Surviving the Daily DNA Apocalypse: The Hidden Drama Inside Your Cells

Join the channel to help us make more videos:
/ @longstoryshortvideos

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

List of References 1. a. Lindahl T. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature, 1993; 362: 709-715. b. Lindahl T, Nyberg B. Rate of depurination of native deoxyribonucleic acid. Biochemistry, 1972; 11:3610-3618. c. Lindahl T. DNA repair enzymes acting on spontaneous lesions in DNA. In: DNA Repair Processes, W. Nichols and D. Murphy, Editors. 1977, Miami: Symposia Specialists. 225-240. 2. Ames BN, Shigenaga MK, Hagen TM. Oxidants, antioxidants, and the degenerative diseases of aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1993; 90:7915-7922. 3. Tice, R. and R. Setlow, DNA repair and replication in aging organisms and cells, in Handbook of the Biology of Aging, E. Finch and E. Schneider, Editors. 1985, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 173-224. 4. Haber, J. E., DNA recombination: the replication connection.Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 1999; 24:271-275. 5. a. Keiler KC, Feaga HA. Resolving nonstop translation complexes is a matter of life or death. Journal of Bacteriology 2014; 196:2123-2130. b. Ishimura R, Nagy G, Dotu I, Zhou H, Yang XL, Schimmel P, Senju S, Nishimura Y, Chuang JH, Ackerman SL. Ribosome stalling induced by mutation of a CNS-specific tRNA causes neurodegeneration. Science 2014; 345:455-459. c. Houseley J and Tollervey D. The many pathways of RNA degradation. Cell 2009; 136:763-776. 6. Dianov G and Lindahl T. Reconstitution of the DNA base excision-repair pathway. Current biology 1994; 4:1069-1076. The specific enzymes responsible for Base Excision Repair vary slightly between different forms of life. Some organisms require only 4 enzymes, but the main point stands - thousands of letters of DNA code are required for the repair mechanisms to exist. 7. Gene sizes found on: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/947067, taken from E. coli. ung (uracil DNA glycosylase): 896 nt; Nfo (endonuclease IV) 858 nt RecJ exonuclease: 1734 nt www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/947367. polymerase A: 2787 nt. ligase A: 2016 nt. = 8291 nt total, not including the 100+ genes needed to manufacture proteins. 8.Eigen, M. Self-organization of matter and evolution of biological macromolecules. Naturwissenschaften, 1971; 58:465-523. 9. Yan LL, Zaher HS. How do cells cope with RNA damage and its consequences? J Biol Chem, 2019; 294:15158-15171. 10. And, there are many other required recognition, recycling, and repair mechanisms. We didn’t even touch on the required mechanisms to correct for production of toxic substances through side reactions or spontaneous chemistry. If you’d like to know more, see Haas D. et al. Metabolite damage and damage control in a minimal genome. Computational Biology, 2022; 13:1-16. 11. *Or label all good molecules to protect them from destruction (i.e., methylation of DNA) 12. Ito K, Chadani Y, Nakamori K, Chiba S, Akiyama Y, Abo T. Nascentome analysis uncovers futile protein synthesis in Escherichia coli. PLoS One, 2011; 6:e28413. dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028413. 13. Keiler KC, Feaga HA. Resolving nonstop translation complexes is a matter of life or death. Journal of Bacteriology, 2014; 196:2123-2130. 14. a. Keiler KC, Feaga HA. Resolving nonstop translation complexes is a matter of life or death. Journal of Bacteriology, 2014; 196:2123-2130. b. Ishimura R, Nagy G, Dotu I, Zhou H, Yang XL, Schimmel P, Senju S, Nishimura Y, Chuang JH, Ackerman SL. RNA function. Ribosome stalling induced by mutation of a CNS-specific tRNA causes neurodegeneration. Science, 2014; 345:455-459. c. Houseley J and Tollervey D. The many pathways of RNA degradation. Cell, 2009; 136:763-776. 15. a. Rawlings ND, Barrett AJ, Thomas PD, Huang X, Bateman A, Finn RD. The MEROPS database of proteolytic enzymes, their substrates and inhibitors in 2017 and a comparison with peptidases in the PANTHER database. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46: D624-D632. doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1134 b. Rawlings ND, Bateman A. How to use the MEROPS database and website to help understand peptidase specificity. Protein Sci, 2021; 30: 83-92. doi.org/10.1002/pro.3948. 16. Mackie GA. RNase E: at the interface of bacterial RNA processing and decay. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2013; 11:45-57.

[@Professordowney]

with all the origin of life, God believer intelligent design scientists, on one side. and you on the other side. your side is still heavier. although you get your information from those scientists and research papers, but they all combined do not have as much impact, as you are putting. you are the OG creationism populist.

[@repairstudio4940]

The human body, an evolutionary masterpiece. 😏 🧬

[@repairstudio4940]

​@@Professordowneythis is replicable even in the lowest forms of life in which we can literally watch evolve in a lab. Impressive evolutionary mechanics but nothing nuance here. This rides the 'this can't be first' fence and unless you dive into microbiology of RNA and proteins as observed for many years and thousands of scientific data and tests ran and re-ran to come to the real consensus that evolution is a fact. Eh ...but this is served to those with less understanding of the science. Entertaining nonetheless ...kudos for that. 🍻

[@chrismessier7094]

@@repairstudio4940 lol! XD first commenter to not watch the video

[@repairstudio4940]

@@chrismessier7094 unlikely.

[@lovewillbeourhome]

That last comment was very important! "DNA was designed with the EXPECTATION that errors would happen. As well as the FORESIGHT to be able to be fixed."

[@DolioFoilio]

😂😂😂😂😂 this was such a joy to watch. Unbelievable production quality!!! Make more, more!

