So... by saying we didn't evolve from amino acids, he has debunked evolution? Really? I'm not an expert by any means, but that is not critical to the rest of the theory. And if you claim evolution is wrong, than what is your answer? That a beared man made the world on a whim? And the only evidence tey have for that is a really old book, that is not evidence.
So this prick says essentially "because I can't see life being created with my own eyes I dont believe it" yet the total argument for creationism is that "i can't see what God did but I will believe it". So for a Christian, blind faith only works when THEY want it to. Hypocrites
Evolutionists have made an effort to change the very definition of what a theory is and have succeeded to some degree but there are those who oppose this and justly so. A theory is not facts explained but speculation and guesswork on matters we do not fully understand or not have the evidence for.. Theoretical could also be the study period of a subject before one applies the lessons learnt practically.
@TheTheKRIT You obviously don't understand what the word theory means iona scientific context. Scientific theories describe how the facts we are seeing occur. Until a theory is disproved, it is fact by default. Evolution has passed this test for 150 years. So has gravity theory germ theory etc perhaps you should choose to understand what to is u r commenting on before u comment
Scientists don't completely understand how amino acids came together to form life so that debunks evolution? I think you need to do a little bit more research into the subject you're trying to debunk.
What does this have to do with evolution? Darwin never postulate the origin of life. Darwin's work does not have anything to do with God, one way or the other. Of course, it's impossible to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and believe in evolution. Of course, you would have to be a fairly unreasonable person to take the word of the bible over evolution. Evolution is a fact, the bible is a story representing what people knew at the time, which wasn't very much.
@ShaneyCunn84 evolve from amino acids? What do you man by that. Our DNA is made up by amino acids. How it first came to be we don't know and that's nothing new. This is not proving anything only stating the how unlikely it is for DNA to form. But I wonder when he say natural processes. It even might be that life came from space and I don't think that they have taken into account of that. What little I know about chemistry is that there are billions of combinations and processes.
@Xsleeper evolution is fact? Haha what planet are you from? Im not a creationist but i have enough sense to realize that evolution is still just a theory there are many facts that disprove it.
Dr. McCombs has been debunked and peer reviewed hundreds of times by hundreds of chemists and scientists. How come the author of the video leaves this important information out? Could be that he is a creationist? If he was right, he would get a Nobel prize for such discovery. I guess the records speak for themselves.
No, the production of chiral species is not always 50:50. Addition rxns and substitution rxns produce uneven concentrations of the chiral molecule. There are rules that govern rxns (sn1, sn2, E1, E2) for substitution and elimination rxns. Only Sn2 and E2 rxns produce a racemic mixture 1:1 concentration of the R,S species. This is true because they have a carbocation intermediate which allows the nucleophile to attack the carbon atom from any direction. You obviously don't understand intro orgo..
Here is presented more real scientific fact than any evolutionist can present, in fact the majority of responses I receive from evolutionists on a regular basis are insults and then a claim evolution is a proven fact. Still waiting for an evolutionist with real evidence and not simple conjecture.
And why is it that people with misleading video titles and a obvious lack of scientific understanding always have the bible listed first in the books section of youtube?
This seems to be more about Abiogenesis. The study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations But what can you expect from a channel called The Cosmik Truth...
@demdanglibruls Hello, I agree, Microevolution is provent to be a fact. And personally I dont think it effects my faith in any way. However Macroevolution has not been proven in any way other than observing micro and making the assumption that micro caused a jump at some point. Still changes in "subspecies" are not enough to explaine the transformation into an entirely new species, especially when considering the conception factor between species, which nulifys any effectivness of the Macro jump
@Inverita1 Microevolution and Macroevolution are simply silly distinctions made by creationists. Saying that microevolutioin can't lead to speciation is wrong. Saying that one can't cause the other is like saying that you can walk between your bed and your kitchen, but you can't use the same method of travel to go from Miami to Orlando.
@demdanglibruls Hello, Thank you for this opportunity to discuss our opinions. I liked your annalogy, but unfortunatly I don't see it the way you do. In my opinion micro evolution can still be a short walk, but macroevolution would be like trying to walk from the united states to Australia. Its not something that can be done. There are more factors than distance so alternate methods must be used. Note the short walk in micro evo can be undone but the leap into Macro cannot.
@demdanglibruls To answer your question about what I think Macro-evo is. MacroEvolution is the change that transcends a species into another. This would then come with genetic locks that are irreversable for allowing mating between the old species and the new. What is important here is to note the difference between species and sub-species which was only a distinction made to make macro appear to speciate. *more to be continued... :-)
@demdanglibruls To me it not unreasonable to expect science to be able to duplicate or recreate life if it occured by chance. The fact that with all the technology we have, we have still been unable to create life (without using pre-existing life as a base) how am i supposed to expect nature did it accidently. Yes, amino acids were created, but that isn't life. In fact, they could have created an entire cell, which they didn't, but unless it has DNA and reproduces it is not living.
@Inverita1 First off, I want to thank you for breaking the mold and being a friendly creationist, instead of starting the discussion by slinging insults.
@Inverita1 Thank you for giving me the definition (I wanted to know it at the start so you couldn't move the goalposts). Macroevolution has been demonstrated in two species of Tree Frog recently. The Gray Tree Frog and Cope's Tree Frog are two very similar species that recently split. Cope's has 2 chromosomes, and Grey has 4. Somewhere recently, a group of larvae was born with 2. That group has now grown, and has a large population. They are a new species b/c the 2 types cannot breed.
@demdanglibruls To respond to the frog issue. While I admit I haven't studdied it much (so please don't take this as me being a jerk) there are other causes for genetic locking. I know I said that it is a Main factor in transcending species, and I maintain that. But both animals are still frogs.. They are both in the frog family of species. I just read about another set of frogs (wood and leopord) who were subject to "disruptive selection". This is where outside factors are the cause.
@demdanglibruls A quick examination of Copes shows they are found in selective regions of NC. While Gray tree frogs appear to be from a much more northern region or NE USA and Canada. They most likely are from the same family, but the lockouts in their reproduction could be caused by the "disruptive selection" I found when searching the wood and leopard frogs. I'm not disagreeing that its interesting.. I will look at it more. But there are more than one way to cause lockouts in reproduction-LOVE
@Inverita1 Think of it this way: that Miller-Urey experiment occurred billions of times every day of Early Earth's existence for a billion years. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life is 3.5 billion years old (as far as we know). That means that that experiment was carried out over and over again until life formed.
@demdanglibruls You're welcome in many ways :-). I am Christian and have christian evolutionist friends. Yet I am not convinced. Even given the vast amount of time, it was something that would have been unintentional, yet we with all the cloning and super-sciences we have, scientists still cannot intentionally do it. Since we have been able to replicate almost every other thing nature has done it seems odd that we can't do something that happened by chance . I just dont want to assume its true.
@Inverita1 We are far from replicating everything nature has done. I accept a naturalistic explanation for the first life, but you can believe, if you wish, that a deity set the conditions for life to grow. Many areas in the geographic ranges of the frogs overlap. Disruptive selection in many cases is the cause for speciation, as more extreme traits create differences in genetics and a schism as the species no longer continue to breed.
@demdanglibruls Fair enough. :-) I found a better annalogy for why originating life doesn't make sence through evolution. I'm sure you heard this but here it goes anyway. Think of evolution like a computer, Amino acids and proteins are the physical parts or hardware. While DNA is the software. Now I can aquiese and say that the hardware may be able to form by chance given enough opportunity, but the complex software still wouldn't be coded and the hardware would be useless. Thanks for the talk.
@Inverita1 DNA evolved from RNA. The early RNA had the odds in its favor, and it evolved rapidly. If the code was more efficient at replicating it would overwhelm the less efficient codes. From then on, DNA evolved very quickly, especially in bacteria and early multicellular organisms.
@demdanglibruls I disagree that DNA evolved from RNA when most information I come accross at the very least implies that RNA is a copy of DNA. "Synthesis of RNA is usually catalyzed by an enzyme—RNA polymerase—using DNA as a template, a process known as transcription." I think we're going to hit a dead end about here. I actually really enjoyed the talk and it was a pleasure discussing rational thoughts. :-) Feel free to talk to me anytime.
@Inverita1 The idea is that first life form is RNA, existing with just enough replication function to be classified as a life form. But RNA, being single-stranded, is unstable and highly degradable. So over time, this primitive RNA evolved the ability to store a copy of its information content in the form of DNA, and when a function needs to be carried out, a RNA is made from this DNA copy. That way, replication + other life processes can still be carried out, but genetic stability is maximized.
@Inverita1 btw, nobody is claiming this to be a fact, but as a scientific theory where numerous evidence, whether it's genetics, radiometric dating or chemical analysis or computational simulations, they all tell the same story, which is that RNA is the first primitive life form, and DNA is derived from this. If ur counter-argument is somewhere along the lines "were you there to see all this?", of course i can't prove it with 100% confidence, but u can't deny the scientific evidence support it.
@Casshyr Hello, Happy Thanksgiving! I disagree that science supports it. No worries about not physically seeing "the origin". I contend that there is required the same amount of faith to accept an invisible God as to accept accidental life. We can discuss the RNA to DNA or vice-versa but it is literally a Chicken and Egg argument. I appreciate your view but I can't accept what is pure speculation. I feel there is more logic/evidence to support creation; That isnt to say that Evolution is stupid
@Inverita1 "same amount of faith to accept an invisible God as to accept accidental life" => U r missing out a 3rd option, theistic evolution. U can believe in both God and evolution (or in this case, abiogenesis). The two do not exclude each other. When u say there is more logic to support creation, there is actually more logic to support theistic evolution, because u have both science + God supporting this viewpoint. If u only embrace creationism, then u r putting urself against science.
