Discovery Institute Accidentally Refutes Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute keeps going with the junk DNA stuff, and they miss the ball again with their latest. And in doing so, they made an argument that has some unintended implications.
It's a great argument against intelligent design creationism.
This is just a hobby for me, but if you appreciate what I'm doing and want to say thank you, you can contribute here:
/ creationmyths
paypal.me/crea...
And if you want early access to pre-recorded videos, you can become a channel member: / @creationmyths
If you disagree with anything in this video and want an opportunity to make your case, email me: [e-mail]. I'll give you as much time as you want, and then I'll take the time I want to respond, and we can have a conversation.

[@CharlesPayet]

Dr. Dan triggering IDers to the tune of 9 blog posts after just 1 debate is what I’m here for!

[@thylacoleonkennedy7]

"Dr. Dan doesn't know how not to think like an evolutionist" I don't think that's the winning statement Klinghoffer thinks. Not that people outside of a field can't have good insights but if you want to overturn it you need to have a pretty damn good idea what you're talking about.

[@CreationMyths]

Thank you. I’m glad someone made that connection. “These stupid experts…” do you hear yourself, creationists?

[@LittlePinkBowser]

"I don't know what we are suppose to do, he just keeps not being convinced by our shoddy evidence and misunderstanding of vocabulary, so stubbornly set in his ways."

[@steveg1961]

"Dr. Dan doesn't know how not to think like an evolutionist" is - literally - just another example of how creationists employ two-faced thinking, and project how THEY think onto everyone else. I have encountered this inane rhetoric myself hundreds of times in these kinds of discussions. I'm a former young earth creationist myself, which is exactly why every time any creationist spouts off with this kind of rhetorical gimmick I'm ALWAYS challenging him on his own hypocrisy. Creationists have a number of different ways in which they employ this particular rhetorical gimmick. And, IN EVERY WAY, they're exposing the utterly two-faced nature of their thinking. THEY are ones who are extremely biased by their particular personal religious beliefs. THEY are the ones who are so biased by their particular personal religious beliefs that they engage in denying any and all empirical facts that contradict their beliefs. THEY are the ones who cannot bear even the very concept that we should REVISE our personal ideas to FIT THE FACTS, instead of the other way around. That is, indeed, a demonstration of the irrational nature of religious belief. Which religious believers who are totally dedicated to religious belief can never comprehend. (Which I'm pointing out explicitly as a former religious believer myself.)

[@wayneu1233]

I.e., “Dr. Dan is a competent biologist”

[@JAMESLEVEE]

​@@steveg1961other than adding "-ity" to "irrational" in your final paragraph, that was a perfect summation.

[@seraphonica]

this is a great exhibition of natural selection. creationists don't just cite sources poorly by nature. but the ones who cite sources correctly are refuted more rapidly, so the ones who cite sources poorly or not at all are at a competitive advantage

[@danhoff4401]

I've said that before in the context of Thompkins publishing his data which allowed Erica and Rohif to debunk him with his own data. If the audience will swallow whatever you say that sounds sciency why bother publishing raw data or providing any sources? By extension why bother with these discussions? Just bait someone into a debate and then spin it the way you want to your audience. Ken Ham did that with the Nye debate and I don't understand why DI attempts to engage like this, they lose control of the narrative with good pushback. The smartest thing they can do is just shut up.

[@CreationMyths]

But if they stop they concede the point. Now it's a lose-lose.

[@Sam-m6o3j]

If you think this reality isn’t intelligently designed then you are letting your contempt for religious dogma get in the way of your rational thinking. This operating system didn’t come from nowhere without reason; We can know this because every living thing has specific functions that integrate within a system of specific parameters. It was intentionally created just like all operating systems are intentionally created. By whom or what are questions which may never be answered. Try to see past silly doctrines and nihilistic atheism and you’ll better comprehend these apparent truths.

[@danhoff4401]

@@CreationMyths right but what does losing the point cost them? Nothing but ego. Their audience isn't watching your videos and seeing the light. Their continuation of this is just ego driven.

[@iluvtacos1231]

"It's time to move on" Sounds like a desperation move to me, DI.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

Sounds more like "please move on because you are making us look bad".

[@crow-dont-know]

Dan, I’m looking for an apartment at the minute and wanted your advice as you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the subject, given that you’ve managed to find accommodation rent free in the collective heads of the Discovery Institute

[@wizardsuth]

You don't want to live in the heads of Discovery Institute members. It's a mess. You'd think there'd be lots of room, but it's crammed with bizarre ideas, bad assumptions, and faulty reasoning.

[@andrewcoming8855]

The logic of Discovery Institute in this debate: - Functional centromeres can help us understand the potential functions of genomic elements like retrotransposons, because those are totally the same thing. - Many different sequences can perform the same function, but one sequence definitely can't evolve into another different sequence via mutation while keeping (or improving) that given function. - Stochastic variation in genomic elements is the same thing as uniquely specified sequences performing a necessary function. That's perfectly consistent with teleological thinking, right? - While we're at it, cats and dogs are the same animal (unless you think baramins are real, which is a creationist idea, and we ID folks are not creationists).

[@ferociousfeind8538]

we aren't creationists, we're... cdesign proponentsists

[@StrawberryVein]

I'm putting all my money on the DI pulling another "we have never claimed otherwise"

[@amadeus_k2466]

Well for one, I won't bet against you

[@sciencenerd7639]

Dr Dan, this morning I was looking through the comment section of a recent Professor Dave Explains video about Billy Carson and I saw a commenter that was talking about how great Encode is and junk DNA not being a thing. I didn't have time to respond to the commenter because I was getting ready for a job interview and those kinds of youtube comment thread conversations usually end up being emotionally draining. But it made me sad that not everyone knows of your videos.

[@Mr.AndersonCrosses]

"as a brief aside to discovery institute... No." 😂

[@CreationMyths]

What am I supposed to say? “Yeah sure I’ll stop making you look silly since you suggested I stop, out of the kindness of my heart”? DI…no.

[@EdwardHowton]

Intelligent design has always been self-refuting. The very fact that you can hold up a rock and, say, a watch, _demonstrates_ that intelligent design is nonsense. How? _Because they think the rock is designed too, and yet they're using it to contrast against something designed._ If the entire universe _were_ intelligently designed, it would be impossible to even notice the contrast, and the argument *would not and could not exist in the first place.* "If you see a watch on the beach" == "If you see a designed object on a designed object". Even they can tell the difference, therefore ID is bunk. Nothing accidental about it, just more inept flailing.

[@pansepot1490]

Yeah, exactly. That’s the fundamental flaw of the watchmaker argument and yours is perhaps the best exposition I ever encountered. 👍 Seems to me most debaters take circuitous and unnecessary long ways to arrive to that simple basic point, if they even arrive at it.

[@user-ki1un4jg2d]

God has proven himself billions of times . Every time a baby is born , it is the gift of life from God . No one has ever seen a filthy ape ' magically ' turn into a human . That would make a huge story all over CNN , huh ? Evolution is non - existent !

[@jkorling]

They'd probably counter by saying there's 2 types of design, that by humans and those by god. They'd say all of nature is designed by god, so when you contrast things designed by humans against things in nature, you're actually contrasting human design against god design. I can see them using this approach as their escape hatch, even though it's still a flawed argument.

[@leothenomad5675]

​@@sombodysdadWhat did Edward get wrong?

