The hypothesis for the origins of life are weak at best. There is much work to be done before we can propose a viable theory. It will come unless we cop-out and propose that god made it by magic.
They kind of did that already. Using synthesized DNA, scientist have gotten a bacteria to come to life using that synthesized DNA. That DNA was made by computer but was used to bring a organism to life.
It is still a new life form. Created by man. Proving that no magic is needed for life. Just the right parts.
You're making assumptions on all that. There doesn't have to be, but could be.
If a god doesn't need a cause to exist, the universe doesn't require one either.
I am not against the idea of creative force in nature, but I certainly don't believe in a god who creates things. Unless you exclude all know religions from his description. Those gods certainly don't exist, imo.
You even said it your self "Just the right parts" all the right parts had to have come together by accident to get the first life form started according to evolution. The very first life form had to be able to reproduce, convert materials into usable energy, and a number of other functions just to sustain itself. All those parts had to come together by themselves. This is why I don't believe it. Its like saying a car formed itself from scratch.
@RespectMyHate venter did copy life..this guy is a fuckin moron with bullshit assumptions with ZERO chemistry to back it up..homochirality must be established first..to assemble anything u have to separate your right and left handed amino acids...These so called primitive cells exist in your mind!!!!!
imaginary atheist chemistry!! that never happened or be created in a test tube..if life was so simple thats see it...
@RespectMyHate I think you're missing something important here, and it's that Venter's experiment serves as a proof-of-concept that there is no requirement for supernatural or divine intervention in order for something to come alive or to be considered alive.
What you'd be looking at is not a car, but effectively a self-replicating nanomachine that gains selective advantages over any of its other brethren in the earliest days. I admit to not knowing what it looked like or how it came about.
@HighCardWins venter did copy life..this guy is a fuckin moron with bullshit assumptions with ZERO chemistry to back it up..homochirality must be established first..to assemble anything u have to separate your right and left handed amino acids...These so called primitive cells exist in his mind!!!!!
imaginary atheist chemistry!! that never happened or be created in a test tube..if life was so simple thats see it...
great video! ive watched a bit of stevebee's stuff recently (not to mention got into a few heated discussions with him) and find him an incredibly frustrating individual. he claims to hold objective science in high regard, then goes round trying to smash every actual credible bit of objective science he comes across. utterly ridiculous.
by the way. science is repeatable and testable. how can you repeat the age of the earth? do you have a time machine? any one of your dating methods can be shown to have flaws.
theres no proof that primitive cells ever existed? wtf! repeat what?? a time machine? dude do you need to repeat a murder to know if the person is dead??? do you need to go back in time to see if they were alive before??
That is a very unscientific analogy. The person being dead is a fact. Whether it was a murder or not is up to interpretation. I never said anything about primitive cells, but here's what i have to say about them: prove that they are primitive. You can't just look at some cells you found buried and say that this must be how cells started out (i'm inferring that this is what you meant by "primitive"). You have never seen a cell form from nothing, so you cant say for sure that it wasn't designed.
you tell there are primitive from the evidence that can be gathered. for example, you date them to see how old they are, and you study the similarities between those cells and cells we find today, of which there are plenty. if a plausible hypothesis can be drawn from what you have available, and no better alternative is found, then you go with that until you find new evidence (how the scientific method works 101)
if it was designed, whos the designer? do YOU have PROOF they exist?
date them how? radiometrically? You have to assume that you know the specific ratio of substances that were there when the cell died. ex: carbon-14 dating assumes that the ratio of carbon-14 to regular carbon is consistent in all living things, which it is not. and trends show that the older the object being dated is, the less accurate the dating method is. The same logic can be applied to flaws in dating based on what layer the object is buried in.
fossilised bacteria that have been found show a number similarities to certain types of bacteria found today, so its not unreasonable to assume they both have a similar ratio of substances.
can you cite a source that says the ratio of carbon-14 is SIGNIFICANTLY different in living things?
same with what layer they are found in?
the older anything is the less accurate methods are. we're talking about a time frame of BILLIONS of years. scientists have always admitted that.
You weren't around billions of years ago, so you don't know what the atmosphere was like. our atmosphere still hasn't even reached equilibrium with respect to C-14, so that means that there was less back then in the atmosphere anyway, so that would obviously mean that the older organisms has less radioactive C-14 to begin with, making a dating read older when we use the ratio found in modern organisms.
You were talking about primitive cells, and how one would know whether or not they were primitive, and talking about C-14 dating of "the older organisms."
