Are the contestants allowed to pull the lever for a couple of billion years storing any precursors that help the process? I'm sure you think it's more more logical to just say, "It's magic!" like a Kalahari bushman finding a Coca Cola bottle that fell from a plane. Ascribe anything your personal ignorance can't explain to magic.
gregrutz: "Fossils can be covered slowly in the bottom of a lake." And remian complete and intact? Not so! Scanengers make a big mess of a pile of bones big or small. One piftheenth of a % and you claim it all. Fossils are formed by rapid deposition of sediments. Natural Selection DOES NOT cause evolution, it causes Natural Selections. Dogs make dogs, apes make apes. So with the 'miracle' of time you contradict you own statement. You are missing a far richer, more coherent explanation. Chio.
@Noisegator Thanks for your reply. "The Origin of the Genetic Code" tube at 1m:09s states: "Growth was originally driven by replication-induced osmotic pressure and thermodynamics". My question about "inherent nature" relates to statements like the above. Such statements amplify the need to understand that before "matter and processes" there had to be 'rules of (information) engagement'. This requires pre-existent intelligence, as information of itself requires no media.
Re "Those who believe in the supernatural over empirical are a pretty amazing breed". You've got your shoes on the wrong feet. Mathematical Probability is very strict. What's supernatural is watching Atheists & Evolutionists running 'pillar to post' to avoid it! Probability says, if you buy a ticket in that lottery, you are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to win anything. Compare it to the most ridiculous odds you can barely imagination, or wait for your number (in that lottery) to be drawn. No thanx.
It's a big stretch to the "observable" diversity of species. It is claimed the prototype proves finished product, yet vast numbers of transitional forms (prototypes) Darwin postulated would be found, have never been found. He thought the cell was some kind of gelatinous blob, not the vast complex of 10,000 plus interdependent processes. A GMH plant closes if it can't get radiators for it's simple production process. Now bankrupt, it's dead like a cell without all its interdepenent processes.
“One test is worth a thousand opinions. Apply the 'scientific method' which I'm sure you espouse. Remember, it goes: 1) Observe data; 2) Hypothesize; 3) Predict; 4) Test; 5) Analyze; 6) Confirm or reject the theory. "It’s a capital mistake to theorize before one has data” - Sherlock Holmes (A.C. Doyle). So let's not twist facts to suit a theory.
@cr4zyu That is not how science works, there is no method. Someone thinks he know how something happened. A theory explaining the data. He gets all the evidence he can find supporting his theory, being human he fudges the data. Then he presents it and everyone tries to prove them wrong. It stands until a better theory comes along.
1) Observed data: Fossils and DNA show evolution happened.
2)Hypothesis: Natural Selection
3)Predict:Every tree of life will match the others.
1) Fossils show intanteous burial 1a) DNA shows observable devolution.
2) Natural Selection is completely correct and observable 2a) Natural Selection is not evolution, it's Natural Selection. In the first instant, you can't have natural selection until you have multiple competing species.
3) Tree of life where dogs turn into cats or microbes to man-kindl. Remains just a prediction.
4) Test Failed, except for Natural Selection where complete, non-mutated DNA is required "in the beginning".
Has anyone calculated the chances of an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient creature existing in a universe where those attributes have NEVER been seen?
@IamLiterallyRetarded Perhaps I can communicate with you via your carer? Sadly your mental state is a typical illustration of what is actually observable, repeatable science; i.e. no new DNA is observed to be forming. It was all there a some DNA 'big bang' (in the beginning) and now it's just a matter of merely recombining with what's already there, muddled &/or otherwise. Sadly you may be a more obvious example of what is the typically & readily more observable (more scientific), devolution.
@gregrutz No. It's 'designed' to replicate DNA code not muddle it. Unless of course you have five arms (a-sprouting), one leg, three eyes and are sterile - and think it normal.
@brmadman4455 Here's an ice pick for you. You'll love this. There's over 70 reports, including one from the US Coal Board, that state there's carbon 14 in coal. It's apparently also found in coal oil, gas and in some diamonds at 100 times minimal detectable levels. Wow - go figure eh? Now how could that be if it's billions of years old? Let's hear 'your logic' on that one? P.S. Hope you've had a tetanus shot.
@cr4zyu Well, you're the one making the argument, so shouldn't you be the one to explain your logic? Also, while you're at it, can you explain why you only talk about carbon 14 when there are several other methods to date fossils?
@brmadman4455... I like your sites top10 fly-bys: C14 dating is used for short-age dating of bio-matter up to 50K yrs. After 50K yrs C14 becomes virtually undetectible. The 5 or 6 main others e.g. uranium to lead, etc. are all used for long age dating of things fosilized into rock or rock itself. As C14 has a half-life of about 5750 yrs, to discover many times minimum detectible levels in coal (oil, gas, diamond) assumed to be say 250M yrs old, brings long age dating methodology into doubt.
Organic chemicals (indeed all chemicals) do not organise by chance. They do so according to their inherent natures.
.
Proto-life was not composed of the same polymers we find in modern cells today. It certainly would not have needed the hundreds of organels proposed by the OP.
@Noisegator How do you define "inherent' nature"? IF you are saying "Proto-life was not composed of the same polymers" THEN, where can this process be observed today? Where it can't be observed and repeated it's not science. It's faith. Point me to your repeatable observale, evidence please.
How do you define "inherent nature"? IF as you write "Proto-life was NOT composed of the same polymers" THEN, how and where can this process be observed today?
IF the data/ process can't be observed and repeated it's NOT science, it's FAITH.
@cr4zyu Well it's been 5 months since I posted that but I'll give it a go. "Inherent nature" refers to the qualities of organic chemicals to form various structures, including polymers and fatty acids (which can form basic cell membranes).
.
This video - watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg - gives a very good overview and introduction to more recent advances in natural life origin science.
.
Since there are no pre-biotic environments on earth the proof will be made in the lab. Stay tuned and get up to speed.
@Noisegator Thanks for your reply. "The Origin of the Genetic Code" tube at 1m:09s states: "Growth was originally driven by replication-induced osmotic pressure and thermodynamics". My question about "inherent nature" relates to statements like the above. Such statements amplify the need to understand that before "matter and processes" there had to be 'rules of (information) engagement'. This requires pre-existent intelligence, as information of itself requires no media.
Another dimwit science ignoramus does it again--the pathetically ignorant Penrose based his calculation on a modern Eukariotic cell. Unfortunately, the thimblebrain,being a mathematician and NOT A BIOLOGIST, had no clue of the existence of Prokariotic cells, much older and much simpler than modern Eukariotic cells. Thus his calculation, so admired by the flyingdutchman, is meaningless drivel---the number of times these idiotic stunned wonders need to be corrected on this is astonishing...
The earliest known organism on Earth is Cyanobacteria Archaea--4 billion years old--and still living today. Composition-FOUR amino acids in a phosphate lattice:
NH2CH[H3PO4]COOH...no DNA,no proteins,no organelles--just a little bag of RNA. For energy, it uses cyclic photophosphorylation [Exxon Mobil is airing a commercial talking about using this to make energy;it even features the formula]--6H2O+6CO2+sunlight-> 1 sugar [C6H12O6] plus 6 O2 [oxygen molecules]
DO SOME BLOODY RESEARCH you stupid gullible fool...you might try the citation for the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry...Tom Cech et al received it for creating RNA in the lab and discovering it was self-replicating,self-joining when cut, and was also capable of transmitting pre-genetic information for replication [C.Archaea has no genes either, nor chromosomes---just RNA]...wise up!!
