In this video David Gelernter, David Berlinksi, and Stephen Meyer break down the mathematical problems with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Original Video: • Mathematical Challenge...
People don't know the difference between small changes and big changes. We see adaptations in the "same kind" of animals, but we never see one kind changing into another kind.
@@johnnym6700yes we can watch fish become lobed fish become amphibious and develop into the Reptiles and the Synapsids and we can observe how those synapsids split also into a group we call mammals and that only small mammals survived the last mass extinction to grow into all mammals. We are fairly sure we know which land mammals went back to sea to become marine mammals, and can trace their skeletal changes as their paws became fins. We can view the fossil records and track Dino that became birds. We can observe ancient hominids become more human in skull shape and skeletal stance. Sheep don’t turn to horses. Sheep and horses both slowly came to be far separated now by an ancient common ancestor with many differentiating species in-between.
I'm a retired Career National Laboratory Staff Scientist that successfully earned 15 US PATENTS and I won 2 R&D 100 AWARDS for the top 100 International Inventions twice. Scientists ARE EXPECTED to constantly question Science THEORIES and ASSUMPTIONS and these are CONSTANTLY overturned when better GUESSES and ASSUMPTIONS are proposed and shown to be MORE CORRECT than the previous HYPOTHESISES! HEALTHY SCIENCE questions EVERYTHING CONSTANTLY!! The reason DARWINIAN EVOLUTION (that a one-celled organism mutated and resulted in all life on Earth today) is still pushed in TEXTBOOKS today, SIMPLY to JUSTIFY a MATERIALISTIC WORLDVIEW.
Seems to me that you like to YELL because you don't understand the HUMAN GENOME and you don't want to understand how ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES prove COMMON DECENT. You make up MORALIST arguments against a STRAW MAN humanist so that you can frame YOURSELF as the morally SUPERIOR position to DISGUISE your own IGNORANCE.
Yeah, you & Terrence Howard have patents. SO WHAT. Anyone with $2500 can get a patent. You don’t even have to prove it works. Nice try, you conspiracy wacko.
@@sumralltt How do you account for endogenous retroviruses appearing across both human and ape genomes in the same places? Seems to indicate common decent.
That's not evolution. Evolution is not random. There's many better computer sciencists that have a great take on how randomness doesn't exist. Evolutionary pressure is never random. There is a reason why us and all animals share certain features and that comes from the fact that we all deal similar evolutionary pressures that exist on our planet in general. There's tons of free papers and articles that you might be assuming to be false about evolution without even reading them. RU-vid doesn't allow sharing links. I would share some with you.
First, don't make assumptions about what people you don't know believe or don't believe. Second, evolutionary pressures aren't random, but the mutations that drive evolution are random. The evolutionary value of the mutations regarding their efficacy in adapting to the environment are not random. You might be right in your semantic argument that randomness doesn't exist; I'm certainly not educated on the subject to argue that (FWIW, I agree that randomness on a macro level may not exist). But, on a practical level, unless you're arguing that some "force" guides evolution, we can use random as a word to describe the process.
As a reviewer, you strike a good balance of showing the main video, and then interjecting short statements that add value to me being a viewer. - Well done!
@@maxwell8758 unfortunately it's when you're five when you first learn of of it. It conditions you to never question it because you think adults know better and would not lie to you because you're innocent. We all know that isn't true as almost all of us believed in Santa Claus for a time. The advantage of being an adult with critical thinking skills means that I went back and questioned all the things I learned as a child. Guess what? 99% of what I learned about space, dinosaurs and the shape of the Earth is completely unsupported by any evidence. Evidence being that it has passed the scientific method.
@@maxwell8758 you just proved my point. It was five when you first learned it. That's a very impressionable age to be learning anything. The difference between me and you is as an adult I went back and questioned everything I learned when I was five and learned 90% of it is BS. I don't know if you know this but Santa Claus is a fictional character and is used in a worldwide conspiracy that tricks children into being good to get presents.
@@TruthNBible take a rolex apart, every part of it, and put it in your pocket and shake it up and down and all around - after billions of times you WILL have a bunch of scratched dented and bent parts of a watch. NOT an organized working watch- thats the FACT - chaos cannot create - its not only impossible its illogical. Thats with something you already have parts of. The evolution idiots propose, you take a rock and put it in a garage and count as many years as you want and you will get a Ferrari - from a rock. - that is pure IDIOCY!
@@TruthNBibleThe aminoacids cannot random build life relevant peptides, becose those bonds have to be in 100 % precisely position and the chemistry dont care about life.Impossible.
@@TruthNBible It is true. Chaos cannot make order. In all the sands of the Sahara, you see planes of straight glass being made? I don't. It's implausible.
Edgelord! You're mocking intellectual discourse. We're not experts, just interested. You like hotrods and big beards. Hahaha, you're in the wrong place...
You don’t have to be a scientist to have common sense. “An invisible Jewish skydaddy that’s everywhere and looks just like me” says everything you need to know about these hucksters and their plan to relieve you of your money!
I have never seen a debate with David Gelernter before, but the way he took it upon himself and interrupted the discussion to defend Stephen Meyer was impressive. Much respect for someone who will take their time to do that.
That applies for religion also. Doesn't mean that because some have assigned a sacred value to some books, we should not question them and accept everything blindly.
You have to mentally inept to believe we evolved from monkeys let alone came to being from an explosion from nothing. Lol. The school system effectively brainwashed you. Lol.
Nothing like using a straw-man argument saying it was random. Evolutionists don't say it was random but rather a process guided by environmental pressures to mutate. I wish they had someone on there arguing against this bias. Garbage discussion
Darwin’s theory of evolution was an important jumping stone for science to explore the creation of life. But tge original theory does not hold up, hence the creation of neo Darwinism. But it’s all subjective research rather than hard science.
"Subjective research?" Digging up fossils, comparing DNA sequences between organisms ain't "subjective." Look up the discovery of Titaalik where a scientist knew there should be transitional creatures between water and land in sedimentary layers of the right time span and went and discovered one! Look up the comparisons done in DNA sequences between the Great Apes and us (along with fused chromosome 2 as mentioned somewhere else here).
Subjective research rather than hard science? Darwin made the initial scientific breakthrough and postulated a theory, which has now been studied in far more depth. As a result scientists have demonstrated the resilience of Darwin's theory, but have now developed it to include our current knowledge so we have a far better understanding of evolution than Darwin could ever have hoped for.
This video: "Let's disprove evolution." "OK, but shouldn't we include an evolutionary biologist to point out our misunderstandings?" "Nah, it'll be fine..."