[@Thealphabethas11letters.]

I’m more excited for a new long story short video than some artist I like dropping a abulm

[@drachelp-wv7tj]

hey, i don't know if you'll read this but i just wanted somewhere to express my feelings. before i discovered your channel i was partially mentally unstable due to so many videos and so many people ridiculing religion. i was struggling and questioning myself if i was just stupid like most people say because of my belief. but even though it was tough, i didn't give up and tried to ignore their words for so long. Due to so many people telling me i'm wrong i almost came to believe that i was wrong and almost thought that life was pointless. I was holding onto my belief by a thin thread. However when i saw your channel i was so happy. The things you mentioned and explained were so helpful and logical to me i don't know how to express how happy i was to discover these videos. I feel so much smarter now and feel so much more determined in my belief now. I wouldn't know how i would have turned out if I didn't accidentally stumble on your channel. It's a shame that your channel is so small. I'm imagining how other people like me could exist without being able to find your channel due to it's small size. They don't realize how they are being manipulated into discarding their belief. It feels so frustrating. Your channel should get more views. More people should get to know the truth. It feels good to let all of this out

[@Daily-PE]

I am in the same boat, were I had no idea to explain evolution before I found this channel. If you are a Christian like me remember that Jesus said that (if the world hates you, remember that the world hated me too) or something really close to that. I know that it is hard with people calling us dumb and such, but we can go through this with God and logical reasoning. I do know of a good channel called "Cold Case Christianity" that talks with logical reasoning of why the bible is true and the cases for God.

[@drachelp-wv7tj]

@@Daily-PE Well i'm not necessarily of Christian belief but I still agree with you to some extent. I find it better to be religious and have hope, rather than be hopeless and depressed and think that everything is pointless. so just keep hanging on hope and don't despair!

[@OrthoFireCrusader]

@@Daily-PE logical reasoning to study God is a hoax. theology (study of God) is only taught by God himself when he reveals himself to the soul leaving no doubt beside. brother if you want t know Christ directly by yourself or other dont neglect the Church our Lord built, meaning the Orthodox Church. there you will come to know God through the map and solutions that the Church offers

[@messed1381]

@@drachelp-wv7tj Read the Quran.

[@jray1429]

You have such wonderful videos! Great mixture of humor and explanation. Simply Marvelous.

[@pigzcanfly444]

I so badly want to see a video on chiral induced spin selectivity or at least one that covers it as part of the topic. I know you have a lot of work to do and youre already working on plenty of other projects. I just hope that people start to see how ridiculous the nuts and bolts of life truly are.

[@DepletedUrbranium]

I see James Tour is getting his work done🎉

[@ferrr5616]

Gracias a una recomendación que diste sobre stairway to life, y a muchos de tus comentarios, me motivaste a estudiar más del tema, he leído varios libros ya, he estado leyendo múltiples publicaciones, videos y documentos cientificos de James Tour, William Dembski, Douglas Axe, Brian Miller, Rob stadler, y ATEOS como Benner, (paradojas sobre el Origen de la vida) Robert Shapiro y muchos otros, y gracias a eso estoy escribiendo mi propio libro sobre el origen de la vida con un resumen de lo mejor que he visto a mi criterio, es un tema fascinante.

[@GhostBearCommander]

I was always told that if I studied science enough, I would end up discarding my Faith in God… …All these years later, here I am with a career in Med Lab Science, and the wonders of Biology have only served as confirmation of what I already knew. If Science is meant to replace faith, then why does it so heavily bolster mine?

[@tarod3]

The suggestion that science is MEANT to replace faith leaves me doubting that you are a scientist of any kind. Science is not a religion any more than color theory or formal logic. It’s a way of understanding the world.

[@MariankGonzalez]

@@tarod3 He's talking about the strong Darwinian narrative of making people atheist.

[@tarod3]

@@MariankGonzalez you mean a preponderance of evidence contradicting young earth creationism isn’t just the state of reality, but a complicated plot to deceive you with lies?

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@MariankGonzalez There is no narrative to make people atheistic. It is simply the realisation that the universe came about through naturalistic means that drives people towards atheism.

[@frankieandtheflowers]

I think a lot of scientists feel the same ❤

[@shrimpytcoon]

bad news. now i have to think

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

I hope your research leads you to understanding evolution!

[@RivBank-o3j]

man that was just your whole fucking highlight of school oh no I have to think😂😂😂😂💀💀💀💀

[@shepishv3113]

You're the reason why i love biology. literally if someone asks why im so passionate about biology imma show them this channel. Thank you for inspiring a lot of people with your work, long story short. Edit: Props to the artist/editor. Love the animations lol

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

It is so unfortunate that you enjoy Biology by learning it from creationists. Perhaps you should also study how evolution explains these mechanisms, not "intelligent design"!

[@nulusiii480]

Evolution doesn't explain how theses mecanisms emerged @@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440

[@citationsloth]

Have you checked out stated clearly This place Etc This channel is a propaganda channel no bueno Will leave you lacking in your understanding and lost of assumptions are made

[@nulusiii480]

@@citationsloth stated clearly is clueless and doesnt know What hes talking about

[@citationsloth]

@@nulusiii480 is that so Can you give an example ? That’s how I feel about this channel lots of assumptions and jumping the gun

[@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado]

Nice, a new video spontaneously congealed.

[@ObaidahNaseer]

no no, it came about via an AI model which creates and keeps improving the video. The AI model itself came about from a computer program which improves and advances itself. This all started on a computer which was created by a thunderbolt hitting a rock made up of different materials which happened to be in the correct position and amount. The energy was lucky supplied by eels constantly electrifying the water which had a power connection to the lightening-created computer.