@pontecanis So what does that prove? Life in a test tube all supported by 'intelligent' lab test designers. I bet you can't even juggle two balls. Imagine how hard it is for a the simplest single cell to begin self sustaining life with (what shall we say), ten thousand simultaneous processes raring to go. "Look ma, no arms or a brain, and I can juggle." LOL.
@pontecanis: Fancy that? You claim to be related to a self sustaining Cyanobacteria Archaea. Wow! It's amazing how observable and repeatable this branch of 'science' isn't.
@cr4zyu ~~see Mitochondria...we are all reated to prokariotes by means of incorporating them into our own eukariotic cell structures...so we are all related to cyanobacteria in a way...and this is a bad thing?
@cr4zyu ~There are times when my patience with liars runs a bit thin...if a person honestly argued for the existence of a god from a point of honesty, that is fine...when arguments against known science are presented by lies, deceptions,distortions, denial, and outright irrationality, coupled with ad hominem attacks, then my patience tends to evaporate...and sometimes that results in not being nice, or even downright nasty, or even vicious...which is my fault and not becoming...
Well it would be more accurate if you mentioned that you only needed to get the slot machines right once within hundreds of millions of years. And that these machines were also being done in tens of thousands of places (oceans, lakes, puddles, underground, in soil/sediment) at the same time.
Also you can't call something impossible if it's already happened. Merely improbable.
@norsef Yeah... and that's just one cell. Pity the poor 'sole' sucker. Where would it find its mate? Answer: It'd have to roam the world? Do you think they had a dating service back then? But then there's always mother nature. Ah... I get it. She ran the dating service. Right?
one of the biggest flaws in evolution and natural selection is inherent. The evolutionary scientist says that beneficial mutations are highley unlikely, but yet he also says that all of the organisms have adapted to their ecosystem because of a nonranom, selective force. I thought scientists believed in randomness?
@OldaurGold It's obvious you don't have a solid understanding of evolutionary biology. You need to remember genetic drift, genetic variation, natural selection and mutation (beneficial or detrimental. There are also neutral mutations) at least all factor importantly in the most basic understanding of evolution.
@bcFiRe12 Neutral mutation? Wow? Funny how DNA 'hanky-panky' only really ends up recombining ever diminishing original DNA. No new DNA seems to be getting 'created' from anywhere. And so, you might be able to breed a wolf into a Chihuahua (variation of a pre-exisitng species), but a Chihuahua back into a wolf? DNA is a one way street going nowhere but down. What is observable is not evolution, but devolution. That's nature & there's less of it every year because that's the way it is.
@cr4zyu Funny how Darwin did not even know about DNA and he proved evolution happened. DNA markers make a tree of life, it matches Darwin's tree of life.
Dogs did not evolve, they were breed. They show that variation in species is already there for natural selection to act on.
Seemed like nothing more than a feeble attack on Richard Dawkins as well as a poor straw-man when it comes to the chemistry of prebiotic Earth. It's also downright lame how creationists would rather make up numbers than do any real research.
@cadman2300 Au contraire. The irony in this debate is that creationist have the far greater weight of observable, repeatable, evidence. Evolution is actually devolution, easily proven by the observation that no new DNA is being 'created'. DNA is merely being recombined from a pre-existing 'stock'. Variation of a species due to natural selection is not evolution, it is natural selection, which has always been valid, but doesn't create new species, just new variants of the same species.
you got links to species speciating within their genus..ie seagulls becomming seagulls..ring species..not ring genus
any proof you could offer is re species,,,not genus..evolution needs a fish genus [cold blood/fins/scales/gills...to change genus..into warm/blood/limbed creatures
yet your intermediate got no shoulder blades..no hip joint...you got nothing
Don't confuse things that boggle your mind with things that are impossible.
For example it is mind boggling for a single cell to evolve into a human being and yet this 'miracle' happens every day in the world and the process only takes nine months!
This is the funniest creationist movie I have ever seen, the Dawkins parody makes me chuckle.
The only scary part is that creationists really believe that this is how life arose (from nothing to a fully formed cell in 1 step). You can only hope science will catch up with these people and hit em over the head with a book or two :)
I don't want to be too critical but the way you talk ie mix into a formula?? Is English your first language or no. Why do you think power is needed and in what shape do you refer??
Another video where ignorance mixes with religious fundamentalism. Sorry, they're the same!
Does anybody want to take a stab @ calculating the probability of a god.
One more point. Your description @ the right is long and complex, yes. Did it just appear all at once. No it evolved from your first thought to the first letter and then maybe a revision or two. It took time to finish it right. But it has to start at the beginning and not half way through. Evolving from the start and continuing
The "power" is simple chemical interactions. Phospholipid micelles (and even, depending on the lipid HC tail(s), bilayers) assemble on their own, through the 'power' of hydrophobicity, and the same hydrophobicity is what 'keep[s] it in that shape' until other elements of a rudimentary cell are integrated, such as the polymerized nucleotides.
@HighFlyingDutchman Yo should look into the MillerUrey experiements which proved that amino acids, the building blocks of live, can arise from inanimate matter. The cartoon you posted does nothing to actually disprove. It merely attempts to refute by casting doubt as such is utterly irrelevant.
@HighFlyingDutchman Wow.... I am in awe of your debate leetness! Perhaps next time you might to at least try to formulate an argument other than "NO WAY DUDE! YOU STUPID!" Just a thought.
@captwasabi: That 'experiement' excluded oxygen. Any oxygen present would have destroyed the formation of animo acid. Geologists have discovered abundant oxygen present even rock samples about the time of the alleged formation of a primodial goop, from which we 'unobservably, unrepeatably' were supposed to be derived; turning imaginatively from one species into another, as we 'unobserably' went up the food chain. Oh, and it's not about 'the' missing link, but "the missing multitude" of links.
@cr4zyu I'm not even going to bother responding to your stupidity. You do realize that the earth has had several atmosphere's right? All your argument shows is that abiogenesis occurred long before the development of an oxygen rich atmosphere which we know to be the case as life was abundant on earth long before the iron rich waters of primordial earth lost it's ozygen content, turned blue-green and allowed the development of the oxygen rich atmosphere.
@cr4zyu Yes. Those who believe in the supernatural over empirical are a pretty amazing breed. Note that I never said that the Miller Urey experiments proved what happened. Just that it could happen. Don't blame your lack of scientific knowledge and reading comprehension on me please.
@cr4zyu ~~Bad science. The basic formula for an amino acid is NH2 CH (R) COOH...the (R) is a join point where the amino joins to its support lattice. You notice the COOH at the end...the O is oxygen. O2 is required for amino acids and indeed doesn't prevent their formation...
Yeah except life isn't formed randomly. Are you saying that minerals can't form because the odds of their atoms being in the correct place are infinite? NO! its because chance is not the ruling factor here, these complex molecules form due to intermolecular processes not chance.
its funny. people say the first cell was a simple cell. however why can't anyone create a simple living cell? notice that those that deny intelligent design believe that mindless chemicals are smarter than they are. of course they cannot explain how information came about. information is not matter so how can it happen without a mind?
lol i see you again in another thread. btw, say that to your brain which consists of a bunch of cells that interact with each other through chemical reactions in their metabolism and your thought processes are just neurons receptors transmitting electrical signals to cells with simple molecule called neurotransmitters hehehehe. man i wish you could study a bit of biochemistry then you will see how really insane evilutionists are.
