@@sciencerules2825 I know that DNA and its processes form a modified Turing machine that assemble proteins from amino acids. I also teach statistics: the only way this would happen randomly would require more time than has elapsed since the Big Bang.
Doesn't take a scientist to see that such complexity can't happen by "random chance." And to think God literally just spoke it all into existence! How wonderful God is!
@@samburns3329 _"Good thing then evolution doesn't work by just random chance."_ Good thing that by your nonsense word, "evolution", you're not even referring to something that _occurs,_ much less _works._ 🙂
The God-man Jesus Christ not only physically died, he suffered horrible before that! Then, he took the punishment spiritually to pay the sin debt of the entire world! You need to catch up on your biblical truth.
@@mrpush2532 You first. Something or somebody died, but not jesus. You can't kill a god. The temporary death of his human carcass cannot be explained. There was never any risk that jesus was going to die and stay dead. Since god knew all of this in advance the whole thing is a ridiculous charade. The bizarre and contradictory tales found in Luke 24.51 and Acts 1.9 have jesus and his half dead human carcass ascending up to heaven, another absurdity. You will notice that Acts 1.9 has jesus serving a forty day period of spiritual cleansing, a pagan notion, and completely ridiculous in the case of jesus.
@mattbrook-lee7732 HI, he didn't die on a Friday he died on Wednesdayish at sundown. He rose on Saturday at sundown. They found him gone early (still dark) Sunday moring. Evening then day for Jewish days. You can't get 3 days and nights from Friday to Sunday. Its not possible.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 You and I both know that evolution is impossible. "Given enough time" to break down, these molecules would never get off the ground. Besides, life works by proteins, not DNA. It is the proteins that replicate the DNA, that read the DNA, transcribe it and build themselves from it. So where did these many proteins come from? They just SeLf-AsSemBLeD around their DNA which SeLf-AsSemBLeD at the same time and the same place with the same code sequence.
That’s not true. It’s growing. 3 billion Christians around the world and only single digit percentage of atheists. Plus 100 thousand Christians martyred for their faith every year. We have more Christian dying for their faith and still more of them than atheist.
Evolutionists argument is that it took so long for everything in the universe to evolve to the state where life became possible. On their time scale, we did appear after eons. However, to believe that life automatically comes along at some point( Hawking’s theory) depends upon an incredible confluence of circumstances that defies the rational mind.
If you are claiming an invisible god who invokes organic chemistry and then commands it to perform virgin birth, water walking and demon casting then you might be defying rational thought yourself.
We only have this universe to conclude whether life would be inevitable. However, we do understand much about the natural processes that yielded life on Earth. It is hence reasonable to assume that life could have developed elsewhere.
Critical thinking! You don’t need to be Mr. Spock to see the logic behind the presentation on the complexity of DNA. We are fearfully & wonderfully made. God schooled Job on His magnificent creation!
Quantify? The entire video presentation on DNA was created to illustrate that you CAN'T "quantify" the complexity of DNA anymore than you can quantify the stars in the heavens or the sand on the seashores. I don't understand why you troll this particular RU-vid site? People like yourself will never comprehend the majesty of God the creator, you're a reprobate. Read Romans 1:18-28, it explains who a reprobate is. I'd highly recommend you also read and consider the Bible's account of God speaking to Job. Job 38-41
@bomtombadi1 LOL That js the best April fools joke I have heard all day… Sorry, had to pu out a pun. I hope I was not too rude and you have my most sincere apologies if I was. God, (if he exists) wile being able to appear in a quantifiable form like Jesus, is not quantifiable. And Creator God is not scientifically probable as well. However, the very fact that science shows a begining to time, space, and matter. Proves that something outside of time space and matter exists. That is basic rules of logic applied to known science. This now enters the realm of the supernatural (beyond nature). Science demands the supernatural. Nothing else can be said by humans except going off of assumptions based off of the one source we have that is beyond nature. God. Believe in evolution or not. God is proven NECESSARY by science.
@@TacoBel so to be clear here, god cannot be scientifically determined, but is nonetheless scientifically proven. Science shows a beginning the universe’s *current state,* not a beginning to the universe. Your “logic” is non-existent.
when viewing animation of proteins & enzymes at work, like little nano machines doing their very specific job. it’s easy to conclude that this didn’t just happen by accident.
@@drewwhiteddc6018 I'm sure that's your excuse for denying all science you can't work your interpretation of religious scripture around. Everything else you probably have no problems with lol.
@@razark9 Nah, I was questioning science and how they knew things that seemed extrapolated when I was 15, long before I even knew creationism was a thing. Why is the world such a mess if the experts are in control and are so smart they couldn't be wrong, and thus tell us with total intolerance what to believe with their non sequiturs and presentations that never give us sufficient evidence in an accommodating way but hide things behind expert journals and don't help us traverse them effectively?
@@HangrySaturnHow does I am the LORD, and there is none else. [7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Relate to the above example of mistakes?
This is a very well produced video. I'm an evolutionist (right-wing conservative/libertarian). But my hats off to you on the production value of the video.
🤣🤣 You are so *not* an 'evolutionist'. Because if you were, you wouldn't refer to yourself as an 'evolutionist'. And you would (hopefully) also recognize that there are so many fundamental mistakes and misrepresentations in this video that you would *not* be praising its "production value".
I quote the Doobie Brothers - "Jesus is just alright with me." I have nothing against Jesus. Just not my area of interest. I'm interested in hominins - Homo erectus, Denisovans, Neanderthals, Australopithecines, Sahelanthropus tchadensis. I'm interested in the great story of our human origins. I'm also interested in fighting the left. I am a far right-wing libertarian. I despise socialism. So, you guys, presumably are my allies. I would guess that y'all are conservatives. Which makes it odd you are so hostile to me. We are allies in politics. You do support Trump right? I would hope so. @@renierramirez9534
In the beginning GOD. I've looked at that statement as GOD claiming His authorship of creation and the Bible. It's just like a master painter or sculptor or writer signs their own work. Thanks for your explanation of DNA.
Only your god "Yahweh" was a Levantine deity. One of 70 Children of the god EL! He was a petty drunk who liked to fight humans and was jealous of his more powerful sister. I guess that is why the buybull says he is a jealous god!
Some would say that time and mutation would cause this, but entropy is Asymmetrical to time, space and matter not to mention violate the limit of mathematical probabilities. If you don't play the lottery because of those probabilities, why would you bet on true impossibility?
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 That's not an argument. I could say the same thing. A Biology textbook? No biology text book can prove through the scientific method of repeatable testing and observation that time can have the type of effect that evolutionists claim. I have read about the evolutionary frauds put in Biology text books that were thankfully caught by scientists without personal agenda. Are you OK with fraud as long as it fits your bias? See I actually said something true. You didn't even put fourth an argument
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 I encourage you to read your biology textbook more thoughtfully and not blindly accept authoritative statements on faith. Microbe-to-man evolution is a violation of natural selection.
No it doesn’t. We think of DNA as a code, but that’s not really accurate. DNA is just a templating mechanism for replication of various objects inside of a cell. That’s it. The entire watchmaker argument is an appeal to ignorance.
Wrong, my friend. DNA simply instructs the cell regarding which proteins need to be constructed based on the arrangement of nucleotides. That's how encoded information and, in fact, demonstrates that evolution is a fact.
@@airman122469 DNA encodes the instructions to make and operate biological sructures and functions. But someone had to have all the information and create the codes. In the beginning was information. In the beginning was the Word.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 the cell needs DNA to come into being in the first place. And you need a mind to give meaning to sequences of nucleotides. In the beginning was intelligence and information, huge amounts of both. A cell is too complex to arise by chance. No scientist has ever observed it. It has to be imagined as evolution from fish to fishermen has to be imagined. As far as scientists can observe, life never arises by chance and finches "evolve" into finches, as Darwin observed, Dawkins observes and we all observe. Evolution is fake science. It has to be imagined.
I guess we’ll see you there, too. Right, @inthelight? After all, here you are, living, and pridefully proclaiming your fetish desire to point and laugh and gloat. To say, “I told you so,” to everyone who thought you crazy?
@@burnttoast2790 that is the dumbest thing anyone can say. You know it exists and you know the way to not end up there and you still choose to reject it. That's not God's fault. That's your fault.
Nobody is a christian in (INSERT MYTHOLOGY HERE) hell. At that point, everyone knows (INSERT MYTHOLOGY HERE) is right. Hell while being imaginary makes an excellent point about the god of the bible not being benevolent.
Evolutionists do not hate this video, except in sense that they may hate the ignorance displayed about the actual theory of evolution and the false assumptions about "anticipation" which not scientific, but a religious belief. This is a religous strawman argument at best.
