At 0:30 Ruse says that evolution(Darwinism) doesn't deal with the origin of life. Even when Stein asks leading questions he doesn't accept that origin science is a part of evolutionary biology. Saying origins is part of evolution is like saying we need to know where the ball came from to play basketball.
@ptango101 1) It's still taught in textbooks and classrooms all over the world.
2) Michael Ruse still believes it happened. (as do many evolutionists who won't admit it)
3) Darwin wrote a book called "The Origin of Species." The only reason evolutionists are shying away from talking about origins is because their theory looks really stupid in light of new research in molecular biology.
4) Evolution is not part of science. It's a religious worldview that some people choose to believe in.
@creationliberty Quote" Darwinism strictly defined starts after the origin of life"end quote. So is this just an opinion because you don't agree? That was a cut and dry statement. The book is about the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution doesn't shy away from things it doesn't comment on. Why is this such a hard concept to get your head around? It's obvious that moron Stein had trouble with the statement because he wants to talk about mud or soup in his straw man.
Copying movies makes Ben Steins lose money. Plus you could get DMCA'd by him.
Secondly, Stein is deceitful in this extract. The beginning of the interview is missing, where his first answer was something like "I don't know; nobody knows." Then when asked for naming ONE theory, he mentioned the crystal (aka clay) theory. ISBN 0521233127
"How can there be a theory of life without having a theory of how life began?"
Then we should toss out Cell Theory, as it doesn't explain where cells came from. Similarly, we should toss out Germ Theory... it doesn't say where life came from either. Genetic Theory gets tossed out too...
Dang... the biology department is really getting wiped out by Ben Stein here.
and now we are building more power full telescopes to try to see if there is life. so dont be so ignorant to knowledge. i personally dont understend how to believe in something that you dont have any evidence for. FIND SOMETHING MORE IMPORTENT THAN YOU AND DEDICATE YOUR LIFE TO IT!- SCIENCE!
in my life i've never seen any supernatural things. no evidence for allah super powers of jezus budda zeus or any god. we dont know yet many thing . but waht is amazing about us, is that we use our brains to think and we invented philozophy and science and started to ask quastions. we invented experiments so we now can know what is fact . we found planets with water on it and with temp similar to our planet like Gliese 581 c and many other.
PS: People just rate this low because it deliberatly questions this philosophy of theirs (evolutionism) which they use to support these egotistical attitudes and lifestyles.
Pride, pride, pride... they KNOW it would all boil; down to where they'd have to get on theirs knees and say, 'Lord, I realize that Ia m a sinner, etc'
If you're interested in learning about the actual origins of life, I highly suggest watching this series which was done by the BBC on everything we know about cells. Definitely one of the comprehensive and broad documentaries I've ever seen:
Maybe Ben Stein should have interviewed an actual molecular biologist one activitly involved in origins research, and not a philosopher like Micheal Ruse.
Ruse's explanation of abiogenesis is good, but lacking detail. I'll try to be more specific; many types of organic molecules, including RNA, naturally form into chains upon the surfaces of some types of clay crystals. Scientists have been able to form RNA chains 50 base pairs long in practical early earth conditions using such catalysts. This is important, because 50 base pairs is the size of the smallest self-replicating enzyme that scientists have been able to produce.
In short, the hypothesis is that the first living thing was a simple self-replicating enzyme that formed naturally on a crystal catalyst.
Finally, I just want to point out that this video is incredibly dishonest. Stein asks an unprepared PHILOSOPHER to explain current theories in the field of biochemistry, and when he got a broad answer, rather than looking into the theory behind it and the research that's been done, just mocks him. That's not an honest search for an answer, that's trolling.
Regarding the experiment you're reffering to. From what I remember they were only able to produce a pool of single stranded fragments of RNA each with a different random sequence. I didn't know they were actually able to produce ribozymes, catalytic RNA molecules, let alone ones that can self-replicate. Is this actually true, where did you hear about this? I don't doubt you, I'd just like to look it up for myself.
Helical your question is rather oddly phrased. Most RNA is single-stranded, for starters; also, what do you mean by 'fragmentary'? The RNA nucleotides were complete, and I can't even imagine a situation in which the chains could be considered fragmented.
But no, none of the strands generated in the montmorillonite clays were catalytic. I was simply pointing out that strands of similar length are capable of self-replicating.