@RepresentingTruth And you are proposing a ligical fallacy. Simply because we cannot absolutely prove our position does not serve to confirm yours. Essentially you are saying "You can prove that inanimate matter formed the first cells so that proves our position of intelligent design and that creation rquired an intellect."
yeah but what are the chances of "throwing a million" and in the FIRST million, you get all "1's"? See the problem is the FIRST MILLION, that is what you need to understand. The comparision you make is actually not logical at all. Nice try logically, but your premise is false.
Your mistake is that you presuppose this special combination and all I am saying is that this combination is not the only possible combination for life and therefore your calculation is so horribly wrong.
As a matter of fact you are calculating chances when the largest part of this was not chance at all.
You can say it over and over again that my logic was flawed, but you don't even get the basics of biology.
If any of the machines are close to the result you need they are selected by natural selection. The others get re-pulled and those that fit the result are saved again. Thus very shortly you have all the machines showing what you need, or somethign very close wich is often good enough.
Creationists make the mistake of thinking things must be perfect wich is often not true. Evolution works by the close enough rule.
Your explanation in the info section shows grave misunderstandings about abiogenesis, evolution and probability. Fundamental to evolution is that beneficial mutations are ones that result in the organisms with that mutation reproducing more successfully, and therefore it will become a dominant trait. Therefore once a beneficial mutation occurs and becomes prevalent, a harmful mutation in just one of those organisms doesn't cause the entire species to move 'downward' or backward.
If I let go of a ball it could move in an infinite number of directions. The chances of it moving in the same direction twice, let a lone 100 times in a row is miniscule. The problem with this is you have to forget the circumstances in which the ball is being let go. Introduce gravity and it is no longer just "chance", it SHOULD fall in the same direction every time. Without knowing the circumstances under which life arose, you can not assign a probability to it having happened or not.
This is all great and whatnot. However, abiogenesis isn't chemicals->bacteria. It is chemicals->polymers->replicating polymers->hypercycle->protobiont->bacteria. Likewise, not all of this process is attribute to chance. Moreover, your use of 10^300 is flawed. There are peptides 36 amino acids long that replicate. Also, the idea of a 'life sequence' is flawed as well. Some Certain genes can be swtiched around or gotten rid of and life can still be produced.
it is true that the first cells were not as complex as their primordial ancestors. but the minimun requirements was a self reproduction, so the evolution c an start.
Now consider the chance of average self replicating protein, 100 amino acids. Don't know? it is 10 pawer 130.
Remember i ignored the probability of Favorable Conditions for life to start.
In fact CHEMICAL REACTIONS only is not enough. that's why life don't form many times over.
what a crock of shit! The first cells were not as complex as their primordial ancestors. This is what happens when people without an education in biology make claims they don't even understand. 1/5
The problem with this film is that it deals with '1' person pulling a lever sequentially. Anyone with the slightest clue regarding chemical reactions knows that there isn't just 1 reaction at a time but millions upon millions -simultaneously-. For instance, you might a have a 1/100 chance of winning something by pulling a lever. BUT if 100 people pull separate levels at the same time, the prize will stastically come up at least once on someone's first try. So, think simultaneous stastics.
the chance of average self replicating protein, 100 amino acids is 10 power 130. Now how many reactions you need, 10 pawer 30 is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe 10 power 80.
i have a solution for the Darwinians maybe mathematicians should go and find a nother job, taxi drivers for example, then the Darwinians theory will be OK.
By the way i don't deny evolution, i am just against the explanation of Darwin is everything.
This is way too simplified. First you say "observable" universe. If that is the case, how many atoms are in the "unobservable" universe. Second, chemistry does not really deal with chance. Third, when you are dealing with probabilities you need to deal with timeframes. Simplifying, if there are 5 atoms in the world, and a 1/10 chance, and there are 5 chemical reactions a year, give it 2 years and the 'chance' should manifest.
First you say "observable" universe. If that is the case, how many atoms are in the "unobservable" universe.
jeaston are you stupid? why you need the inobservable universe? entire Solar System are 4.5 to 4.6 billion years this is the available time for the even to occure, while the time you neen is 10 pawer 130, just for one "avrage" protein to come by chance.
Now i am not denying the evolution but it was something improbable very very improbable, That's what ID says.
The only point of mentioning the "observable" universe is to imply that there might be an "inobservable" section that we have not discovered. Otherwise it is redundant. If it is possible that there is an unobservabed universe, then you have to take into account the possible amount of atoms in that section that is unobserved.
Moreover, sure - let's say that 4.5 -4.6 billion years is the time frame. But that doesn't address my critique of your conclusion. You have to explicitly state the degree to which chemical reactions happen simultaneously and sequentially, and also how many chemical reactions happen during a given time span, any time span, say 1 year. Until you do that you're statistical conclusions are invalid.
For instance, I have a 1/6 chance of rolling a dice. It takes 5 seconds for me to roll the dice. If 6 people roll a dice at the same time, a 6 almost 100% guaranteed will pop up in 5 seconds. If it is sequential, a 6 should pop up in 30 seconds. That is what I am asking you. To what extent are chemical reactions prone to sequential/simultaneous trials, and what time frames are we looking at for each -individual- trial.
So if there are 10^80 atoms and a 10^130 chance, in order to conclude anything, you have to take into account how many reactions are simultaneous, how many are sequential, and to what time frame we are looking at for each chemical reaction. Come up with that information and I might take your assertions about statistics seriously. But again, statistics aside, abiogenesis is a chemical phenomenon - not prone to statistics.
, you have to take into account how many reactions are simultaneous"
JEASTON , I think It may be helpful to pause a moment and consider how great 10 power 30 is.
magine what a tremendous number of seconds there must have been from the beginning of the universe until now (using 15 billion years, which is one of the standard estimates by evolutionists) IT IS ONLY 10 PAWER 18!!!
You are missing my point. Every second there are -multiple- reactions taking place which means that every second there isn't just 1 trial. There are milions of trials every second. So that 10^80 number of atoms... there could be 10^10 number of reactions taking place every second. Likewise, it would then take 1^13 seconds to produce the 10^130 probability of the amino acid. In order for your conclusions to be valid, you have to give out those numbers.
i gave you more than you need for the number of reactions, That's every atom of the universy is areaction, and i gave you more Time and thats all the sends from the biging of the solar system untill now, 10 pawer 18 X 5 pawer 78
So answer these 3 questions directly for me, please. 1) How many chemical reactions take place per second? 2) How many seconds have there been for these reactions to take place?
"How do you get the number 5^78?" 5^78 is based on present estimates of the radius at 15 billion light years and a mean density of 1/1030 grams per cubic centimeter
I am very skeptical to your claim of 5^78 chemical reactions happening every second. I have no idea where you got that from and cannot verify that anywhere online at all.
I am very skeptical to your claim of 5^78 chemical reactions happening every second.
You don't have, that's only for the sake of argument, if fact the number of reaction persocond would be much much lesser, becouse you only have the surface of the earth full of reactions, i tried to make thinks easier for you, so i said let there whole universe( not only earth) be full of reactions,
How do you know if the reactions on earth would be smaller, if 5^78 was just for the sake of argument? You have to have a reliable source and method to back up your claim of how many chemical reactions take place per second. You have not shown either of those.
Maybe so. Believing evolution or reality in general is God's miracle is one thing - but misrepresenting probabilities and statistics is another. Evolution could be both probable and an action of God.
Based upon you 5^78 number. Or the 'smaller' number in earth. You are making these numbers up. If you aren't, provide a credible source or at least another scientist who has come to a simliar conclusion regarding the number of chemical reactions per second. Otherwise, I cannot trust your numbers at all.
So let there be reactions not only on the earth but one reaction on every single attom in the whole universe, and let this all reaction continue nonstop form the formation of the solar system till this moment. 10 pawer 18 second.