[@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado]

@@ObaidahNaseer to be fair it started as a seiko calculator which then evolved into the ai computer. We know it started as a seiko calculator as they require primitive intelligence to press the buttons.

[@MLeoM]

Makers of these videos are just intelligent + humorous! Dang!

[@danielhudon9456]

I think you mean pathetic + misleading. But it sure fools a lot of people into thinking that ID is an alternative to the theory of evolution when instead it’s merely pseudoscience. It (ID)has been soundly refuted in the scientific literature and yet channels like this keep repeating their claims as if they’re true when they aren’t. It’s all just bad logic.

[@ungmd21]

Love these videos. I am a physician (42 years of practice) I can vouch as to the validity of these posts. There are medical conditions that have defects in the excision/repair mechanism of DNA. My job is to try to understand and maintain or repair these processes. I eventually fail but the fact that people are living up to 100 years old is incredible even with medical help

[@citationsloth]

But can you vouch for his claim that the first cell used this method ?

[@android4754]

@@citationsloth We literally have no evidence that the first cell was any simpler and have no model of how it could realistically be simpler. The burden of proof is not on the video maker. It has to be demonstrated and all that has been given is possibilities and conjecture that life was simpler without considering the numerous problems involved with such a conjecture.

[@citationsloth]

@@android4754 As have evidence and a model You should look into it with a open mind and consider are we getting closer it Essentially we have steps 123_56_89 Using the rna world hypothesis you have evolution of rna chain Producing membranes and parts for self reproduction You should know this if your gonna defend your position you should fully understand the opposing side position otherwise your not doing anyone any good All ideas are conjecture that is the nature of our minds The question become what parts of it are feasible and where will it likely result We know cell were far simpler by looking at dna markers And we know they can function with far less dna Tested by stripping down dna to its current minimums

[@citationsloth]

@@android4754 As have evidence and a model You should look into it with a open mind and consider are we getting closer it Essentially we have steps 123_56_89 Using the rna world hypothesis you have evolution of rna chain Producing membranes and parts for self reproduction You should know this if your gonna defend your position you should fully understand the opposing side position otherwise your not doing anyone any good All ideas are conjecture that is the nature of our minds The question become what parts of it are feasible and where will it likely result We know cell were far simpler by looking at dna markers And we know they can function with far less dna Tested by stripping down dna to its current minimums

[@RivBank-o3j]

@@android4754 how about you give me a model for the Bible man you just sound so stupid

[@angryrabidfoxes7380]

For someone to look at the complexity of life and believe it didn’t have a creator still astonishes me. Jesus is king yall

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

As someone who actually studies molecular biology and understands the mechanisms, I find it astonishing that people still think that life was designed despite its many flaws.

[@BluefireguyXD]

​@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440It's become corrupt, like the Bible says.

[@m0x910]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440A design does not have to be flawless to have a designer…

[@BlackHat-v4j]

@@BluefireguyXDno it was never designed at all

[@BlackHat-v4j]

@@m0x910no but it has to have a designer to be design

[@jessebrady2614]

Extremely well done. This was really educational, and shines a spotlight on just how mind-blowing-ly high the requirements for life actually are...and on the insanely intricate designs of even the simplest components.

[@SignificantNumberOfBeavers]

Or maybe life happens to perfectly fill the niche where it resides.

[@oraidhan]

@@SignificantNumberOfBeavers or maybe it just happened. The sum of all evolutionary debate 😂😂😅

[@TacticalAnt420]

May I point out that the intricate designs are absolutely not perfect. Just the eye, for example, has a blind spot while octopuses, which evolved their own eye, don’t have one! In the light of evolutionary biology, analogous structures are really impressive and homologous structures proves that complexity can arise from simpler structures. The eye, again, is a great example of how a patch of cells sensitive to light can then, through small steps increasing the fitness of an individual, become a well developed eye with full depth perception and a refractive lens. If this interests you, I highly recommend Forrest Valkai’s Reacteria series on KZbin. It debunks claims that evolution couldn’t happen like this one quite well.

[@TacticalAnt420]

@@oraidhanit didn’t “just happen”. Organic structures, through million of years, became better at replicating themselves until full on prokaryotes formed. These species, over BILLIONS of years evolved to fill up all available niches, some becoming eukaryotes to form plants, fungi and animals. We didn’t spawn in a world perfectly created for us. We evolved for billions of years to be as close as possible to perfect for it. Basically, it’s the difference between saying a star forms from nebulas and saying a star appears. Like stars, the first cells formed in clouds of organic materials interacting with each other. They were very simple, but they were the first cells. Stars form from gas clouds in space. Would it be fine to say they “just happen”? No! Several conditions were needed for it. The same applies to life.

[@jessebrady2614]

​@@TacticalAnt420 Hey Ant, hope you're doing well! - I'm not 100% sure what the point of pointing out non-perfection would be. ID doesn't claim or require perfection. - It is really interesting to hear someone bring up the old octopus eye again... it's bee a while (for good reason). The layers of the octopus eye are swapped from ours, and this leads to great benefits... for a creature living in the constant pressure of an underwater environment. If humans had a similar eye design (or if octopi lived on land for extended periods), it would lead to blindness in the lower pressure of the atmosphere. I mean... if you think that this helps to weaken the credibility of ID, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe if you ignore all of the details it could work? -And now the main issue... This debate about whether its feasible that biological life could develop new systems and organs from scratch is a worthwhile discussion...but it's not relevant to the point of this video. Abiogenesis and the theoretical "molecular evolution" that goes along with it, are completely unrelated to the type of evolution you described in your comment. Natural Selection isn't possible at this pre-life stage, and cannot guide the development of molecular structures. Even the simple replication of molecules (that would be required to get the ball of molecular evolution rolling on it's way towards a cell) require so many support systems that would have absolutely no reason to exist outside of the processes that they accomplish. Opponents of ID like to talk about the formation of life as if it is like winning a REALLY low odds lottery. If this is all it would take, then yes, Abiogenesis is looking amazing. However, for anyone doing an honest analysis, it starts to become clear that successful abiogenesis is like a single man, winning hundreds of different lotteries within 15 minutes of each other...with all the lotteries having the slimmest possible odds, and with the results of some of the lotteries depending on the results of other lotteries. Even if the man happens to win all the lotteries at some point, it doesn't matter, since EVERY lottery needs to be won within 15 minutes of each other AND in the correct order. At this point the numbers game really breaks down, and leaves Abiogenesis without a sensible alternative. Simple random odds are not capable of iteration in a pre-life world, and nature has no observable tools to overcome this burden.

