Is DNA evidence of intelligence over evolution?

[Howie47]

Your just confusing "Shannon information" with real information. See my video response for an explanation. You are very very wrong. You can't get away with such a pitiful argument.

[themadhair]

Just watched your video and, frankly, you really have not got a clue.

In order to discuss information theory, especially in terms of biological information, you have to an associated metric for measuring changes in information content. The metric used in information theory, as first developed by Shannon, shows information increases in DNA from generation to generation.

[Howie47]

You are very wrong. Shannon information is just the bits of material that represent real information, Like pen and ink represent real words. The quality of those words can differer. Causing the amount of Shannon information to differ. Scientist have been writing papers and BOOKS on these questions, and how to measure real information.

[themadhair]

Scientists use information theory just as I have described. You are voicing disagreement without explaining where I am wrong and without explaining how I am misusing information theory metrics.

Basically until you put your ideas into a rigorous and testable form you have simply no case.

What do you actually know about information theory? And if your answer is nothing then why do you not study it BEFORE trying to debate it?

[Howie47]

"Scientists use information theory just as I have described." I suppose your talking about scientist that agree with your outmoded view!? Many scientist are saying that "information theory" is in contrast with current biological theories. If you don't realize this fact. I doubt your knowledge of the recent books and papers that have been written in the last 10 years.

[themadhair]

I can cite you plenty of peer reviewed papers supporting what I say.

Can you link me to a single one? I will not be holding my breath.

[Howie47]

If you are truly totally unaware of the secular establishment movement to promote a godless agenda. Then I really doubt your in tune-ness to any thing closely related to reality. Maybe you could watch, "The Biologist". So your claim is you can site more scientist for you position then I can for mine? Wow, such an intellectual argument you make.

[themadhair]

So you are admitting that there are NO peer reviewed papers AT ALL supporting your ramblings? You go back to conspiracy land now.

Information theory is pretty basic mathematics, and is little more than an extension of group and probability theory. Use a metric on DNA and it becomes obvious that any selective process necessarily increases information content. The mathematics back this up. And you are offering nothing concrete in opposition. Good luck with that.

[themadhair]

The problem you have is that pulling phrases like pertinent out of your ass, while regurgitating the two century old argument to design as first presented by Paley, suffers from being undefined, from being unusable as a metric, from being utterly divorced from information theory itself and from simply being an incoherent mess.

The central complaint I raised at the start of my video is that the phrase biological information, as used by creationists, is both undefined and meaningless.

[themadhair]

If you want to try raising your criticism again then you need to do the following:

1) You need to develop a rigorous definition of information and its quantification, or to provide a clear metric that can be used to determine whether information gain/loss occurs.

2) You then need to provide an explanation for why, under your metric, natural selection plus genetic mutation will not cause information increase.

Good luck with that.

[mczeljk]

If you really belive in a ship that contained all the animals that lived on the earth for 40days or so than you have to be plain stupid. Sorry, there's just no other way to say it.

[ksufool521]

What if the code of DNA that makes you who and what you are, has alrady lined up in the exact same way before.Kind of like code that is written for programs to run on a computer, Every time the code is in a specific order, a specific task happens. So say in 59 trillion years from now a planet evolves life and the same code you have written in your genes gets written again? Does that mean you are back alive? Maybe we really are just all programs in a matrix?

[kitefrog]

lee is brain dead and an idiot

[yodelingsquirrel]

Okay, Lee Strobal actually started out as an evolutionist. However, through research and evidence he became a Christian, and a Creationist.

[themadhair]

WTF is an 'evolutionist'?

Where is Strobel's evidence that led him so? Every single argument I read in his books and see in his videos boil down to this simple postulate - 'I don't understand therefore god'. That is neither an argument nor evidence.

If you want to go down this line you should be aware of the counter argument - namely that belief in god is in inverse proportion to education levels. However, this is utterly irrelevant to the topic in the video which dealt with science.

[oopsmybad707]

Wow LoL

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Variation is a part of the existing design. The species has to continue to be viable so the complete integrity of the species has to be maintained.

The ability to make or not make vitamin C means nothing other than the fact that everything has the same Creator.

The fact remains that none of the millions of creature have ever had any links either before or after their existence. That requires millions of explanations that also do not exist. DNA is evidence that each species is unique.

[themadhair]

Variation can increase which completely destroys first the point you tried to raise. The common creator argument fails horribly due to nested hierarchies.

Your final paragraph is just embarrassing. Natural selection plus mutations are the two explanations needed. It explains vestigial DNA and nested hierarchies - something a creator hypothesis doesn't.

