Darwin DEBUNKED: Using Breakthroughs In Math & Science (14 Minute Density!)

In this video, David Gelernter (a computer scientist from Yale University), David Berlinski (a Mathematician) & Stephen C. Meyer (a philosopher of Science) discuss the mathematical and scientific problem with Darwin's theory of evolution. It's a great conversation because these three gentlemen are not in total agreement with each other in terms of their conclusions based on the holes in Darwin's theory, but what they do agree on, and the conversation that ensues is both extremely fascinating and important. I hope you enjoy!
Full Conversation HERE: • Mathematical Challenge...
MY DOCUMENTARY FILM: vimeo.com/ondemand/miningforgod
INSTAGRAM: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
FACEBOOK: / dailydoseofwisdomofficial

[@kriszorr2021]

'The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.' - Werner Heisenberg

[@kos-mos1127]

At the bottom of the glass atheism awaits.

[@Wmeester1971]

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.' - Werner Heisenberg" Its a lie. Heisenberg never said that. Typical for theist to lie over the backs of famous scientist. Sad...

[@stephenzaccardelli5863]

Heisenberg said that whom is spreading this ridiculousness and why?

[@metaljacket8128]

​@@kos-mos1127Great comeback lol.

[@johnledington6242]

Classic quote

[@matthewjohnson2554]

Stephen Meyer is the man and Berlinski is a legend. I paid my daughter to read and review Myees ‘Signature in the Cell’ with me and within a year after she decided to change her major from art to biochemistry, that’s how awesome his book and arguments are.

[@zoelong6021]

i paid for my dog to notice when i give her food , now she can tell the time because she knows when to expect food....that's how awesome I am...thats more awesome than you teaching your daughter

[@rl7012]

@@zoelong6021 Show me a dog, paid or not, that doesn't notice when they are given food.

[@colinjava8447]

Meyer is an idiot, he doesn't even believe in evolution, and dodged the basic questions joe rogan threw at him on evolution. Biochemistry is a much better choice than art, so I guess something good came out of reading his book.

[@satchelsatchel]

@@rl7012 No one stated that an unpaid dog would fail to notice food. Food was used in the argument for the sake of two reasons: To parody the silliness of a man paying his daughter to read a book, and to distract the unwary-just as the superfluous advanced mathematics in this video are used to convince viewers that smart people don't believe in evolution.

[@kurt1391]

@@zoelong6021 Now I'm torn. Do I treat your statement as serious and delusional or ironic and delusional?

[@user-iy6de7qi1r]

My family moved to Chicago in 68 and I began sixth grade that year. DNA entered science for me and my peers that year and I've been following the studies of it ever since. This exact issue is the reason I became a Christian in 83, having fought it in my own mind since that beginning. Intelligent design has been at the forefront through all those years and this conversation I just watched provides the explanation for what I adopted because "it was the only way that felt right". I've been a technician in digital electronics more than sixty years and a mechanic even longer. We humans often make serious choices by "feel", and take years or decades to flesh out that feeling with facts that bring clarity eventually. Thanks!

[@mcmanustony]

Have you tried listening to and learning from scientists who actually work in the relevant areas? Meyer is a right wing activist at a Christian fundamentalist pressure group. Berlinski is a failed academic with no training in the life sciences Gelernter is a crank with a background in computer science. NONE has the remotest clue about biology

[@charleswrightman205]

If you believe in intelligent design, why become a Christian as opposed to some other religion ?

[@user-iy6de7qi1r]

@@charleswrightman205 I spent about eight months in Beirut, 82-83, during that time, I felt like God was watching through the whole occupation. We took the PLO on our ships, back to "the territories", displaced the IDF and we were very well accepted by the Lebanese people. It was the natural thing to do for me. I am still a man of faith to this day.

[@mcmanustony]

My grandparents moved from Ireland to Scotland about 100 years ago. I learned science at school. You didn't study DNA enough. End of.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@mcmanustony actually... if you were listening.... he studied at a time when the "cell" was called the simple cell.... and not a lot of people questioned Darwin's hypothesis. Nowadays, we all know there is no evidence to support the evolutionary hypothesis... none! Maybe you need to study some more!

[@yeshuasbeloved549]

Doctors have diagnosed my mom with leukemia. They're still trying to find out what kind. She's been on dialysis for 10 years. I'm asking my brothers and sisters in Messiah Yeshua/ Christ Jesus to stand in agreement with and also in declaring my mom's miraculous healing and excellent health for God's glory! I'd also like to enjoy more years with my mom as she is my closest friend other than Yeshua.

[@classictutor]

I will agree with you for your mom's healing in Yeshua's Name, Amen!

[@briananderson1246]

Fast + prey + ask/sow in tears and miraculously reep in joy

[@vickirichardson8698]

May God rain down grace and mercy on her always.

[@JeddieT]

If God cures illnesses, then why does God hate amputees?

[@xNalaur]

It's gods plan

[@randywise5241]

A simple cell in our bodies has more things happening in it that a city and it all works together in harmony to perform its place it the bigger part. Without us having to think about it. We are created wonderfully.

[@mrdgenerate]

You should quit inserting some magical being.

[@rhpicayune]

And created fearfully, also.

[@wadeodonoghue1887]

@@rhpicayune Fear requires a brain that may present fear, simple cells may be blissfully unaware of fear, it is us higher ups that shit ourselves in the face of life, death and everything.

[@Lightbearer616]

you forgot to add: "and naturally".

[@crowe668]

This world and everything in it runs with the precision of a swiss watch.... utterly unbelievable how amazing our God is....I can sit and just marvel for hours at his creation.... There is a gigantic fireball in the sky that keeps us all alive and warm.... Are you freaking kidding me..... I try to respect other people's belief but an atheist is an absolute.......

[@CaptainSteve777]

Long periods of time aren't favorable to random assembly when random disassembly is occurring at the same or greater rate.

[@kurt1391]

That is a really concise way of capturing the problem.

[@theTavis01]

reproduction is the way in which organisms overcome "disassembly" (known in science as entropy), and sexual reproduction is the way in which complex organisms maintain healthy genetics in their populations over time. What they are saying is also a straw man, because very few modern scientists working in the field of evolution will tell you that it all happened by random point mutations. There are obviously many other factors at play, that are still being discovered and studied.

[@calebcampbell5951]

What's dumb about this video is it thinks this is how it works: One random, huge mutation happens, and somehow it is the lucky one that drastically changes an organism for the better. THAT NOT HOW IT IS. Every organism has thousands of subtle mutations. Every one that's born is different. An environmental stressor happens that allows some of them to survive a BIT better and reproduce. Therefore that gene gets into the gene pool. Now repeat that millions upon billions of times and you will have a great number of vastly different organisms, similar to how in only thousands of years we were able to morph the wolf into all kinds of monstrosities (dogs)

[@hamnchee]

Good thing there is selection pressure.

[@rebeccajohnson3402]

@hamnchee Wouldn’t selection pressure make it far less likely that the beneficial mutation needed is present?

[@apbtxca]

I’ve watched this discussion several times since it came out a few years ago, and I still think about it quite often

[@amandacarmel6084]

I’ve watched this interview with David, David and Stephen sooo many times I have it almost memorized! I did an intelligent design vs Darwinism debate and this interview helped me sooo much!!!

[@therick363]

And what was the outcome?

[@amandacarmel6084]

@@therick363 depends who you’re asking lol. I believe I won, as did many other viewers. My opponent provided no proof of his claims, just conjecture. I provided all the mathematical and scientific facts so I would say I won for sure 😜

[@therick363]

@@amandacarmel6084 okay. Which “side” did you represent?

[@amandacarmel6084]

@@therick363 intelligent design

[@eigentlichtoll02]

But isn't the theory of evolution (or darwinism) still pretty accurate? I mean even our AI training is based on it and it works incredibly well...

[@andyshinskate]

Hello my brother! I just want to thank you for sharing the gospel and your thoughts. I really appreciate your explanation because my second language is English. I sometimes have trouble with the meaning of some parts of your videos, but you explain complex scientific concepts in a very simple way. Thank you for all your work and effort!

[@mcmanustony]

These are three charlatans blowing gas on subjects they know nothing about.

[@wms72]

Thank you for posting these conversations. God bless you.

[@ian9toes]

The most simplest living cell is still very complex, and yet people believe something so complex came about by chance. The weird thing for me is when someone stumbles upon some rocks stacked on top of each other they will assume human intervention when the number of rocks are as little as 3 and for the sceptic 5 is certainly enough.

[@sciencerules2825]

Evolution doesn't work by just chance. There is the non-random feedback from selection too. Fail.

[@ian9toes]

@@sciencerules2825 selection doesn’t apply to the first/simplest living cell. Fail response.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@ian9toes Selection applies as soon as you have imperfect self-replicators competing for limited resources. That happens in prebiotic chemistry long before the first cell appears. Go research the literature on *prebiotic evolution.* The fail is all yours.

[@Spiritof_76]

Your ignorance or disbelief is evidence of nothing other than your ignorance or disbelief. Education helps.

[@phil342]

Fascinating to hear and watch intelligent minds respecting each other’s opinions. How do these people think like this, it’s amazing and a great watch. There is so much we don’t understand.

[@cinsc556]

The mathematical problems with Darwinism have been known for over 50 years. Michael Denton wrote a comprehensive challenge to the theory in the mid eighties. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the "Four Horsemen" weren't consciously attepting a Hail Mary back in the early 2000s. Coversations like this have been a long time coming.

[@byteme9718]

🤣

[@robertmorrison107]

I suppose that would be the question if he hadn't all seen it happen in most of our lifetimes. Antibiotic resistance is that very thing the guy describes as an "amazingly rare neckslaces of protein that can be stuck in a cell to actually do anything." 100 Years ago no bacteria had anti biotic resistance. Now almost every bacteria in a hospital carries it. A simple mutation, allowing for the cell wanna not to pop upon replication in the presence of antibiotics which is how most antibiotics work by the way has had a profound effect on all our health cares. It seems his question has been answered with a resounding, it has happened and is documented.