[@wizardsuth]

Another major problem with ID is the assumption that complexity can only arise from design. Since a designer is more complex than what it designs, it implies an infinite regression of increasingly complex designers. Trying to terminate the regression with an allegedly infinitely complex designer not only is an example of a special pleading fallacy, it raises the problem of demonstrating that such a designer exists.

[@manuelbaez7148]

“ no lets not move on we’re having too much fun”😂

[@HarryNicNicholas]

7:00 lol. i was just prodding eric hernandez for using the phrase "we will just have to agree to disagree" with people who clearly don't agree to anything he said. "perhaps we should move on" sounds like a euphemism for "i'm in trouble here and need an escape route".

[@rembrandt972ify]

Eric Hernandez isn't low fruit, he's a potato.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@rembrandt972ify with blight.

[@reverendatheist7026]

“Stop, stop [they’re] already dead!!” Ralph Wiggam. Ps. Don’t stop.

[@psychtrane]

It was not Ralph Wiggam who said that. Accuracy is no more important in science than it is in Simpson's trivia. ;)

[@reverendatheist7026]

@@psychtrane you’re right, on both counts. Clearly evidence of the Mandela Effect ;)

[@isambo400]

@@psychtraneboy I hope somebody got fired for that blunder

[@borisbauwens7133]

Since centromeres are relatively short compared to the entire genome, and are already counted in the functional fraction, the most charitable view is that the DI used centromeres as an example for a somewhat equivalent, as yet unknown functional genomic element. Maybe they should reach out to an institute that concerns itself with discovery, so that this unknown genetic element can become discovered by people who get off their asses and do the actual work. The "Hopeful Intuition Club" is at this point a better title than the "Discovery Institute".

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

Thanks Dan! The DI never fails me to prove there must be some kind of higher power behind it, so much stupidity can't be accidental! I call it the Devine Dump Designer and declare myself as its first prophet.

[@PhysiKarlz]

Devine as in the Irish last name or divine?

[@JM-ot8ux]

As in Andy Devine. 😜

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

@@JM-ot8ux Andy Devine, the actor? Just looked him up, that makes completely sense! Will you join my church as my first acolyte? You've earned it!

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

@@PhysiKarlz You're raising the right questions, mate, you can be my acolyte too!

[@RafalLabuda777]

​@@Spielkalb-von-SpartaI wanna be altar boy, just no kinky stuff please!

[@SeriousGeorge]

Great video as always, Dan. And I really can't encourage you strongly enough to not let them slink away from this!

[@CreationMyths]

Oh don't worry I don't intend to.

[@Mr.AndersonCrosses]

23:18 oh no! They've made it even worse for themselves and created something else they have to respond to and repair. Oh, DI, you are so in over your heads against this man.

[@kappasphere]

That "Introduction to Intelligent Design" text already refutes itself without even more input. "No physical or chemical law dictates the order of nucleotide bases in our DNA", this guy writes like he's never heard of natural selection. Which I highly doubt is the case, so he already has to be dishonest in his introduction. With this alone, I already don't feel like trusting a single word he says.

[@steveg1961]

The very reason that all of this makes complete sense - I mean, literally, from the "get-go" - because creationists of all stripes (both young earth creationists and old earth creationists) are relying on their religious presupposition that a god DESIGNED living organisms. Furthermore, because the science denialism of both old earth creationists and young earth creationists RELIES on the fact that ALL of the science denialist rhetoric they engage in is driven by their particular RELIGIOUS beliefs about some mythological stories in a religious book. Thus, BECAUSE of this cognitive hole that they've dug for themselves, it's literally impossible for them to express any argumentation (i.e., pseudoscience rhetorical gimmicks driven by religious belief) that isn't both incoherent with the scientific facts of reality in regard to biological science, and also incoherent with each other in regard to everything they say in their fabrications about genetics and biological evolution. (Indeed, literally ALL the pseudoscience rhetoric they've manufactured in regard to "genetic entropy" versus "no such thing as junk DNA" itself is a perfect example of the incoherent nature of creationism pseudoscience.) The old earth creationists at the Discovery Institute have since their inception tried to make "common cause" with young earth creationists (even while at the very same time - the entire time - young earth creationists have also been very involved with the Discovery Institute; indeed, this one fact alone demonstrates the religion-driven anti-science nature of the creationism pseudoscience promoted by old earth creationists). Since the beginning, the people promoting creationism pseudoscience who've been involved with the Discovery Institute have been BOTH young earth creationists and old earth creationists. This one fact alone destroys anything and everything the old earth creationists have to say in the silly rhetorical games they play, in every way, in their rhetorical charades of trying to pretend that they're trying to promote science. They're not trying to promote science. That's a lie. Period. They're trying to promote their particular religious beliefs. Which are factually wrong. And the very fact that they make common cause with young earth creationists, who are heavily involved with the Discovery Institute, is just another empirical fact that proves this point. It has ALWAYS been the case that the notion of "intelligent design" FROM CREATIONISTS never had anything to do with science. Creationism pseudoscience has never been anything but a RELIGIOUS agenda that doesn't have anything to do with any actual science. The reason I point this out explicitly is because in regard to genuine science there is a genuine concept of intelligent design - and it never has anything to do with how creationism pseudoscience promoters have completely corrupted the term. This is just another example of why I totally despise creationism pseudoscience promoters, because of how, based on their religion-driven inanities, they insert themselves into discussions about real issues while literally never contributing anything relevant at all because of their horrible ignorance of science, and incompetence in regard to even comprehending the actual issues, and being almost completely incapable of correcting any of the factual errors of the statements they make.

[@EdwardHowton]

I _thought_ I recognized that quote on the shirt. Someone's been reading Sanderson.

[@apokalypsecow9756]

I watched this while drunk, but still understood it well enough to know that the DI just owned themselves in an amazing an inescapable fashion. Well done, DarwinZDF42

[@ACallToReason]

Digging their own graves because they can't admit to one flaw in their worldview 😅

[@CreationMyths]

Seriously. And I’m on team “junk DNA doesn’t matter”, they coulda taken the L and I’d have said okay, all good, doesn’t change anything really. But here we are.

[@ACallToReason]

@@CreationMyths it makes me think of Michael Jones (inspiring philosophy) with his almost hilariously overconfident arguments for the traditional authorships of the gospels and for the historicity of the resurrection 😅 he's constantly just making up his own criteria, which can sometimes sound relatively convincing at first, but which will ultimately always conflict with other made up, ad hoc criteria he had to invent to rescue some other aspect of his arguments 😅

[@amadeus_k2466]

I don't think they can admit to a flaw in their worldview without loosing their worldview. Tough luck

[@paulthompson9668]

@@CreationMyths You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up.

[@jamesdownard1510]

I see Klinghoffer's post confidently waves that 800+ list (this next Evo Hour will get up to 21 of them, and they're still not supporting their case. As for the second DI post, maybe I'll have to dive into their centromere papers on a future episode, since they aren't on the 800 list so some fresh investigation turf :)

[@mepollack]

They really do twist themselves into knots to make their points. It’s like a game of Snake: the longer and more complex the snake gets, the more likely it is to run into itself.

[@DeconvertedMan]

I love this so much.

[@a2sbestos768]

I did think that something was amiss when you implied about supposed lack of functions of unconstrained sequences. Now I know what (:

[@adamredwine774]

Is there anyone in this KZbin space addressing the physics claims of people like the discovery institute? I see people like you and Erika mention their physical claims sometimes but I also see errors in those statements. I’m just about done with my PhD doing experimental physics and I’m thinking about stepping in.