Haha you think these guys don’t understand evolution? The truth is that evolution biology doesn’t have an answer for them, that is why not one is countering this.
@@josenob1 they are not there because they cannot refute this. But I’ll give you a rundown of their arguments. The first and most stupid is that natural selection makes this a process and not random. Second is the argument that the exact number of possible functional proteins is not known so you can’t say what the odds are. Except we know that the possible combinations that are functional are around 100,000 so being off by even 100% doesn’t make a difference.
They talk about arranging the parts properly, which is impossible by chance. Further, you have to have the raw materials to start with and have to ask the question of how they got there. Further again, you have to account for the origin of properties and laws of the universe, matter, etc.
So sand particles able to arrange themselves into sandstone is impossible? Gravity pulling smaller objects to a larger object is impossible? Basic atoms aren't "raw" enough for you? A singularity containing time and space, exists without time, as time is part of it. We have accounted for all this, sticking ones fingers in their ears and saying "nah" is your problem.
@@12thdegreeninja64 sand particles don't assemble themselves. They have neither will nor energy to do such. The forces that do that also have no design or intent.
Jesus doesn't say that and it's disingenuous to say so. Everyone will be judged by their works; by the fruit they bear in this life. There is obviously more to it, but you are confusing western Roman Catholic and Protestant theology with what the ancient church (Orthodox) has taught. Your view of Christ is obviously distorted because of Rome and I don't blame you for thinking that. If you're sincere there are a ton of resources out there about Orthodoxy, but if you want to keep thinking what you're thinking that is your choice. All the best to you and have a great day!
@@charlessimons1692 I see where this is going to go and I'm not interested. I said if you're sincere you can easily check out what the Church that Christ built believed instead of repeating what Roman Catholics and Protestants have pushed on society (and we are seeing the fruit of it!). We can go back and forth and you'll more than likely repeat every single thing that I've already heard a thousand times and you might say the same thing about me. But ultimately it's an issue of the heart and it's the same spirit at work producing the same arguments; it's the same spirit that worked in me for the majority of my life. But there is more and I suspect you know that. If you are interested I suggest "Roots of Orthodoxy" for commonly asked questions and for debates with atheists check out Jay Dyer. He does live streams and will debate with you should you call in. Have a great day.
@charlessimons1692 The Bible, as much as man has tried to corrupt it, has been intact with God's full word by divine intervention, one of the worst excuses to lead others away is to say the Bible is corrupted, which was instituted by the devil. If you're truly sincere, you would look into it.
What came first the chicken or the egg. Both require the other, so what is more likely? Organisms transforming into other beings over millions of years. Or a godlike being willing them into existence fully formed? I am more inclined to believe in a godlike being willing them into existence.
Insects, turtles, lizards and reptiles also lay eggs! The eggs evolved first though, huh? Atheists and evolutionists have an unconquerable dismissiveness... laughable too ! Or maybe it is not so laughable on second thought. But it does verges on sad... But I really would like to know ___where exactly was the place within which eggs evolved? And since eggs "EVOLVED", where did they arrive from?😊
@@captaingaza2389I think uts willfully ignorant to think the egg came first when it takes the chuckedn to lay the egg.. much more plausible to believe a creator being Willed it into existence rather than sole other creature creating an egg that hatches into something different than what laid the egg
@@rickusmaximus2435 Which creator??? Yours or islams? Or maybe it’s the Sikhs? Maybe if you read more than one book you’d know eggs were around waaaaaaaaaaaay before chickens Get an education pal
@@captaingaza2389 creator of all. I don't follow a religion. I just see things for what they are. And in order for eggs to come about they have to be laid by something, eggs didn't just come about by accident then came the chicken. What book says eggs came about first? Without being laid by something??
Darwin wrote his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" more than 150 years ago, since then the theory of evolution has stepped far, far, far forward. Any biologist now discussing issues of evolution relies on the modern synthetic theory of evolution, but not on a book from 150 years ago. What kind of professors have filled RU-vid discussing a theory that is absolutely irrelevant today?! Yes, this is the scientific basis from which the development of the theory of evolution began. But seriously criticizing it now is ridiculous! Dear critics, you are 150 years late.
It is not irrelevant. Even when Darwin NEVER addressed the issue of the origin of life, Darwinism is alive and well in academia today. Text books are evidence exhibit number one. Even when most honest scientists know that abiogenisis is an impossibility, NOBODY, has come forward to acknowledged it.
@@johnmalcolm2028 What are you saying? Honest scientists - who are they? Apparently, people with little competence in this matter. Doesn't it bother you that scientists have long been able to repeat all the main reactions of organic compound formation in Invitro? What seemed obscure, unlikely and unconvincing in Darwin's era and the next 100 years after him now, with the accumulation of new knowledge, seems obvious and even inevitable. In Darwin's era, people simply could not imagine how much the current Earth differed from the Earth 4-2.7 billion years ago. The Archean was an amazing period in the history of the Earth, when our Planet looked more like an alchemist's or witch's cauldron than the planet we are accustomed to. High temperatures, electrical discharges in the atmosphere, high concentrations of sulfur, methane and other organic compounds. And the fact that at least complex organic compounds could form at that moment does not even arise in question. And he did not hide the fact that the origin of life itself as such was outside the plane of Darwin's knowledge. At that stage of biology development, no one had the knowledge that we have now. What can I say, the archaea themselves, as the first form of cellular life, were isolated into a separate domain only in 1977. On the one hand, Darwin lived in an era of great discoveries in natural science, on the other hand, religious reactionism was much stronger than it is now. For the mere fact that he pointed out the relationship between higher primates and humans, Darwin was almost "eaten alive", and caricatures of him as a monkey are still being drawn.
Yes, you can question, but if you're in the field and you question evolution you won't get published and you'll never make tenure. The academic system is rigged against Christians.
@@PInk77W1 The famous Apologist Mike Licona got fired for suggesting that the story about the risen jewish saints in the gospel of Matthew might not be historical. And the vast majority of Christian historians work for institutions where they have to sign a statement of faith that the Bible is 100% true… even the contradictions.😂
No scientific hypothesis or theory claims 'random' or 'chance' is a causal mechanism; random/chance in science is a measure of the likelihood of something happening and that 'something' is the actual mechanism not 'change' or 'random'. For example, when someone says there is a 10% chance of rain that 'chance' isn't 'rain' itself, the mechanism is precipitation. Chance/random is just the measurement of that causal mechanism of precipitation occurring. Similarly, chance/random in DNA variation isn't the CAUSAL mechanism, instead it's a measurement of variation due to transcription errors occurring ( as well as other mechanisms of variation. )
False. Non biological proteins would form a random ordering of amino acids without the DNA code and a living cell. Random small peptides are worthless..