[@francisa4636]

​@@robertmorrison107That's a great point

[@bernardcrnkovic3769]

@@robertmorrison107 how do we know 100 years ago that NO bacteria had antibiotic resistance? we couldn't read DNA 100 years ago.

[@johndoh795]

​@@robertmorrison107That's adaptation, not evolution. It didn't create new species of bacteria. Unless you are prepared to call Sherpas a separate species of human.

[@sidanx7887]

You just finding this - what is amazing NOONE ever talks about this discussion

[@kevinkelly2162]

No, what is amazing is people still make this argument.

[@jamesjaudon8247]

No these things are not talked about. You must seek them out.

[@marcrahn4307]

@@jamesjaudon8247 These things are absolutely talked about and we can have such a discussion any time. The reason you don't find much of this is because biologists do not have an agenda in their research. They're looking for natural explanations, because metaphysical explanations (like god did it) is not an explanation at all. They found explanations that work and others that don't work. They report the ones that they think might work - like any other field of science.

[@MrNikkiNoo]

@@kevinkelly2162 Can you point me to something that puts this argument to bed?

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@MrNikkiNoo Read a few evolutionary biology textbooks, watch a few KZbin videos by Forrest Valkai or Gutsick Gibbon.

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

I saw that video last year and absolutely loved it. I have for a long time been a fan of David Berlinski and Stephen Meyer they are very intelligent and moral men.

[@nerdyali4154]

How is deliberate mis-representation moral?

[@mcmanustony]

Meyer is a professional liar and Berlinski is a failed academic who was routinely fired from a succession of part time teaching assistant gigs. Have you ever considered the notion of listening to people who actually know what they are talking about?

[@eirecoleen]

​@@mcmanustony That's so lame- But I guess going after them personally is best you can do, when you're on wrong side of truth-

[@mcmanustony]

@@eirecoleen oh give it a rest. I’m sure your position would be the same if Dawkins was caught lying about degrees he doesn’t have, academic positions he’s never held, work with famous scientists that doesn’t exist….Berlinski is guilty of that and much more. He’s a pathetic fraud. I’m sure you’d be dismissive of criticism of SJ Gould had cheated the review process to sneak a useless essay into an inappropriate journal of research, fabricated quotes to misrepresent a scientist, lied about the focus of an academic conference he took no active part in lying in particular about the work of one presenter…. These are not honest people genuinely criticizing orthodoxy- they are liars and cranks pushing religion.

[@mcmanustony]

@@eirecoleen pompous bullshit. How can liars be on the side of truth. Do you know how books work?

[@robmangeri777]

At some point with the expansion of human knowledge and increased volume of experimentation, either 1.) we learn how to manipulate genetic information in such a way as to design and implement novel code to produce utterly novel living creatures, 2.) we find that we are hopelessly incapable of this or 3.) we all die trying. In the meantime, believing that sheer luck has done this countless times against the resistance of nature becomes quite the indictment against the intelligent design capacity of mankind as a whole. It also continuously whispers the thought that we are certainly not alone in this universe as designers…

[@chikkipop]

Nonsense.

[@mirrov246]

sooo are you implying that an alien race, to this day unknown to us, might have, interntionally or not, contributed in small or big ways to the formation and evolution of life as we know it?

[@art333-dg8dd]

you were doing well until you got to the last phrase. i am not saying that there is no possibility of planets resenbling the earth because the sheer number of possibility are in the millions. however if you believe in Creation and a creator. the earth has to be the first planet where first humans and 1/3 of the angels turned their back on god .and we have not yet come to the point where the precedent beyond proof that the creation cant decide on its own without God's guidance its own way. we see the proof of the contrary everyday in the world Man cannot find his own way without God's guidance. and soon God will send his son again to take over the earth and restablish God's kingdom and repair everything the great experiment destroyed . since our sun is a young sun, and if there are intelligent people on other planet , the angels would have rebelled a long time ago on another earth in the deep older universe. therefore it would not have been necessary to prove a second time that creation cannot by itself without the help of God's guidance rule itself. therefore there might be animals on other planets but no humanlike intelligent being created in the image of God.

[@robmangeri777]

@@chikkipop explain yourself there buddy. That’s a pretty lazy answer.

[@robmangeri777]

@@mirrov246 no, but some people that I don’t agree with have hypothesized that. It’s a cop-out in my opinion. Just kicking the ball further down the road.

[@brandonb6274]

Don’t know how you popped up in my feed but I’m glad you did. Also, where to find the full video?

[@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom]

Welcome! Also, great name! 🙌 Link in the description

[@Jimmithy77]

You fucking idiots know they just dated the universe to being 26.7 billion years old now not 13.

[@FelonyVideos]

I've never needed for the theory of evolution or survival of the fittest to be true or false to be compatible with my religion. For that reason, I've never had a pony in this race, but the race has always interested me. Over the past 10 years, I have grown to finally understand the mathematics and mathematical realities required to still believe in either theory. It is preposterous, beyond the probability of being struck by lightning a googleplex number of times, and survviving to tell about it, and then repeating that sequence a googleplex times over again, always unscathed. Sure, its possible, but... 😅 The additional nail in the coffin is the one James Tour posits - that no one has ever gone from chemistry to biology in the lab. It has never happened, and it is going to require the entire horsepower of the coming singularity hundreds of years to figure that one out. It doesnt bother me one bit to think that we are in a simulation, I just happen to think that God is the programmer. Its no skin off my nose. I dont have to think that day one in genesis had only 24 hours in it. For all I care, that first day could have lasted 13.8 billion of our current years. It also doesnt bother me that the last half of that day might have been 4.5 billion years long. Given all my apathy, it is painfully obvious to me that Meyer and Tour are exactly correct. An intelligent being created all of this, probably with the sweep of his hand or the breath of his voice. I just happen, and laugh at me if you like, think that I know his name.

[@eltomas3634]

The trump card that is sometimes used to usurp flawed theories is the ol Multiverse option where anything goes. But when infinity is invoked it also includes an infinite number of universes where God is the creator and designer and operator. Infinite Multiverse is just a surrender device and another line of thinking but it includes just as much as it attempts to exclude.

[@friisteching3433]

"that no one has gone from chemistry to biology in a lab" Each step of the process has been done in a lab.

[@johnglad5]

​@@friisteching3433Are you saying they created life in a lab? That is a bold and preposterous statement. As time goes by the knowledge we have gained moves the goalposts of abiogenesis farther and farther away.. Dr. Tour has a series of videos on the origin of life and its failings. Tour is one of the top ten chemist's in the world on top of everything.

[@MichaelJones-xz8mm]

@@friisteching3433

[@MichaelJones-xz8mm]

​@@friisteching3433Not true. Cite the research

[@aaronaaron4155]

This was a fantastic interview. It's long but worth the watch.

[@aaronaaron4155]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshacsi=x8CVvwdHlzlXuVN_

[@mcmanustony]

Don't you prefer listening to people who have a basic idea what the hell they're talking about? Meyer is a hack, a lying activist at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group. Not a scientist of any kind. Berlinski, despite the ridiculous introduction, is no more a mathematician than he's the queen of the Netherlands. Gelernter did important work in computing science some decades ago- work of ZERO relevance to biology, of which his ignorance is colossal. These are not brilliant minds honestly discussing important scientific questions. You're looking at grifters and poseurs peddling religious nonsense for money.

[@maryjulieharris7827]

Wonderful podcast! Thank you ever so much.

[@Yard_Sale]

That was a great video and very interesting! Thank you for posting!

[@kimwaldron2606]

Thank you for your opinion. It is predictable that this question of the time involved was called into question before, correct? Here is an oponion I found through a brief search but I can't say the source because then it wouldn't post on here: What is impossible is making such estimates of the time required. People who make such estimates arrogantly presume that they know all that there is to know about biochemistry. Bacteria actively exchange DNA with each other, which obviously can lead to great variety and very rapid accumulation of small changes, and some large ones as well. To know the number of possible “minute changes” from which natural selection operated one has to know the population sizes and genome sizes of every organism which ever lived on this planet, and nobody has any basis for those numbers to even get a rough estimate of how many mutations have been produced since the first thing recognizable as a cell reproduced. This is an area of active research, but your statement implies we have already resolved all the issues in the field. In fact we barely know how much we don’t know.

[@warrenvanwyck2765]

Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution is the discussion leader. Ought to be mentioned in the Introduction above.

[@rodofgodpodcast]

One of my favorite videos from Hoover Institute

[@mcmanustony]

Have you ever considered listening to people who actually know that they’re talking about

[@seraph3761]

@@mcmanustony you remind me of a guy named Paul in the Bible. Fought every step of the way, then humility swept over and saw some newly profound things that obliterated his world view. Stopped being selective and stopped cherry picking things that would only support his world view. There is a far bigger world and you’re missing out.

[@mcmanustony]

@@seraph3761 "you remind me of a guy named Paul in the Bible"-I'm not interested. " Stopped being selective"- stop offering advice to people who know more than you. Implicit in my comment is the notion that the three featured here DONT know what they are talking about. I made the implicit suggestion that they don't know what they're talking about because objectively and explicitly they don't have a clue what they're talking about. I cherry pick in the following sense: If I want to learn about biology I read BIOLOGISTS and not lying religious activists like Meyer. If I want to learn about genetics I read GENETICISTS and not pathetic, pseudo intellectual frauds like Berlinski If I want to learn about the fossil record I read PALEONTOLGISTS and not repulsive bigots like Gelernter without a lick of training in any branch of any life science. Tell me more about what I'm missing.....