Experiments showing the catalytic powers of crystals abound, but
...the one I'm thinking of is "Montmorillonite catalysis of 30-50 mer oligonucleotides: laboratory demonstration of potential steps in the origin of the RNA world" by Ferris, Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2002 Aug;32(4):311-32. The paper showing that 50 basepairs is all an RNA enzyme needs to be self-replicating is "Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme" by Lincoln and Joyce, Science. 2009 Feb 27;323(5918):1229-32. Epub 2009 Jan 8.
Those papers you sent me basically answered my question. Have you actually read these papers? RNA is not only single stranded, sometimes certain RNA molecules can fold on itself, this folded structure can sometimes give it catalytic abilities. Sorry, what I meant by fragments was short stretches of nucleotides, not that they are products of fragmentation. The motmorillonite paper only shows poly A's or poly U's 50bp-mers....
... The 'self-sustained replication' paper looked at RNA molecules that can connect other short pieces of RNA to make more RNA molecules capable of preforming this catalytic function as well. These two papers are not really related. My question was looking to see if they'd bridged the gaps between these two experiments.
Yeah I guess you're right folded RNA is still single-stranded. I think the distinction I was trying to make was between folded and non-folded RNA. Non-folded RNA can not have catalytic function, and couldn't possibly have the ability to self-replicate. What would be great is if they could use a mixture of A, U, G, C to make a mixture of RNA molecules with random sequence, and of those some could fold into catalytic RNA's capable of joining shorter peices together.
I'm glad Wells admits that there is a distinction between evolution and simple darwinism, but the distinction he makes is completely wrong. At 0:30-35 he admits that Darwinism doesn't address the origin of life, but at 0:44-50 he claims that evolution must account for life. No, Wells, neither evolution not simple Darwinism must or even intend to account for the origin of life. The mechanisms of evolution only apply to living things, so if you're talking pre-life you're not talking evolution.
@Hooya2 Darwin's book is called the ORIGIN of Species. If you want to say that a theory of life doesn't involve how life got here, then you don't have a coherent theory going back to the beginning.
You can believe whatever you want, but just because you believe it doesn't automatically make it part of science.
Yes Creationliberty, the Origin of SPECIES, not the origin of life. The vast majority of theories about life don't include how life got here, because they're not INTENDED to completely account for the history of life. Evolution is simply an explanation for the way life has diversified over time.
And like it or not, evolution is a highly successful theory with ramifications in every field of biology; it's a part of science because it makes accurate predictions about what we'll find in nature.
I think it's dangerous for a person to believe in only one way. I can't label myself but I do know that Darwin was used for an agenda that has led up to now. Quantum physics and alien influence is evident to me. We must not always believe science!!
@starrystarrynightall I think we can believe science, I think we must not always believe human interpretation. The bias is what gets in the way, not the science.
@creationliberty Um, sorry, but there's a difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution is how living things change into other living things, abiogenesis is how life comes from something that is 'abio' or not living. This is a very silly video as The origins of the species by Charles Darwin is a commentary on the origins of the species we know today, not the origins of all life on earth. Evolution is not a religion, it is science supported by a huge amount of evidence, not an old book.
@ShavedKnuckle I suspect that's the reason we have so many people refuse to come on our show to discuss evolution. Most everyone here only has experience copy/pasting wikipedia links, but don't know how to explain it. Which means... it's likely, in most cases, that the person sending the link doesn't really understand it themselves. They just really like the concept because it gives them freedom from God, and if they get a majority on their side, evolution somehow magically becomes true. Haha!
@creationliberty I'm sure that may be true for some people, but in the same way many religious people flaunt links to websites without fully understanding the arguements presented there. The only criticism I would accept of evolution is that presented by a secular, peer-reviewed, purely scientific source, not a religious website that promotes taking the word of god over the faculties he supposedly gave us.Most people won't discuss it because it's scientifically established fact.
@ShavedKnuckle Ma of course wikipedia! Where anyone can come and change up the info! Wow! You're fucking bright! Or you're just too stupid to write anything down knowing there is no evidence
@kingseho Haha it was a joke but ok. My point is the evidence is insurmountable and heavily stacked against you. If you actually look for evidence of evolution, maybe not on wikipedia haha, then you will find it if you take a step back and look at it from a scientifically un-biased perspective. Why would I type out evidence for evolution in a youtube comment, wasting my time when you could just look. Scientific websites have no anti-religious agenda. Don't be a fool, look and learn.
@ShavedKnuckle No, you're just being ignorant. I used to believe in that shit when i was brainwashed into believing it. Evolution is a religion, if there was even one proof of it you would say it. It's impossible, the vast complexity of life cannot arise from chance, mutations are fatal; what's the point of a bird "evolving" a wing and hindering itself for millions of years while it develops? Evolution is a religion for those who cannot accept divine intervention.