Each species is unique - that is why they are called 'species'. Tips of branches are unique while belonging to the same tree.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

The millions of explanations squared that are lacking is an embarrassment.

You need to understand that what you say is "vestigial DNA" is all there for a reason. Most of that is needed for the early development of each of the species. You can't take DNA and declare that some of it is not needed because you were not there every step of the way You also do not know what the original format was or how that was made. There has to be continuity because all life is made from the same material.

[themadhair]

NESTED HIERARCHIES.

Please go and look that up before you continue further. EVERY species that has been genetically mapped conforms to a nested hierarchy. The common creator argument is sheer ad hoc (and given the creationist account utterly revisionistic - dirt is not the material of life) that doesn't account for the many predictions that evolutionary theory continues to make here.

Here is the knockout-why is the gene for a leg necessary for whales and not for fish? I want an answer to that.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

You need to understand that there is limit to the way that life forms can be made. The similarity is because of the need to use the same building blocks. It is so amazing that life is able to exist even with a Creator. Everything else in the Universe has to support the life forms. There is nothing that we eat that does not come from dirt. I don't know where you get your information from. It is as if all life has to go through the same tunnel. The wonder is that it is viable when it gets out.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Whales are totally different from what we call fish today but they were made that way. Whales are mammals. If whales had to flee something, that does not mean that they would turn into bats.

[themadhair]

Commonality is a very different thing from nested hierarchies. The argument isn't that DNA between humans and chimps is similar - but that it is HIERARCHICAL. Explaining away the content of this video because life is made from the same material is completely missing the point being raised here.

The dirt comment was a snide jab at the Adam and Eve story. I think you missed that.

You didn't actually answer my question concerning whales. Whales have a leg gene - why do fish not? Maybe evolution?

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

We are not gaining brain mass, we are losing it. This is proof that we did not come from chimps.

Well if everything that we eat came from the dirt, God could have made us out of the dirt. It just stands to reason. I think that you missed the point. It shows that you just repeat what you hear without thinking about what you are saying.

Maybe the whales lost their their back flippers. Seals and sea lions still have them. Other dinosaur had them too.

[themadhair]

Your first sentence is factually untrue and irrelevant - nested hierarchies. Look them up please.

Creationism teaches we came from dirt which is a different material than life. It is typical of claims made long ago before the necessary understanding of such things existed.

Flipper DNA is not leg DNA and I can't believe you even tried to claim so. Did you know that some whales are born with leg atavisms? Of course not - that level of research would mean you cease to be a creationist.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

You mean to tell me that whales have front legs??? ...and tell me the difference between a sea lions leg and a flipper. It is an actual leg with feet and claws. You are making a distinction when there is none.

We have lost brain mass and everything that we are made up of comes from the dirt and when we die, we return to dirt. That is scientific fact. Your thinking is extremely biased.

[themadhair]

Whales have the DNA need for legs. Occasionally this DNA gets switched on and you have whales born with leg atavisms. This is a well know piece of evidence for evolution. That you interpreted what I wrote as implying I was equating flippers with legs is just sad and betrays your total lack of research on the subject.

Dirt material is chemically different from living matter. If you are unaware of this then that is simply embarrassing.

I am biased in favour of evidential supported ideas.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Everything that we are comes from dirt. All of the food that we eat comes from dirt. Besides, who do you think you are to argue with God or to say what God can and cannot do?

Like I said there are many creatures that still have their back legs and flippers so that information is meaningless because that is a loss of information, not a gain of information.

[themadhair]

Dirt is chemically different from life. Please consult a chemistry textbook if you think different.

Who are you to argue with physical evidence?

Whale legs are not flippers.

Please define information because the definition used by scientists (from Shannon-Weaver) seems to differ from what the creationists use. Bring this up in no way addresses the question I raised regarding whale leg DNA which you seem intent on trying to dance around.

Protip: research BEFORE you type.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

I still don't know what you are trying to say. Are you saying whales have legs or flippers?

Dirt is transformed into the food that we eat. What is your problem?

You don't know what information is? Information makes you what you are. If the information was different, you would be different. Depending on how the information is shuffled, that is how the person turns out but it is all from the original set of information that Adam and Eve gave us. Its OK, let your preconceive assumptions go.

[themadhair]

Whales, usually, have flippers. But they still contain the DNA for the legs their precursor form once had. Occasionally this DNA can get switched on and you can have whales born with leg atavisms. I am asking you to explain this if evolution did not occur.

