The most simple single celled organism was artificially reduced in genome size to 397 genes. A single error in genetic code and this organism can't survive or reproduce. Dividing the dna to isolate functions like reproduction, nucleotide synthesis, or lipid synthesis just kills the organism it doesn't divide its behaviors. You can't just remove the part about making spark plugs from the car blueprint and expect the other parts to run on their own. All the parts need to be intact in order.
Ahabite I USE ALL CAP. LETTERS WHEN I WRITE, BECAUSE I HAVE SEVERE NERVE, AND JOINT PAIN, EVERYWHERE- ESPECIALLY IN MY HANDS AND FEET! HOW TYPICAL, THAT YOU WOULD A-S-S-U-M-E MY INTENT- EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T KNOW ME! WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE CAMBRIAN EXP. IS ACCURATE; NEARLY ALL THE MAJOR PHYLA GROUPS ARE THERE. EVERYTHING IS FULLY FORMED, AND THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS, BUT AN ABUNDANCE OF LIVING FOSSILS- WHICH LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME NOW, IN 2012- AS THEY DID " MILLIONS OF EAONS
Desperate attempt to get rid of God. To believe that the whole universe is created by a tenth of the size of a proton isn't exact science. Stop sinning and get back to God. Like you said " Open your eyes!"
Very nice drawings/clips but it doesn't prove a thing, for EVERYTHING you suggested in these video you need mountains (I don't now how much exactly but a point mutation here and there won't cut it) or at least pages of new genetic information...So where does that come from?? You have absolutely now viable way of providing it true evolution, I use to believe that nonsense too, but look into it and you'l see it will never ever work. Not in a trillion years, without an intelligence putting it in!
IF- DNA "EVOLVED" AS YOU CLAIM- THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION WOULD NOT EXIST! THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, IS THE TERM USED TO DEFINE SEVERAL MILLIONS+ OF FOSSILS DISCOVERED WORLDWIDE, IN THE EARLIEST ROCK STRATA- LAYERS. THESE FOSSILS, INCLUDE SIMPLE AND COMPLEX MARINE LIFE, AND THE MUCH MORE COMPLEX MARINE, AND LAND ANIMALS, AND PLANTS- WHICH REPRESENT NEARLY ALL OF THE MAJOR PHYLA GROUPS! THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, HAS NEVER FIT THE EVOLUTIONAL MODEL, AND IT NEVER WILL! IT ALSO DEBUNKS YOUR CLAIM YOU
@TheWayandWordofLife Did you know that writing in all caps immediately makes you credible? It's true...You know what else does? Actually understanding the words you use, when you post. I hope you get where I am being sarcastic and when I am not. Regards
I wouldn't even call the "Genetic Code" a language; merely a mechanism like any other that can easily be understood in terms of a language. Chemistry is merely a more complex "language", then; ~118 elements, a few hundred isotopes, bound in regular patterns.
You made it look so easy and entertaining. Where did you get your raw materials of fatty acids and activated nucleotides? Look at the bigger picture. Without earth you have nothing to begin with. The other planets have been there for billion of years and no water,no life until now. Where did your universe came from? you need a creator/(?) of earth to tell your mumbo jumbo evolution story.
@odinata Fundamental requirement of your evolution story to proceed is that you need a planet that must be located no. 3 away from the sun. The other planets has been there for 6 billions of years more or less and yet evolution did not proceed. Where is the infallibility of your story? Creationist believed earth was created with all the conditions for life. See- the struggle of life to exist begin at the stellar evolution if ever there was one.
@odinata How come some nook and cranny of our universe is delayed in their development or evolution? Some of them are much older than earth. Evolution is a word that has been applied to all sort of things- to the beginning of the universe. Even to the evolution of nothingness. A convenient word used by an atheistic mentality with no(lost) scientific meaning.It is not a degree. I think only God can come out from nothingness.
You haven't the slightest clue, so you mock out of ignorance. Stick to naturalism by way of materialism, it's the only framework primitive enough for you to grasp.
"I'm simply constructing a model that has the explanatory power necessary to account for what we observe."
You aren't constructing anything.
You are ridiculing the science that doesn't agree with your religious opinions, slandering those that support the science, and provideing assertions that have been shown to be false.
You construct strawman arguments, not models, and you don't seem to understand what a "model" is--that its a technical term that you don't even come close to satisfying.
Is introduction to Genetic Code really an introduction? What should a "Genetic Code" class be about? Genetics or Genetic Codes? How many laboratories were there in the world that was conducting genetic experiments? How many are there now? Who came up with the Genetic code?
@heartlessvietboy Sorry, but... get concise. Firstly, what do you mean as "genetic experiments"? There is no reason to think that there should be a special "Genetic Code" class, just Biology (of which the code is a subunit). And "coming up" with the genetic code? You might mean - who discovered it?
Show me a code producing phenomenon in nature other than life. Show me a self replicating system that preserves the identity of the system without a code. Don't use a computer simulation that defines parameters and has the foresight of it's programmer. Show me ribozymes or other self catalyzing metabolic pathways outside of living systems in nature. Show me self replicating molecules outside of living systems in nature. Explain the scientific basis of self organizing principles leading to info
Proteins are not the only products being produced either. Also arrangement of sequences has to do with the timing and regulation of gene expression. In other words, the picture you paint with this video is so oversimplified and crude as to be laughable.
This video doesn't address information and the arbitrary rules involved in communication read/write and/or storage/retrieval. But that is the very problem that origins research has been unable to deal with for the last half a century. The sequence of base pairs is NOT determined by chemistry or physical laws, but by the functions produced through the genetic mechanisms that utilize them. Fail, and look at all the people who fall for it. Sad. At least admit you don't know when spewing speculation
Personally, I would have loved it better had it lacked the smackdown on creationists (not that they don't seriously need one) becuase these vids have some seriously nice genetics graphics and would be right at home in a purely educational video. I commend you though on the 'trying to teach creationists' cause i'm glad someone is trying to (i'm a bit cynical and prefer to let them close their eyes and let the rest of us get on with the serious stuff) so i'm glad people like you are out there!
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
@SensiStarToaster I don't think CDK007 is active on here anymore. However, he does say in all of his video descriptions that his work is copyright free. You can download this particular video via the link in the description box.
@JigglesJingle All the music in this video is from Carmina Burana by composer Carl Orff. I don't remeber witch movements exactly; the whole thing is about an hour long and has 25 movements. Glad I'm not the only one noticing cdk007 exquisite tastes in music.
Very interesting and informative video. I did have an issue with the breakdown starting at 8:04, though. I read at "lifesorigin . com/chap10/RNA_world.php" that activated nucleotides are not likely to have existed in abundance given the conditions early on in our planet's history (that they might not have existed at all, in fact).
I don't know how credible that article and the information within it is, but it would seem to punch a major hole into the theory above.
I agree. If language evolution were impossible, so would the evolution of the psyche, of society, of culture, of technology. Geological evolution would also be impossible, along with all other not-strictly biological instances of evolution. Evolution is a universal property, I would say. It's not some mere act that a cell purportedly does independent from the way the rest of the physical and spiritual world behaves. Evolution is something matter does, not something one "believes" in or doesn't.
Where did the material for life come from? Last I heard, "most" life on this planet can't survive extreme heat that the forming of this planet would cause. I still don't see how anything from nothing could come about on it's own. And for dead chemicals to suddenly come to life when their not predisposed to do so (based on no observable occurance) is an assumption, not a fact.
@vbirdieb From sapace or natural proceses organic material can be form espontaneously in the surface of the earth. You will be amaza how life can be found in extrem condition. Look for "extremophiles" and do not look for purpouse or predisposition. Molecules are not dead or alive they are just molecules. Life is just system of self contain series of chemicals reactions who replicates itself there is no "spark of life"
@vbirdieb Material for life came from space....Comets....Scientists today know that the materials for early life the way ckd007 explained it were there. And this is the origin of the genentic code if you would like to see how "anything" comes from "nothing" see the origin of life. and they werent just dead chemicals they were driven my thermodynamics and osmotic pressure...and FYI no one observed god create shit!