Antibiotic resistance within bacteria isn't what you were told it was. Key excerpts from the peer reviewed Woodford and Ellington paper that proves that antibiotic resistance claims by 'evolutionists' isn't actually evidence for so called 'beneficial genetic mutations' include.... *"Genetic change, through the incorporation of mutations in bacterial DNA, can arise via various mechanisms, including oxidative (131) and alkylation (132) damage, and via errors introduced during DNA replication."* (So, impairment then. Deny all you want. It's there in the paper). *"Replication errors can result from failure of three separate processes, namely base selection, proof reading and DNA mismatch repair, which act sequentially to ensure the fidelity of replication (133, 134). The first two processes allow DNA replication to proceed with a fidelity of 10 − 7 per bp replicated. The final step mismatch repair recognises DNA base mispairs and initiates a DNA repair cascade, contributing to genomic fidelity and yielding a final error rate of 10 − 10 per bp (135 - 138). Bacteria with defects in their mismatch repair and other repair pathways have reduced ability to repair DNA damage, and are more likely to develop and accumulate mutations."* (genetic impairment, not beneficial mutations). *"The fact that the majority of isolates are non mutators suggests that mutators are not advantaged under ‘normal’ or more prevalent growth conditions."* (So, No beneficial mutations there either). *"Denamur et al. (156) found no correlation between increased resistance, multiple resistance, ciprofloxacin resistance or an over expressed cephalosporinase and a mutator phenotype. In contrast, Gustafsson et al. (158) detected a significant increase in the rate of mutation to rifampicin resistance among isolates from patients with high antibiotic usage, suggesting that antibiotic usage could enrich for bacterial populations with elevated mutation rates."* (Again, cause and effect not 'evolution' by a self aware or sentient 'Nature' doing a mythical selecting process). *"In summary, The frequency of mutators varies dramatically from study to study and often does not correlate well with antibiotic resistant strains known to have developed mutational resistance."* (Scientists cannot even see or agree with what's in front of their noses. It is impairment not 'evolution'). *"The diversity of findings perhaps reflects the complexity and variability of the environments in which pathogenic bacteria exist. Moreover, it also seems possible that some mutator phenotypes may easily revert genetically or be inducible.... but work is required to gain a comprehensive understanding of its impact in the clinical setting."* (Code language for more funding and paychecks please because they don't know but need to keep that cash coming in). They've got zero evidence to prove so called 'beneficial mutations' that would be required to give rise to mankind, or anything else, from basic to complex living creatures but continually act as if they have a mountain of evidence.
@@galileog8945 bacteria does not adapt because of evolution. It adapts because of strain selection. You must understand basic statistics and biology to actually grasp this concept, something that apparently you don't, for making such silly comment. So not actually an equalization between both words, as you suggested.
@@categoricamente1753 I am actually a PhD biochemist. Bacteria (plural, FIY) EVOLVE by means of Darwinian forces, i.e., mutations occurring in pre-existing genes of the bacterial chromosome positively selected by environmental forces. This is explained in any basic biology book. Why did YOU have to make such a dumb comment?
@AtamMardes heres your chance since you say nothing is a miracle Create one grain of sand or show a video how one is made or explain it Were talking non life A self guided missle has no brain neither do jellyfish So either something smart made the missle and jellyfish or its magic either way its magic On judge day you still wont know how GOD came to be either but you wont be stupid enough to ask how at that point
Since most people are not advanced mathematicians, when they discuss the mathematical odds like 10 to the 90th Power etc., what they are saying is that random mutation as an explanation for life via Darwinian macro evolution is mathematically impossible. Not improbable, but impossible. In Darwin's defense, he had no idea there was a replicate of DNA coding in each Cell that made our computer coding look elementary. BTW that was Bill Gates reaction when he was able to study the DNA that begins the creation process of life in all of it's unique features (Amino-Acids, Proteins etc.) Darwin understood none of this, otherwise he would have rejected his own hypothesis. The biologists refuse to concede defeat, NOT BECAUSE OF SCIENCE, but because science has been hijacked by materialism and they have a materialist worldview. In this worldview there is no consideration for a meta-physical cause, not even if it's the most logical cause for a specific effect, like specified complexity on such a sophisticated level that ONLY a super-intelligence explains the cause. That is NOT A GOD OF THE GAPS. It's the only logical cause for such specified complexity. Darwin tried, and failed, to explain creation without a Creator, and his Godless acolytes will never give it up, no matter how mathematically impossible it is.
Funny that these three pseudo-scientists think they can throw some numbers showing that evolution by natural selection is impossible when in the scientific world not only is it reputed possible, but obvious to the extent that no opther theory exists to explain the variety of biological forms. This parallels flat earth wackos who think their theory is a scientific alternative to globe-earth indoctrination.
Real science doesn't say materialism is true or false. It just says anything non-materialistic is too difficult to measure and predict. Real science definitely has limitations, and a lot of science enthusiasts have a difficult time accepting that.
Darwin hypothesizes "mutations", without specifying mechanisms. We now understand several mechanisms by which mutations are possible and all have been verified. Evolutionary biology has evolved immensely since Darwin, but his basic insight (mutations followed by natural selection) is intact and is the cornerstone of biology. The probabilistic crap you are reciting is totally meaningless given that mutations are easily observed in nature with probabilitym =1. Science is methodologically materialistic by its fundamental nature, and CANNOT become spiritual or it would be religion. Do you have trouble understanding simple definitions?
If evolution is improbable what is the probability of there existing a fully developed all powerful entity that wasn't created and has existed alone forever except for the time since life was created.
Let and that it's an entity that has interest only in one species on one planet , that is one of 2 trillions. He would have to be out of his mind to make such a complex thing and only think about a furless ape.
Say bye-bye to probability if God does exist. Your arguments and scientific beliefs become worthless. That's why recognizing things existing beyond our reality is an incredibly important concept to grasp.
The “Origin of Species” explains generally how new species derive from changes over time. It doesn’t explain the Origin of Original Life. It doesn’t explain how the first organism was able to develop on its own to also be able to survive and replicate in order to begin the process of evolution.
Actually it the whole book in all possible manners is not just overly outdated by todays science, but also so wrong and off all possible ways, that if someone has this book, your will have better use for it if you burn it and lay the ashes to your flowers or vegetable benches. Also you can't go backwards from end resluts to a beginning and explain anything in that way. There is always a sequence of events. Time doesn't go or even logic in two directions. If we could make a starship that would go near the speed of light, let's say 90% of that, the time in the ship would slow down, but the order of what happens won't ever change. The real reason behind Darvin's theory's succees doesn't lie on it's scientific reliability but to the need of individuals get rid of any moral and ethic boundaries. The reason for this is that people even in their personal lives want to hear and accept what suits for them and their lifestyle, not what is true.
