Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 8 of 12)

[nomesbirdy]

And that's why I believe in creation

[Fulltilt1973]

trying to convince a person intellectually is impossible, you can assemble a plethora of facts to no avail, because as the Bible says: "The fool says in his heart there is no God". if the verse had said the fool reasons in his mind there is no God, you would have a chance. But saying it in your heart reveals that the fool has decided there is no God.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@Fulltilt1973 WTF does Atheism have to do with anything in this video?

[killerboyfoolz]

Are you saying you hate your God? I don't see why you had to bring up God in this.

[bommobiel]

@killerboyfoolz I hate God too. He wants to torture me forever in hell. That's a good reason, isn't it?

[killerboyfoolz]

@bommobiel 9 month ago...Hmm...I remember, it's right after my atronomy class. So why are you bringing God up again?

[JehovahIsMyRock]

@bommobiel

hell actually contradicts what the bible teaches. the bible teaches that death is a state of non existance. the doctrine of hellfire in christendom started in the second century... long after jesus' death. hell was a teaching in ancient: egyptian, greek, european, asian cultures.

His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish. psalm 146:4; genesis 3:19; ecclesiastes 9:5,10. God is the personification of love and does not torture anyone 1john4:8

[killerboyfoolz]

If nucleotides (Proteins) form DNA then DNA are form from amino acids. DNA is like our brain, it need a signal to do something. Amino acids can form by itself by covalents and ionic bonding. All this stuff are easy to figure out, I cannot believe those scientist cannot figure it out! They major in biochem, how can they not know these things?

(Maybe too old? Went to a Fundalmental Christian school? Wrong major? How come they cannot figure it out?)

[blattt188]

@killerboyfoolz I was reading ur comment & I knew it had to be inevitable that you would bring up Christ(as if that had anything to do with anything) There's millions of religions but ppl always seem to single out the God of scripture. No matter how different various beliefs may be, one thing the entire fallen world can agree on is their hate for the true God...

[anmpir]

@blattt188 the only thing that's fallen is your brain, out of your head.

Seriously, think about it: the hundreds of religions are not the majority. There are only a handful or largely established religions that are not offshoots or sects of the original Abrahamic religions. Even Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Instead of cursing this world and writing it off, try to understand why people are abandoning faith in sky gods/creators in droves: the evidence does not support it. Simple.

[CreativeVisionary92]

@killerboyfoolz they take it from the wrong way. This is not a subject of evolutionary biology! NO! this is Abiogenesis. And abiogenesis, despite being in a comparatively early state of empirical development, explains that the very first proto RNA polymerized in pre-biotic waters, according to it the proteins could form. In other case they could indeed form spontaneously under certain conditions. It's rare, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE. This documentary and all ID arguments fail at every argument!

[micLtoes]

central dogma

[Queegzzz]

Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. Its is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.

Question: What takes greater faith - to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of the cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

[Queegzzz]

Fact: DNA's capacity to store information still has no equal in today's computer age

Question: If human computer technicians cannot achieve such results, how could mindless matter do so on it's own.

[Queegzzz]

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

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

[ChrisnStarry]

We ARE NOT accidental animals!!!

[blattt188]

Romans 1

19.Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[gregrutz]

It's complex, I don't understand, God musta dun it !

[killerboyfoolz]

@gregrutz This is kind of too late to reply, but have you read a biology book, chemistry book, and an astronomy book yet? Or took those classes before (All three)? If you hadn't then maybe that's the reason why you do not understand this video. If you have read them, maybe it's because you weren't into school and want to have fun. Like one of a christian philosopher said, "You must show interests to understand the point."

[grandocute991]

you poeple use your logic.science is a fact and riligion is only thoery without any scientific evidence. IF there where something els then we would have been aware as the air we breath otherwise it shouldn't be a unknown mystery..just believed..dont make me sick after know things are clear as cristal...

[Mr123me321]

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

[Richardonvideo]

@Mr123me321 Sounds like the words of someone who has done very little research into speciation and evolution in general to me, no?

[Mr123me321]

Evidently Richard is someone who comes from the position of ignorance as to the facts and thinks that he has the answers but in reality hasnt got a clue. Richard it is not a matter of is but when and you will be proven wrong. !!!EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!

[Richardonvideo]

Well, is it true or not that you have done very little research into speciation and evolution in general? Because I have done quite a bit and I don't think creationism is even slightly plausible.

