New Study Triggers Key Origin of Life Questions

[@notavailable4891]

I love learning about evolution. The more you know, the less you believe.

[@Belmondo_RH]

"I love learning about evolution." You think you learn somethig about evoution here...on a chammel run by the ill-nmed Discovery Institute? Did they convince you that disproving evolution would add credibility to the idea of a God? Adorable.

[@notavailable4891]

@@Belmondo_RH I learn some things, I read biology research papers too, stuff like that. Evolution has nothing to do with my belief in God. Even if evolution were true, it isn't like you could scientifically prove that God had nothing to do with it. God could have fine tuned biology and physics to make evolution possible, God could have guided the process. It's not possible, in principle, to scientifically prove that God was not involved. And even if you could, there could still be other reasons to believe that God exists and has a hand in creation. So evolution has nothing to do with my theology. I don't believe evolution because the evidence is weak and it requires insanely improbable events that we wouldn't accept in any other field. Besides I could just turn that around on you: Do you need to believe evolution is true and was completely unguided because you don't want to believe in God? Adorable.

[@notavailable4891]

@@Belmondo_RH I respond and my comment disappears. KZbin is amazing. Your own argument works against you: Did you get convinced evolution is true and was not guided by any form of intelligence because it makes it easier to be an atheist? Adorable.

[@polystrate1]

evolution sure is a dumb theory

[@jkovert]

It’s not a “disproving” of evo. It’s just an examination and critique of its assertions.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

When I hear anyone say this or that happened four and a half thousand million years ago I just shake my head and say BS.

[@Belmondo_RH]

Why?

[@KenJackson_US]

@@Belmondo_RH It's clearly all conjecture based in faith.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@KenJackson_US As if all our dating methodes are based in faith....Is that wjaz you mean? Kenny, every time I think you can't get any more "speacial" in your simplicity, you come up with something like this.

[@KenJackson_US]

@@Belmondo_RH : _"As if all our dating methodes are based in faith."_ Clearly YOU have faith in the dating methods that have to be based on assumptions. They can't be calibrated against known old samples. No one was present hundreds of millions of years ago to document the starting daughter element content of the samples. Don't know what "speacial" means, but maybe that's your problem.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@KenJackson_US "Clearly YOU have faith in the dating methods" No Kenny, I just know how they work. As always, there is no need for "faith" when one spends his time in reality. "Don't know what "speacial" means" Add this to your list of things you don't know...

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Among the first thousand prokaryotic genomes that were sequenced, not a single protein coding gene is conserved across all genomes. That puts the kibosh to LUCA

[@chrismessier7094]

=O not one!? =D boooom!!!! XD

[@shipwright6122]

Genesis 1-11 is literal history. The universe is 6000 or so years old! ✝️

[@bobdalton2062]

Glad that this was covered, but it just shows the foolishness of the assumptions. They will either choose to ignore this and bury it or they'll put some kind of goofy happy spin on it

[@Belmondo_RH]

Everyone with even a slight grasp on science chooses to ignore the output of the ill-named Discovery Institute.

[@frosted1030]

"They will either choose to ignore this and bury it or they'll put some kind of goofy happy spin on it" Why do you think the "discovery" institute has not contributed any peer reviewed science? Here's a clue, they are not about the science.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@frosted1030 Indeed...Their "work" consists mostly of lying about science. One of its founders, Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.

[@jayr526]

My name is LUCA, I lived on the ocean floor. I lived way before you. No one's ever seen me before. If you dream something weird, something not right. Just don't ask me what I was. Just don't ask me what I was. Just don't ask, I never was.😢

[@marcomclaurin6713]

LUCA is viable as a genetically superior creature , the same way a poodle comes from a wolf I demonstrate LUCA in my video 'Sound reason' as a seraph

[@rubiks6]

Life was created as described in Genesis. All of the different kinds of creatures were created independently of one another. There is no "last universal common ancestor" but there is a common Designer/Creator.

[@Belmondo_RH]

Science denail and a well proportioned dose of superstition....you found your channel!

[@sabhishek9289]

@@Belmondo_RH ​ Repost: I didn't take it out of context. You can read it with its context that it means that the mother of all humans just lived around 6500ish years ago. Pedigree data is objective as compared to phylogenetic data. Science begins with observation and measurement. Go with the scientific data and not with opinions and speculations.

[@frosted1030]

"but there is a common Designer/Creator" Cite your source, and show us your model.