Free chemistry lesson. 95%+ of all food you eat is organic molecules (composed of H, C and N atoms). 95% of dirt is NOT organic molecules. They are chemically different. This is my argument so drop the straw man.

[themadhair]

Care to provide a definition for information that isnt unusably vague? The definition as used by science is that from Shannon-Weaving theory. Defining information as what makes you you iswellpointless.

Your contention that Adam&Eve provided an original set fails horribly given that the average human has, on average, 75 unique mutations not present in the parental DNA.

( ww w . genetics . org/cgi/reprint/156/1/297 . pdf )

I am biased towards evidence - why aren't you?

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

That is what happens when you shuffle the information. It results in a unique individual while maintaining the integrity of the species. The child will have grandpa's brow, grandma's chin and they will have someone else's hair color and or texture. All of these features are information.

You are biased towards believing that objects make information which could never happen.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

I think that I said they possibly had flippers (or legs, if you prefer) that they lost and that is no evidence of adding information. It is a loss of information and I am repeating myself.

Yeah, I suppose there is about 90% of quartz in dirt and that is irrelevant. We still came from the dirt and we will return to the dirt.

[themadhair]

Making information cannot happen? You make a bold statement like this and yet you cannot provide a definition for information to be able to test your claim? Using your own pseudo-definition that "Information makes you what you are" then the paper I linked to shows that information can not only increase - but that it does so in EVERY generation if any of the mutations are beneficial.

[themadhair]

Why are you bringing information into the question I asked regarding whales? Free biology lesson more variation is more information, and more variation comes from more active alleles. Evolution is a change in the number of active alleles. In the case of a whale the number of active alleles increased for its blowhole and reduced for its legs.

But what does this have to do with the question I asked you about leg DNA though?

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

The point is that the information was always there from the beginning. A blowhole is a specific characteristic. It did not evolve. There is a bird that has a tongue that goes up over its brain and through its nose cavity into its mouth. That is a unique design that no other creature has. Those things do not evolve. They were made that way. Scientists are not being completely honest. Leg DNA is how the creature was made for whatever reason. I have personally seen a small snake with limp legs.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Do I have to be specific? The falling of the proteins into order (that were first made that way to even be able to fit together) does not happen by chance. It has to be ordered. There is nothing new under the sun. What you say is "new information" is nothing more than shuffled information that was already always there from the beginning.

[themadhair]

Getting specific. Which part(s) of the following do you disagree with:

1) DNA is a code of 4 characters.

2) The arrangement of those characters determines protein structures (and is therefore, to use your definition, information).

3) The length of DNA can increase (polyploidism, gene duplications etc.).

4) Any base pair (or small collection of base pairs) in DNA can be altered (miscopying, FSM etc.).

1-4 combined logically imply that information content can increase and produce novel function.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Tell me what novel function can additional information make? A "novel function" requires a total and complete change, not little changes here and there. Also your little mutations and increases of information are more than likely overridden within only a few generations so that the viability and integrity of the species is maintained.

[themadhair]

Define information and stop relying on vagaries.

Which of the four steps do you specifically disagree with? Claiming that novel function requires 'total and complete change' is invoking a straw man. If you continuously have small changes there must necessarily come a point where what you are left with is a 'total and complete change' from what you began with.

Why are such changes likely to be 'overridden'? If such changes are beneficial/neutral then why should be so?

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

If you have "small changes" that are overridden and deleted, the end result is nothing, nada as far as evolution is concerned. The information is corrected because it is not a part of the original design.

[themadhair]

But no mechanism to correct such changes! The only thing that weeds out such changes is if the mutated offspring do not reproduce (aka natural selection). There is no genetic mechanism that reverts such changes and I encourage to evidence such and receive your Nobel prize in biology.

In science such postulations, in this case a correcting mechanism, are considered junk in the absence of any evidence. Also - the paper I linked to did research that relied on your postulation not being true!

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Just one marriage to someone with brown eyes will correct the blue eyed "mutation".

[Warsel]

Do you know of Sickle Cell Anemia (as an example?) A SINGLE nucleotide (a letter in the DNA) changed has a huge impact on your chance of getting malaria. Therefore, in regions where malaria is common (the selection pressure), you find more people who have that changed gene in their DNA.

This is a perfect example for a very drastic change happening suddenly and giving a novel function (resistance against malaria)

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Chance is not evidence against design.

Besides, the preexisting design was made for such adaptations and they would never occur without having a preexisting design.