[Mr123me321]

Unlike you who parrot what other people have said on the subject. I have taken the evolutionary theory form the basic elements through every step of the evolutionary theory and through deductive reasoning able to determent it is impossible. There are just so very many highly relevant facts that you idiots over look in order to keep on pushing your stupid theory. Next year I will publishing a paper in late 2011 early 2012 that will prove you idiots !!!WRONG!!!.

[Richardonvideo]

@Mr123me321 Oh yeah, what reading have you done? Intelligent design for dummies by Some Creationist? Is your paper going to be in a peer reviewed scientific journal? I look forward to reading it if it is, because it will be the first of it's kind!

[thebig1]

@Mr123me321 I'd like you to email me so we can discuss design. These mind migits are to closeminded to understand facts.

[benrush123]

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, later admitted that "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 Yeah that's cool, but that doesn't make it true. You're trying to argue from authority. Whether he believes this or not does not prove intelligent design.

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 Oh and furthermore, your examples are all basically, "we don't know right now, we're gonna resort to the design hypothesis". Sorry, but that's not how science advances. Assuming design (especially without evidence) severely limits our progress in science. As a bioengineer, if I was taught intelligent design, it would do nothing to help me. It would just prevent further knowledge in evolution.

[benrush123]

You are right we may never "know" but for now ID is the best fit. It has helped me make a number of important predictions and discoveries and I will continue to use it in the lab and clinic. Sorry if you do not respect Francis Crick, but he was a BIG thinker and worked with the biggest and best minds. You are free to believe what you want, but macro evolution and random mutation do not fit my observations. Good luck.

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 I respect Francis Crick, but his opinions do not make intelligent design a fact. Random mutations are a fact of life. The changing of genetic material is a fact of life. People are free to reject facts of life, but they are not free to bring unsubstantiated claims to the table. It ruins the integrity of science.

[thebig1]

@TheSeventhSon Science comes from a designer. Science would not be if someone all those years back hadn't have thought of it. We all are here because of a creator and regardless of what you say all of us yearn for that something that seems missing. To assume we got here by random chance is very ignorant on your part.

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

Science and the effects we observe through science do not come from a designer. The scientific method was created by man, I think that's what you're trying to say. Either way, that's irrelevant. Speak for yourself, we all do not yearn for "something that is missing". I don't see to fill voids with an imaginary deity. To assume we got here because of a god is an extra added assumption that has no validity. There's nothing ignorant about assuming life randomly developed.

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

You're basically saying that I am ignorant because I don't believe what you believe. That is just terrible logic to be honest.

[AtlantiansAnAlteran]

Utter nonsense. The evidence for design is screaming at you from the motors, pistons, and massively sophisticated structures strung through-ought the living cell.

As a bio-engineer, your knowledge that it was designed by an intelligent source, would dictate that you study life diligently yo learn how the systems are designed to function so as to inspire you unto solutions to problems you face in your field.

[TheSeventhSon]

@AtlantiansAnAlteran All of these molecular machines abide by the laws of science, which means we can actually derive real data. There is nothing to suggest that these things were designed, just that they were able to form because physical laws allow them to. Assuming design is an extra step that isn't necessary.

Yeah, whatever you just said about studying design is absolutely useless. Engineers study physics to understand function.

[greglam]

@TheSeventhSon Sir, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. When you say that "they (i.e. molecular machines) were able to form because physical laws allow them to" you are, in effect saying that they self-assembled without instructions, correct? That is to say, "they just came together because they could but for no other reason than that". Is that correct?

[TheSeventhSon]

@greglam

Molecules are formed as proteins from genes within DNA. Over time, with natural selection, various "molecular machines" developed efficiently based on environmental pressures.

[benrush123]

Because of its design, the body has certain important redundancies, as do aircraft, life support systems. It might not operate as well, but it will still function. Irreducible complexity is a concept that you are introducing. You are not using it in its proper context. It means that certain complex functions/structures are too complex to have "evolved" because they have to be complete to function. They imply design.

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 Irreducible complexity has been debunked. Nothing implies design. Biological systems work because physical properties allow them to, not because they were designed.

[benrush123]

Irreducible Complexity has not been debunked. Many systems will not work if key components are absent. To say that physical properties allow them to work does not speak to their origins, design whether macro evolution or not.

