Was Your Body Intelligently Designed?

[@theophilusmann7869]

"How hard are you willing to work to avoid the obvious" - David Berlinksi. At 20:11, you can see what the obvious looks like on a single slide. Nice presentation.

[@tylerreed3754]

Love the quote from Berlinski!

[@damo780]

As a 65 year old biologist, I learned this. The design in ecosystems is simply mind boggling as we start to understand it with better measuring tools

[@Truthispower701]

I always keep in mind one astounding fact to destroy the evolution argument. Haemoglobin, as discussed in this video, is the protein based molecule used by the body to carry oxygen around the blood to the cells. To make a haemoglobin protein you need to string 520 amino acids together in the right order. There are 20 different known amino acids. The chance of forming haemoglobin is infinitely small, estimated to be a 1 with 190 noughts after it! [17] This astonishing number was named ‘The Haemoglobin Number’ by Isaac Asimov. These odds are just the basic maths chance without considering a mechanism to link them together. Haemoglobin actually has 4 protein strings. It is, in reality, impossible and this is just one protein created just once! If you seek the maker of our bodies you will find him because he exists! God is real and if you call on him to reveal himself to you then he will lead you to believe on his son Jesus Christ because as Jesus said, no man can come to the Father except through him. The reason? Jesus, the son of God, died on the cross for you to deal with the sin problem that separated you from a holy God. See John 3:16 in you new testament.

[@thiagopratezi2130]

i always like to think of evolution as the moment where Jesus grabbed some clay from the ground, sculpted and breathed life into it. if an already precise, small but intricately designed creature was created simply by the Lord's touch, what's avoiding him from changing us? we're that same sort of clay, but we don't harden. we're always constsntly being shaped and scultped by our Lord, beyond our level of comprehension, but enough to know that we are, in fact, being architected.

[@dannyhernandez265]

What you said still doesn’t prove that there’s a creator. Even if there was he doesn’t seem to care about what happens here on the planet.

[@stukennedy195]

I love the problem of energy (ATP) … which all life needs. How do you evolve ATP and ATPase (needed to trigger the targeted release of energy) when the very first cell would need to have these?

[@zachreyhelmberger894]

Interesting factoid: There are about 100 nano-moles of ATP per liter of blood. The heart pumps 2,000 gallons/day (7,570 liters/day). A mole of ATP weighs 241 grams. So the amount of ATP transported in the blood/day is about 200 milligrams/day. The body produces about 100 pounds of ATP/day (45 Kg/day)!! So about 0.0004% of that ATP is transported via blood. SO HOW DOES 100 LBS OF ATP GET TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED IN THE CELLS OF YOUR BODY?!

[@billbaldwin3564]

There are plausible theories about how ATP evolved. But unlike theists scientists don’t feel the need to pretend they have the answers for everything all neatly wrapped up in something simple which explains everything before they actually have evidence for it. Because you can’t imagine how ATP could have evolved and just accepting that as a conclusion and reason to simply reject evolutionary theory before you’ve examined the conclusive evidenced we do have for it is irrational in the extreme.

[@pimplecheese337]

@@billbaldwin3564 Honest question, what is the evidence for it?

[@nunca789]

@@billbaldwin3564 Your comment began a thought with: "Because you can’t imagine how ATP could have evolved..." The presentation here is not saying the doctor and engineer "can't imagine" something. The presentation steps through what is needed for the metabolism to work, shows which elements must already be working well before anything works, and describes how ATP (and the subsystems making and using it) must exist before the ATP can even be made. In fact, there is not "conclusive evidence" showing that all biological systems comprised of integrated subsystems evolved by neo-Darwinian processes -- quite the contrary. Are you familiar with the British Royal Society, the organization once chaired by Sir Isaac Newton? At the November 16, 2016, Royal Society conference, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the first presentation, given by Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller, included his brief list of holes in the neo-Darwinian theory: “[I]t has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior - whose variation it describes - actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.” This KZbin presentation zeroes in on several of the holes Prof. Muller pointed out at the conference. Unless Prof. Muller was "irrational in the extreme" speaking to the Royal Society, it appears the critiques of the standard evolutionary model are greatly undermining its claim to ultimate settled truth. And this quote from Muller is just the beginning.

[@globalcoupledances]

ATP is synthesis happens in the cell, no blood needed. No ID needed, just mutation and if it leads to better survival it is selected to survive

[@ammaralado5930]

Thank you for this great presentation . I am a pediatrician and I agree with all the concepts that are presented in this talk . If I could be of any help, feel free to contact me

[@WilliamRuppelt]

I love the closing comments: maybe it's time to come home! Amen.