[Warsel]

well, so you admit that your previous point (no gain of new information and new functions) was wrong then.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Even the possibility for "new information" cannot occur without a preexisting design already in place. You have to have the design before you can have any change in design. A change in the information is not new info. You are so blinded by your belief that you don't even know what you are saying. You are talking about design as if no Designer is needed. Nothing would exist without the possibility and that is by design.

[Avatra1]

Great video!

[zeropeanuts]

No cause God hates vitamin C, and so he created the teletubbies to fight cloud-men. You see!? that's why we don't have a working vitamen C gene, we need it to defend the clouds from the teletubbies that God made in the first place, and he knew that so he made it possible for the defective gene to kill teletubbies on contact... Yeh that makes perfect sense, that fit perfectly right next to all the other bullshit in the bible :)

[SirMildredPierce]

Aw man, I was hoping for a creationist explanation of the broken Vitamin C gene that all us humans and simians carry. I mean I really want to know how they explain it away. But I get just another well reasoned explanation of why Evolution is correct. Oh bummer....

[retepvosnul]

Ow ow ow , Let me try. Ehh. Because.. man has .. original sin which come down to our incestuous ancestor Eve eating an apple, which is a fruit and contains vitamin-C, right? Now God was pretty irate because he gave man a perfectly good gene that enabled Eve to generate vitamin-C by herself and so by eating the forbidden fruit she clearly was an ungrateful little minx which deserved to be kicked out of paradise. So Adam, Eve and all primates ( for good measure ) got the gene deactivated!! Done!

[boredbob33]

There is no purpose to your life by your views. you realize that, yes? when you die, you shall simply.. cease to be. nothing more. meaningless chemical reactions. I guess that fuels my belief.

Pre-biotic chemistry... no back-up for natural creation

I will stop arguing with you ending with an apology

Your answer to your question is correct. i failed to think about it fully. DNA supports evolution completely, where it supports intelligence i guess only with a little faith and common sense.

bob

[themadhair]

"There is no purpose to your life by your views....I guess that fuels my belief."

You do realise this is an appeal to consequence? It is also moot since life is equally as meaningless/ful whether or not a creator was involved. I am somewhat surprised here since you claimed to be a deist and just advocated a belief in an afterlife -- particularly so when the topic at hand was science where such beliefs, until evidenced, should be left at the door.

[themadhair]

"Pre-biotic chemistry... no back-up for natural creation"

???

"where it supports intelligence i guess only with a little faith and common sense."

No so much common sense and much more faith. The more research that is done on abiogenesis the more likely it seems. It is an active avenue of research and this doesn't show any signs of stopping. Every single breakthrough in science has come from a naturalistic explanation -- the origin of life seems to be no different.

[boredbob33]

The question your video should ask is:

Is the evolution of DNA evidence of intelligence?

The answer to that question would be invariably no.

but to say DNA is NOT evidence of intelligence? all logic points toward yes.

You are correct that DNA supports evolution, but it supports intelligence also.

Do you agree that taken alone, without worrying about when or how it was created, the complexity and function of DNA supports intelligence?

Please begin response with answer to that/\

-bob

[themadhair]

"INFORMATION"

Which permits information theory which, as mentioned above, ends your argument.

"that was my assumption as a viewer"

That was your assumption as an ID proponent so I won't be losing much sleep over it.

"Still waiting for a counter example"

Not sure why since I fail to see how the idea is even relevant.

"Actually, Giants causeway doesn't help your argument much because although it passes demski's filter, there is a logical, naturalistic explanation of it's formation."...

[themadhair]

...Thank you. Now take this line of reasoning further and you should see why Dembski is horribly wrong.

"If such an explanation existed regarding DNA, i have told you i would admit I am wrong and actually become an atheist."

And here we have a false dichotomy, god of the gaps, argumentum ad ignorantiam, double standards, red herring (if this would make you an atheist then you really are missing the intention and purpose of science) and an appeal to consequences all in 22 words.

[themadhair]

"so it still has a pretty good success rate by that math."

You're not really examining his filter very closely. Anything not yet explained passes it -- it is merely a subtler form of god of the gaps.

"intelligence is by far the best explanation"

That explains precisely squat. What testable predictions does this explanation have? How can it be falsified? How can it spur later research? The simple answer is that id does none of these things. It has no explanatory power.

[themadhair]

"but to say DNA is NOT evidence of intelligence?"

Care to point me to wherever I said that in the video? You seem to be convinced that I either said or implied such -- but where?

"but it supports intelligence also."

And for about the forth time could you point to something concrete on this? Or at least something that doesn't either fail or rely on untold vagaries.

[themadhair]

"the complexity and function of DNA supports intelligence?"