[@sabhishek9289]

@@frosted1030 There is an entire scientific discipline dedicated to imitating and measuring ID in nature: Biomimicry. ID can be measured based on the utility of the designs in nature.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@sabhishek9289 "There is an entire scientific discipline dedicated to imitating and measuring ID in nature" No there is not...there is just science and pseudoscience...ID is pseudoscience. Appealing to some undetectable intelligence is not an explanation.

[@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi]

He does a good job explaining the “study” and he put caveats on it for the “current” science. LUCA is more believable than “FUCA”.

[@johnglad5]

Blessings

[@blank-964]

👍

[@DanielJames-h9h]

Random speculative projection …

[@IntoAllTruth.]

Our common ancestors are Adam and Eve and Noah.

[@Belmondo_RH]

Let's toss out all scientific discoveries and go back to bronce age mythology.....

[@sabhishek9289]

@@Belmondo_RH ​ I responded to you elsewhere also: "Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only around 6500 years .y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans." - Parsons et al 1997 published inthe journal Nature on Reserch Gate.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@sabhishek9289 The paper you parrot, which gor quotemined by your creationistic source is all about calebrating our measurement methods...the part that your creationistic sources don't want you to see, tell you exactly why 6500ys is bollocks: "Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years. One biologist explained the young age estimate by assuming essentially that 19/20 of the mutations in this control region are slightly harmful and eventually will be eliminated from the population. This seems unlikely, because this region tends to vary a lot and therefore probably has little function. In addition, the selective disadvantage of these 19/20 of the mutations would have to be about 1/300 or higher in order to avoid producing more of a divergence in sequences than observed in longer than 6000 years. This means that one in 300 individuals would have to die from having mutations in this region. This seems like a high figure for a region that appears to be largely without function." - Parsons et al 1997 published inthe journal Nature

[@poliincredible770]

100% correct!!!

[@nigeltremain1900]

@@Belmondo_RH Everything in the Bible from King David on, was the Iron Age. Ironwork was also recorded during the patriarchs' time in the Bible. You have just exposed your ignorance.

[@DanielJames-h9h]

Speculative Projection …

[@firecloud77]

Carl Sagan had great faith in his creation myth, which he presented to the world as though it were scientific fact, not an hypothesis. *_"We have previously found that the steps necessary for the origin of life seem to be very easy - requires only the most common cosmic conditions. We know that for evolution we need time, but we have a lot of time. There are stars which are twice as old as the sun. We know the development of intelligence, the evolution of our kind of thinking on the earth, has taken a long time to come into being. But it has come into being only half way through the history of the sun. And other things being equal, it is probably better to be smart than to be stupid." --Carl Sagan_*

[@Belmondo_RH]

Nothing about this quote, or anything Carl Sagan has ever said or done, gives credit or adds credibility to the mythology "genesis"

[@firecloud77]

@@Belmondo_RH Nothing Carl Sagan ever said or did establishes Genesis as "mythology."

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@firecloud77 Genesis is a mythology...period. This fact does not need Carl Sagan in any way. The events as described in Genesis , never happened. Glad I could help you with this!

[@firecloud77]

@@Belmondo_RH Nothing you've ever said or did establishes Genesis as "mythology." I am happy to point out the obvious.

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@Belmondo_RH "Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only around 6500 years .y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans." - Parsons et al 1997 published inthe journal Nature on Reserch Gate.

[@valerieprice1745]

We don't observe a tree of life. We observe an orchard of life. Dogs have puppies, cats have kittens, apes have apes, and humans have humans. Plants don't have puppies. Humans don't have kittens. Apes don't have humans. That's what we observe. Evolution and deep time are Freemason, Islamo-fascist mythology.

[@GeorgeSchumpf]