@@captaingaza2389 It is the whole idea and there are no scientific evidence of any of it anywhere and as usually if you have scientific theory it must be proven with test and creating the same conditions as are in the theory. In fossil accounts there are no 'middleway' evolving specimen and as mutation to be the driving force of evolution, we had known for decades, that mutations are usually all harmful or even lethal. But tom point out every single error on that theory to someone, I don't really like to waste my time to something that is way too obvious more than I just did. Yet, good luck with a believes of an mid 19 centuries bilogist, who didn't know a fuck about DNA or other complex systems at all. Its all yours...
@@MarkoMakela-kk7qf You haven’t DEMONSTRATED where Darwin was wrong You are simply ASSERTING Your opinion Page and paragraph where Darwin was wrong Stop tap dancing around the question Answer it
Because it does not fit with the committees preconceived idea of materialism so they don't even look at it or give it chance, they dismiss it because they are bias.
@@ramigilneas9274 Do you have evidence proving that most all scientists (including Christian ones) disagree with Meyer and think his ideas are "stupid"? Also, are you being hyperbolic in saying "on the planet"? I'd very much argue that interdisciplinary scientists would very humbly not try to argue against something that is not their chosen field. I think your comment also presupposes the notion that scientists are always unbiased and that their agreement with a scientific theory is based purely of it's scientific method. Neill De-Grasse Tyson showed recently this isn't the case. Their own research to the contrary should speak to its validity or otherwise.
@@tristanloveday5240 Well… almost all Christian scientists agree that Macroevolution is a proven scientific fact. Maybe look at the polls. Even among normal Christians only a small minority still takes the Bible literally.
Just show me how to get information through random processes, then I will think about it again. Until this I stick to creation, because of thinking, not because of ignorance. Wonderful discussion, thanks for sharing!
Non biologist have no idea of anything related to life and how cells and tissue and organism really function, and that is alright, you don’t need to; furthermore, most biologists, and I include medical doctors and pharmacists in the list, knows very little about evolution, and evolution goes way past Darwin times, and still it’s alright. My best recommendation is for the four of you to go into an article from National Geographic of November 2004, called Was Darwin wrong? You really need to have at least a small piece of argument to appear knowledgeable because what you have done here is called “ridicule”. The bias in the information you are sharing toward evolution is statistically significant.
@Larry1164-lb8uv oh trust me, I've heard of them... lol. While I appreciate the thought, I don't think Tour is a good example. I haven't actually heard anything Behe has said though. But so far I don't think I'm terribly impressed with Tour.
They stated that they don't have a biologist. They are not trying to sneak up on anyone. These people are just clearly stating the facts that they deal with and you can accept it or not. However I don't think there is any ulterior motive.
@DallasBurgher I understand that. Problem is, they're using descriptions of a physical phenomenon, given by a bunch of people who do NOT understand the ins and outs of that phenomenon, and they are speaking as if their silo'd knowledge on an unrelated topic is important to this discussion at all. For instance, I've done a LOT of math and computer science. First of all, any computer scientist with experience in any AI that uses random exploration should know just how possible evolution is, but that's even beside the point. You get a mathematician, they're gonna tell you how small the probability is. You get an engineer, they're gonna tell you how complicated the physical setup is. You get a fantasy author, they're going to WOO you to death with flowery metaphors and associations. But NOT ONE of them can accurately describe even high school levels of understanding of evolution. Which is why they find it so unbelievable. Not to mention, don't you think they ALL would've had a more productive discussion with a biologist present? Rather than a bunch of guys who DON'T know sitting around having a chat about things they don't know?
As usual, no destruction here folks. Evolution by natural selection is a natural process that we have mountains of evidence for whether you like it or not.
Natural selection IS NOT evolution, according to what is meant by evolution. Speciation by evolution has never...I repeat, NEVER been observed or proven.
Natural selection is a thing yes, but there is absolutely no evidence of chemical evolution. Evolution is a guess only. In fact, the evidence points to creation. Take the Cambrian Explosion for instance.
Even in modern intelligent design changes are subtle. It's everywhere around us. We also know that drug or alcohol affected parents can change DNA in their children. Environment also plays a huge part of adaptation and change.
Philosophy separated “thought” from the brain, and represented it either as an ether filled with knowledge (Vladimir Vernadsky and his noosphere), or as an “aura” around a person’s head. But experiments with psychics did not give a clear result: sometimes mediums showed amazing effects, but often they could not do anything, and many also turned out to be magicians. And all this time, strangely, quantum mechanics remained on the sidelines. It is strange - after all, it is it that operates with “consciousness” from the very beginning. Let’s take a closer look at this. Quantum mechanics appeared at the beginning of the 20th century. Unlike the theory of relativity, which was created by one person, Albert Einstein, this is a collective creation. Despite its “weirdness”, it instantly and forever became the basis of physics, because it incredibly accurately explains what is happening around us. Quantum mechanics says that normally matter and energy are in an indefinite state. So, light is both a wave and a set of particles (photons). But as soon as the observer (human) intervenes, matter is “determined”: light, for example, becomes either a wave or a particle, depending on what is “expected” of it. This is the collapse of the wave function (the term is unfortunate, but everyone is used to it). Radical researchers say that the world does not exist at all until we look at it. Others claim that the whole world is filled with consciousness and is an “observer”: both wood and stone have consciousness. Despite the obvious oddity, the collapse of the wave function is easy to see in experience, which is even shown in advanced physics classrooms in high schools. So there is no doubt. But what is it about consciousness that it changes the universe? Why is the observer so important? The physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose of Oxford, a member of the Royal Society of London, was the first to suspect that consciousness has a quantum nature. Hameroff has been working with Penrose for 30 years and wants to understand exactly how it works. The fact is that the quantum theory of consciousness is a bit … unscientific, and allows telepathy, mind reading, communication with the ancient oak and the spirits of ancestors, that is, everything that mystics indulge in. And this is somehow not good, because there is no sense in mystics. If you postulate such incredible things, you need to scientifically explain it. And here’s what he did. Penrose realized that every particle of the universe is just a curvature in Einstein’s space-time. When such a curvature or “bubble” bursts, quantum collapse occurs and consciousness emerges. But in his model, consciousness was