I was only using Carbon-14 as an example of how dating methods can't be trusted. If you aren't going to pay enough attention to the discussion, I'm not going to continue to listen to anything you have to say.
lol. so you're saying that more primitive cells had fewer enzymes than any ones that are living today....and you have no proof that they ever existed.....that's very scientific.
"If we were designed by a god then he/she/it did a rather poor job. Our origin looks less than intelligent"
Yeah, life's a bitch. Being able to see, hear, move, think. Horrible! You should probably commit suicide, get rid of that poorly designed body and start over.
The visual acuity of eagles and hawks is far superior to ours. Bees can see wavelengths of light that are invisible to us. Dogs can hear pitches that we cannot, and have a better sense of smell - and bears outdo even them, and bears can outrun us - Cheetahs can outrun them. We cannot fly like birds, or swing through trees like many other primates. And I think that every human could benefit from the help of a psychologist or psychiatrist ... or at least some lessons in critical thinking.
2. Please get a picture of someone else for your avatar and don't show your stupid looking face in videos. It destroys any credibility you might have. I bet you have never felt stupid in your whole life, have you?
If you don't already have children, DON'T! Our gene pool can't stand any more of you.
1. DNA, Dam, I hope for the sake of students that you are not a teacher. They deserve to have a teacher who knows his ass from applebutter. Dam, I feel so sorry for anyone who has to be around you. Your irritating arrogant, know-it-all voice is one I have known on so many dummasses that I can't even count them. You have obviously made it through school which means that you have been educated beyond your mental abilities. It's like giving a chimp a scalpel and letting him do brain surgery.
Another point is that as we understand human design at greater depths it becomes apparent that we are a mishmash that is just tacked together in which newer parts at tacked on top of old ones. If we were designed by a god then he/she/it did a rather poor job. Our origin looks less than intelligent
As a molecular geneticist I am impressed by this commentary. My take on the evolution vs intelligent design is that science and religion are two different games; like football and baseball. Both can be consistent internally but play by different rules and therefore cant be played on the same field at the same time. E.g., science doesnt allow miracles but religion requires them. It seems that intelligent design is just a way to have religion taught in school outside of history courses.
It's quite a pity that stevebee will never watch this. If he does, he will most likely call you a 'brainwashed evolutionaut' or a follower of 'Pope Dawkins'; both of which have been hurled at me.
He is the worst type of creationist; he arrogantly thinks he knows everything about biology when in fact he knows shockingly little.
I don't think he is a creationist, hes just a guy who got overwhelmed by the knowledge we need to get. His first observation on the T-Rex arms was actually discovered recently to be because of pleiotropy. That is, the gene for jaw and skull size also being the gene for hand size. Also, KEEP EM COMING DNAunion!!
Intelligent design has been described as 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo'. Are the positions really that different? Logic dictates that the Intelligent Designer must ultimately be of supernatural origin.
I don`t Agree with Stevebee ether. However it should be pointed out that he does not claim to be a creationist On his youtube channel. Even though it does not appear that he is otherwise.
Great video, I'd like to have the same patience with these stupid people. Very elegant response.
BrunoHP89IT 1 month ago
The hypothesis for the origins of life are weak at best. There is much work to be done before we can propose a viable theory. It will come unless we cop-out and propose that god made it by magic.
b991228 8 months ago
Excellent video, informed and well communicated.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
If life is simple you should be able to create some in your bathroom.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
They kind of did that already. Using synthesized DNA, scientist have gotten a bacteria to come to life using that synthesized DNA. That DNA was made by computer but was used to bring a organism to life.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins No the bacteria was already alive, they put their synthetic DNA into a living bacteria.
They is no way Life got started by itself. There has to be an intelligence involved.
with the exception of Gods life. where did God get his life you ask? the answer He always had life, God is eternal.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
It is still a new life form. Created by man. Proving that no magic is needed for life. Just the right parts.
You're making assumptions on all that. There doesn't have to be, but could be.
If a god doesn't need a cause to exist, the universe doesn't require one either.
I am not against the idea of creative force in nature, but I certainly don't believe in a god who creates things. Unless you exclude all know religions from his description. Those gods certainly don't exist, imo.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins No Mr venter just manipulated life.