This question depends what you mean by intelligence doesn't it? By most standards of the defining of intelligence I would say I don't know until such was demonstrated and/or evidenced. Knowing what I know now I say the answer is no. Occam's razor and pre-biotic chemistry combined with no demonstration of a creator leads me to a naturalistic explanation.

[boredbob33]

Actually, Giants causeway doesn't help your argument much because although it passes demski's filter, there is a logical, naturalistic explanation of it's formation.

If such an explanation existed regarding DNA, i have told you i would admit I am wrong and actually become an atheist.

Also, that's one example, there are billions of examples for his filter, so it still has a pretty good success rate by that math.

intelligence is by far the best explanation we have of DNA's origins.

[boredbob33]

i can't explain the complexity of DNA with 500 characters as i previously said that INFORMATION(i dont care im calling it that) alone would fill 1000s of pages of text.

I also said "presumably" when saying your conclusion was "DNA is evidence of evolution over intelligence" that was my assumption as a viewer which should matter to you as the presenter.

Good point with Giants causeway i hadn't seen that.

Still waiting for a counter example about design occuring after the beginning.

-bob

[boredbob33]

In my view, Your question forces one to choose between two things that through any logic, can happily coexist.

You havn't disproved intelligence by proving evolution. You must accept that do you not?

-I promise this is it for now, bob.

[themadhair]

""design inference" has been defined,"

Care to define it then? (I sincerely hope you aren't referring to Demski's idea)

"So i believe him"

So you admit this is an appeal to authority then.

"without explaining DNA's origins, you cannot scientifically say no."

How does that follow? The claim that DNA is designed is used to deny evolution and my video was directed against that claim (mentioned at 3:11). This video deals with evolution not origins -- that's your straw-man again.

[themadhair]

"Design occurs at Origins."

Now that is a positive claim. Care to define what you mean by design? And while you are at it could you actually cite some positive evidence (in particular the metric you intend on using) for such rather that the negative argument you have been parading?

"You havn't disproved intelligence by proving evolution."

When did I ever claim I did? My intention was to show that ascribing DNA to intelligence is a piss poor attempt to deny the occurrence of evolution.

[boredbob33]

"When did I ever claim I did (disprove intelligence by proving evolution)?"

"IS DNA EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENCE OVER EVOLUTION?" you answered no.

So what you meant by answering no was: "DNA supports evolution over intelligence."

correct?

Your video does not show this because design of a thing, in any other observable instance, occurs at the beginning of that thing's existence. GIVE ME A COUNTER EXAMPLE!

[boredbob33]

cntd.

so the two can coexist, putting evolution not OVER intelligence, as your conclusion presumably states, but harmoniously, logically, with it.

Your intention, then, should be stated correctly in the future.

And yes I agree with Demski's logic. Where is it flawed?

Your info to measure info theory is not relevant either. Call the arrangements whatever you want, they are still just as complex and just as unlikely to occur.

-bob

[themadhair]

So this boils down to your semantic misunderstanding. You are equating "DNA is not evidence of intelligence over evolution" with "DNA is evidence of evolution over intelligence" -- that's YOUR error not mine.

Even given the irrelevance of this to the stated aim of my video, you have still failed to produce any evidence for intelligence in DNA. 'Its too complex' isn't even a proper argument until you demonstrate its truthfulness.

[themadhair]

"And yes I agree with Demski's logic. Where is it flawed?"

Where do I start? How about here (ww w . fosep . org/science%20and%20religion/W­ilkinsElsberry2001 . pdf)? How about his complete failure to demonstrate a useable metric for either design or complexity? What chemistry do you base your conclusion "still just as complex and just as unlikely to occur" on? The Giants Causeway passes Dembski's filter -- are you going to argue that this proves it was designed?

[boredbob33]

One more point.

Where in today's world do we see a designer acting on his functioning design?

Design- and therefore intelligence- happens at the beginning. My house was designed, but has since experienced NATURAL change. It still functions, however, as a house.

Design occurs at Origins.

So by all logic my conclusion is very relevant to discrediting your answer to the title question. So I have actually not used a straw-man at all.

I ACCEPT EVOLUTION.

It is simply rain on my roof.

-bob

[boredbob33]

"design inference" has been defined, and it fits origins perfectly.

Dean Kenyon is very relevant. He threw away his theory and in doing so, his reputation and glory. He does the research. I can't. So i believe him that science has no clue about DNA's origin.

Your video asks, "Is DNA evidence of intelligence over evolution?" without explaining DNA's origins, you cannot scientifically say no.