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 You should watch Ken Miller's debunking of irreducible complexity with respect to the bacterial flagellum. And, yes it does. DNA is made up of organic molecules. Organic molecules were able to form under early earth conditions. Much research is being done in abiogenesis to figure out how RNA, and eventually DNA, arose. Just because we don't have all the answers does not mean an intelligent source was responsible.

[benrush123]

Now you are starting to sound like a fundamentalist baptist. I do not need to PROVE either. I am a scientist and therefore use the tools of observation and experimentation to advance my theories and research. In the past I have found it more useful to consider all structures and processes to have purpose and function, not random or useless. The random and useless theories in my experience have been used to the detriment to the researcher.

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 What you were originally saying was wrong...therefore I'm like a fundamental baptist? Nice. If ID is to be taken as a scientific theory it must be proven as such, regardless of what helps your mindset when you're conducting research.

[benrush123]

What I have been saying is not wrong. You are clinging to macro evolution in spite of a growing amount of molecular data to the contrary. That is like a fundamentalist. ID makes more sense, fits more observations and works better in the lab. "DNA is made up of organic molecules" proves nothing. The organization and information it conveys is what speaks of ID. That would be analogous to proposing since Shakespeare is made up of letters it therefore randomly formed.

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 That's funny, you must be suggesting that genetic mutations don't exist if you're saying that macro evolution is non existent. Sources? I'm pretty sure evolution has been working well in lab settings for about...150 years now. Proteins are said information and are produced based on physical laws, there's nothing within their production that suggests an intelligent source had to be responsible.

[benrush123]

I am not suggesting that mutations don't exist, just that they don't account for macro evolution. The lab it full of micro adaptation, the most famous, the fruit flies or Darwins moths. Bacteria frequently adapt, but these are not proof of macro evolution.

Please review the "Mystery of Life" video again and observe the molecular machines. They document ID.

[TheSeventhSon]

What mechanism exists that prevents genetic mutations from affecting macroscopic characteristics? Genes all code for proteins, how is it that only some genes can be affected by mutations?

Molecular machines demonstrate adaptation to the laws of physics over long periods of time. Molecular machines and man-made machines work because of physical laws, not because they were designed.

[benrush123]

The limitations are present in the design. Minor changes can be accommodated, but in all cases, major changes fail. This fact is what spanned the "Hopeful Monster" theory by Goldschmidt. Francis Crick himself struggled with this problem and proposed "Directed Panspermia" as a solution, but this only begged the issue of design.

[TheSeventhSon]

@benrush123 Not all cases. Macromutations occur, but it's more likely that gradual micromutations accumulate over time to account for macroevolution. What you are essentially saying is that mutations can occur within genes enough such that micro functions are affected, but that mutations must stop at a certain point so that macro functions are not affected. This is absurd and there's absolutely no evidence for it. If the genome mutates enough over time, there will be significant changes.

[waketherabble]

The fact of the matter is that if the human body is, as you argue, irreducibly complex, then the removal of one of its parts should result in the failure of the system.

Why is it OK then, to remove the appendix? If we really are irreducibly complex, we should die without it.

[hiriLoves]

not always. you can take a few thing away and live fine.

[prettyemofreak]

People who had had their appendix out earlier in life had up to 50 times less chance of developing ulcerative colitis or Crohn's and if they did develop these diseases, they were milder or occurred later in life. Further evidence of the importance of this organ is found in the fact that it has its own blood supply, and an independent mesentery (this indicates that the appendix is not a "part" of some other organ).

[prettyemofreak]

he fact that the vermiform appendix contains a great deal of lymphatic channels. Lymph is the body's primary method for combating infection and foreign bacteria. The appendix also happens to feed into the cecum at the beginning of the large intestine. The large intestine is the home to many types of bacteria (e. coli being the most common). These bacteria are not all "bad" and may play an important role in our digestion processes.

[prettyemofreak]

However, bacteria populations can get out of control sometimes, and that's when the lymphatics of the appendix may be important. In effect, the appendix may help to regulate the population of bacteria in our gut.

[benrush123]

... the first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong

"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke . "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"

[waketherabble]

Science, as a set of principles, is an inanimate philosophy of study, PRACTICED by scientists. It itself can not know. I was pointing to your grammar and syntax being off. Saying "science knows" is comparable to saying "biology knows." If what you mean to say is, "The majority of scientists conclude...", then say that. Implying that a philosophy itself "knows" something is akin to saying that an inanimate set of principles exhibit a degree of consciousness. This is blatantly wrong.

