mind. Ever seen one of these?
askegg 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@askegg
"5:15 “If things were different, they would be different - and that is bad.”
That is not what is being said.
"6:00 Atheists don’t have faith and probability doesn’t enter into it."
You do not think it is there and we just accept it, there is no God?
romm95 5 months ago
2:00 minutes in and it’s nice sounding garbage.
2:44 The brilliance of “design” includes massive waste, destruction, and death.
3:00 Hawking IS an atheist, and agnostic. This idiot does not know what he is talking about.
3:30 “It is OK to be an ignorant fucktard”
5:00 The “balance” of the universe will result in heat death and an eternal unchanging state. Nice one, Allah.
askegg 6 months ago
@askegg
WOW you seem really confused. To call this man an idiot just shows how ignorant you are, he is a professor of Cambridge university AKA much smarter than you. What do u know about islam anyway.
nbastar187187 5 months ago
@nbastar187187 Wow - an ad hominem wrapped in an argument from authority. You must be proud.
askegg 5 months ago
@nbastar187187 Abraham's God does not leave room for other ideas. Presenting Islam as the solution to man's problems is highly questionable. Unless God's existence is proven with concrete evidence, all these lectures are blowing in the wind. Man has reached a state where it needs no Deity to help / hinder in its affairs. It is quite capable of sort them out with trial and error. The gulf between you & askegg is Insuperable. I tend to agree with him. Believers have to accept reality.
amoralis123 5 months ago
@amoralis123 If what you say is true then why is there a much higher rate of crime in western countries compared with majority muslim countries, things like rape,pedophilia, and racism are almost unheard of in muslim majority countries and the worst thing is the state if the west is getting worse.
nbastar187187 5 months ago
@nbastar187187 You do not understand the issue: Evolution. Islam's Kun fa yakoon is nonsense. Religions have brought Man to it present understanding. It is standing on its own feet needing no Deity to help/hinder to solve its problems. US Constitution is Man Made to govern Freed Man. A sub-specie of Man is evolving. Nmachi is the compelling evidence of Evolution indicating, present humans' ancestors were Africans: Y chromosome proof
Rapes/Paedophila are in Muslim countries: Muslims are racists.
amoralis123 5 months ago
@amoralis123
Your telling me that the amount of rapes and pedophilia in the west can even be compared with the numbers of cases in muslim majority countries. Islam is growing fast its only a matter of time...
nbastar187187 5 months ago
@nbastar187187 If there were a delusion, Muslims like you suffer. Islam's growth is due to its high birth rate. Even so, UN Census of '91 puts the figures at 997 million, 1.2 billion Christians. 10 years later Muslim population was 1.1 bn, Christian population was 1.9 bn. Latest estimates are Muslims 1.3 billion, Christiana 2.2 billions. Nigeria was 67 : 30 Muslim / Christian. Today it is 51 : 44, Christianity in Pakistan has grown to 5 folds in 20 years. Keep on living in a dreamland.
amoralis123 5 months ago
@amoralis123 latest figure for The Uk , greater than 100,000 converts, mostly of white race and female.
the convert have added 5% to the Muslim population of the Uk, within the last 10 years. Which is clearly significant.
I have not even gone into the figures for other european countries
latest Muslim population world wide is over the 1.6 billion mark.
On the whole Christianity in on a massive decline in the west, This you would agree is inarguable.
arcz10 5 months ago
@arcz10 Agreed with reservations. I tried to find figures of those who became Muslims & then reverted, especially in the UK, USA & Canada. It is becoming quite fashionable to convert to Islam, get a bit of limelight & then fade away or revert or become atheistic/agnostic..Of course, there are quite a significant number who stay. According to US stats, the fastest growing religion is Falun in China & South Korea, from 2m in '99 to 100 m. Good luck to world domination. I don't think so.
amoralis123 5 months ago
@amoralis123 world domination is not what I personally would want. The preservation of other faiths to me is important. Islam never claimed to be a new religion even during its initial stages.
In the UK, Islam or atheism is filling the void left by the numbers who have left Christianity.
Rather than numbers, what for me is interesting is that in the uk you now have intelligent highly educates woman converting. And this is something which i doubt anyone when was young could of foreseen.
arcz10 5 months ago
@amoralis123 i will check out Falun,thanks
arcz10 5 months ago
@amoralis123 when we talk about spread of Islam we mean spread of islam and not muslims. Why do you have to confuse the two?
MatrixOfDynamism 5 months ago
@MatrixOfDynamism
I did not know that Islam and Muslims are separate? Thanks.
nbastar187187
Homosexuality among both gender is rampant among Muslims. Men rape boys. Women perform 'jufti'. Due to harsh sentences & societal shame, these acts are swept under the carpet.
Religions are the curse on humanity. They shackle free people into submission to a non existing entity for the benefit of clergy and rulers.
Religions are constrictive. They stifle human thoughts & progress of Mind.
amoralis123 5 months ago
what a stupidity of attempting to read mind of god. Attempts of knowing and mathematically modelling the human mind have not been achieved and they are trying to read the mind of god.
tensorbundle 6 months ago
this video has nothing to do with evolution/creation! Why the title?