[@seraph3761]

@@mcmanustony a lot if all you do is stick to conventional wisdom.

[@mcmanustony]

@@seraph3761 Bullshit. I read and learn from people who WORK IN THE RELEVANT AREAS. Meyer is a lying hack at a far right Christian fundamentalist pressure group- with ZERO training in any life science. Berlinski is a failed academic wannabe who pretends to be a mathematician- with ZERO training in any life science. Gelernter did significant work decades age in computing- has ZERO training in any life science. What is wrong with you?

[@mrfuriouser]

Completely agree with your conclusion.

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

After many years of reflection, I have come to see that people who use their intellects a great deal (and who do have great intellects) are often captured by that intellect. Intellect is a great tool for discovering aspects of the world only it can discover. However, if God cannot be fully understood by intellect but must be related to by the heart, one's innermost being, then it will fail the person using the intellect to attempt to understand God and grasp what/who He is. You see this capture in Jordan Peterson, Berlinski, and many atheists and skeptics. They cannot get past it. The intellect is a wonderful tool of discovery that is sorely unused by too many people. It can be a launching pad into new possibilities (apologetics was that for me), but if you never let go of the intellect at some point (an act of humility), the rocketship of Godly relationship will remain stuck on that launching pad, and you will never soar into the heavens of the Kingdom of God. In that case, intellect becomes its inverse: it becomes a means of endarkenment that keeps you from meeting God. I hope this makes sense.

[@marcrahn4307]

Makes sense but doesn't relate to the discussion. God could have created the evolutionary process, and thus it could be understandable, and yet you could still meet god in your heart. The disconnect between science and religion is not in faith vs. knowledge, but in taking the bible literally vs. the evidence from reality.

[@johnsposato5632]

I agree! Humility is the key, but I'm not convinced that intellectuals are less prone to embrace it. There are many brilliant people who do not become intellectuals because the latter requires an enormous amount of one's time inwardly invested in the life of the mind. The human mind cannot comprehend God, so for many intellectuals, "God" is a concept that's not worth thinking about because advancement of human understanding of the concept is extremely limited. However, if one is humble enough to realize that there is something outside of one's mind that is worth engaging in and interacting with, the possibility of recognizing that a God exists becomes much more likely. Some of the greatest intellectuals exist within the Christian churches. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Benedict XVI come to mind.

[@jebediah4780]

I disagree. I can easily explain intellectually to anyone, and have done many many times, why God exists, and why Jesus is God. It is self evident, yes, but also the more you think about it the more true it becomes. The closer we look at molecules, atoms, cells, DNA, gravitational effects, etc. with science, the more glaringly obvious it becomes that there is a indeed Creator. When people rely only on their own intellect, they are prideful and arrogant, an easy target for the devil. What it comes down to, with EVERY SINGLE ATHEIST I have ever spoken to, is an emotional rejection of God. Every time, without fail. Once you cast down their weak arguments and deflections in the name of Christ, they say "God let this bad thing happen to me, or these bad things happen to these other people (people who I don't even care about) so therefore God is a big meany!" It's pride, arrogance, extremely over valued sense of self. In their eyes they can do no wrong, their mistakes aren't their own, none of our mistakes are our own, therefore God is somehow bad in their eyes. They value themselves above God.

[@stephenkalatucka6213]

Hubris is a hell of a drug!

[@GeneralYen]

"Using your heart" means that you will believe what your emotions tell you, what you want to believe. It is not a very efficient tool : anyone can believe anything, and that explains the diversity of human religions... Muslims will use this tool to believe in Allah, Taiwanese to believe in Mazu and Zoroastrians to believe in Ahura Mazda... People have even visions of them ! Christianity is not special in this aspect.

[@MidasTouch376]

You put out great stuff!

[@DannyLou03]

Even as a Christian, I can accept the idea that intelligent design doesn't necessarily or explicitly imply a divinely omnipotent entity; it could also mean that a relatively finite, naturally existing intelligence once manipulated the early chemical makeup of Earth, seeding life before vansihing into the wider cosmos or multiverse or wherever. However, the acceptance of such theories is hindered by a long-standing historical conflation with religious beliefs, which were traditionally presented as incontrovertible truths. This backdrop is complicated further by the cultural association with creationism, often portrayed in public and media discourse, leading to the premature dismissal of intelligent design as unscientific. Moreover, the scientific community's skepticism is deepened by historical instances where religious groups misused scientific rhetoric to substantiate their beliefs, creating a durable bias against theories that might appear to support religious perspectives. The educational systems' focus on a materialistic and naturalistic view of the world exacerbates this issue, often excluding or discrediting explanations that involve any form of agency or purpose. This educational bias predisposes upcoming scientists to overlook or dismiss theories like intelligent design. The situation is aggravated by the fear of professional repercussions for scientists who express interest in or support for intelligent design, risking career prospects and facing potential professional ostracism. Additionally, the presence of false prophets, charlatans, conmen, and certain mentalists and clinical psychologists-who view religious ideation as merely a product of the mind and not reflective of reality-further tarnishes the credibility of theories like intelligent design. Despite these challenges, when considering the available evidentiary information, intelligent design emerges as more than merely plausible-it appears increasingly likely. The ongoing reluctance of the scientific community to embrace intelligent design underscores a significant irony: this subjectivity is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the scientific process, which demands impartiality and openness to all plausible explanations.

[@abigailedwards3843]

Well said!

[@Pymmusic]

Beautiful video. Thank you!

[@nzadventurefamily3728]

Great video. Thanks Brandon

[@donquijote6030]

I watched this several years ago. I have never been an atheist. The principles and wisdom imbued in religions that have persisted for millenia give creedence to Intelligent Design. However, the conversation between brilliant men is always worth hearing and contemplating.

[@lumarei1]

Well said. I believe that were it not for the fact that creationism supports the notion of God, the evolutionists could not care less and might even be able to have intellectual discussions rather than insulting anyone with a different opinion as mentally challenged. This is about people who pretend they don’t care about God getting very upset with anyone else believing in God. Why would they care if I am stupid? This is interesting.

[@byteme9718]

How is Meyer for example "brilliant"? He's a con man.

[@kaleidoscope8743]

Darwin wasn't brilliant and he wasn't even a student of imperical science. He was a socialist and the theory of evolution was a social construct. Taught I social studies text books an in science or science books. That tells you a lot right there.

[@santasingee9065]

If you cannot answer how things appear or came about, the right answer is I don’t know - not provide “magic” as the answer

[@dentonhahn2907]

I've watched this before, wow these guys are brilliant. I like to watch or listen to these guys, very interesting. Thank you.

[@MrZootles]

these guys are *not* brilliant, but they sure think they are and they sure fool the rockeaters into believing they are you think it is just some giant conspiracy by the evil, god-hating atheist scientists to prop up something that is so obviously false? do me a favor. explain to me what the probabilities are that these dipshits are pointing to and explain how the probabilities are calculated. the dumbasses do not have a clue what they're talking about.

[@davidyoung5830]

Professor James Tour has also done some great presentations on this subject matter regarding OOL research.

[@jerryjohnson9531]

I think that it is important to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. I am a Christian and somewhat of a scientist (I teach psychology) and I have no problem believe in microevolution (adaptation) without a doubt. I have a tough time believing that Darwin's idea of natural selection led to all of the millions of species on the earth today (macroevolution). The Cambrian Explosion (in which massive amounts of species occurred in a relatively short period of time) itself causes problems for the macroevolution theory without some kind of intelligent design IMO.

[@sciencerules2825]

1. Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution. The underlying processes for both are exactly the same. 2. The Cambrian radiation took between 10-20 million years depending on where you define the start/stop. Why is that not enough time for evolution to work? 3. The fossil record shows life existed on Earth for at least 3 billion years before the Cambrian radiation, including 100 million years of multicellular life. Your explanation is...?

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

So you accept micro but not macro. I suppose you mean spicies to spicies are ok but not to kinds, right? Then where did they come from? I'm not asking how did they. I'm simply asking where did they come from, the materials, bodies, bones, flesh, skins, etc. Where did they come from? Did God from them from the dirt or clay like he did with Adam, and then breath life in or something? In other words, non-living material things to living things? Each and every one of them kinds? Or spontaneously appeared out of thin air? Where did they come from if it's not been evolved, micro and macro (longer time)?

[@passionfly1]

What people should also remember when they are using the word 'information" they are using it in the scientific sense that is not exactly the same sense as the colloquial day-to-day use of that same word. Sunlight, electricity, muons, electrons. temperature, radiation, etc, etc can be considered "information". The scientific understanding (and its use) of that rather mundane word is much more encompassing and broad then the common definition and use of it.

[@mcmanustony]

They are not using it in any technical sense It’s just useless bafflegab

[@youngandrew66]

Yes, I was watching Brian Cox talking about 'information' in black holes and realised the more recent widening of the word's meaning

[@matthewrawlings1284]

I'd highly recommend the program this clip is from. It's uncommon knowledge from the Hoover Institution. Peter Robinson (the host) is hands down the best interviewer in the english language.

[@satchelsatchel]

This video is a smokescreen of gibberish. Darwin's theory is simple and it's based on rock solid logic. The taller giraffe can reach the leaves, so more tall giraffes are born. Short giraffes starve, so no more short giraffes. End of story.

[@matthewrawlings1284]

@@satchelsatchel what does this have to do with my comment?

[@dfitzishere97]

⁠@@satchelsatchelbrother…respectfully laughing at your comment because you do not understand Darwin’s theory. What you described is ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION. “The taller Giraffe can reach the trees so more taller giraffes are born” is Adaptation, occurring within one species and producing changes yet preserving the species being acted upon… Darwin’s theory of Evolution would rephrase your statement to say something like “The Zebra is too short to reach the leaves of the tree, so the Zebras began giving birth to Giraffes until all the Zebras had been completely replaced by the new, ‘better equipped for survival’, species that is Giraffe.” Never has such a thing occurred in nature. There is ZERO evidence of this in the fossil record. And I mean absolutely NONE.