@Inverita1 I assume you are a Christian, and that's fine. There is nothing in evolution that says a God couldn't exist, so it shouldn't challenge your faith in any way unless you take a literal account. The speed of evolution depends on external pressure and reproduction rate. Bacteria mutate and speciate rapidly, and can eventually develop into multicellular organisms.
@jesusloveisconstant I don't wish to insult you, but you demonstrate the reason why people deny this theory- a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory. Professor Lenski's bacterium did, in fact, speciate. Evolution has never 'stopped'- animals that produce few offspring will take much longer to evolve. We didn't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor and they branched off from us. It isn't a transformation in one generation, which you seem to imply. Small changes within the speci
Creationoists need to understand that abiogenesis != evolution != big bang theory. They are totally 3 separate theories, don't mix them up like a bag of nuts.
First, your term of evolution is wrong. This is about the appearance of life, not evolution. Second claiming that natural processes cannot form life is only valid according to your own arguments if right hand chirality cannot be converted to a left hand chirality. To prove this you need to prove that amino asides contains zero elasticity, which they don't. Disproven.
evolution is just like religion. darwin and stupid followers cant prove. what they can do is just to compare bones and conclude and interpret that they evolve. man is man. ape is ape.
*sigh* its like they think that dis proving evolution will validate there own theory... if they want us to stop believing in evolution please show us a new theory that explains the evidence we see and is not backed by a man in the sky that created us out of dust (and everything else... with magic) ... who is all mighty but can get his ass kicked by an old man (if you have read the bible you will know what I mean) and how did he make light before the sun? who else thinks these people should STFU!
@jraposo God says he is the alpha and omega the beging and the end, like a circle. You think too much in linear terms. Who said there was only one big bang. food for thought
@TheJosh1111111111111 "Who said there was only one big bang." You're talking about the multiverse theory, which implies that matter has a circular/non-linear existence, hence it is essentially eternal. When you think about it, that throws away the God notion, because now the universe doesn't need God to exist.
@TheJosh1111111111111 Yup...origin of SPECIES. Which is not origins of LIFE.... LIFE =/= SPECIES, Species are successions of previous species, different forms of life. Diversification and, by extension, the origin of new species takes place AFTER the origin of life.
Your grave misunderstanding of Darwin's writings or the current theory of evolution used by scientists does not make your right. DARWIN =/= ABIOGENESIS
@TheJosh1111111111111 .......... if you have read the book (or books on the subject) you would know that his work was about a common ancestor that all life came from on this planet. no were in his work dose he say how life was created because he did not know, we now have a better understanding how life was forged naturally and we are close to replicating the proses and creating man made life. you can chose to live blinded from the truth. but please do not spit in its face
@TheJosh1111111111111 oops... scientists are very close msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-expect-create-life-next-years/ hehe did someone speak to soon. please stop insulting the scientific community they have worked so hard to get us this far.
@Willnash666 did i read that the article you referenced was written in august 2007? And they expect to create life in 3 - 10 years. more than 4 years later, i wonder how that's going?
In any event, what would it prove if scientists could create life? It would prove that an intelligence is required to create life. An intelligence that has been trying for generations through countless failed attempts. There's no random chance in that!
@TheJosh1111111111111 In the miller-urey experiment, scientists were able to create basic amino acids. It isn't life, but at least we know that Early Earth conditions can generate life.
@jamedodo It seems like you will never receive an answer from evo-heads on this. All they do is repeat ad-nauseam that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Why? Because abiogenesis is a failed science. There's no evidence of life from non-life, so they choose, conveniently to avoid the issue. But even Darwin was aware of the importance of the subject, and that the foundation of evolution was on the origin of life. Ahh, and the "theory" issue was just a red herring.
@jamedodo And I will take your capitalization of the word "theory" to mean that you don't fully understand what the word means. In everyday use, theory means speculation. In scientific methodology, a theory is a well supported explanation to an observation. There isn't a scientific hierarchy of facts. A theory doesn't turn into a law. Laws and theories describe different things. In science there is nothing higher than a "theory". Google "not just a theory" and read the short essay on that.
@jamedodo No, evolution doesn't need to describe how life started on Earth. That's like reading a recipe for apple pie and the first thing it tells you to do is to plant an apple tree. Evolution is not dependent on where life came from. Everything evolution talks about is strictly contained within itself. If you want to know how life began, you might want to look into abiogenesis. I will reiterate, evolution only talks about how life changed over time, and that's all it will ever describe.
it has been proven that if there is a possibility for life, there will be life, this was shown a few years ago. this has spurred astronomers to look further for life elsewhere.
So there's no way cosmos and nature just happened without a designer, but certainly there's Yes way that this "Designer" (supposedly) Just happened to be there out of nothing! without a designer for it's own even more ridiculously complex form of supernatural existence
To people who deny evolution: have you ever consider theistic evolution? give me one good reason why you don't accept God is behind evolution. oh, let me guess: the Bible.
cont)- Considering All studies of our universe and its origins a pattern is revealed. As atheistic and agnostic researchers (being won over to Creationism more all the time) have been repeatedly and progressively pointed BY THE EVIDENCE toward a personal Creator, they have devised more and more "loop-holes" to escape these findings.This misguided ingenuity will remain. As they curse the ones pointing to truth. Just try to understand
Living things do not make themselves. No organism has ever been observed to spontaneously assemble itself. There are too many factors (which are scientifically accepted) that automatically disprove the evolution theory. Micro and Macro evolution sit in the same boat. In considering all of the developments in the study of our universe and its origins have absolutely revealed a pattern.
@imaginarythings You clearly don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. There are a few good theories supported by all the evidence about abiogenesis. The one that seems most likely is called the RNA world hypothesis. I suggest you go look it up.
As far as evolution is concerned you're right when you said that micro and macro evolution are in the same boat. They are in fact the very same, just viewed on different time scales. Evolution is a fact. Its been OBSERVED to happen.
Obviously you are confused. Micro ev had been observed and accepted as true. But still it has limit to how much changes you can affect on a species. Take horse breeding for example, through selection, faster and faster horses had been produced. But still can never produce horses that run as fast as the bullet train, nor will the horses grow wings and fly, even if you wait for million of years. Macro involve entirely different process, which never been observed. A suggestion, a myth.
@onlyhass We have observed in nature and in the lab evolution of NEW SPECIES. That proves that evolution is real.
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. They are one and the same. Thank you for finally admitting that evolution is real. You are no longer an evolution denier. Welcome to the real world.
On the contrary, NO species had been observed to evolve into a new one. What we observed around us is variation in the species; i.e long beak, short beak etc. No animals have been observed turning into another form of animal. No chemical had been observed assembling into an organism, The Miller-Urey experiment produced only proteins. But the proteins did not envolved into living organism. Evolutionist tend to rationalize the idea that 'somehow' it happens. 'Somehow' is not science.
@husler59 Actually you're absolutely wrong. We have observed speciation in nature. Just type observed speciation into any search engine and you can read the articles for yourself. Talkorigins has an extensive list that includes the papers and references about all the speciation events on the list.
Of course "no animals have been observed turning into another form", evolution doesn't work like that. Its not magic turning a dog into a cat. Its speciation. I suggest you get yourself an educated.
Ah yes, evolutionist tend to think they are smarter than most people. And they like to talk jargon, like speciation and so and so. When they see variations in a species, they say it speciation. When they see different species that looks alike, its speciation. And they say dog would not turn to cat but that is actually the main point of evolution theory, 'speciation' that eventually lead to formation of animal different from the original. 'Speciation' - a suggestion. Its not science.
@husler59 "Speciation - a suggestion. Its not science." That kind of ignorant statement lets me know i am indeed smarter than you, at least in the area of evolution. Speciation is NOT variation. You don't even know the definition of a species apparently. Speciation, which has been observed, is a species changing over time into two or more forms which are no longer able to produce fertile offspring between them. That is clearly not variation. This is NOT a cat giving birth to a dog.
And they have extensive list of speciation events as if they knew it for fact that such events did occur. The problem with evolutionist is that you people would accept everything at face value. Is it a fact that three-spined stickleback undergone speciation to fresh water species? No. Just a suggestion. A fact that fireweed 'speciated'. No. Just read the articles clearly yourselft. No fact! None of the event are actual fact. Only speculation. Speculation is not science.
@husler59 There are speciation events recorded as such because we do know for a fact that they occurred. If we record the existence of a species, and then later find that this species has changed into two distinct species, that is recording THE FACT that speciation occurred. Is it a fact that the sickleback speciated into a freshwater species? Of course it is a fact. Why on earth would it NOT be a fact. ITs not like the freshwater animal just magically appeared. You need to learn how to read.
You are wrong again. There are no 'recorded event' of observed speciation. To the contrary your referred website article said it clearly that 1. The literarature on observed speciation is not well organised, except for a few which actually are just suggestion by the author. 2. Speciation is only 'inferred' from evidence collected. 3. Most biologist are 'convinced' that speciation occurs. Its not a proven fact like V=IR. 4. Biologist still has problem defining a species.
@husler59 LOL your reading comprehension is obviously pretty poor. Poorly organized doesn't mean false. Inferred from evidence collected means that its proven by the evidence. We can't watch every living thing on the planet at every moment. It is in fact a proven fact, which is why most biologists are convinced of the fact.
1. Poorly organized would also mean the subject is problematic and chaotic. 2. How come you debate a 'proven' fact: could it be or not. Like arguing whether the sea is salty, maybe? Inferred does not necessarily meant evidence, your reasoning sucks. 3. Many biologists are convinced. Many christians are convinced. They dont really know for sure. Are you convinced that the sea is salty? Convinced = a matter of the heart = faith = religion.
The point i like to address here is not whether the creationist or evolutionist is right and the other is wrong. But the problem is that many of evolutionary theory formed from the believe of a scientist at a particular moment. First they said Darwin was right, then not. The believe might change with the authority of the day. We cant accept something as fact from believe, it sucks of religion if you understand what i meant. There could be other explanation, not necessarily creation.