113111413 8 months ago
The anthropic principle is often advanced in an unscientific, "tautological" form, which boils down to the argument: "we're here because were here". Tautologies can often appear to provide a deep insight or explanation for some observation, but under closer inspection, they are found to be true by definition. Tautologies are logically garunteed to be true. example: "boys will be boys". In contrast, science requires hypotheses to be testable, based on observation, and open to refutation.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
I am a Muslim and any Muslim who says that evolution is false has not studied properly. Evolution is a fact, it is up to Islam to find it in the Qur'an.
qwertypluss 9 months ago
Why does the improbability of an event indubitably attributable to the workings of a higher being? There's nothing scientific about this. Here you find scientific facts put side by side and a religious person saying "Who else could have done this?". The "coherence of theism" as the "best available explanation" is a subjective evaluation, but at least he acknowledges that there's no way for theists to prove something that supposedly lies beyond the reach of our knowledge.
TADahar 10 months ago
f**k who?
JurassicPlank 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can someone not believe in God? The most likely explanation is that the society today is structured and ruled by people who know that belief in God will lead to a better, stronger and more intelligent population and this can only be detrimental to their position and then it goes on from there. Look at the Science, it proves that there is a supernatural power at work? People think they're 'open minded' when they refuse to believe in God when in fact Science proves God's existence.
sajad14 11 months ago
Comment removed
sajad14 11 months ago
Well it is not a solution to conclude that since 'the universe is too improbable to exist' GOD DID IT. This is like trying to figure out an equation and going 'Fuck it. x = God, solved'. I'm not sure you'd get many marks.
An actual solution could be to say, ok since the probability of the universe is (1 x 10^-50) . If 1x10^50 other universes exist, the probability of our universe is actually very probable. This guy is clearly intelligent and interesting, but very wrong on this point.
SegaFanClub 11 months ago
@SegaFanClub his argument of this matter wouldnt mean much if you didnt understand and research the religion with its core meanings. for a person that did.. it means everything you see..
weedo84 11 months ago
@weedo84 He explains why the anthropic principle requires 'more faith' than Islam because it is so improbable. This is exactly his point. My point was it is not a requirement to have more faith because it is simply an openness to different scientific hypotheses which explain how such a high improbability could come about. People win the lottery every week, some of whom do not deserve, if we take the probability of all these people winning, it is a ridiculously probability, is this Allah's work?
SegaFanClub 11 months ago
@SegaFanClub I see your point... and I agree, from your standpoint. but lets not forget that he is explaining this to mostly muslims or people that have researched this vast religion... and understood its underlying meanings, so with that you listen to what he is saying in a more broader sense.. logically speaking. excuse the cliche but like a puzzle falling into place if you will.. and its not a 'god of the gaps' issue im talking here.
weedo84 11 months ago
Sunnis and Shias are one. Its the United States Govt and israel that fans hatred using proxy slaves like saudi and egypt
Our Book is One Our Kaaba is One Our Allah is one Our Holy Prophet is One
STOP listening to preachers of hate whether they are sunni in name or shia in name
Boycott all the hate preachers
rational1512 1 year ago
@rational1512 No Shia Rafidah is a brother of a true Muslim! The Shia curse our beloved mother Aisha (ra) and also make takfir on the companions of our Prophet (saw). May Allah (swt) protect Ahlasunnah from these filthy liars and guide them to the truth of Islam.
Parvez86 10 months ago
@Parvez86 Yeah Shias cursed Aisha, but Mohamed violated her at the age of 9. You follow a blood thirsty, homophobic, xenophobic pedophiliac. You are as dumb as an ape, I can't believe you would doubt evolution.
teamsigned 10 months ago
@rational1512 You are a hate preacher. In your comment above, you have preached against Israel and USA. We all have 1 beating heart, one moving tounge, & 1 liver.
How dare you preach hate against our Christian Jewish and secular brothers and sisters.
You are the hate preacher
teamsigned 10 months ago
@teamsigned
what do you mean by "evolution"
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr By evolution I mean the fact and the theory of evolution. The fact that species change over time and Darwin's theory.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigne
"The vague assertion that species change over time to some extent " is not at issue. The sufficiency of the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation, to explain the phenominal complexity of life is heavily disputed. Nowhere has the blundering, tinkering mechanism proposed by Darwin, and expanded by subsequent generations of biologists, been observed to produce anything like the phenominally intricate biochemical systems we find in even the simplest lifeforms
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Darwin's theory is not heavily disputed by the main scientific body. His theory has been independently confirmed by every school of biology.
We have observed evolution in laboratory conditions. The predictions, of this theory, have yielded incredibly accurate results.
Unfortunately, at the same time Intelligent Design yielded no successful predictions, laboratory successes, or been confirmed by a single school of biological study.
Its only argument is "EVOLUTION IS WRONG"
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"His theory has been independently confirmed by every school of biology....."
There is no evidence that the darwinian mechanism has the power to produce any of the significant changes that must have occurred in the evolution of life. Having said that, there is plent evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can produce extremely trivial changes. The argument is not that "evolution is wrong", but that evolution, if true, cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr You have not addressed my previous statement at all. Even if we "for the sake of argument" say that Darwin's theory is totally wrong.
What evidence do you have that ID is right?
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"if we "for the sake of argument" say that Darwin's theory is totally wrong."