[@waywardscythe3358]

as an internet rando with an interest in these subjects, I'd watch videos going over the erroneous physics of the DI and their terrible ilk.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

ID trolls be trollin’.

[@shassett79]

In fairness, it might just be one troll, as Ed is known to brigade entire comment threads by way of their many alternate accounts!

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

Yeah, it's probably just one guy. He's been banned before for using slurs.

[@amadeus_k2466]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime But to be fair: he does help out the channel with the algorythm. I wonder if he is aware of that

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@amadeus_k2466 I honestly don't know if he knows he's supporting the channel. It's hard to imagine he's not a bot. Repeating the same script over and over again isn't something a normal human should do.

[@amadeus_k2466]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime You are definitely right, on the other hand there quite a lot of people doing this for years, where you encounter somebody years later still using the same script. I also have serious doubts about Mr. "blind and mindless", his posts do sound like a bot to me.

[@StewPedassle]

I think that your assumptions of good faith are interesting to point out. It now gives a milestone for later when there will inevitably be "I don't think this is good faith anymore." The ultimate answer to these questions is so intertwined with their sense of identity, so there will be an impasse. But for now it's still interesting to see how they don't currently know enough to understand how they're missing the point of the question or the implications of the answer.

[@a2sbestos768]

That was a classic move for the books

[@command.cyborg]

Wow! Imagine they'd di that take on it! 🤣🤦 Great stuff, Dr. Dan! 😎👍

[@borisbauwens7133]

LOL, centromeres as sequence independent functional elements? The centromeres that are defined by repeats of specific centromeric sequences, which is what makes them centromeres and not something else?

[@Angelmou]

? the Chromatid linking during cell division is there the function.

[@borisbauwens7133]

​@@Angelmouyeah, and they do that because they have a specific sequence. Giving centromeres as an example of sequence-independent function, like the DI does, is absurd.

[@smaakjeks]

So, regarding the centromere sequences varying between species, is it just a case of independent evolution between populations that results in similar function (i.e. convergent evolution)?

[@borisbauwens7133]

It would be divergent, not convergent. Since centromeres are a common trait for eukaryotes with linear chromosomes. Different lineages can change what sequence is the best fit with whatever sequence-specific thing binds and pulls apart chromosomes, they're not independently evolving the system of centromeres.

[@smaakjeks]

@@borisbauwens7133 Divergent evolution is just evolution, right? Hm, but let's compare it to fish that have different antifreeze proteins that developed independently. Could you not make the same argument that the fish diverged, and then got the same function? Would that then also be an example of divergence?

[@borisbauwens7133]

@@smaakjeks in the fish example, it would be convergent. And to make it extra confusing, in the case of bat and bird arms, the arms are divergent (since they inherited arms from their common ancestor across the whole lineages) but adapting them into wings was convergent. But not at the detailed anatomy. What would be awesome and funny, is if in the case of pterosaurs and bats, diverged but shared developmental genes caused finger bone extension in the pinky ginger of both lineages in the same way. :D

[@smaakjeks]

@@borisbauwens7133 So, I guess the distinction here is that if a function is maintained while genomes change, it "counts" as divergence, because similarity is decreasing genetically. Convergence is only convergence if novel function arises independently. That about the size of it? I know, ultimately, this is just social constructs meant to categorise an inherently continuous process, but still.

[@nathancook2852]

First video I have seen. Very nicely done. I love the fact that you don't let them run away from the issue.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Speaking as former biochemist, long since retired (and admittedly never working in genetics or molecular biology), I've long wished they'd never come up with the phrase and concept: "junk DNA." I'd rather they had simply referred to it as having "unknown function." Or maybe essential vs. non-essential DNA. Sure, there's plenty of room for speculation where function is unknown, but for that speculation to be of any use, it should point to methods of checking whether the speculation is true. One argument that suggests "junk DNA" might simply be garbage, or maybe parasitic DNA hitching a ride, is that some animal and plant species lack it almost altogether. That is, they have about the same number of coding genes on far smaller genomes. Examples are: the pufferfish which has the same number of coding genes as a human, but is only an eighth the size; or the bladderwort with only 82 Mbps. Correspondingly, some species have much larger genomes, such as rice or the marbled lungfish. Where it seems clear that genomes can be either cut to the bone, or vastly expanded, while most vary somewhere in between, it suggests to my mind it's DNA that hitches a ride on some genomes, but gets eliminated in others. Perhaps the process of elimination is so drastic that it can cause enormous damage to essential DNA, so happens infrequently.

[@jimbob8992]

So could we say they've falsified their own theory?

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

I don't think "junk dna" has a function. But in an environment changing quicker might favour a species with a higher "functional mutation rate" and a species which has longer generation times (bigger animals or plants) might benefit from lower "functional mutation rate". The higher the "junk" dna percentage, the more likely a mutation will be non-functional and so benign. But this is a sequence independent function for junk dna, namely "protecting" functional dna from mutation. So I predict smaller faster breeding species in harsh environments might have less junk dna, than larger, slower breeding species.

[@ToNowHereShow]

Thanks!

[@CreationMyths]

thank you!

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

The concept of evolution and how it works is so logical and simple it is kind of surprising, to me, that this fact doesn't have much sway in certain communities. Mutations happen during replication -> Most mutations are benign and have no effect on reproduction fitness -> The mutations that degrade or harm a species ability to reproduce die out, while the ones that improve a species chances of reproducing carry on to the next generation and so on.

[@shassett79]

​@@EdGein542No, they aren't, Ed. Can you stop lying for a minute?

[@shassett79]

​@@EdGein542And morons mischaraterize science when they can't argue with it. But again, why the obsession with talking to kids on the internet?

[@Angelmou]

EdGein wrote: "adaptation by loss of information" nope there is gain of info by various types of info gain mutation observations with tandem duplication mutation, retrotransposed duplication mutation, proximal duplication mutation, dispersed duplication mutation, DNA-transposed duplication mutation and of course whole genome duplication mutation. So you just lie about obsevations like a toddler stomping to the ground when someone steals santa clause from him ;-) "cannot build new body parts" so birdwings from sauropsid arms and birdwings further to flippers like in aukbirds and penguins shall be denied because you emotionally hate these?

[@shassett79]

​​​@@EdGein542 Neutral and beneficial mutations are obviously a thing, genius. Like most creationist nuts, you're arguing that all mutation is "a loss of information" as if there is some ideal genome somewhere such that any deviation from it is necessarily negative.

[@Angelmou]

@@EdGein542 Wolf to dog evolution is a great example of snout&muzzle info gain mutations with even observable tandem mutations for boxy shapes vs. aerodynamic shape variations and also great to disproof the sinfall faith of christians with stone age cave teeth DNA and mummies of canines showing that there is no degeneration or flood bottleneck etc. they so desperately demand so that once more the creation faith in its very core is exposed as void of meaning in life unable to be a legit opinion any honest human can hold. ;-) Denial of the mentioned also reapeatable observable info gain mutations (mentioned) remains identical to flatearthers in denial of the globe photos. We have for example TAT to TATTATTAT repeats for pigment increase in fur coloration for tyrosine complex and intense increase color observations. Polar bears have also many benign mutations for the aquatic hunting: This is where Michael Behe did try to hide in his book where he was exposed as a liar for manipulating the charts in cutting out the benign mutation observations. ;-) And no you ain't laughing - you are just parrotting long disproven talking points you did memorize, like a child who can't inform himself outside the indoctrination script. Plain and simple.