[@acesislam]

Amazing as always, Your channel is one of the best in KZbin

[@RivBank-o3j]

How about go back to school

[@acesislam]

How about go buy a brain@@RivBank-o3j

[@ZubairKhan-sp8vb]

Just Amazing work!! I wish you great success and better reach!!! Kudos to all the people researching and doing diligent work.

[@nzadventurefamily3728]

This is your best video yet! I’ve watched this four times. Love it. Keep up the good work

[@celebalert5616]

These videos make it pretty clear there's some widespread dunning-kruger effect going on in a lot of people ... many would give you a pretty emphatic answer to the question of abiogenesis without any idea of the astonishing mind-boggling complexity involved ... the more I learn the more I realize I don't know ...

[@alanmuxlow7093]

I generally find that people who throw out Dunning-Kruger are usually projecting.

[@celebalert5616]

What do you mean projecting I'm literally talking about myself. I'm literally describing myself.

[@ElliotThereal]

I am continually and completely mesmerized and impressed by the videos you produce! They not only present a maddening amount of extremely complex processes in a very digestible way, it immediately bolsters my faith and reasoning at the same time. I enthusiastically point children and adults alike to this series. An absolute triumph. Continue with all speed! God bless!

[@JulioHernandez-jq9wg]

This channel is epic! Beautiful works of arts this videos! Funny, elegant, truthful...

[@oraidhan]

Science always blows my mind and the engineering behind it. Science without engineering is just a theory and life without an ‘engineer’ is just hypothetical

[@SignificantNumberOfBeavers]

It seems magical because we have no outside context. We can't imagine life existing outside of our specific corner of the universe so we assume it must have been placed there on purpose.

[@oraidhan]

@@SignificantNumberOfBeavers and likewise you have no outside context so you believe we and everything else magically came into existence from nothing.

[@Fanboy1222]

​@@SignificantNumberOfBeaversas if I need "outside context" to know there is a engineer behind engineering😂

[@owaissheraz]

​@@SignificantNumberOfBeavers There is so much prof there bro Not only in dna but like fine tuning argument Not emplying any specific religion to be true For that religion needs to give their proof But there is much evidence of a creator as they say GOD

[@calebr7199]

@@oraidhan Isn't that what creationists believe? That god just poofed life into existence from nothing?

[@burnem2166]

Imagine keep updating 1740's theory for a goofy aah agenda I like this unique channel Thanks for all ❤

[@citationsloth]

It’s almost like maybe they have more info that isn’t share here by the video who trying to convince people it’s fake Hmmmmmmm

[@anthonydiaz2073]

This was the best video yet, imo. Wow. Seriously.

[@chrismessier7094]

@ 5:13 lol! XD "what?!? Guh!?! Aealalelallaelealealleleal!!!"

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

[@RivBank-o3j]

@@LongStoryShortVideos education what!? Was that what you were thinking when you made this channel

[@skakvac]

how can any sane person be an atheist after we know what we know today???????

[@BabyBugBug]

Wishful thinking and ideology.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

How can any rational person believe that a deity created life after understanding evolution and molecular biology? Must I outline all the faults and errors in our body, for one?

[@skakvac]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 evolution is not logical, since it means that random events(via mutations) create coded nanomolecular machines and robots inside our cells.

[@RivBank-o3j]

How could a rational person think a voice in their head is good aka GOD

[@busultan12]

Atheism comes from the heart not the mind , thats why

[@uriabinenshtok]

sir your channel is just getting better and better

[@izzythizzzy]

Thank you for this amazing video.

[@m_cloud4703]

This is so good! Really clear explanation on basic issues. We need a video on gene duplication as a way to account for the creation of new proteins in organisms.

[@yoursoulisforever]

Cartoon or not, this video is a MASTERPIECE! 👍

[@Professordowney]

exactly

[@Professordowney]

his every video is

[@seditt5146]

This video is BS.

[@pigzcanfly444]

​@@seditt5146feel free to deal with the points of the video.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

No, it is filled with pseudoscientific representations of actual data.

[@waples88]

This KZbin channel is fantastic! Thank you so much!

[@cumiluvschrist]

My favorite channel on KZbin. Long Story Short YOU ROCK!

[@lordavius]

Awesome video! Keep up with the good work!

[@seditt5146]

SMH, this was terrible nonsense.

[@mirziyodm]

​@@seditt5146 What exactly in the video was "nonsense"?

[@RivBank-o3j]

Man adults believing this

[@pigzcanfly444]

@@RivBank-o3j Most of this information can be found in the book "Stairway to Life:An Abiogenesis reality check" by Dr Rob Stadler and Dr Change Laura Tan. Both are working in the biomedical industry one as a biochemist and the other as a medical chemical engineer. Their work is thoroughly vetted. There are other scientists also working with them to produce this content like Dr James Carter and Dr Ryan Hayes. All of whom work regularly on biochemical systems and read the primary literature. I hope that you consider looking more into it before writing them off.