[@dfitzishere97]

@@satchelsatchelto state a different way… if we had evolved from Apes, there would be ZERO Apes in existence today, because evolving from Apes necessitates that the first humans were birthed by Apes. The implications of such a scenario would therefore be that these first humans born from Apes would have been raised as Apes and among Apes. Being an evolved species better equipped for survival than both the Apes that birthed them and those of their generation birthed as Apes of old, this major advantage would quickly lead to the eradication of Apes from existence as the new species of human would dominate them out of existence.

[@Spiritof_76]

@@matthewrawlings1284 Peter Robinson is a Hoover mouthpiece for their garbage propaganda. That's what it has to do with your comment.

[@nativeg9079]

My 15 yr old son has conversations with his friends at school about religion. He came home one day giving a lot of thought to the statistical argument. He mentioned monkeys typing and creating Shakespeare given enough monkeys/enough time. When he finished explaining I told him that I will concede the probability (although astronomical is too weak a descriptor) but I asked him, "Does it make sense?" Random typing may create a word but a sentence is unlikely... Shakespeare?... not possible.

[@marcrahn4307]

I'm sorry to interject here. Your son is absolutely right. If you don't see it then you didn't understand the actual implication of the analogy. Given infinite monkey and infinite time, any random string of any random length of letters becomes inevitable. The point is in this being an *infinite* thought experiment. People can't picture infinity easily :)

[@PastPresented]

The analogy is not really analogous, because the first sentence is all you need, and the alphabet is only 4 letters long. Once you've got a viable sentence sitting in the sunshine among a load of unused letters, it copies itself, and the copies copy themselves, or pick up part-sentences that aren't able to copy themselves, or copy a bit inaccurately (mostly with neutral or bad effects, but occasionally in ways which make future copying easier or more accurate) etc. etc.

[@marcrahn4307]

@@PastPresented Exactly. Thats why you don't need to randomly come up with a whole human genome. That, of course, would be statistically "impossible". But thats not what any biologist is posing. Not even darwin.

[@tivmego]

@@PastPresented "The analogy is not really analogous, because the first sentence is all you need, and the alphabet is only 4 letters long. Once you've got a viable sentence sitting in the sunshine among a load of unused letters, it copies itself, and the copies copy themselves, or pick up part-sentences that aren't able to copy themselves, or copy a bit inaccurately (mostly with neutral or bad effects, but occasionally in ways which make future copying easier or more accurate) etc. etc." how was any of these proven mathematically and scientifically as applied to the human cells? Is this all just somoe clever imaginations?

[@PastPresented]

@@tivmegoThis isn't about cells, it's about the earliest precursors to cells. Finding the connections between the earliest precursors and the earliest fossil organisms requires reverse-engineering many millions of years of planetary-scale activity. Religions tend not to bother with that sort of hard work.

[@djamelzitouni950]

It is not a matter of being a Christian or an atheist, it is a matter of believing in a creator first versus rejecting a creator.

[@Spiritof_76]

Only indoctrinated people continue to tell others there is/was a creator, indoctrinating children, the vulnerable, and the gullible. Without it and them, this whole goofy notion would disappear, as it should.

[@djamelzitouni950]

@@Spiritof_76 Only indoctrinated people continue to tell others there is no creator, endoctrinating children into sex change and love of queers, endoctrinating the vulnerable to stay poor and endure harsh capitalism, endoctrinating the gullible into accepting sex with sister, mother or an animal. Without a belief in a creator, it is an open bar. Mao, Hitler, Stalin. See easy 😂

[@daverogg8701]

This whole conversation was for me like listening to a foreign language. However, the best part was the man who said how scientists arrive at their conclusions by guessing. Society says follow the science, but we Christians say follow Jesus who tells us we will know the truth that sets us free 🙏

[@byteme9718]

Scientists do not guess, what a ridiculous assertion! Scientists like nothing better than discrediting the work of other scientists, this is just one reason it works so well. On the other hand, there's zero evidence for your claimed Jesus.

[@mcmanustony]

"This whole conversation was for me like listening to a foreign language"- no, it's just three arrogant poseurs babbling about science they know damn all about.

[@DrMontague]

Let me ask adult theists the following: If god is an intelligent creator of the universe then he must have designed you to crap out dirty filthy stinking turds, to have stinking farts, and sometime have stinking wet farts in public. Now after you have a crap have a good look down the toilet at your excrement and think to yourself the intelligent designer designed you to do that. Now evolution doesn't have such a problem, it is simply a product of nature not a designer. Further if Jesus had healing powers why didn't the people find out where he crapped, collect his turds and use them to cure people? Holy crap they would have coined it in. Did Jesus ever say : I have a parable to tell you but I must go for a crap first? Did he fart in front of his disciples?Jesus supposedly fed the five thousand,where did the five thousand crap and pee? Did it not occur to Jesus to miraculously create toilet blocks with flush toilets, hand wash basins, electric hot air hand driers, showers, towels, soft toilet paper etc. No, You want a fairy tale Jesus who didn't crap, fart, have wet farts or go for a pee. You are all deluded!

[@rcmysm9123]

@@mcmanustony Yes truth and math are a foreign language to you, we know!

[@fusionfan6883]

Well how hypocritical of them cherry picking parts of the scientific method to promote their own nonsense arguments. Scientists do not guess their conclusions, the conclusions are a natural output of the properly applied Scientific Method.

[@Ser_Jerry]

Dr. Berlinsky's choice of outfit has me laughing. He's like the Fonz from Happy Days. 😅

[@asparapee4213]

He's like the 60 year old woman that goes to a Poison concert dressed in the same outfit she wore to a Poison concert in the 80s.

[@5457kj]

Perfect! Cannot I see the Fonz!

[@melissachai1936]

Yes!😂 I thought the same thing!

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Personally, I dig his style. In that discussion he’s a generally unimpressed grump; kinda reminds me of House MD 😅

[@estebanembroglio6371]

i sent this video to a friend years ago. a friend of over a decade. he didnt watch it, he got very angry that it was published by pragerU and started screeching about condoleeza rice. The same guy would often say things like, "I dont know why you claim you *believe* anything, we dont have to *believe*, we can *know*". What a naive clown.

[@Si_Mondo]

But it's not published by PragerU... it's the Hoover Institution.

[@estebanembroglio6371]

@@Si_Mondo i think it was reposted by prager U when I saw it. Regardless, I didnt even know who pragerU was at the time and still dont care, it had nothing to do with the message presented.

[@satchelsatchel]

This video was posted today, and "years ago" you sent it to your friend? What kind of a time machine do you use?

[@cinny.]

This video was posted today, yes. The video Daily Dose of Wisdom is reacting to was not posted today. It took me 10 seconds to find the original video, since it's in the description. This may not be the same for you, but the video is also at the top of my recommended now. It was posted four years ago, and it was originally recorded about five years ago. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac Do better and have a nice day

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@cinny. I am always surprised at the rabbit holes people like @satchelsatchel go down. So they don't have to deal with what is being said.

[@-I-Use-Punctuation]

Adaptation, yes. DNA works like a Data Bank preserving and introducing the adaptations to our surroundings for success. Repetitive movements, muscle memory, desire for camouflage are some ways these genes are created. But none of it is possible without intelligent design in the first place.

[@mcmanustony]

Baseless assertion....presented with zero evidence.......dismissed without further consideration.

[@-I-Use-Punctuation]

@@mcmanustony huh... Did you read the whole thing? Adaptation yes, evolution no. It's ok, this is just my opinion, I'm not a biologist or nothing... definitely a theist though

[@mcmanustony]

@@-I-Use-Punctuation Why not learn some evolutionary biology before posting idiotic comments about it? You might as well be railing against algebraic topology ....then demonstrating you can't count to ten.

[@-I-Use-Punctuation]

@@mcmanustony do you not think creatures can physically adapt to their environments? If so where do you presume that information is stored?

[@-I-Use-Punctuation]

@@mcmanustony physical adaptation is a fact, domesticated pigs loose their hair and tusks for example but random mutation as Darwin puts it could never create successful life, their needs to be intelligent design. Oh & your a rude ass prick faced bitch btw✌️have the day you deserve

[@kimberlyhovis5864]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing! 👍

[@dennisboyd1712]

AMEN this is one of the Best discussion on the Death of Darwin Evolution

[@partyrock4144]

It’s just evolution. Darwin isn’t Jesus and even then 3 guys who don’t know what a codon is isn’t gonna prove anything

[@byteme9718]

Evolution is science fact, get over it.

[@mcmanustony]

a simpering non mathematician interviews three non mathematicians who pose no mathematical objections to anything........ holy shitballs it takes little to impress you.

[@ronaldflint681]

Wonder if it will ever dawn on you that creationists are LYING about it being dead - they just want you to *believe* that. As long as you believe despite the facts of reality, they can keep you enthralled. That's what they want from you. Have a good time with that.

[@mcmanustony]

@@SweetPea92578 before pompously telling people who know more than you to go to school, you should be trying to salvage an education for yourself. Allele frequencies change in any given population over time. This is a FACT of evolution. The THEORY of evolution is the explanation of the facts. This is very very basic…..wind your mouth down, take a seat and try to grasp it before lecturing others .

[@jaybo420]

I love this interview. Meyer is an intelligent design rock star.

[@rastrats]

Meyer misappropriates terms such as 'code' and 'information' to mis-describe processes laymen have no understanding of, leading us to draw misleading conclusions.

[@deviouskris3012]

Meyer is a joke. He literally fails to point out that a mutation only needs to occur in a single maned of an entire species. Then that positive gene expression is bred into the species and thrives. It comically laughs at his lottery analogy. Making the math far more sustainable.