born as if spontaneously and could not give rise to meaning and memory. The universe was clearly “thinking”, but like a schoolboy who looks out the window at the lesson: first about one thing, then about another. Hameroff suggested that brain neurons organize these bubbles of space-time so that their pops form something like music. This music contains thought, memory, information. The philosopher Pythagoras in the 6th century BC said almost the same thing. How did he know? Let’s leave this question. Hameroff’s hypothesis was greeted with skepticism: the quantum computers that exist today operate at ultra-low temperatures in a sterile environment; Can quantum transitions take place inside a warm and humid brain? Now Hameroff was able to resolve all doubts. And here’s what he gets. Light itself is consciousness. It used to be thought that a conscious observer “forces” matter to make a decision. Now it is clear that the opposite is true: the quantum transition, on the contrary, generates consciousness. “Ancient traditions characterized consciousness as light. Religious figures were often depicted with glowing “halos” or auras. Hindu deities - with luminous blue skin. In many cultures, those who have “awakened to the truth” are “enlightened ones,” writes Hameroff in his latest article. Hameroff presented a complete breakdown of how this works at the level of photons, atoms, molecules and neurons, what chemical reactions and substances are involved in the “creation” of consciousness. The most important conclusion follows from his theory: consciousness preceded life. “Conventional science and philosophy suggests that consciousness emerged at some point in evolution, perhaps as recently as the advent of the brain and nervous system. But Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and Roger Penrose’s theory of objective reduction suggest that consciousness preceded life,” writes Hameroff. And these traditions turned out to be right (again, how did the ancients know? ). Hameroff describes in detail the early universe, filled with the light of the Big Bang - the universe was then a megamind. But then the substance became cloudy, and a period of unconsciousness set in. When it ended, complex molecules began to appear. With their help, the Universe began to “think” more clearly and precisely. Thus, the entire universe is conscious because consciousness follows directly from quantum mechanics and relativity. Man is “more conscious” than stone only because the neurons of the brain are a more convenient environment for quantum transition than the crystalline structure of stone or wood fibers, but man is definitely not the only, and certainly not the first thinking being. Just by thinking something, we turn on (not “we”, it turns itself on) a quantum transition that connects us to any point in the Universe and to any complex mind that exists anywhere. Gospel of Thomas (50) Jesus says: (1) “If they say to you: ‘Where do you come from?’ (then) say to them: ‘We have come from the light, the place where the light has come into being by itself, has established [itself] and has appeared in their image.’ (2) If they say to you: ‘Is it you?’ (then) say: ‘We are his children, and we are the elect of the living Father.’ (3) If they ask you: ‘What is the sign of your Father among you?’ (then) say to them: ‘It is movement and repose.’” (51) (1) His disciples said to him: “When will the of the dead take place, and when will the new world come?” (2) He said to them: “That (resurrection) which you are awaiting has (already) come, but you do not recognize it.” 24) (1) His disciples said: “Show us the place where you are, because it is necessary for us to seek it. (2) He said to them: “Whoever has ears should hear! (3) Light exists inside a person of light, and he shines on the whole world. If he does not shine, there is darkness.” 29) Jesus says: (1) “If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. (2) But if the spirit (came into being) because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. (3) Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has taken up residence in this poverty.” (30) Jesus says: (1) “Where there are three gods, they are gods. (2) Where there are two or one, I am with him.” 43) (1) His disciples said to him: “Who are you to say this to us?” (2) “Do you not realized from what I say to you who I am? (3) But you have become like the Jews! They love the tree, (but) they hate its fruit. Or they love the fruit, (but) they hate the tree.” (44) Jesus says: (1) “Whoever blasphemes against the Father, it will be forgiven him. (2) And whoever blasphemes against the Son, it will be forgiven him. (3) But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither on earth nor in heaven.”
These guys equated/conflated pure random chance to natural selection. Successful DNA that is core for function is far less likely to be lost due to repair mechanisms, most DNA does absolutely nothing with only 1-2% actually coding for proteins making random mutations in the vast majority of dna completely un noticeable. On top of that even if there is a single mutation there is a decent chance nothing changes functionally for the overall protein structure anyway. Som changes definitely can obviously be more significant functionally which is where natural selection really kicks in to defeat pure random chance. Those two facts were not mentioned at all.
Seems like you are strengthening their claim. If most mutstions do nothing, then that leaves dramatically fewer available to form a positive adaptation. No?
Not knowing the function of 98% of DNA does not make it useless 'junk' It just means you don't know what it does. How many words can you remove from a book and it still makes sense? Doesn't mean they weren't needed.
They sound hell of a lot more plausible (correct or not) than your infantile strawman argument that you're applying to make your point. And the Yahaaa! has to be the icing on your cake. Hilarious.
I have two arguments that challenge the theory of evolution: 1. No-one manufactures typewriters and dialing phones today, since they have been superseded by computer printers and smartphones. Why should monkeys that it is alleged preceded humans continue to exist? 2. Predators such as leopards are slightly faster than their prey (e.g. antelopes). They are not a hundred times faster. Why should humans who lived in caves or trees develop brains capable of thinking of relativity and quantum mechanics? "Progressive" people have adopted the theory of evolution since it apparently removes the need for a Creator, and the absolute distinction between right and wrong.
1, your arguments refute nothing since theories are verified in the lab, not the debate club, 2, even if monkeys were in the same family of primates as humans, evolution is not solely the process of producing humans, which means you don't even know what evolution is, 3, if that nonsense is supposed to mean that the limits of thought are how to survive predators, than A, why has your god bothered to give us that much intellect, and B, you're conveniently forgetting that one day we may face dangers like THE SUN EXPLODING!!!!!!!!!!!
I think alot of people get the terms "evolve" and "adapt" confused with each other. Every species "adapts" to its surrounds, but doesnt "evolve" into a more enhanced being. If that were the case every species would upgrade to higher levels like a pokemon character. We "metamorphasize". Like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly or moth, or a tadpole turning into a frog. Keep in mind the definition of metamorphosis is the change of form and appearance. We start off as sperm (which is like a tadpole). We enter the egg (which is like a cacoon). Then we morph into what we are. Like i said metamorphosis is "the change of form and appearance." What do you think happens as we grow and age?! Thats the change of form and appearance!