[@ferociousfeind8538]

"Perhaps it's time to move on" move on from what? the controversy? I thought creationists loved sticking to age-old contradictions and falsehoods to drag out the discussion for as long as possible! Now that they're cornered by an expert in the field, they want to... move on????

[@CreationMyths]

Yup! Typical, right? Don't worry. *I'm* not going anywhere. (But I also think one of them won't be able to help themselves.)

[@conrad3066]

Gibbon sent me, thank you for the perfect video to clean my kitchen to.

[@amadeus_k2466]

I think it's laudable to try to Discover new things. Problem is you don't know beforehand what you are going to find...

[@davidw.9508]

Nicely done, thanks as always for the great content! :)

[@CreationMyths]

Thank you, and also, you're welcome.

[@noeditbookreviews]

Anyone sufficiently honest and interested in truth, learning, discovery, and reality is going to wind up refuting intelligent design.

[@mathiaschaves7604]

I'm not a creationist, but I have a doubt: Couldn't it be that a specific sequence is maintained by a mutation bias specific to a given species or clade? To my knowledge, most methods of calculating levels of constraint between genomes cannot differentiate its causes, which could very well be a mixture of both purifying section and mutation bias. I would be verry interested if somebody could show me how they account for that. I guess we could use Mutation Accumulation Experiments and extrapolate from there, but this experiments minimize the effects of selection although cant extinguish it.

[@mathiaschaves7604]

The debate over "junk DNA" is a fascinating and contentious topic that has gained popularity since the (in?)famous ENCODE project. Recent studies published in two papers and discussed in a commentary (reference at the end) on Nature pointed out that the default state of "random" DNA in yeast is in fact ubiquitously expressed, and therefore, we should NOT assume that any and everything transcribed in their normal genome has a function, as it could have evolved neutrally. In contrast, for mammals, evolutionary naive (random) DNA is typically silent. Thus, it would be surprising to observe expression in a mammalian genome. It would be an indication that it did NOT evolved neutrally, which might lend some support to the ENCODE claims for mammals. However, because these experiments/simulations doesn't tells us about the fitness effects of those ramdom sequences have then we can't say if they are deleterious, neutral or positive. This certainly requires further investigation, but it undeniably introduces a new layer to the debate concerning the extent of our genome that is 'junk'. Biology, as always, is a complex science that resists simplification by our beautiful and reasonable models. - "Mammalian cells repress random DNA that yeast transcribes." Nature 628, 271-273 (2024) doi: 10.1038/d41586-024-00575-x (you can find the original papers being discussed in their referrences)

[@Angelmou]

The entry post is addressed here: watch?v=sXXH71rQRKo key there is beside others: _The Genome Strikes Back: The Evolutionary Importance of Defence Against Mobile Elements 14 November 2007 Volume 34, pages 121-129, (2007) Louise J. Johnson_ & _The Directed Mutation Controversy and Neo-Darwinism 1993 Richard E. Lenski and John E. Mittler_ And also on this channel a while ago. Your secondary post & debate (incl. the Encode) was discussed in earlier entries of this very series on this channel as topic.

[@mathiaschaves7604]

@@AngelmouThanks! I will watch your suggestion. Just a small correction to avoid a confusion: mutation bias doesn't need to be directed towards a higher fitness. A "biased mutation" is not necessarily a "directed mutation". Mutation bias is just an unbalanced between the probabilities of different kinds of mutations (insertion/deletions for example) or locus in the genome. About the Encode, yes... I saw the videos, but the focus of my comentary was to highlight a new development that wasn't addressed there, the realization of a earlier sugested thought experiment. A ENCODE of random DNA (see the referece in the second post).

[@mathiaschaves7604]

​@@Angelmou Oh, I had already watched it before and also read the papers too. It is very cool indeed, thanks for you time. I think I have to clarify something: In models that measure sequence conservation between species, the level of selection is often assessed using the ratio of synonymous substitutions to non-synonymous substitutions. This allow for detecting if a gene is evolving neutrally or being a target of directional or puryfing selection (there are other models that can measure similar parameters for non-coding sequences). However, to my knowledge, we don't have models that account for mutation bias to help disentangle the effects of selection, which could confound our results. Do you know of a method that does that?

[@PrixyPurple]

Amazon as always dr Dan

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

How can you refute something that never worked?

[@rumraket38]

I keep being annoyed that Luskin conflates non-coding DNA with junk DNA. It was never the case that knowledgeable scientists ever proposed that all non-coding DNA is junk. Nobody disputes and nobody of any relevance to this question has ever disputed that there are functional non-coding regions. The issue was never about coding vs non-coding, but about function vs non-function. There are ways of figuring out whether a piece of DNA is functional or not, and the fact is there are even nonfunctional coding DNA. Pseudogenes for example can remain coding, but be rendered nonfunctional by a premature stop-codon a bit upstream from the protein's c-terminal (close to the 3' end of mRNA), which might still leave a considerable coding region behind that, when translated, nevertheless lacks a piece crucial for it's function. That would then be a non-functional coding region, and qualify as junk-DNA because it is nonfunctional even if transcribed and translated.

[@Angelmou]

@sombodysdad "majority of our genome is junk is based on ignorance." It is the opposite: The claim that only coding regions are meant to be "true non-junk" is a lie that has inflated in clickbait headlines of the media and especially by creationists in the social media against the very topic of junk to be always nonbuffering/nontransportableelement/nonregulatory AND of course non coding SIMULTANEOUSLY parts aka the non functional main topic of the video series exchange debate. That was the very topic in this video where ID apologists just try to run away from the data itself as they exactly know that measurements and observations do steal their meaning in life/sensefulness feelings in life with their crooked image of a masterplan deity they hold very dear in their hearts as imagination. Once more reality is the actual spoilsport for their faith images. And some people are just honest and do no lie to themselves with twisted apologetics and other bad excuses. I mean we already had excused from Hovind and Co. that during cell mitosis because everything wiggles and chromosomes are duplicated 100% of the genome shall count as functional because there is nothing that is not copied and other highly twisted excuses just to mud the waters of the topic. This is also the reason why you did once more ask off-topic questions of the distant past of the origin of the coded information processing system INSTEAD of addressing the non teleological observations (no goal and especially no specific design). It is a way creationists always try to mud the waters of the topic as this charade of charlatany could convince honest people to not look exactly at the actual data...

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

​@@sombodysdadThat is strange because Luskin admitted that most of our genetic code has zero evidence of being functional right now. But thanks for admitting that genetic entropy is just a creationist lie. Always funny when you score on your own goal without knowing it.

[@borisbauwens7133]

​@@sombodysdadthe argument pro junk rests on several positive claims, not just ignorance. (No purifying selection, removal without fitness loss, knowledge of the history of that sequence like e.g. an ERV, and the onion test). But this histone thing is a new thing to me. Please elaborate. What exactly is the argument? Because histones are not that sequence specific. They'll bind basically all DNA. You could insert a random strand of 10.000 bp in a genome, and histones will go right to work on spooling it. So I don't see the link between histones and junk. Histones spool junk and functional elements just as well.