[@SOLI.DEO.GLORIAA]

Fantastico trabalho! Good job! 👏👏👏👏👏

[@caroleevandyk5544]

When l was in high school, being a pretty good student, l was duped into thinking evolution was true, as l trusted that what l was taught would be the truth. Oops, big mistake. But one only learns that later. When l was in nursing training, after a semester of fetal embryology, l suddenly realized that l did not have enough faith to believe that the staggering complexity of a developing baby human could happen through chance mutation and natural selection. As l learned later, natural selection might explain the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest. And that course in university was in 1978. So much more has been discovered since, which makes the picture even more complex. Yet for years after coming to a measure of faith in the God of the bible, the condescending arguments of evolutionists would rattle me, as l desperately wanted to be assured that the God of scripture is real and true, as thinking l was an accident of nature with no meaning or purpose other than to exist for a few years and everything just ends in loss and death was so depressing. I admit it. I need a crutch to get through this difficult life. Thank God He designed us to need Him. Hearing presentations like this are thrilling.

[@waeldaboul6136]

A new batch and even a large dose in the framework of intelligent design. It is the process of moving in the meaning of (fine tuning) from celestial bodies in cosmos to nature and then to man. This fine tuning that is amazingly apparent in humans and which scientists are now talking about is, of course, a new refute of Darwinism. It is impossible, in the sense of the word impossible, for the emergence and advancement of living creatures to occur according to Darwinism and evolution, starting from the simplest lowest towards the most complex. This is simply because most of the matter in these weak hypotheses requires the presence of an absent element that cannot be recovered by these theories, which is comprehensive programming to reach an Integrated system . Of course, in order for this to happen, according to Darwinism, it requires the introduction of a scientifically unacceptable element, which is (magic and sorcery),. No one claiming to be scientist can accept this proposal. My heartfelt congratulations to you for this scientific progress and for further progress.

[@ammaralado5930]

I am glad to see people from Middle Eastern background who are interested Critiquing the evolution theory

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

These are the same thoroughly debunked arguments that have been made by ID proponents for years, just slightly repackaged. The complexity of biological systems and the appearance of fine-tuning can be explained by natural processes. Natural selection acts over vast timescales to “fine-tune” organisms to their environments, resulting in adaptations that enhance survival and reproductive success. How does your theory explain apparent suboptimal design? Many biological features are far from optimal; they carry vestiges of their evolutionary past, which is inconsistent with the idea of a perfect designer. For example, the human spine is poorly designed for bipedalism, leading to a high frequency of back pain. Complexity in biology often emerges incrementally. Simple structures can evolve into complex systems through a series of gradual modifications, each conferring some advantage, even if that advantage is not apparent when considering the system as a whole. Evolution often produces redundant and robust features, which can later be co-opted for new functions (exaptation). This versatility allows for the development of complex structures over time, like the mammalian middle ear bones evolving from jawbones in reptilian ancestors. The argument that if Darwinian evolution cannot currently explain every aspect of complexity, it must be incomplete or wrong is incorrect. Scientific understanding is always provisional and subject to refinement with new evidence; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many natural phenomena once attributed to supernatural causes have been explained by naturalistic mechanisms as scientific knowledge has advanced. There’s no reason to assume that the remaining gaps in our understanding of the evolution of complex systems won’t be similarly closed. A scientific hypothesis is valuable if it is testable and capable of being falsified. Evolution by natural selection has been continually tested and supported by a wide array of evidence. In contrast, intelligent design does not offer testable predictions or mechanisms. Evolution is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence from fields such as paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, and embryology. The convergence of evidence from these diverse fields is a fantastic argument for the theory’s validity. Modern evolutionary theory has evolved significantly since Darwin’s original formulation. It now incorporates insights from genetics, molecular biology, and a better understanding of ecological and environmental dynamics, offering robust explanations for the development of complex biological systems.

[@nunca789]

@@Shoerandomcanoe Are you familiar with the British Royal Society, the organization once chaired by Sir Isaac Newton? At the November 16, 2016 Royal Society conference, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the first presentation, given by Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller, included his brief list of holes in the neo-Darwinian theory: “[I]t has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior - whose variation it describes - actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.” royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

[@nunca789]

@@Shoerandomcanoe In the same Royal Society presentation, Prof. Muller listed whole categories of problems with neo-Darwinian theory as identified by scientists and thinkers in the field: "[A] growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28-31]. None of these contentions are unscientific…” (All the numbers point to citations in Muller's the published paper.) Your comment's claims that neo-Darwinian evolution explains how new biological hardware and software arise and work seamlessly together by accident. Yet the experts (see above in my reply comments) don't say that. Moreover, the evolution theory has no explanation for the engineering of a system of integrated subsystems, as this KZbin presentation discusses in detail. Your contention that the ID critique has been "thoroughly debunked" lacks support, given that even the evolutionary biologists agree there are many problems with it, not just details, foundationally.