Natural selection. Lots of folks forget that...natural selection is the driving force of evolution. Thats why the dutch folks are usually taller. Cos lots of flooding. Tall folks have higher chance of surviving rising water. Thus, shorter folks got eliminated from genepool n only tall folks remain. Thats why forest/jungle folks are usually short. Tall folks cant sneak around or run away due to low hanging branch, thus the taller folks got eliminated. Thats...evolution. Also Bajau folks. They live on the sea. The sea folks. They could dive up to 60-70 meters for 13 mins on average...without scuba gear. I guess this means those who could dive longer n deeper could bring more food and thus procreate. Thus, they adapt to dive longer...n deeper. Sherpa folks could live in thin oxygen environment while us normal folks would be out of breath. Itd be very interesting if folks from North Sentinel Island could be....autopsy Their DNA, their physical adaptation, how it differ from other earth's population.
Here’s my issue with this discussion. You have three “experts” in their particular fields, discussing mathematical odds that supposedly prove that evolution could not possibly have happened the way Darwin described. We have a professor of computer science, a Princeton PhD who taught mathematics, and someone who specializes in something called, “the philosophy of science.” Where, pray tell, is an actual evolutionary biologist to defend their contributions to research in the field? No matter how much one calculates the astronomical odds of something happening, it doesn’t prove that evolution didn’t happen. On the other hand, no matter how much one proves that the odds are SO astronomical, as to be practically impossible, they have still failed to prove that “therefore, God did it.” Unless Stephen Meyer produces actual, unfalsifiable evidence for intelligent design, he’s simply promoting his pseudoscience books and lectures.
If the odds of something happening randomly are VERY bad, it's better to assume the process did not happen randomly. Somebody CAN theoretically win the powerball 6 times in a row, but the odds are so bad it's FAR more logical to assume there was some cheating going on somewhere. If you run the numbers, the entire observable universe packed with electrons leaving no empty space at all multiplied by the 14 billion year old age of the universe in milliseconds is FAR less than 10^500. The odds of typing a book randomly are 1 out of 10^300,000. It shows how DIFFICULT it is for order to rise out of chaos without any kind of non-random process and how the universe isn't near large enough or old enough to make that happen. The numbers in probability are too big compared to the numbers in cosmology. That said, it doesn't necessarily prove that an intelligence designed the non-randomness of the universe. Which you already stated.
Everything around us that does a job, was created. In philosophy, one argument is that you put in all the parts necessary for a pocket watch and shake it forever but without somebody arranging it in an order, it will never become a watch.
The theory of evolution does not posit that evolutionary steps are the result of unbiased random point mutations. That is the fundamental flaw of this video. Genetic mutations have a bias that is a function of the genetic structure. While all mutations are technically possible, only a sub-population are involved in the interesting ones Your pocket watch example is not analogous to evolution. Perhaps it is somewhat analogous to abiogenesis... but only somewhat.
Yes, you are allowed to question the Theory of Evolution first independently conceived of by Wallace and Darwin. Yes, folks it was never officially merely Darwin's theory. The problem that most intelligent people have noted is that the seemingly tougher the question, the more compelling the theory becomes when someone discovers the answer with the evidence. If you can seriously disprove a 160+ year old theory which is the foundational theory of an entire branch of science, then you guys are amazing. But I would suggest a purely mathematical argument isn't going to do it. It would be like cooking with music theory!
1. You don't disprove a negative. That is a mindless statement. 2. If a mathematical argument isn't fundamental to hard science, then it isn't hard science.
@@johndoe-ln4oi1. You can't prove a negative, you can generally DISprove a negative, though not always. But I don't think this is relevant as evolution is not a negative or null hypothesis. Evolution has lots of evidence behind it and is a properly falsifiable theory. Disproving it would require providing a better explanation for millions of phenomena. However, 1 odd genome or an out of sequence fossil (Jurassic Rabbit) would challenge the theory. For example if we found that the human genome was more similar to frogs than chimps. I am not a scientist, but there have been things that for which Evolution was not thought to explain well, but when someone discovered new evidence or proposed an explanation, they ended up adding to the evidence. 2. My point about mathematics is that it stands alone from reality. To debunk Evolution, you have to do it with biological evidence. Mathematics can be a great tool, but it needs to be backed up by observation or experiment.
@@johndoe-ln4oiBiology uses mathematics AND it doesn't claim to be a hard science. But some of the evidence underpins BIology/Evolution comes from Physics and Chemistry, which are hard science.
I always find it interesting that these self proclaimed “experts” spend their time trying to debunk Darwin INSTEAD of using it to prove THEIR claim of intelligent design. Don’t they realise that even if they were to debunk it that would still not validate their claim🤷🏿♂️
And when you get down to it, just what kind of God do they think put this world together? Interesting that life for the most part is eating or being eaten with a lot of suffering as animals die from predation (or factory farming!). And, talking about randomness, why did their God allow random mutations that leave millions of kids with genetic diseases? Also, can't He prevent earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.? Just who are they praying to and worshiping?
I'm a Christian and a biologist. I don't know why both sides are trying so hard to disprove the other... in my opinion evolution is the human observation of God's creation... why are these two things not compatible? It makes perfect sense that humans would develop their own way of understanding natural order... it doesn't undermine God to make good observations, and it does not undermine science to notice that the majesty of creation hints at an intelligent designer. People need to stop treating this as a zero sum competition.
@baselbob8012 I was angry with God too, for the exact same things you mentioned. The suffering and condition of this world makes us angry, but it is the reality of this life and the reality is that this life is about suffering and overcoming that suffering. We must learn to care and love one another, especially those less fortunate, that is our primary purpose; to love each other, and by extension when we do that we love God too. Because we're a part of Him.
This is a great conversation. Very stimulating. There was just one point that bugged me a little bit. Meyer is a bright one, and he is absolutely correct when he says that it is practically impossible for random mutations to be the driving mechanism of evolution. However, to say that therefore Darwin is wrong would be a little inaccurate. Remember, Darwin didn't know anything about genetics and mutations. He saw that the birds on nearby islands looked alike, with some little differences, so he figured they must have had a common ancestor. It's not such an unusual idea. In the last century, dozens of dog "breeds" of all shapes and sizes have been created, and yet we accept that all dogs came from wolves. It's the same principle. Even if you believe in the Flood, you have to accept that every animal that exists today descended from the limited number of creatures that were stored on the Ark. Now, about the random part. The discovery of DNA is relatively recent in the history of science, and we're learning more about it all of the time. It turns out that the changes are not so random. We now know that there are regulatory and feedback mechanisms built into the system. Is it enough to create DNA from soup though? That one's a totally different question, but if I had to make a guess, I'd say that Planet Earth probably isn't the only place in the Universe where you'd find DNA. If that were the case, what would that tell you?
DNA from soup. That's where the argument failed. Theory of evolution is never about origin of life, simply about living being sharing common ancestry. It never goes beyond the first creature.