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

I always say, skepticism is a good thing. And evolution skeptics have generally helped us progress our understanding of evolution albeit unintentionally. So what they are saying is that sequence might not be as important as we imagined in functional dna. Wow!

[@lizadowning4389]

Skeptism requires understanding of the actual science. ID proponents either lack such understanding or misrepresent it which doesn't rationalize "being skeptic". James Tour writes on his website that he "doesn't understand evolutionary theory ... but I'm skeptic of it". That is of course preposterous, being ignorant doesn't make one a skeptic. "So what they are saying is that sequence might not be as important as we imagined in functional dna." That is another vague and misleading ID statement. In genetics we speak of sequence length, sequence structure, sequence identity, gene content, etcetera. When using the term "sequence" one need to be specific. In genetics it is the sequence identity and not the size of the sequence that determines how closely related two things are. E.g. the primary difference between the human and chimpanzee Y chromosome is actually their size. The chimpanzee Y chromosome had had numerous large scale deletions and after that it had multiple different inversions and frame shifts and swabs that made it incredibly difficult to align to the human counterpart. However, when we actually look at the identity of the sequences between the human and chimp, they were as similar as expected. Humans and chimpanzees are 98.8% similar when looking at coding base pairs and around 95 to 96% similar when looking at the entire genome. That is more similar than lions are to tigers, African elephants are to Asian elephants and rats are to mice. Hence, there’s a greater similarity between humans and chimps than many pairs of animals that creationists would happily insist are related because they are a part of the same ‘kind’. Whatever IDers are claiming about genome sequences is either ignorance or wilful misrepresentation and not "being skeptic".

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

So they asked you to move on, and then published article naming you! Shithousery😅

[@M.Neukamm]

@ Dan: What about the sequence-independent function displayed by introns?

[@CreationMyths]

Such as? The excision sites are sequence dependent.

[@M.Neukamm]

​@@CreationMyths I mean the existence of introns per se. The excision sites are sequence-dependent, but the function of introns as such is not. They accumulate mutations, and sometimes they contain "old code." And what about spacer sequences, which only have to have the "correct" length to be functional?

[@M.Neukamm]

​@@CreationMyths An example for a length-dependent (not sequence-dependent!) intronic function is Hes7. The total length of all introns in Hes7 was found to be highly conserved across the eukaryotic domain. Large-scale analysis of additional 1875 genes identified at least 10 more genes whose total intron length is conserved much more than expected, suggesting a similar role in time delays. See: Seoighe, C., and Korir, P. K. (2011). Evidence for intron length conservation in a set of mammalian genes associated with embryonic development. BMC Bioinformatics 12(Suppl. 9), S16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-S9-S16.

[@sentientflower7891]

The biggest issue with Intelligent Design & Fine Tuning is that God must exert intellectual effort first to create a Universe compatible to life, create the Earth - moon system compatible with life, creating life, creating humans as an act of "special creation" but when God gets around to writing a book God fails to mention any of that and instead we get Pi valued as "3" and a calendar so flawed that it wouldn't be fixed until 1600 AD.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@EdGein542 the Earth isn't designed for life, the Earth is designed by life. It is an important distinction.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

​@@EdGein542Oh Aron, are you lying about our knowledge of planets again? We don't know about every planet in our galaxy let alone others, but even with what we do know there's planets that appear similar to ours. Creationists seem to ignore the odds when they don't like the implication that their existence might not be as special as they think.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@EdGein542 are you suggesting that God enriched the Earth with those elements with the intention of preserving the Earth in a habitable state for 4.5 billion years so that humans might eventually evolve and evolve so poorly that God would have to write what some call an "instruction manual" but what is more accurately described as an anthology of mutually contradictory myths which seem to form a cohesive message only to those people who own the book but never read it?

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@EdGein542 Ignoring reality again Aron? We don't know about all the planets in our galaxy let alone others, and we have found a few that could be just like Earth. It's really great you're helping this channel.

[@Angelmou]

@@EdGein542 "earth is designed for life" We had this topic in another string before where you did not even get the "happy message of the gospel" for the salvation promise as an actual designed place (the mentioned paradise) for humans as concept. For "designed to life (as focus) the universe would have to be a living ocean universe with planetary sized lifeforms energized by the backgroundradiation etc. not 99,9999999% of vacuum emptyness and hostile celestial bodies with sometimes the surface of 1 dustrock to be habitable. You would have an argument if we could walk on saturn and swim in the earth inner core for a daytrip - but you can't construct there an argument. It gets even worse when you think about the imaginary damnation place called hellfire where eternal life in a boiling pot shall work perfectly fine designed in opposite of here where you can't just sit in a vulcano.;-) In actual created worlds such as MMORPG worlds where objectively moral laws are implemented in the sense that because the creators did not want players to just shot people in towns - that weapons are unable to target in towns other players or civillians - meaning you can use your virtual knife to put butter on bread but not to hurt another agent. You can there indeed swim in vulcanoes. And surprise: Same goes that dying by injury is seen unfair and so you get resurrected unharmed at your last safe point like waking up in your bed without a scratch, which you don'thave in a non created world such as our real world we live in. Or did you jump up unharmed after being eaten by a dragon at your last adventure? No? Human mortality and the lack of design is even the actual reason why humans made up deities and the idea of heaven as SALVATION place as an actual created place at all. Not only that the sheep shall graze alongside the wolf or lion - but so that you have an actual designed place as paradise for human focus as idea with such implemented moral laws where people can't just shot eachother and the love ones won't just die and you get unharmed waking up in a bed no one is able to break as paradise image. This is also where you condused third generation yellow type G star material for the Earth minerals with design. Which was also not understanding nucleosynthesis results.

[@stephenbailey9969]

Fundamentalism and secular humanism are opposite sides of the same rationalist coin. The early church did not confine the stories at the beginning of Genesis to a cut and dried, literal interpretation. They were much more open to allegory, symbolism, and the mystery of the divine power. They tried to avoid such speculation.

[@Cheepchipsable]

IDers strike me to be the same as flat earthers, but because the science is more complicated the general pop just kind of shrug.

[@unitoolzee]

Anyone who believes in ID has never taken even a minute to think about all of the ways our “designed” bodies can go wrong. If we are designed, the designer is an idiot. 😂

[@CreationMyths]

Zero redundancy in a bunch of critical systems. Terrible design.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

We also can’t build a planet. That doesn’t mean planets are designed.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@sombodysdad please provide a published scientific study that concludes that the earth was the result of design.

[@shassett79]

​@@sombodysdadGreat argument. Not going to bother, but I have to assume it's Fine Tuning?

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@sombodysdad haha. Yeah. What scientific journal was that published in exactly??

[@ElvisTranscriber2]

0:20 My debate...from way back in (those early days of) *HARDLY 2 TINY MONTHS AGO!* May 2024* ...like....seriously! 🤦‍♂️

[@BabyBugBug]

I question the assumption that specification is essentially saying one sequence = one function. In computer code, this is not the case. To state that sequences cannot be planned to functionally work together in varying ways is an odd conclusion.

[@CreationMyths]

And that’s the problem. If “specification” is just something like “it’s a beta-lactemase enzyme”, and there a lot of ways to do that (there are a lot of ways to do that), then why do we care about specification? How does it change the likelihood or difficulty associated with the evolution of a particular trait? Fact is, creationists are stuck here. If they define it broadly, it’s meaningless. If they define it in a specific and quantifiable way, we see that functional sequences are common and easy to evolve.