[@colinjava8447]

Or in other words, a moron.

[@MultiSky7]

@@rastrats Information (i.e. code) is IMMATERIAL and comes ONLY from a MIND, i.e. from the programmer, a code writer. A DNA which is the manual (i.e. instruction, i.e. information) for our organism of how to work is fully packed with information. Let me quote R. Dawkins - The blind watchmaker, pp. 115-116 "As I mentioned at the end of Chapter 1, there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. I don't know the comparable figure for a willow seed or an ant, but it will be of the same order of staggeringness. There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas." Information / instruction in a DNA is a dead end to the atheism. Get over it.

[@MultiSky7]

@@deviouskris3012 The e-coli experiment in which the e-coli went through a gzillion mutations, didn't produce a tiger. It remained an e-coli.

[@scottoberneder3284]

It’s worth listening to the entire video, but this was a decent look into what they talk about

[@mcmanustony]

It’s bester still to pay some heed to people who actually know what they’re talking about. These three frauds are a sick joke.

[@user-md1uq2rp3f]

Authentic Stupidity is much more dangerous than AI.

[@Fduthoy]

What a fantastic team

[@mcmanustony]

in what sense? Meyer is a lying Christian activist, Gelernter hasn't published any new work in years and never has in any life science. Berlinski is a nasty bitter old fraud, a failed academic who pretentiously and dishonestly presents himself as a mathematician. How fantastic!

[@whatdidtheprophetjesusteac1444]

Loved the "round table" discussion

[@ziohalex]

Hi Brandon! Great sharing. Hope this will not pass covered under the science prohibition that doesn't allow us to discuss the origin of life and its evolution with a real scientific perspective.

[@KS-gh7oy]

Darwin tells us within his book that his book is not fact. He himself tells us that his work contains errors. Wholeheartedly believing the content of the book as anything other than an opinion is an error itself. He says in the Introduction, “This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice.” We must comprehend before interpreting.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Yes, and our understanding of evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin, while *_selection_* though has remained a cornerstone of the explanation of how the observed phenomena of evolution works.

[@standismore5328]

How much is "enough time"? Then add the fact that 2 beings need to mutate at exactly the same in exact union with exactly the drivers at excatly the same time for infinately different species in order to repriduce within a very short period for productive promulgation? This is just insanely impossible

[@byteme9718]

Your incredulity is not proof of a god.

[@deanmace8465]

​@@byteme9718 if not evolution or God, what other story you got???

[@stevedoetsch]

​​​Right back at you, sh!tbrain. The staggering lack of self-awareness inherent in atheism is expressed every time they exempt themselves from the critiques they apply to others, but which they also apply to themselves. Your personal views on a deity are not an argument against the existence of a deity.

[@byteme9718]

​@@deanmace8465 The evidence for evolution is as overwhelming as it is indisputable. In contrast there's zero evidence for any claimed random god. I go with the evidence for the same reason I wouldn't be comfortable having a baker perform brain surgery.

[@standismore5328]

@@byteme9718 well it is definately not "evolution". If you read my response it does not defend or prove Gods existance. It states the facts and odds for thought...which you seem not to have in actually thinking about the ludracracy that evolution may even try to exist. So other than evolution, the big bang or God...what then is your reason for existance other than creation? Waiting to hear anything even nearly logical from you and your kind

[@HSTOgaming]

Got a good dose of wisdom as always. Thanks for these great videos!

[@redwoodtrees7068]

you mispelt ignorance and confirmation bias

[@bobxbaker]

well evolution haven't been completely figured out yet, but it is a good enough working theory that we can work with to understand the world around us to create things from it and to find an explanation for things we didn't previously understand and there's such a large body of work that supports it because it is derived from it and it does work. but just because we can't travel at light speed don't mean we can't make cars that go a lot faster than people. anyways, it's not about proving a creator or disproving one, it's about finding out how things work but somethings are beyond the human mind and as such the only thing we can do with our troubled mind is to philosophize.

[@albino_penguin2268]

Interesting ideas. I have a few questions: 1. Where is this published and peer reviewed/critiqued by people who disagree with them? Does their work stand up to scrutiny? Its a big claim to say there isnt enough time. 2. Do they consider viruses to have a mind/intelligence? Because viruses contain information, and we can observe that code changing over successive generations.

[@samdowling4674]

I like your questions but I think they are wasted on this forum !

[@highkingskid]

I love to listen to the brilliant John Lennox speak about this too. Amazing

[@MultiSky7]

One of the best table talks (the whole interview) I have ever heard in my life. Information/instruction is the key - "And God SAID ... And God SAID..." Darwinists just CAN'T bypass that, cause the information comes ONLY from A MIND.

[@BFizzi719]

Where did God's information come from?

[@MultiSky7]

@@BFizzi719 From Him. THE Creator, by definition can not be creatED. These created gods we call idols. Now, FO.

[@adayah2933]

The shape of Denmark's coastline is a lot of information. Which mind did it come from?

[@MultiSky7]

@@adayah2933 From God. Read Genesis 1. In the beginning (time), God created heavens (space/universe) and the earth (matter), all 3 at the same time, as it is in the Einstein's theory of General relativity (the universe had a beginning and it's expanding - 2nd law of thermodynamics), ie. the so called "Big Bang" - term coined by astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle. After that God made it more concrete ... And God SAID ... and God SAID ... and He let sea and wind do their job. But, no matter what one says or how many arguments one gives you (the fine tunning argument, the Goldilocks zone and so on - 1000000% science: math, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.), you will never accept it, because it's not me or the science, it's you. So, all I can say, God bless you, and I hope God will show you the way out of that atheistic bs.

[@MultiSky7]

@@adayah2933 From God. Read Genesis 1. In the beginning (time), God created heavens (space/universe) and the earth (matter), all 3 at the same time, as it is in the Einstein's theory of General relativity (the universe had a beginning and it's expanding - 2nd law of thermodynamics), ie. the so called "Big Bang" - term coined by astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle. After that God made it more concrete ... And God SAID ... and God SAID ... and He let sea and wind do their job. But, no matter what one says or how many arguments one gives you (the fine tunning argument, the Goldilocks zone and so on - 1000000% science: math, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.), you will never accept it, because it's not me or the science, it's you. So, all I can say, God bless you, and I hope God will show you the way out of that atheistic bs.

[@simritnam612]

@12:00, the presocratic greeks and islanders moved from myth to elementalism to materialism to intelligent kosmos.

[@nathijomac]

So 3 guys with no education in Biology are saying Biology is wrong?

[@samdowling4674]

It appears so. AND PEOPLE BELIEVE THEM !!!

[@Philemando]

Keep it up! Please do another one from this conversation.

[@suspectdevice5644]

I lean towards thought as the "progenitor" ! Thought, as the seemingly invisible resonator creates all that manifests. Does thought need to come from mind, or can it be from eternal energy ?

[@muxion]

guess it depends on how you define thought. as I understand it, thought would require self-awareness, which seems to require some form of "being-hood"

[@suspectdevice5644]

@@muxion Hmmmm . . . Perhaps "pure" thought. Awareness of that fact one has thought and can project it in some manner.

[@itsalldownhillfromhere7932]

So as I've said elsewhere in scientific arenas im thinking along the lines that maybe the mind that you are discussing could be a property of Quantum peramiters or mechanics that themselves are evolving over time, I've seen similarities between human personality and the paradoxical nature of physics that were faced with in the last few decades, it's a very vague area to delve into but it's my guess.

[@TheJohnnyjackflash]

I love that science is proving science right or wrong. That is the key to good science is it’s always being tested.

[@DVN5381]

Somehow life is the only thing that gets more complex through random chance, while everything else degrades?! It never made much sense

[@kevinkelly2162]

So where is your explanation for the evidence that the majority of science accept? You can't just dismiss a theory without replacing at least some of it. And God did that is not an explanation.

[@VindensSaga]

​@@kevinkelly2162You can question it. If your only background is reading a book you're basically doing what religious people you like to oppose are doing, reading a book and hope they are not lying because you can't prove it.

[@RepublicConstitution]

Correct. The beginning of the universe from "nothing" stunningly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Living things also violate it but briefly.

[@DVN5381]

@@kevinkelly2162 I can dismiss a theory if the evidence doesn't support the theory, regardless of whether I have a better alternative. Your logic is why people accept nonsense; the only reason people even entertain evolution is because the alternative explanation requires intentional action to create.

[@nitsujism]

@@DVN5381 Unfortunately for you the evidence does support the theory. In fact, the theory is based wholly on the evidence and the best explanation for it according to the scientific method. On the other hand there's not a shred of evidence for a god creating anything or even existing.

[@SeeSawMassacre]

I was looking out the window a while ago, and saw a couple of vultures flying. It occurred to me the impossibility of a bird evolving from land animals. Birds need to have hollow, light-weight bones in order to fly. They also need aerodynamic, functional wings, with feathers and intricate maneuverability etc. If a land animal mutated to have hollow, lightweight bones, it would be a severe disadvantage. If it first developed some early form of wing, it would be unable to grasp and dig and claw, which would also be a severe disadvantage. The theory is anatomically doomed, let alone the impossibility of an animal learning how to fly, with no previous training or biological proclivity.

[@tenmilesfm]

Tell me you know nothing about evolution without telling me you know nothing about evolution. You do realise, there is literally REAMS of information to answer your question, if you only had the guts to ask it. But nope, instead you simply choose to put your faith in your cognitive ability to reason, which informs you that learning to fly is impossible, and you go on your merry way.

[@SeeSawMassacre]

@@tenmilesfm You haven't begun to point me in the direction of answering the question. Like i said, learning to fly aside. If you're so well acquainted with the REAMS of information, generally speaking, how did the process of anatomical evolution go? Did the flightless mammal first evolve porous, hollow bones, or wings? And how could the adaptation have gone in between so that it wasn't a tremendous hinderance to the species- i.e. a mammal with appendages that are no longer legs that can be walked on, but are not even close to being aerodynamically capable of gliding or flight? What was the sequence, in brief?