It's always about the labelling with you guys, there's no straw manning here. If you take randomness literally at the DNA level it's quite impossible to generate such sophisticated design. All other arguments aside, if you just consider the mathematics of probability calculations you'll immediately see how damaged the theory of evolution is. Look I'm not making this up just think about it, any random event with a 1/10^⁹⁰ probable outcomes cannot have a reasonable result because there won't be enough time in the universe for it to happen, this applies even when you Infuse evolutionary theory because at the base level evolution would have to search this vast sea of outcomes in order to generate even the simplest life form. It's not a God of the gaps argument it's an argument from the abundant knowledge of what we already know and established in the universe.
@markthompson14 "the ignorance displayed about the actual theory of evolution" - The problem is of course that evolutionists themselves no longer know what is the actual theory of evolution 😂 Karl Popper’s principle of falsification is generally accepted as the method proving a theory scientific or non scientific. If a theory can’t be falsified by any thinkable method the theory is not scientific. The so-called evolution ("All life on earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor") is like an ever changing octopus. When science proves that mutations produce decay not evolution, Darwinists give evolution new definitions like: ”Nobody has claimed that evolution always means positive change” while Darwin's book ”Origin of Species” claims the opposite! Neo-Darwinian loosely determined evolution explains even the contradictory phenomena like fossils and missing fossils both ”proving evolution”, positive and negative changes both ”proving evolution”, genetically devolving subspecies ”proving evolution”, so-called living fossils "proving evolution" etc. Darwinists tell us that evolution is slow and gradual but it can also be quick and advance by saltations. It causes mind blowing changes or keeps everything static for millions of years. Evolution is random and without direction, except when it advances towards a goal. Acquired qualities can not be inherited except when they get inherited ... Anything works to prove "evolution" - just buy it! When any change is good enough to be shown as "evolution", how can you prove it wrong? That’s why the evolution theory can’t be considered a scientific theory - or be taken seriously at all.
@@jounisuninen Yes, scientific ideas are update when new information is found. It would be stupid not to do that. Origin does not claim what you say, read it. Even if it did, Origin is not the end all be all, like I said, when new info is discovered, science adjusts to it. There is more than enough physical evidence to support evolution as a theory even if Darwin never existed. In fact, there is more physical evidence supporting evolution that probably any other scientific idea. There is no such thing as a Darwinists. Ya'll can't fathom NOT having someone to worship, can you? It is kind of sad, really. You can't find meaning with a deity. What species is devolving? That is nonsense, like most of your arguments. Is that how you try to explain away the tail you grew in utero before it was reabsorbed and repurposed? Don't worry, that doesn't make you unique, quiet the opposite, because it happened to all of us. Some humans are pretty unique in that they are born with that tail though. Mutation are random, and most of the time neutral, but the environment oftne determines whether the mutation is beneficial or not. You really don't study much science, do you? It is ok if that is not your strong suit, and it is ok if you are not that interested in it. But don't try to dismiss mountains of evidence without providing a whole bunch of evidence of your own.
Why is there absolutely ZERO pieces of hard evidence for evolution in any museum anywhere in the world? The only thing that people can point to is pencil sketches and watercolor paintings of "the tree of life" or "the ascent of man". Every time that someone claims to find "the missing link" it turns out to be a scam (and even those are ONE bone, ONE tooth, etc....)
While there is much speculation about how life arose, what does actual scientific observation and experimentation reveal? The answer: we have never, no not once, observed anything like a ‘primordial soup’, nor any life arising spontaneously through chemical and naturalistic processes. Life only comes from life.
What's your point. Do you think if you haven't personally observed something it must be impossible? Because we have never observed electrons. But your using them to write this
The Miller Urey experiment was conducted over 70 years ago and produced all the amino acids required for human life as well as a lot more. Evolution is fact and the earth was once lifeless, the bit in between we can't yet prove is not reason to invent a magical sky daddy.
@@mattbrook-lee7732 also, that we didn't observe something yet doesn't mean we will not one day. electrons never didn't exist before they were known / observed.
Happy to have found your Channel and agree I'm sure this is why they hate this video too but i don't I shared it on social media and added it to my playlist❤
"christians", in their tormented state, presume themselves to be psychic. They "know" stuff about people. Their persecution complex sees hatred where there is none and demons where there are none. Paradoxically, it is the creationist that hates the theory of evolution in spite of the fact that many "christians" support it. Of course , there is no consistency in "christianity" and no consensus among "christians" who occasionally hate each other.
The film points out the following: How could this process learn where to start and where to stop in the correct sequence to produce a correct result for a brand new functional protein? Remember, there are infinitely more ways to make mistakes than to get things right. This is the constant question posed by creationists who believe the answer must be "intelligent design". But the answer is very simple. Infinitely more mistakes are "committed" naturally out in nature. The changes that take place are small. But considering that each human (no other animals included here) carries about 300 mutations - most of them neither beneficial nor harmful - the people now alive (about 7 billion) have about 2,100,000,000,000 mutations available. During the last 2000 - 4000 years, no decisive genetic changes among humans have occurred. Thus, sooner or later, favorable mutations will lead to this "incredible" lucky event that our genome changes positively, because time plus number of mutations makes the equation less incredible than you seem to understand. Science knows that the chances are not great. But it also knows that they are nevertheless large enough for the theory of evolution to be stable and scientifically confirmed and mapped. No, "evolutionists" don't hate this video. Either! And then you throw in the Bible at the end. What does it have to do with this? Where in the Bible are the riddles surrounding DNA described in a way that proves that the Christian God is behind the explanation? You are welcome to disprove the theory of evolution. But then do it with COUNTER-EVIDENCE. The Bible is not enough. It is a book with old texts that do not prove anything about DNA, possibly telling about the results of what you have to report with evidence after all, not with Bible texts. If you want to highlight the Bible as reliable, you must describe HOW it is the most reliable source. Purely hypothetically, the Bible can rest on the principles of evolutionary theory. Given that the theory of evolution better than any other explanatory model describes the development of species, perhaps you should instead start thinking about whether it supports your hypothesis about God. "God created." Maybe so, but how? Well, via what is described in the theory of evolution, in that case. But then you actually have to prove that it is so: That the Christian god is behind it all. How do you prove it? Not just with the words "God created." It is an assertion, not a proof.
The bible says THE FOOL SAYS IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD. I was one of those fools who believed evolution was true and that there is no God. The bible is not a science book it a book from the God who created us and to tell us how we can know him. But all the science mentioned in His book is spot on. Let me give an example. When God created man He made man to live forever . And scientists have discovered that the very thing that they believed brought about evolution, mutations is the very thing that is coursing us to age and die are mutations. Every living thing on this earth animals and plants are deteriorating. Each generation has at least a hundred more mutations in them than their parents and if you go back in time only about 6 to 7 thousand years man was perfect, not a monkey like evolution would have you believe. Mutations courses devolution not evolution. Let me give you another example. Scientists in recent studie doing genetic studies that every human being on earth come from three women plus or minus 4 to 5 thousand years ago . Evolutionary Scientists were floored. Scientists who believed God's word weren't confused because they know that God wiped out every living being on this earth 4500 years ago in a world wide flood and four women came off the ark the one was Noah's wife and she was to old to have children but her three daughters in laws re populated the world . And those are the three woman that every living being on this earth today came from whether you believe it or not.
@FactStorm. Gullible? Atheists/evolutionists : " The supernatural is ridiculous. I believe in the multiverse theory or the Big Bang... And our single -celled predecessors ____they evolved,so they simply appeared; they must have ". Man, that is some serious comedy! And to top it off ___ it's supernatural!
@@Bomtombadi1 Well, where did the molecules come from in the first place? You have got to assume that they conveniently arose! Or you have got to assume that they are eternal. In any case, that is not a better position than do theists claim. It is actually a worse position of supernaturality. Or do you care to redefine words? Perhaps you can insist that either option you have is natural. Sadly insistence can't get you out of the conundrum you are in!!
@@user-zu2zo8ji4n so you going to just keep pushing this back to a very uncreative god that just created hydrogen and let it all happen? The universe *as we know it* started the expansion of a singularity. Nobody knows how that singularity started. What is wrong with this being eternal, while your god being eternal is no big deal? How is this a worse position, and how is anything supernatural invoked? Sounds more like projection to me. Redefine words? Where have I even remotely suggested that? What conundrum? The one that YOU have tried to put me in?
"So here is all the stuff actual scientist's have figured out. Since they haven't yet found ALL the answers... Imma just gonna say it's God..." Wow, what a brilliant deduction... Thumbs down.
"Since they haven't yet found ALL the answers..." - All answers? Atheistic science has NO answers concerning the beginning of life and source of biological information. There neither are no signs that they would ever find those answers. "Imma just gonna say it's God..." - Creationists have massive evidence for God while atheists have no evidence for abiogenesis, universal common ancestor or self-creating biological information.
@@nathancook2852 There is a LOT of NON-biblical archaeological evidence for people / events that agree with the biblical accounts. Josephus was not a Christian or a Jew and he listed many of the events of his day including the life of Jesus of Nazareth. There are MANY other records of the events that are in the bible. Just because you haven't ever investigated it for yourself, you just can't wave your hand and say "It doesn't exist!".