You have no argument without that explanation

yours, straw-man

[boredbob33]

i guess i really shouldn't really be arguing with you because your video avoids my point altogether, so if you had a good argument for the origin of the first cell, you would have put it in your video..

I am not a deist, i just dont like you mocking a creator when the information you present is far from eliminating the need for one.

please write back,

Bob

[themadhair]

"I don't really like how aggressive you seem to be getting."

Was my response aggressive? I didn't insult you or use strong language so I don't see why you chose to interpret it as aggressive.

"I accept evolution I think it is incredible and perfect."

If you really do then why did you start a debate based on this straw-man -- "What I doubt is DNA's origin, which your argument conveniently forgets to mention."?

My video dealt with evolution not the origin of life -- hence your straw-man.

[themadhair]

"What I can't accept is chemistry accounting for the first cell."

Why not? The cell continues to function on chemistry and all the materials the cell is composed of arise every day through chemistry -- so why are you so adamant that its origin cannot be chemical?

"new science has forced him to betray his theory,"

Such as? You have presented a tired appeal to authority based on an authority's personal incredulity.

[themadhair]

"i use the accepted scientific definition of what can be assumed designed."

Care to cite a paper for this. This sounds very like Demski's specified complexity -- which has never passed peer-review.

"This goes into a whole new branch of science called "design inference""

Care to cite a paper for this? I have never read of this branch of science in a peer-reviewed journal.

"evidence toward a creator."

You seem to be providing a negative argument rather than positive evidence.

[themadhair]

"Why do we instantly KNOW that it is designed and created"

It has been modelled to look like humans and we can look at closer and see evidence of human stoneworking, stone polishing etc. When we move to life there is no such argument that can be made -- because we have no experience (like with masonry) with what a designer can do. I have said it before and I'll say it again. Give me a definition of design that allows us to extrapolate a metric for detecting it then you would have a point.

[themadhair]

"so one who accepts chance as the cause of 1st life"

Congratulations. You have no officially beaten your 'chance' straw-man to death.

"video avoids my point altogether"

Since my video concerns only evolution, why are YOU debating something outside of that?

"i just dont like you mocking a creator"

I mock the logic used to try and conclude a creator. But you seem to miss a subtle point here -- where does science eliminate a creator?

[boredbob33]

One example. Mount Rushmore. Why do we instantly KNOW that it is designed and created, rather than just a random assembly of a mountainside? We know because it is an unlikely assembly (just as unlikely is any mountainside) that has a recognizable pattern. NOW, the info needed for DNA rep. is immensely more complex than the info needed for mount rushmore. so one who accepts chance as the cause of 1st life should MORE logically accept chance as the cause of mount rushmore. that is logical science.

[boredbob33]

In regards to the first cell and DNA replication, all LOGIC points toward design. When i say that, i use the accepted scientific definition of what can be assumed designed. This definition is randomness along with recognizable, or in this case functional, patterns. Anywhere else in the world where we see these two things together, design is obvious and accepted. This goes into a whole new branch of science called "design inference" and it is compelling evidence toward a creator. dont say "god".

[boredbob33]

I don't really like how aggressive you seem to be getting. My argument for DNA replication did not deny mutations. I accept evolution I think it is incredible and perfect. What I can't accept is chemistry accounting for the first cell. There's a man named Dean Kenyon who wrote a famous book called Biochemical Predestination in the late 60s, explaining the development of the first cell. Since then, new science has forced him to betray his theory, and he is now an advocate of intelligent design.

[boredbob33]

My final point is that the origion of these millions of amino acids that needed to randomly assemble in the correct order has never been thorougly explained. Miller's famous experiment where he simulated the earth's early atmosphere and achieved amino acids was done using an atmosphere made up of the wrong percentages of gases as accepted by science today. no acids- no assembly- no life.

make another video that explains the first cell, and there will be another atheist in the world.

-bob

[themadhair]

"What I doubt is DNA's origin, which your argument conveniently forgets to mention."

Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the origins of life, only with the origins of species and development of species so this point is moot from the get go. The origin of life falls under abiogenesis.

"This code is supposed to have come about by random chance?"

No one is suggesting that this code arose by random chance -- the claim is that it arose by the laws of chemistry which is most definitely not random.

[themadhair]

"this information was created through natural forces"

By using the word information you have crushed your own argument here. Every organic molecule has an information content by the standard of information theory (unless you are using a different definition you neglected to share). The laws of chemistry dictate that such molecules can chemically combine, the act of which increases information. The mechanism to increase information already applies before you even get to the stage of a cell.