@Atheos119 Oh, so now life came from space??? You've only changed locations, how did this life spontaneously come to be in space, survive entering our atmosphere, and was it food first that requires oxygen or bacteria, or was it, what I recently saw in a evolution video, SPONGES.?
FYI: Adam and Eve knew God, didn't have to observe Him create it. That's why as far back as history goes there's a God in every civilization, sometimes more than one.
@vbirdieb but in theory in which God created life there is a flaw...all civilisations had a God, some more than one...but...the human begins to belive in God when he has created his civilisation, and therefore human becomed an absolute predator on the planet, human put himself with little help of tehnology on the peak of the food chain, but the fear of stronger creatures still lies in him...so human invendet exsistance of God
@vbirdieb Its pretty simple actually. You and I are made up of chemicals. Proteins, lipids and other various molecules. The elements that make up these molecules are found all over the universe. All they need is an encouraging environment (ocean thermal vents) and time (billions of years). The lipids form bubbles that let in bits of stuff. This stuff sticks to each other chemically, forming protein chains. Some of these chains are better at copying themselves than others. Its not a hard concept.
@ChrisSketch Its pretty simple actually.? The premise looks fine with graphics or simulation videos, but actual scientific proof is another matter. As of 2011 NO science experiments or projects have created a living single cell organism using any methods. The closest is the J. Craig Venter Inst. project of which they synthesized the entire genome of a simple bacteria. The issue: they couldn't get it to spontaneously come alive; they had to use a HOST cell.
@yhenry77 Wow, you mean in the past few decades of testing brand new theories scientists haven't yet fully reproduced a phenomenon that took MILLIONS of years of trial and error for nature to achieve? Color me shocked.
@ChrisSketch "scientists haven't yet fully reproduced a phenomenon" I guess we have to believe it using faith. Sorry, that doesn't work in science; it's still a hypothesis not a theory. Observation is no longer acceptable as the main criteria, since the advancements in micro-biology. Too many loose ends!
It's not a hard concept, but it's also complete speculation. There is no other example in nature of coded systems. Life is the only one. Random interactions under the right conditions, such as the scenario this video suggests, is no longer taken seriously within origins research. If there are undiscovered laws at work, where are the other examples of informationally encoded material systems? DNA is information communication, not chemically determined, this video misses the point.
@circusOFprecision No longer taken seriously? Which "origins researchers" say that exactly? As far as I'm aware, abiogenesis is still a young collection of theories but they're all based on actual chemical interactions. There's nothing random about which proteins link. And for a hypothesis to truly be dismissed, you need to show with some certainty that it's impossible and propose an idea that better explains the observed facts. What are you proposing to replace the existing various models with?
Chance/necessity hypotheses about life's origins are laughable. They do not address the information problem. You are right, there is nothing random about which proteins link. But you need to go back a few steps to how they are built. There is nothing chemically deterministic about how proteins are coded. Also consider that proteins don't evolve through gradual mutations, but more likely by entire domains or even whole protein-protein interactions at a time, intelligently.
Your inability to understand patterns and choas, and the mathematics behind it, are not valid reasons to turn to your favorite crutch--"God dunn it".
If you weren't so blinded by your own religious dogma, you might actually start to question why it is that only "complex" phenomena are used by you are and your cultists to try to prove a god that is perfectly undetectable to all of science.
@circusOFprecision Laughable?? The video showed you how it can happen naturally. In fact, it ignoring carbon based proof completely, just last year, scientists discovered a form of plasma in space that form inorganic systems of crystals that replicate themselves on their own. You're arguing out of sheer ignorance.
The video didn't show how it can happen naturally, it simply proposed a conceptual hypothesis. In the lab it doesn't go so smoothly, at all. And in nature, we see no such processes replicating towards something resembling a cell. Could it have happened that way? I don't klnow, but I do know he is leaving a ton of things out and also providing no demonstratable evidence to back it up.
I'm not introducing supernatural causes. Intelligence isn't supernatural. We experience it daily as part of our own consciousness. Are you saying that our consciousness is supernatural? Then you are defeating yourself, completely and utterly.
All I know is that mind is fundamental to what we call nature. Whether it is separate or not has not been determined as far as I know. But mind isn't molecules in motion, it's the unifying principle that causes life. Could there be an undiscovered law of physics? I don't know. It seems to me that there has to be an aspect of reality that is not physical, after all, we look out at the world, but we don't examine the looking out except in our minds.
It's a scientific hypothesis that I have a hunch about, I don't know for sure. Also, I'm not into new age crap. I'm simply constructing a model that has the explanatory power necessary to account for what we observe. To you it's garbage. Fine, I really don't care. But you think mind is a trick of the brain, a self created illusion that survives only because it hasn't been destroyed yet. You imagine it all just emerges from the chaos. That to me is a complete non-explanation.
@circusOFprecision I would agree that that is a complete non-explanation. Good thing no-one thinks that. I do believe consciousness is a product of the brain. Honestly, who doesn't? why else would someone brain damage suddenly turn vegetative, or go into a coma? But thinking that the "mind is a trick of the brain, a self created illusion that survives only because it hasn't been destroyed yet" would be ridiculous. Way to destroy a hypothesis no-one ascribes to.
So you believe that the brain manufactures consciousness? I hope you sit and ponder that hypothesis long and hard, because it makes absolutely no scientific sense. Also, you grossly oversimplified my "hypothesis" apparently so you could simply dismiss it as being irrelevant. Regardless, consciousness is not simply self-awareness. It is a process of information exchange. So if brain makes mind, where is the mind stuff at? It doesn't make any logical sense what so ever.
@circusOFprecision At least you're getting parts right. Consciousness, as well as most processes that nerves are responsible for, IS information exchange. That is really all synapses do, carry information around. But to answer your question "if brain makes mind, where is the mind stuff at?", the brain IS the mind stuff (at least, the parts responsible for consciousness is). Doesn't that question answer itself?
Okay, but if brain equals mind, does that explain mental experience? Also, I would be careful of this equation: brain = mind = consciousness. That to me is the problem. I'm not defining consciousness as self awareness. It doesn't even necessarily need to be complex. Also, consider the fact that even though we may not be presently aware of a particular event, sometimes we can still recall said event. So if consciousness is brain activity, what specifically is it?
@circusOFprecision Also, what alternative do you propose to this, exactly? And can it account for what we know to be true, that brain damage/malformation can effect our consciousness, thought patterns, social behaviors, emotions, etc.? Despite SERIOUSLY doubting that it does, I would still be interested to know. I like this kind of conversation, particularly with someone who disagrees with me.
I would propose, at least for the sake of logical argument, that consciousness is NOT equivalent to our mental experiences, rather our mental experiences depend upon consciousness. What consciousness is, well...I don't think we really know. But what we do know is that there is a strong correlation between neural communication and information processes, yet look at how much of that is outside of our present awareness.
@circusOFprecision Wow, I just gave you an example of an actual observed phenomenon of replicating, non-organic systems and you completely ignored it. Fine. Again I ask, what is the preferable theory in your opinion? Intelligent design? Because if we're talking laughable, discredited theories...
Yes, you gave me an example of a non-conscious replicating non-organic system, not a conscious self replicating organic system. Where exactly is the similarity? I'm very critical of theories that are a priori "natural", because they work to eliminate consciousness, design, and/or intelligence at all costs. Even if those are things requiring an explanation, we first have to acknowledge their causal role, or we get nowhere.