Before going off on a tangent, it's important to establish what we can agree on. Darwinian theory can explain trivial changes, such as oscillations in finch beak sizes, and it can explain loss of function. What it cannot do is explain the appearance of information and information processing systems, quality control mechanisms, production lines, turbines, rotary motors, power plants etc, in the first place
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Yes it can explain all of the above mentioned. It would take too long to do so, in the 500 characters permitted by Youtube's commenting page. It is the best theory we have (at this time) to account for the remarkable biodiversity we see around us. If you want an explanation i suggest you pic a specific example of an occurrence, which evolutionary theory can't account for, and I'll try to provide one.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"It would take too long to do so, in the 500 characters ...."
What about providing a detailed testable account for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. I don't mean a wishy washy "just-so" story, full of speculations, of how it might have evolved, but instead one that can be checked experimantally. Failing that, why not provide your very best observed example of the Darwinian evolution of novel biological complexity at the biochemical level.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Are you trying to argue for the 'irreducible complexity" argument?
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned I am simply asking for the very best example you can provide, where novel complexity has been observed to arise by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic variation. I can't really put it more clearly. Once you have provided your best example of novel bio complexity arising by this mechanism, we can compare it to the unfathomably complex sytems found in nature. You must have hundreds of examples if Darwinism is so well established as you claim.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr OK, Here is the current explanation for the evolution of bacterial flagellum. An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system. Currently this is the best scientific explanation we have. If we did not have this explanation it would still not disprove evolution. And even if you disprove evolution, this does not mean ID is right.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system."
So you have two items, the flagellum (around 40 proteins) and the TTSS (around 10 proteins), and no testable pathway to connect the two. Which came first? The flagellum or the TTSS? Did they share a common ancestor? Where is the detailed testable model linking the two via the Darwinian mechanism. This seems like wishful speculations,
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr OK, even if there is no explanation (and there is one, I am simply unfamiliar with it). Because we have no explanation (according to you and a bunch of creationists), does not imply that the evolutionary theory does not have the power to explain this evolutionary occurrence.
PROVE ID. where is the evidence for it. Evolutionary theory is the best CURRENT explanation, the evidence for it is massive. During the Dover trail the arguments for irreducible complexity were annihilated.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
.. does not imply that the evolutionary theory does not have the power to explain this evolutionary occurrence"
If Darwinian theory cannot explain the evolution of biochemical systems like the flagellum, then you believe it can, based purely on faith. Faith is fine, but it's not quite the same as asserting that Darwinism is a fact. If the flagellum, or any other of the myriad of biochemical processes had credible Darwinian explanations, rest assured, we would all know about it
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr STOP. Darwinism is not the same as the theory of evolution by natural selection. No faith is needed to agree with the fact that the theory of evolution is the best current scientific explanation. Kenneth Miller provided an incredible explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. DO SOME READING FROM CREDIBLE BIOLOGISTS, not some creationists PRing the bible. I do not faith to think evolution is true. I have evidence for it.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsign
"No faith is needed to agree with the fact that the theory of evolution is the best current scientific explanation"
You're unable to show a single concrete example, in which the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and selection (aka the "designer" substitute), can be seen to "design" anything remotely similar to the complex biochemical systems we find in biology. You believe that it can do so based on pure faith. Millers "explanation" is wishful speculation, as I have already explained.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Miller's explanation is not wishful thinking, study biology instead of reading creationist propaganda. Creationists use to say the same exact thing about the human eye, yet we NOW have an explaination (backed up by evidence) of how the human eye evolved.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS THE BEST CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR BIODIVERSITY ON THIS PLANET?????????????????????????????????/
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"Miller's explanation is not wishful thinking,...."
Unless you can prove that random mutation and natural selection can take us from the bacterial flagellum to the TTSS, or vice versa, then it IS wishful speculations. Why should I believe you? Where are the detailed testable models? Millers argument is an example of speculating in areas of current ignorance. Prove me wrong. Show me how the Darwinian mechanism connects the flagellum and the TTSS,
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"NOW have an explaination (backed up by evidence) of how the human eye evolved."
If you have given up trying to explain how the flagellum evolved via the Darwinian mechanism, we can move onto the eye. I can explain why evolutionary accounts of eye evolution are just rubbish.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Stop ignoring my question and answer it. I have answered plenty of your questions and derve an answer to 1 of mine.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS THE BEST CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR BIODIVERSITY ON THIS PLANET?????????????????????????????????/
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
The mechanism of evolution has never been shown to do much beyond trivial tinkering. As such, it provides NO explanation for the real complexity in biology. If we cannot observe this mechanism actually producing complex biochemistry, then we would need to believe it can do so based on pure faith. Do you accept that the word "evolution" is extremely vague, and that the main mechanism proposed to explain the transformation of species has broken down in all but the most trivial cases?
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr if it is not the best explanation, what is the best explanation?
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"what is the best explanation?..."
The best explanation for an event that happened in the distant past, would be one that appeals to causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question. What cause do we know of, in our uniform and repeated experience, that has the power to produce libraries of information, information processing systems, quality control mechanisms, production lines, turbines, motors, trucks and highways, recycling plants etc?
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Now you are lying. Evolution is the best current scientific explanation. If you think that ID is a better explaination, then where is your proof for it. Disproving evolution is does not prove ID.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"Disproving evolution is does not prove ID."