[themadhair]

"and the first, glorious cell of life was in existence"

On current evidence it is clear that before 3.5 billion years ago there was no life on earth and subsequently there appeared single celled organisms. Clearly those organisms had to come from somewhere. The scientific discipline that researches how is abiogenesis. Frankly, offering 'god did it' is trite platitude that explains nothing about how this first cell arose -- hence abiogenesis which is based on chemistry.

[themadhair]

"now your theory relies on the RANDOM occurrence of DNA replication"

Are you claiming that DNA doesn't undergo mutations? I cited papers that clearly demonstrate the occurrence of such. These mutations are random in the sense that we can't predict how they affect DNA -- but their occurrence is far from random.

"a process your video describes as "complex, and i mean really, stupefyingly complex.""

My quote referred clearly to DNA replication. You have quote mined me here out of ignorance.

[themadhair]

"incomprehensibly unlikely"

DNA mutations are an established fact so this knocks one of the events off your list. If abiogenesis didn't occur then you wouldn't be here to ask your questions (since life arose, whether naturally or supernaturally, abiogenesis has occurred by definition). Out of your two events one is overwhelmingly documented (see the two papers on bacterial genomic variance over time I linked to) and the other is self-evident truism (unless you assume life always existed).

[themadhair]

"randomly assemble in the correct order"

By the process isn't based on chance -- it is based on chemistry. You might be surprised the work that has been done on this, although I suspect that you are too lazy to look some of it up.

"Miller's"

Why do people who argue against abiogenesis by natural means have a propensity to assume that there has been no scientific research done for fifty years since Miller?

[themadhair]

"make another video that explains the first cell, and there will be another atheist in the world."

The phrase 'double standards' springs to mind right about now. Nobody has explained how god created life.

Since science can only deal with the natural world it must necessarily search for a natural explanation. If science could test for god then god would be natural by definition.

And what does science have to do with god?? It makes no comment on the supernatural.

[boredbob33]

Now, the Kicker to the argument below. Even if by some miracle, this information was created through natural forces, and the first, glorious cell of life was in existence, now your theory relies on the RANDOM occurrence of DNA replication, a process your video describes as "complex, and i mean really, stupefyingly complex."

To believe that these two incomprehensibly unlikely things happened randomly, successively, is far too much for a logical mind to accept.

[Warsel]

You need to separate two things: say the first 1000 bases of DNA were created by god > would you agree that evolution has a good explanation of how things could have happened from then on?

If so: you are not opposing evolution at all and your problem lies elsewhere.

Abiogenesis is not supposed to be random bits of DNA just randomly flying together and forming a new lifefform - that's ridiculous any nobody (also not us scientists) believes it happened like that.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

6,013 years of known history is not enough for any evolution to take place and the most that could ever happen to a highly guarded preexisting design is a warping of that design. Your belief is exactly backwards. The more the design changes, the more vulnerable that design is because species only lose information. Even a duplication of information, which is extremely harmful, is not a gain of information. Everything you believe is wrong and it has no basis in reality.

[Warsel]

6013 years of know history is not enough for major changes in evolution in humans. But then known history goes back further far more than a mere 6000 years.

.. or do you think fossilized animals, dinosaurs etc. are not part of history.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

The estimations of the age of the fossils has been contaminated by the age of the earth. The fossils are the evidence of the biblical account of the flood that happened no more than 4500 years ago. Every life form around the world was all buried at the same time by the same event that covered them with tons of sediments.

[Warsel]

So you are arguing that evolution didn't take place but somehow we got to 1,5 million species within 4500 years from apparently two animals each? Noah must have build a damn supertanker out of steel there. If you find that plausible but evolution unrealistic you truly are blind to your own arguments.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

The problem is how you define a species. There were not millions of species on the ark. There were representatives of the differing kinds of animals which each had many variations of their kind. The ark was very large with four or five levels. The seafaring creatures which had variations of their own did not need to enter the ark.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Today's humans are not directly related to any of the humans that died in the flood 4400 years ago. We are a select group of all the humans that ever existed on the earth.

[boredbob33]

This argument is incomplete. I have no doubt that DNA is an excellent advocate of evolutionary theory. What I doubt is DNA's origin, which your argument conveniently forgets to mention. The complexity of even the simplest life requires the equivalent of 1000s of pages of four-digit code, expressed as four types of amino acids and written on the double helix of DNA. This code is supposed to have come about by random chance? I just can't bring myself to believe it.

[Warsel]

Boredbob: What you are talking about is not evolution - it's abiogenesis.