No. You didn't do the calculation. If there are 5^78 chemical reactions per second (let's use 'C') and 10^18 seconds (S), then the total amount of chemical reaction throughout time is C times S. (which is much much larger than 10^18).
Again, where do you get 5^78? How do you know or even estimate how many chemical reactions take place per second?
I already told you that is the number of the atoms in the universe, based on present estimated radius at 15 billion light years, and a mean density of 1/1030 grams per cubic centimeter
I am trying to make things easier for you to have much more reaction than those which would take palce only on the earth surface.
Umm High flying dutchman, you do realise that nothing in evolution is based on chance right? It based on the survival of superior genetics that allow a creature to adapt to it's enviroment. The superior genes can arise from random mutations that cause the young to change in some way. Benificial mutations allow an organism to survive whilst some mutations result in genetic dead ends. I would advise you to at least learn the fundamentals of the law of evolution before criticizing it.
This video is dumb. I won't go into scientific detail, because the people watching this are morons and would never understand in a million years. But Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of life. It's that simple to debunk.
As far as the gills/fish thing, have you ever heard of tadpoles and frogs?
You do get animals with various stages of eye. Embryology also shows how it happens in humans.
Blind faith? I suppose you think Islam is THE religion and all the others are 'false'. This is the way other religions think: My God is true. Yours is false.
When you done have as much research as Richard Dawkins, then make a video. By the way, the guy doing the Dawkins impression is obviously an American, you can hear it.
Give me 4 Billion years. I BET I can make that damn machine pull up any combo you want a trillion times. That's trillion with a T.
AxeVEVO 1 month ago
I'm confused. Is this video an argument you're actually presenting, or a parody to make denialists look stupid?
rkyeun 5 months ago
Are the contestants allowed to pull the lever for a couple of billion years storing any precursors that help the process? I'm sure you think it's more more logical to just say, "It's magic!" like a Kalahari bushman finding a Coca Cola bottle that fell from a plane. Ascribe anything your personal ignorance can't explain to magic.
disrxt 1 year ago
gregrutz: "Fossils can be covered slowly in the bottom of a lake." And remian complete and intact? Not so! Scanengers make a big mess of a pile of bones big or small. One piftheenth of a % and you claim it all. Fossils are formed by rapid deposition of sediments. Natural Selection DOES NOT cause evolution, it causes Natural Selections. Dogs make dogs, apes make apes. So with the 'miracle' of time you contradict you own statement. You are missing a far richer, more coherent explanation. Chio.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Noisegator Thanks for your reply. "The Origin of the Genetic Code" tube at 1m:09s states: "Growth was originally driven by replication-induced osmotic pressure and thermodynamics". My question about "inherent nature" relates to statements like the above. Such statements amplify the need to understand that before "matter and processes" there had to be 'rules of (information) engagement'. This requires pre-existent intelligence, as information of itself requires no media.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
Re "Those who believe in the supernatural over empirical are a pretty amazing breed". You've got your shoes on the wrong feet. Mathematical Probability is very strict. What's supernatural is watching Atheists & Evolutionists running 'pillar to post' to avoid it! Probability says, if you buy a ticket in that lottery, you are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to win anything. Compare it to the most ridiculous odds you can barely imagination, or wait for your number (in that lottery) to be drawn. No thanx.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
Comment removed
cr4zyu 1 year ago
It's a big stretch to the "observable" diversity of species. It is claimed the prototype proves finished product, yet vast numbers of transitional forms (prototypes) Darwin postulated would be found, have never been found. He thought the cell was some kind of gelatinous blob, not the vast complex of 10,000 plus interdependent processes. A GMH plant closes if it can't get radiators for it's simple production process. Now bankrupt, it's dead like a cell without all its interdepenent processes.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
“One test is worth a thousand opinions. Apply the 'scientific method' which I'm sure you espouse. Remember, it goes: 1) Observe data; 2) Hypothesize; 3) Predict; 4) Test; 5) Analyze; 6) Confirm or reject the theory. "It’s a capital mistake to theorize before one has data” - Sherlock Holmes (A.C. Doyle). So let's not twist facts to suit a theory.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu That is not how science works, there is no method. Someone thinks he know how something happened. A theory explaining the data. He gets all the evidence he can find supporting his theory, being human he fudges the data. Then he presents it and everyone tries to prove them wrong. It stands until a better theory comes along.
1) Observed data: Fossils and DNA show evolution happened.
2)Hypothesis: Natural Selection
3)Predict:Every tree of life will match the others.
4)Test Passed
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) Fossils show intanteous burial 1a) DNA shows observable devolution.
2) Natural Selection is completely correct and observable 2a) Natural Selection is not evolution, it's Natural Selection. In the first instant, you can't have natural selection until you have multiple competing species.
3) Tree of life where dogs turn into cats or microbes to man-kindl. Remains just a prediction.
4) Test Failed, except for Natural Selection where complete, non-mutated DNA is required "in the beginning".
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu Wrong, fossils can be covered slowly in the bottom of a lake.
Natural Selection causes evolution, glad you accept it.
Dogs make dogs, apes make apes. That is why we are still apes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Has anyone calculated the chances of an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient creature existing in a universe where those attributes have NEVER been seen?
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded Perhaps I can communicate with you via your carer? Sadly your mental state is a typical illustration of what is actually observable, repeatable science; i.e. no new DNA is observed to be forming. It was all there a some DNA 'big bang' (in the beginning) and now it's just a matter of merely recombining with what's already there, muddled &/or otherwise. Sadly you may be a more obvious example of what is the typically & readily more observable (more scientific), devolution.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu Every time DNA changes or recombins it is new DNA.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No. It's 'designed' to replicate DNA code not muddle it. Unless of course you have five arms (a-sprouting), one leg, three eyes and are sterile - and think it normal.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu My next door neighbor is a designer, maybe she did it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@cr4zyu The Ad hominem means you have no argument. You also suffer from the argument from ignorance and the argument from incredulity.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
Why do theists simply love these huge numbers?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Woah! Them "Evillotioists" (sic) Must be gutted that you didn't have the intelligence to spell their name correctly. You damn Kristiahn Kweationist
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill
haha
:D i know how to spell it
the title is just kidding
hehe
but im not a kristiahn
lol :D
peace
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
I don't think that attack on Richard Branson at the end was fair.
Oh, wait, no beard. I think it's supposed to be Dawkins. Whoever drew him needs several lessons in caricature.
LordCustard 1 year ago
Youtube sucks, why can't I rate this down a bazillion times like I want to.
brmadman4455 1 year ago
@brmadman4455
They need a new button. " This is such crap, it should be removed''
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz How about, "Please stab me in the brain with a rusty ice pick, I can't take the creationist logic anymore!"
brmadman4455 1 year ago
Comment removed
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@brmadman4455 Here's an ice pick for you. You'll love this. There's over 70 reports, including one from the US Coal Board, that state there's carbon 14 in coal. It's apparently also found in coal oil, gas and in some diamonds at 100 times minimal detectable levels. Wow - go figure eh? Now how could that be if it's billions of years old? Let's hear 'your logic' on that one? P.S. Hope you've had a tetanus shot.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu Well, you're the one making the argument, so shouldn't you be the one to explain your logic? Also, while you're at it, can you explain why you only talk about carbon 14 when there are several other methods to date fossils?
brmadman4455 1 year ago
Comment removed
cr4zyu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brmadman4455... I like your sites top10 fly-bys: C14 dating is used for short-age dating of bio-matter up to 50K yrs. After 50K yrs C14 becomes virtually undetectible. The 5 or 6 main others e.g. uranium to lead, etc. are all used for long age dating of things fosilized into rock or rock itself. As C14 has a half-life of about 5750 yrs, to discover many times minimum detectible levels in coal (oil, gas, diamond) assumed to be say 250M yrs old, brings long age dating methodology into doubt.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
Comment removed
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@gregrutz Yep. I agree your comment is crap and should be removed.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@brmadman4455 So, OK, OK - I just rated you down.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
Oh the stupid! It BURNS!