"hindering itself for millions of years while it develops? " - What??
"Evolution is a religion" - I don't worship Charles Darwin. I don't go to a church and have the origin of the species read to me every sunday. Evolution is the result of evidence, and the conclusion can change as new evidence is introduced. If it were a religion, the conclusion would never change. If you wish to continue please PM me to avoid comment leangth limitations.
@ShavedKnuckle I'll pm you after this comment-yes most mutations are fatal, at the beggining of a bird's life as it just become one in the evolutionary time line as it just "evolved" from a reptilian it should have evolved it's wings correct?Since you calim evolution takes long periods of times then it's wings took millions of years, but why? It hinders itself just growing one wing then a couple of million years for the other.I didn't say darwin was a god,evolution is your religion with no truth
@kingseho if you PM me I will explain your reptile to bird example in my own words in a way you will understand. Your disbelief of evolution is clearly through a lack of understanding which I don't blame you for. Evolution is not a religion, people don't base their way of life around it, it's just the scientific explanation for the complexity and diversity of life. I don't even think evolution contradicts religion. Hit me up with a message and we'll continue our discussion.
@ShavedKnuckle It's not the explanation for the diversity of life.. tell me how evolution brings about the cell, one cell has 6 billion cell bacteria with over 60k mechanisms, darwin stated the complexity of the eye alone ruins his theory. Ok i'll type it up for you
At 0:30 Ruse says that evolution(Darwinism) doesn't deal with the origin of life. Even when Stein asks leading questions he doesn't accept that origin science is a part of evolutionary biology. Saying origins is part of evolution is like saying we need to know where the ball came from to play basketball.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 1) It's still taught in textbooks and classrooms all over the world.
2) Michael Ruse still believes it happened. (as do many evolutionists who won't admit it)
3) Darwin wrote a book called "The Origin of Species." The only reason evolutionists are shying away from talking about origins is because their theory looks really stupid in light of new research in molecular biology.
4) Evolution is not part of science. It's a religious worldview that some people choose to believe in.
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty Quote" Darwinism strictly defined starts after the origin of life"end quote. So is this just an opinion because you don't agree? That was a cut and dry statement. The book is about the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution doesn't shy away from things it doesn't comment on. Why is this such a hard concept to get your head around? It's obvious that moron Stein had trouble with the statement because he wants to talk about mud or soup in his straw man.
ptango101 1 year ago
Copying movies makes Ben Steins lose money. Plus you could get DMCA'd by him.
Secondly, Stein is deceitful in this extract. The beginning of the interview is missing, where his first answer was something like "I don't know; nobody knows." Then when asked for naming ONE theory, he mentioned the crystal (aka clay) theory. ISBN 0521233127
Stein's movie is full of quote mining like this.
Look at this series: watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s
eproulx 1 year ago
"How can there be a theory of life without having a theory of how life began?"
Then we should toss out Cell Theory, as it doesn't explain where cells came from. Similarly, we should toss out Germ Theory... it doesn't say where life came from either. Genetic Theory gets tossed out too...
Dang... the biology department is really getting wiped out by Ben Stein here.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
and now we are building more power full telescopes to try to see if there is life. so dont be so ignorant to knowledge. i personally dont understend how to believe in something that you dont have any evidence for. FIND SOMETHING MORE IMPORTENT THAN YOU AND DEDICATE YOUR LIFE TO IT!- SCIENCE!
milkywayone 2 years ago
in my life i've never seen any supernatural things. no evidence for allah super powers of jezus budda zeus or any god. we dont know yet many thing . but waht is amazing about us, is that we use our brains to think and we invented philozophy and science and started to ask quastions. we invented experiments so we now can know what is fact . we found planets with water on it and with temp similar to our planet like Gliese 581 c and many other.
milkywayone 2 years ago
Thanks for uploading!
5/5!
PS: People just rate this low because it deliberatly questions this philosophy of theirs (evolutionism) which they use to support these egotistical attitudes and lifestyles.
Pride, pride, pride... they KNOW it would all boil; down to where they'd have to get on theirs knees and say, 'Lord, I realize that Ia m a sinner, etc'
God be with you, bro!