Evolution contains TWO elements - one is random (mutation), the other nonrandom (selection) leading to a NON-RANDOM outcome.

You can test this with a box of colored candy. Pick a random one (mutation) and discard if not red (selection) - what you are left with is not random any more.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

You can't use a preexisting design as evidence of evolution because it is by design and no evolution could ever happen even after the formation of life that is not the result of any objects. Evolution does not happen and the formation of life does not happen without a Designer of that life.

[Warsel]

The history of your origin is in your DNA.

If a radical change like the SNP from Sickle Cell Anemia, in your mind, is not a new information then nothing is new information - therefore: why did you bring up the point? Organisms as different as Plants and Humans would be "no new information" since they are all based in DNA of an ancestor. So it seems to me you have accepted evolution and only haggle around abiogenesis by now..

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Each of the designs of plants and animals are different designs and one does not change to another. That is your assumption and that assumption has no scientific basis. Each of the genomes strictly guard their own designs.

[Warsel]

Have you ever read a research paper on genetics?

I recommend reading: Weinberg, et al. 1992; Rabe and Haufler 1992; Crossley 1974; Herring 2006 as a starter.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Try to say something that the evolutionist say in your own words. The environment does not make life forms.

[Hagledesperado]

The answer: No.

[HanDuet]

themadhair,

Just wanted to thank you for the video. However, as a Creationist, allow me to simply point out an assumption that you've made.

You're assuming that for DNA to be evidence for intelligence, DNA replication and design must be perfect. You're forget that Creationist believe, according to the Bible, that we live in an imperfect world because of sin. The original creation WAS perfect, but has since degenerated.

I hope that comment helps you understand my craziness a little better.

[themadhair]

"for DNA to be evidence for intelligence, DNA replication and design must be perfect."

Actually no. My argument is three-fold:

Firstly, if DNA replication isn't perfect then evolution MUST happen. It is a logical inevitability. The studies I linked to regarding varying bacterial genome show that imperfect DNA replication leads to genetic variance -- which in combination with natural selection (assuming you don't deny that) lead to evolution.

[themadhair]

Secondly, DNA itself contains much supporting evidence for evolution. Examples not included in the video include endogenous retroviruses, inactive pseudogenes which can lead to atavisms such as tails and excess hair that are present in out closest taxonometric cousins, human chromosome number 2 matching up in not just telomeric and centromeric comparisons but also for practically the whole of chimp chromosomes number 2 and 13, its corroboration with the fossil record etc.

[themadhair]

Thirdly, it all comes down to this. The theory of evolution (as opposed to the phenomenon) is dependant on nested hierarchies. Finding one single gene that doesn't fit into a nested hierarchy consistent with every other gene would be enough to falsify common descent. Think about how restrictive that is.

Now think about how ascribing DNA to intelligence is the most pathetic red herring in addressing this.

THAT is the point of this video.

[Warsel]

"The original creation WAS perfect, but has since degenerated."

If mutations in DNA did not happen in the original creation until the "snake&apple incident" then the original creation was not perfect (because this constant adaption by mutation allows all species on this planet to survive - you're not able to adapt: your species dies out; seems we are better off now than in the garden of eden).

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

The Creation was "good". It was the will of man that gave credence to what is not true. Nothing God did was wrong since He told them the truth. You can say Adam and Eve were evil all you want but it does not change your standing in relation to the truth. I am confessing the truth about the observable evidence of Creation. You are ignoring it.

[Warsel]

Even if I were to believe that all the Adam and Eve stuff was the literal truth (which is absurd) the creation would, quite clearly, have been flawed from the very beginning as god already knew what would happen - since he is all-knowing.

Punishing your creation for something you designed to happen is a little weird, don't you think?

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Adam and Eve were designed to be able to choose for themselves wisdom, understanding and council. It all depends on how you look at things. We can choose to say and do the right things. That is our choice and we cannot blame God for what we choose to do.

[Warsel]

Well, if you believe god to be like a kid with a magnifying glass above an ant mound then yes, it all makes perfect sense.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Don't blame God for what you do.

[lisamariefan]

This is the thing I love about bullshit. It never holds up to examination. Ever.

[claschxtreme]

great vid, very informative and i love your accent :)

[FaoleannOBradaigh]

Cavan?

[themadhair]

Monaghan plus four years in Yorkshire.

[ballyboneman]

Good man yerself!

Excellent vid; well presented with just the right amount of laser-guided wit!

[MikeSarno]

Brilliant! This is a great point that is extremely well made! Keep'em coming!