Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 10 of 12)

[tnafguy1]

eat ur Heart out atheists

[RockPaperDynamite]

@Massflavour

Yeah, a bunch of information about micro evolution, nothing about macro. As I have stated before, I believe species can make adjustments to their environments, I have no issue with that. As far as fossils go, there is a pure lack of evidence in all transitional forms. Evidence brought fourth has been discovered as either primates, those of humans, or frauds. Remember when Lucy was supposed to be the "missing link" and turned out to be just another monkey?

[Massflavour]

@RockPaperDynamite l m f a o

[betamale3]

These videos really demonstrate the Wonder of Evolution

[RockPaperDynamite]

@TheRealElogo

DNA is a code. Can you please show me an example in nature of a code that exists naturally? I'll be waiting, and also, the mathematical chances of just one piece of DNA arranging itself naturally are 1 in 10 ^119,000 power. The known universe is 10 ^28 inches in diameter, and we have 50 trillion cells, with each cell having 46 pairs of DNA per cell. I don't need to understand how evolution works, because it doesn't work.

[betamale3]

@RockPaperDynamite

>>Can you please show me an example in nature of a code that exists naturally?<<

A good example would be DNA

[RockPaperDynamite]

@betamale3

Really? Kind of ironic that the only example of a "natural" code comes from a species in which life stems from life. Can you show me something in nature that has a code that comes from non-intelligence? Let me ask you, show me a code that has no code maker.  We can observe a code maker making a code, too bad we have never observed a complex code putting itself together for no apparent reason.

[betamale3]

@RockPaperDynamite

>>show me a code that has no code maker<<

A good example would be DNA

[RockPaperDynamite]

@betamale3

Sad that's all you can say. Show me something with a complex code putting itself together, or something such as a rotor like a flagellum just magically put itself together. You can't, because macro evolution has never been observed, it's only assumed, and is a flimsy theory at best. The fact is I can show you intelligent life creating a complex code, you cannot show me evolution creating a code.

[betamale3]

@RockPaperDynamite

>>you cannot show me evolution creating a code<<

A good example would be DNA

BTW - its not my fault that you cant handle the truth

[Massflavour]

@RockPaperDynamite

macroevolution may have never been observed, but the amount of evidence that suggests it took place is far greater than the bs that they are spouting in this video. "life is too complex" is not a sufficient argument.

[Brearos]

to me this all indicates that we have an ultimate goal, that we are a simulation designed to evolve in specific way. We are intelligent, we can recognize intelligence and by doing this we can all finally work as a unit, all the population of earth. I think we are simulated,having studied "information theory" so I recommend you take a look into that, if you are interested. Our ultimate goal is to simulate another universe or translate all matter into "intelligent matter"->brain matter(neural nets

[moguy200979]

I personally choose to be prepared. I saw my dad's dead body laid back in a computer chair one morning and I'll never forget his cold-clammy skin. He was only 41 and it dawned on me that, that could be me at any moment. After years of reading, researching etc. Both science and following Jesus, I have come to the conclusion that I better follow the way of the one who promises life. Evolution offers nothing except OOHS!! and AAHS and ultimately, the sad believe that there is no order.. No point.

[beachedwhale230]

So what is "intelligent design" ?

[88tuner]

All is made from what is not visible.

Hebrew 11 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

[AsiannKidd]

you can know what dna doin because its visible. but what put it to work is invisible. that is the mystery!!!... just like government you know how it work , what it do, and why, but for the invisible government that try to take over the world. (NWO) you have random proof. but nobody believe they exist just because they are invisible. are you a believer in ILLUMINATI? if so why? or are you a believe in god if so why? but the reality is that ILLUMINATI exist and they doin their work to harm human.

[AsiannKidd]

how in the world do dna know where to go. how do they know where !!!and when!!! to attract to each other to produce another dna. this is the biggest mystery. do dna got an EYE????????????????????/

[lifeandphilosophy]

Interesting. I'm currently studying molecular biology. Amazing to see everything in action. Is it proof of intelligent design?

[Queegzzz]

Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read, and proofread by a swarm of complex molecular machines called enzimes, wich must work together with precision and split-second timing.

Question: Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance? Without solid proof, would not such a belief amount to blind faith

[OutOfTheBoxThinker]

@Queegzzz : Maybe natural selection isn't sufficient as a sole mechanism to explain the complexity of DNA and cells, however adding "God" into the mix doesn't offer any explanation. We still don't know anything more about the origins of these complex structures. Considering this and the fact that the existence of a "God" is pure conjecture, there is really no point in using "God" as an explanation, especially as a scientist.