I propose that the genetic program, once fully understood, will account for the unfolding of life. But what it doesn't account for is itself. And that is the problem. This video oversimplifies a chemical reverse engineering process of basic cellular metabolism. Then it attempts to piece it back together through speculative events. It just doesn't work. And origins researchers know this. But no one knows what will happen in the future. The work continues.
thats great you think you've gave a full detailed explaination. Think about it....?.... For having a belief in nothing the slides seem quite melodramatic to be living for nothing, assuming everybody else is living with closed eyes.. I know what you think you mean... Far from convinced but good video, I think
So the main question is what created/brought about genetic information? Is there any theory to this? I've bn searching for someone who have d idea about what led to DNA code..Origin/the cause of information in DNA..thanks
Great videos... BUT... why do people who are into the really technical biological sciences (like you) seem to typically (always) feel the need to merry "classical music" AND "opera" to this already (VERY) dry subject? You are not helping your cause. Boring + Boring = MORE Boring! At least mix it up with some techno, or metal or some other thing... please. We all aren't opera aficionados, nor do we care to be. ;)
@DevilChao5 Then you missed my point. My point was and is that marrying classical music (or worse, opera) to very technical science exposition has long been cliche and can often be a turn off. And I never said "everyone" finds this as boring as I do, I don't even dislike this video.
Your videos are so well laid-out and easy to understand, thank you so much for making them (and for providing sources, I'll want to read up about this)!
verry well done ....you cant have 2 without adding one more...and u cant have 3 without adding another...sometimes we must add 6 or even a billion just to move up one more....sometimes we find and sometimes we get ....but first it must be created.
That was a very well done video... PROPS!!!!! I'm a geneticist, but don't think I could have explained it to a lay person as beautifully and simply as you just did. thx
Youtube has become so fckin retarded. I can't find one video that deals and presents scientific facts without engaging in ideological crap. The average internet video maker has a critical potential of an amoeba -> 0.
If life has started as simple as you say it has then it should be easy for you to recreate the sequence in a controlled environment for all to see but you cant, can you ? If so let the world see please…
Simple, not easy. We need to recreate in a lab the conditions of early life, you know when it was 100 degrees C, atmosphere had little oxygen but lots of nitrogen and CO2 and the water was salt filled and luckily at the time there was no condition as there was no life. We have shown in the lab how some ribosomes have evolved and evolved them ourselves, as well as some simple structures. However recreating a process that took hundreds of millions of years is *Continued*
a simple process, in fact it's amazing we can demonstrate what we have. This early "life" for some of it's simplest functions requires fast distances of open water and very salt rich environment and a hot active environment. The point is, we have demonstrated life can come from non life, and how it probably happened and what evidence supports this model, but to say that is exactly how is kinda sketchy as we have little evidence still left from that period. 3.7 *Continued*
Billion years have passed and we went through so many changes as well as so many past extinctions. The tectonic plates are constantly being recycled and are pushed under each other, volcano's, natural disasters, meteor impacts, we have so much working against us, not only that but fossils are very hard to form and small creatures(especially cell sized) are very rare to form. The fact we have ANY evidence is a miracle, but we do.
First, I love your videos...very well put together and they do a great job of explaining some very complex concepts.
I don't understand your constant desire to attack the idea of a creator. The theories are sound, but say nothing about whether or not the world was created by a "supernatural designer"
In order to conclude that the scientific evidence "proves" there was no designer, you would have to already know what a "supposed designer" had in mind at the outset of his project...
@wowamonn Abiogenesis has never been observed.Science cannot DESIGN a single living cell.But posting videos on youtube about how this happened WITHOUT the aid of a creator is easy
@pppaaaooo13 The act of abiogensis cannot be produced AT THE MOMENT but I am predicting in the next 50 years or so we will crack the secret to lifes begining, We have only just begun the understand the fucntions or RNA and DNA and how life may have occured in the natural world. Theory of Evolution by Natrual selection has only been around for a little over 150 years and it has consensus among the world scientists and I am sure pretty soon Abiogensis can and will be produced soon.
@pppaaaooo13 Living and non-living things are comprised of the same matter. What makes one living and the other non-living? The way the molecules are compounded so to say that life cannot come from non-living matter is laugable.
@pppaaaooo13 - "Abiogenesis has never been observed." What a silly argument. You walk into a room and there's a dead guy with four bullet holes in his head. Without observing the murder, you can reasonably deduce quite a few things. The dead guy was likely alive at some point. The four bullet holes probably didn't help with the whole alive thing. A gun most likely delivered the bullets - and a shooter aimed and fired the gun.
.
But you would assume a creator just made a dead guy on the floor.
@47f0 Ok.We have these evidence:We've never observed Life emerging from dead matter(1).Therefore logical conclusion dead matter cannot produce life.Life can be designed on the lab(2).Therefore Life could be designed by an intelligent force.So Mr Detective how Life emerged on Earth?What?Emerged without creator? WRONG CONCLUSION you loose your money
@pppaaaooo13 - Actually what you have is a logic failure. #1 is not evidence - it's a lack of evidence, which indicates nothing. No one alive ever observed Napoleon, but he existed. #2 is just bizarre. You just watched a video demonstrating a possible mechanism. And invoking a creator only makes things worse - the creator has to be even more complex, more improbable, then you have to account for the origin of the creator.
I just don't buy it. It's very intriguing, but too implausible based upon what we know about all of the factors. If the chain is broken the information is lost. That is the purpose of self replication. Why would a molecule preserve information? If you reduce to matter, what is it about matter that would cause molecules to evolve into such complex patterns? Chance and necessity? You would need so many molecules and so much time.
@circusOFprecision - Oh, c'mon. The "stuff of life" isn't even that hard to make. We've found amino acids in comets, meteorites and even as far out as 26,000 light years (Sirius B2). Given a laboratory the size of a planet and 500 million years, life gets much more probable. Why would molecules "evolve into such complex patterns?". Dunno. Ask a snowflake. That's one very simple molecule forming quite complex, ordered, varied, and even beautiful patterns. It's chemistry, dude.
It's chemistry? Partly it is, of course. Why don't you go to a lab and whip up some life real quick? Oh wait, you can't. You also haven't the foggiest clue as to the complexity of the gene expression system, or you are purposefully ignoring. Snowflakes aren't even in the same ballpark of complexity as living systems, nothing in nature is.
@circusOFprecision - Craig Venter has already "whipped up some life". The snowflake example was precisely because I hoped it would be simple enough for simple minds to grasp - a single molecule making relatively complex interactions. But really, the molecular interactions for proteins, amino acids and enzymes play by the same rules. A modified, synthetic RNA, RC3, has already demonstrated evolution in the lab, and that's a reasonable precursor.
Chemistry has nothing to do with the SEQUENCING of the nucleotides. It is only the precise sequencing of the nucleotides that leads to biologically relevant proteins, ect. So while you go on about intelligently guided synthetic experiments, you miss the entire problem at hand. That problem is explaining genetic expression via natural causation, how genetic molecules became sequenced to create other specific biological molecules.
NOT ORGANIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SEQUENCED. Learn the difference. Crystals are organized. DNA is sequenced. Information IS NOT organization (it takes more than just order to produce biological activity). Sequencing of a code IS.
How are crystals organized? How do they get that sequenced? What information are you talking about? I didnt say information? But can information be organized like desk work?
The reason why I wanna meet is because you aren't getting what I'm trying to say. I'll prove to you that the study of "The Genetic Code" can be broken down some more.
The reason why I wanna meet is because you aren't getting what I'm trying to say. I'll prove to you that the study of "The Genetic Code" can be broken down some more.
The reason why I wanna meet is because you aren't getting what I'm trying to say. I'll prove to you that the study of "The Genetic Code" can be broken down some more.
Snowflakes aren't genetic systems. Two completely different levels of computation and information. It's not just chemistry. With a little effort, you should be able to come to that conclusion yourself. I agree with your laboratory analogy however. But the scenario put forth in this video isn't capturing the essence of what is going on in living systems. If it's so simple, we should be able to find other examples of these kinds of systems. But I'm sure you will disagree.