@husler59 Poorly organized stems from the difficulty, after the understanding of genes, of defining species, not from chaos. I'm not debating a proven fact, i'm pointing out to you that you are wrong for attempting to debate a proven fact. Many christians are convinced DESPITE facts, while biologists are convinced IN LIGHT OF the facts. They really are sure.
"Convinced = a matter of the heart = faith = religion" only when there is an absence of fact.
There is still problem here. An example, suppose a sickleback 'somehow' become a freshwater fish, how on earth could it possibly pass on the ability to its offspring? We have learned during highschool that acquired characteristics can't be inherited. So how you explain this phenomenon? Evolutionist biologist tend to shrug of the problem and 'suggest' that somehow it must have occurred because evolution is true. Perhaps sickleback really can adapt to different environment.
And able to change to freshwater or saltwater kind, like some fishes that can change sex due to some environmental pressure. Why would evolutionists in their attempt to promote speciation, tend to overlook this particular difficulty? I would like to stress again and again that there are no proven fact. Example: '..the Culex mosquito found in the London Underground 'is thought' to have evolved from the overground species Culex pipiens..". Speciation is but a proposition.
@husler59 You learned about acquired characteristics in high school, yet you didn't learn the definition of acquired characteristics? Surviving in freshwater is NOT an acquired characteristic. You can't LEARN to survive in fresh water. You're born that way. Since freshwater tolerance is a GENETIC characteristic its definitely something you could pass onto your offspring, making it an EVOLUTIONARY characteristic. Also you don't just go from completely salty to fresh water, it would be gradual.
What are the evidence that a saltwater fish suddenly give birth to fresh water species? What the evidence that the change is gradual? I'm trying to stress my point here that there are no evidence to support the theory. The inference made by biologist is that since there are the salt water fish and freshwater, since the freshwater one was not known before, it could've evoloved from the former. It is the same case as the Culex Mosquito. Another theory would be that the freshwater one
was not native. But then they populate the water, not necessarily descended from the saltwater one . It's even better than the other theory. Ok, lets say its genetic (there are no evidence whatsoever), the saltwater one give birth to the freshwater one, since the eggs would be in the seawater, the freshwater eggs would've no chance at all. Maybe the mother knew her eggs were freshwater one and managed to swim to a freshwater spot, but then the mother would've been killed before laying them.
How could you accept the evolution of those fishes as SCIENTIFIC FACT without even considering the mounting problem on how such transition could've occurred? Is it sufficient to accept such arguments : somehow, might have, could have, believe to be, is thought to have been, we are convinced, are enough to promote an idea as SCIENTIFIC FACT? Many people dont believe in God because there are no evidence, or even lack of evidence. What evidence do yo for the evolution of a species into other?
@husler59 Transitional fossils. And "fishes"? Seriously, come on now, speak correctly before having a debate. And you meant to say that there IS no evidence, not "are no evidence"
What evidence? The fossils that you talked about, are fragmented pieces, a bit of jaw here, a tooth, a bit of bone. What evidence?Seriously, did you check the so called evidence? Didn't you see how a complete skull being constructed with a small piece 2" x 2" dimension? Suppose i give you a piece of bone of an animal you haven't seen before, can you really do that? Seriously? What evidence?
Come on, I make mistakes when i'm typing fast, plus theres not enough space here. You shouldnt have made it issue dude as long as you understand the message.
@husler59 Oh i dunno, we just have dozens of different scientific fields that all support evolution. We have fossil evidence, genetic evidence and lab tests that all support evolution. Oh and there is observed speciation, we have that too.
Oh and over 95% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. Thats all we have.
Of course, evolution has made us the way we are. That we may imagine, dream and think. 'Evolution' is very clever indeed. It made for us the most versatile device known in the universe: the hand. It made for us the colorful world in our brain by converting electromagnetic waves into meaningful signals. It somehow 'managed' to turn sound wave into hearing too. Evolution had cleverly laid out the nerves throughout our body, delicately, so that you wont feel any pain as you move about.
Ever heard of pinched nerve? That rarely/never happen because nature is so clever. It make sure you can differentiate between beauty and ugliness. Oh its very important for survival, perhaps ugly people carry defective genes in their body, somebody really has to do research on this. nature is so clever in arranging the teeth in your mouth that you may look good and so that you would not chew your own tongue. Nature is very wise in setting up the protein manufacturing system in our body.
From DNA to RNA to synthesis and so so..so complex, why even bother. Oh but living things has to exist because nature is so cleverly using evolution as the tool to achieve its goal. But nature can only make animals from carbon based molecules. Not silicon-based because of restriction already 'devised' and 'imposed' by nature. Oh not to mention how clever nature is in the creation of the genitalia. So sexy, those curves, yummy! Dont forget its important for natural selection.
And those animals that you put in a jar of CO2 gas? Would soon evolved and start to breath on CO2 too. I'm sure they will provided you keep on putting them in as long as it takes, a 100 million years perhaps, sure they will evolved too. You see guys, evolution has no purpose. God has purpose, but god does not exist. So anything can happen, why not? nature will somehow find a way, plant has done it before. And all of us would soon evolved too, Ever watch X-men? Its based on fact, back up
by hundred million years of fossil evidence. You may grow wings if you keep jumping down from a tree, your children, grandchildren too. There is no purpose in life. But nature is God that decides everything. So tell your children that life is just series of accidents. On the day one lay on deathbed staring at death, tell them not to fear and not to doubt, seriously God the creator never exist and would never render them accountable. Say what? Never thought of dying, someday?
Never thought that perhaps you had been wrong all along? Perhaps God exist but you have been searching for Him at the wrong place? Nah, cant be. God does not exist. Nature is God. Everybody knew that for some time already, you just heard of it recently. Those ancient tribes had been worshiping trees, ocean, the sky, volcano, the purposeless lightning, the desert. I sincerely hope you don't look as stupid as you sound, its bad for natural selection. What gal would want a stupid ugly man? Right?
5. Biologist still arguing if speciation occur and how. 6. Most evolutionist biologist 'believe' speciation occurs. 7. Even S.J Gould himself 'believe' speciation occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated equilibrium. 8. Who has the record of Sickleback fish back to the last ice age 10k yrs ago, cichlid fishes 4000 years ago? You? Speciation is just inference, believe, opinion, suggestion. Even biologists still not over with it. Believe is not science but faith.
Cars aren't living. Comparing living systems and chemical systems to non living systems is a mistake someone with a high school degree shouldn't make. Nothing about abiogenesis or evolution is RANDOM. No scientist will tell you that. No scientists believe that life was formed by random chance.
Try getting yourself an education before trying to discuss scientific ideas and theories so that you don't look like a complete ass.
One more thought, try looking up the RNA world hypothesis. Dumbass.
Totally missed topic. You are not debunking evolution, that is abiogenesis. Some bad math, Irreducible Complexity and ofcourse authority card that probably has his own agenda...
guys this guy has sooo many things that are so wrong wrong wrong. in sooo many ways dear god please dont listen to this guy. creationists please do listen to this, if you bring this guy's arguments into a debate you will be laughed at, please he is very wrong about so many things. evolutionists you need to realize that making laboratory amino acids is NOT proof. its just evidence for our claim
@imaginarythings You're an idiot. Someone who can't spell school, shouldn't try to tell people what "schools" should teach our children, and should have any children they have taken away from them so they don't grow up to be as ignorant as their parents.
@imaginarythings First of all, you mis-typed it 2 if not 3 times. I can't tell cause you've since removed your comment. Typical.
Second, nowhere in our dialogue have i ever cursed at you. Typical ignorant response to a valid point. Just make false accusations and stick your fingers in your ears.
@imaginarythings You're a huge pussy. You post messages then delete them so no one can see you're an idiot. Repost of comment:
"A typical TROLL. You have no channel to speak of...with one friend and one subscriber that are in just as bad of shape as you are. You'd better get a life boy before sombody does you like they're your daddy."
I need a life? Says the immature asshat that thinks that "a life" entails a bunch of youtube friends. Maybe you should get off the computer and get an education.
'Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome.'
does chemistry prove that the bible is true, because a fucking lot indicates it's bollocks. Dr Charles McCombs is a creationist, and for some reason i cannot find any of his papers. Don't see why the chirality argument says that life can't evolve. Chilarity just describes asymmetry, so what the fuck are you on about?
Fantastic video. I wish more people knew this information. And you only mentioned ONE concept that debunks evolution. There are so many more! Amino acids cannot bond together to make proteins when oxygen is present. However, without oxygen there is NO OZONE layer above the earth to block the harmful rays from the sun. These harmful rays would DESTROY all of the "evolving" life on earth.. Evolution is the worst explanation of origins I have ever heard. It is defended with opinions and insults.
@Ihavebeensaved23 I'm sorry, but what? Peptide bonds need not be in the absence of oxygen to form. It's a simple condensation reaction that releases water. Atmospheric oxygen would not affect it. Unless you're speaking of molecular oxygen, then it's obvious you've never taken a biology course because amino acids have a CARBOXYL end. You know, containing two oxygens (COOH, or in cellular conditions COO-).
If you're going to try and argue this stuff, PLEASE get your science right.
@Usagibunnneh Free O2 would oxidize the forming amino acid chains, thus damaging/destroying the amino acid chains that would fold into a protein. Since there is a COO- group on each of the 20 amino acids there was obviously oxygen present because it is in the formula. Therefore, life could not start with or without oxygen. I shouldn't have worded my sentence like that in my last post. Hope this helps. :)
What a load of tosh. Chirality only debunks the strawman version of abiogenesis; that self-replicating polymers poofed into existence. It's true that the odds of a DNA molecule or protein spontaneously forming with the correct chirality are astronomical to the point of impossibility - so it's a good job no credible scientist claims that is what happened.