[ChrisnStarry]

We ARE NOT accidental animals!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@ChrisnStarry Atheist Morons need to learn basic chemistry ,and Homochirality.and the dead end that science has reached

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

1) How do you corelate the message of Jesus with the theft of a continent and the genocide of it's people?

2) If US America was founded on the bible, please quote the appropreate part of the contitution or declaration of independence that refers to either the bible or Jesus..

3) Evolution can't possibly replace God, it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that - again you are totlly naive to evolution and science.

God is not empirically testable therefore science can say nothing about god.

[yay78900]

Is this really what the process looks like? If so, what sort of substance are these parts floating around in? (water? empty space?) Do they bounce around randomly, or move in a quick, purposeful, decisive, persistent way. How do these parts communicate? Is there some sort of signal or energy exchanged? Is it these unseen and undetected forced that are unexplained? Are we able to fully understand the physics of this process?

[cabang1]

If you could "see" at a molecular scale it wouldn't look anything like this neat, tidy orchestrated motion like in the video. These complex molecules are suspended in water, and are bouncing around with random motion. Thinks bind when by random motion they get into the right orientation. There is so much copy error, convoluted pathways, and patchworked molecules that molecular biology looks like it evolved randomly. If there was a designer he was the most disorganized being in the universe

[gregrutz]

@yay78900

Yes, we are able to understand a lot of the process, watch the video. It took billions of years to get to this complex a cell, but it is just chemistry.

[selenasade]

I wouldn't bet on it. It is still just someone's idea of how it works.

[gregrutz]

Great, but they didn't show how God was controlling all this. It seemed all to be just biochemistry.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz They proved A DESIGNER and that proves A GOD.

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

No one has proved a designer. People have shown correlations between engineered parts and certain molecular interactions. What this shows is that both work because they abide by the laws of physics.

[gregrutz]

@thebig1

NO, they didn't even show up in court where it was shown to be religion.

[Mr123me321]

Yes; there is evolution for adaptation but not for speciation. NO amount of selective breading of any species can change it into another species. Once a dog, always a dog.

[gregrutz]

Evolution says dogs make dogs,

cats make cats,

they are both mammals and share a common ancestor, the first mammal.

[nehpetsgnik]

People really do get hot under the collar when there world view that there may be design behind existence is challenged, don't they?

In my experience they get aggressive and defensive in equal measure. What are they afraid of?

Seems they are motivated by fear(wink)

[Perktube1]

I've noticed the same and more when evolutionists get challenged. If evolutionists are ever proven right beyond any shadow of doubt, all that means is that noone goes to hell. But if ID is ever proven right,...I'd rather play it safe and believe.

[gregrutz]

Evolution has been proven,

and has nothing to do with hell.

[Perktube1]

but not evolution between kinds. Within the species yes, but no solid line of transitional fossils exist.

[gregrutz]

Yes, there are lots of transitional fossils.

Watch

transitional fossils 1 new

by DonExodus2

[gregrutz]

Evolution is not about religion or going to hell. ID = Creationism = bible story.

[hexkid]

So are you saying that you don't really believe and are just hedging your bets in case this particular version of God happens to the the one who will judge you?

Do you not think that your omnipotent God will see through this pretense of belief?

[TheSeventhSon]

@nehpetsgnik People are afraid of rubbish being taught in the science classroom. No one cares about their ideas being challenged, that's what science is all about. But when people want to throw untested theories into the science classroom, that is when we have a problem.

[thebig1]

@TheSeventhSon These things abide by the law of physics because it was set in motion by a higher power. Nothing can act on its own my friend therefore there is evidence in cells, dna, and other that prove a designer

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

No empirical data suggests that physical laws were set by a designer. Self replicating molecules act on their own quite often.

[MrNocompromise]

@TheSeventhSon Such denial! Sad....

[TheSeventhSon]

@MrNocompromise

No, sorry, I study science. I don't take wild logical leaps to make faith seem more valid.

[greglam]

@TheSeventhSon Sorry, just a couple of questions out of curiosity: 1) Where did the self-replicating molecules come from? 2) Where has it been proven that the empirical method is the only way of knowing something?