[@rwatson2609]

One of my hobbies is electronics, and microcontroller designed devices. I program or build these little simplistic devices, such as a GPS tracker using a language called Assembly Language. So simply put, I have some level of understanding of systems and how they work, but to be honest, my general knowledge of how these simple devices that I build pale in comparison to how the body and all of its integrated systems harmoniously work together. I am dumbfounded as to how it works and how it came about. I know that if there is just one mistake I my hardware or software, my gadget that I'm building will not work. I even am starting my electronic projects with a huge amount of industry supplied hardware, like the microcontroller chip with all of its complexity, so if I thought that I was starting with the building blocks of technology, that would not be true. And life is so so so much more complicated than an electronic gadget. How you convey this concept to a non-engineer is beyond me. From my point in life I can get a glimpse of the problem, but from the view of never having to solve basic systems problems, it is not grasped or understood to the depth that would change a view point.

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

It makes sense that you don’t really understand it, it is not your field. However scientists that work in the fields of abiogenesis, systems chemistry, microbiology, etc. understand it well. To say that you have designed a circuit or an electronic system which gives you a good understanding of systems that can then be extrapolated to the origin of life research is either beyond arrogant or very misinformed. A lot of the research is already published, as an engineer who is taught to think critically I hope you spend some time on good scholar in the near future. Now that I think about it computers are a pretty good parable for evolution, the first living organism and analog computer were incredibly basic compared to what we have today. Slowly over time they improved. Instead of life getting improved by humans making scientific breakthroughs like computers, it improved because the unfit ones were killed. Not a perfect analogy but something to consider when trying to wrap your head around the rudimentary systems becoming more complex.

[@nunca789]

@@Shoerandomcanoe In other comments to you I've supplied the quotes and references from evolutionary biologists confirming that the "slowly improved over time" model fails. The evolutionary paradigm must explain the undirected creation of hardware-software systems that work perfectly immediately -- and must explain how undirected modifications of software will occur precisely to match undirected hardware modifications in the supposed history of evolution. As this KZbin presentation squarely frames, the evolutionary theory must explain how undirected forces acting upon matter can engineer systems of integrated subsystems. Steve Laufmann's discussion of the cascade of problems that an engineer must solve to produce a fully working human body. And that is not to mention the task of engineering a system that can reproduce itself in its entirety and have it work immediately and correctly.

[@AllanChiulli]

A

[@rlunnerstall3527]

Thank YOU

[@jIMwILLIAMS-im7kk]

Your only other option is to claim design is an illusion while,all scientific endeavor and all technology industries,engineering and medical fields operate on the clear discernable design. How illogical is that!!?

[@rlunnerstall3527]

Thank YOU, praying your book and lectures get read and heard by many. The truth is so much better then the lies we were taught.

[@lostat400]

What amazes me is that more people are not paying attention to this stuff. God/Darwinism defines who we are.

[@CastIronGinger]

Lol the atheist should look at this, the human body, & all its systems and say “Ok, I get it whens the next available church service?” It’s an unmistakable fact that we are made in the image of God, fearfully and wonderfully made just like it says in the Bible. Thank you for this amazing video! It’s One of my favorite science channels!

[@mirandahotspring4019]

It must have been a real crap god! Approximately 64% of adults use some form of vision correction. Up to 10% of children aged 2 to 5 have untreated cavities. More than half of adolescents aged 12 to 19 have had a cavity in at least one of their permanent teeth. One quarter of adults aged 20 to 64 have untreated cavities. Back pain is one of the most common reasons people seek medical help or miss work. Back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Around 20% of people experience hip pain during their lives, with about 2.5% of the population needing hip replacement surgery after age 60. So if we're made in god's image I imagine a bent over shuffling old god with poor vision and bad oral health.

[@BangMaster96]

@@mirandahotspring4019 There is a creator. Why is there suffering? I don't have an answer to that. But, if you going to believe that all of this immense complexity just happened within a span of couple billion years, give the tiny atomic level probabilities, then you are putting faith in an even more absurd causation to our origins. I know God is an absurd concept to atheists, why would God create a world, why would God allow suffering, why would God do anything at all. The fact is, we Human Beings don't have the ability to answer these questions. The fact of the matter still is, the Universe and Life look very fine tuned and intelligently designed for it all to be just a mere accident. The probabilities just don't make sense here.