That "spark of life" cannot be produced from nothing. A car is a bad and simplified example of the way this works. All of the testing and theories in the world and for all time have never truely shown where life began. Science cannot disprove the Bible...PERIOD. There have been MANY to try and become believers themselves once they took a hard and honest look.Let science produce that "spark of life" from nothing...absolutely NOTHING and THEN THEY CAN CLAIM SOMETHING AS PROVEN!!!!!!!!
@imaginarythings Can we apply the same to your *ahem* "theory"? This works both ways buddy. Let's have your god produce something from nothing. How about himself? Let your almighty come down from the heavens and take credit for all of this. Science has done nothing but produce mounds of PHYSICAL evidence to explain evolution and the development of the world. What have creationists done? Said "well that's how it happens". See, that's not the way science (or really any sort of proof) works.
@UsagibunnnI ~I agree...It ALL goes both ways. I think a big problem is that people are trying to disprove more than they're trying to prove. There are MANY MANY Scientist that accept God through the stubies thaey have done. BTW~ God ALWAYS EXISTED. He's proven to ME that he's real. What's wrong with my having a relationship with God if that makes my life fuller?!!! ...See ya on the other side of eternity....THen HE will do MORE than take credit...
@imaginarythings I don't think there's a problem with you believing in god. Good for you, if that's what gets you through your day. I honestly think faith can be a wonderful addition to people's lives. But keep it out of my science and keep it out of schools. Religion is not science. It just simply isn't. Science does not include the supernatural. And as a side note... You can word it any way you want, but do you really think telling me to go to hell is a good, Christian thing to do?
1. That video doesn't refer to the theory of evolution; the purpose of the TOE is to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life.
2. The assumptions made in this video are strawman arguments. For example, neither evolution nor abiogenesis says that life came into existence randomly. The step of chemical evolution from simple amino acids to DNA is completely ignored in this video. Unlike this video suggests, the process is well explainable actually.
We have of yet been unable to reproduce the sun in a lab setting. Therefore everything we have come to know about the intricate workings of that burning sphere that keeps all life in our solar system alive is null and void and oh, it cannot exist. Logically this argument is fallacious. Seek truth openly, not your agenda, if you seek to be wise and to understand existence better.
ATTENTION ALL YOu Science God's of Evolution, and Chairpersons for Atheism: I Challenge you yo grow some balls, and try to solve these mysteries, on the YouTube video series titles mentioned DIRECTLY BENEATH this comment! Good Luck Geniuses! Peace.
@TheWayandWordofLife I'm not going to read through all your videos. I simply just don't have the time. However, I watched the first one and I just want to say this: First of all, as a biologist I don't think that Christianity and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. I guess it just depends on how closely you follow the bible. In my experience, most people don't follow it closely enough to exclude evolution from their beliefs. But moving on... Scientists do see evolution happening every day.
@TheWayandWordofLife For example, take HIV. The virus is constantly mutating (read: evolving) to create a new version that we cannot treat. Another example: Super bugs. Genetic variability in bacteria allow some bacteria to survive when treated with antibiotics. These bacteria, previously making up a small section of the population, soon become the majority as they survive and thrive.
@TheWayandWordofLife They then can go on to infect people and cannot be treated with the regular course of antibiotics; they are super bugs. This is essentially what evolution is. Genetic mutations that prove to be beneficial accumulate in a population as the “weaker” set of genes die off with the organism that has them.
I find it insulting when someone tells me that my knowledge of evolution is because I refuse to believe in god and not because I have seen convincing evidence.
@TheWayandWordofLife So, to you sir, kindly take your head out of your ass and LOOK at the evidence. Educate yourself on real science. Get a degree, learn the scientific method. If you still believe, then find EVIDENCE to back yourself up. Real, hard scientific evidence. So then, instead of coming here and insulting those of us who have bothered to learn a few things and sounding like a complete ass, you can make a respectable, well-founded case for your argument. Until then, piss off :)
GREAT EVIDENCE! For other truly compelling facts, check out this series: Part 1 Introduction Evolution Debunked, Part 2 Cosmological Evolution Debunked, Part 3 Physical Evolution Debunked, Part 4 Biological Evolution Debunked, Part 5 chemical Evolution Debunked, Part 6 ......? THEY ARE AWESOME! Check them out! Peace.
@kingseho Evolution is proven, so is big bang. there are a lot of facts and evidences and every single evidence tells the same about evolution and big bang. you are just ignorant because your idiotic religion doesnt support these facts so you have to lie to yourself. thats sad....
Chirality hardly debunks abiogenesis. First self-replicating RNA based organism... happens to use a certain enantiomer of RNA... trend continues as long as this organism replicates...evolution...selective chirality remains...current life forms "The process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science cannot be explained in any amount of time"... Just an idea take it or leave it.
4) The Miller-Urey experiment is almost 60 years old! Get on with the program and pay attention to the NEW scientific experiments/discoveries that are being made.
5) At least this guy is a chemist and not an engineer or an author, like pretty much all the other "scientists" that were interviewed by creationists... although he's closer, he's still a chemist and not an evolutionary biologist... or a biologists for that matter! I haven't found any scientific type articles by him though :/
1) Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things! Stop mixing them up!
2) NOT all amino acids in living organisms exist in L-configuration: 1) Cysteine 2) Bacterial peptidoglycan (eg. D-ala-D-ala), 3) some brain neurotransmitters, also Glycine is a non-chiral amino acid!
3) This video incorrectly assumes that complex molecules such as DNA formed from the start, it's like saying that during fertilization of an egg, a fully grown man is formed!
Scientists never claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment proved that life came from inorganic molecules by natural processes. Also, there is no reason to assume that, if living cells emerged by natural means, one chiral isomer could not have been a better fit than the other once the machinery of the cell started to take form. This is just another twist of the old creationist argument that all the structures & molecules we see today had to have formed simultaneously in one step.
@Sweddude The video doesn't explain creation either. They just try to debunk evolution (or abiogenesis in this case) by pointing out how complicated everything is - as if biologists don't already know that living organisms are incredibly complex.
@prschuster If they are going to debunk evolution then why talking about the origin of life? the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it explains how organisms change over time and adapt to their soroundings.
I had to stop less than 30 seconds in. You dont know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, so I dont think you have much of a clue on anything else really.
Its sad you spent all this time trying to debunk evo, but you didnt even take the time to learn what it actually means.
1:23 seconds into this video and I can already know you have not the slightest grasp of what evolution is, it states NOTHING about the origin of life, only the diversity. Stating the evolutionist must belief in life by chance is like saying anyone who believes in the theory of gravity is a nazi, because some people who believed in gravity were nazis.
Yes, the video is correct in pointing out that is not life. yes, the video is correct in saying that stereoisomers exist. Yes, it is correct that our DNA is one type of the stereoisomers. However, we have evolved molecules called epimerase/racemase to
More retardation from the coward, liars at ppeepeesimmons.
its amazing how desperately pepee grasps at his delusions. we love it, because these lies pushes people away from the church.
nolobede 1 week ago
watch?v=VC2JF898Wsc&feature=channel_video_title
Here is a reply to this stupid video by the living dinosaur.
rareblackatheist 1 week ago
@rareblackatheist whats the name of that video? I cant get it on my computer.
thehoodlum1919 1 week ago
@thehoodlum1919
Checkout the livingdinosaur's channel "Holy Hallucinations 11"
rareblackatheist 1 week ago
So... by saying we didn't evolve from amino acids, he has debunked evolution? Really? I'm not an expert by any means, but that is not critical to the rest of the theory. And if you claim evolution is wrong, than what is your answer? That a beared man made the world on a whim? And the only evidence tey have for that is a really old book, that is not evidence.
TheBulap 1 week ago
So this prick says essentially "because I can't see life being created with my own eyes I dont believe it" yet the total argument for creationism is that "i can't see what God did but I will believe it". So for a Christian, blind faith only works when THEY want it to. Hypocrites
psiewert83 1 week ago
everyone here who is a stanch creationist, please look at this picture: -i.qkme.me / 35utso.jpg
Hinduspy 3 weeks ago
Evolutionists have made an effort to change the very definition of what a theory is and have succeeded to some degree but there are those who oppose this and justly so. A theory is not facts explained but speculation and guesswork on matters we do not fully understand or not have the evidence for.. Theoretical could also be the study period of a subject before one applies the lessons learnt practically.
llewellleo 4 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheTheKRIT You obviously don't understand what the word theory means iona scientific context. Scientific theories describe how the facts we are seeing occur. Until a theory is disproved, it is fact by default. Evolution has passed this test for 150 years. So has gravity theory germ theory etc perhaps you should choose to understand what to is u r commenting on before u comment
dakerson1234 1 month ago
Scientists don't completely understand how amino acids came together to form life so that debunks evolution? I think you need to do a little bit more research into the subject you're trying to debunk.
ChairOKey 1 month ago
What does this have to do with evolution? Darwin never postulate the origin of life. Darwin's work does not have anything to do with God, one way or the other. Of course, it's impossible to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and believe in evolution. Of course, you would have to be a fairly unreasonable person to take the word of the bible over evolution. Evolution is a fact, the bible is a story representing what people knew at the time, which wasn't very much.
Xsleeper 1 month ago 2
@Xsleeper Its showing we didn't evolve from Amino Acids thus debunking Evolution
ShaneyCunn84 1 month ago
@ShaneyCunn84 evolve from amino acids? What do you man by that. Our DNA is made up by amino acids. How it first came to be we don't know and that's nothing new. This is not proving anything only stating the how unlikely it is for DNA to form. But I wonder when he say natural processes. It even might be that life came from space and I don't think that they have taken into account of that. What little I know about chemistry is that there are billions of combinations and processes.
GeneralBlackNorway 3 weeks ago
@Xsleeper evolution is fact? Haha what planet are you from? Im not a creationist but i have enough sense to realize that evolution is still just a theory there are many facts that disprove it.