[@lordavius]

@@RivBank-o3j man children not believing this

[@rebecagradinariu1483]

Great video! The theory of evolution crumbles under close scrutiny! I am amazing by the “wisdom” of the body and it’s ability to “manage” so many different things all at once from making our heart beat to “measuring” gases in our lungs to “make sure” they are within the “correct” range, ect. 🎉🎉🎉

[@Jehad_alsajadia]

Thanks for creating this video, can't be more excited 🌼🌼

[@oneeyedking3]

Another good one!

[@wam067]

Superb.

[@RivBank-o3j]

I bet your school education was superb🤡

[@Iwani]

I’ve already seen all your videos but I’ll watch em again 😌 osmosis for my brain

[@citationsloth]

Noooo it’s trash don’t ruin your brain like that, we can’t fall for propaganda like this we are fewer and need to be wiser Imma just say it Black women are valuable and we can’t allow the bull guys like this spread in the sake of religions to ruin harm our communities It’s already done enough damage

[@RivBank-o3j]

What’s wrong with school?

[@timothysparks6949]

Incredible. Simply Incredible. To believe all this came about by chance--randomly--is illogical.

[@seditt5146]

To believe it came from a creator is illogical. If it was a creator he is the worst in history of ever as there is so many flaws in the systems its unreal. Its clearly random and you only believe otherwise because of nonsensical propaganda videos like this one. Simpler life would be far FAR less prone to error completely destroying this creators entire argument. Thats like saying you have more chances of making a mistake counting to 10 than you do counting to 1 trillion. Thats stupid logic.

[@BhikPersonal]

​@@seditt5146 "If it was a creator he is the worst in history of ever as there are so many flaws in the systems it's unreal." For the sake of argument, I will grant the possibility that he might be the worst creator in history but even if you are right, your argument doesn't prove that there is no intelligent designer behind all of life. So the rest of your reasoning in your comment also fails. The science conclusively proves there is an intelligent designer behind all of life. Just like how Forensic science and Archaeology predict intelligent design all the time, biologists should also make intelligent design predictions in all of life. You are making a really poor philosophical argument, my friend. And you are just showing yourself as a science denier. You deny science.

[@utopiabuster]

​@@seditt5146, What flaws?

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

Uh, yeah. This entire universe came about by chance. Humans simply elevate their egos by thinking that everything was created for them.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@BhikPersonal The only person who denies Science is one who invokes supernatural explanations. Intelligent design is pseudoscientific.

[@csmoviles]

Awesome content! Thank you so much for posting it❤❤❤

[@juaniravaioli]

AWESOME.

[@chri6393]

I love these, and my kids do too

[@tristanbrown6954]

You’d almost wonder why the intelligent creator made these processes so complex when they could have just made them less prone to all the errors🤔

[@Pyr0Ben]

well when you come up with a better system, let us know :)

[@clintonwiebe2883]

Thank you so much for making these vids. Love the puns in character visuals. Fun and informative. I can appreciate all the time spent going through all the data and articles to produce just one of these. Impressive 🤩. Thank you!!

[@DragonFire360Media]

Love these videos! Keep it up!

[@NaturalismFlops]

YES ANOTHER LSS VIDEO 🗣🔥

[@sparkyy0007]

You gotta give them credit.... To believe a bucket of dirt, sunlight and time somehow wrote the complete works of Shakespeare... that right there is some grade A #1 Serious Faith. Awesome Video dude ! Peace and Love God Bless you All

[@SignificantNumberOfBeavers]

Are you familiar with the God of the Gaps? Attributing any missing knowledge to a miracle means every time a discovery is made that explains the mystery weakens God's power.

[@j0hncon5tantine]

@@SignificantNumberOfBeavers That is not what he is doing, he is not using God of the gaps at all, its not about missing knowledge, its about the knowledge we have is showing specific intelligent design and that it disproves life from non-life occurring by itself. It's not that its too complicated and that we have not figured it out yet, its more like - what we do know, what we have figured out, the type of systems in place, in how they have no steps of initiation, even in artificial means, have no way or avenue of occurring by themselves at all. He uses the findings in those papers all together to prove his argument and reasoning that some type of designer had to have caused it and that in no way did it ever happen by itself. PERIOD. Because think about it, could a brand new Coca Cola can with its specific shaping of aluminum, its specific writing and patterns on the outside of the can, and its very specific carbonated liquid that is mixed with various and rare ingredients ever form on its own or appear on its own without an intelligent mind ever designing and creating it? Even if I gave you a planet of exclusively aluminum ore, with rivers of coca cola, even if I gave you a bazillion planets like this, and a gazillion years, everything is there in its basic forms to create a brand new unopened coca cola can, would you ever say that that brand new can could ever have come about by itself? All he is pointing out is that your body is like the coca cola can, but even more so. Just because it is sophisticated enough to make slightly different copies of itself, does not mean that it came about by itself initially.... Also, there is a thing called "evolution of the gaps" and your comment is a prime example of it, he is making a specific point and providing evidence for it, but your critique of him is actually just trying to paste on a label to his entire presentation that is unjustified, with no evidence or proof backing up what you say. "Evolution of the gaps" is your religious faith in your religion of naturalism that makes you trust that even though there is a lot you do not know about how living things work and their origin, you put great trust and great faith in your religious cult of naturalism's teachings.... Why are you so butt hurt?, I see you replying to all these people on here who like his videos, and you seem very upset, but bring some real arguments or your A game, because it only makes you look foolish leaving such petty worthless commentary everywhere.....

[@sparkyy0007]

@@SignificantNumberOfBeavers Thanks for the chuckle.

[@mirziyodm]

​@@SignificantNumberOfBeavers And what about attributing some found complex machinery with sophisticated information system to a pure chance and nature's work? Doesn't that weakens humanity's scientific progress?