You are still struggling with my argument. At some point we were not here, but now we're here. You can call that "evolution" if you like, but unless you can produce a plausible naturalistic mechanism for "evolution", then you are merely pointing to a mystery. We know of only one cause that has the power to produce intricate machinery, whether by a guided evolutionary process, or some other creative process i.e. an intelligent cause
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr I suggest you study biology some more. If you think that ID is the best scientific explanation than bring forth the proof for it, not just assumptions. If you think evolutio. Is a failed theory, then the intellectually answer is "I don't know" not "god did it"
Stop reading creationist propaganda and grow up.
Evolution is the best current explanation, while ID is bearly a hypothesis. If you can't admit this, then you are an ignorant human being
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"If you think that ID is the best scientific explanation than bring forth the proof for it...."
What kind of proof would satisfy you?
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr 1st you would need to establish (as a fact) the existence of the creator. Then we can move on.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"you would need to establish (as a fact) the existence of the creator." If you found elaborate hierogliphics on an distant planet, that could be translated into meaningful sentences, would you need to see an alien to believe that these marks were intelligently made, rather than the product of blind natural forces? Intelligent agency may be reliably inferred without any knowledge of who or what directed the process.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr There are no hieroglyphs.
So, yes establishing the existence of the creator is still needed.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"There are no hieroglyphs"
I'm afraid there are. The "hieroglyphs" are found in the computer code / information processing system that runs our cells, and is far more advanced than our very best intelligently designed technology. We have every reason to attribute this to design, and no reason to attribute it to natural causes acting blindly. We know from our reliable and repeated experience that intelligent agency is the only causally adequate explanation for sophisticated computing
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr
We have no reason to think that their appearance may be attributed to design. It may appear as though they are designed, but they are (as far as we know) naturally occurring.
What reasons do we have to attribute them to a designer? The fact that they are sophisticated? Have you yet read a single piece of legitimate scientific literature on this topic?
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"It may appear as though they are designed, but they are (as far as we know) naturally occurring"
We have no reason whatsoever to believe that state of the art computer technology can arise by any naturalistic process. To believe this is possible, without having any prior experience of it happening is an article of faith. We already know that human intelligent agents can design computers, albeit vastly inferior to the ones found in biological systems. You've got it back to front.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr The difference is that these mechanisms are not computers. We describe them as computers. We compare them to a computer. However it does not make them computers.
Plus we do have examples of these systems occurring naturally, and you mentioned them earlier.
Put it this way; if the only ponds you've ever seen were man made, then, when you would have found a naturally occurring pond you would conclude that it was man made, BUT you would be wrong.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"these mechanisms are not computers."
I would reccommend an article called: "An Imaginary Tour of a Biological Computer" by Seymour Cray, who is/was not an ID proponent, but is considered the father of the supercomputer. Cray explains the exact correlation between many components of human designed computers and cellular ones. You should find the article interesting. If you are in any doubt that our cells really are computers, then we can talk about it further.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Congratulations you are taking biology lessons from an electrical engineer, while avoiding the work of the nation's most prominent biologist.
Furthermore, correlations between components does not imply that they are the same thing or that they came into being in the same manner.
Our cells may resemble computers in some aspect, but they are not computers in the same sense as the man made machines.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"Congratulations you are taking biology lessons from an electrical engineer.."
Exactly! You need to be an engineer or a programmer to appreciate just how advanced the engineering inside the cell is. Most biologists are still stuck in this Victorian mindset, that the cell was cobbled together. People are now using cellular components to construct computers, so you are wasting your time trying to deny the obvious. As I said, you will never see a biological computer appearing naturally
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Why don't we just call a plumber, an electrician and a pizza delivery man. Maybe they'll have an even better explanation of how life developed. Engineers are way too educated for this kind of work. We have to operate by utilizing our gut feelings, then we'll be able to sense the divine presence in creation.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"Engineers are way too educated for this kind of work" If each cell is packed with libraries full of information, thousands of miniature production lines, a sophisticated transport mechanism, consisting of trucks running on highways, shuttling many thousands of pieces of cargo around every moment etc, then we need specialist engineers and programmers to understand it. A Darwinian mindset, rooted in Victorian science and sustained by anti-religious fervour, is holding back progress
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr I see; then we need to ask a librarian, a truck driver and forklift operator. It makes sooooo much sense. Biologists know nothing of this. Librarians and truck drivers understand libraries, trucks and highways like no one else. Engineers know nothing about the life behind the wheel of a rig.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsign
The bottom line is that nowadays biologists need advanced knowledge of computing/engineering in order to understand the workings of the cell. The cell needs to be reverse engineered, like any other super-advanced technology. Fortunately, we get clues, because cell components often parallel our own intelligent designs. You may not like it, but this is the settled position of the biological community. It's pointless to try to defend Darwinism by denying life's spectacular sophistication
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr Stop calling the theory of evolution Darwinism. You are misrepresenting what this theory is. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"Stop calling the theory of evolution Darwinism"
"evolution" is something that many ID proponents accept e.g. Behe accepts common descent as the best explanation for our ability to arrange species into a nested hierarchy. The darwinian mechanism is the bit he dissagrees with, and the bit you desperately want to believe in. So stop wasting time by confusing the discussion, and tell me what evidence you would require, to accept ID as the best explanation for biological complexity
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr If you look at a snow flake through a microscope, it appears to be designed. Does that mean that it is?
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsig
"it appears to be designed. Does that mean that it is?"