TheTheKRIT 1 month ago
Its been debunked already everyone.
stevjen1 1 month ago
thunderf00t alreais going to disprove this video before you realise it
scribbie145 1 month ago
Everyone read how McCombs has been debunked. No Nobel prize for this dude. go to talk origins.org/indexcc/list.html
stevjen1 1 month ago
Dr. McCombs has been debunked and peer reviewed hundreds of times by hundreds of chemists and scientists. How come the author of the video leaves this important information out? Could be that he is a creationist? If he was right, he would get a Nobel prize for such discovery. I guess the records speak for themselves.
stevjen1 1 month ago
No, the production of chiral species is not always 50:50. Addition rxns and substitution rxns produce uneven concentrations of the chiral molecule. There are rules that govern rxns (sn1, sn2, E1, E2) for substitution and elimination rxns. Only Sn2 and E2 rxns produce a racemic mixture 1:1 concentration of the R,S species. This is true because they have a carbocation intermediate which allows the nucleophile to attack the carbon atom from any direction. You obviously don't understand intro orgo..
ImtheTroubleIn421 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is presented more real scientific fact than any evolutionist can present, in fact the majority of responses I receive from evolutionists on a regular basis are insults and then a claim evolution is a proven fact. Still waiting for an evolutionist with real evidence and not simple conjecture.
llewellleo 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
test
pyr666 2 months ago
And why is it that people with misleading video titles and a obvious lack of scientific understanding always have the bible listed first in the books section of youtube?
echoparty 2 months ago
This seems to be more about Abiogenesis. The study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations But what can you expect from a channel called The Cosmik Truth...
echoparty 2 months ago
@jesusloveisconstant ies- what creationists like to call "microevolution"- eventually can cause divergence-"macroevolution".
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls Hello, I agree, Microevolution is provent to be a fact. And personally I dont think it effects my faith in any way. However Macroevolution has not been proven in any way other than observing micro and making the assumption that micro caused a jump at some point. Still changes in "subspecies" are not enough to explaine the transformation into an entirely new species, especially when considering the conception factor between species, which nulifys any effectivness of the Macro jump
Inverita1 3 months ago
@Inverita1 Microevolution and Macroevolution are simply silly distinctions made by creationists. Saying that microevolutioin can't lead to speciation is wrong. Saying that one can't cause the other is like saying that you can walk between your bed and your kitchen, but you can't use the same method of travel to go from Miami to Orlando.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls Hello, Thank you for this opportunity to discuss our opinions. I liked your annalogy, but unfortunatly I don't see it the way you do. In my opinion micro evolution can still be a short walk, but macroevolution would be like trying to walk from the united states to Australia. Its not something that can be done. There are more factors than distance so alternate methods must be used. Note the short walk in micro evo can be undone but the leap into Macro cannot.
Inverita1 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls To answer your question about what I think Macro-evo is. MacroEvolution is the change that transcends a species into another. This would then come with genetic locks that are irreversable for allowing mating between the old species and the new. What is important here is to note the difference between species and sub-species which was only a distinction made to make macro appear to speciate. *more to be continued... :-)
Inverita1 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls To me it not unreasonable to expect science to be able to duplicate or recreate life if it occured by chance. The fact that with all the technology we have, we have still been unable to create life (without using pre-existing life as a base) how am i supposed to expect nature did it accidently. Yes, amino acids were created, but that isn't life. In fact, they could have created an entire cell, which they didn't, but unless it has DNA and reproduces it is not living.
Inverita1 3 months ago
@Inverita1 First off, I want to thank you for breaking the mold and being a friendly creationist, instead of starting the discussion by slinging insults.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@Inverita1 Thank you for giving me the definition (I wanted to know it at the start so you couldn't move the goalposts). Macroevolution has been demonstrated in two species of Tree Frog recently. The Gray Tree Frog and Cope's Tree Frog are two very similar species that recently split. Cope's has 2 chromosomes, and Grey has 4. Somewhere recently, a group of larvae was born with 2. That group has now grown, and has a large population. They are a new species b/c the 2 types cannot breed.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls To respond to the frog issue. While I admit I haven't studdied it much (so please don't take this as me being a jerk) there are other causes for genetic locking. I know I said that it is a Main factor in transcending species, and I maintain that. But both animals are still frogs.. They are both in the frog family of species. I just read about another set of frogs (wood and leopord) who were subject to "disruptive selection". This is where outside factors are the cause.
Inverita1 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls A quick examination of Copes shows they are found in selective regions of NC. While Gray tree frogs appear to be from a much more northern region or NE USA and Canada. They most likely are from the same family, but the lockouts in their reproduction could be caused by the "disruptive selection" I found when searching the wood and leopard frogs. I'm not disagreeing that its interesting.. I will look at it more. But there are more than one way to cause lockouts in reproduction-LOVE
Inverita1 3 months ago
@Inverita1 Think of it this way: that Miller-Urey experiment occurred billions of times every day of Early Earth's existence for a billion years. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life is 3.5 billion years old (as far as we know). That means that that experiment was carried out over and over again until life formed.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls You're welcome in many ways :-). I am Christian and have christian evolutionist friends. Yet I am not convinced. Even given the vast amount of time, it was something that would have been unintentional, yet we with all the cloning and super-sciences we have, scientists still cannot intentionally do it. Since we have been able to replicate almost every other thing nature has done it seems odd that we can't do something that happened by chance . I just dont want to assume its true.
Inverita1 3 months ago
@Inverita1 We are far from replicating everything nature has done. I accept a naturalistic explanation for the first life, but you can believe, if you wish, that a deity set the conditions for life to grow. Many areas in the geographic ranges of the frogs overlap. Disruptive selection in many cases is the cause for speciation, as more extreme traits create differences in genetics and a schism as the species no longer continue to breed.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls Fair enough. :-) I found a better annalogy for why originating life doesn't make sence through evolution. I'm sure you heard this but here it goes anyway. Think of evolution like a computer, Amino acids and proteins are the physical parts or hardware. While DNA is the software. Now I can aquiese and say that the hardware may be able to form by chance given enough opportunity, but the complex software still wouldn't be coded and the hardware would be useless. Thanks for the talk.
Inverita1 3 months ago
@Inverita1 DNA evolved from RNA. The early RNA had the odds in its favor, and it evolved rapidly. If the code was more efficient at replicating it would overwhelm the less efficient codes. From then on, DNA evolved very quickly, especially in bacteria and early multicellular organisms.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@demdanglibruls I disagree that DNA evolved from RNA when most information I come accross at the very least implies that RNA is a copy of DNA. "Synthesis of RNA is usually catalyzed by an enzyme—RNA polymerase—using DNA as a template, a process known as transcription." I think we're going to hit a dead end about here. I actually really enjoyed the talk and it was a pleasure discussing rational thoughts. :-) Feel free to talk to me anytime.
With Love,
-Jay
Inverita1 3 months ago
@Inverita1 The idea is that first life form is RNA, existing with just enough replication function to be classified as a life form. But RNA, being single-stranded, is unstable and highly degradable. So over time, this primitive RNA evolved the ability to store a copy of its information content in the form of DNA, and when a function needs to be carried out, a RNA is made from this DNA copy. That way, replication + other life processes can still be carried out, but genetic stability is maximized.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Inverita1 btw, nobody is claiming this to be a fact, but as a scientific theory where numerous evidence, whether it's genetics, radiometric dating or chemical analysis or computational simulations, they all tell the same story, which is that RNA is the first primitive life form, and DNA is derived from this. If ur counter-argument is somewhere along the lines "were you there to see all this?", of course i can't prove it with 100% confidence, but u can't deny the scientific evidence support it.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr Hello, Happy Thanksgiving! I disagree that science supports it. No worries about not physically seeing "the origin". I contend that there is required the same amount of faith to accept an invisible God as to accept accidental life. We can discuss the RNA to DNA or vice-versa but it is literally a Chicken and Egg argument. I appreciate your view but I can't accept what is pure speculation. I feel there is more logic/evidence to support creation; That isnt to say that Evolution is stupid
Inverita1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Inverita1 "same amount of faith to accept an invisible God as to accept accidental life" => U r missing out a 3rd option, theistic evolution. U can believe in both God and evolution (or in this case, abiogenesis). The two do not exclude each other. When u say there is more logic to support creation, there is actually more logic to support theistic evolution, because u have both science + God supporting this viewpoint. If u only embrace creationism, then u r putting urself against science.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Inverita1 How would you define "macroevolution"? I want a definition for this and how it differs from microevolution.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@Inverita1 I assume you are a Christian, and that's fine. There is nothing in evolution that says a God couldn't exist, so it shouldn't challenge your faith in any way unless you take a literal account. The speed of evolution depends on external pressure and reproduction rate. Bacteria mutate and speciate rapidly, and can eventually develop into multicellular organisms.
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
@jesusloveisconstant I don't wish to insult you, but you demonstrate the reason why people deny this theory- a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory. Professor Lenski's bacterium did, in fact, speciate. Evolution has never 'stopped'- animals that produce few offspring will take much longer to evolve. We didn't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor and they branched off from us. It isn't a transformation in one generation, which you seem to imply. Small changes within the speci
demdanglibruls 3 months ago
Creationoists need to understand that abiogenesis != evolution != big bang theory. They are totally 3 separate theories, don't mix them up like a bag of nuts.
Casshyr 3 months ago
can I use this vid on my channel,il give you credit of course,you can pm
TRUTH21SS 4 months ago
First, your term of evolution is wrong. This is about the appearance of life, not evolution. Second claiming that natural processes cannot form life is only valid according to your own arguments if right hand chirality cannot be converted to a left hand chirality. To prove this you need to prove that amino asides contains zero elasticity, which they don't. Disproven.
bvssvni 4 months ago
True story.