.
Organic chemicals (indeed all chemicals) do not organise by chance. They do so according to their inherent natures.
.
Proto-life was not composed of the same polymers we find in modern cells today. It certainly would not have needed the hundreds of organels proposed by the OP.
.
Get a clue.
Noisegator 1 year ago 4
@Noisegator How do you define "inherent' nature"? IF you are saying "Proto-life was not composed of the same polymers" THEN, where can this process be observed today? Where it can't be observed and repeated it's not science. It's faith. Point me to your repeatable observale, evidence please.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@Noisegator
How do you define "inherent nature"? IF as you write "Proto-life was NOT composed of the same polymers" THEN, how and where can this process be observed today?
IF the data/ process can't be observed and repeated it's NOT science, it's FAITH.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu Well it's been 5 months since I posted that but I'll give it a go. "Inherent nature" refers to the qualities of organic chemicals to form various structures, including polymers and fatty acids (which can form basic cell membranes).
.
This video - watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg - gives a very good overview and introduction to more recent advances in natural life origin science.
.
Since there are no pre-biotic environments on earth the proof will be made in the lab. Stay tuned and get up to speed.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Thanks for your reply. "The Origin of the Genetic Code" tube at 1m:09s states: "Growth was originally driven by replication-induced osmotic pressure and thermodynamics". My question about "inherent nature" relates to statements like the above. Such statements amplify the need to understand that before "matter and processes" there had to be 'rules of (information) engagement'. This requires pre-existent intelligence, as information of itself requires no media.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
I can summarise this nonsense in 3 words :argumentum ad ignorantiam
Drweavil 1 year ago
Another dimwit science ignoramus does it again--the pathetically ignorant Penrose based his calculation on a modern Eukariotic cell. Unfortunately, the thimblebrain,being a mathematician and NOT A BIOLOGIST, had no clue of the existence of Prokariotic cells, much older and much simpler than modern Eukariotic cells. Thus his calculation, so admired by the flyingdutchman, is meaningless drivel---the number of times these idiotic stunned wonders need to be corrected on this is astonishing...
pontecanis 2 years ago 2
The earliest known organism on Earth is Cyanobacteria Archaea--4 billion years old--and still living today. Composition-FOUR amino acids in a phosphate lattice:
NH2CH[H3PO4]COOH...no DNA,no proteins,no organelles--just a little bag of RNA. For energy, it uses cyclic photophosphorylation [Exxon Mobil is airing a commercial talking about using this to make energy;it even features the formula]--6H2O+6CO2+sunlight-> 1 sugar [C6H12O6] plus 6 O2 [oxygen molecules]
pontecanis 2 years ago
DO SOME BLOODY RESEARCH you stupid gullible fool...you might try the citation for the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry...Tom Cech et al received it for creating RNA in the lab and discovering it was self-replicating,self-joining when cut, and was also capable of transmitting pre-genetic information for replication [C.Archaea has no genes either, nor chromosomes---just RNA]...wise up!!
pontecanis 2 years ago
@pontecanis So what does that prove? Life in a test tube all supported by 'intelligent' lab test designers. I bet you can't even juggle two balls. Imagine how hard it is for a the simplest single cell to begin self sustaining life with (what shall we say), ten thousand simultaneous processes raring to go. "Look ma, no arms or a brain, and I can juggle." LOL.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
Comment removed
cr4zyu 1 year ago
Comment removed
cr4zyu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pontecanis: Fancy that? You claim to be related to a self sustaining Cyanobacteria Archaea. Wow! It's amazing how observable and repeatable this branch of 'science' isn't.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu ~~see Mitochondria...we are all reated to prokariotes by means of incorporating them into our own eukariotic cell structures...so we are all related to cyanobacteria in a way...and this is a bad thing?
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis You're not very nice.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu ~There are times when my patience with liars runs a bit thin...if a person honestly argued for the existence of a god from a point of honesty, that is fine...when arguments against known science are presented by lies, deceptions,distortions, denial, and outright irrationality, coupled with ad hominem attacks, then my patience tends to evaporate...and sometimes that results in not being nice, or even downright nasty, or even vicious...which is my fault and not becoming...
pontecanis 1 year ago
Oh I know the answer! "God did it".............Do I win a prize for my false assumptions and stupidity?
bigboy45454545 2 years ago 10
@bigboy45454545 Nup. Nature did it!
cr4zyu 1 year ago
Well it would be more accurate if you mentioned that you only needed to get the slot machines right once within hundreds of millions of years. And that these machines were also being done in tens of thousands of places (oceans, lakes, puddles, underground, in soil/sediment) at the same time.
Also you can't call something impossible if it's already happened. Merely improbable.
norsef 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@norsef Yeah... and that's just one cell. Pity the poor 'sole' sucker. Where would it find its mate? Answer: It'd have to roam the world? Do you think they had a dating service back then? But then there's always mother nature. Ah... I get it. She ran the dating service. Right?
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu You don't understand how single cell life forms work do you?
norsef 1 year ago
lol
thesolimanz 2 years ago
one of the biggest flaws in evolution and natural selection is inherent. The evolutionary scientist says that beneficial mutations are highley unlikely, but yet he also says that all of the organisms have adapted to their ecosystem because of a nonranom, selective force. I thought scientists believed in randomness?
OldaurGold 2 years ago
@OldaurGold It's obvious you don't have a solid understanding of evolutionary biology. You need to remember genetic drift, genetic variation, natural selection and mutation (beneficial or detrimental. There are also neutral mutations) at least all factor importantly in the most basic understanding of evolution.
bcFiRe12 2 years ago
@bcFiRe12 Neutral mutation? Wow? Funny how DNA 'hanky-panky' only really ends up recombining ever diminishing original DNA. No new DNA seems to be getting 'created' from anywhere. And so, you might be able to breed a wolf into a Chihuahua (variation of a pre-exisitng species), but a Chihuahua back into a wolf? DNA is a one way street going nowhere but down. What is observable is not evolution, but devolution. That's nature & there's less of it every year because that's the way it is.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu Funny how Darwin did not even know about DNA and he proved evolution happened. DNA markers make a tree of life, it matches Darwin's tree of life.
Dogs did not evolve, they were breed. They show that variation in species is already there for natural selection to act on.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Seemed like nothing more than a feeble attack on Richard Dawkins as well as a poor straw-man when it comes to the chemistry of prebiotic Earth. It's also downright lame how creationists would rather make up numbers than do any real research.
cadman2300 2 years ago
@cadman2300 Au contraire. The irony in this debate is that creationist have the far greater weight of observable, repeatable, evidence. Evolution is actually devolution, easily proven by the observation that no new DNA is being 'created'. DNA is merely being recombined from a pre-existing 'stock'. Variation of a species due to natural selection is not evolution, it is natural selection, which has always been valid, but doesn't create new species, just new variants of the same species.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu Creationist have a bible story, no evidence. In fact the evidence point to an old earth, no global flood and life evolved.
Natural selection is how evolution works.
''New variants of species'' sounds a lot like 'origin of species through natural selection.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@cr4zyu The irony in this debate is it was setteled 150 years ago when Darwin showed how evolution happened. Some people are a little slow.
gregrutz 1 year ago
lol. is this somedy or christian propaganda from the 50s? or in fact christian propaganda from the 21st century?