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@mirziyodm Uh, no. Science explains how these mechanisms develop from natural means. To date, there has been no instance that any complex natural system required a supernatural explanation.

[@joshuapatrick682]

would love to know why the site hides a channel that simply asks questions and always has references..... I honestly don't get it.

[@nicholashale5988]

Great video, thank you

[@addersrinseandclean]

Amazing just amazing 👍

[@shazibjehangir]

God bless you and your teams work!

[@naseraldeenfurry1798]

Can U guys make a video on ERVs I am ready to provide the needed resources for U and help just do it ❤😊

[@j.t.dennis4900]

As someone who recognizes the validity of intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of life, I think ERVs are an insurmountable obstacle against the idea that everything isn't related. They really are the remains of viruses, and can be reactivated under certain conditions. Jon Perry has a really good response video to someone suggesting that God created various species with ERVs built in. That being said, I think ERVs are indicative of intelligent design as well as evolution. I'm aware of at least one ERV that contained a very important gene that led to the development of the placenta: the gene that codes for Synctin. Maybe it was an accident, but once you realize human genetic engineers use viruses to deposit certain genes into cells, one must wonder if another genetic engineer did the same thing to use millions of years ago.

[@mirziyodm]

​​​@@j.t.dennis4900 There are MUCH MORE functions of ERVs, pal: The Regulation and Functions of Endogenous Retrovirus in Embryo Development and Stem Cell Differentiation www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7937486/ The notion that these genetic elements are "viruses" is nothing but a pure speculation, derived from the (wrong) idea of "Junk DNA" which itself initially was another speculation that darwinists came up with in effort to explain the existence of non-coding regions of DNA. So ERVs are NOT VIRUSES, it's just bad naming coming from ignorance and false presumptions.

[@pigzcanfly444]

​@@j.t.dennis4900I would have to let you know that viruses alone have separate ancestry and require a host to propagate their genetics many living organisms cannot function or continue growing reaching next stages of development until they are in contact with specific viral agents. Even our eyes have such a symbiotic relationship or placental development. Viruses do not make us interrelated with broccoli and cod. Viruses affect very specific portions of DNA and obviously since we all share specific portions Viruses can affect anything that have these specific portions which are common. That is why when you see ERVs that have earmarks of damage in multiple animals that are "identical" it's actually because you see mutations take place which are either effectively neutral or deleterious and again the Viruses in question only affect those portions which they have the capacity to alter. Didn't you know that this is why computer programmers call the programming that alters code a virus? It is programmed to affect specific portions of code.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@j.t.dennis4900 ERVs are merely caused by viral infections. In fact, they completely refute the idea of an intelligent designer.

[@waliul280]

Love your videos

[@jonathanoelkers4387]

So good!

[@joes5669]

Excellent work!

[@Professordowney]

with all the origin of life, God believer intelligent design scientists, on one side. and you on the other side. your side is still heavier. although you get your information from those scientists and research papers, but they all combined do not have as much impact, as you are putting. you are the OG creationism populist.

[@MariankGonzalez]

Fantastic video, I am mind blown! 🤯🤩

[@pigzcanfly444]

"Youre safe...for now." 😂

[@j0hncon5tantine]

How are you doing, have you spoken to "nephilimfree" lately?

[@pigzcanfly444]

@@j0hncon5tantine I'm doing well. I haven't heard from Evan in a long time now but I have heard that he's been on MDD a few times last year. Not sure exactly when though. How are you?

[@j0hncon5tantine]

@@pigzcanfly444 I'm doing good, I talked to him briefly in a creation discord a couple months ago, I was hoping he would do some more debates and videos soon. Have you found out any interesting new YEC facts lately? I have been studying evidence and arguments for young earth specifically, I have a new artificial diamond argument that is pretty solid and is a bit of a variant of some other creation arguments....

[@pigzcanfly444]

Well my best arguments thus far are the electromagnetic field degradation, erosion rates, salinity deposition rates and C14 found in the fossil record which cannot have been around for millions of years. There is also the soft dinosaur tissue point but I'm sure you've heard that one.

[@j0hncon5tantine]

@@pigzcanfly444 I've heard all those before and they are great arguments and points to make in proving the Earth is young, lately I have been using the "artificial diamond" argument, so that in the same way that humans can speed up the natural process of making diamonds by artificial means, we have an analogous example of how an intelligent designer formed the Earth and its complex geologic features. Its funny how I know some old earth creationists and how many of them along with many atheists believe that "young earth" is the weak point of Biblical literalism and YEC, but in fact it is not, in that you could make the argument that the evidence for the Earth being young is stronger than the evidence of life being formed by intelligent design, because I can show you in real life examples of geological formations being created artificially with an intelligent foresight to help form them very quickly from scratch(basic materials)that are observable and repeatable experiments. But I can not show you something comparable to that as far as the complex design and creation of living organisms. the only thing that comes close is how humans can build complex machines and artifacts that have irreducible complexity, and how those things compare and are similar to the machinery and functionality of structures in cells and other living organisms, which also have the potential to be created and formed very quickly. What do you think about using arguments like this when being a keyboard warrior? 🤣

[@lenroystewart2904]

Another excellent video.

[@brianambrose7559]

Thanks for another great video. Our creator sure is clever!

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

LOVE these videos!!! Intelligent design is AMAZING! Darwinism is lunacy.

[@RivBank-o3j]

And the Bible isn’t lunacy💀💀

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@RivBank-o3j the Bible is the alltime bestselling most read, most reviewed, most translated, most venerated, most influential, and therefore most important book in human history. Archeologists actually use the Bible as primary source material in understanding artifacts being unearthed in the middle east today. Archeology is a field that specializes in both science AND history. Therefore people who call it lunacy fit the category of observable science denying documented history deniers. Pls accept observable science and documented history. Declare Jesus as your Lord; believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

[@BabyBugBug]

Thank you for this.