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
If you're interested in learning about the actual origins of life, I highly suggest watching this series which was done by the BBC on everything we know about cells. Definitely one of the comprehensive and broad documentaries I've ever seen:
topdocumentaryfilms (. ) com / cell
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Comment removed
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Maybe Ben Stein should have interviewed an actual molecular biologist one activitly involved in origins research, and not a philosopher like Micheal Ruse.
helical4 2 years ago
Ruse's explanation of abiogenesis is good, but lacking detail. I'll try to be more specific; many types of organic molecules, including RNA, naturally form into chains upon the surfaces of some types of clay crystals. Scientists have been able to form RNA chains 50 base pairs long in practical early earth conditions using such catalysts. This is important, because 50 base pairs is the size of the smallest self-replicating enzyme that scientists have been able to produce.
Hooya2 2 years ago
In short, the hypothesis is that the first living thing was a simple self-replicating enzyme that formed naturally on a crystal catalyst.
Finally, I just want to point out that this video is incredibly dishonest. Stein asks an unprepared PHILOSOPHER to explain current theories in the field of biochemistry, and when he got a broad answer, rather than looking into the theory behind it and the research that's been done, just mocks him. That's not an honest search for an answer, that's trolling.
Hooya2 2 years ago
@Hooya2
Regarding the experiment you're reffering to. From what I remember they were only able to produce a pool of single stranded fragments of RNA each with a different random sequence. I didn't know they were actually able to produce ribozymes, catalytic RNA molecules, let alone ones that can self-replicate. Is this actually true, where did you hear about this? I don't doubt you, I'd just like to look it up for myself.
helical4 2 years ago
Helical your question is rather oddly phrased. Most RNA is single-stranded, for starters; also, what do you mean by 'fragmentary'? The RNA nucleotides were complete, and I can't even imagine a situation in which the chains could be considered fragmented.
But no, none of the strands generated in the montmorillonite clays were catalytic. I was simply pointing out that strands of similar length are capable of self-replicating.
Experiments showing the catalytic powers of crystals abound, but
Hooya2 2 years ago
...the one I'm thinking of is "Montmorillonite catalysis of 30-50 mer oligonucleotides: laboratory demonstration of potential steps in the origin of the RNA world" by Ferris, Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2002 Aug;32(4):311-32. The paper showing that 50 basepairs is all an RNA enzyme needs to be self-replicating is "Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme" by Lincoln and Joyce, Science. 2009 Feb 27;323(5918):1229-32. Epub 2009 Jan 8.
Both can be found on Pubmed.
Hooya2 2 years ago
@Hooya2
Those papers you sent me basically answered my question. Have you actually read these papers? RNA is not only single stranded, sometimes certain RNA molecules can fold on itself, this folded structure can sometimes give it catalytic abilities. Sorry, what I meant by fragments was short stretches of nucleotides, not that they are products of fragmentation. The motmorillonite paper only shows poly A's or poly U's 50bp-mers....
helical4 2 years ago
... The 'self-sustained replication' paper looked at RNA molecules that can connect other short pieces of RNA to make more RNA molecules capable of preforming this catalytic function as well. These two papers are not really related. My question was looking to see if they'd bridged the gaps between these two experiments.
helical4 2 years ago
Yes, I read the papers. I may be wrong about the terminology, but isn't folded single-stranded RNA still single-stranded RNA?
But yes, you're right; the montmorillonite experiments haven't produced catalytic RNA sequences.
Hooya2 2 years ago
@Hooya2
Yeah I guess you're right folded RNA is still single-stranded. I think the distinction I was trying to make was between folded and non-folded RNA. Non-folded RNA can not have catalytic function, and couldn't possibly have the ability to self-replicate. What would be great is if they could use a mixture of A, U, G, C to make a mixture of RNA molecules with random sequence, and of those some could fold into catalytic RNA's capable of joining shorter peices together.
helical4 2 years ago
I'm glad Wells admits that there is a distinction between evolution and simple darwinism, but the distinction he makes is completely wrong. At 0:30-35 he admits that Darwinism doesn't address the origin of life, but at 0:44-50 he claims that evolution must account for life. No, Wells, neither evolution not simple Darwinism must or even intend to account for the origin of life. The mechanisms of evolution only apply to living things, so if you're talking pre-life you're not talking evolution.
Hooya2 2 years ago
@Hooya2 Darwin's book is called the ORIGIN of Species. If you want to say that a theory of life doesn't involve how life got here, then you don't have a coherent theory going back to the beginning.
You can believe whatever you want, but just because you believe it doesn't automatically make it part of science.
creationliberty 2 years ago
Yes Creationliberty, the Origin of SPECIES, not the origin of life. The vast majority of theories about life don't include how life got here, because they're not INTENDED to completely account for the history of life. Evolution is simply an explanation for the way life has diversified over time.
And like it or not, evolution is a highly successful theory with ramifications in every field of biology; it's a part of science because it makes accurate predictions about what we'll find in nature.