[@SeeSawMassacre]

Now that i've looked it up, it's even more clear that unguided, accidental evolution from a non-flying animal to a flying one is impossible. The innumerable adaptations that would have had to take place- over millennia- would have been counterproductive to the species' survival even if they were somehow impossibly accidentally arrived at one by one. The changes in bone composition, density, and structure, the musculature, the aerodynamics of wing and body design, the specialized feathers and lungs, the incomprehensible intricacies of brain programming and function necessary. That all these things and more could come about one by one, by sheer accident, and withstand the demands of survival and breeding is completely incredible. It's in keeping with the way of thinking that a monkey could, theoretically, type a Shakespeare play- if given enough time. If you gave me, an English speaking poet, ten thousand years to reproduce one of Shakespeare's plays without reference, i surely could never get past the first few sentences- no matter how hard i tried. I simply don't know how they go, and without knowing where i was correct, or at which point i deviated, it would be impossible. How much moreso a million or however many monkeys, whose combined intelligence doesn't add up to that of a man- since putting things or people in the same room doesn't cause them to combine. The millions of hypothetical monkeys of blind, unintentional fate that supposedly scripted the work of art that is a small bird wouldn't have fared any better.

[@tenmilesfm]

@@SeeSawMassacre You've spent what, half an hour actually looking it up now, and within that time you are sufficiently an enough of an expert to counter the work of hundreds of biologists, paleontologists etc? Impressive.

[@tenmilesfm]

@@SeeSawMassacre KZbin is just not posting any of my replies now, will try again later.

[@richardsuggs8108]

Darwin noted that several species of animals looked or behaved differently in the isolation of the Galápagos Islands than they did elsewhere. Conclusion was that they adapted their behavior or their appearance to survive in their environment. The iguanas there would swim under water to obtain food. That behavior was different than the same iguanas in other locations. Some finches would feed on blood in the islands. That was different behavior. Here is an example of survival of the fittest by adapting to their environment. In the 1940s the British invented penicillin. It was a game changer in the cure of certain diseases. However, the bacteria grew an immunity to the drug. It evolved. I suggest to everyone that there is proof that creatures can change.

[@samburns3329]

_I suggest to everyone that there is proof that creatures can change._ Not only can species change we have a thorough understanding of the genetic mechanisms causing the changes which then get acted on by selection. Creationists refuse to learn or understand any of the science involved.

[@mikhailsharon4331]

Creatures can change but is that change what you want? More importantly is that change random? Look, if you want to insist on evolution you have to also insist with it the math that it comes with. The moment the math doesn't add up is when you have to at least reconsider the validity of Darwin's. I mean practically speaking Darwin's theory of evolution according to him is dead wrong. Later theories of evolution have some grain of truth but if the core is dead wrong then is it even worth it as a foundation? And what about the coding problem? What is a code? It is a set of instructions. It has a sequence. It has a coder. It has an origin. There is input and output. If DNA looks like a code and behaves like a code then it shares with a code the implications of it.

[@geejaybee]

Darwin's work is named for Naturall Selection, not Random Mutation. Only the initial formations of the most primitive life had to be random. From there on evolution hasn't been nor had it ever been claimed to have been due to random mutations.

[@moosechuckle]

Cue all the Atheists coming into the comment section, crying out because this challenges their worldview.

[@downshift4503]

it doesn't challenge my worldview at all.

[@jamesjones11301994]

Here he goes. If you’re playing the probability game then it should. If you’re playing the cognitive bias game then go ahead and keep your previous athiesm. You good ole random clump of cells and atoms that’s in the comment section due to naturalistic processes instead of free will.

[@metaljacket8128]

​@@downshift4503Suuuuure. That's why you're here, definitely.

[@user-fo8ey1ix6f]

Must be a moral nihilist.

[@nitsujism]

This circle-jerk of personal incredulity doesn't challenge anything. Challenging is done by research and peer reviewed publication. Something intelligent design proponents are unsurprisingly devoid of.

[@mikescollard6499]

Darwin said that if the cell is any more complicated than a billiard ball his theory would fall apart. It is complicated beyond his imagination.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Um actually it being more complicated helps him also Darwin was a christian while writing his theory. He stop believing when his daughter died. All the early church fathers And dark age rabbis believed it was old.

[@TheHandofJove]

He did not say that

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

@@TheHandofJove u could research it for yourself instead of taking answers in genisis word for it

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

@@TheHandofJove I decided to research if he was always athies

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

​@@r.a.panimefan2109 No, he wasn't, his book reeks of atheist Ideology. No Christian would ever pen such an idea

[@nevbarnes1034]

What is the definition of a "functional" protein?

[@JLT9150]

Mutation is not a matter of brute forcing possibilities, the universe is involved in explicit and subtle ways. Math may therefor not be the best approach to estimate likelihoods. There is also the fact we do not know all conditions at the time. We do not know what may be have led to optimality for the mutations to ´click´ Maybe we ignore the possibility of consciousness-energy to be as real as matter-energy because it is convenient to depend on human provable theories.

[@et8893]

In 1986 in high we talked about how there was not enough time for Darwin's Evolution to take place. Nothing new here, it is just that the establishment refuse to look at it logically. Because no matter how you study it, if you are honest, the subject of creation comes into play.... WHY? Because isnt enough time for Darwin's Evolution to take place.

[@Robert-ct6bc]

"n 1986 in high we talked about how there was not enough time for Darwin's Evolution to take place." This was wrong back thenand still is... "Because no matter how you study it, if you are honest, the subject of creation comes into play...." It really does not...the only ones insisting on that fallacious conclusion is the entire ilk of pseudoscientists who work for or are affiliated with the ill-named Discovery Institute. A right wing Christian propaganda mill, where they do no research at all, none, and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.

[@lmoelleb]

Another option is that the thousands of people studying this at a much higher level than the basic provided in high school know something you and your high school friends do not.

[@et8893]

@@lmoelleb The problem of not enough time seems to be pushed aside. There is no Higher Level on this subject. There just is NOT enough time for Darwin to be correct.

[@lmoelleb]

@@et8893 yes, i know you assert that. So what is it you know that these people studying it do not know?

[@et8893]

@@lmoelleb What I know is that There is an agenda to remove GOD from all language. No God in Government or Schools or Science is the agenda. When people do not have GOD their lives then HOPE moves to those who have "Authority". All leaders in the past wanted to be treated as GODS. And it is the same today. Remember the words "Trust the Science". Well it turns out the science was lying for the corporations to make profits on the gamble of the publics health. So, I do know that there is an agenda to remove logic from peoples minds. People lie but Math tells the truth. and the truth is THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME for Darwin to be 100% correct with evolution.... I think I said enough...

[@Wishyouwerehere435]

How about "at the bottom of the glass.......more glass is waiting for you?"

[@Spiritof_76]

"At the bottom of the glass, I could use a refill," usually works for me.

[@philochristos]

I would need more detail about the mathematical argument before I could find it persuasive. Right now, I just don't know. For example, what does Meyer's 1 x 10^77 refer to? He says that's the ratio of functional to non-functional proteins, but that's really ambiguous. He might mean the ratio of functional proteins that actually exist compared to the total number of proteins that could exist, whether functional or not. Or, he might mean the ratio of proteins that COULD BE functional compared to the total number of proteins that could exist. Also, is he assuming proteins of any size, or he referring to some average size? If he's talking about the number of functional proteins that actually exist, that doesn't tell us the probability that evolution could've happen. If he's talking about the number of proteins that could be functional, that doesn't seem like something anybody could possibly know since we can't always predict how a protein will fold just based on the sequence of amino acid alone. A lot of proteins require other proteins to help them fold into stable shapes. So whether a proteins is capable of being functional depends on a lot of unknowns. There re 20^200 possible sequences in a protein that contains 200 amino acids, but we have no way of knowing what fraction of those could possibly be functional unless we could actually build them and see if they can fold into stable shapes. But that is way too many to ever test.

[@someguyfromafrica5158]

Also factor in the number of earth like planets in the universe and possibly even the number of universes which may be infinite.

[@HideyoshiR]

The biggest issue isn`t even that the likelihood of the number of coincidences that have to happen is infinitely small. The much bigger issue is that none of the smaller level building blocks of life have any sentient mind of their own to even start to comprehend what the "game" is all about. To make any choice, you need a purpose and know what you`re aiming for. It`s one thing to realize the miniscule chance of a protein accidentally forming a useful connection. But what`s more, it doesn`t even know what `useful` means to begin with. Life couldn`t happen without an intentional and all knowing mind behind it. It`s not just totally unlikely, it`s utterly impossible. A protein doesn`t have any level of consciousness of its own to know the bigger plan, let alone the simplest of decisions because it doesn`t have intentionality. And keep in mind, we are just talking about ONE single decision that a protein might have made correctly (which again, it doesn`t know that it did). Now you need a gazillion more to arrive at a bacteria... It`s crazy how the logical underpinnings in favor of a universal mind are so glaringly obvious that atheists are too "smart" for their own good to even see them. Praise God.

[@youflatscreentube]

I have come to the same conclusion you have. Very few creationists, it seems, recognize this missing piece of the puzzle; mere chemicals must have had a thought and a plan. How many of these random chance it would have taken for the development of an animal that flies? And that before flight even existed. Those clever proteins knew of the principles of flight and took it from there!

[@sammcrae8892]

Thinking themselves wise, they become fools.

[@tgenov]

That’s the problem of consciousness in a nutshell. There are insurmountable gaps in the scientific story. It’s great that science is doing the work to uncover the mysteries that can be uncovered, but there are some mysteries which are beyond science.