[@KenJackson_US]

Ah, _you're_ looking at the _details_ of life. But if we _only_ listen to those who have faith that all life evolved from a microbe, and if we _don't_ analyze the details of life and _don't_ think about it too much, then evolution from a microbe makes good sense.

[@saifuddinlakdawala8988]

Zygote is smaller than the microb you are talking about. They have gone much higher than what you want to understand which you don't want to understand. Animals don't have to learn such things.

[@dennissprague2572]

You could say the same about listening only to those who believe that chaos organized itself into order. I’d say ID makes much better sense.

[@bobdalton2062]

The devil that destroys the theory of Evolution is the details. You just can't sweep them under the rug and be an honest scientist. You can choose to be a dishonest scientist by ignoring all the facts

[@globalcoupledances]

@@saifuddinlakdawala8988 a zygote is an eukaryote. Bacteria are prokaryotes, usually smaller

[@cptrikester2671]

Great presentation. The 'Science' people always try to remove God / Creator from the system. Perhaps it is just their resistance, due to the implications. Thereby comfort, by calling it 'luck'. A real physiological problem.

[@TheDjnatronic]

People don’t want to believe in God because they want to pretend they are God

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

Or because some people require evidence of something existing before believing it exists

[@mwils51]

@@Shoerandomcanoe Overwhelming and obvious evidence is all around us. Creation is the only openly honest conclusion. Creation itself is evidence of the creator. It is just as obvious as looking at a building and knowing it had a builder and is not of purely natural causes. Do you have to go down to city hall and view the records of a building before you believe it was built? I don't know about you but it is obvious to me a building had a builder just because it is there.

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

⁠@@mwils51 Creationists say this kind of stuff all the time, do you genuinely not see a problem with an analogy that implies the entire universe “logically speaking” was probably designed because of the existence of buildings? The analogy just doesn’t apply. I know that you are going to deny everything I’m about to say but between abiogenesis, systems chemistry, and evolution we have a pretty good understanding of how life got to be where it is today. Please I implore you just go read some of the primary literature. Even if you only read the abstracts, it is incredibly interesting.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@mwils51 Dumb argument! Buildings are, by our own experience, man made structures.

[@Alien1375]

God: "Let's intelligently create the human body". *Creates appendix.

[@eramati]

When I see innumerable ingenious complex systems working perfectly, I find it more realistic and modest to believe that there may be somethings we don't understand yet than that the whole thing is pure chance...

[@Papa-dopoulos]

We will stop fallaciously saying that you believe we directly descended from apes if you will stop inserting the assumption that a perfect being has no instrumental use for imperfection. What do you say lol, fair trade?

[@johnroemeeks]

I don't get it

[@jackreacher3499]

Appendix has immunological function.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Creates over 60% of the people who as an adult population will need vision correcting lenses.

[@guytitanic]

Its Alive!

[@claudiozanella256]

Yes, very intelligently.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

So, never knew anyone who needs glasses, treatment for back pain, or oral health care?

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

Was your tapeworm intelligently designed?

[@mwils51]

Yes it was. Tapeworms only entered the body after sin entered creation. Just because the creation is fallen doesn't mean it wasn't first created.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@mwils51 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@RussellFineArt]

As religious believers, we should fully admit to and accept evolution, micro-evolution, or adaptation to environment and resources (food, medicine.) And we should also fully accept the fact that Earth is billions of years old and that millions of different species have come and gone on our Earth. And accept that our human bodies were carefully designed and created by God, our Heavenly Father, with a man and woman placed on Earth, in a carefully prepared garden, to survive, and soon after, their grandchildren and great grandchildren, built their first civilization in Sumer, and progressed from there, to today. Science and religion should go together, hand in hand, as perfect compliments.

[@WilliamRuppelt]

Your mixing oil and water. Just not possible.

[@kuhatsuifujimoto9621]

they really don't though. You prioritize one or another. Did death enter the world after adam and eve, or did death create adam and eve? where do you put the asterisk, human understanding or scripture? i studied biology, and the more i learned, the less the evolutionary paradigm made sense.

[@globalcoupledances]

I think that "our human bodies were carefully" selected by natural selection

[@pascalguerandel8181]

No it wasn't...carbon base sucks!

[@monporoshneog4725]

brilliant minds honest people .thank you