You taste a piece of cheese.. It is yellow and it tastes salty.. Is it yellow and salty in reality? No.. Your eyes perceive it as yellow. and your tongue as salty.. A blind man or a man without tongue would not agree with you.. Everything is in chaotic form.. In microcosmos and macrocosmos.. It never ends no matter how good spacecrafts or microscopes we have.. Simply because there are no dimensions in reality!!!
@Sexomaniakos4ever You are right in the fact that we all percieve the world differently. However, your shouldn't say that because of that reality has no form. It has form as soon as our brains give it form. For a good example of this, try telling a schiczophrenic that his dillusions aren't real. He will not listen. To him it is real. It is his reality.
Now, if I were you I would take a hint from Inception... Even if you think reality is imaginary... Live it.
A blind person not only can "see" but he can actually create a new Universe.. Can a born-blind man dream? Yes, he can.. Colors are signals of different frequency that stimulate our eyes.. Reflected signals.. The sounds are signals that stimulate our ears.. Our brain manipulates the received signals and creates IMAGINARY reality.. Even pain is created in the brain.. Animals for example do not feel the same pain with the humans..
It is mathematically estimated that the complexity of our brain and neural networks is the same with the complexity of the Universe.. We are only a micrography of the Universe.. It is true that our brain functions affect our personality.. For example a homosexual person has not active the brain function which help us recognize our sex.. An educated man is smarter than an uneducated man but this has nothing to do with the soul..
@Sexomaniakos4ever "For example a homosexual person has not active the brain function which help us recognize our sex" Care to explain? Don't wanna strawman you.
Even each one of us receives the reality in his own unique way.. Our brain can even create its own world.. Scientifically it is proven that the connection of our brain with this database has a relation with the gates of our subconscious.. This is the reason the entheogens and other psychedelic drugs break temporarily this connection and open the gates of our subconscious.. We still can "see" and "hear" the stored memories and experiences..
One question.. Where is the human soul? Why humans have developed mechanisms of self-destruction? How is the human fantasy created? Humans develop their brain because they can imagine.. sometimes closing their eyes.. I can't accept that my existence is just a motherboard made of proteins, programmed with genetic code and my soul is a set of chemical reactions.. sorry.. The more we know, the more we realize that we don't know..
@Sexomaniakos4ever "I can't accept that my existence is just a motherboard made of proteins, programmed with genetic code and my soul is a set of chemical reactions" That's your problem. You first have to demonstrate a soul exist, wishful thinking doesn't make it so.
This has been flagged as spam show
The most simple single celled organism was artificially reduced in genome size to 397 genes. A single error in genetic code and this organism can't survive or reproduce. Dividing the dna to isolate functions like reproduction, nucleotide synthesis, or lipid synthesis just kills the organism it doesn't divide its behaviors. You can't just remove the part about making spark plugs from the car blueprint and expect the other parts to run on their own. All the parts need to be intact in order.
ShawnSwander 18 hours ago
"The evolution of a "language" is NOT impossible" by a process that have 0 awareness?
Keep having faith bro in : "is NOT impossible".
YamiYami17 1 day ago
true
videofreek112 3 days ago in playlist Origins the Series
Ahabite I USE ALL CAP. LETTERS WHEN I WRITE, BECAUSE I HAVE SEVERE NERVE, AND JOINT PAIN, EVERYWHERE- ESPECIALLY IN MY HANDS AND FEET! HOW TYPICAL, THAT YOU WOULD A-S-S-U-M-E MY INTENT- EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T KNOW ME! WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE CAMBRIAN EXP. IS ACCURATE; NEARLY ALL THE MAJOR PHYLA GROUPS ARE THERE. EVERYTHING IS FULLY FORMED, AND THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS, BUT AN ABUNDANCE OF LIVING FOSSILS- WHICH LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME NOW, IN 2012- AS THEY DID " MILLIONS OF EAONS
TheWayandWordofLife 1 week ago
It never ceases to amaze me how many people deny the very physics which allow them to use a computer to post nonsense.
geneticepistomology 2 weeks ago
Desperate attempt to get rid of God. To believe that the whole universe is created by a tenth of the size of a proton isn't exact science. Stop sinning and get back to God. Like you said " Open your eyes!"
tancheeken 2 weeks ago
@tancheeken what are you talking about. god is fantasy
dano132454 1 week ago
@dano132454 Ya sure. Like you know.
tancheeken 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have no proof.
De22Lano 3 weeks ago
You have no proof.
De22Lano 3 weeks ago
Very nice drawings/clips but it doesn't prove a thing, for EVERYTHING you suggested in these video you need mountains (I don't now how much exactly but a point mutation here and there won't cut it) or at least pages of new genetic information...So where does that come from?? You have absolutely now viable way of providing it true evolution, I use to believe that nonsense too, but look into it and you'l see it will never ever work. Not in a trillion years, without an intelligence putting it in!
Idontliketerrorists 1 month ago in playlist dna
IF- DNA "EVOLVED" AS YOU CLAIM- THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION WOULD NOT EXIST! THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, IS THE TERM USED TO DEFINE SEVERAL MILLIONS+ OF FOSSILS DISCOVERED WORLDWIDE, IN THE EARLIEST ROCK STRATA- LAYERS. THESE FOSSILS, INCLUDE SIMPLE AND COMPLEX MARINE LIFE, AND THE MUCH MORE COMPLEX MARINE, AND LAND ANIMALS, AND PLANTS- WHICH REPRESENT NEARLY ALL OF THE MAJOR PHYLA GROUPS! THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, HAS NEVER FIT THE EVOLUTIONAL MODEL, AND IT NEVER WILL! IT ALSO DEBUNKS YOUR CLAIM YOU
TheWayandWordofLife 1 month ago
@TheWayandWordofLife wow, your a tool
dano132454 1 week ago
@TheWayandWordofLife Did you know that writing in all caps immediately makes you credible? It's true...You know what else does? Actually understanding the words you use, when you post. I hope you get where I am being sarcastic and when I am not. Regards
Ahabite 1 week ago
I wouldn't even call the "Genetic Code" a language; merely a mechanism like any other that can easily be understood in terms of a language. Chemistry is merely a more complex "language", then; ~118 elements, a few hundred isotopes, bound in regular patterns.
rgrannell1 1 month ago
@rgrannell1 Hence, all science being either physics or stamp collecting. ;)
phuturephunk 1 month ago
"I think only God can come out from nothingness."
Good for you.
You have no proof.
odinata 1 month ago
You made it look so easy and entertaining. Where did you get your raw materials of fatty acids and activated nucleotides? Look at the bigger picture. Without earth you have nothing to begin with. The other planets have been there for billion of years and no water,no life until now. Where did your universe came from? you need a creator/(?) of earth to tell your mumbo jumbo evolution story.
MrMatutum 1 month ago
@MrMatutum
"you need a creator/(?) of earth to tell your mumbo jumbo evolution story."
No you don't.
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata Fundamental requirement of your evolution story to proceed is that you need a planet that must be located no. 3 away from the sun. The other planets has been there for 6 billions of years more or less and yet evolution did not proceed. Where is the infallibility of your story? Creationist believed earth was created with all the conditions for life. See- the struggle of life to exist begin at the stellar evolution if ever there was one.
MrMatutum 1 month ago
@MrMatutum
You don't know that.
Life could be evolving anywhere in th universe today.
The point is, Earth does not need to have been magically created.
However Earth got here, it now has life on it that evolves.
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata How come some nook and cranny of our universe is delayed in their development or evolution? Some of them are much older than earth. Evolution is a word that has been applied to all sort of things- to the beginning of the universe. Even to the evolution of nothingness. A convenient word used by an atheistic mentality with no(lost) scientific meaning.It is not a degree. I think only God can come out from nothingness.
MrMatutum 1 month ago
@MrMatutum
Evolution has a specific meaning in Biology.
Your religious opinions will never change it from being a fact.