HAHA I purposely called the series Rewinding Paley's Watch to show that evos shrugging off the design/watchmaker's argument is completely illegitimate for very specific reasons which I demonstrate. And here we have someone shrugging off the argument with no rebuttal... genius... : )
@@calvinsmith7575 you have never demonstrated anything ever. What on earth are you talking about. How about having a live debate with someone who actually understands thos stuff.
@@nathancook2852 Tell me the sequence odds of getting a 150 amino acid length proteins by chance alone. Then look up single point mutations and human disease. Look up how proteins are spliced and folded by enzymes, and how cells control which proteins are made and in what amounts. You literally have no chemistry explanation for how such control programs and mechanisms would arise de novo.
The evidence for God was always strong. The more we research, the stronger it gets. Atheists have difficulty accepting the truth. Apply science to that and you get CONFIRMATION BIAS.
@richardharris8538. You wouldn't call your single -celled predecessors god? They certainly had god-like qualities! First, they were eternal or they just somehow, conveniently willed themselves into existence. Then they must have made the universe pop into existence so that they could have a place to evolve. And gravity? Yeah, they must have made that so as to keep them from floating into space. Andddd ... that primordial soup ___they made that! Oxygen? Yeah, they created that! They had no brain... but they realized that they had to evolve toward becoming human eventually? So, yeah, you believe in gods. Those convenient , single -celled predecessors!
@@misterpaper2572From Wikipedia: "Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional. This negative argument is then complemented by the claim that the only alternative explanation is a "purposeful arrangement of parts" inferring design by an intelligent agent. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design (ID), but the concept of irreducible complexity has been rejected by the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity and specified complexity, are the two main arguments used by intelligent-design proponents to support their version of the theological argument from design." So to answer your question, it is nonsensical, and is an example of the fallacy known as the argument from incredulity.
@@skribbblythat dna is not designed as it causes children’s cancer and plenty of other defects Over 60% of the population needs glasses The sign of design is simplicity not complexity
@@James-zw4tn I've had two of my comments deleted too, the second one being where I accuse him of deleting the other comment. This'll probably get deleted too but for now I'll repost it here as I happened to screenshot it to show a friend - 'Calvin you are one of the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest people I have had the displeasure of observing in a RU-vid comment section. To the point that I'm beginning to wonder if you're a troll who does not actually genuinely believe what you purport to believe. Go read the Wikipedia page on Directional Selection for an overview of what it means and how it works. Weltschmerzistofhaufig2440's use of the words 'clear bias' in regards to favoured phenotypes is not descriptive of a 'thinking' bias. It is a use of language that personifies an impersonal process for the sake of practical communication. If you want to abuse semantics as creationists do when for example, an atheist describes the 'design' of a natural object, by all means go ahead. But we (level-headed observers) know what you're doing and how full of crap you are.'
Anyone who says evolution is nothing but pure random chance doesn't understand evolution and should learn more about it before they can criticize it. Random mutations will give you mostly cancer and genetic disorders and a few adaptations. Natural selection, the thing creationists ignore, makes sure that only adaptations get to move on.
You have way too much faith in matter without a mind, all life is incredibly complex with specified information that far exceeds mankind's, the ecosystems myriad of symbiosis relationships required immense levels of foresight and the absolute need for them to exist at the same time. Evolution has paradoxes that science and natural processes will never ever explain. You will accept that a street signs specified purposeful information necessitates an intelligent agent but dream that the mindbogglingly complex specified purposeful information within all living organisms did not.
@@spamm0145 _ all life is incredibly complex with specified information that far exceeds mankind's, the ecosystems myriad of symbiosis relationships required immense levels of foresight and the absolute need for them to exist at the same time_ Uhh...no. Extrteme complexity can arise from a small numer of simple rules iterated many times. Symbiotic relatinships co-develop over time. They specialised from mutual advantage to the point where they can;t exist without each other _now_ but this was not always true. Flowers and vees have a symbiotic relationship. But plants can pollinate without bees, and insects can exist without feeding on flower nectar and pollen.
Did you that Darwin and other evolutionist founders were freemasons. Freemasonry is based on satanism. You should research the roots of what you believe. Children believe in Santa, the concept of Santa makes sense to them and the fact that an adult is telling them about it solidifies their belief in it and they do not know any better. Darwinism is the adult, you are the kid and evolutuon is Santa. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, you do not know any better.
I guess its just a "coincidence" that these people try to sell us evolution while simultaneously using satanic symbols and imagery in everything they do. They know the truth about this world but they do not want you and I to know, that is what they are betting on. I beg you to do honest research, you will be thankful and it will open your eyes.
@@chrisphillips2401 Your first two statements are incorrect. But even if they were true, it doesn't discount the mountains of evidence that supports evolution. I stopped reading after two inaccuracies.
Rejection of Jesus is not intellectual. It's a heart thing: I DON'T want Jesus because I don't want to follow his teachings, I don't want to be "told" what to do, I am ashamed of what others will think. Hence, I want to be my own God.
You have no idea what non believers are thinking. Your projection just shows what kind of person you really are. People like you, and nonsense like what I hear from Calvin are reasons I haven't believed in a god since childhood.
Projection, again, from Christians who are supposed to love everyone. This is a big part of the reason, along with the inability to answer simple scientific questions, as to why I stopped attending church when I was old enough that my parents could no longer force me too.
@@nathancook2852 your reply to my comment makes absolutely no sense: I did not manifest hate, anger or rejecttion. DNA is a super complex STRUCTURES CODING system which answers scientifically that a super mind is behind life (God) because no natural process can code a 'hello World' program
OR, follow me on this OR it's just people who aren't convinced by your fairytales? Nothing to do with not being told what to do, being one's own god or embarrasment.
The level of intellectual immaturity in your post is stunning, and offensive. You do not know what is in the minds of other people. That is the height of arrogance and pride.
As a simple, but rarely used, paradigm of software development we can take the value of PI, which is easily calculated, and then have a start value and length of message and every possible value can be stored in this one number. Not quite DNA but because it is infinitely non-repeating at some point in the fraction every possible value exists and I just need to know where to look and how much to take. Seems that DNA is similar to that. But far better made.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 No analogy is perfect. But it's a reasonable approximation to give people the concept. DNA has start and end point for where the information is stored, and that information is retrieved in a similar manner. Then it is manipulated as needed (IE cutting and joining the necessary parts) the finally put to use. PI takes it out of the "mythical" realm of biology and puts it into something most people are aware of, thus making it simpler to comprehend.
As a lowly geneticist who has been quietly working with this stuff for 30+ years, I can confidently say that 80% of what is claimed in this video is absolute nonsense...and the other 20% is so pathetically twisted to fit a 'creationist' designer narrative it would make any rational person cringe. If anyone might care for me to go through this, sentence-by-sentence, claim-by-claim, from the perspective of people who work with genetics every day and don't just 'pick and choose' certain tiny aspects of it to deliberately misrepresent for selfish 'philosophical' reasons, I'd be more than happy to. Peace to all on a beautiful Easter Sunday. But keep your brain on. Whether 'God-given' or not, it's the one thing we have that can prevent us from being duped.
@@Moist._Robot Technically, they aren't. There are mutational 'hotspots' largely based upon certain features of chromosome structure. But the way to find out...which has been done thousands of times in organisms from bacteria to fruit flies to mice...is to expose the organism to a mutagen (a compound or treatment like xrays that causes mutations)...and then use genetic mapping to see where they've happened. Other than the mutational hotspots that pop up, they occur randomly throughout the genome, in random genes and in the non-coding DNA between genes. (And btw...we only use mutagens to increase the mutation rate so they're easier to count and map. But we can do the same thing for naturally-occuring mutations...and the same results happen, it just takes a bit longer to collect the data.)
Nice try there Mr expert geneticist : ) But hurling the elephant and hand waving facts away don't make you correct. You have said zero against any of the factual claims in the video regarding DNA and/or the spliceosome mechanism. And your comment below about mutations NOT being random and then later discussing how they are random demonstrates you really don't know what you are talking about...
@@calvinsmith7575 Of course there are hundreds of published papers with evidence for the evolution of the spliceosome, including ones like *Evolution of the Early Spliceosomal Complex-From Constitutive to Regulated Splicing* Borao et al International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021, Vol 22(22), 12444 Abstract: Pre-mRNA splicing is a major process in the regulated expression of genes in eukaryotes, and alternative splicing is used to generate different proteins from the same coding gene. Splicing is a catalytic process that removes introns and ligates exons to create the RNA sequence that codifies the final protein. While this is achieved in an autocatalytic process in ancestral group II introns in prokaryotes, the spliceosome has evolved during eukaryogenesis to assist in this process and to finally provide the opportunity for intron-specific splicing. In the early stage of splicing, the RNA 5′ and 3′ splice sites must be brought within proximity to correctly assemble the active spliceosome and perform the excision and ligation reactions. The assembly of this first complex, termed E-complex, is currently the least understood process. We focused in this review on the formation of the E-complex and compared its composition and function in three different organisms. We highlight the common ancestral mechanisms in S. cerevisiae, S. pombe, and mammals and conclude with a unifying model for intron definition in constitutive and regulated co-transcriptional splicing.