[@BabyBugBug]

@@CreationMyths​​⁠ « we can see that functional sequences are common and easy to evolve ». That is quite a grand statement that has not been substantiated, else we would not be having this debate. DNA itself has never been shown to evolve from inorganic matter, even with the help of scientists and chemical purification. Not even the simplest cell has a direct, testable, verifiable step-by-step process through random mutation of arising, not even with the forcing of scientists.

[@CreationMyths]

@@BabyBugBug I don't expect creationists to like, admit that functional sequences are common, but we have plenty of direct, experimental evidence that that is the case. What you're doing here is moving the goalposts to origins, which is the only move creationists have left. Did you know there's a word for it? "Origins or bust" is the tactic you're using. Y'all do that because you have no arguments against evolutionary processes generating novel complex traits. So you move the goalposts. Thanks for the tacit acknowledgement that I'm right.

[@BabyBugBug]

⁠@@CreationMythsHmmm interesting. Your method of speaking is a bit childish. Oddly confrontational for some reason. Well, I am a simple person who likes simple concepts. So I boiled down your argument - namely that 1) your definition of specification is highly questionable as if one code should = one targeted output, as if design in our own human experience never shows multifaceted usage in terms of efficiency (hint: it does) and 2) your assertion that this is « common and easy » to evolve is a very grand statement that is not what we see even when we view the supposed evolution from non-living matter to the simplest cell. In fact, the more we learn of the cell the more remote this becomes. That is what this boils down to that clever rhetoric to « prove » a point cannot distract from.

[@CreationMyths]

@@BabyBugBugstill doing the origins or bust thing instead of talking about anything relevant to what *I’m* saying. Independent of whether you’re right or wrong, do you realize the disconnect there?

[@scienceexplains302]

*”Common designer…”* I noticed the contradiction near the beginning. Multiple sequences being able to produce the same function is contrary to the “Common designer, common design” response to why species of different “kinds” have common DNA.

[@CreationMyths]

Yup! They're not doing themselves any favors here.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@sombodysdad As I said, multiple sequences producing the same function shows that the so-called design is not generally “common.”

[@scienceexplains302]

@@sombodysdad But a sequence is something very basic, as I understand it. If that is true, a common design virtually requires one sequence to do one thing. Otherwise, what is generally common in the design?

[@scienceexplains302]

@@sombodysdad So if the design is the same , it shows a common designer. And if they’re different, that also shows a common designer? What would disprove creationism for you? Evolution is a much better explanation operating on everyday entropy, chemistry, and physics, with no need to posit a supernatural being using unexplained methods, unexplained forces, and unexplained resources.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@sombodysdad You’re posting some crucial typos, so I’ll skip to repeat my question: What would disprove creationism? Evolution would be disproven, at least as the overall explanation, by proof of a god creating a new type of animal or a type of life that doesn’t exist. Or finding a rabbit in a Pleistocene layer.

[@terbospeed]

I find it intriguing that they learn science just to disprove it, like they are immune to cognitive biases, specifically confirmation bias. When I learned about various religions I genuinely saw them as true, and only later dug myself out of the hole. But then again, they provide good material for study and content. 😂

[@koppite9600]

How did you come out of xtianity?

[@terbospeed]

@@koppite9600 pain? how does any evolved behavior get pressured to change?

[@koppite9600]

@@terbospeed I don't understand

[@terbospeed]

@@koppite9600 just be curious and ask questions, sometimes the answer will be I don't know..

[@koppite9600]

@@terbospeed I meant I didn't understand your first reply

[@sandroorlandoni2614]

Hi Dan, do you think that the criticisms made by creationists have influenced research in the field of evolutionary biology in any way? That is, having to respond to their objections did stimulate further investigation into specific fields of biology?

[@CreationMyths]

Nope. Not even a little bit. Most biologists, even evolutionary biologists, don't even realize that creationists are still a thing. If you bring it up, normie biologists look at you funny, like "they still exist? why should we care?" Creationists literally have zero impact, especially in evolutionary biology.

[@lizadowning4389]

Nope, in fact, there's hardly any biologist that is even aware of them. In Europe, people like Meyer, Behe, Dembski, are unknown. In science, we respond to scientific papers that have undergone the scrutiny of peer review. ID proponents have, to this day, never published anything in that sense. The main problem of ID and creationism is that while they claim ID is a hypothesis (Meyer even claims it is a scientific theory), they have never stated the hypothesis, what its prediction is (IF ... THEN), how one can falsify (test) it, described any experiment or test whatsoever, and hence lack any data to evaluate whether it confirms the prediction. In short, there is a complete lack of scientific methodology. That's why no one in the science community responds. Inferences based on vague and elusive terms like "design", "intelligent designer", "complex specified information", is not doing science. Ask yourself this: how on Earth would one conduct a scientific inquiry into something undefined and elusive like an "intelligent designer"? If they want to engage with actual scientists they should present their papers via the appropriate channels (peer reviewed journals). "having to respond to their objections did stimulate further investigation into specific fields of biology?" No such thing. There is literally not one claim from ID movement that has ever "stimulated" scientists to "further investigate". Scientists are always exploring new avenues and testing novel hypotheses without the 'help' of IDiots. They are far more creative than dogmatic creationists who are stuck right from the beginning with "goddidit ... now let's see if we can contrive some mumbo jumbo and try to make it pass as explanation and evidence".

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

The only thing that comes close would be when the paper on DNA bar coding added an update to the introduction to clearly say their paper supports evolution and common ancestry. But that doesn't stop the creationists from claiming the opposite. There's also that fake $10m contest about origin of life sponsored by creationists. No one has seriously attempted it and a handful of people just mocked it. They're not driving anything in research that I can see.

[@sandroorlandoni2614]

@@CreationMyths Ok, thanks Dan, this confirm my impression.

[@MrCliffipoo]

Moo

[@HisZotness]

Well said!

[@johnrap7203]

@@MrCliffipoo 😆👌 Ah, I like it! A great quote from Not a Dr Kent Bovined!

[@Angelmou]

This whole charade reminds me of the quotemine of them using to say "Australophitecus is just another (drynose) ape" from scientific publications but missing the point what ape traits are for the ape definition of the term and that in the same source texts are humans also mentioned and summarized as apes / with the same ape traits. This is of course actively ignored to sell a twisted narrative to the laypeople's audience for the wacky slogan "I ain't no monkeee". This cherrypicking of genetic texts in this junkDNA "debate" is just a bit more sophisticated with more technical terms, but it is essentially the same scam. So I do not see any "good faith". Just more quotemines, strawmen and red herrings/pocket sand. ID people you can't eat the cake and have it too. This is what IDpeople want however... reality shall not be real, especially in cases they don't like emotionally.

[@CreationMyths]

@@sombodysdadif you say it enough time it might start to be true wait nope that’s not how anything works.

[@shassett79]

​@@sombodysdadYou can't present any evidence for the unfalsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design.

[@Angelmou]

After pointing out to arise the awareness of the scam strategy similar to the term ape. We have the user "sombodysdad" spamming for several years in various comment sections deceit and denial like any common flatearther. Example: "There aren't any naturalistic processes capable of producing life" Mitosis&Meiosis is not naturalistic? Oh you mean the very first lifeforms billions of years before dailyday observable modern life producing mechanism: The mechanism of ribocyte variations in researched abiogenesis models? "and its diversity." Mutation, genetic drift, Natural selection. An old hat. "You can't account for the existence of any eukaryotes." Asgardarchaea say otherwise.