[waketherabble]

While it may be true that *some* scientists posit that the appendix has some functionality, the *majority* of modern scientists still conclude that it has no necessary function.

Isn't irreducible complexity a key part of your argument--remove one part and the whole thing falls apart?

If this is true, why is there absolutely NO evidence that the removal of the appendix has any impact on the immune function? Contrarily, the appendix, in many individuals is better REMOVED than present.

[benrush123]

My answers are limited to 500 characters and therefore will not always be grammatically correct.

You have not addressed my response to the appendix, just my syntax.

[benrush123]

My point IS that ID is VERY useful for predictions in both experiment design and observation. All ID assumes is that there is an intelligent designer. You assume that it is mystical or magical, not I. Could be another, more advanced civilization from another galaxy. I do not pretend to KNOW who it is, but I can say that ID makes more scientific sense that random mutation, or the latest theory of the day. ID is totally testable and not religious.

[waketherabble]

Just curious.

How do you test whether DNA was the product of design?

[benrush123]

By how much waste is present in the structure. No waste, design, waste, random mutation.

[waketherabble]

I'm curious as to why the lack of waste equates to an assumption of design. This is a gigantic logical leap without basis.

[waketherabble]

By this logic, an automobile, which is quite wasteful, is not designed. You confuse me with your profound stupidity.

[benrush123]

Your insults betray you. Macro evolution's mechanism is random, worthless, wasteful mutations, that result in a rare beneficial improvement. Hence it would predict a great deal of waste or non-useful elements.

Automobiles are very efficient designs, all parts have a specific function. The waste you refer to is our lack of knowledge regarding efficient combustion, drag and friction. Now if a car had 2 steering wheels, one that worked and another that didn't, that would be wasteful.

[waketherabble]

How would you account for human tonsils, the appendix, or fingernails? These are superfluous and unnecessary. They are wasteful and functionless. Design?

[benrush123]

Good thought. Vestigial structures, as they are referred to were one of the main supporting facts for macro evolution. As it turns out in almost every case, as we learn more, these "vestigial organs" are actually very important. Same for "useless" DNA that was once thought as a carry over. Science now knows that these structures have very important functions. There used to be over 180 "useless" structures in the body. Thank goodness, good science has prevailed, not prejudice or evoligionist.

[waketherabble]

The vast majority of scientists have come to the conclusion that the appendix is a functionless organ--a remnant from when we needed to eat tree bark.

And "science" doesn't "know" things. Scientists* come to conclusions based on evidence. The evidence points, unambiguously, toward the appendix being completely functionless. This is waste. You argue against your own theory.

[benrush123]

Science CAN know. Science KNOWS that jumping off the Empire State Building will result in your death.

Dr.'s Parker and Bollinger from Duke Univ. have proposed that the appendix serves as a back-up for beneficial intestinal bacteria, critical to the immune system. How am I arguing against my own theory? I just suggest that our structures and function suggests intelligent design.

Any more "killer" arguments? Why not accept the obvious? Your religion in the way?

[TeeLC1971]

You don't use your fingernails?

how weird.

[benrush123]

I use my fingernails everyday. They protect the ends of your fingers and are used to pick-up objects.

[benrush123]

Illustra presents a very compelling argument for ID. The mechanisms they describe are useful for predicting the results or designing an experiment. If one is trying to understand a process it is more productive to assume ID where each element has a specific function and not wonder if an observation is of a "leftover" from a past function that has yet to be removed from the process, which is what macro evolution would predict.

I don't work in a sausage factory, but I do like sausage.

[MaxSafeheaD]

That's just it - ID can make no predictions.

All it is dose is assume everything has some, mystical higher purpose.

It's totally untestable and is pure religious speculation.

[benrush123]

This clearly demonstrates the incredible complexity, yet simplicity of life! WOW! After working in this field this material does a phenomenal job of explaining protein synthesis and folding, which are key to all life and its processes. Amazing. Great job. God Rules! We are the age of proteomics and the realization of order and structure.

[MaxSafeheaD]

"working in this field"

I presume by working with protein you mean a sausage factory.

Look up RNA.

[condorito29]

Thank you for your input, Dr.

[condorito29]

People who disagree with Intelligent Design do so only because they can't stomach its implications.

Funny....isnt' that what they always say about religious people and science?

[MaxSafeheaD]

There are no implications for ID!!