YouBeMadlol 4 months ago
the begining part of this video is trying to debunk abiogenisis. evolution is the evolvment of already living things. not how it started.
alizespiano 5 months ago
evolution is just like religion. darwin and stupid followers cant prove. what they can do is just to compare bones and conclude and interpret that they evolve. man is man. ape is ape.
rabisrabis 5 months ago
@rabisrabis I guess the Lenski experiment doesn't count? That clearly demonstrates evolution.
demdanglibruls 4 months ago
*sigh* its like they think that dis proving evolution will validate there own theory... if they want us to stop believing in evolution please show us a new theory that explains the evidence we see and is not backed by a man in the sky that created us out of dust (and everything else... with magic) ... who is all mighty but can get his ass kicked by an old man (if you have read the bible you will know what I mean) and how did he make light before the sun? who else thinks these people should STFU!
Willnash666 5 months ago
@jraposo God says he is the alpha and omega the beging and the end, like a circle. You think too much in linear terms. Who said there was only one big bang. food for thought
TheJosh1111111111111 6 months ago
@TheJosh1111111111111 "Who said there was only one big bang." You're talking about the multiverse theory, which implies that matter has a circular/non-linear existence, hence it is essentially eternal. When you think about it, that throws away the God notion, because now the universe doesn't need God to exist.
Nathan173AB 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nathan173AB Don't make me laugh. That just proves my point you numbskull.
TheJosh1111111111111 5 months ago
It is very likely that Darwinism and evolution are dropped to give way to other theories, such as the Morphogenetic fields.
SebastianNovakZarate 6 months ago
Disproving evolution, if it ever happens, does not prove the existence of God.
billingtonmarc25 6 months ago 2
disagree i think it does
somearmyguy1 5 months ago
@somearmyguy1 You have great faith in your Evolutionary Religion, that's why.
SoulfulCommute 5 months ago
@somearmyguy1 Even if you're right, what God(s)?
billingtonmarc25 4 months ago
evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, you are thinking about the origens the origens of life NOT evolution
Willnash666 6 months ago
@Willnash666 Darwin was the father of evolution right? What did he call his published thesis/book? Origin of species.
TheJosh1111111111111 6 months ago
@TheJosh1111111111111 Yup...origin of SPECIES. Which is not origins of LIFE.... LIFE =/= SPECIES, Species are successions of previous species, different forms of life. Diversification and, by extension, the origin of new species takes place AFTER the origin of life.
Your grave misunderstanding of Darwin's writings or the current theory of evolution used by scientists does not make your right. DARWIN =/= ABIOGENESIS
jzuidema 5 months ago
@TheJosh1111111111111 .......... if you have read the book (or books on the subject) you would know that his work was about a common ancestor that all life came from on this planet. no were in his work dose he say how life was created because he did not know, we now have a better understanding how life was forged naturally and we are close to replicating the proses and creating man made life. you can chose to live blinded from the truth. but please do not spit in its face
Willnash666 5 months ago
@Willnash666 lmao good one, and second we are nowhere near close to making man made life. quit being delusional
TheJosh1111111111111 5 months ago
@TheJosh1111111111111 oops... scientists are very close msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-expect-create-life-next-years/ hehe did someone speak to soon. please stop insulting the scientific community they have worked so hard to get us this far.
Willnash666 5 months ago
@Willnash666 well i guess you want a cookie.
TheJosh1111111111111 5 months ago
@Willnash666 did i read that the article you referenced was written in august 2007? And they expect to create life in 3 - 10 years. more than 4 years later, i wonder how that's going?
In any event, what would it prove if scientists could create life? It would prove that an intelligence is required to create life. An intelligence that has been trying for generations through countless failed attempts. There's no random chance in that!
ferrel81 4 months ago
@TheJosh1111111111111 In the miller-urey experiment, scientists were able to create basic amino acids. It isn't life, but at least we know that Early Earth conditions can generate life.
demdanglibruls 4 months ago
@jamedodo It seems like you will never receive an answer from evo-heads on this. All they do is repeat ad-nauseam that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Why? Because abiogenesis is a failed science. There's no evidence of life from non-life, so they choose, conveniently to avoid the issue. But even Darwin was aware of the importance of the subject, and that the foundation of evolution was on the origin of life. Ahh, and the "theory" issue was just a red herring.
raponte1955 6 months ago
@jamedodo And I will take your capitalization of the word "theory" to mean that you don't fully understand what the word means. In everyday use, theory means speculation. In scientific methodology, a theory is a well supported explanation to an observation. There isn't a scientific hierarchy of facts. A theory doesn't turn into a law. Laws and theories describe different things. In science there is nothing higher than a "theory". Google "not just a theory" and read the short essay on that.
lemminjuice 6 months ago
@jamedodo No, evolution doesn't need to describe how life started on Earth. That's like reading a recipe for apple pie and the first thing it tells you to do is to plant an apple tree. Evolution is not dependent on where life came from. Everything evolution talks about is strictly contained within itself. If you want to know how life began, you might want to look into abiogenesis. I will reiterate, evolution only talks about how life changed over time, and that's all it will ever describe.
lemminjuice 6 months ago 2
What you described has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says nothing about how life started. It only describes how life changed over time.
lemminjuice 6 months ago
it has been proven that if there is a possibility for life, there will be life, this was shown a few years ago. this has spurred astronomers to look further for life elsewhere.
ellensius 7 months ago
Chirality+apologetics=win.
canibalcorpse73 7 months ago
So there's no way cosmos and nature just happened without a designer, but certainly there's Yes way that this "Designer" (supposedly) Just happened to be there out of nothing! without a designer for it's own even more ridiculously complex form of supernatural existence
jraposo 7 months ago
To people who deny evolution: have you ever consider theistic evolution? give me one good reason why you don't accept God is behind evolution. oh, let me guess: the Bible.
Casshyr 7 months ago
abiogenesis is different from evolution....just saying.
LoLiTzOmg 7 months ago
cont)- Considering All studies of our universe and its origins a pattern is revealed. As atheistic and agnostic researchers (being won over to Creationism more all the time) have been repeatedly and progressively pointed BY THE EVIDENCE toward a personal Creator, they have devised more and more "loop-holes" to escape these findings.This misguided ingenuity will remain. As they curse the ones pointing to truth. Just try to understand
imaginarythings 8 months ago
Living things do not make themselves. No organism has ever been observed to spontaneously assemble itself. There are too many factors (which are scientifically accepted) that automatically disprove the evolution theory. Micro and Macro evolution sit in the same boat. In considering all of the developments in the study of our universe and its origins have absolutely revealed a pattern.
imaginarythings 8 months ago
@imaginarythings You clearly don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. There are a few good theories supported by all the evidence about abiogenesis. The one that seems most likely is called the RNA world hypothesis. I suggest you go look it up.
As far as evolution is concerned you're right when you said that micro and macro evolution are in the same boat. They are in fact the very same, just viewed on different time scales. Evolution is a fact. Its been OBSERVED to happen.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
Obviously you are confused. Micro ev had been observed and accepted as true. But still it has limit to how much changes you can affect on a species. Take horse breeding for example, through selection, faster and faster horses had been produced. But still can never produce horses that run as fast as the bullet train, nor will the horses grow wings and fly, even if you wait for million of years. Macro involve entirely different process, which never been observed. A suggestion, a myth.
onlyhass 8 months ago
@onlyhass We have observed in nature and in the lab evolution of NEW SPECIES. That proves that evolution is real.
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. They are one and the same. Thank you for finally admitting that evolution is real. You are no longer an evolution denier. Welcome to the real world.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
On the contrary, NO species had been observed to evolve into a new one. What we observed around us is variation in the species; i.e long beak, short beak etc. No animals have been observed turning into another form of animal. No chemical had been observed assembling into an organism, The Miller-Urey experiment produced only proteins. But the proteins did not envolved into living organism. Evolutionist tend to rationalize the idea that 'somehow' it happens. 'Somehow' is not science.
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 Actually you're absolutely wrong. We have observed speciation in nature. Just type observed speciation into any search engine and you can read the articles for yourself. Talkorigins has an extensive list that includes the papers and references about all the speciation events on the list.
Of course "no animals have been observed turning into another form", evolution doesn't work like that. Its not magic turning a dog into a cat. Its speciation. I suggest you get yourself an educated.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
Ah yes, evolutionist tend to think they are smarter than most people. And they like to talk jargon, like speciation and so and so. When they see variations in a species, they say it speciation. When they see different species that looks alike, its speciation. And they say dog would not turn to cat but that is actually the main point of evolution theory, 'speciation' that eventually lead to formation of animal different from the original. 'Speciation' - a suggestion. Its not science.
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 "Speciation - a suggestion. Its not science." That kind of ignorant statement lets me know i am indeed smarter than you, at least in the area of evolution. Speciation is NOT variation. You don't even know the definition of a species apparently. Speciation, which has been observed, is a species changing over time into two or more forms which are no longer able to produce fertile offspring between them. That is clearly not variation. This is NOT a cat giving birth to a dog.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
And they have extensive list of speciation events as if they knew it for fact that such events did occur. The problem with evolutionist is that you people would accept everything at face value. Is it a fact that three-spined stickleback undergone speciation to fresh water species? No. Just a suggestion. A fact that fireweed 'speciated'. No. Just read the articles clearly yourselft. No fact! None of the event are actual fact. Only speculation. Speculation is not science.
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 There are speciation events recorded as such because we do know for a fact that they occurred. If we record the existence of a species, and then later find that this species has changed into two distinct species, that is recording THE FACT that speciation occurred. Is it a fact that the sickleback speciated into a freshwater species? Of course it is a fact. Why on earth would it NOT be a fact. ITs not like the freshwater animal just magically appeared. You need to learn how to read.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
You are wrong again. There are no 'recorded event' of observed speciation. To the contrary your referred website article said it clearly that 1. The literarature on observed speciation is not well organised, except for a few which actually are just suggestion by the author. 2. Speciation is only 'inferred' from evidence collected. 3. Most biologist are 'convinced' that speciation occurs. Its not a proven fact like V=IR. 4. Biologist still has problem defining a species.