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
Very sadly its recent
WRAYDAY 2 years ago
if you got faith in science
does that mean your faith..is any more scientific..than any other belief
if you dont know the science
thats because there isnt any/please reveal...a single change of genus..into any new genus
micro is species evolving within their genus
macro evolution is changing genus
simply speaking thats newver been recorded..nor observed..please know darwin wrote evolution of species
not evolution of genus
its called speciation..not genusification
get the difference
oneundergod 2 years ago
no I am afraid that is wrong. if you wish to have some links I'd be happy to give you some.
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
ok will email you a link
feel free to rebut it
you got links to species speciating within their genus..ie seagulls becomming seagulls..ring species..not ring genus
any proof you could offer is re species,,,not genus..evolution needs a fish genus [cold blood/fins/scales/gills...to change genus..into warm/blood/limbed creatures
yet your intermediate got no shoulder blades..no hip joint...you got nothing
rebut the email link
oneundergod 2 years ago
im the 105th comment on your page
the link should be there for any one of you unbelievers to rebut
so activate an id and come rebut the issue where it matters
in court
oneundergod 2 years ago
Don't confuse things that boggle your mind with things that are impossible.
For example it is mind boggling for a single cell to evolve into a human being and yet this 'miracle' happens every day in the world and the process only takes nine months!
keypointist 2 years ago
hey key pointist
got a key point for you
what was that first life called?
what is its genus etc
can you name it
if you cant name it how can evolution make claim to it?
yes one cell...into man..but has science yet made itys first membrane?
no first no membrane..and no evolution of one genus into another genus has ever been recorded...
how about speciation..please reveal where speciation..ever evolved out of genus..because science hasnt dont that either
oneundergod 2 years ago
This is the funniest creationist movie I have ever seen, the Dawkins parody makes me chuckle.
The only scary part is that creationists really believe that this is how life arose (from nothing to a fully formed cell in 1 step). You can only hope science will catch up with these people and hit em over the head with a book or two :)
Weareallangels 2 years ago
FAIL
320iguy 2 years ago 3
why don't you watch some videos here on youtube.
I don't want to be too critical but the way you talk ie mix into a formula?? Is English your first language or no. Why do you think power is needed and in what shape do you refer??
StrengthHonourReason 2 years ago
Another video where ignorance mixes with religious fundamentalism. Sorry, they're the same!
Does anybody want to take a stab @ calculating the probability of a god.
One more point. Your description @ the right is long and complex, yes. Did it just appear all at once. No it evolved from your first thought to the first letter and then maybe a revision or two. It took time to finish it right. But it has to start at the beginning and not half way through. Evolving from the start and continuing
StrengthHonourReason 2 years ago 8
so until getting life from dead matter
lets assume some molecules mixed into a formula that is very close to bring life
what is the power to keep it in that shape and wait until life arises?
the holy mystery of the mother nature?
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
The "power" is simple chemical interactions. Phospholipid micelles (and even, depending on the lipid HC tail(s), bilayers) assemble on their own, through the 'power' of hydrophobicity, and the same hydrophobicity is what 'keep[s] it in that shape' until other elements of a rudimentary cell are integrated, such as the polymerized nucleotides.
WRAYDAY 2 years ago
hey wayday...please tell me
how many of them chemicals
are in your body at death
tell me son...what changed?
oneundergod 2 years ago
Huh? Every single molecule I mentioned would be present at death. It's the neuro-biochemistry thats taken a turn for the worst.
WRAYDAY 2 years ago
you and your stupid chemical molecules
OldaurGold 2 years ago
biology is life and chemistry is chemistry, eep them sperate
OldaurGold 2 years ago
@OldaurGold
Biological sytems are governed by chemical interactions which are governed by physical properties.
WRAYDAY 2 years ago
So instead of investigating the real causes scientifically, you assume a god has to be present ?
WRAYDAY 2 years ago 3
@HighFlyingDutchman Yo should look into the MillerUrey experiements which proved that amino acids, the building blocks of live, can arise from inanimate matter. The cartoon you posted does nothing to actually disprove. It merely attempts to refute by casting doubt as such is utterly irrelevant.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi
still miller urey?
how weak...
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman Wow.... I am in awe of your debate leetness! Perhaps next time you might to at least try to formulate an argument other than "NO WAY DUDE! YOU STUPID!" Just a thought.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi: That 'experiement' excluded oxygen. Any oxygen present would have destroyed the formation of animo acid. Geologists have discovered abundant oxygen present even rock samples about the time of the alleged formation of a primodial goop, from which we 'unobservably, unrepeatably' were supposed to be derived; turning imaginatively from one species into another, as we 'unobserably' went up the food chain. Oh, and it's not about 'the' missing link, but "the missing multitude" of links.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu I'm not even going to bother responding to your stupidity. You do realize that the earth has had several atmosphere's right? All your argument shows is that abiogenesis occurred long before the development of an oxygen rich atmosphere which we know to be the case as life was abundant on earth long before the iron rich waters of primordial earth lost it's ozygen content, turned blue-green and allowed the development of the oxygen rich atmosphere.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi It's amazing how much faith some have in the unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable.
cr4zyu 1 year ago
@cr4zyu Yes. Those who believe in the supernatural over empirical are a pretty amazing breed. Note that I never said that the Miller Urey experiments proved what happened. Just that it could happen. Don't blame your lack of scientific knowledge and reading comprehension on me please.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@cr4zyu ~~Bad science. The basic formula for an amino acid is NH2 CH (R) COOH...the (R) is a join point where the amino joins to its support lattice. You notice the COOH at the end...the O is oxygen. O2 is required for amino acids and indeed doesn't prevent their formation...
pontecanis 1 year ago
Fascinating. You just "forgot" to represent the fact that molecules don't assemble randomly. They do so through chemical interactions.
theLepisma 2 years ago 3
lol may calculator can't calculate probability lesser than 1x10^-99
annoymage 2 years ago
Yeah except life isn't formed randomly. Are you saying that minerals can't form because the odds of their atoms being in the correct place are infinite? NO! its because chance is not the ruling factor here, these complex molecules form due to intermolecular processes not chance.
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago 2
So here we go, but what if he did that, 1000,000 times, it would probaby come up, so there you go, Evolution is still intact.
A15KaldrinJAB 2 years ago
its funny. people say the first cell was a simple cell. however why can't anyone create a simple living cell? notice that those that deny intelligent design believe that mindless chemicals are smarter than they are. of course they cannot explain how information came about. information is not matter so how can it happen without a mind?
RepresentingTruth 2 years ago
Define what information is and then tell me why complex chemicals like RNA cannot exist without it.
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago
lol i see you again in another thread. btw, say that to your brain which consists of a bunch of cells that interact with each other through chemical reactions in their metabolism and your thought processes are just neurons receptors transmitting electrical signals to cells with simple molecule called neurotransmitters hehehehe. man i wish you could study a bit of biochemistry then you will see how really insane evilutionists are.
haudace 2 years ago
@RepresentingTruth And you are proposing a ligical fallacy. Simply because we cannot absolutely prove our position does not serve to confirm yours. Essentially you are saying "You can prove that inanimate matter formed the first cells so that proves our position of intelligent design and that creation rquired an intellect."
sorry Shaggy but it don't work that way.
captwasabi 1 year ago
BTW, the formation of the first cell probably was not a random process.
I hope you also realise, that the first cell was not the first life.
Get your biology lessons.