[@optimuscrime1023]

Great vid

[@davidcross6990]

An awesome body of work!!! Not getting the audience it deserves, are you known by the Intelligent Design scientists, Stephen Meyer,James Tour et al.

[@goodman854]

I love how you drunk on Darwin every time, it makes me roll laughing. Savage but fair lol.

[@levibates4197]

How can I support you? Can you turn on gratuity or something?

[@pigzcanfly444]

There is a button with a money sign inside of a heart. Click that to become a member. He also accepts tacos as currency.

[@kevins9242]

The host of this video has a great voice.

[@GregBacon-q6k]

Have you put any videos together that argue against some of Denis Noble evolution claims and how information was created and retained?

[@MLeoM]

Hilarious and amazing *at the same time!*

[@alanmuxlow7093]

To buy Darwinian Evolution, you have to both miss the forest and the trees. 😂

[@MariankGonzalez]

Amen!

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

To buy into intelligent design, you have to miss both the scientific articles and Biology lessons!

[@johnglad5]

​@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440Science and biology are signs of intelligence

[@RivBank-o3j]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440😂😂🎯

[@RivBank-o3j]

How do you not compare God a voice in your head to a mental illness?

[@omarhossam789]

If we could get anything from this video it's that we are created by an intelligent being or beings and NOT by so called "chance" and the fact that living things appear similar in alot of ways is only a proof that our creator is one.

[@Pyr0Ben]

Do you think you could make a video on the fusion of the 2nd chromosome from apes to humans?

[@RivBank-o3j]

😂

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@RivBank-o3jwatchu laughing at

[@pigzcanfly444]

It's a functional gene sequence that is specific to humans and does not have the telomeric repeats found in apes. When you cross examine Chromosome 2 with Chromosome 9 you see similar patterns of functionality and yet there are no biologists suggesting that Chromosome 9 is a fusion site. Maybe they will get to that information but for now they want to cut the head off of the snake.

[@channelnoraa]

WOW! How great is my God?!?!

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

The fact that these molecular mechanisms break down over time should indicate to you that this is not a designed process.

[@channelnoraa]

In fact, that is the hallmark of a good design. Every good rocket has a self-destruct sequence. Every good software has an error control mechanism. Remember, death is part of this version of "the design". In the next version, there will be no death@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440

[@mirziyodm]

​@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Huh? So the mechanisms designed by humans don't ever break down over time? Since when a "breakability" became a sign of "non-designed"?

[@RivBank-o3j]

@@mirziyodm look at the Human body do you really believe what you said

[@mirziyodm]

@@RivBank-o3j Kid, open and read a book that says "Biochemistry" on it. Although, I'm afraid you're a bit uneducated (to say the least) to understand it.

[@mrnobodytheuser2950]

I like how this video is short and gets to the point, It really makes you think just how ridiculously complex life really is and shines some real doubt on the possibility of Abiogenesis.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

You underestimate the power of evolution. You're simply falling into confirmation bias.

[@ObaidahNaseer]

​@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440sometimes I underestimate the faith of evolutionists

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@ObaidahNaseer Always, I am incredulous about how religious people associate faith with scientific understanding, as though faith is a negative attribute that is associated with not having evidence for one’s claims. Why don’t you understand that you are only undermining your own religious beliefs by linking “faith” to a negative connotation? Besides, evolution remains a fact, no matter what you believe.

[@ObaidahNaseer]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 yes evolution does happen, even before our eyes, but the level of evolution claimed by many scientists has no proof, it is just wishful thinking. Faith backed by strong evidence is different to wishful thinking.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@ObaidahNaseer There is only one type of biological evolution, with no exceptions. Everything that scientists attribute to evolutionary development is based on evidence and scientific models. It is not wishful thinking to realise that every lifeform has a singular common ancestor. However, it is wishful thinking to believe that a god exists, or that they created life.

[@saliadee2564]

Excellent as always.

[@michaelbryanlaodvm4344]

it's good to study life's mechanisms knowing that its infinitely wise and all knowing engineer designed it with a purpose in mind. It's much inspiring learning about the subject of life that way. Everything logically falls into place. (I'm a veterinarian and I don't believe in evolution)

[@theamateurartist6079]

Dude where did the god come from it would be just as implausible if not more for a force or organism to come along that would have the intelligence and the power to even make us and why would it do it anyway. And besides the field or evolution and genetics has come along extremely recently there is most likely a plethora of explanations for this dilemma that we just aren’t able to find yet due to the very little we know about this.

[@pigzcanfly444]

Either God is eternal or matter and energy is eternal. Since the matter and energy are bound by the laws of physics and thermodynamics those same laws would remain unchanged and apply to the matter even in said eternal state. If that is true then the second law of thermodynamics would apply to the point that there would at one point into the infinite past have been no usable energy. This would make our current reality impossible. Also you would have to ask the question where did the matter and energy come from if this is your problem with God. Food for thought.

[@JessicaSunlight]

Glad you back, still love silly cartoon style ♥ I love the teddy bear in this one 🙃

[@DepletedUrbranium]

You need to include snippets of higher resolution images and animations for the proteins. I don't know how much of Drew Barry and Dave Goodsell's work you could appropriate within license but it would probably help a lot

[@mirziyodm]

"Long Story Short" videos - is the best thing media-wise that ever happened on Intelligent Design front. Please, keep'em coming!