Hello and thanks for asking : ). If you go to the answers in genesis website from outside Canada you will see a button at the top right which allows you to go to the various countries AiG operates in. Click the Canada tab and then you will see a donate button there. Thanks for your considering donating to our ministry! Blessings, Cal
@@calvinsmith7575 The usual Calvin lie. Evolution has been observed countless times. The observed evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the last four years is a perfect example.
@@calvinsmith7575 Not according to you, but Harvard scientist watch bacteria evolve on an almost daily basis. Moths evolved in England, lizards evolved on various islands, as did birds (and no, not just finches), all within the last 100 yrs...
This is a masterpiece of logic and reason that utterly destroys the beliefs of evolution. Speaking as a former atheist/evolutionist, it takes vastly more faith to believe that "un-intelligent design" created algorithms to assemble our bodies than the "intelligent design" of our loving God. Fantastic video - clearly explained - THANK YOU for making this!
There are two main reasons why the "christian" god does not exist: 1. It would be amoral. 2. Its religion is ugly beyond belief. Attributing anything to the obviously man-made contrivance of "christianity" utterly destroys creation.
@@ddevriesd4I Have neither the time nor inclination to provide rebuttal to such trash. There is no point trying to convince dogmatic folks who are essentially unconvincible.
I find what is really fascinating is not what evolutionists believe but why they believe it. Eventually it comes down to taking God's creatures that can adapt to their environment and extrapolating new family and genus species. It boils down to Faith on their part just as much.
NO it does not. Science is based on evidence. Evolution is supported by testable evidence; it has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory. Your belief and religion is based on myths and has no evidence.
_I find what is really fascinating is not what evolutionists believe but why they believe it._ We *accept* , not believe, evolutionary theory because of the huge quality and quantity of its consilient scientific evidence. You feel free to keep believing in supernatural magic. We'll try not to laugh too loudly. 😊
@@nathancook2852: _"... you do not understand what actual evidence is."_ Please tell us, Nathan. I thought this video was loaded with evidence, though greatly simplified for a non-science audience.
@@samburns3329 Science is a religion to the masses. They don't involve themselves in the experiments. They instead believe what PROVIDERS OF INFORMATION tell them. So they believe without proof. They place their faith in PROVIDERS OF INFORMATION. They trust in man, not science. Religion.
@Who_IsLike_God That has to be the weakest fallacy of false analogy I've ever seen. You've provided no proof whatsoever, would you like to try again? I'm very calm, that is apart from laughing out loud at your nonsense.
Thanks for the video, Calvin. You, along with everybody else at AiG, do great work. It's a blessing to have your level of analysis and knowledge provided as a free service to us! Evolutionists' faith in the power of mutation + natural selection knows no bounds. Even with natural selection working on an endless supply of mutations, you would not end up with the beautiful symmetry that we see in nature. It's very telling that our internal organs are not perfectly symmetrical (liver, spleen, coiled up intestines, heart, etc.), yet our external appearance is symmetrical. And that this applies to nearly every creature, leaf, blade of grass, pinecone, etc. just goes to show how intentionally designed the world is for our aesthetical benefit. The documentary, "is Genesis History," points out that we have found collagen in dinosaur fossils, nearly eliminating the possibility that the fossils are millions of years old. The more time goes on, the more complex the genetic code is understood to be, and the more we realize that the millions / billions of years models are simply not a fact (merely an interpretation of the data). Evolutionary scientists dismiss dating results that don't line up with what they NEED to be true for their worldview. I expect that given more time, the evolutionary worldview will be abandoned in favor of some other atheistic worldview, because these scientists simply can't allow God in the door.
AiG cherry picks science. As such they can’t do great work. Simple as that. Evolutionists…only creationists use that term. Do you also call me a gravitationalist? I bet you don’t. Why?
*Evolutionists' faith in the power of mutation + natural selection knows no bounds. Even with natural selection working on an endless supply of mutations, you would not end up with the beautiful symmetry that we see in nature.* Funny then that we _don't_ see such "beautiful symmetry" in nature. You're just biased by an outwards view of members of your clade. *It's very telling that our internal organs are not perfectly symmetrical (liver, spleen, coiled up intestines, heart, etc.), yet our external appearance is symmetrical.* Wow, it's almost as if our symmetry is limited only to those portions of our body that are relevant to interacting with the outside world. *And that this applies to nearly every creature, leaf, blade of grass, pinecone, etc. just goes to show how intentionally designed the world is for our aesthetical benefit.* And yet the only organisms we see that _are_ consistently symmetrical in the manner you imply are motile members of the Bilateria. Y'know, the sort of organisms that have mostly-mobile lives? The group _we_ belong to? *The documentary, "is Genesis History," points out that we have found collagen in dinosaur fossils, nearly eliminating the possibility that the fossils are millions of years old.* Mary Schweitzer, the scientist who made this discovery? She _was_ a creationist, before her research turned her away from that load of bullsh1t3. Well, that and you lot going about and misrepresenting her work. *The more time goes on, the more complex the genetic code is understood to be,* And of which only about 10% at max is confirmed to be useful. *and the more we realize that the millions / billions of years models are simply not a fact (merely an interpretation of the data).* Oh, that the Earth is many millions of years old _is_ a fact, one confirmed by the data since the 1800s. Even religiously-motivated opponents of Darwin's theory realized this. *Evolutionary scientists dismiss dating results that don't line up with what they NEED to be true for their worldview.* We've heard it before, dude. And your whining of "MUH CONSP1RACY" has never held any water. *I expect that given more time, the evolutionary worldview will be abandoned in favor of some other atheistic worldview, because these scientists simply can't allow God in the door.* Tell that to the Christians who accept evolution.
"Evolutionists' faith in the power of mutation + natural selection knows no bounds." - True. It's the Almighty Happenstance that commands unconditional faith from its followers against the natural laws and mathematical odds. "Even with natural selection working on an endless supply of mutations," - This evolutionist theory of "creative mutations" is one of the most absurd theories mankind has ever produced. It tells of the desperation that rose among atheists when they started to understand that there is no genetic mechanism that could allow intraspecific variation ("micro evolution") proceed to evolution that could produce new life forms from existing life forms. The abstracts of "micro" and "macro" are totally different processes without any mutual interface. That is, if the "macro evolution" existed in the first place which it does not. Since the discovery of mutations, science has always known that mutations are destructive, not constructive. If they create something, it's because they destroy certain genes so that recessive genes get dominant. We speak of devolution, not evolution. This devolution can be useful for adaptation but it starts the path that leads to extinction in the long run. Scientists like Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] Science doesn't know evolutionary beneficial mutations that could transform the body plan of any given organism i.e. to generate (macro)evolution. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria, metabolic changes, colour changes etc. These are devolution by destroyed genes, not evolution.
So...all you are stating in 13 minutes is the watchmaker argument? If that´s your great discovery, no wonder you believe in some god...Sad how people want to reinforce their belief in this stuff without even realizing the fallacy.
HAHA I purposely called the series Rewinding Paley's Watch to show that evos shrugging off the design/watchmaker's argument is completely illegitimate for very specific reasons which I demonstrate. And here we have someone shrugging off the argument with the hand waving claim it's a fallacy... : )
@@calvinsmith7575 Oh that's great, I am sure you won't mind to dumb it down a little for us, because at first glance the conclusion of your video just seemed too simple-minded and like nothing new concerning religious fallacies; but perhaps we are wrong and there is truly some logical reason or revolutionary finding you have uncovered and some of us haven't quite grasped...I mean, I suppose the goal of your video is to convince those who haven't seen the light, not those who already believe and don't question it anyways. I am really intrigued to get what you are trying to demonstrate, which I don't quite get. You have to understand that not everyone is as illuminated and gifted as you are and have to be more patient with those around you, but I am sure your argumentative skills will allow you to help us decipher in two or three sentences what you are trying to explain.
@@calvinsmith7575 The thing is that for that assertion to work, you first have to prove that it is a system, not a result. And most importantly, you would have to prove that it requires foresight, not just stating it. Of course a circular argument always works (If we were to read your response with synonyms, it would state: ``A process that requires foresight (from a mind) cannot create systems that require foresight (from a mind). Indeed.
Abiogenesis is very much a part of the creation myth paradigm that people who believe in the phylogenetic tree of life promote. Abiogenesis is nonsense.
Atheism is not a belief system, so there is no "faith" involved. What "faith" do you think atheists have? _And, besides, I'm too busy being humbled by Him whose signature is everywhere_ So if you go to a children;s cancer hospital I guess "his signature" is there too?
U will be saved if u beleiv in jesus christ as savior repent for u sin God always axcist he made every thing in heaven and earth in 6 days in 7 days rest from his work jesus christ our lord and savior is God who come in flesh dwel among us became human his plan to die on the cross to save the world from sin and to destroy the work of devill. Jesus dead on cross to save us from sin was bured and rose from death on the third day according the secrptur in bibl
There are no "evolutionists" just as there aren't "round earthists" or "heliocentrists", "plate tectonicists" or "germists". We don't need names for people who understand and accept established scientific theories. We only need names for those who collaborate on forming alternative realities.