[@Angelmou]

@@sombodysdad You did not read or comprehend what I wrote or try to troll once more like you do for many many years as we had this topic already 2 years ago where you did run away from the anisogamy intermediates you most likely did forget on purpose what that was about. I explained to you nature reproduces life on a dailyday base by natural means (called mitosis and meiosis.) So your previous statement was objectively simply wrong. Your answer post now was the actual question begging as you do not care about how nature for billions of years produces life by solely natural means without a forest spirit to touch each seed to make a tree - but you once more demanded that we both jump back to the origin of the natural processes such as meiosis which BY THE WAY still evolves in isogamy to oogamy TODAY as observation also by natural means without a ghost fairy pointing to isogamy cells by saying "now you may have meiosis reproduction let me magically grant you the isogamy intermediates poof" This most likely flies over your head. But I clearly remember we had those talks before where you did not care. As you can't comprehend that we exclude spooky meiosis ghosts like we exclude snowflake fairies for each snowflake, this is also not on the table.

[@Griwes]

Good tshirt!

[@CreationMyths]

The book is better.

[@muskyoxes]

Incidentally, nonfunctional junk is a thing designers don't make, even if it's a low percentage

[@CreationMyths]

Moderation note: @somebodysdad will no long grace us with their presence. Wondering why? imgur.com/a/VIfVleV Disagreement is fine. A bender of personal insults is not. I'm going to leave them long enough to see this, but later today they'll be gone. If/when anyone runs across one of their many alts, ping me so I can nuke that account, too. They're now ban on sight.

[@CreationMyths]

Gone. Their last post: imgur.com/u331BlD My response: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6KpkHRsl9ise9k Help me out by catching any alts so I can block those as well.

[@lizadowning4389]

@@CreationMyths Personally I don't mind nitwits like "somebodysdad". He's been 'out there' on alot of podcasts dealing with ID and creationism, and all he can do is throwing out baseless claims. The ad hominems demonstrate his inability to engage with actual science, so the more he reverts to insults, the more he shows how weak, irrelevant and preposterous his comments are.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@lizadowning4389 Sadly he'll be back with another account. I can't be bothered to track such things like other people do but he seems to be linked to a few other names. I don't understand the objective. He's often denying what people literally say.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@CreationMyths He's going to create a channel? Now THAT is funny.

[@shassett79]

​@@CreationMythsReally looking forward to the hard-hitting, fact-based analysis the somebodysdad channel will obviously bring to the platform, lol

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

Interesting note that at least one account decided to removed comments after basic questions for clarification. Perhaps Dr Dan is finally getting the Prof Dave bot treatment.

[@dunno3188]

can't wait to @sombodysdad get same treatment here😂

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@dunno3188 I'm surprised him, trump, and Ed have been given such long leashes.

[@shassett79]

​@@sombodysdad...said the guy who has been brazenly lying about... pretty much everything... for several days lol

[@shassett79]

​@@sombodysdad Tell us again how that contest isn't about the thing in the name of the contest. Remind us how evolution can't be real- while moaning that ID doesn't reject evolution?- because it's _a blind and mInDlEsS pRoCeSs!_

[@shassett79]

​@@sombodysdadNoticeably, you very carefully and deliberately avoid saying how evolution works. I say speciation occurs after an accumulation of random genetic variation makes it impossible for two populations to continue breeding. How does speciation happen in your model?

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

To the shock of no honest people, the negative comments don't address the problem that DI has refuted ID.

[@a2sbestos768]

nuh uh lalalalala

[@fjoell]

This is so beautiful, either they give up on their "there is pretty much no junk DNA" or on intelligent design overall.

[@amadeus_k2466]

Yeah... On the left: a rock. On the right: a hard place.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

And Dan pointed out in a different video that you can't have genetic entropy and zero junk DNA because those ideas conflict. I don't think they've addressed that.

[@speciesspeciate6429]

Dan, are there any laws of evolution? I'm under the impression that there are at least two. The Law of Monophyly and the Law of Biodiversity. But I don't really know if Biodiversity is a Law.

[@greenfloatingtoad]

Oh they're gonna be mad

[@SnoopyDaniels]

Finally got a chance to watch the whole thing and it's even more confused than I expected. How does the existence of some sequences that may be less sequence constrained, or not sequemce constrained at all, in order to produce function, change the fact that there are other sequences that are? That argumemt is completely wild. You don't even appear to know the basic definition of intelligent design. It's the theory that there are *some* features of the natural world (including certain features of livingnthings) that are best explained by a designing intelligence. CSI is a feature that helps us identify examples of such things. If some particular thing is not complex and specified, that doesn't mean that nothing is complex and specified, any more than the fact that some things are not square doesn't mean that all things are not square. If my laptop was infected by a virus and a huge portion of the hard drive was fillled with copies of the virus, or if a file befame corrupted and started making copies of itself, or if large portions of the data bacame scrambled, we wouldn't look at the surviving data and conclude it was random bits. We would conclude that some of the data was corrupted and some of it was produced by intelligent activity. (We would also recognize that the virus was intelligently designed, but that's tangential.) In a program, the ability of a piece of code to perform a function is more or less sequence specific depending upon what it does. If a color definition changes in a business application, nobody may care. Or if an error message is misspelled, nobody may even notice. But if the core business logic changes even slightly, then it can defeat the whole purpose of the application. What we could not conclude based on variations between similar sections of programs that differ without compromising the function of the program noticeably is that the program was not intelligently designed *or even that the similar sections that vary without compromising function* were not intelligently designed. The question of whether or something is junk is related to but not the same as the question of whether it was designed not least because things can degrade over time. I refer back to programming analogies because I'm a software engineer. And I find biology fascinating in no small part because of the analogies that exist between living systems and computer systems.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

So you agree that Luskin needs to change his definition of ID per what the DI just admitted? That's in line with what Dan said in the video.

[@SnoopyDaniels]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime I have no idea what you mean.

[@eholloway1983]

Just because there may be many ways to code for a particular function does not entail the function is unspecified. There are infinitely many ways to write the same operating system, but that doesn't mean we can just churn out random code and expect Microsoft Windows to emerge.

[@CreationMyths]

If a functional region is sequence-independent, is the sequence of that region specified? Also, to your last sentence, that’s…pretty close to what the DI peeps are saying. Especially Dr. Luskin.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

If a function in Windows is coded differently than the same function in Linux, you can't say that the code is function specific. If they want to say that there's multiple ways for the creator to code a function just like in computer languages, then they need to redefine a few concepts in ID.

[@UnKnown-xs7jt]

❤❤❤❤😊

[@HeilPutler-ze9tz]

Natural selection is like believing you could win the lottery every time you bought a ticket 😂😂😂

[@CreationMyths]

Literally the opposite of that. If that was the case, natural selection could never work. Any creations around here actually understand how evolution works? It’s really sad how your creationist teachers have completely failed you.

[@CrushedMGS]

Intelligent design is like believing that all lotteries are rigged because the odds are too low for the winners to have won by chance.