[@tenmilesfm]

Tell me you don't understand evolution without saying you don't understand evolution. Care to explain the behaviour and evolutionary nature of viruses? 'so glaringly obvious that atheists are too "smart" for their own good to even see them' - because only atheists believe in Evolution. Seriously, do you guys even spend two minutes thinking about the nonsense that flops out of your mouths before you hit the 'reply' button?

[@downshift4503]

rubbish. Nature itself is doing the selection.

[@noesnoe1234]

DnA put the nail in the coffin of the theory of evolution. It takes living things to produce more living things

[@jesterlead]

DNA is "not alive" by any definition. You're welcome to try again if you'd like.

[@RustyWalker]

So, is God a living thing by the same definition of living or are you going to special plead that when living things are created, that's different "because reasons."

[@PJRayment]

@@jesterlead "DNA is "not alive" by any definition." He didn't say that DNA was alive. I would criticise his comment by saying that it was Louis Pasteur that established that it takes living things to produce more living things, well before DNA was discovered. But the information content of DNA is yet another (massive) piece of evidence against evolution.

[@PJRayment]

@@RustyWalker "So, is God a living thing by the same definition of living..." What definition? He didn't provide one. But God is an intelligent being able to make decisions and choices. In that sense, yes, God is a living being.

[@RustyWalker]

@@PJRayment I never said they did. I asked if God was living by the *same definition of "living" that they used in "living things." Your attempt to define "living" in a way that includes excluded 99% of living things. Furthermore, the argument implicitly entails reproduction, which Christians do not claim to be an ability of God, so no, He isn't by the same definition and the argument was invalid.

[@displacegamer1379]

6:02 The interesting question that arises from this analysis is that you could use the exact same probabilities to determine the likelihood of a God producing this exact universe. Given the fact that there is an infinite amount of universes that are possible, and given the fact that there are infinite amount of types of Gods, and there are an infinite amount of mental states that this God could have, the likelihood that we're going to have a very specific God that has a very specific mental state to produce this exact universe is infinitely improbable. Using this logic we can just dismiss the claim that a specific type of God produced this exact universe.

[@Gilbert.Suhendra]

Amazing, you are Legend

[@sciencerules2825]

...in his own mind. 😊

[@mcmanustony]

Who?

[@Tomonaroma1221]

Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional doubts when he said, “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder. To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which he said, "makes me sick." In an 1863 letter, he amplified by pointing out that evolution by natural selection was "grounded entirely on general considerations" such as the difference between contemporary organisms and fossil organisms. "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”

[@mcmanustony]

You are a liar.

[@mcmanustony]

Every time you lie by quote mining an angel gets gonorrhoea

[@MichaelDoran-gh6pv]

The makers of the video could have invites speakers who would cite instances in biology of 'false turns' within creatures then corrected by the ad hoc mechanism of random change, leaving behind in the creature the relic of the earlier 'wrong turn'. Religious believers bend truth like fairground hucksters.

[@Spiritof_76]

Since Darwin, multiple fields of science have confirmed that evolution best explains the diversity of life on earth. Darwin didn't have access to today's modern scientific data, equipment, and progress, but he was pretty damned sharp to have forwarded his theory.

[@Tomonaroma1221]

@@Spiritof_76 False. It's actually old hat at the top level of scientific inquiry that Darwin's theory of origins is a long-since-dead scientific theory. David Berlinski went so far as to say that Darwin's theory is not even a scientific hypothesis in comparison to the 'hard' sciences.

[@maranathashalom9402]

I love your channel man^^ God bless you. Stay true brother!

[@stephenzaccardelli5863]

Can you as whatever religion you follow, bless a non believer like me when I do not accept your blessings?

[@metaljacket8128]

​@@stephenzaccardelli5863The fact that you're repelled or concerned by someone else's blessings--not even ones for sure directed at you, just the mere notion that they might be--suggests you know they're not just words, and you're afraid of what they might do to you. I advise you to reflect on why, friend. And if you say I'm wrong, well, then God bless you!

[@maranathashalom9402]

@@stephenzaccardelli5863 That question doesn't make sense to me bro, except if it was some attempt at edginess. From a mere logical perspective, why wouldn't I be able to ask God to bless someone, even if that person doesn't believe it?

[@stephenzaccardelli5863]

@metaljacket8128 why is something maybe you should deliberate?

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

There is no god. But there is science.

[@bird401]

I’ll wait for the peer review on this idea.

[@zedexer]

Ahhh it's not new

[@PerQuelo3731]

maybe, there wasnt enough time for trying every combination, but eventually we got lucky that we dont have to wait that all of them happen. just maybe. not everytime you have to try everything to make the right path, maybe the right one just come right away just because is the right one.

[@captainfantastic7843]

I cannot possibly give this enough thumbs up! The more deeply that I dive into the physics of the universe, the more my faith in God is revealed. Sheer beauty staring at an olive tree.

[@satchelsatchel]

The idea that an olive tree has beauty is a fallacy. You find an olive tree to be beautiful. I agree with you. I find olive trees to be beautiful. But beauty is a human idea. It's not an objective characteristic. There are millions of people who see no beauty in olive trees. Or in sunsets. Or in mountain ranges. Or in the patterns of the whirling dances of galaxies. And their perspective is not flawed, nor incorrect. It's that _beauty_ is not inherent, it's only found within our own minds. And so the idea that "the beauty of the universe is proof that it was made by an intelligent creator" is false. Beauty is merely an artifact of human perception.

[@captainfantastic7843]

@@satchelsatchel You can't prove that anyone's mind exists.

[@captainfantastic7843]

@@satchelsatchel You can't prove that anything that you've said is true.

[@captainfantastic7843]

@@satchelsatchel The sheer arrogance of your statements elicits a deep sense of pity and contempt for your incredibly shallow reasoning skills.

[@ingaz6565]

Time is the enemy not a friend. Once one of the protein sequences comes together you got minutes not years for the second one to come together or it falls apart. Billions of years wont do it, you need every single strand of protein to come together within a matter of minutes or you dont get life. Its like a puzzle were once you start it, you got minutes to find and put the next piece in place or the first piece you started pops out of place and you are back at zero. Again...time is the enemy, not a friend of life.

[@PastPresented]

_" Once one of the protein sequences comes together you got minutes not years for the second one to come together"_ What process are you describing?

[@mrnobody2873]

I think Intelligent design isn't synonymous with conscious design. We see mycelial networks capable of intelligence and directing growth, but not of consciousness . It is not inconceivable that the additional time required for evolution could be fast tracked by networking in these types of networks.

[@marcusmoraesdeoliveira3902]

Talking about late mutations, any mutations which successfully occurs was already in the essence of the been as a potency like a longer arm, different teeth, much or less fur. But what is impossible is a huge amount of mutations in sequence able to change the essence transforming a dolphin into a monkey and in a humanoid with a rational soul

[@sciencerules2825]

Argument from personal ignorance and incredulity. Fail.

[@mwils51]

@@sciencerules2825 Then stop doing that, come back and see us when you are less of a failure.

[@robczeranko2054]

IMO, there are 2 issues at work. First is does Darwinian evolution explain the origin of life? Second, it goes beyond just the origin of life. Indeed it goes back to the origin of the universe. Again, IMO there is overwhelming evidence that evolution or a strictly materialistic explanation cannot explain the origin of life let alone the universe

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

They don't even address the origin of life, only what happens after it has been created. One of many things that appear to be against all odds.

[@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom]

Darwin never addressed the origin of life. So yes, in that sense the whole theory was also irrelevant to the question of how there could be life from non life 👍

[@epicofatrahasis3775]

​@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Will you idiots ever learn? Evolution is a fact. Get over it. Grow up and stop living your life according to bronze and iron age fiction, written by people who thought the Earth was flat and covered by a solid dome. Start with BioLogos referenced below. It's a Christian organisation. --------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Ayala, a renowned evolutionary biologist and recipient of the National Medal of Science and the 2010 Templeton Prize *(and a former Dominican priest),* recently stated the consensus of the field in these terms [Ayala2010, pg. 49-50]: *The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution* ***cannot deny it.*** *Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion* ***beyond reasonable doubt.*** *The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time.* In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: *anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution* ***has become much stronger and more comprehensive,*** coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as *genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology.* ... ***Because the evidence is so overwhelming,*** ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and ***no longer needed,*** the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate. *"How many scientists question evolution?* - sciencemeetsreligion.org" "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. ***The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.*** *I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."* ***"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true.*** If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." - Dr Francis Collins. Former head of the Human Genome Project and a Christian. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles: *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* *"Is Evolution a Theory in Crisis? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* Watch *"DNA Evidence that Humans and Chimpanzees Share a Common Ancestor : Endogenous Retroviruses - Stated Clearly"* (Look for Dr Francis Collins at the end of the video, who was the former head of The Human Genome Project and is a Christian) *"Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2"* Watch *"Ken Miller on Human Evolution" - Kurpalac* (Kenneth Miller is a theist) *"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"* *"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American"* *"Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions | New Scientist"* *"What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design | American Civil Liberties Union"* *"The intellectual vacuity of mathematical arguments against evolution - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Once again: misguided calls for a thorough revamping of evolutionary biology - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Confessions of a former creationist - Trees In Space"*

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life (abiogenesis). The theory of evolution is concerned only with what happened after the origin of life.

[@wadeodonoghue1887]

We can't not know something so often we settle for less to at least "know" what we know. What is nothing to everything, what is feeling to numbness, what is life to death, they are all abundance and lack of the same thing. So we numb feeling that distract from orderly logic. We contemplate Death to enhance our lives. We see entropy and life tug existence towards Nothing and everything, and we are that nothing and everything. We want to deny what is here with what is not here and I don't know if eternity is long enough to complete the job. So a shift should be made to an intrinsic and truthful retelling of life, but these are mere words in reference to much deeper momentums, we are the dice God hath tossed and we are still rolling with much momentum to curb if we should choose to curb or not, in that choice we overlap with the Divine.