Hooya2 2 years ago
I think it's dangerous for a person to believe in only one way. I can't label myself but I do know that Darwin was used for an agenda that has led up to now. Quantum physics and alien influence is evident to me. We must not always believe science!!
starrystarrynightall 2 years ago
@starrystarrynightall I think we can believe science, I think we must not always believe human interpretation. The bias is what gets in the way, not the science.
creationliberty 2 years ago
@creationliberty Um, sorry, but there's a difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution is how living things change into other living things, abiogenesis is how life comes from something that is 'abio' or not living. This is a very silly video as The origins of the species by Charles Darwin is a commentary on the origins of the species we know today, not the origins of all life on earth. Evolution is not a religion, it is science supported by a huge amount of evidence, not an old book.
ShavedKnuckle 9 months ago
@ShavedKnuckle What evidence?
kingseho 1 month ago
@kingseho wikipedia is your friend, you will find plenty of evidence that is non-biased and secular if you just look.
ShavedKnuckle 1 month ago
@ShavedKnuckle I suspect that's the reason we have so many people refuse to come on our show to discuss evolution. Most everyone here only has experience copy/pasting wikipedia links, but don't know how to explain it. Which means... it's likely, in most cases, that the person sending the link doesn't really understand it themselves. They just really like the concept because it gives them freedom from God, and if they get a majority on their side, evolution somehow magically becomes true. Haha!
creationliberty 1 month ago
@creationliberty I'm sure that may be true for some people, but in the same way many religious people flaunt links to websites without fully understanding the arguements presented there. The only criticism I would accept of evolution is that presented by a secular, peer-reviewed, purely scientific source, not a religious website that promotes taking the word of god over the faculties he supposedly gave us.Most people won't discuss it because it's scientifically established fact.
ShavedKnuckle 1 month ago
@ShavedKnuckle Ma of course wikipedia! Where anyone can come and change up the info! Wow! You're fucking bright! Or you're just too stupid to write anything down knowing there is no evidence
kingseho 1 month ago
@kingseho Haha it was a joke but ok. My point is the evidence is insurmountable and heavily stacked against you. If you actually look for evidence of evolution, maybe not on wikipedia haha, then you will find it if you take a step back and look at it from a scientifically un-biased perspective. Why would I type out evidence for evolution in a youtube comment, wasting my time when you could just look. Scientific websites have no anti-religious agenda. Don't be a fool, look and learn.
ShavedKnuckle 1 month ago
@ShavedKnuckle No, you're just being ignorant. I used to believe in that shit when i was brainwashed into believing it. Evolution is a religion, if there was even one proof of it you would say it. It's impossible, the vast complexity of life cannot arise from chance, mutations are fatal; what's the point of a bird "evolving" a wing and hindering itself for millions of years while it develops? Evolution is a religion for those who cannot accept divine intervention.
kingseho 1 month ago
@kingseho "mutations are fatal" - What?
"hindering itself for millions of years while it develops? " - What??
"Evolution is a religion" - I don't worship Charles Darwin. I don't go to a church and have the origin of the species read to me every sunday. Evolution is the result of evidence, and the conclusion can change as new evidence is introduced. If it were a religion, the conclusion would never change. If you wish to continue please PM me to avoid comment leangth limitations.
ShavedKnuckle 1 month ago
@ShavedKnuckle I'll pm you after this comment-yes most mutations are fatal, at the beggining of a bird's life as it just become one in the evolutionary time line as it just "evolved" from a reptilian it should have evolved it's wings correct?Since you calim evolution takes long periods of times then it's wings took millions of years, but why? It hinders itself just growing one wing then a couple of million years for the other.I didn't say darwin was a god,evolution is your religion with no truth
kingseho 1 month ago
@kingseho if you PM me I will explain your reptile to bird example in my own words in a way you will understand. Your disbelief of evolution is clearly through a lack of understanding which I don't blame you for. Evolution is not a religion, people don't base their way of life around it, it's just the scientific explanation for the complexity and diversity of life. I don't even think evolution contradicts religion. Hit me up with a message and we'll continue our discussion.
ShavedKnuckle 1 month ago
@ShavedKnuckle It's not the explanation for the diversity of life.. tell me how evolution brings about the cell, one cell has 6 billion cell bacteria with over 60k mechanisms, darwin stated the complexity of the eye alone ruins his theory. Ok i'll type it up for you
kingseho 1 month ago
@kingseho haha the complexity of the eye. PM me.
ShavedKnuckle 1 month ago