Odd, then, that theists are always one step behind science by using new discoveries as an indicator that god is even more clever than we originally thought. Once, just once, perhaps a theist could put forward a novel White Paper based on the biblical 'facts' containing new scientific knowledge of benefit to humanity.
Actually what is happening is that most DNA discoveries do not make it to the general population. DNA replication and protein synthesis is only explaine at this detail in universities where the marxists indoctrination don't let any posibility to think of the idea of a Creator. The rest of the population is left with "big think" ideas subsidised by your favorite billionares and authoritarians. One step behind? Af far as I see atheists are left with more explanations for their proposed origin of life.
Why? So you could argue with that as well? The Bible said that life was in the blood long before science said so. Also, the diet that was for the jews turns out to be for good reason. Part per part there are 200 more units or bacteria in pork than a fresh cow patty. Shellfish, I for one can die from shellfish. Washing of hands before eating, cross contamination with blood, different things called unclean has finally become accepted and practiced today. Even in the early 1900's doctors wouldn't wash the blood off their hands before going to another patient. Those few facts won't change your mind and what you want to believe at all but there they are.
Theists and theism itself have driven technological innovation. Read, for example, "21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible" by Ann Lamont. There are names there like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Sammual Morse, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Carl Linanaes, James Joule, Wernher Von Braun etc.etc. These were all theists and their work is the bedrock of modern science. You are quite wrong. Completely wrong. Please, come back with something intelligent in your next comment.
When you ask them those questions, they will tell you "I don't know", a cop out, but still go on to tell you their response is the correct one and advances in science will find out eventually. Um, nope. This is a classic chicken and egg problem where the code cannot be built up to multiple layers of this sort of complexity randomly, especially when you consider all the rest of the complex components required to even make this code useful at all, also randomly occurring all by themselves to somehow function in unison with the code. Stinks of direction and purpose in unguided natural forces if you ask me.
@@rf7477 , the "egg" came first? Where did the egg come from with all that genetic information to hatch into a living creature? And what laid it and hatched it? ROFL? Are you sure you understand the concept of the phrase "chicken and "egg" problem? the correct answer would actually be the "chicken", but you would still get hit with the same questions like with the "egg" in reverse, but the creationist avoids that pitfall entirely, incredulous as it may sound. By the way, when you say "Religion proves evolution. Religion reverts to type and is an evolutionary dead end.", it is a prime example of circular reasoning. It's as circular as when a Bible believer says the Bible is true because the Bible itself says so.
@@jdshl8423 Your use of the "chicken and egg" phrase was a classic creationist red herring. There are very ancient dinosaur egg fossils, some with fully formed embryonic contents. Your effort to conflate evolutionary biology with the primitive superstitions of creation betray your own limited understanding.
This video is simply using a version of the argument from ignorance. I.e., the argument is: if we don't know how spliceosomes have evolved, then they must be the creation of the God of the Bible. This really adds nothing to the debate.
"This really adds nothing to the debate." - You are wrong. It's logical thinking that is used here. Since there is no naturalistic explanation for life emerging from non-life or evolution with a credible mechanism, only logical theory is ID. Any logically thinking person prefers believing in something that is NOT scientifically proven fiction (God) than believing in something that IS scientifically proven fiction (abiogenesis and universal common ancestor aka evolution).
@@jounisuninenSo what you’re saying is that wherever there are gaps in our knowledge and understanding, the most logical conclusion is to assume an unfalsifiable placeholder and then say, “Therefore, God?” It seems to me that the most logical conclusion to life’s unanswered questions is to admit to not knowing the answers. That’s what drives the pursuit of knowledge.
This is not an argument from ignorance but from what we DO know. Complex and ordered things do not form except by intelligent intervention. This is obvious in everyday experience. So it is patently obvious that biological entities and mechanisms such as spliceosomes could not arise by random stepwise means.
@@TenMinuteTrips there are some things that humans commonly know worldwide (like god created life and universe) theres no logical reason to reject it as even "logic" itself implies god exists since its immaterial
You've got something wrong. Splicing happens on mRNA level, which is one gene. So stating splicing happens "between genes" is wrong. It is not like we splice RNA fragments togheter from genes located at the other side of the DNA. We also know very well how splicing works (read a book), there is also a splicing mechanism which doesn't need the splicosome complex. So in evolution splicing existed before the complex. Now to awnser the questions 1) By splicing there can be multiple forms of one protein be enoceded in 1 gene. It's way more energy efficient to have those in 1 gene than in multiple 2) Evolution took place over BILLIONS of years, we can't imagine how slow it goes, of course complex things are formed, like I said there is splicing without the complex. Then the complex can evolve to make the proces better and make less mistakes. 3) See point 2, evolution, if new mutation in protein did splicing wrong, organism dies, mutation dies. If mutation made it better, organism lives, mutation lives. By just saying, it is complex so someone must have made it is very dumb. Doens't prove anything at all.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440Y’all love to call creationists dumb, but you never provide an actual case against Creation. Nor do you provide a case for evolution. You simply scoff. It’s almost like you don’t bother understanding anything beyond what your favorite pop-atheist tells you!
@@NoahOD_22 Oh, please. I would be delighted to disprove the myth of Creation. Firstly, it is impossible for the Earth to exist before the Sun, as a planet requires the gravitational pull of its star in order to be formed in the first place. That's why the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, while the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Secondly, green plants could not have formed before the Sun or aquatic organisms, because not only do green plants require sunlight for photosynthesis, but they also evolved from aquatic plants hundreds of millions of years ago. Lastly, flying animals could not have existed before terrestrial ones. We know that all flying animals had to evolve flight, which means that their ancestors had to be terrestrial. All of this is demonstrated by cosmology and evolutionary biology. I don’t need to listen to another atheist to understand why creationism is pseudoscientific.
@@NoahOD_22 Buddy, the myth of Creation is obviously false. Do you really think that the Earth could have existed before the Sun? How do you think it could have stayed in place? On the other hand, evolution is a demonstrated fact. I don't need another atheist to explain that to me.
So you can't explain any scientific materialistic explanation for the chemistry discussed here, and how it arose, nobody can, so you insult because you don't know any biochemistry.
@@luish1498 We know how it rains. And we know how dna and proteins work. You can't get a single biological protein to form ab initio based on sequence odds of amino acids alone.
@@sliglusamelius8578 «We know how it rains.» because we have natural explanations for that. in the past we use supernatural explanation for events that we dont understand. Proteins are assembled from amino acids using information encoded in genes. Each protein has its own unique amino acid sequence that is specified by the nucleotide sequence of the gene encoding this protein.
@@sliglusamelius8578 So let's just invoke a 'god of the gaps' fallacy to explain things we haven't figured out yet? Nice, real wise. In that case, let's just scrap science altogether. Your god of the gaps already tells us that the answer is... wait for it... magic!
There's no such thing as an ''evolutionist''. There are people who understand and/or accept the overwhelming global consensus made up of scientists across all religions and lack thereof and then there are flat earthers and creationists.
@@calvinsmith7575 Evolution is a FACT and a scientific theory. There is not a single science organization in the world that rejects evolution. There is not a single piece of evidence from anyone that refutes evolution. Creation myths? --- well there are a lot of those, every religion has a different one.
Irreducible design? You mean if I lose one of my kidneys, or how about my tonsils, or how about my gaule blater, how about my appendix? If Irreducible Coplexity is correct, then if your missing any of these things, then your not considered human anymore. Right?
Just like the watch found in the field, we shouldn't be able to live without all our components. This is not logical when you consider we can live without the above-mentioned. If NO, how does that fit in the model of Irreducible Coplexity?
@@jasontempleton2445 Firstly you've hit on the incredible SYSTEM design of the human body - that it can indeed function without quite a bit of its contents. However, you've totally misunderstood the concept of irreducible complexity with regard to the origin of life and how it (irreducible complexity) fits with arguments against evolution. Evolutionists claim a step-by-step random process to create say a kidney. The function of the kidney itself shows that there are too many inter-related parts that have to be present simultaneously for it to be an actual working organ - hence irreducible complexity - you either have all of the parts in the right order at the right time doing the right thing or you have just one big mess. That's one of the reasons why there's no human replacement for the kidney - not even a way to fix an existing broken one. There's an almost magical way in which the kidney functions! Yes, you read that correctly - it's almost magical in its complexity. We can go on with a lot of other things too, e.g. the eye, the nose and the tongue, not to say anything about photosynthesis or the brain. You can carry on believing the evolutionary fairy tale or you can drop down into reality.
Oh goodness. I see you had to edit your comment. Nobody said anything about being considered human it’s about life and death. Yeah don’t develope a brain and guess what you won’t live. Or a heart or lungs. It’s that simple. Sorry you ignore facy
No, because many of the organs you mentioned are redundant not an absolute necessity, which is what the argument from irreducible complexity is all about.