[TheSeventhSon]

@greglam

Good question. Research is conducted everyday to understand where self-replicating molecules came from. It's a tough subject since no one was there billions of years ago. No one says that the empirical method is the only way to know something. It is the only way to conduct valid science and convince fellow peers that what you claim to know is actually fact. The empirical method is the only way to ensure concordance.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

You simlpy have a poor grasp of evolution.

Even if your designer hypothesis wasn't ridiculous you would then have an even greater mess - i.e. where did the designer come form?!

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD You simply refuse to understand true science. Something cannot come into exsistance without a creator. You and I were born because OUR MOTHER HAD US. OUR FATHER HELPED OUR MOTHER IN A CERTAIN WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. A species cannot create a totally different species it can only spawn another simaliar stronger version of itself.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

"You simply refuse to understand true science ..."

By "true science" you mean common experience and speculation.

Science uses deductive reasoning to find the reality beyond common experience - for example using and trigonometry to discover wandering stars orbiting the earth are infact better explained by putting the sun at the center of the solar system.

Whatever intuition may suggest speciation has been proven to happen. If you REALLY want to understand life, study it i.e. Biology.

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD Again my friend your assuming scientists TRUELY USE DEDUCTIVE REASON....the truth is THEY DON'T. Anyone in the scientific community who dares disagree is labeled A MORON OR WORSE. THATS NOT SCIENCE THATS SOCIALISM ie having one opinion be the end all be all of what ONE GROUP WANTS IT TO BE!!!

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

I'm sorry you clearly have absolutely no experience of working in science so I've no idea why you think it's acceptable to comment. All I can assube is you are a bigot.

You need to look up what socialism is.

You need to look up the definition of liberal.

You have no clue as to the scientific method or the industry.

I'm done wasting time with you.

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD I know what the definition of all of these things are. I know for years people who hold these views have ruined the country and have been at war with christians and jews. History repeats itself time and time again but idiots like you just don't understand that. Evolution is a man made RELIGION its not science, GLOBAL WARMING is a man made RELIGION NOT SCIENCE, envirmentalism is used to keep americans from using the oil asnd coal reserves we have here in the states.

[JTCiao]

An eternal creator doesn't "come from" anywhere. Either all matter didn't exist, then suddenly appeared into existence without a cause, or something or someone always existed -- for instance, God, the designer/creator. Those are the only two options -- neither of which is graspable by our minds. But that's not the question posed by ID at all -- you miss the point entirely. The question is what does the evidence point to? Random chance or Intelligent design?

[fuzzierwuzzier]

@JTCiao Please open a physics book.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@JTCiao

"An eternal creator doesn't "come from" anywhere"

How convenient but total speculation.

Either no cause or an eternal magician?! You don't know those are the only two options?! What a ridiculous claim. Neither of which has any basis in science.

Random chance? If that where what scientists really thought then they would stop work ... but it's not.

If you want to understand science you need a scientists, not a bloody profiteering, two faced, lawyer.

Even you should understand that.

[wgbutler777]

It sounds like Kenyon is an Intelligent Design proponent!

This is astonishing considering that Kenyon was the foremost authority in the world on abiogenesis not that long ago!

I'm surprised that these statements haven't gotten more press.

BTW, I love the computer graphics in this segment!

[5tonyvvvv]

@wgbutler777 Atheist Morons need to learn basic chemistry ,and Homochirality.and the dead end that science has reached

[pastormarkm]

@wgbutler777 Saddly, its not too surprising because this same thing has happened time and time again when anything is discovered that might bring doubt down on the head of the religion, if you will, of Darwinism. Its proponents are so blinded by their faith that they will not even consider that it could be a complete impossibility.



[TheSamueljm]

"The hallmarks of intelligent design..." I'm sorry? Excuse me? These hallmarks are known are they? As if they are obvious. Look them up on a catalogue, did you?

Read MaxSafeheaD's comments. They are correct and astute. This whole series is a load of deceptive rubbish.

"Irreducible Complexity" is a tautology and makes no sense at all.

Why do so many people not see that positing a designing consciousness, when there is no evidence for it AT ALL, is the most absurd idea of all?

[metathias]

Heres an interesting question. Does nature tend towards order or chaos? and if it tends towards order why are even natural things always breaking down. But to take a step further beyond nature do the laws of physics tend toward order or chaos? I have a gut feeling that somehow both are true and that its paradoxical in truth.