[@CrushedMGS]

​​​@@sombodysdadSorry, it's impossible for anyone to win the lottery by mindless, random processes. Microluck (finding a penny on the ground) is fine, but macroluck has yet to be observed, and you couldn't present evidence for it if your life depended on it. Only a telic process can explain lottery winners: they use telepathic powers to correctly navigate the search space of tickets within days and select the correct numbers. Get an education. Whoops.

[@shassett79]

Natural selection is just a bias for things that tend to survive long enough to reproduce.

[@CrushedMGS]

​​​​@@sombodysdadNever mind that, the point is that you can't produce any evidence for blind and meaningless processes to produce lottery wins if your life depended on it. No one can. We infer that a lottery winner must be purposefully chosen by knowledge of cause and effect. It's impossible for a person to randomly pick a series of six numbers that are a true digital code, which semantically REPRESENT "winning." Winning implies purposeful skill. It can't be random. What's wrong with you? Ouch.

[@johnrap7203]

1rd !

[@CreationMyths]

0_o

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

Assemble your away-team, Number One!

[@johnrap7203]

@@CreationMyths 😆👌 I was actually quite surprised I found no comments. Due to most people having chosen several wrong time zones, I'm usually late to the videos. Ironic, because we here are actually 13-17 hrs in your future. Anyway, I love your work, and I promise to continue to learn more of your wiggly-fuzzy [non-physics] biology and biochemistry. 👍👍

[@SnoopyDaniels]

Also, I don't know you can be making videos claiming to discredit the DI when you don't seem to know what intelligent design even is.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

That's an odd claim since he's quoting them verbatim. Maybe you should watch the video and learn?

[@SnoopyDaniels]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime He's quoting their definition of intelligent design?

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@SnoopyDaniels _"He's quoting their definition of intelligent design?"_ You're admitting that you made a comment about the video without watching it? That's not a sign of honesty or integrity. Why not watch it and see what he actually says? Maybe you'll learn something about the DI that you didn't know or understand.

[@SnoopyDaniels]

​@@NinjaMonkeyPrime Yes. Because I didn't need to. You can't refute intelligent design IN PRINCIPLE by pointing to some feature of an organism or suite of organisms that don't appear to be designed. ID doesn't say EVERYTHING is designed or EVERY FEATURE of every organism is designed. If Dr. D thinks that LINEs refute ID, EVEN IF HE IS SOMEHOW RIGHT ABOUT THEM, then he doesn't even know what ID is.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@SnoopyDaniels _"Yes. Because I didn't need to"_ Thanks for admitting that your comments were based on a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. Most people refuse to admit to that. But the real question is will you admit to being wrong? You made this false claim: _"you don't seem to know what intelligent design even is"_ This is false. Even worse is you just admitted you have no idea what he said or knows. So you not only were wrong about his knowledge, but you accused him of your own immoral behavior of not even knowing what he actually said. But there is only way to fix that and it involves watching the video. Does it bother you that he might be correct about ID? Why not listen to the evidence? Aren't you interested in the truth?

[@JungleJargon]

My responses aren’t being posted… There is still genetic entropy especially in humans. That’s the reason for nonfunctional sequences. There’s not a lot of selection when you don’t reproduce much. There’s not enough time to build a genome structure especially by making mistakes. Humans have lost a lot of their diversity and function. We are losing much more than we are gaining and mistakes don’t explain how structure got there.

[@crimsonking5961]

If genetic entropy was a thing should we see multiple examples of if in single cell organisms which multiply rapidly? Leprosy has been around for 5000 years. Genetic entropy doesn't seem to bother it.

[@Angelmou]

JungleJargon this topic has been debated for years also in Dan's recent video in which you can't have both the "since the sinfall (creation went down the hill)" approach you claim and everything in DNA shall be functional. ID was arguing that everything shall be functional for the "beauty of design" basically. You argue there shall be A LOT of nonfunctional stuff and it shall be degeneration since some sinfall mythological event. This is incompatible with eachother. Especially when both ideas are false by the data. You however have been demonstrated that you do not care about the cold heartless genetic observations if they do steals your little Jesus from your heart. So it makes no sense to even talk to you as you do not care.

[@JungleJargon]

@@crimsonking5961 Genetic entropy is harder on higher life forms like humans. Things also don’t change much.

[@JungleJargon]

@@Angelmou I know everything is not functional. That’s the result of genetic entropy. There are many examples of losing function.

[@Angelmou]

@@JungleJargon And the Intelligent design apologists argued that there shall not be any junk at all, because everything shall be functional glorious design proof as it is with 100% function. This was the topic you did not care about. I know that you do not care about stuff, because we interacted in the past where you just did not read what people write or say. Last time was also where you did run away from dog&wolf mummies and stone age teeth DNA disproof of any entropy claims for a young earth timescale.

[@BMC867]

Because they thought it was worthless to embrace the true knowledge of God, God gave them over to a worthless mindset.

[@shassett79]

God: _[doesn't exist]_ You: You see how wise and just god is!?

[@BMC867]

@@shassett79 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

​@@BMC867Are you implying that the majority of theists who accept evidence from science don't believe in God?

[@BMC867]

​@@NinjaMonkeyPrimeIt is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@BMC867 Man who stands on toilet is high on pot.

[@Brata19]

I wonder if those bookshelfs in the background has no designer?? Surely DNA emerge and evolving just randomly.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

I bet there's a label on the shelf that indicates who the designer was. I wonder if Ra or Brahma signed DNA.

[@CreationMyths]

1. Known human designers 2. Not all evolutionary processes are random. Some are, some aren't. Let's get the basics right first, k?

[@Brata19]

@@CreationMyths 1. Known human designs were being learned and taken from nature, e.g aeroplanes, lenses, software programming, and all human design comes from nature. We, humans reads and learn from the book of nature, then we make "own" design... sounds like plagiarism to me. 2. If it's not random... then beg the question what makes it not random?? Nature it self?? Intelligent and or powerful enough?

[@Brata19]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime You are anthromorphising god, as if god has to sign in pen and paper... that's just childish 😅. Or perhaps you're questioning which god to beleive in? Simple, just one. With all the uniformity and order of the cosmos that can be only one big Boss. The rest (polytheistic) gods are man made. There are multiple choices doesn't mean there's no right answer. At least having an answer (even if not 100% true/false) better than having no / 0 answer (that's atheist/agnostic stance).

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@Brata19 _"You are anthromorphising god, as if god has to sign in pen and paper... that's just childish"_ Actually what I'm doing is pointing out the flaws in assuming a creator. If you claim his shelves were built by Joe, you need to show that not only Joe exists, but that Joe CAN make shelves, AND that Joe DID make those shelves. _"Or perhaps you're questioning which god to beleive in? Simple, just one. With all the uniformity and order of the cosmos that can be only one big Boss. The rest (polytheistic) gods are man made"_ There you go again making wild assumption. Why are you sure there is only one? What evidence is there that the others a false? You're free to believe anything you want but science isn't about faith. _"There are multiple choices doesn't mean there's no right answer. At least having an answer (even if not 100% true/false) better than having no / 0 answer (that's atheist/agnostic stance)"_ Why are bringing atheists into it? Don't you have a bigger problem with theists who don't share you flavor of faith? You don't see a problem with claiming only YOUR god is the correct one and then lumping everyone who follows a different god as atheists? That's not only lying it's really offensive to other theists. But again, what you believe is irrelevant of science. DNA and evolution are science topics that zero holy texts ever addressed. Most theists have zero problems with evolution or genetics. You should consult them for help.