Impressive explanation for DNA functionality, but your jumping to the conclusion that there must be a "watchmaker" or "master programmer" is a death-defying leap of logic. It doesn't follow at all. In fact there is much more evidence of the random, thoughtless design of life as a result of the evolutionary process by random mutations, sometimes as a result of "environmental pressure". All living organisms are RIDDLED with mistakes and design flaws: we share our eating and breathing cavities, which is life threatening; women's vaginas and birth canals are too small to give birth, resulting in a 30% mortality for all pregnant women up until very recently; the vegus nerve got caught up behind the heart by sheer accident; the list of errors is extremely long!
"All living organisms are RIDDLED with mistakes and design flaws: " ... but not so in the beginning of life. God created perfect world. Man's sin corrupted it as Bible says. Not easy to acknowledge of course. That's why we make evolutionary theories to whitewash ourselves. Evolutionary biologists Eric Loker and Bruce Hofkin have stated, “Macroevolutionary patterns among parasites are not yet very clear.” The origin of these creatures is still a puzzle for secular zoologists. The transition to parasitism doesn’t require long periods of evolutionary time: “In fact, free-living species could become parasitic without substantial anatomical or physiological changes.” It's ironic that in this particular case atheists want to forget "micro evolution" and accuse God for the parasite problem. An evolutionist stated, “Parasitic species have retained some morphological [structural] resemblance with their free-living counterparts.” In the biblical model, creation occurred thousands of years ago, and God saw that everything was very good (Genesis 1:31). There were no parasites, no mistakes and design flaws, not like we have today. We know that in Genesis, God’s creation was corrupted when Adam and Eve fell (Genesis 3:6) and God cursed His creation, the full force falling on humans and all their dominion (Genesis 3:17-19). Away from God's realm decay made its appearance. Before the Fall all organs were perfect for their functions.
The evolution of introns and spliceosomes is not yet fully understood and there are a number of hypotheses and a fair bit of research at this time. Videos like this really don't help though. If we all just say God did it then there is no need for the research. Much of which drives advances in medicine. Just claiming God did it stifles any scientific enquiry from which everyone benefits.
There is need for research, because God made humans capable of understanding complicated things, and by doing research we can help other humans to live a better life on earth.
@@calvinsmith7575 there is no use to saying either. There is a lot of use in evolutionary research though. All of which would cease to be funded if you had your way. In the applied realm, evolutionary biologists are embracing their social responsibilities. There are many ways in which their scientific efforts can help humanity: ▪ to understand and combat genetic, systemic, and infectious diseases ▪ to understand human physiological adaptations to stresses, pathogens, and other causes of ill health ▪ to improve crops and mitigate damage by pathogens, insects, and weeds ▪ to develop tools for analyzing human genetic diversity as it applies to health, law, and the understanding of human behavior ▪ to use and develop biological resources in a responsible manner ▪ to remedy damage to the environment ▪ to predict the consequences of global and regional environmental change ▪ to conserve biodiversity and discover its uses By comparison, what has your anti science videos achieved?
@@thomaswayneward but if we assume we already know the answer (god did it), yhen all the hugely beneficial research into evolution stops. The impact would be catastrophic
@@calvinsmith7575 so I wrote a long answer but ut seems to have disappeared. In short evolutionary biology has made huge contributions to health, agriculture and the environment. The damage that videos like this can do is potentially catastrophic
@@refuse2bdcvd324 the term "genetic code" is commonly used to describe the set of rules by which the information encoded within DNA or RNA is translated into proteins. This code specifies the correspondence between the sequence of nucleotides (such as "TGAACTTTA") in DNA or RNA and the sequence of amino acids in a protein. The term "code" in this context refers to a system of rules or symbols that convey information. In the genetic code, specific sequences of nucleotides (codons) represent specific amino acids or serve as signals for starting or stopping protein synthesis.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 the term "information" is used in a broader sense to describe the encoded instructions contained within DNA that guide the development, functioning, and reproduction of living organisms. This information is not generated by a conscious mind but is a product of natural processes and evolutionary mechanisms. In molecular biology, DNA is often referred to as the "genetic information" because it carries the instructions necessary for the synthesis of proteins and the regulation of various cellular processes. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA serves as a template for the production of specific proteins, which in turn contribute to the structure and function of cells and organisms. The information stored in DNA is a result of the specific arrangement of nucleotides along the DNA molecule. This sequence of nucleotides acts as a code that is read and interpreted by cellular machinery during processes such as transcription and translation. The information contained within DNA is transmitted from one generation to the next, allowing for the continuity of traits and characteristics.
Why couldn't evolution do this? It seems obvious, we're made of carbon which has a great ability at forming new compounds, it's why there's so much variability in life. The DNA and RNA question is also quite simple because evolution just goes with what works, once these systems evolved they kept going getting more complicated. All of this has proven and observed in labs and in nature.. or you can just believe "God did it" and stop learning about the important stuff I guess.
@user-hf1tv1fl2o. "It seems obvious that we are made of carbon," you declared! It seems equally as obvious that you give no thought to where carbon could have come from! Ohh, just handily existed for evolution's sake! The first single -celled predecessors? Ohh, just handily existed! The universe? Oh , just handily existed! Guy, that ain't science. It's comedy.
@@user-zu2zo8ji4n No, carbon didn't just handily exists. No one claims that. After the universe started to cool down hydrogen and helium started coming together into heavier elements.
@@nathancook2852 Oh,so the Big Bang handily created the universe and when the universe started to cool down... yeah, okay my friend. You are divagating way off into faith now. I don't believe you really know that! Don't you know what supposedly anteceded the Big Bang? The Singularity. Now that is the ultimate faith. Science is left far behind.
@@nathancook2852 After the universe started to cool down? You obviously belief in the multiverse theory, the Big Bang or something equally untenable. With any of those theories, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF FAITH. The reason is this: science is naturalistic. But either of the mentioned options defy naturality. Claiming the universe made it itself, conveniently just happened or possesses eternality is faith, not science!
Very intellectually-dishonest analogies. Those phenomena don’t involve the same level of “information system within a system” complexity. If you were a STEM professional who actually engaged in software coding at the graduate level you would understand this.
@@cavediver8385 those aren’t analogies. Those are the thought processes people attributed to these phenomena. You likening dna to a code doesn’t make dna a literal code. You being a STEM professional doesn’t qualify you to declare these complex systems in biology can’t occur naturally.
@@gregoryt8792 The Holy Bible is no science book. E.g. for what you claim: life is not in the blood or in any separate part of the body, it is the whole body system that makes life.
@@calvinsmith7575 Falsehood. Even today we are seeing the emergence of new species (speciation). And also all other mechanisms of biological evolution (several dozen). Please do not introduce misinformation.
The evolution of the spliceosome is well understood. Here's two papers reviewing it: Stoltzfus, A. (1999). On the possibility of constructive neutral evolution. Journal of molecular evolution, 49, 169-181. Muñoz-Gómez, S. A., Bilolikar, G., Wideman, J. G., & Geiler-Samerotte, K. (2021). Constructive neutral evolution 20 years later. Journal of molecular evolution, 89, 172-182.
The only thing they understand is how to interpret data to get the square peg into the round hole. When you have secular scientists saying 'if they were to witness GOD they would assume they were hallucinating', it confirms their incredulity.
@@spamm0145 If you saw a burning bush talk the chances of it being a hallucination are indeed MUCH higher than it being a magic man from the sky as described by one particular religion out of hundreds of others.
@@calvinsmith7575 Read more carefully. I said the ~evolution~ is well understood. The papers linked describe a mechanism with experimental support for the evolution of spliceosomes.
The Most High told the Hebrews to thread and knot tsit tsits in a specific numerical pattern that not only replicates our DNA, but actually proves that our DNA replicates the name of our Father YHWH. According to our history and science books, it would be impossible for people back then to know anything about DNA - so it must have been the Father all along.
@@jounisuninen There's no such thing as an "evolutionist", it's just a slur invented by cult followers. There is simply the scientific FACT of evolution supported by vast libraries of peer reviewed evidence assembled by the greatest minds of the planet. On the opposite side to that there are those that lack or deny education and facts who believe in creation for which there's NO evidence. All you have is one silly book largely comprised of fairy tales. You believe, because, like all cults, the first thing they take is your ability to think objectively and reason critically. Free thought is banned and in your case you'll have an irrational fear of a fictional hell. 13.8 billion years of physics from big bang to humans is not happenstance and you baseless claim it is, is proof of your lack of education. Of course, theists seem not to need education or evidence to make claims because they make up for that with sheer arrogance that only they are right. In thousands of years, millions of scientists haven't found the tiniest shred of evidence for a god. Oddly enough, no theist has either. Think on that!