You even said it your self "Just the right parts" all the right parts had to have come together by accident to get the first life form started according to evolution. The very first life form had to be able to reproduce, convert materials into usable energy, and a number of other functions just to sustain itself. All those parts had to come together by themselves. This is why I don't believe it. Its like saying a car formed itself from scratch.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate venter did copy life..this guy is a fuckin moron with bullshit assumptions with ZERO chemistry to back it up..homochirality must be established first..to assemble anything u have to separate your right and left handed amino acids...These so called primitive cells exist in your mind!!!!!
imaginary atheist chemistry!! that never happened or be created in a test tube..if life was so simple thats see it...
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate I think you're missing something important here, and it's that Venter's experiment serves as a proof-of-concept that there is no requirement for supernatural or divine intervention in order for something to come alive or to be considered alive.
What you'd be looking at is not a car, but effectively a self-replicating nanomachine that gains selective advantages over any of its other brethren in the earliest days. I admit to not knowing what it looked like or how it came about.
StormZephyr 4 months ago
@HighCardWins venter did copy life..this guy is a fuckin moron with bullshit assumptions with ZERO chemistry to back it up..homochirality must be established first..to assemble anything u have to separate your right and left handed amino acids...These so called primitive cells exist in his mind!!!!!
imaginary atheist chemistry!! that never happened or be created in a test tube..if life was so simple thats see it...
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv So, your answer is "God did it" ? First, prove your God exist, if that's what you claim, then we can talk.
Anyone who claims a god did anything, violates the scientific process right out of the gate.
I hear a regurgitation of irreducible complextiy in your statement. How many times must they debunk that flawed logic?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
great video! ive watched a bit of stevebee's stuff recently (not to mention got into a few heated discussions with him) and find him an incredibly frustrating individual. he claims to hold objective science in high regard, then goes round trying to smash every actual credible bit of objective science he comes across. utterly ridiculous.
luceEnd 2 years ago 4
by the way. science is repeatable and testable. how can you repeat the age of the earth? do you have a time machine? any one of your dating methods can be shown to have flaws.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
Isochrons have internal validations and are very reliable.
Doing multiple isochrons - using different decay sequences - on a single sample greatly increases the reliability of the date.
Then we have also done isochrons on many different samples, obtaining consistent ages.
The age of the earth is testable, and repeated tests give consistent answers.
The earth is billions of years old.
DNAunion 2 years ago
just read two of your comments.
BOTH are equally moronic.
you must be a christian.
theres no proof that primitive cells ever existed? wtf! repeat what?? a time machine? dude do you need to repeat a murder to know if the person is dead??? do you need to go back in time to see if they were alive before??
elipto 2 years ago
That is a very unscientific analogy. The person being dead is a fact. Whether it was a murder or not is up to interpretation. I never said anything about primitive cells, but here's what i have to say about them: prove that they are primitive. You can't just look at some cells you found buried and say that this must be how cells started out (i'm inferring that this is what you meant by "primitive"). You have never seen a cell form from nothing, so you cant say for sure that it wasn't designed.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
you tell there are primitive from the evidence that can be gathered. for example, you date them to see how old they are, and you study the similarities between those cells and cells we find today, of which there are plenty. if a plausible hypothesis can be drawn from what you have available, and no better alternative is found, then you go with that until you find new evidence (how the scientific method works 101)
if it was designed, whos the designer? do YOU have PROOF they exist?
luceEnd 2 years ago
date them how? radiometrically? You have to assume that you know the specific ratio of substances that were there when the cell died. ex: carbon-14 dating assumes that the ratio of carbon-14 to regular carbon is consistent in all living things, which it is not. and trends show that the older the object being dated is, the less accurate the dating method is. The same logic can be applied to flaws in dating based on what layer the object is buried in.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
fossilised bacteria that have been found show a number similarities to certain types of bacteria found today, so its not unreasonable to assume they both have a similar ratio of substances.
can you cite a source that says the ratio of carbon-14 is SIGNIFICANTLY different in living things?
same with what layer they are found in?
the older anything is the less accurate methods are. we're talking about a time frame of BILLIONS of years. scientists have always admitted that.
luceEnd 2 years ago
You weren't around billions of years ago, so you don't know what the atmosphere was like. our atmosphere still hasn't even reached equilibrium with respect to C-14, so that means that there was less back then in the atmosphere anyway, so that would obviously mean that the older organisms has less radioactive C-14 to begin with, making a dating read older when we use the ratio found in modern organisms.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
Scientists don't use C-14 to date things from billions of years ago.
You should learn something about science before trying to argue against it.
DNAunion 2 years ago 5
I never said that they did. I was addressing what someone else said about carbon-14, not using it as a primary argument.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
@ThePerrynator
You were talking about primitive cells, and how one would know whether or not they were primitive, and talking about C-14 dating of "the older organisms."