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 LOL your reading comprehension is obviously pretty poor. Poorly organized doesn't mean false. Inferred from evidence collected means that its proven by the evidence. We can't watch every living thing on the planet at every moment. It is in fact a proven fact, which is why most biologists are convinced of the fact.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
1. Poorly organized would also mean the subject is problematic and chaotic. 2. How come you debate a 'proven' fact: could it be or not. Like arguing whether the sea is salty, maybe? Inferred does not necessarily meant evidence, your reasoning sucks. 3. Many biologists are convinced. Many christians are convinced. They dont really know for sure. Are you convinced that the sea is salty? Convinced = a matter of the heart = faith = religion.
husler59 8 months ago
@jib1000
The point i like to address here is not whether the creationist or evolutionist is right and the other is wrong. But the problem is that many of evolutionary theory formed from the believe of a scientist at a particular moment. First they said Darwin was right, then not. The believe might change with the authority of the day. We cant accept something as fact from believe, it sucks of religion if you understand what i meant. There could be other explanation, not necessarily creation.
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 Poorly organized stems from the difficulty, after the understanding of genes, of defining species, not from chaos. I'm not debating a proven fact, i'm pointing out to you that you are wrong for attempting to debate a proven fact. Many christians are convinced DESPITE facts, while biologists are convinced IN LIGHT OF the facts. They really are sure.
"Convinced = a matter of the heart = faith = religion" only when there is an absence of fact.
Facts + Convinced = logical conclusion.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
There is still problem here. An example, suppose a sickleback 'somehow' become a freshwater fish, how on earth could it possibly pass on the ability to its offspring? We have learned during highschool that acquired characteristics can't be inherited. So how you explain this phenomenon? Evolutionist biologist tend to shrug of the problem and 'suggest' that somehow it must have occurred because evolution is true. Perhaps sickleback really can adapt to different environment.
husler59 8 months ago
And able to change to freshwater or saltwater kind, like some fishes that can change sex due to some environmental pressure. Why would evolutionists in their attempt to promote speciation, tend to overlook this particular difficulty? I would like to stress again and again that there are no proven fact. Example: '..the Culex mosquito found in the London Underground 'is thought' to have evolved from the overground species Culex pipiens..". Speciation is but a proposition.
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 You learned about acquired characteristics in high school, yet you didn't learn the definition of acquired characteristics? Surviving in freshwater is NOT an acquired characteristic. You can't LEARN to survive in fresh water. You're born that way. Since freshwater tolerance is a GENETIC characteristic its definitely something you could pass onto your offspring, making it an EVOLUTIONARY characteristic. Also you don't just go from completely salty to fresh water, it would be gradual.
jib1000 8 months ago
@jib1000
What are the evidence that a saltwater fish suddenly give birth to fresh water species? What the evidence that the change is gradual? I'm trying to stress my point here that there are no evidence to support the theory. The inference made by biologist is that since there are the salt water fish and freshwater, since the freshwater one was not known before, it could've evoloved from the former. It is the same case as the Culex Mosquito. Another theory would be that the freshwater one
husler59 8 months ago
was not native. But then they populate the water, not necessarily descended from the saltwater one . It's even better than the other theory. Ok, lets say its genetic (there are no evidence whatsoever), the saltwater one give birth to the freshwater one, since the eggs would be in the seawater, the freshwater eggs would've no chance at all. Maybe the mother knew her eggs were freshwater one and managed to swim to a freshwater spot, but then the mother would've been killed before laying them.
husler59 8 months ago
How could you accept the evolution of those fishes as SCIENTIFIC FACT without even considering the mounting problem on how such transition could've occurred? Is it sufficient to accept such arguments : somehow, might have, could have, believe to be, is thought to have been, we are convinced, are enough to promote an idea as SCIENTIFIC FACT? Many people dont believe in God because there are no evidence, or even lack of evidence. What evidence do yo for the evolution of a species into other?
husler59 8 months ago
@husler59 Transitional fossils. And "fishes"? Seriously, come on now, speak correctly before having a debate. And you meant to say that there IS no evidence, not "are no evidence"
Jed0fSpades 8 months ago
@Jed0fSpades
What evidence? The fossils that you talked about, are fragmented pieces, a bit of jaw here, a tooth, a bit of bone. What evidence?Seriously, did you check the so called evidence? Didn't you see how a complete skull being constructed with a small piece 2" x 2" dimension? Suppose i give you a piece of bone of an animal you haven't seen before, can you really do that? Seriously? What evidence?
husler59 7 months ago
@Jed0fSpades
Come on, I make mistakes when i'm typing fast, plus theres not enough space here. You shouldnt have made it issue dude as long as you understand the message.
husler59 7 months ago
@husler59 Oh i dunno, we just have dozens of different scientific fields that all support evolution. We have fossil evidence, genetic evidence and lab tests that all support evolution. Oh and there is observed speciation, we have that too.
Oh and over 95% of scientists accept the fact of evolution. Thats all we have.
jib1000 8 months ago
Of course, evolution has made us the way we are. That we may imagine, dream and think. 'Evolution' is very clever indeed. It made for us the most versatile device known in the universe: the hand. It made for us the colorful world in our brain by converting electromagnetic waves into meaningful signals. It somehow 'managed' to turn sound wave into hearing too. Evolution had cleverly laid out the nerves throughout our body, delicately, so that you wont feel any pain as you move about.
husler59 7 months ago
Ever heard of pinched nerve? That rarely/never happen because nature is so clever. It make sure you can differentiate between beauty and ugliness. Oh its very important for survival, perhaps ugly people carry defective genes in their body, somebody really has to do research on this. nature is so clever in arranging the teeth in your mouth that you may look good and so that you would not chew your own tongue. Nature is very wise in setting up the protein manufacturing system in our body.
husler59 7 months ago
From DNA to RNA to synthesis and so so..so complex, why even bother. Oh but living things has to exist because nature is so cleverly using evolution as the tool to achieve its goal. But nature can only make animals from carbon based molecules. Not silicon-based because of restriction already 'devised' and 'imposed' by nature. Oh not to mention how clever nature is in the creation of the genitalia. So sexy, those curves, yummy! Dont forget its important for natural selection.
husler59 7 months ago
And those animals that you put in a jar of CO2 gas? Would soon evolved and start to breath on CO2 too. I'm sure they will provided you keep on putting them in as long as it takes, a 100 million years perhaps, sure they will evolved too. You see guys, evolution has no purpose. God has purpose, but god does not exist. So anything can happen, why not? nature will somehow find a way, plant has done it before. And all of us would soon evolved too, Ever watch X-men? Its based on fact, back up
husler59 7 months ago
by hundred million years of fossil evidence. You may grow wings if you keep jumping down from a tree, your children, grandchildren too. There is no purpose in life. But nature is God that decides everything. So tell your children that life is just series of accidents. On the day one lay on deathbed staring at death, tell them not to fear and not to doubt, seriously God the creator never exist and would never render them accountable. Say what? Never thought of dying, someday?
husler59 7 months ago
Never thought that perhaps you had been wrong all along? Perhaps God exist but you have been searching for Him at the wrong place? Nah, cant be. God does not exist. Nature is God. Everybody knew that for some time already, you just heard of it recently. Those ancient tribes had been worshiping trees, ocean, the sky, volcano, the purposeless lightning, the desert. I sincerely hope you don't look as stupid as you sound, its bad for natural selection. What gal would want a stupid ugly man? Right?
husler59 7 months ago
@husler59 Wow... you have no idea what you're talking about.
jib1000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@husler59 WOW. I mean do you even know how science works?
jib1000 8 months ago
5. Biologist still arguing if speciation occur and how. 6. Most evolutionist biologist 'believe' speciation occurs. 7. Even S.J Gould himself 'believe' speciation occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated equilibrium. 8. Who has the record of Sickleback fish back to the last ice age 10k yrs ago, cichlid fishes 4000 years ago? You? Speciation is just inference, believe, opinion, suggestion. Even biologists still not over with it. Believe is not science but faith.
husler59 8 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 8 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 8 months ago
Cars aren't living. Comparing living systems and chemical systems to non living systems is a mistake someone with a high school degree shouldn't make. Nothing about abiogenesis or evolution is RANDOM. No scientist will tell you that. No scientists believe that life was formed by random chance.
Try getting yourself an education before trying to discuss scientific ideas and theories so that you don't look like a complete ass.
One more thought, try looking up the RNA world hypothesis. Dumbass.
jib1000 8 months ago
Totally missed topic. You are not debunking evolution, that is abiogenesis. Some bad math, Irreducible Complexity and ofcourse authority card that probably has his own agenda...
killemall2003 9 months ago
guys this guy has sooo many things that are so wrong wrong wrong. in sooo many ways dear god please dont listen to this guy. creationists please do listen to this, if you bring this guy's arguments into a debate you will be laughed at, please he is very wrong about so many things. evolutionists you need to realize that making laboratory amino acids is NOT proof. its just evidence for our claim
jdragon1012 9 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 9 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 9 months ago
@imaginarythings You're an idiot. Someone who can't spell school, shouldn't try to tell people what "schools" should teach our children, and should have any children they have taken away from them so they don't grow up to be as ignorant as their parents.
jib1000 8 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 8 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 8 months ago
@imaginarythings First of all, you mis-typed it 2 if not 3 times. I can't tell cause you've since removed your comment. Typical.
Second, nowhere in our dialogue have i ever cursed at you. Typical ignorant response to a valid point. Just make false accusations and stick your fingers in your ears.
jib1000 8 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 8 months ago
@imaginarythings You're a huge pussy. You post messages then delete them so no one can see you're an idiot. Repost of comment:
"A typical TROLL. You have no channel to speak of...with one friend and one subscriber that are in just as bad of shape as you are. You'd better get a life boy before sombody does you like they're your daddy."