We make many design inferences every single day. Some of those inferences may be doubtful or wrong, such as imagining a a pattern in the clouds resembles a weasil. However, we can be as certain of other design inferences, as we can be of anything in science. e.g. if the SETI programme discovered a ET signal that correlated with the complete works of Shakespere in binary code, we would most reasonably conclude an intelligent origin
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@teamsigned
A design inference seemed like the best explanation for a snowflake until it was discovered that such patterns arise inevitably from the physical and chemical properties of matter. Similarly, it is reasonable to make a design inference with the DNA information processing system. If we can ever observe something remotely close to a natural process generating complex compuer code, then that inference would be suspect. By all means, we should certainly keep looking for natural causes
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr just like a snow flake can be attributed to design (wrongfully) so can the molecular machines. Just because it doesn't happen in front of our eyes; does not mean that it couldn't have happen under different conditions (that no longer exist on earth) or that it is so rare that it only happen once. Can you not see that as a possibility?
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsign
Bio machines could certainly have a fully naturalistic explanation, but we need a reason to believe this. The apparently complex snowflake patterns turn out to be due to very simple geometrical and chemical constraints and are determined entirely by chance and necessity. In contrast, biological machines are constructed using volumes of information stored in DNA, whose arrangement is entirely free from constraints. Like the letters of a language, nucleotides may be ordered in any way
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr NO, we need a evidence to think that they were designed, not reason to think that they were not. We have explanations for how there things can naturally arise from simpler building blocks. Stop reading things published by the Discovery Institute and read some real science.
teamsigned 9 months ago
@teamsigned
What evidence do you need that the cells sophisticated information processing systems was designed, beyond it's astronomical improbability, and the fact that it both imitates and greatly surpasses our own efforts as programmers and design engineers? If we have naturalistic explanations for how complex biochemical systems evolved, lets see those explanations. Don't blindly accept the party line. You need to dig a little to get past the confident facade put forward by Darwinists.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@teamsig
The protein building blocks of life, each consist of a chains of hundreds of amino acids. The 20 varieties of amino acids found in life, are linked in precise sequences, using information stored in DNA. These correctly ordered chains then collapse into useful 3D shapes, with the reqired physical and chemical properties. The sequence of every single protein is vastly improbable, and the flagellum, say, requires 40 proteins types. There is a huge gulf between this and the humble snowflake
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
@IDtaksovr There is also a huge gap between the Discovery Institute and the rest of the scientific community
teamsigned 9 months ago
IDtaksovr, such correctly ordered chains have been created in my lifetime. Thus your "vastly improbable" seems to be a wee bit off.
Did you ever find any research supporting ID?
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
(peer reviewed of course)
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Mycoplasma laboratorium?
You realize that this is not a created cell, right? It's a cell transcribed by an existing cell, from the code of an existing cell, planted into a host cell. The code (or RNA) isn't custom, it already existed- and the scientists didn't make the cell, anther cell did. They just made it by using another cell.
FYI, I spent 7 years of research in hypertension (in undergrad and med school), and am a recent med school graduate. I understand this totally.
Arabman666 9 months ago
Arabman666, I was referring to new proteins created by random mutations, for example nylonase. According to IDtaksovr, these are vastly improbable events (in other threads he has said they are effectively impossible), but out in nature they happen rather frequently.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
These are fairly common. However, they aren't passed down in progeny. Mutated proteins are common in humans as well- created by things like frame-shifts and what not. These aren't detrimental in somatic cells, and never transmit. And typically, most proteins that come out "mutated" either function normal, until they're broken down, or don't function at all and are immediately broken down.
Why are these impossible? What do they have to do with theology?
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
I think he may be referring to mutations in gametocytes, which are extremely rare. And he's probably talking about Eukaroyote cells, specifically ours.
Bacteria, and prokaryotes in general, are a different story. There is constant change there- adaptation, but typically always facilitated thought the transfer of plasmids. Mutations seldom "help" bacteria.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Transfer of plasmids is just one bacteria getting some genetic info from another one through some mechanism, I think it's call conjugation...? It's been a while. Sorry for the multiple posts.
Arabman666 9 months ago
Arabman666, no worries. With 500 char limit, hard to cover much in one post.
He has made the argument against the formation of early life, so it would apply to bacteria as well as inheritable mutations in human cells. It's "impossible" in his eyes, because he calculates the odds of generating a protein to be 1 in 4^(protein length), This ignores a number of factors, but that's why observations don't match his opinion.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
He links them through theology through an argument from ignorance. Because he believes that it was impossible for them to come about via non-directed creation followed by mutation/natural selection/..., that the only other thing he can think of (Intelligent Design) must be correct.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
I actually believe in intelligent design- I don't believe in some ridiculous bio-synthesis theory where atoms post-big-bang kinda of just formed living molecules that metabolized energy out of the blue. The big bang's a theory that's well established. Cell evolution is a theory surprisingly lacking, although natural selection and adaptivity has been demonstrated time and time again.
Without an initial manual, all you'd get is entropy. Cell formation breaks the law ofentropy.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
I'm far more concerned with bio-synthesis than I am of evolution. Where as, 5 years ago someone could make a legit argument that all life came from the same initial cells (overlooking a few outliers and inconsistencies in genomes) that argument can't be made anymore. And now, those genome inconsistencies previously overlooked have more merit because of the discovery of a non-genetic code abiding organism.