Flipsen89 2 years ago
Hooray for made-up numbers!
Leehofooks 2 years ago
My favorite part of this video is the title
"People who don't believe in god are Evil... and covered in lotion?"
mAmor300 2 years ago
If you throw a million dice and note the order they fell in you will get a special combination.
This combination is almost unique and it will be virtually impossible for you to throw it again, but yet you had it the first time.
Why is this?
The odds to get this combination are as high as to get any other combination.
Creationists try to calculate backwards and that is their biggest mistake (appart from the lack of intelligence).
Flipsen89 2 years ago
yeah but what are the chances of "throwing a million" and in the FIRST million, you get all "1's"? See the problem is the FIRST MILLION, that is what you need to understand. The comparision you make is actually not logical at all. Nice try logically, but your premise is false.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
The odds that all the dice fall down as a 1 are as high as the odds that they fall down in any special combination.
Learn your math.
Flipsen89 2 years ago
you fail to comprehend the last part of my comment. that is my point exactly, you your analogy of dice isnt correct, learn your logic.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
No, you actually don't get it.
Your mistake is that you presuppose this special combination and all I am saying is that this combination is not the only possible combination for life and therefore your calculation is so horribly wrong.
As a matter of fact you are calculating chances when the largest part of this was not chance at all.
You can say it over and over again that my logic was flawed, but you don't even get the basics of biology.
Flipsen89 2 years ago
Bad understand of statistics.
rafaelhsouza 2 years ago
there is no such thing as an Evolutionist
there are people who acept the scientific Theory of evolution That explains The FACT of evolution
here we see a creationist who doesnt even under stan what it is he does not believe
ManicMalcolm 2 years ago 2
Actually it works like this...
25 slot machines. Pull the levers on all of them.
If any of the machines are close to the result you need they are selected by natural selection. The others get re-pulled and those that fit the result are saved again. Thus very shortly you have all the machines showing what you need, or somethign very close wich is often good enough.
Creationists make the mistake of thinking things must be perfect wich is often not true. Evolution works by the close enough rule.
phookadude 2 years ago 2
haha yep... funny they select a rather appropriate analogy for evolution, and then go one to use it as a bullshit probability calculation.
WRAYDAY 2 years ago
you dipshit bible sucker
DJDes010 2 years ago
This is certianly deserving of its Golden Crocoduck nomination! Congrats to the creationist for their stupidity and ignorance! It's breathtaking!
TempestWriter 2 years ago 6
Your explanation in the info section shows grave misunderstandings about abiogenesis, evolution and probability. Fundamental to evolution is that beneficial mutations are ones that result in the organisms with that mutation reproducing more successfully, and therefore it will become a dominant trait. Therefore once a beneficial mutation occurs and becomes prevalent, a harmful mutation in just one of those organisms doesn't cause the entire species to move 'downward' or backward.
skevoid 2 years ago 3
If I let go of a ball it could move in an infinite number of directions. The chances of it moving in the same direction twice, let a lone 100 times in a row is miniscule. The problem with this is you have to forget the circumstances in which the ball is being let go. Introduce gravity and it is no longer just "chance", it SHOULD fall in the same direction every time. Without knowing the circumstances under which life arose, you can not assign a probability to it having happened or not.
ArcaneLogic 2 years ago 2
Classic golden crocoduck material.
gundaetiapo 2 years ago 17
This is all great and whatnot. However, abiogenesis isn't chemicals->bacteria. It is chemicals->polymers->replicating polymers->hypercycle->protobiont->bacteria. Likewise, not all of this process is attribute to chance. Moreover, your use of 10^300 is flawed. There are peptides 36 amino acids long that replicate. Also, the idea of a 'life sequence' is flawed as well. Some Certain genes can be swtiched around or gotten rid of and life can still be produced.
jeaston75 2 years ago
Watch the video this is a response to.
internetaccount122 2 years ago
Furthermore, CHEMICAL REACTIONS instigated Abiogenesis, NOT CHANCE. That is a deliberate misinterpretation, an outright lie. HFD, you are a moron
Lacolith 3 years ago
He is not you're the moron.
it is true that the first cells were not as complex as their primordial ancestors. but the minimun requirements was a self reproduction, so the evolution c an start.
Now consider the chance of average self replicating protein, 100 amino acids. Don't know? it is 10 pawer 130.
Remember i ignored the probability of Favorable Conditions for life to start.
In fact CHEMICAL REACTIONS only is not enough. that's why life don't form many times over.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
you aren't a fucking biochemist, as evidenced by the fact that you are making claims that no credible scientist agrees with.
Lacolith 2 years ago
is that all you can say?
TAXILA76 2 years ago
"you aren't a fucking biochemist"
Who mention biochemist? i was asking you to do a simple math.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
Comment removed
Lacolith 3 years ago
Problem: evolution or cosmology are not based on blind chance.
SexyMelon 3 years ago
what a crock of shit! The first cells were not as complex as their primordial ancestors. This is what happens when people without an education in biology make claims they don't even understand. 1/5
Lacolith 3 years ago
The problem with this film is that it deals with '1' person pulling a lever sequentially. Anyone with the slightest clue regarding chemical reactions knows that there isn't just 1 reaction at a time but millions upon millions -simultaneously-. For instance, you might a have a 1/100 chance of winning something by pulling a lever. BUT if 100 people pull separate levels at the same time, the prize will stastically come up at least once on someone's first try. So, think simultaneous stastics.
jeaston75 3 years ago
the chance of average self replicating protein, 100 amino acids is 10 power 130. Now how many reactions you need, 10 pawer 30 is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe 10 power 80.
i have a solution for the Darwinians maybe mathematicians should go and find a nother job, taxi drivers for example, then the Darwinians theory will be OK.
By the way i don't deny evolution, i am just against the explanation of Darwin is everything.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
This is way too simplified. First you say "observable" universe. If that is the case, how many atoms are in the "unobservable" universe. Second, chemistry does not really deal with chance. Third, when you are dealing with probabilities you need to deal with timeframes. Simplifying, if there are 5 atoms in the world, and a 1/10 chance, and there are 5 chemical reactions a year, give it 2 years and the 'chance' should manifest.
jeaston75 2 years ago
First you say "observable" universe. If that is the case, how many atoms are in the "unobservable" universe.
jeaston are you stupid? why you need the inobservable universe? entire Solar System are 4.5 to 4.6 billion years this is the available time for the even to occure, while the time you neen is 10 pawer 130, just for one "avrage" protein to come by chance.
Now i am not denying the evolution but it was something improbable very very improbable, That's what ID says.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
The only point of mentioning the "observable" universe is to imply that there might be an "inobservable" section that we have not discovered. Otherwise it is redundant. If it is possible that there is an unobservabed universe, then you have to take into account the possible amount of atoms in that section that is unobserved.
jeaston75 2 years ago
Moreover, sure - let's say that 4.5 -4.6 billion years is the time frame. But that doesn't address my critique of your conclusion. You have to explicitly state the degree to which chemical reactions happen simultaneously and sequentially, and also how many chemical reactions happen during a given time span, any time span, say 1 year. Until you do that you're statistical conclusions are invalid.
jeaston75 2 years ago
For instance, I have a 1/6 chance of rolling a dice. It takes 5 seconds for me to roll the dice. If 6 people roll a dice at the same time, a 6 almost 100% guaranteed will pop up in 5 seconds. If it is sequential, a 6 should pop up in 30 seconds. That is what I am asking you. To what extent are chemical reactions prone to sequential/simultaneous trials, and what time frames are we looking at for each -individual- trial.
jeaston75 2 years ago
So if there are 10^80 atoms and a 10^130 chance, in order to conclude anything, you have to take into account how many reactions are simultaneous, how many are sequential, and to what time frame we are looking at for each chemical reaction. Come up with that information and I might take your assertions about statistics seriously. But again, statistics aside, abiogenesis is a chemical phenomenon - not prone to statistics.
jeaston75 2 years ago
, you have to take into account how many reactions are simultaneous"
JEASTON , I think It may be helpful to pause a moment and consider how great 10 power 30 is.
magine what a tremendous number of seconds there must have been from the beginning of the universe until now (using 15 billion years, which is one of the standard estimates by evolutionists) IT IS ONLY 10 PAWER 18!!!