[silentonall]

I believe so called 'nature' was tended towards order. But because of the fall of man, all things end in entropy. There are certain laws in Quantum Physics such as the discovery of Planck particles which proved everything in existence can have a reference point in space-time.

[hexkid]

@silentonall : I have to disappoint you but like the Higgs Boson, the Planck Particles are purely hypothetical and have not yet been discovered or detected in any experiment. Also your understanding of the point of Planck Particles seems to be a bit off-beam. They don't provide any form of reference point in space-time they are basically just incredibly small black holes with a v short lifespan so that their hypothetical existance is compatible with Heisenberg.

[silentonall]

The Higgs Boson is purely hypothetical but not Planck Particles. What is in question on these particles is position/momentum measurement which is quite impossible.

[hexkid]

Ok, please provide a link to an experiment which has actually detected the presense of Planck Particles.

[silentonall]

Just look up 'Planck Units'

[hexkid]

@SilentOnAll : Planck Units are just derived from the combination of various physical constants, they don't prove the existance of the theoretical Planck Particle. The theoretical mass of this hypothetical particle would be equal to the Planck mass (i.e. ~ 1.2209×10^19 GeV/c2) but this mass is much larger than can be produced in our particle colliders (LHC will only reach collission energy of ~14 TeV).

[gregrutz]

When you ate lunch today, did you go to disorder or did you make more you?

Life makes order, that is what make it alive.

[metathias]

Also concerning the outboard motor thing. That has'nt been tested. But a watch that has been taken apart and then put in a box and tumbled has been done. And nothing happened. In fact the only for sure reality of the watch is that over time it only became less likely as the rubbing of the internal parts caused them to lose their shape and quality nulling the chance for it to reassemble.

[MaxSafeheaD]

however a lipid membranes do form spheres naturally. If you add more lipid molecules the speres "feed" and grow. If you then mechanically disturb the spheres they will divide into smaller spheres (could be viewed as the most primative form of reproduction.)

check out the video by CDK007 on the subject, it's pretty interesting.

[metathias]

Your comment about lipids reminds me that the shape of least tension is always a sphere (like water in zero G). It seems to be the so called natural order of things. therefore im not sure lipids do so by design or more my sheer physics. Of course if lipids were designed to take advantage of these physics i guess it would be.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Whatever happens you could always say things where "intended" to be as they are. It doesn't really tell us anything for definite, it's more an exercise in philosophy and perhaps self-assurance.

[metathias]

Alot of you guys are missing the point. Theres a little thing called irreducable complexity. You simply will not evolve complex new process's without every previous evolution being also advantageous in nature.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Great point - the best evidence for magic would be irreducible complexity ... however every time creationists claim to have found it, it has been disproven. What is criminal, is that once discredited scientifically they continue to peddle these known fallacies to the general public.

[metathias]

Im confused are you saying irreducible complexity is incorrect as in no cases to point to?

[MaxSafeheaD]

None that I know of.

[metathias]

I'd have to disagree. The examples you might not like though. I have tons of examples of irreducible complexity on more macrocosmic scales. Any modern machine/eletronic device would be an example of this.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Oh, I see, I was just talking about biology.

The 'philosophical' argument around ID is not one that really interests me. I just get irritated when ID is peddled science for profit and political purposes.

[romar900]

@MaxSafeheaD It gets so old reading the musings of fools. So you say everything popped into existense out of nothing. The universe just holds itself together. The planets just happen to orbit and not go helter skelter....becuase of what? Oh...because nothing holds them there? Brilliant. And brilliant also that you claim thee are no examples of irreducible complexity. Ok, yeah...that's the ticket!

[MaxSafeheaD]

@romar900

Tiresome? it's tiresome that people like you presume to know what I think.

"So you say everything popped into existense out of nothing"

No, I absolutely do not.

"you claim thee are no examples of irreducible complexity"

If I'm wrong then name one.

[romar900]

@MaxSafeheaD Yes you are wrong. I'd say a human heart is a good example of IC. A mouse trap is too. But I think the heart is more complex isn't it?

[MaxSafeheaD]

@romar900

A common mouse trap did not evolve by natural selection. Secondly it is not an example of IC - you can remove the bait and simply set up where the mouse runs frequently, you could remove the spring and simply use gravity, you could remove both and manually crush the thing.

I think the problem is you have a flawed understanding of IC. The evolution of the heart is very well documneted - just google it.