I think I have heard evidence in the past that. Both the host and the guest are sincere believers. This is the first time that i've heard you categorically embrace the long ages theoretical construct. I respect your education, experience and perspectives, but I have trouble with the long ages, because of noah's flood. Understanding that noah's flood was truly global and violently catastrophic, I cannot see the geologic column as a history of Earth's eons of time, but rather the history of a little more than one year. I see it as a history of noah's flood. And the global catastrophic flood that I understand Noah's flood to be would have destroyed any so called geologic column, representing eons of time. I assume you would interpret Noah's flood to be figurative or localized. Is that a fair conclusion? I would love to know what you feel are the strongest disproofs of a worldwide, truly global catastrophic flood. I do not ask in order to argue. I ask because I want to understand how genuine people like yourselves who have the tools and the experience to weigh in on this with the authority that comes with those accomplishments as well as a faith in the Scriptures. Maybe the first question would be, would you agree that if the story of Noah's flood is depicting literal events and if it was truly global, that it would have to be violently catastrophic? Then I think the next question I'd like to here addressed is, could a geologic column survive such a catastrophic global flood? Maybe there is some material you could refer me to that would help me understand your point of view. I have read enough of Dr Hugh Ross to categorically reject his explanations. Do you have any fresh ideas I could consider? Can anyone suggest some fresh ideas I could consider? Thank you

[@Belmondo_RH]

"I think I have heard evidence in the past that. Both the host and the guest are sincere believers. " This entire channel is run by a christian propaganda mill.

[@Belmondo_RH]

"....but I have trouble with the long ages, because of noah's flood. " That is easy to solve....Noas flood never happened. Glad I could help!

[@GeorgeSchumpf]

@Belmondo_RH on what basis do you make that claim that Noah's flood never happened? Do you have evidence. Simply making huge claims doesn't, "as you say, "help.:

[@GeorgeSchumpf]

@Belmondo_RH I asked you what evidence you have that Noah's flood never happened. You are silent. Are you busy compiling the overwhelming data? Here is one evidence FOR Noah's flood...water laid sediments sometimes a mile thick, sometimes continent size

[@robertbeniston]

The problem is:Evolution is not true to begin with,so all this reasoning is. talking hot air about imagination. You might just as well be talking about noddy and big ears town and where it can be found on earth.

[@Belmondo_RH]

"Evolution is not true to begin with" What made you draw that conclusion?

[@robertbeniston]

@@Belmondo_RH Science and common-sense: The complexity of the cell [even the simple cell- they say a cell is like a modern city with transport systems and so on] The idea that certain chemicals came together and started the cell which then fed itself and reproduced is unproven [ no one has created a cell in a lab or explained how it could have happened-they just say it did-belief], It is in effect impossible. The idea that chemicals can change [especially slowly over long periods of time] with the result that different organisms can come about is also unproven, and if you consider what would be involved during the process while keeping the organism alive and functioning while it changes, it would be impossible. Consider the difference between the avian lung and the mammalian lung for example. We are talking reality here and what is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics. There are a lot of worldview beliefs on earth either Atheistic or Theistic, evolution is one such belief. Believing the Bible, or Koran are others. Proving a belief scientifically is another matter and evolution has not been proved and is fraught with difficulties as to how it was possible. People believe evolution because they want to and need to for how they wish to view reality.

[@mizz308]

@@Belmondo_RHyou’re under every comment looking being condescending looking for a debate. Why are you here? Why are y’all always so miserable?

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@@mizz308Should people allow creationists to spread their nonsense?

[@Belmondo_RH]

Intelligent Design explains nothing..It's just appealing to a fantasy.

[@sabhishek9289]

There are entire scientific fields dedicated in imitating and measuring intelligent design: Biomimicry and Bioinformatics

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@sabhishek9289 "There are entire scientific fields dedicated in imitating and measuring intelligent design" Well, it's just science making clear that everyone knows ID is pseudoscience...which it is. If you disagree then please tell me how appealing to an ill-defined "intelligence which apparently is not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science..is explaining anything. This is also reflected in the fact that ID has as of yet contributed NOTHING to out understanding of nature. In fact, ID is on par with claimig: Some sort of magic happened.

[@frosted1030]

@@sabhishek9289 "There are entire scientific fields dedicated in imitating and measuring intelligent design" Then you should have no problem citing a peer reviewed paper published in a credible scientific journal on the subject of creationism. But you can't. Why do you suppose creationism fails peer review every time?

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@frosted1030 There are creati0nist papers in the reputed scientific literature. Here are some that come to mind: A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918 Robert W Carter & John C Sanford Sand injectites at the base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona (USA) Author links open overlay panel John H. Whitmore a , Ray Strom b 1

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@frosted1030 Yes, there are papers published: A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918 Robert W Carter & John C Sanford Sand injectites at the base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona (USA) Author links open overlay panel John H. Whitmore a , Ray Strom b 1 How Multifunctioning Joints Produce Highly Agile Limbs in Animals with Lessons for Robotics by Stuart C. Burgess