What's wrong with theology? I believe in it, and I'm not an idiot.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
The more you learn, with an open mind and a less than cynical heart, the more likely you are to stop viewing humans as glorified machines, and start believing in the soul. Evolution 4000 was actually the class in undergrad that made me completely believe in (100% confidence) in a God. That may be surprising, but lest you've walked in those shoes and studied those theories, you can't bash belief in a God.
Dawkins does- but he was molested by clergy as a youth- so I feel him.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Well, plasmids don't transfer mis-translated RNA. Plasmids typically have codes for protein modification that is prevalent in an existing bacterial cell that survived death from a factor because of the presence of the plasmid.
Humans and bacteria actually have little overlap, and in essence, the gene-code was broken a year ago (?) or so when a prokaryotic organism was discovered that didn't use the gene-code at all. That further distanced us.
Arabman666 9 months ago
Arabman666, I didn't say anything about IDtaksovr's intelligence... only his logic. He has used an argument from ignorance (and other logical fallacies) in place of evidence for accepting ID and theology. Likewise I would probably question your logic rather than intelligence for accepting theology, although at the moment I don't have enough data.
For myself, I started out as a theist, attending religious grammar and middle schools. Later education in science, history, and religion turned me
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
away from theism, not towards it. The things you mention turning you towards 100% certainty sound as if they may be similar to evidence I saw indicating the potential of a creator, but without a testable hypothesis I do not find the evidence compelling.
Biosynthesis on the other hand, does not violate the law of entropy, any more than snowflakes do. The law of entropy does not prevent patterns from appearing in chaos, and for that matter does not apply to open systems.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
(for that matter, those organic patterns which are the building blocks of cells appear quite easily, and are found even in space)
With that being said, I don't think that any of the biosynthesis hypotheses are proven to anywhere near the level of Common Descent/Theory of Evolution. I think about the best that could be said for them is one might be at the level of "not impossible". However there is some research going on that may change my opinion on that - take a look at cdk007's channel.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
As a point of interest, which non-genetic code abiding organisms appear to you to be a likely candidate for overturning Common Descent?
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
You see, there's an element of evolution that people don't talk about, that is probably one of the most laughably ridiculous theories out there- symbiotic evolution. You know, saying that flagella (cell propulsion systems) came from spirochetes, which are other single cellular organisms, symbiotically interacting with the other cell. That's were the meat of the evolutionary argument is. And it's insane- and not only untestable- but clearly false. Things don't "Fuse" togther.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
While we do have symbiotic relationships with bacteria (like in our GI tract) they are certainly not part of out genetic information.
There's also the "macro" element of evolution that seems to have pulled the wool over a lot of peoples eyes. For instance, most "transitional" specimens people claim are humans in "evolution" existed at the same time as "modern" Humans did. It's a rather false claim, that most people believe is the "truest" claim.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Snowflakes? Well, snow flakes are efficient- energy in its lowest form. Call it "Macro-stereoychemistry" (You'll know what I'm talking about if you've taken orgo and analytical classes)
That's a quite the comparison you have there, but it's insanely far off. The theory of evolution (i.e. natural selection) is observable, the theory where purple sulfur bacteria become Eurkaroytic mitochondria, is not, and is rather far fetched.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
I usually don't peak into people youtube channels for information- I got to pubmed, or read a paper medical/science journal. You'll find the "pizzaz" stripped away, and the truth much clearer.
The organism I'm talking about (don't know what they called it) has Arsenic backbone for it's DNA- effectively separating any chance we have of being related to it. There are lots of theories- but this really highlighted the variances in the genetic code as more than just variances.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Well, science essentially turned me too. Putting your foot for the first time in the realm of science is like re-learning life. You see images, hear theories (without examining why they were made) and come to a point where you're basically 99.9% sure things like evolution are true. However, it's not putting your foot in the door, but diving into the pool of knowledge that gets you somewhere.
I'd say after evolution, physics in undergrad made me more of a theist.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Don't get me wrong- there are plenty of things in theology that are incompatible with proven scientific knowledge. The world is not 6000 years old. In fact, there are cities in the Holy Land that are 10,000 years old, which themselves disprove that religious viewpoint.
And there are things that make you believe in theology- like that fact that Muhammad described the soul to be in the forehead, which is where we know our definition of "morality", judgement, and emotion is.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
(sorry for the long comments)
Although, to be fair, I usually check these videos out to see how theologians form an argument, and most of the time, their arguments aren't going to appeal to the "atheist" crowd. I just check this stuff out for fun, or reference.
Once again, sorry for the long comments- bad habit, I type the way I talk- which is often rambling.
Arabman666 9 months ago
Arabman666, cdk007 has made some interesting videos summarizing where Dr Szostak's lab is going, but for the published papers, the Harvard BBS faculty page on Dr Szostak references some.
If you claim without demonstrating that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents cell formation,don't be surprised when others don't go looking for better analogies than snowflakes to refute you. However notice in the following post that I pointed out the organic molecules found in space as well.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
For the halomonadaceae bacteria that can grow using arsenic, how has the followup research gone? Is that an entirely different form of genetic material (and if so, why did it get classified with bacteria that aren't)? Or is it something that has a normal phosphorus backbone, but from its environment has accumulated mutations that allow it to incorporate arsenic in place of part or all of the phosphorus? Or is it, as some have suggested, a phosphorus backbone with the arsenic as contamination?
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Well, that's a very intelligent question. And that's the point here. A lot of things "dictate" what are classified as Prokaryotes/Bacteria- typically, the contents of the cell wall, and plasma membrane. Other factors too, too many to list.