[JTCiao]

Hmmm... now that's compelling... Wow, I never thought of that: "Google it" you say. Just think, life's most complicated, controversial, over-arching questions just a web browse away. How silly of me to think I should listen to experts or actually study the material myself.

[anglicantian]

The fun thing is that the creationists now marvel at how incredible their god-character is, while rationalists marvel at the wonders of the mechanisms of evolution and of the forces of nature.

[ShadyMilkman04]

Rationalists marvel at the "wonders" of the purported mechanisms of evolution and forces of nature because they are confronted with new design inferences constantly e.g. The ability for the ribosome to error check every single chain of amino acids and discard bad chains. Error checking is a goal oriented process- not based on random chance. Simply asserting that evolution accounts for these things is not the same as providing evidence for that claim, in fact that's what is truly misleading.

[condorito29]

amen, brother.

evolution has zombie-like defenders worse than any religion ever had.

its almost like some kind of horror movie. zombies with glazed eyes mumbling "creationism" while shuffling about.

maybe these guys don't fathom I.D. because their defense of evolution is so mindless to begin with.

how can a zombie understand the qualities of a mind?

[MaxSafeheaD]

Wonderful character assassination but it may help to provide evidence for your argument.

Conversely theologians even refer to themselves as a flock.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Obviously it's the same thing. Only one group has an understanding of the mechanisms of nature the other simply believes in magic.

[Ni213Ki]

Is it true that humans have 2 less in our DNA? why is this not talked about, if I am right then this video is very misleading. but please do correct me though as I am here to learn.

[MaxSafeheaD]

This video is deliberately misleading - it is targeted at the American evangelical movement.

Check out CDK007 videos or Potholer54, for educational material.

good luck =)

[condorito29]

hahaha....

the evangelicals are young earthers, genius.

NONE of these guys believe in a young earth.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Good for them, tbh I really don't care what particular brand of fantasy they sell, it's all worthless b.s.

[serenanocturna]

THANKS, IllustraMedia! I always get goosepimples when I get to this part! How awesome is the God of all creation! How marvelously made up is His creation!

[MaxSafeheaD]

Best thank the Discovery Institute directly for this misleading propoganda.

[ItsSnowball]

This section's stunning. Information from respected scientists who have been studying this in depth for decades professionally. It takes a couple of chapters to get going, and the information a little later on is superb, and superbly illustrated.

[springchickn]

It is awesome to contemplate the things that are going on in our cells while we are busy doing other things! I know I agree wholeheartedly with this clip!

[reflect7]

Just added this as a favorite on my channel -- This clip has always been one of my favorites -- Awesome stuff! Thanks!

[MaxSafeheaD]

Worth noting that this guys theories where outdated before he began to doubt them himself and LONG before the Discovery Institute ever looked at them.

It's now widely accepted that RNA was the first gene-like molecule and scientists are well on the way to explaining how that might have formed naturally.

[kdiddle1]

" It's now widely accepted that RNA was the first gene-like molecule and scientists are well on the way to explaining how that might have formed naturally."

Max, either you choose to remain ignorant or you want to intentionally mislead people.

Even IF RNA was the first gene-like molecule it still has RNA be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA.

You still have the "chicken and the egg" problem...and irreducible complxity!

[MaxSafeheaD]

"Max, either you choose to remain ignorant or you want to intentionally mislead people"

The specific proteins you refer to are ribosomes. Although scientists have made these in the lab I'm not aware of any complete theories as to how these form naturally (maybe I'm ignorant of that.)

It has NOT been proved ribosomes CAN't form naturally so irreducible complexity still has no evidence. Therefore it is you who is misleading people allong with the makers of this video.

[kdiddle1]

" It has NOT been proved ribosomes CAN't form naturally so irreducible complexity still has no evidence.

It also "hasn't " ( and can't) be proved that if you took the parts of an outboard motor and tossed them around in a whirlwind, that within 4-5 billion years you would get the outboard motor fully assembled and ready to propel a boat.

also note, that's granted you were given the formed parts, if I found that engine I'm still betting the farm something intelligent formed it.

[MaxSafeheaD]

We aren't talking about a motor, we are talking about (extremely complicated) chemistry. The analogy is false although I can appreciate it's impossible for people, who only know manufactured items, to appreciate natural processes.

Still, as far as I'm aware, we don't yet have an explanation for how the ribosomes originated and in any such gap religion always claims to hold and answer.

You can believe in an intelligent designer if you want, that's fine, but it is outside the realm of science.