Sorry bud.
odinata 1 month ago
thank you dear sir.
kwaifeh21 1 month ago
Why do I bother?
SelectHawk 2 months ago
I cant watch this becuase the music is killing me
Corabelle1414 2 months ago
@Corabelle1414 set thespeaker to mute and watch?!!!
Ryankeating81 2 months ago
@Corabelle1414 Its the Carmina Burana, get some culture. Jeez.
phuturephunk 2 months ago
Comment removed
Corabelle1414 2 months ago
The Universe is,like, a mind, man. Its sooo groovy!
You can't have life without a mind, dude man.
The universe is a conscious mind man!......
Far out!
odinata 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata
You haven't the slightest clue, so you mock out of ignorance. Stick to naturalism by way of materialism, it's the only framework primitive enough for you to grasp.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
"I'm simply constructing a model that has the explanatory power necessary to account for what we observe."
You aren't constructing anything.
You are ridiculing the science that doesn't agree with your religious opinions, slandering those that support the science, and provideing assertions that have been shown to be false.
You construct strawman arguments, not models, and you don't seem to understand what a "model" is--that its a technical term that you don't even come close to satisfying.
Fail.
odinata 2 months ago
"But mind isn't molecules in motion, it's the unifying principle that causes life."
What a bunch of mystical new age bullshit.
Complete and utter bullshit.
odinata 2 months ago
Many articles on the origin of peptide translational machinery have been published in the last year.
The RNA origin of transfer RNA aminoacylation and beyond.
Flexizymes: Their Evolutionary History and the Origin of Catalytic Function.
On the observable transition to living matter.
dopplerdog2000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is nothing chemically deterministic about how proteins are coded. "
Why don't any facts verify this assertion of superstition?
odinata 2 months ago
Is introduction to Genetic Code really an introduction? What should a "Genetic Code" class be about? Genetics or Genetic Codes? How many laboratories were there in the world that was conducting genetic experiments? How many are there now? Who came up with the Genetic code?
heartlessvietboy 3 months ago
@heartlessvietboy Sorry, but... get concise. Firstly, what do you mean as "genetic experiments"? There is no reason to think that there should be a special "Genetic Code" class, just Biology (of which the code is a subunit). And "coming up" with the genetic code? You might mean - who discovered it?
r0galik 3 months ago
This CDK character has been failing at providing evidence for evolution for years now.
I could come up with better examples and I am not even an evolutionist.
Such stupidity and straw mans.
DisprovingEvolution 3 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution wat
r0galik 3 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution
If you had something, then why didn't you post it here?
odinata 3 months ago
Show me a code producing phenomenon in nature other than life. Show me a self replicating system that preserves the identity of the system without a code. Don't use a computer simulation that defines parameters and has the foresight of it's programmer. Show me ribozymes or other self catalyzing metabolic pathways outside of living systems in nature. Show me self replicating molecules outside of living systems in nature. Explain the scientific basis of self organizing principles leading to info
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Funny how you give up just as your assertions are shown to be false.
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Argument from incredulity.
Fail.
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Show me another molecule other than water that that has the properties necessary for life...
Can't? That proves Jeebus!
Hallellujah!
Idiot.
odinata 3 months ago
Proteins are not the only products being produced either. Also arrangement of sequences has to do with the timing and regulation of gene expression. In other words, the picture you paint with this video is so oversimplified and crude as to be laughable.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
This video doesn't address information and the arbitrary rules involved in communication read/write and/or storage/retrieval. But that is the very problem that origins research has been unable to deal with for the last half a century. The sequence of base pairs is NOT determined by chemistry or physical laws, but by the functions produced through the genetic mechanisms that utilize them. Fail, and look at all the people who fall for it. Sad. At least admit you don't know when spewing speculation
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
Awesome video. CDK, your vids always rule.
What recording of the Carmina Burana is this specifically? Does anyone know?
phuturephunk 3 months ago
Personally, I would have loved it better had it lacked the smackdown on creationists (not that they don't seriously need one) becuase these vids have some seriously nice genetics graphics and would be right at home in a purely educational video. I commend you though on the 'trying to teach creationists' cause i'm glad someone is trying to (i'm a bit cynical and prefer to let them close their eyes and let the rest of us get on with the serious stuff) so i'm glad people like you are out there!
Academician100 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 3 months ago
@cdk007 Maestro I salute you, this video is a masterwork!
Would you permit me to use this video for a presentationtion to my med school class (half of whom sadly don't even believe in evolution)?
SensiStarToaster 4 months ago
@SensiStarToaster I don't think CDK007 is active on here anymore. However, he does say in all of his video descriptions that his work is copyright free. You can download this particular video via the link in the description box.
mosoi148 4 months ago
What is the music playing starting at 0:27 ?
JigglesJingle 4 months ago
@JigglesJingle All the music in this video is from Carmina Burana by composer Carl Orff. I don't remeber witch movements exactly; the whole thing is about an hour long and has 25 movements. Glad I'm not the only one noticing cdk007 exquisite tastes in music.
phillegs 4 months ago in playlist Origins the Series
Very interesting and informative video. I did have an issue with the breakdown starting at 8:04, though. I read at "lifesorigin . com/chap10/RNA_world.php" that activated nucleotides are not likely to have existed in abundance given the conditions early on in our planet's history (that they might not have existed at all, in fact).
I don't know how credible that article and the information within it is, but it would seem to punch a major hole into the theory above.
lonewind22 5 months ago
I agree. If language evolution were impossible, so would the evolution of the psyche, of society, of culture, of technology. Geological evolution would also be impossible, along with all other not-strictly biological instances of evolution. Evolution is a universal property, I would say. It's not some mere act that a cell purportedly does independent from the way the rest of the physical and spiritual world behaves. Evolution is something matter does, not something one "believes" in or doesn't.
psilogon 5 months ago
Where did the material for life come from? Last I heard, "most" life on this planet can't survive extreme heat that the forming of this planet would cause. I still don't see how anything from nothing could come about on it's own. And for dead chemicals to suddenly come to life when their not predisposed to do so (based on no observable occurance) is an assumption, not a fact.
vbirdieb 6 months ago
@vbirdieb
Try to watch these videos if reading is too difficult for you.....
odinata 6 months ago
@vbirdieb From sapace or natural proceses organic material can be form espontaneously in the surface of the earth. You will be amaza how life can be found in extrem condition. Look for "extremophiles" and do not look for purpouse or predisposition. Molecules are not dead or alive they are just molecules. Life is just system of self contain series of chemicals reactions who replicates itself there is no "spark of life"
shadowmax889 6 months ago
@shadowmax889 Are you alive?
vbirdieb 5 months ago
@vbirdieb yes
shadowmax889 5 months ago
@vbirdieb Material for life came from space....Comets....Scientists today know that the materials for early life the way ckd007 explained it were there. And this is the origin of the genentic code if you would like to see how "anything" comes from "nothing" see the origin of life. and they werent just dead chemicals they were driven my thermodynamics and osmotic pressure...and FYI no one observed god create shit!
Atheos119 5 months ago
@Atheos119 Oh, so now life came from space??? You've only changed locations, how did this life spontaneously come to be in space, survive entering our atmosphere, and was it food first that requires oxygen or bacteria, or was it, what I recently saw in a evolution video, SPONGES.?
FYI: Adam and Eve knew God, didn't have to observe Him create it. That's why as far back as history goes there's a God in every civilization, sometimes more than one.
vbirdieb 5 months ago
@vbirdieb but in theory in which God created life there is a flaw...all civilisations had a God, some more than one...but...the human begins to belive in God when he has created his civilisation, and therefore human becomed an absolute predator on the planet, human put himself with little help of tehnology on the peak of the food chain, but the fear of stronger creatures still lies in him...so human invendet exsistance of God
pijanecX 3 months ago
@vbirdieb Its pretty simple actually. You and I are made up of chemicals. Proteins, lipids and other various molecules. The elements that make up these molecules are found all over the universe. All they need is an encouraging environment (ocean thermal vents) and time (billions of years). The lipids form bubbles that let in bits of stuff. This stuff sticks to each other chemically, forming protein chains. Some of these chains are better at copying themselves than others. Its not a hard concept.