@@jounisuninen There's no such thing as an "evolutionist", it's just a slur invented by cult followers. There is simply the scientific FACT of evolution supported by vast libraries of peer reviewed evidence assembled by the greatest minds of the planet. On the opposite side to that there are those that lack or deny education and facts who believe in creation for which there's NO evidence. All you have is one silly book largely comprised of fairy tales. You believe, because, like all cults, the first thing they take is your ability to think objectively and reason critically. Free thought is banned and in your case you'll have an irrational fear of a fictional hell. 13.8 billion years of physics from big bang to humans is not happenstance and you baseless claim it is, is proof of your lack of education. Of course, theists seem not to need education or evidence to make claims because they make up for that with sheer arrogance that only they are right. In thousands of years, millions of scientists haven't found the tiniest shred of evidence for a god. Oddly enough, no theist has either. Think on that!
Don't give any ground on the idea of "modification over time". The only mechanism for change over time is degredation, loss of information, or genetic damage at random. The mechanism cannot account for the invention of anything, just the breakdown that might be interesting
Most mutations do nothing. A few are harmful. A few are beneficial. Natural selection - the part of evolution creationists always ignore - weeds out the harmful ones and favours the benefical ones. Simple, anything born with a harmful mutation is more likely than average to die before it procreates and thus passes on that mutation; anything born with a helpful mutation is more likely than average to live long enough to procreate and pass on that helpful mutation to it;s offspring. This process repeats many times and small helpful change cumulate to major ones.
@jockyoung4491 @HangrySaturn please enlighten us, name or describe the mechanism that can add information to the genome. Random copy errors, deletions, substitutions, and random particle damage cannot write new code, only degrade existing code.
Yes, I hate it, because it's unpersuasive and misleading toward your credulous target audience. The graphics are pretty good, and the DNA stuff is interesting, but it isn't proof of special creation or a young Earth. Also, nobody self-identifies as 'evolutionist', and the way you throw that around is mildly offensive. Just calling them 'scientists' is sufficient, since virtually all professional scientists consider evolution to be fact. It's foundational. What's been observed is inconsistent with YEC. We get it that biology is super-complex. Genetics and molecular biology are mind-boggling. The various mechanisms of evolution that have been identified (natural selection being only one, if the most significant) might seem inadequate to explain observed biodiversity. Indeed, unexplained mysteries still exist in this and every other field of science, but many are also resolved each year when their natural processes are unveiled by scientific means. Without a materialist worldview, science would have ground to a halt centuries ago. 'God did it' is the easiest answer to any question, and it might be even be true. Scientists are just looking for the 'how', and you can't say they haven't been successful so far. As intricate as genetic inheritance is, it obviously works. We see successive generations of every known organism. Small changes become large changes over time. Each individual is begotten of a parent or two, and hopefully begets offspring in turn, each with its unique genome. It seems pretty miraculous, and we can witness the miracles daily. Mutations happen and some end up being adaptive and are retained. Astounding, but undeniable. What's never been observed is a complex animal springing to life out of the dust, with no parents involved. Extraordinary claims require at least some proof, and you have nothing to show.
"Just calling them 'scientists' is sufficient, since virtually all professional scientists consider evolution to be fact." - No they don't. Majority is just majority. Can you tell me how any majority could stand for a scientific fact? Evolution has never been empirically proven, as all empirical tests have produced only intraspecific variation at most. Evolutionists call it "evolution" but a new unforeseen species emerging from existing species has never happened - not even a first little step. "What's been observed is inconsistent with YEC." - No it's not. We have big amount of geological and other evidence for young earth. "Without a materialist worldview, science would have ground to a halt centuries ago." - Not true. The most important founders of modern science believed in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson … and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God (data 1900-1999). It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism. Natural sciences started to decline only when Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory in 1859, without understanding anything of genetics or thermodynamics or biological information. "Small changes become large changes over time." - No they don't. All species get those small changes in the process called "gene recombination". In gene recombination parents' genes get shuffled to form new genetic combination for the offspring. Thus descendants get superficial features that differ from their parents. This is intraspecific variation (genetic variation within a species). No new unforeseen genes appear - so of course no evolution either. "What's never been observed is a complex animal springing to life out of the dust, with no parents involved." - God did it once and doesn't arrange replays. And of course you don't have any credible alternative theory. Abiogenesis is ruled out by entropy.
Bacteria -- as relatively simple live forms -- doesn't do splicing. And as life form getting more complex, splicing is evolved (after billion years of trial and error) and gradual gain of survival advantages. So, Voila! It doesn't necessarily need a mastermind to design splicing mechanism.
@@calvinsmith7575 Calvin "knows" how it happened, and everything! goditit!. That's how religion works. Mystery must be explained (and amplified, or reduced) by the divine. And he did it all in 6000 years.
@@calvinsmith7575 There are more than one legit biological explanation to the evolution of splicing. Though I wonder if you are willing to read long paragraphs about those.
@@rf7477 Internet rando "knows" how it happened, and everything! Evoditit!. That's how the story of evolution works. Mystery must be explained (and amplified, or reduced) by the material. And it did it all in 4.5 billion years.
@@holyck14967 There is also good evidence for ancient DNA. Svante Paabo found that Neanderthal crossed with Homo sapiens about 70,000 years ago. Your creation nonsense can be dismissed.
@@thomaswayneward By evolutionist, you of course mean normal sane individual happening to understand and/or accept the overwhelming, global scientific consensus reinforced through almost two centuries of scrutiny and studying?
I haven’t watched the video yet, but I can pretty much guarantee the thumbnail is false. Whoever prepares your thumbnails does a disservice to your ministry and to Christianity in general. Please, stop lying and exaggerating.
_"I haven’t watched the video yet, but I can pretty much guarantee"_ that because you are hardened in your irrational hatred against Jesus Christ, no matter what you see or hear, you will continue gnashing your teeth and directing your hatred against Calvin and other Bible-believers. Hey, Darwin cheerleader, though you reject it, the Bible tells us the truth about earth's earliest, and all-time lowest, greater-than-zero human population number: it was 1 individual (namely, Adam). And the Bible also tells us that, within one day, earth's human population number grew from 1 individual to 2 individuals (namely, Adam and Eve). Believing those propositions -- those Bible truths -- about earth's earliest human population numbers is rational. Now, what about your falsely so-called "science" -- your cherished Darwinistspeak? Please tell us, according to the "wisdom" of your Bible-despising community's Darwinistspeak, what number of individuals was earth's earliest, and all-time lowest, greater-than-zero human population number? Have fun cursing in your chagrin on account of the abject failure of your Darwinistspeak to give an answer to this elementary question.
@@calvinsmith7575 Honestly, don’t need to watch the video to know the thumbnail is dishonest. Answers in Genesis uses very similar thumbnails all the time, and when I watch the video, they are dishonest. I’ve since watched, and it’s dishonest. You’ve seen the video, is the thumbnail dishonest?
Naturl selection is not creative. According to the story of evolution it requires random mutations to create new genetic information for novel forms functions and features. This has never been observed however. But in the end the story of evolution is ultimately a random force in concept.
"Natural selection is not random. It’s a logical process." - Not true. Speciation by 'natural selection' (in fact natural elimination!) can't generate evolution. It generates devolution. Natural elimination COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural elimination however delivers nothing, it just destroys individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead, taking their genes with them, or become too rare) which means that on population level the gene pool gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution. No wonder over 90% of all species have already gone extinct.
Disregarding the miraculous multiplication of Mr. Smith's vests, It seems to me that there are at least two basic errors in this presentation. First there is the argument of ignorance he is making again, and secondly he is pretending that his supernatural assumption actually explain anything, which of course they don't. If we find something we don't understand, like where spliceosomes originated from, then our default position must be "We don't know". As Mr. Smith doesn't know more about spliceosomes than the experts he quotes, he should also admit that he doesn't know the origin of spliceosomes. But of course that would be something he can't do as an apologist. In stead of doing the right thing, he puts forward his own non-scientific belief as if it were a valid hypothesis and then acts as if the scientists are getting this all wrong. He claims that if scientists don't know three criteria of his own devise, then by default his religious dogma should be considered correct. That is an argument from ignorance. It is not how science works. But even if his dogmatic, supernatural assumptions were valid as a scientific hypothesis, they would still not explain anything. If we look at the pyramids, and we try to understand how and why they were built, claiming that they were miraculously placed there by a deity would not give us any kind of answer to how or why this deity put these structures there. Claiming God only serves to put our questions into a big black box that we have no hope of ever opening. Creationism or Intelligent Design does not explain anything, but instead mystifies everything.
But you just used the pyramids - built by an intelligence - as an example of why intelligent design theory doesn’t work. In fact intelligent design theory posits that we can recognize things built by intelligent designers. Even if there were no written histories, we all know immediately upon seeing them that the pyramids were built by intelligent designers, and we would assume those were human based on what we know about humans. The author of this video is simply saying that he believes we can say the same thing about DNA - that looking at its complexity demonstrates intelligent design, not of a human nature, but of the kind of god he finds in the Bible. He may be wrong about exactly who - but the argument that the structure of life doesn’t suggest random processes produced them is sound. Entropy and probability mathematics alone suggests the spontaneous generation of life on earth just isn’t a reasonable position.