TAXILA76 2 years ago
You are missing my point. Every second there are -multiple- reactions taking place which means that every second there isn't just 1 trial. There are milions of trials every second. So that 10^80 number of atoms... there could be 10^10 number of reactions taking place every second. Likewise, it would then take 1^13 seconds to produce the 10^130 probability of the amino acid. In order for your conclusions to be valid, you have to give out those numbers.
jeaston75 2 years ago
EDITL 1^120 not 1^13
jeaston75 2 years ago
i gave you more than you need for the number of reactions, That's every atom of the universy is areaction, and i gave you more Time and thats all the sends from the biging of the solar system untill now, 10 pawer 18 X 5 pawer 78
TAXILA76 2 years ago
So answer these 3 questions directly for me, please. 1) How many chemical reactions take place per second? 2) How many seconds have there been for these reactions to take place?
3) How do you know the answer to #1?
jeaston75 2 years ago
1) How many chemical reactions take place per second?
Good Number of reaction per second 5 pawer 78.
2) How many seconds have there been for these reactions to take place?
10 pawer 18
Is it clear bro
TAXILA76 2 years ago
Now it is. Your English is kind of rough. So, then take 5^78 multiply that by 10^18. What do you get?
How do you get the number 5^78?
jeaston75 2 years ago
"Your English is kind of rough."
You're right. and i realy apologize :)
"How do you get the number 5^78?" 5^78 is based on present estimates of the radius at 15 billion light years and a mean density of 1/1030 grams per cubic centimeter
SEE MY NEXT COMMENT.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
"So, then take 5^78 multiply that by 10^18. What do you get? "
Let's take 10^78 which is much higher than 5^78,
Then the math is simple:
10678 x 10^18= 10^(78+18)= 10^96
TAXILA76 2 years ago
Edit 10^78 X 10^18= 10^96
TAXILA76 2 years ago
That's much closer to 10^130.
I am very skeptical to your claim of 5^78 chemical reactions happening every second. I have no idea where you got that from and cannot verify that anywhere online at all.
jeaston75 2 years ago
I am very skeptical to your claim of 5^78 chemical reactions happening every second.
You don't have, that's only for the sake of argument, if fact the number of reaction persocond would be much much lesser, becouse you only have the surface of the earth full of reactions, i tried to make thinks easier for you, so i said let there whole universe( not only earth) be full of reactions,
TAXILA76 2 years ago
How do you know if the reactions on earth would be smaller, if 5^78 was just for the sake of argument? You have to have a reliable source and method to back up your claim of how many chemical reactions take place per second. You have not shown either of those.
jeaston75 2 years ago
"That's much closer to 10^130."
NO IT IS NOT, the diffrence is 10^40 that's
TAXILA76 2 years ago
that's much a huge number.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
last thing to say. i don't deny evolution, but it was the greatest God's miricle.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
Maybe so. Believing evolution or reality in general is God's miracle is one thing - but misrepresenting probabilities and statistics is another. Evolution could be both probable and an action of God.
jeaston75 2 years ago
Based upon you 5^78 number. Or the 'smaller' number in earth. You are making these numbers up. If you aren't, provide a credible source or at least another scientist who has come to a simliar conclusion regarding the number of chemical reactions per second. Otherwise, I cannot trust your numbers at all.
jeaston75 2 years ago
So let there be reactions not only on the earth but one reaction on every single attom in the whole universe, and let this all reaction continue nonstop form the formation of the solar system till this moment. 10 pawer 18 second.
STILL YOU ARE TOO FAR FROM 10 PAWER 130.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
No. You didn't do the calculation. If there are 5^78 chemical reactions per second (let's use 'C') and 10^18 seconds (S), then the total amount of chemical reaction throughout time is C times S. (which is much much larger than 10^18).
Again, where do you get 5^78? How do you know or even estimate how many chemical reactions take place per second?
jeaston75 2 years ago
How do you know or even estimate how many chemical reactions take place per second?
Plase read my comment slowly again.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
Again, where do you get 5^78?
I already told you that is the number of the atoms in the universe, based on present estimated radius at 15 billion light years, and a mean density of 1/1030 grams per cubic centimeter
I am trying to make things easier for you to have much more reaction than those which would take palce only on the earth surface.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
"here could be 10^10 number of reactions taking place every second.""
I am teling you. i told you let 5 pawer 78 be the number of the reactions in one secound, and the time frame be 10 pawer 18
TAXILA76 2 years ago
and let the reacttions be continues from the formation of the earth untill now.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
"you have to take into account how many reactions are simultaneous"
OK, now come to the number of the reactions, imagine atoms in the universe was a reaction, the you will have 5 x 10 power 78.
Reameber what you want to achive?? it was 10 pawer 130.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
Umm High flying dutchman, you do realise that nothing in evolution is based on chance right? It based on the survival of superior genetics that allow a creature to adapt to it's enviroment. The superior genes can arise from random mutations that cause the young to change in some way. Benificial mutations allow an organism to survive whilst some mutations result in genetic dead ends. I would advise you to at least learn the fundamentals of the law of evolution before criticizing it.
KidAnarchyLucky7 3 years ago 2
just seems like satire.
Cnidarious 3 years ago
i have no idea what this video is trying imply here.
Cnidarious 3 years ago
based on who posted it, i would think it is a criticism of evolution and abiogenesis.
jtyranus 3 years ago
still.
just seems like badly executed satire.
Cnidarious 3 years ago
Great example of creationist argument #2 debunked in cdk007's abiogenesis video (to which this was posted as a response) at 1:50.
majorvoltage 3 years ago
flyingcutchman
you are evidence that idiots should never be given access to claculators
GIGO-fallacy of the really big unsubstantiated number-anthropic argument-
tired stuff
EternalSkeptic123 3 years ago
ha! loved it. It is kind of mocking the logic of those who call themselves "evolutionists". by the way, did you mean to misspell the word in title?
hsindi 3 years ago
This video is dumb. I won't go into scientific detail, because the people watching this are morons and would never understand in a million years. But Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of life. It's that simple to debunk.
SayNoToIslamofascism 3 years ago
As far as the gills/fish thing, have you ever heard of tadpoles and frogs?
You do get animals with various stages of eye. Embryology also shows how it happens in humans.
Blind faith? I suppose you think Islam is THE religion and all the others are 'false'. This is the way other religions think: My God is true. Yours is false.
You really are blinkered.
SuperAtheistBoy 3 years ago
Is this trying to suggest that suddenly single celled organisms just appeared. how stupid.
You need to watch this video and others like it
"The Origin of Life Made Easy" by potholer54
T0mNZ 3 years ago
When you done have as much research as Richard Dawkins, then make a video. By the way, the guy doing the Dawkins impression is obviously an American, you can hear it.
SuperAtheistBoy 3 years ago
wow,so you mean that i have to get my PhD first then get as famous as him and maybe more
just after that i have the right to talk about what science had already brought years ago
HighFlyingDutchman 3 years ago