ChrisSketch 5 months ago
@ChrisSketch Its pretty simple actually.? The premise looks fine with graphics or simulation videos, but actual scientific proof is another matter. As of 2011 NO science experiments or projects have created a living single cell organism using any methods. The closest is the J. Craig Venter Inst. project of which they synthesized the entire genome of a simple bacteria. The issue: they couldn't get it to spontaneously come alive; they had to use a HOST cell.
yhenry77 3 months ago
@yhenry77 Wow, you mean in the past few decades of testing brand new theories scientists haven't yet fully reproduced a phenomenon that took MILLIONS of years of trial and error for nature to achieve? Color me shocked.
ChrisSketch 3 months ago
@ChrisSketch "scientists haven't yet fully reproduced a phenomenon" I guess we have to believe it using faith. Sorry, that doesn't work in science; it's still a hypothesis not a theory. Observation is no longer acceptable as the main criteria, since the advancements in micro-biology. Too many loose ends!
yhenry77 2 months ago
@ChrisSketch
It's not a hard concept, but it's also complete speculation. There is no other example in nature of coded systems. Life is the only one. Random interactions under the right conditions, such as the scenario this video suggests, is no longer taken seriously within origins research. If there are undiscovered laws at work, where are the other examples of informationally encoded material systems? DNA is information communication, not chemically determined, this video misses the point.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision No longer taken seriously? Which "origins researchers" say that exactly? As far as I'm aware, abiogenesis is still a young collection of theories but they're all based on actual chemical interactions. There's nothing random about which proteins link. And for a hypothesis to truly be dismissed, you need to show with some certainty that it's impossible and propose an idea that better explains the observed facts. What are you proposing to replace the existing various models with?
ChrisSketch 3 months ago
@ChrisSketch
Chance/necessity hypotheses about life's origins are laughable. They do not address the information problem. You are right, there is nothing random about which proteins link. But you need to go back a few steps to how they are built. There is nothing chemically deterministic about how proteins are coded. Also consider that proteins don't evolve through gradual mutations, but more likely by entire domains or even whole protein-protein interactions at a time, intelligently.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Argument from incredulity.
Perpetual fail.
Your inability to understand patterns and choas, and the mathematics behind it, are not valid reasons to turn to your favorite crutch--"God dunn it".
If you weren't so blinded by your own religious dogma, you might actually start to question why it is that only "complex" phenomena are used by you are and your cultists to try to prove a god that is perfectly undetectable to all of science.
odinata 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision Laughable?? The video showed you how it can happen naturally. In fact, it ignoring carbon based proof completely, just last year, scientists discovered a form of plasma in space that form inorganic systems of crystals that replicate themselves on their own. You're arguing out of sheer ignorance.
ChrisSketch 2 months ago
@ChrisSketch
The video didn't show how it can happen naturally, it simply proposed a conceptual hypothesis. In the lab it doesn't go so smoothly, at all. And in nature, we see no such processes replicating towards something resembling a cell. Could it have happened that way? I don't klnow, but I do know he is leaving a ton of things out and also providing no demonstratable evidence to back it up.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
It came a hell of a lot closer than you did in showing any supernatural causes....
Organization happens.
odinata 2 months ago
@odinata
I'm not introducing supernatural causes. Intelligence isn't supernatural. We experience it daily as part of our own consciousness. Are you saying that our consciousness is supernatural? Then you are defeating yourself, completely and utterly.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
So your claim is that the Creator isn't suypernatural?
Or that the intelligence responsible for design isn't supernatural?
Why can't you define this natural Creator of all organisms on Earth--the one that made each organism individually and unrelated to one another?
You accuse cdk007 of being a moron, but his account is directly in line the current peer reviewed science.
You, on the other hand, haven't made an assertion yet that I personally haven't shown to be false....
odinata 2 months ago
@odinata
All I know is that mind is fundamental to what we call nature. Whether it is separate or not has not been determined as far as I know. But mind isn't molecules in motion, it's the unifying principle that causes life. Could there be an undiscovered law of physics? I don't know. It seems to me that there has to be an aspect of reality that is not physical, after all, we look out at the world, but we don't examine the looking out except in our minds.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"All I know is that mind is fundamental to what we call nature."
Garbage.
Meaningless, empty statement.
You've been listening to too much Art Bell.
odinata 2 months ago
@odinata
It's a scientific hypothesis that I have a hunch about, I don't know for sure. Also, I'm not into new age crap. I'm simply constructing a model that has the explanatory power necessary to account for what we observe. To you it's garbage. Fine, I really don't care. But you think mind is a trick of the brain, a self created illusion that survives only because it hasn't been destroyed yet. You imagine it all just emerges from the chaos. That to me is a complete non-explanation.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Yeah, I've watched your hunches for a while now.
They are garbage.
I'll stick with the scientific facts.
odinata 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata
Dogma is dogma, yours is not impervious to fallacy, although you. Your desperation is a hint.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You obviously CARE, because you've been going aroung for months now calling any and all who don't buy your mystical "hunches" all manner of insults.
You won't be deterred on your agenda to supplant the facts with your hunch.
Fortunately, your hunches can't possibly complete the mission you've set for them.
Why?
Because every assertion you make in support of your hunches, as it turns out, are factually inaccurated.
That is to say, false.
odinata 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision I would agree that that is a complete non-explanation. Good thing no-one thinks that. I do believe consciousness is a product of the brain. Honestly, who doesn't? why else would someone brain damage suddenly turn vegetative, or go into a coma? But thinking that the "mind is a trick of the brain, a self created illusion that survives only because it hasn't been destroyed yet" would be ridiculous. Way to destroy a hypothesis no-one ascribes to.
SelectHawk 2 months ago
@SelectHawk
So you believe that the brain manufactures consciousness? I hope you sit and ponder that hypothesis long and hard, because it makes absolutely no scientific sense. Also, you grossly oversimplified my "hypothesis" apparently so you could simply dismiss it as being irrelevant. Regardless, consciousness is not simply self-awareness. It is a process of information exchange. So if brain makes mind, where is the mind stuff at? It doesn't make any logical sense what so ever.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision At least you're getting parts right. Consciousness, as well as most processes that nerves are responsible for, IS information exchange. That is really all synapses do, carry information around. But to answer your question "if brain makes mind, where is the mind stuff at?", the brain IS the mind stuff (at least, the parts responsible for consciousness is). Doesn't that question answer itself?
SelectHawk 2 months ago
@SelectHawk
Okay, but if brain equals mind, does that explain mental experience? Also, I would be careful of this equation: brain = mind = consciousness. That to me is the problem. I'm not defining consciousness as self awareness. It doesn't even necessarily need to be complex. Also, consider the fact that even though we may not be presently aware of a particular event, sometimes we can still recall said event. So if consciousness is brain activity, what specifically is it?
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision Also, what alternative do you propose to this, exactly? And can it account for what we know to be true, that brain damage/malformation can effect our consciousness, thought patterns, social behaviors, emotions, etc.? Despite SERIOUSLY doubting that it does, I would still be interested to know. I like this kind of conversation, particularly with someone who disagrees with me.
SelectHawk 2 months ago
@SelectHawk
I would propose, at least for the sake of logical argument, that consciousness is NOT equivalent to our mental experiences, rather our mental experiences depend upon consciousness. What consciousness is, well...I don't think we really know. But what we do know is that there is a strong correlation between neural communication and information processes, yet look at how much of that is outside of our present awareness.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
What we do know is that there is ZERO evidence for any external magical beings giving us our consciousness.
None.
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision Wow, I just gave you an example of an actual observed phenomenon of replicating, non-organic systems and you completely ignored it. Fine. Again I ask, what is the preferable theory in your opinion? Intelligent design? Because if we're talking laughable, discredited theories...