@@jaireidca You said: _"But you just used the pyramids - built by an intelligence - as an example of why intelligent design theory doesn’t work."_ No, I used it to illustrate why an appeal to miracle is always a worse explanation than any explanation that we know is possible. I used the pyramids because there are people who believe they were built by aliens or spirits or what have you, and I assume that most of the people who would read my comment would think that such explanations would be bizarre. You said: _"In fact intelligent design theory posits that we can recognize things built by intelligent designers."_ I know... but I have never seen *_any_* explanation of *_how_* we can do that that did not become circular or had some other logical error. If you think you can explain it to me, I would appreciate it very much if you'd give it a try. You said: _"Even if there were no written histories, we all know immediately upon seeing them that the pyramids were built by intelligent designers, and we would assume those were human based on what we know about humans."_ Yes, because we recognize the techniques, the shapes, the way their construction goes against what we would be familiar in nature, etc. None of these criteria is valid for anything in nature. You said: _"The author of this video is simply saying that he believes we can say the same thing about DNA - that looking at its complexity demonstrates intelligent design, not of a human nature, but of the kind of god he finds in the Bible."_ And I would dispute that assertion. There is nothing about complexity in and of itself that points to design (intelligent or otherwise); a ball bearing is exquisitely simple; one material in one geometric shape, and yet we know it was designed. You said: _"He may be wrong about exactly who - but the argument that the structure of life doesn’t suggest random processes produced them is sound."_ No it isn't; and just talking about "random processes" is a potential strawman. Natural selection is not "random"; if that is the main driver behind evolution, evolution has randomness built in in the sense that the genetic variation natural selection works on may be random to a degree, but the criteria for evolutionary success are not. You said: _"Entropy and probability mathematics alone suggests the spontaneous generation of life on earth just isn’t a reasonable position."_ That is almost by definition incorrect. Entropy doesn't work the way creationist apologists have told you in a local system like earth, and probability may be low, but if it isn't impossible, you are stuck with having to admit that on earth, some insanely improbable event did take place however many billion years ago.
@@calvinsmith7575 You said: _"EVO did it no matter what! Got it..."_ No, if we follow the evidence and use rational and logical arguments, then we have to conclude at least for now that the modern scientific theory of evolution is currently our best explanation for the way we observe things are. If you come with actual evidence to the contrary, and with arguments that do not rely on logical errors and unlikely assumptions, then you will have something to talk about. Not before that.
Ah, the magnificently absurd argument of irreducible complexity again raises its ugly head. The logical fallacy of personal incredulity is strong in this one.
@@maylingng4107 'Michael Behe, the purveyor of "irreducible complexity" was totally destroyed and discredited at the Kitzmiller v. Dover B of E trial in 2005.' And yet the cognitively challenged continue to peddle that myth.
@@user-on3wh6wu9n Behe is in the service and member of the Discovery Institute, and anti-science creationist cult. Him and James Tour trumpet creationist propaganda, and both of them have departed rationality, and sold out their education.
Hallelujah!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🏻🙌🏻.I was owning a loan of $47,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery (Oscar), Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $8,000 and got my payout of $270,500 every months.God bless Renee Marie Harrison.
The bible states...Only a fool in his heart says that there is no God..............Foolish pride blinds us to the magnificence of what we are in God our creator.
the i'm smarter because of my religion quip is worthless. which god does the fool say there isn't--yours? your problem is with atheists but not people of other religions? want to convert if it makes no difference?
The truth, Darwin cheerleader, is that your cherished Darwinistspeak (what you like to mindlessly refer to by the word, "evolution") is neither scientific, nor a theory.
@@CaptainFantastic222 _"You can disagree with evolution but I’m not sure how you could defend the argument that it’s not a scientific theory."_ Every theory is either true or false; what is neither true nor false is not a theory. The fact that your cherished Darwinistspeak (what you Darwin cheerleaders like to term "evolution") is cognitively meaningless -- and is thus not only not true, but also does not even rise to the level of being false -- is the fact that your cherished Darwinistspeak is not even a theory. And, since I don't assume you're smart enough to notice the entailment on your own, I'll try to help you by pointing out that since your cherished Darwinistspeak is not even a theory, it follows that your cherished Darwinistspeak is not a _scientific_ theory.
This is just personal incredulity taken a step further. "I can't believe that this could happen naturally, therefore it must be God." That's not an argument, that's a statement of opinion. Which is fine. You're allowed to have an opinion. Just don't pretend that it's science. It's worthwhile to remember that if there is a God, and that God is indeed omnipotent, he (she, they?) doesn't need any of this. He could just "speak it into existence". No need for DNA at all. In fact the existence of DNA is one of the greatest evidences of the natural origin of life. When you find a life form that does not have DNA, or any other sort of reproductive system, but still reproduces, that is evidence for supernatural creation.
@throckmortensnivel285O the God-hating Darwin cheerleader's personal incredulity: _"I can't believe that God could have done this, therefore it must not be God."_
@throckmortensnivel2850 Here is something quite comical. Atheist/evolutionists often say, "Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology or the origin of life." That's like saying that a building has nothing to do with a foundation! Comparatively, cosmology is inextricably bound to evolutionistic premises because something cosmological HAD to have happened first. Or there would have been NO PLACE WITHIN WHICH EVOLUTION COULD EVER HAVE STARTED. But I realize why god-opposers deny a connection between cosmology, origin of life and evolution. You are too proud to admit that your argument would fall apart. So you must start your argument with our so-called single -celled predecessors evolving. You never even consider where would the predecessors have even come from in the first place! Oh, they simply, conveniently appeared because there is no god? Or maybe they are the epitome of eternality? My friend, none of those two options are science. So welcome to something that you disparage. Welcome to faith and the supernatural...
Science determined how biological IC structures form decades ago through processes like exaptation of function and genetic scaffolding. Even Behe doesn't use the debunked IC argument anymore.
Actually I have a scientific related degree, and I used to be an evolutionist until I looked at all of the evidence objectively. My former faith in neo darwinian macroevolution as the evidence for intelligent purposeful design pour it out into the spotlight. Actually it's your statement that's based on ignorance, which is based on being the victim of public school based secular fundamentalist propaganda that life is the purposeless product of mindless materialistic forces. The evidence doesn't bear that out,@@tims5268.
@@peteone111 _the evidence for intelligent purposeful design_ What evidence for ID would that be? Every ID argument to date has been an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. ID hasn't produced a sniff of positive evidence. ID can't even think of a testable hypothesis.
While the Nobel prize panelists and the publishers and editors of the mainstream scientific journals are subscribers of the evolutionary, naturalist dogma... Yeah, good luck with that.
Don't confuse theory with facts, they need facts to prove Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact; of course they don't have any facts, just theories.
@@HS-zk5nn But, if you could disprove evolution, the idea that probably has the most physical evidence supporting it, that would be monumental. Or if you could prove a deity, either of those would win a Noble Prize...
That is exactly what they do do, it's called research. You deny that because you love your sin more than accepting accountability to the God who you know does indeed exist.
This suggests that a random mutation would likely break mutliple functional areas of genetic code even if happenstance occured and the mutation improved one area.
The "christians" invented an invisible god and made him a moral arbiter and a constructor of things. Why? Because he was lonely, bored and tormentative. The "christian" religion is proof enough of this.
@@thomaswayneward and religion devised a way to function without proof. In the absence of proof, religion quite happily claims anything physical or chemical as 'proof' of its invisible and undetectable deity. Despite this, religion feels the urge to contrive things like talking snakes, water walking and demon casting. These illusions are deemed 'miracles' and are offered as further 'proof'. Oddly, religion demands belief, on pain of death. An amoral contradiction. Worse still, religion reverts to type because it has no evolutionary advantage. But you you are talking to the wrong audience. You need to speak to the "christians" who support the theory of evolution.
Christians invented God? If this is the basis of your understanding of God and Christianity, wow you need help. Have you been to kindergarten yet? Or is that in a few years, because obviously you are lacking basic and I mean basic 5 year old information
@@jounisuninen I understand that some people don't like irony, in particular the literal minded "christian". But when a "christian" demands proof he is inducing his own irony.
@@calvinsmith7575 So you get the point. Why would you listen to a medical professional, but not another expert in another field. And medical research operates under the idea that evolution occurs, so, if you don't believe in evolution, may you should skip the medical professional.
@@nathancook2852 So you get the point, the story of evolution has nothing to do with the medical profession's actual empirical scientific study. The changes we see in pathogens or bacterial resistance etc. have nothing to do with evolution, they are caused by reshuffling of pre-existing genetic information or damaging genetic mutations. So my taking quinine to prevent or lessen the impact of malaria while I lived in Africa based on the medical profession's advice because of their repeatable, observable research indicating it would be beneficial to do so has nothing to do with the magical story that matter with no mind somehow arranged itself into people that would entertain the notion it could possibly happen. : )