I agree that you Kinda lost me at the “soup” bit - but I can see you were trying to argue evolution from the “primordial soup” of a different theory. However, one thing I think you got Spot On was your reference to dog breeds. WE humans MADE every breed of domestic dog through Selective Breeding - which is “intelligent design” as opposed to Natural Selection (Evolution).
@@eleethtahgra7182 OK, I was being a little tongue and cheek with intelligent design. You are right to correct me. However, Darwinian evolution, the concept of natural selection, has never once implied an origin of life. At least, not in it’s original inception by Darwin himself. It was only later, after we discovered DNA, and could trace DNA‘s back through many species to single celled organisms. Darwin’s book is called Origin of the Species , not Origin of all life on Earth. Or at least, that’s how I’ve always viewed it. Beyond actually visiting the Galapagos, try reading a comparative anatomy textbook. How is it that all mammals have virtually the exact same skeletal structure? Granted, that particular anatomy does change in regards to size and length of skeletal structures. Look at the wing of a bat, one of the only (if not the only) flying mammal. Skeletal structure and muscle structure, virtually identical to a human arm. And while I have not seen sufficient evidence to absolutely prove Evolution from “primordial soup” to multicellular organisms. Neither have I seen any proof that the world was created in six days as claimed in the Bible, especially if you want to say that one day in Genesis equals one 24hr hour period.
@@Freckles-il6ps very true. Origin of species, basically how various species come into existence. In a nutshell, based on his findings, Darwin conclude that all species share common ancestor. He never make any conclusion regarding origin of life or how life begun.
It's pretty clear to me that the universe is simply deterministic, randomness as a concept is more properly construed as ignorance. Does this posit a "god". No it does not, it does posit Feynman's maxim that the three most important words in science are "I don't know". I made peace with that.
Exactly. Admitting you don't know is a sign of intelligence because you accept the fact that you are only human and there are limits to your knowledge. Religions have fixed beliefs, but in science nothing is set in stone and beliefs change with evidence.
No matter the amount of time, a tornado will never produce a cotton shirt going through a cotton field, its absurd to think that the origin of life and every life today is from a single cell that luckily got formed, when they can't even create it in a laboratory. Takes more faith to not believe in God than my faith in God. That's the disparity.
To save people time, nothing was debunked or accurately challenged. An arugument from ignorance or from personal incredulity doesnt hold up and no matter how hard you try to not understand it and getting it wrong doesnt make you right
I was wondering how bad this was going to be when they got a programmer, a mathematician and a philosophy of science guy in to debunk evolutionary biology than... say, an evolutionary biologist.
So, the world’s agricultural and medicinal company’s are following a broken theory? They must have gotten very lucky in the last 80 to 90 years in guessing what works and what doesn’t.
@@rosesacks7430It would take too long. There are many processes that have long timescales or high energies that we cannot reproduce in the lab. We have to rely on observations. We can't create neutron stars in the lab because the energy and mass is too big. But we can observe neutron stars. Same with big changes in evolution- timescales are too long.
I don't know for certain, but you can look at the size of DNA genome sequences and the proteins that make them up. Left- and right-handed molecules are naturally in balance in nature, but life requires only left-handed molecules. Just one right-handed molecule and you have no life (that I'm aware of). DNA strands are extremely long (~3 billion base pairs), but just getting 100 left-handed molecules in a row has a chance of (1/2)^100 or 1 chance in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376. And that doesn't take into account whether those molecules end up working in that sequence. I'd like to see the math too, but this is a partial analysis that shows just a fraction of the problems evolutionists face.
Someone who can look at a bird beak and say you come from apes is a heck of a salesman it do make him a scientist A gators toenail proves it comes from a whale wheres my book deal
yes, moved on to using an idealised lab experiment over 2 years at room temperature to explain real life over 500 million years at extreme temperatures, ignoring the existence of thermodynamics and claiming that iron (haemoglobin) is capable of preserving dinosaur tissue for 500,000,000 years. It would be funny if this wasn't a real thing. Any excuse, any MIRACLE, except the intelligent creator, except God. That is the objective of evolutionary scientists who btw have unanimously rejected Darwinian evolution due to its mathematical impossibility. They have to keep searching for a reason why God doesn't exist and I applaud them for it - every time they fail and every time science progresses, it reinforces the biblical truth! Fish at the top of Everest, boy it must have been windy that day! Large galaxies existing billions of years before they were thought possible. Strange. Fully intact dinosaur tissue. Hmm. DNA is a language, a code operating from an index. Nah, random chance, couldn't possibly be God because if God exists then I'm a fool. Wait, god exists says the evolutionary biologist, I see them in the mirror every morning!!
I really don’t know why religious types are so afraid of evolution. Even some theologians have accepted it; they have said it can coexist very well with the teachings of the book(s). Does accepting evolution then negate what we’re taught to believe about our place in this world or universe? Maybe we’re not as important in a cosmic sense as we think we are. Is that such a bad thing?
No. Evolution is a sick religion. The human nature is the same in all recorded history, human nature is the same in eight billion of us, human nature will naver evolve to something else. The human mind is no joke
Theologians who accept evolution are saying that " And God saw that it was good but maybe he needed to make a little tweak here and there". They're saying God didn't get it right the 1st time. The culture and the language in the book of Genesis do not support an evolutionary model.
What is a theory. A theory has great explanatory power, it makes predictions and projections, it is a model, it has data, information to back itself up. If a theory has no explanatory power, it is not a theory.
@@user-qh3lw4xe4i And by "research“ you mean listening to the fringest of the fringe conspiracy theorists who aren’t taken seriously by anyone outside of their tiny echo chambers.
9:00 isn't this misrepresentation? I thought the theory was about small mutations over long periods of time that created branches in biology. ex: the common ancestor of goats and sheep, part of the species evolved wool. (this one might be partly due to coexistence with humans)
Evolution is a bottom up model. While creation, or intelligent design, is a top down model. The evidence, to include mathematical probability, supports the top down model.
*** I can not understand the fixation that some people have into destroying Darwin, his work was unique in 1800s, and was the start of science to study zoology in a more accurate fashion, his contribute to science will never be destroyed no matter the efforts of fanatic ignorants. ***
The reason they seek to destroy Darwinian ideas is that they conflict with their religious views based on their belief that the Bible (and by extension, the Koran) is the Word of God. If Darwinian evolution is true then Genesis isn't, therefore Darwinism must be false.