ChrisSketch 2 months ago
@ChrisSketch
Yes, you gave me an example of a non-conscious replicating non-organic system, not a conscious self replicating organic system. Where exactly is the similarity? I'm very critical of theories that are a priori "natural", because they work to eliminate consciousness, design, and/or intelligence at all costs. Even if those are things requiring an explanation, we first have to acknowledge their causal role, or we get nowhere.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Your fallacious demand is garbage, circus.
Asking for another version of a natural phenomena isn't reasonable--and doesn't confirm your superstitious pre-drawn conclusion.
Dude.
odinata 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You can't have life, like, without a mind, man!
A hahhahhahaha!
odinata 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Oh, I have a clue.
I've got your number--you have a vague mystical idea that you are trying to force on the world--but it just won't stick.
The reason is simple:
Your assertions are false.
odinata 2 months ago
@ChrisSketch UMMM... Self replicating space crystals? Article link please!
SelectHawk 2 months ago
@ChrisSketch
I propose that the genetic program, once fully understood, will account for the unfolding of life. But what it doesn't account for is itself. And that is the problem. This video oversimplifies a chemical reverse engineering process of basic cellular metabolism. Then it attempts to piece it back together through speculative events. It just doesn't work. And origins researchers know this. But no one knows what will happen in the future. The work continues.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision
The work is called science.
Not religion.
odinata 2 months ago
thats great you think you've gave a full detailed explaination. Think about it....?.... For having a belief in nothing the slides seem quite melodramatic to be living for nothing, assuming everybody else is living with closed eyes.. I know what you think you mean... Far from convinced but good video, I think
unshakable4life 7 months ago
"ODE TO JOY" - awesome music for an awesome video.
MrRouXRenard 7 months ago in playlist Origins the Series
what music is this LOL???
SHIBBYiPANDA 8 months ago
So the main question is what created/brought about genetic information? Is there any theory to this? I've bn searching for someone who have d idea about what led to DNA code..Origin/the cause of information in DNA..thanks
peopleswave 8 months ago
@peopleswave
Watch "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak" from this user.
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@leechmasterb Ok Thanks
peopleswave 7 months ago
Very well made video. As always, compelling information CDK.
Horathgar42 8 months ago
Anyone know the name of that musical score in the background?
urbandenizen 8 months ago
@urbandenizen
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi" from Carmina Burana, text ancient, composition by Carl Orff
Strangelic 8 months ago
@Strangelic Thanks. Some great background music while I read.
urbandenizen 8 months ago
These videos are awesome
DevilChao5 9 months ago
Great videos... BUT... why do people who are into the really technical biological sciences (like you) seem to typically (always) feel the need to merry "classical music" AND "opera" to this already (VERY) dry subject? You are not helping your cause. Boring + Boring = MORE Boring! At least mix it up with some techno, or metal or some other thing... please. We all aren't opera aficionados, nor do we care to be. ;)
DRAKULU 9 months ago
@DRAKULU opera music is the least distracting, btw not everyone find this as boring as u do
DevilChao5 9 months ago
@DevilChao5 Then you missed my point. My point was and is that marrying classical music (or worse, opera) to very technical science exposition has long been cliche and can often be a turn off. And I never said "everyone" finds this as boring as I do, I don't even dislike this video.
DRAKULU 8 months ago
Good video, but I hate that you use the term irreducible complexity. No self-respecting biologist regards that concept with any credibility.
dhicks3 9 months ago
Your videos are so well laid-out and easy to understand, thank you so much for making them (and for providing sources, I'll want to read up about this)!
purplespottedbunny 9 months ago
i m student of molecular biology,, thanks for providing excellent video
udaybrave 9 months ago
I like fairy tales.Kinda make me sleepy
pppaaaooo13 10 months ago
@pppaaaooo13
Oh you do? Then let me tell you the tale of these two people named Adam and Eve...
thieflord555 8 months ago
verry well done ....you cant have 2 without adding one more...and u cant have 3 without adding another...sometimes we must add 6 or even a billion just to move up one more....sometimes we find and sometimes we get ....but first it must be created.
MrWicked1111 11 months ago
That was a very well done video... PROPS!!!!! I'm a geneticist, but don't think I could have explained it to a lay person as beautifully and simply as you just did. thx
rusman74x 11 months ago
Comment removed
Challagar 11 months ago
Youtube has become so fckin retarded. I can't find one video that deals and presents scientific facts without engaging in ideological crap. The average internet video maker has a critical potential of an amoeba -> 0.
BoteAMVCreator 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BoteAMVCreator
inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - abenteuer-universum[.]de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi[.]nlm[.]nih[.]gov/pubmed/909793
ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule) - wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine) - biology-direct[.]com/content/5/1/36
Live long and prosper.
types10000 11 months ago
This helped me with my Science Test! Thanks!
VansNerd101 11 months ago
If life has started as simple as you say it has then it should be easy for you to recreate the sequence in a controlled environment for all to see but you cant, can you ? If so let the world see please…
1984tenpoundhole 11 months ago
@1984tenpoundhole
Simple, not easy. We need to recreate in a lab the conditions of early life, you know when it was 100 degrees C, atmosphere had little oxygen but lots of nitrogen and CO2 and the water was salt filled and luckily at the time there was no condition as there was no life. We have shown in the lab how some ribosomes have evolved and evolved them ourselves, as well as some simple structures. However recreating a process that took hundreds of millions of years is *Continued*
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@1984tenpoundhole
a simple process, in fact it's amazing we can demonstrate what we have. This early "life" for some of it's simplest functions requires fast distances of open water and very salt rich environment and a hot active environment. The point is, we have demonstrated life can come from non life, and how it probably happened and what evidence supports this model, but to say that is exactly how is kinda sketchy as we have little evidence still left from that period. 3.7 *Continued*
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@1984tenpoundhole
Billion years have passed and we went through so many changes as well as so many past extinctions. The tectonic plates are constantly being recycled and are pushed under each other, volcano's, natural disasters, meteor impacts, we have so much working against us, not only that but fossils are very hard to form and small creatures(especially cell sized) are very rare to form. The fact we have ANY evidence is a miracle, but we do.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
First, I love your videos...very well put together and they do a great job of explaining some very complex concepts.
I don't understand your constant desire to attack the idea of a creator. The theories are sound, but say nothing about whether or not the world was created by a "supernatural designer"
In order to conclude that the scientific evidence "proves" there was no designer, you would have to already know what a "supposed designer" had in mind at the outset of his project...
DocGrun 11 months ago
Well, at least the music's nice.
236549 1 year ago
Lol what a nice fairy tale.I love how people believe those retarted videos
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 Really? What part of the video the poster got wrong?
wowamonn 1 year ago
@wowamonn Abiogenesis has never been observed.Science cannot DESIGN a single living cell.But posting videos on youtube about how this happened WITHOUT the aid of a creator is easy
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 The act of abiogensis cannot be produced AT THE MOMENT but I am predicting in the next 50 years or so we will crack the secret to lifes begining, We have only just begun the understand the fucntions or RNA and DNA and how life may have occured in the natural world. Theory of Evolution by Natrual selection has only been around for a little over 150 years and it has consensus among the world scientists and I am sure pretty soon Abiogensis can and will be produced soon.
wowamonn 1 year ago
@wowamonn The act of Abiogenesis will be produced ON THE LAB.Get it?
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 Living and non-living things are comprised of the same matter. What makes one living and the other non-living? The way the molecules are compounded so to say that life cannot come from non-living matter is laugable.
wowamonn 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 - "Abiogenesis has never been observed." What a silly argument. You walk into a room and there's a dead guy with four bullet holes in his head. Without observing the murder, you can reasonably deduce quite a few things. The dead guy was likely alive at some point. The four bullet holes probably didn't help with the whole alive thing. A gun most likely delivered the bullets - and a shooter aimed and fired the gun.