Now, we've inferred a genetic "tree" based on these features- but this can't be a part of the genetic tree- it's not a mutation. GFAJ-1's classified for convenience- not lineage. This isn't my opinion- it's scientific fact.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
Well, I'll check it out when I have some time. I'm answering on my phone much of the time. Well, I'll look for a better analogy.
Molecules always form to be in lowest-energy-states. Cells are not the lowest energy state. It's very black and white ; )
More importantly, there's a hypothesis of "multiple points of bio-synthesis" in other words, life was "formed" by various lines, based off of GFAJ-1. I see that as a reasonable argument- although....
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
.... I'd amplify the discretion in other organisms to try and argue against it. For a long time, we've made families, and orders with the "close enough" mentality. Even if the genetic code varies in these bacteria, we stick them in the group anyways. Which is why the groups are essentially remade every few years- really, it's surprising. In reality, we're making educated guesses as to what is related to what. We have no real, scientific idea. Just an inference.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
So the phylogenetic tree is filled with some serious problems- beside the fact that we keep modifying it.
Friend, by your logic, you don't believe in a God because of the lack of a testable hypothesis. Well, in this case, we have absolutely no testable hypothesis either. Just because things exhibit similar appearances, or similar genetic codes and traits, inferring that they're all the same is a legit stretch- Unless you're talking about things like felines, or canines.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
I'm not telling you to believe in a God. Far from it. I'm just saying the inference you make (about a common cell lineage), is just as reasonable as the inference theists make. The logic of both is reasonable- and theology shouldn't be taken as a book (at least initially) or a set of silly stories. It's a fantastic, reasonable explanation to sentient life. And when a guy like me, finds a theology that agree with his knowledge of science, atheists should never "laugh" at it.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
I went cdk007 and saw the same old "Christian" creationist vs "atheist" scientific argument. Only he made an inference that abiogensis was plausible, because it was a theory, and gravity was also a theory. It was unimpressive- like it was made for a child.
Not the stupidest thing I've viewed, but it's up there with the silliest. You seem like you've got a hankerin' for knowledge- and I tell this to theists too. Learn directly from the source- not from a "publicized" source.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
So when someone's talking about vesicle formation (which form spontaneously) without talking about these true constituents in detail, it's rather useless. It's what I expected. A first year undergrad scientific mindset- "Things just happen, so there. Stupid theists!"
Like I said. His explanation for bioogenesis isn't good. Or even kinda good. It's literally induced by the lack of knowledge, not the excess. It's good enough to shut up a theist though- on false grounds.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
And the word "confirmed" in the scientific community isn't real. We always change our story, and always dismantle the old for the new. No matter what it's about.
What you've stumbled across is just as reliable as a preacher, with a Bible, trying to describe to you how Job was living with dinosaurs when the world was only 4000 years old.
Arabman666 9 months ago
Arabman666, If you look back, you will find that I didn't list the lab's research as confirmed, but at best proven to the level of "not impossible". I'll wait for some more research before calling it likely or confirmed. Yes, you covered the reasons you tend not to like that type of summary before. No problem, several papers on the details have been published.
Unlike the Biblical story you mention, research continues, giving this hypothesis a corrective mechanism.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
Speaking of said corrective mechanism, GFAJ1 was yes, classified based off an assortment of traits. That's not classifying for convenience, that's classifying on the way that has worked quite well in the past, and should work if Common Descent is correct.
You claim that it is not correct, and while it is possible that you are correct, other possibilities exist. How do you know that it is not a mutation? How do you know that it can't be part of the genetic tree?
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
Since it is an oddity, research on it will no doubt continue. Once that is done, we will have a better idea of if it fits or not. Until then, while you might be correct, I am inclined to doubt it. With the vast amount of evidence supporting CD, it is rather premature to write it off at this stage.
As a point of interest, why would you say that we have no testable hypothesis of the relatedness of organisms when we are talking about a test of the hypothesis of the relatedness of organisms?
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
What are you doubting of GFAJ-1? It's not part of our evolutionary tree- that's everyone saying it- even people who argue for evolution. It's categorized as a different instance where "life was formed" i.e. they're saying it might belong to an alternate evolutionary tree. NASA even called it an "alien"
Give me a testable hypothesis in regards to the phylogenetic tree. It's all inference, and it keeps changing, right? So how do we test it?
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
The fact that your asking me "How do you know that it's not a mutation" indicates that you don't know what a Mutation is.
A Mutation has to do with DNA codon sequence changes. That's all mutation is. From cancer, to an extra finger and so on.
A Mutation has nothing to do with the base structure of the constituents of DNA. And a quick search of GFAJ1 will clearly say that it doesn't exist on our "genetic tree"- it's put there for convenience. I don't think you understand.
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
When walking about "confirmed" I was referring to the video in cdl007's video, not your words. In fact, I didn't really talk about anything you've said. I was just bashing the videos you steered me in the direction of. They were really, overly sub-par.
The Biblical story (actually, inference) that I mentioned wasn't being compared to scientific research, it was being compared to cdk007's video. I'm aware of research continuing, obviously. And lately, it's been on my side.
Arabman666 9 months ago
Arabman666, ah... I thought you were referring to my opinion on the status of the hypothesis. If the video says confirmed, well... now you know my view of the level to which it is confirmed.