DNAunion 2 years ago
I was only using Carbon-14 as an example of how dating methods can't be trusted. If you aren't going to pay enough attention to the discussion, I'm not going to continue to listen to anything you have to say.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
@ThePerrynator
So you are so stupid as to use a dating method that's not applicable to the discussion.
Okay
DNAunion 2 years ago
lol. so you're saying that more primitive cells had fewer enzymes than any ones that are living today....and you have no proof that they ever existed.....that's very scientific.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
Science isn't about proof.
"Proof is only for mathematics and alcohol"
"Demanding proof is asking for far too much"
"Proof is in the eye of the beholder"
DNAunion 2 years ago
Comment removed
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
God is the designer of the ID. If you have a plausible alternative, then please, let us know who/what it is.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Comment removed
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
Comment removed
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
Just as I thought: you have no plausible alternative to the Designer being God.
ID is about God.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Comment removed
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
Just as I thought: you have no plausible alternative to the Designer being God.
ID is about God.
DNAunion 2 years ago
"If we were designed by a god then he/she/it did a rather poor job. Our origin looks less than intelligent"
Yeah, life's a bitch. Being able to see, hear, move, think. Horrible! You should probably commit suicide, get rid of that poorly designed body and start over.
ShortyBigTree 2 years ago
The visual acuity of eagles and hawks is far superior to ours. Bees can see wavelengths of light that are invisible to us. Dogs can hear pitches that we cannot, and have a better sense of smell - and bears outdo even them, and bears can outrun us - Cheetahs can outrun them. We cannot fly like birds, or swing through trees like many other primates. And I think that every human could benefit from the help of a psychologist or psychiatrist ... or at least some lessons in critical thinking.
DNAunion 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3. Hello DNA, You're a chickenshit so you deleted this immediately over on your channel. So we might as well have it here for all to see.
SockPuppet357 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. Please get a picture of someone else for your avatar and don't show your stupid looking face in videos. It destroys any credibility you might have. I bet you have never felt stupid in your whole life, have you?
If you don't already have children, DON'T! Our gene pool can't stand any more of you.
SockPuppet357 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. DNA, Dam, I hope for the sake of students that you are not a teacher. They deserve to have a teacher who knows his ass from applebutter. Dam, I feel so sorry for anyone who has to be around you. Your irritating arrogant, know-it-all voice is one I have known on so many dummasses that I can't even count them. You have obviously made it through school which means that you have been educated beyond your mental abilities. It's like giving a chimp a scalpel and letting him do brain surgery.
SockPuppet357 2 years ago
Another point is that as we understand human design at greater depths it becomes apparent that we are a mishmash that is just tacked together in which newer parts at tacked on top of old ones. If we were designed by a god then he/she/it did a rather poor job. Our origin looks less than intelligent
ericson35 2 years ago
As a molecular geneticist I am impressed by this commentary. My take on the evolution vs intelligent design is that science and religion are two different games; like football and baseball. Both can be consistent internally but play by different rules and therefore cant be played on the same field at the same time. E.g., science doesnt allow miracles but religion requires them. It seems that intelligent design is just a way to have religion taught in school outside of history courses.
ericson35 2 years ago
It's quite a pity that stevebee will never watch this. If he does, he will most likely call you a 'brainwashed evolutionaut' or a follower of 'Pope Dawkins'; both of which have been hurled at me.
He is the worst type of creationist; he arrogantly thinks he knows everything about biology when in fact he knows shockingly little.
OckamsLaser 3 years ago
I don't think he is a creationist, hes just a guy who got overwhelmed by the knowledge we need to get. His first observation on the T-Rex arms was actually discovered recently to be because of pleiotropy. That is, the gene for jaw and skull size also being the gene for hand size. Also, KEEP EM COMING DNAunion!!
richi1173 3 years ago
Intelligent design has been described as 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo'. Are the positions really that different? Logic dictates that the Intelligent Designer must ultimately be of supernatural origin.
OckamsLaser 3 years ago
Well I'm against intelligent design so I agree with you on that. It should never be taught as facts in our school.
richi1173 3 years ago
Not that there are any 'facts' about ID to teach...
OckamsLaser 3 years ago
I don`t Agree with Stevebee ether. However it should be pointed out that he does not claim to be a creationist On his youtube channel. Even though it does not appear that he is otherwise.
Cnidarious 3 years ago 2
Excellent debunking!
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
Very interesting and quite indepth. Thank you for posting this vid.
Rhonda9 3 years ago