.
But you would assume a creator just made a dead guy on the floor.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0 Ok.We have these evidence:We've never observed Life emerging from dead matter(1).Therefore logical conclusion dead matter cannot produce life.Life can be designed on the lab(2).Therefore Life could be designed by an intelligent force.So Mr Detective how Life emerged on Earth?What?Emerged without creator? WRONG CONCLUSION you loose your money
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 - Actually what you have is a logic failure. #1 is not evidence - it's a lack of evidence, which indicates nothing. No one alive ever observed Napoleon, but he existed. #2 is just bizarre. You just watched a video demonstrating a possible mechanism. And invoking a creator only makes things worse - the creator has to be even more complex, more improbable, then you have to account for the origin of the creator.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0
Murders have been observed, so your analogy fails. Abiogenesis has not been observed. I think you need to find a new analogy.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
I just don't buy it. It's very intriguing, but too implausible based upon what we know about all of the factors. If the chain is broken the information is lost. That is the purpose of self replication. Why would a molecule preserve information? If you reduce to matter, what is it about matter that would cause molecules to evolve into such complex patterns? Chance and necessity? You would need so many molecules and so much time.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
True, but that's exactly what an ocean and billions of years does for you.
mtszabo 1 year ago
@mtszabo
That's what you think. Nobody knows.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
True. No one known for certain exactly how life began on Earth... but we do have some very good ideas: watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
mtszabo 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision - Oh, c'mon. The "stuff of life" isn't even that hard to make. We've found amino acids in comets, meteorites and even as far out as 26,000 light years (Sirius B2). Given a laboratory the size of a planet and 500 million years, life gets much more probable. Why would molecules "evolve into such complex patterns?". Dunno. Ask a snowflake. That's one very simple molecule forming quite complex, ordered, varied, and even beautiful patterns. It's chemistry, dude.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0
It's chemistry? Partly it is, of course. Why don't you go to a lab and whip up some life real quick? Oh wait, you can't. You also haven't the foggiest clue as to the complexity of the gene expression system, or you are purposefully ignoring. Snowflakes aren't even in the same ballpark of complexity as living systems, nothing in nature is.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision - Craig Venter has already "whipped up some life". The snowflake example was precisely because I hoped it would be simple enough for simple minds to grasp - a single molecule making relatively complex interactions. But really, the molecular interactions for proteins, amino acids and enzymes play by the same rules. A modified, synthetic RNA, RC3, has already demonstrated evolution in the lab, and that's a reasonable precursor.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0
Chemistry has nothing to do with the SEQUENCING of the nucleotides. It is only the precise sequencing of the nucleotides that leads to biologically relevant proteins, ect. So while you go on about intelligently guided synthetic experiments, you miss the entire problem at hand. That problem is explaining genetic expression via natural causation, how genetic molecules became sequenced to create other specific biological molecules.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
DNA is Deoxyribo-Nucleic Acid. Chromosome is an organized structure of DNA. What is an organized structure?
heartlessvietboy 11 months ago
@heartlessvietboy
NOT ORGANIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SEQUENCED. Learn the difference. Crystals are organized. DNA is sequenced. Information IS NOT organization (it takes more than just order to produce biological activity). Sequencing of a code IS.
circusOFprecision 11 months ago
How are crystals organized? How do they get that sequenced? What information are you talking about? I didnt say information? But can information be organized like desk work?
heartlessvietboy 11 months ago
@heartlessvietboy
You're all over the place. If you really want me to try to answer your questions, please be more concise.
circusOFprecision 11 months ago
If you were to ask someone a question, you expect them to answer it.
heartlessvietboy 11 months ago
@heartlessvietboy
I can't answer you if I don't understand the question. If I don't understand the question, just maybe, it is on you to try and ask it again.
circusOFprecision 11 months ago
Is there somewhere we can meet?
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy
Depends on who is asking...
circusOFprecision 9 months ago
The reason why I wanna meet is because you aren't getting what I'm trying to say. I'll prove to you that the study of "The Genetic Code" can be broken down some more.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy
Send me a pm and try to explain your ideas about the genetic code if you like. But meeting in person is obviously out of the question.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason why I wanna meet is because you aren't getting what I'm trying to say. I'll prove to you that the study of "The Genetic Code" can be broken down some more.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason why I wanna meet is because you aren't getting what I'm trying to say. I'll prove to you that the study of "The Genetic Code" can be broken down some more.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@47f0
Snowflakes aren't genetic systems. Two completely different levels of computation and information. It's not just chemistry. With a little effort, you should be able to come to that conclusion yourself. I agree with your laboratory analogy however. But the scenario put forth in this video isn't capturing the essence of what is going on in living systems. If it's so simple, we should be able to find other examples of these kinds of systems. But I'm sure you will disagree.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
Is you favourite words 'Think About It)? XD
TM2Studios 1 year ago
@TM2Studios
When surrounded by mindless idiots, yes, those words are a necessity, not just a favorite.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
But just to be clear, cdk007 is a complete and utter moron. So ironically, he is the one that needs to think about it.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
Haha omg i came here for a science lesson because i failed to attend lectures, not a grand ultimatum to the christians XD
psmanici4 1 year ago
You taste a piece of cheese.. It is yellow and it tastes salty.. Is it yellow and salty in reality? No.. Your eyes perceive it as yellow. and your tongue as salty.. A blind man or a man without tongue would not agree with you.. Everything is in chaotic form.. In microcosmos and macrocosmos.. It never ends no matter how good spacecrafts or microscopes we have.. Simply because there are no dimensions in reality!!!
Sexomaniakos4ever 1 year ago
@Sexomaniakos4ever You are right in the fact that we all percieve the world differently. However, your shouldn't say that because of that reality has no form. It has form as soon as our brains give it form. For a good example of this, try telling a schiczophrenic that his dillusions aren't real. He will not listen. To him it is real. It is his reality.
Now, if I were you I would take a hint from Inception... Even if you think reality is imaginary... Live it.
DrLoafer 1 year ago
A blind person not only can "see" but he can actually create a new Universe.. Can a born-blind man dream? Yes, he can.. Colors are signals of different frequency that stimulate our eyes.. Reflected signals.. The sounds are signals that stimulate our ears.. Our brain manipulates the received signals and creates IMAGINARY reality.. Even pain is created in the brain.. Animals for example do not feel the same pain with the humans..
Sexomaniakos4ever 1 year ago
It is mathematically estimated that the complexity of our brain and neural networks is the same with the complexity of the Universe.. We are only a micrography of the Universe.. It is true that our brain functions affect our personality.. For example a homosexual person has not active the brain function which help us recognize our sex.. An educated man is smarter than an uneducated man but this has nothing to do with the soul..
Sexomaniakos4ever 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sexomaniakos4ever "For example a homosexual person has not active the brain function which help us recognize our sex" Care to explain? Don't wanna strawman you.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Even each one of us receives the reality in his own unique way.. Our brain can even create its own world.. Scientifically it is proven that the connection of our brain with this database has a relation with the gates of our subconscious.. This is the reason the entheogens and other psychedelic drugs break temporarily this connection and open the gates of our subconscious.. We still can "see" and "hear" the stored memories and experiences..
Sexomaniakos4ever 1 year ago
One question.. Where is the human soul? Why humans have developed mechanisms of self-destruction? How is the human fantasy created? Humans develop their brain because they can imagine.. sometimes closing their eyes.. I can't accept that my existence is just a motherboard made of proteins, programmed with genetic code and my soul is a set of chemical reactions.. sorry.. The more we know, the more we realize that we don't know..
Sexomaniakos4ever 1 year ago
@Sexomaniakos4ever "I can't accept that my existence is just a motherboard made of proteins, programmed with genetic code and my soul is a set of chemical reactions" That's your problem. You first have to demonstrate a soul exist, wishful thinking doesn't make it so.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y