For mutations please go back and read my original commentary on the possibility of a mutation. I did not refer to the substitution of As for P as a mutation.
Yes, I am still doubting your conclusions on GFAJ1. It is quite capable of using P, and appears more capable of using P than As.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
Yes... it grows faster in a P environment than in an As environment.
So is this a bacteria that uses As instead of P? Or is this a bacteria that in a high As environment, has evolved the capacity to substitute As for some of the P it would normally use in a different environment? If you wish to propose the former as fact, why does it grow so much faster when given P?
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
No, the phylogenetic tree isn't just inference. It is a prediction of Common Descent. If CD is correct, there are in fact lines of decent that will create a factual phylogenetic tree. Different methods converging on a single or small group of trees is supporting evidence for CD, divergent trees would be evidence against it.
While there are assorted issues, such as the horizontal gene transfer you mentioned earlier, current trees converge on a very small number.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
If you are correct about this particular finding, that would have significant impact on that line of supporting evidence for CD. The multiple instances of biosynthesis, or some other theory might become a more likely answer.
Have you looked up to see if the genes have been sequenced, and if so, what relationship they found?
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
It's been nice chatting, but I'm still a resident doctor, and I'm about to hit a heavy work cycle. Good luck on your quest for knowledge and truth- and remember, the perspective of theology may seem is though it is incompatible (with even the believe of CD) but in actuality, theology is what your logic dictates it is. Keep an open mind, and keep learning. Never be cynical.
Take care friend
Arabman666 9 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant
There's a problem with the concept of "evolving" to use arsenic. Evolution, based on the criteria we know, has no way of modifying DNA constituents. It only modifies proteins. There's also our Mitochondria to think about, which apparently aren't things we evolved- but things we gained. I don't believe endosymbiosis is possible, so that points to a design. Anywho, I'll wait a few years more. Maybe something will develop.
Arabman666 9 months ago
Arabman666, have you considered ambulatory IV of coffee as a sleep substitute? It also makes the patients more comfortable, as they see hospital personnel using the hospital equipment personally. :)
After turning from theism to heresy and then apostasy, I did consider that some other theology might be correct. It occurred to me that if this was in fact a created universe, the one thing we could be certain of was the Word of God that the universe itself. Any other self proclaimed word of god
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
must agree with the Word of God, or it is not in fact the Word of God. Using that ruler, the theologies I have studied have yet to measure up. Failing that, a successful testable hypothesis demonstrating that the universe (or life, depending on the hypothesis) is a created artifact would at a minimum get me as far as Deism.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
Bacteria evolving to use As instead of P does yes, seem decidedly odd, however if it is possible, that bacteria was in a place where mutations allowing the cell to make use of As would provide a selective benefit. Scientists will continue to review it, and hopefully we will have a more solid answer in a few years.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts... with the evidence they've gathered, as unlikely as it sounds I wouldn't call it impossible. If it were found to be impossible that would not point
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
towards design, unless of course it was "disproven" using a successful testable hypothesis indicating design.
JustAnotherMutant 9 months ago
@teamsigned
"Plus we do have examples of these systems occurring naturally"
Such as? I would recommend a youtube video called "Journey Inside The Cell" , if you wan't to understand the way that the cells information processing system reads sequence information from the DNA database, and translates it into an end product i.e. a protein. If you can point me to any examples of such systems being observed (rather than presumed) to arise by natural causes, I will be amazed.
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
This guy even looks wacko!
greeny202a 1 year ago
Wow, what a display of incoherent blather. It's nothing but white noise. And all those recited Quran verses sound uncannily like Klingon death threats.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Google:
Review of the Barker-Rajabali Debate (2003)
Lots of atheist haters here!!! Heheh!!! When atheists are faced with Muslims, they usually wind up losing... Here is one such debate on Youtube:
watch?v=9c5-vVwJ2eQ
Wadhato1 1 year ago
@Wadhato1 Do you hate all atheists, do you hate some atheists, or are you just making an observation?
jerrygreg2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerrygreg2: SEZ "Do you hate all atheists, do you hate some atheists, or are you just making an observation?"
Peace, Moi? Hate? Now, WHAT gave YOU that idea?
Wadhato1 1 year ago
@Wadhato1
"When atheists are faced with Muslims, they usually wind up losing"
No, what usually happens is that Muslims simply don't address their opponents' arguments and go into full denial mode. Debating theists is generally very frustrating because of their ability to totally disregard anything that doesn't fit their beliefs.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wadhato1: "When atheists are faced with Muslims, they usually wind up losing"
@MomoTheBellyDancer: No, what usually happens is .....
YOUTUBE: watch?v=9c5-vVwJ2eQ
Google: Review of the Barker-Rajabali Debate (2003)
Wadhato1 1 year ago
amazing ...
lillium1985 1 year ago
God doesn't make the world this way. We do.
Haterbc 1 year ago
did anyone catch him stare down the guy who caughed?!
XtremeXboxer 1 year ago
my fucking god, that language is so damn ugly. And that guy is stupid. Dawkins did not mean god in the religious meaning, read up
lapamjuka 1 year ago
@lapamjuka funny, I am an extreme Islamo"phobe" and I like this guy and I don't think he's stupid.
xXBlackxRebelXx 1 year ago
Faith dosnt earn us money , we do.
God dosnt buy and cook our food, we do.
rosen00000 1 year ago