[@stephenconnolly1830]

There are significantly harder problems to address than Darwinian evolution - consciousness and the creation of the universe from nothing.

[@mcmanustony]

You established that the universe was created? Where?

[@stephenconnolly1830]

@@mcmanustonyI didn't, Edwin Hubble did when he identified the expansion of the universe, indicating a point source. This falsifies the notion of a steady state universe which has always existed. The other corollary is to recognise the universe cannot have come into existence by itself and that it is not able to sustain itself therein. These last intellectual steps are simple metaphysical logic.

[@mcmanustony]

@@stephenconnolly1830 The evidence is that the universe originated from a singularity. That singularity was also the beginning of time itself. The universe therefore did not "come into existence" for that to be the case there would need to be a time t at which it did not exist. There is no such t. Thanks for the word salad....

[@stephenconnolly1830]

@@mcmanustony what happened before time t = 0? No universe! Thanks for the illogic.

[@mcmanustony]

@@stephenconnolly1830 Wrong. There is NO BEFORE t=0. have you tried books?

[@Mr.E-gi5rq]

Well we can watch evolution happening right now in many species. It's kinda hard to argue against what's clearly visible .

[@mcmanustony]

not if you're a failed academic like Berlinski who needs a paycheck.....

[@augustycizauzo6372]

Reading Spengler and Yockey changed my view on evolution. An organ isn't beneficial to an organism until it is complete enough to perform its specific function. A subtle genetic mutation in the vast majority of cases will not be beneficial.

[@kasperlindvig3215]

I'm gonna need to know where you get the 10 to the power of 77 combinations from.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

Doug axe. "writing in the Journal of Molecular Biology, current Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Douglas Axe published seminal papers on the rarity of protein folds. Axe studied the beta-lactamase enzyme in E. coli and found that the likelihood of a chance sequence of 153 amino acids generating the stable, functional fold needed for the larger domain in that enzyme was as low as 1 in 1077." -Taken from Evolution News online.

[@Mando-wx6pn]

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 evolution news is a creationist website that pushes intelligent design. It's not a reliable source and it's articles are all written by extremely biased proponents of ID. It is no way represents actual science.

[@Jimmithy77]

You fucking idiots know they just dated the universe to being 26.7 billion years old now not 13.

[@KeepingHopeAlive]

There is only one thing I know of with the power to Create, Shape, and give function to things before they can be observed. That thing is “the mind” and God is, The Mind.

[@rebeccajohnson3402]

This has made me think too much. At what point during human (or human precursor) zygote development is the sweet spot for a beneficial mutation to both express itself in the organism as well as get into the organisms germ cell line and thus be passed on? Sincere question. Am I thinking too simply?

[@ThePonderingPiper]

The Urantia Book explains it all very well...

[@jeffreyrobinson3555]

Randomly shuffle a deck of cards you could get it in order, but to have life we have to hit that random shuffle over and over again

[@byteme9718]

The universe is a big place and has been here a long time, that's a lot of shuffles. Inventing a god only adds to the complexity and further increased the odds.

[@mattneilson644]

Statistically there have not yet, in all of history, been 2 randomly shuffled decks of cards that gave the same result

[@byteme9718]

@@mattneilson644 Decks have not been shuffled throughout all of history. Of course, if you were to run that simulation on a computer, as an analogy for abiogenesis, you couldn't use just two decks. You'd have to continuously use as many decks as there were opportunities for life to develop.

[@karikaru]

@@byteme9718 matter that creates itself, orders itself by rules, organizes itself into more and more complex life capable of contemplating its own existence - even if it isn't a god by your definition - you have to admit it's not far off.

[@byteme9718]

@@karikaru Einstein proved matter comes from no matter, what you suggest are rules is something called physics which underpins chemistry that creates more complex atoms and molecules. Life began at some point and we're probably not far off discovering how that happened. Evolution, we know, is fact and he we are with compromised bodies and minds. Is that impressive? Yes of course. Is it unusual or unique? With 400 billion stars in our galaxy, one trillion galaxies and 13 billion years, most likely not. It could easily be that life is inevitable just as the creation of our universe may have been.

[@RustyWalker]

The fallacy is a combo of observer bias, believing a protein that exists was "intended" and then calculating the probability assuming each iteration is independent, assuming the process is random, assuming the game only has one player (winning the lottery is basically impossible but lotteries are set up so someone somewhere will win eventually).

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Proteins are needed in cells and the instructions to make them are encoded within DNA. Sounds a lot like "intention".

[@RustyWalker]

@@ronaldmorgan7632 Thanks. I DO have a Bio degree. Modern cells have modern proteins *now* but what we see is a selection of simple metabolic pathways that exist in all life, and phylogenetics shows beyond reasonable doubt that common descent is true. That's why these clowns are trying to deceive people by abusing probability theory to people who only know the basic stuff like coin flips.

[@GeraldOwens1954]

The problem is that people have a very poor sense of probability because they don’t understand how to calculate the entire space of possibilities. First off, it doesn’t matter in which order the winning numbers of a lottery are chosen by the players and by the lottery: when it comes to synthesizing a protein, the order matters: if there are six winning numbers, but the order matters, then you have an additional 1 out of 720 odds to beat. Secondly, Powerball’s first 5 numbers are drawn from a pool of 69 numbers WITHOUT REPEATING. In protein synthesis, an amino acid can be repeated multiple times. It’s the difference between 69 factorial divided by 64 factorial, and 69 to the power of 5. Imagine how few 9 digit numbers would be expressible if a digit is not repeated (123456789 is okay, but 112345678 is forbidden.) the answer is 9 factorial, or 362880, which is a lot less than 999999999…) In powerball, missing one number still gets you SOMETHING: in protein synthesis, a missing amino acid creates a missed protein. Another issue is that, unlike powerball, an Amino acid can only participate ONCE: if you postulate a process that breaks up bad “proteins” into their constituent Amino acids so they can keep participating in the protein synthesis dance, then “good” proteins would also be broken up. How can a blind process determine if a protein will be useful? That would be sneaking intelligence into a “random” system, as if it was Maxwell’s Demon for proteins. And finally, there is the proximity issue: winning the protein lottery doesn’t give you a cell: it gives you a protein that can go into a cell. If one did not get a car, but a part to the car, one would have to hope that everyone in their neighborhood not only won the protein lottery, but that everyone else in their neighborhood would not only win it as well, but that WHAT they won would be a complete set of parts for a car. There is a rule among scientists that each would defer to the findings of scientists in other fields that are not their own, and in which they have little to no expertise, with the expectation that those other scientists would defer to them in THEIR field of expertise. Evolutionary Biologists are the only ones to VIOLATE that rule when it comes to Statisticians.

[@RustyWalker]

@@GeraldOwens1954 You completely ignored the assumption of independent trials. That isn't valid and therefore these fantastical probabilities Creationists conjure up aren't valid.

[@GeraldOwens1954]

@@RustyWalker There are two ways to conduct independent trials: doing them in parallel in different locations, and performing them repeatedly by the same team. I factored in the performance in parallel when I discussed the issue of proximity: you would take the volume of the pool of reagents and divide it by the required volume within which the amino acids would combine to get the number of “teams” trying to RANDOMLY assemble a viable protein. However, I also pointed out that a protein does not make a cell, which means that those assembled proteins also have to be in proximity, which means that the probably has to be reduced by the FACTORIAL of the number of teams DIVIDED by the factorial of the number of proteins required to make a cell. I addressed the issue of repeatability by the same “team” by pointing out that, once a protein is assembled, regardless of fitness, the amino acids used can no longer participate in future or parallel assembly attempts by other teams, because the process of protein assembly demands that it be done sequentially and in a fixed order BEFORE it folds into its final form. You can easily repeat card draws IF you put the cards back into the deck, but you can’t do that with amino acids already sequestered into a protein: you’d have to have a disassembly process that disassembles proteins to put their amino acid “cards” back into the primordial soup “deck”. And as I pointed out, such a process should equally disassemble “fit” proteins from “unfit” ones, since it would act blindly: fitness is a biological concept, not a chemical one. (For instance, the problem of coming up with a successful formula to make communism work that MIGHT exist, is limited by the fact that the supply of other people’s money is finite: once it is burned away in fruitless attempts, it can’t be recycled.) I did not “completely ignore” the assumption of independent trials: you just failed to see how I had already factored the two variants into my explanation. Of course, if there are other variations that are PHYSICALLY possible given the conditions of the PRIMORDIAL soup, I would be happy if you told me about them so I can address them. My bad: I assumed I was responding to someone who understood I was trying to analyze the full problem given the physical constraints, rather than proposing a “toy solution” alternative to a “Toy problem” and then pulling a “bait and switch” to propose that it solves the entire problem. Of course, if there is a paper out there done by an evolutionist who is also trained in probabilistic statistics that FULLY addresses the SAME problem (instead of a “toy problem”), I would be delighted if you posted the author(s), title, publication, and date…. :)

[@chrisbera7952]

What about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics? What about hard stop genetics in species starting at the protein level, which is below the genetic level? Random natural forces cannot create anything complex, let alone a basic cell.

[@sciencerules2825]

_What about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics?_ What about it? _Random natural forces cannot create anything complex,_ But iterative processes with random natural forces filtered by non-random selection can create unlimited complexity.

[@curtisscott9251]

Now might be a good time to remind you about the great documentary done by Ben Stein called "Expelled".

[@sciencerules2825]

You mean the creationist propaganda film which got laughed out of actual science venues?

[@mcmanustony]

The movie was not great. It is a sordid pack of lies from start to finish. Which lie was your favourite?