I need a life? Says the immature asshat that thinks that "a life" entails a bunch of youtube friends. Maybe you should get off the computer and get an education.
jib1000 8 months ago
google J Craig Venter, he wrote this paper:
'Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome.'
does chemistry prove that the bible is true, because a fucking lot indicates it's bollocks. Dr Charles McCombs is a creationist, and for some reason i cannot find any of his papers. Don't see why the chirality argument says that life can't evolve. Chilarity just describes asymmetry, so what the fuck are you on about?
hockstrap 9 months ago
@hockstrap I can't find any peer reviewed articles by him either, and I've been searching my university's database.
Perhaps it's because only real science makes it into a journal :P
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
Fantastic video. I wish more people knew this information. And you only mentioned ONE concept that debunks evolution. There are so many more! Amino acids cannot bond together to make proteins when oxygen is present. However, without oxygen there is NO OZONE layer above the earth to block the harmful rays from the sun. These harmful rays would DESTROY all of the "evolving" life on earth.. Evolution is the worst explanation of origins I have ever heard. It is defended with opinions and insults.
Ihavebeensaved23 10 months ago
@Ihavebeensaved23 I'm sorry, but what? Peptide bonds need not be in the absence of oxygen to form. It's a simple condensation reaction that releases water. Atmospheric oxygen would not affect it. Unless you're speaking of molecular oxygen, then it's obvious you've never taken a biology course because amino acids have a CARBOXYL end. You know, containing two oxygens (COOH, or in cellular conditions COO-).
If you're going to try and argue this stuff, PLEASE get your science right.
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
@Usagibunnneh Free O2 would oxidize the forming amino acid chains, thus damaging/destroying the amino acid chains that would fold into a protein. Since there is a COO- group on each of the 20 amino acids there was obviously oxygen present because it is in the formula. Therefore, life could not start with or without oxygen. I shouldn't have worded my sentence like that in my last post. Hope this helps. :)
Ihavebeensaved23 9 months ago
What a load of tosh. Chirality only debunks the strawman version of abiogenesis; that self-replicating polymers poofed into existence. It's true that the odds of a DNA molecule or protein spontaneously forming with the correct chirality are astronomical to the point of impossibility - so it's a good job no credible scientist claims that is what happened.
p0rtaccio 10 months ago
That "spark of life" cannot be produced from nothing. A car is a bad and simplified example of the way this works. All of the testing and theories in the world and for all time have never truely shown where life began. Science cannot disprove the Bible...PERIOD. There have been MANY to try and become believers themselves once they took a hard and honest look.Let science produce that "spark of life" from nothing...absolutely NOTHING and THEN THEY CAN CLAIM SOMETHING AS PROVEN!!!!!!!!
imaginarythings 10 months ago
@imaginarythings Can we apply the same to your *ahem* "theory"? This works both ways buddy. Let's have your god produce something from nothing. How about himself? Let your almighty come down from the heavens and take credit for all of this. Science has done nothing but produce mounds of PHYSICAL evidence to explain evolution and the development of the world. What have creationists done? Said "well that's how it happens". See, that's not the way science (or really any sort of proof) works.
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 9 months ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 9 months ago
@UsagibunnnI ~I agree...It ALL goes both ways. I think a big problem is that people are trying to disprove more than they're trying to prove. There are MANY MANY Scientist that accept God through the stubies thaey have done. BTW~ God ALWAYS EXISTED. He's proven to ME that he's real. What's wrong with my having a relationship with God if that makes my life fuller?!!! ...See ya on the other side of eternity....THen HE will do MORE than take credit...
imaginarythings 9 months ago
@imaginarythings I don't think there's a problem with you believing in god. Good for you, if that's what gets you through your day. I honestly think faith can be a wonderful addition to people's lives. But keep it out of my science and keep it out of schools. Religion is not science. It just simply isn't. Science does not include the supernatural. And as a side note... You can word it any way you want, but do you really think telling me to go to hell is a good, Christian thing to do?
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
1. That video doesn't refer to the theory of evolution; the purpose of the TOE is to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life.
2. The assumptions made in this video are strawman arguments. For example, neither evolution nor abiogenesis says that life came into existence randomly. The step of chemical evolution from simple amino acids to DNA is completely ignored in this video. Unlike this video suggests, the process is well explainable actually.
Tervinger 11 months ago
We have of yet been unable to reproduce the sun in a lab setting. Therefore everything we have come to know about the intricate workings of that burning sphere that keeps all life in our solar system alive is null and void and oh, it cannot exist. Logically this argument is fallacious. Seek truth openly, not your agenda, if you seek to be wise and to understand existence better.
eberfinn 11 months ago
ATTENTION ALL YOu Science God's of Evolution, and Chairpersons for Atheism: I Challenge you yo grow some balls, and try to solve these mysteries, on the YouTube video series titles mentioned DIRECTLY BENEATH this comment! Good Luck Geniuses! Peace.
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife I'm not going to read through all your videos. I simply just don't have the time. However, I watched the first one and I just want to say this: First of all, as a biologist I don't think that Christianity and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. I guess it just depends on how closely you follow the bible. In my experience, most people don't follow it closely enough to exclude evolution from their beliefs. But moving on... Scientists do see evolution happening every day.
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife For example, take HIV. The virus is constantly mutating (read: evolving) to create a new version that we cannot treat. Another example: Super bugs. Genetic variability in bacteria allow some bacteria to survive when treated with antibiotics. These bacteria, previously making up a small section of the population, soon become the majority as they survive and thrive.
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife They then can go on to infect people and cannot be treated with the regular course of antibiotics; they are super bugs. This is essentially what evolution is. Genetic mutations that prove to be beneficial accumulate in a population as the “weaker” set of genes die off with the organism that has them.
I find it insulting when someone tells me that my knowledge of evolution is because I refuse to believe in god and not because I have seen convincing evidence.
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife So, to you sir, kindly take your head out of your ass and LOOK at the evidence. Educate yourself on real science. Get a degree, learn the scientific method. If you still believe, then find EVIDENCE to back yourself up. Real, hard scientific evidence. So then, instead of coming here and insulting those of us who have bothered to learn a few things and sounding like a complete ass, you can make a respectable, well-founded case for your argument. Until then, piss off :)
Usagibunnneh 9 months ago
GREAT EVIDENCE! For other truly compelling facts, check out this series: Part 1 Introduction Evolution Debunked, Part 2 Cosmological Evolution Debunked, Part 3 Physical Evolution Debunked, Part 4 Biological Evolution Debunked, Part 5 chemical Evolution Debunked, Part 6 ......? THEY ARE AWESOME! Check them out! Peace.
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
@boonw ....there is no proof of evolution stop trying to prove it...or the big bang bullshit you're stupid enough to believe
kingseho 1 year ago
@kingseho Evolution is proven so we don't need to try and prove it. The evidence is huge hence the acceptance of evolution as a fact.
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
@kingseho Evolution is proven, so is big bang. there are a lot of facts and evidences and every single evidence tells the same about evolution and big bang. you are just ignorant because your idiotic religion doesnt support these facts so you have to lie to yourself. thats sad....
blackswaneraser 11 months ago
Chirality hardly debunks abiogenesis. First self-replicating RNA based organism... happens to use a certain enantiomer of RNA... trend continues as long as this organism replicates...evolution...selective chirality remains...current life forms "The process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science cannot be explained in any amount of time"... Just an idea take it or leave it.
zach2288 1 year ago
4) The Miller-Urey experiment is almost 60 years old! Get on with the program and pay attention to the NEW scientific experiments/discoveries that are being made.
5) At least this guy is a chemist and not an engineer or an author, like pretty much all the other "scientists" that were interviewed by creationists... although he's closer, he's still a chemist and not an evolutionary biologist... or a biologists for that matter! I haven't found any scientific type articles by him though :/
Spetsop 1 year ago
1) Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things! Stop mixing them up!
2) NOT all amino acids in living organisms exist in L-configuration: 1) Cysteine 2) Bacterial peptidoglycan (eg. D-ala-D-ala), 3) some brain neurotransmitters, also Glycine is a non-chiral amino acid!
3) This video incorrectly assumes that complex molecules such as DNA formed from the start, it's like saying that during fertilization of an egg, a fully grown man is formed!
Spetsop 1 year ago 2
Scientists never claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment proved that life came from inorganic molecules by natural processes. Also, there is no reason to assume that, if living cells emerged by natural means, one chiral isomer could not have been a better fit than the other once the machinery of the cell started to take form. This is just another twist of the old creationist argument that all the structures & molecules we see today had to have formed simultaneously in one step.
prschuster 1 year ago
This video has nothing to do with evolution, good fail there mate.
Sweddude 1 year ago
@Sweddude The video doesn't explain creation either. They just try to debunk evolution (or abiogenesis in this case) by pointing out how complicated everything is - as if biologists don't already know that living organisms are incredibly complex.
prschuster 1 year ago
@prschuster If they are going to debunk evolution then why talking about the origin of life? the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it explains how organisms change over time and adapt to their soroundings.
Sweddude 1 year ago
I had to stop less than 30 seconds in. You dont know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, so I dont think you have much of a clue on anything else really.
Its sad you spent all this time trying to debunk evo, but you didnt even take the time to learn what it actually means.
boonw 1 year ago
1:23 seconds into this video and I can already know you have not the slightest grasp of what evolution is, it states NOTHING about the origin of life, only the diversity. Stating the evolutionist must belief in life by chance is like saying anyone who believes in the theory of gravity is a nazi, because some people who believed in gravity were nazis.
assassinsrock 1 year ago
Yes, the video is correct in pointing out that is not life. yes, the video is correct in saying that stereoisomers exist. Yes, it is correct that our DNA is one type of the stereoisomers. However, we have evolved molecules called epimerase/racemase to