Darwin's work is not much different from the work of his counterparts in theories such as the Hollow Earth. The work itself was destructive and does not need anyone to destroy it. What is going on here is the rejection of the narrative imposed by governments without paying attention to the scientific aspects. Rather, it is only a political tool to destabilize the culture of Christian peoples in Western countries
This is like comparing the cars 🚗 of today, with what Henry Ford built in the 1920’s. Darwin came up with the original idea, but it has been expanded on and changed since then. Stop acting like biologists worship him or something.
No matter how personally incredulous you may find it, is there any EVIDENCE that disproves the theory, despite advances in generics etc. Is there anything in the fossil records, ice cores, etc? Yet people are willing to accept a magical being "designing" life? Which magical being? Where did they come from? Either way - they made a terrible job of it for a being that created the universe and everything in it.
Spoiler Alert: This is a representation of the Hoover Institution video from years ago. Nothing new here, it's more of the same old Discovery institute stuff which first coalesced in 1989's Of Pandas And People.
@@Johnny-mz9ot Are you only anti-evolution because it precludes you from your special creation status or have you discovered some new nobel prize worthy evidence against it? Which is it?
@@Johnny-mz9ot lmao 🤣 the projection is unreal 🤣 the only thing on life support is religion with the number of religions people dying daily. The only religion who’s growing rn is Islam and that’s just because it’s trendy with red pillars
If by improbable you mean the highest chance, which can't be repeated because it is the highest of chance that took Billions up billions of years. How exactly is it science if it can't be repeated given you simply will never have enough time to repeat the experiment. It feels like faith in that you believe it must be the highest of chances since u cannot repeat the experiment.
@@Lord-of-the-frenzied-flameIs doesn't. Damaged bacteria becoming impaired doesn't equate to human's alleged, but still all too missing, 'shared common ape like ancestors' that are nothing of the sort.
Is it satan who buried orrorin, australopithecus or erectus bones in the ground to deceive us ? Is it he who made the datation of these fossils match dna based datation techniques ?
The discussion doesn't take into account eating and other interactions between organisms. "Late no good, early no good" doesn't take into account will: survival. The "intelligence" of the instinct of survival (dependent on consciousness) how does that effect genetic mutation? Does it geometrically increase the chances of mutation?
Really appreciate the other guys, even though not agreeing, acknowledging that it’s a logical and valid argument. It reminds me of philosophy and science and how ppl often believe the universe has a beginning and end without acknowledging that the foundation of science(philosophy) states that for there to be a beginning there must be a being before time that caused everything to happen. This was literally the birth of cause and effect. You cannot argue logically that you believe in cause and effect AND/OR the beginning of the universe without somehow explaining how something comes from nothing and/or also explaining/arguing how nothing really changes lol
Mutations are not rare. We've known the average steady accumulation of mutations since like the 1940s. You're absolutely teaming with mutations, the overwhelming majority of them are irrelevant, because variation is really only important in coding-DNA. Variation in coding-DNA is lower than variation in non-coding DNA.
All of us are apes. We fall under that category just like cats are felines. We have nails, fingerprints, round ears, noses, trichromatic vision, the same teeth than chimps, at least partial bipedia, no tail, hands, opposite thumbs, etc. Also, we found the transitional forms between our common ancestors and us. Toumai, orrorin, ardipithecus, australopithecus, habilis, ergaster, heidelbergensis, djebel irhoud sapiens... All of these bones being dated independently thanks to different radioactive isotopes matching DNA differences.
Perhaps we might examine what the TOE says. "Change in allele frequency over time" is valid and repeatedly testable. But "Bacteria to man" or "LUCA to man" is not testable at all, meaning there is no science there.
Darwin's theory can be backed with one lonesome word: Genetics ! Unless you also want to exclude this particular field of science because it disproves your fallacious claims, once again.
Exactly. Also, when people think evolution they typically think of how humans evolved, but bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant is an example of evolution and we have witnessed that MULTIPLE TIMES.
Not one biologist. How could you have a discussion about evolution without including a biologist? As far as the math thing goes, it's a non-starter. Imagine this, a tiny pebble at the top of a huge pile of gravel. The pebble starts to roll down the pile. Along the way it bounces into various other rocks, slows down, speeds up, but eventually it arrives at the bottom of the pile. What are the odds of any pebble taking that specific route from the top to the bottom? It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize the odds against the specific route the pebble took are enormous. So enormous that it might take a zillion years for another pebble to take that specific route from the top to the bottom. And yet, there is the pebble at the bottom of the pile, having followed that extremely unlikely route. Another example might be a hand of cards in the game of bridge. What are the odds that you'll get all spades, or all hearts, or all of the other suits? Extremely unlikely. The odds against that happening are phenomenal. What you maybe didn't realize is that it is precisely the same odds for any given bridge hand. And yet, there they are, four extremely unlikely bridge at hands, all at the same table at the same time. According to these non-biologists, that can't happen.
Your pebble fell in a unique random way, now repeat it, that’s where your argument fails. Clearly these people are more studied than you. Your argument comes from authority and that is another fallacy.
@@bornforthc1247 I'll just point out that it doesn't have to repeat. It only has to happen once. Mathematics does not support the argument the presenters made.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 clearly it does though. Is that not a foundation of science, things which can be repeated consistently to confirm/deny truths?
@@bornforthc1247 The argument I responded to was not about repeatability, it was about the mathematical odds against something happening. This is a common, but fallacious, argument against evolution. The idea that because of the long odds against some particular thing happening, therefore it didn't happen. I merely pointed out that all sorts of things that have long odds against happen all the time, and they don't require a creator or intelligent desgner. The argument itself is really just an argument from incredulity. "I can't believe such a thing could happen naturally, so therefore it requires a God." As a statement of opinion, it's fine. As a statement of scientific principle it's wrong.
Yet it remains THE theory so I don’t know who these “experts” are but apparently they’re nobody important enough for anybody but you to listen to. Move along…nothing to see here….its just more Christian gibberish!
They are discussing Darwin's theory and they don't have an anthropologist or a biologist in the panel and no opposing views, their argument is that is statistically improbable and their skewed understanding of biology (especially when they talk about the scarcity of viable mutations in the specific time frame), I would really want to know what is the statistical model they used and what are the parameters, its not a bad thing to examine a theory from an other perspective or discipline, it can often give some new insights but you have to check your ego so it doesn't lead you astray, Also we have to understand that someone can be a brilliant scientist in one field and know nothing about an other, that's the point of specialization, the vast amount of knowledge and information in one field makes it easy for someone to misunderstand certain things especially when they form their theories in a vacuum and don't converse with the experts.
@timupshaw1860 yeah, like I said a triumvirate of stupid as it is they, not I that have abandoned the logic that makes their views so laughably uninformed