[@Professordowney]

oooo boy i just love you

[@penbean2298]

How did this go from examining cellular biology to christian fundamentalism within the last minute or the video

[@stevenborgogna]

That's what gets me. I was seeing small hints of it throughout the video, but he laid it on thick right at the end. What I heard was 'we have no idea how this happened, therefore it must be intelligent design' An assertion from ignorance is likely to be false.

[@jessebrady2614]

@@stevenborgogna this has to be the most common criticism I see on these videos, and it gets more confusing every time. The argument is NOT "we don't know how it happened, so it has to be God"... The argument is that "the observed universe exhibits evidence of intentionality at every turn, strongly indicating that there is a 'cause' behind the universe as opposed to blind chaos" You can feel free to disagree with this argument if you think alternative theories hold more water somehow....but at least engage with the ACTUAL argument instead of swapping in a substitute.

[@tarod3]

@@jessebrady2614how is this any different from the fine tuning argument? And it does nothing whatsoever to address the mountains of evidence for evolution.

[@stevenborgogna]

@@jessebrady2614 I can understand how one could see it that way, however what I see is we observe phenomena in our world and don't understand the process of how it came to be. It's easy to come to conclusions, however again, this line of thinking ends the same way, drawing conclusions from ignorance. That is not an effective way to find out what really happened.

[@jessebrady2614]

​@@tarod3 Answer to the question: A big part of science is ruling out theories that don't line up with confirmed observations in nature. Observations in cellular biology just don't cooperate with the idea of a random, spontaneous beginning. Too many interconnected systems need to be developing concurrently ... it's not just a single random result that could do it. If so, maybe the theory of abiogenesis could hold out some hope. It's a common misconception that people (like the guy who made this video) look at abiogenesis and see a bunch of mysterious dead ends...then they say "well, we don't know how this could work, so it must be wrong!" ....when that's not actually the way that anyone thinks. Instead, it's an honest analysis of the data. Nature does not behave in a way that can accommodate the spontaneous, concurrent development of interconnected molecular systems through pure chaos, starting from scratch with no pre-existing data... That conclusion can be backed up, and demonstrated in a dozen different ways. It's not that "wE jUSt dOn'T KnOw..." it's that abiogenesis is subject to being ruled out as a theory the same as any other theory, and again...an honest analysis points to the fact that it's not feasible. What you do next with that conclusion is up to you... I'm not here to do your thinking for you. I'm not in the habit of rejecting a reasonable conclusion just because it makes me uncomfortable.

[@bobfoster4175]

your videos are great

[@Pyr0Ben]

Are you ever going to do a response to Professor Stick's disparaging videos on your abiogenesis series?

[@nowhere529]

Is Stick worth a response?, I just checked out his videos and they are not very good at all.

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@nowhere529 i know, they're garbage. its just that his followers eat that crap up

[@חסד-ת1י]

@10:09 "FOR NOW" 🤣🤣🤣

[@drachelp-wv7tj]

Hey could you debunk the problems with the Microdroplet Theory in your next video? It proposes that dehydration reactions can occur in Microdroplets due to the nature of their microenvironment and that therefore peptide chains could form. Other commenters helping to explain its problems would also help! Source: Unraveling Reaction Acceleration in Microdroplets Exploring Unique Chemistry at the Gas Solution Interface Purdue University by Lingqi Qiu

[@UltimekaMusic]

What's the ending music? 🙂

[@Pyr0Ben]

Spare Change - Ynke

[@jonathankim9502]

I guess the dilemma for (atheist) high school science teachers is - if we teach kids this real science, they'll get convinced of a mind/Creator/Designer behind everything, and therefore we don't want to teach it. But then, this is a science class, and we're science teachers so we need to teach science... what shall we do? What will they come up with? Either leave out a bunch of things that make it evident that a Designer is behind it, and/or twist and turn all kinds of scientific facts so that they don't get convinced there is a Designer behind these.. only proving the Bible to be true about their condition of "suppressing the truth (about God) in their wickedness" - Romans 1:18-20 I think they should remember, twisting and pushing facts and truth away doesn't get rid of the facts and truth. It only increases their condemnation on the Day of judgment.

[@tarod3]

Do you honestly believe that non believers don’t exist and we secretly all want satan to rule the world? Demonizing those who disagree with you is not a sign of confidence.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

Oh, please. There is no need to invoke a designer to explain all these mechanisms.

[@cjshakes]

So, just to be clear. If evolution and chemical evolution is wrong, what do you think is the correct path of creating life today? Or in what direction do you think we should explore? Most of your videos just point out ways that evolution and chemical evolution is wrong but you never suggest an alternative. What is your alternative? (I posted this comment here because it is your most recent video)

[@mrnobodytheuser2950]

I don't think you can create life, at best alter already living things which by its self is impressive but nothing compared to creating life.

[@brucesearl4407]

I think that the evidence so far would suggest that we will never find a purely natural, materialistic path for life to spontaneously arise. We will have to apply everything we learn about life and use that with our intelligence to create the same thing or similar forms of life, perhaps with new functions that we design for our specific desires. That is where we will make, and are making progress. In doings so, in every instance of success, we will be affirming that the one thing not permitted in origin of life thinking, the requirement of a mind to make it happen. Just my prediction. We'll see.

[@ciid6190]

Amazing!! 😍🤩😌

[@JoggleBoi]

Very cool

[@ColinZhang-n7x]

This vid completely blew my peanut sized mind

[@RivBank-o3j]

Go back to school please

[@flyyynt]

Just came across this vid, which is actually more pertinent to the last comment I made on the "mind-bending secrets of DNA" vid, and my argument is the same. If the DNA of living organisms is constantly on "fire" (and I agree with this) so that they require "librarians" to repair the damage, why are the librarians also not on fire? The answer is they should be. They should need assistant librarians to repair their damage and so on for the assistants - obviously this becomes an endless cycle. Any break in this chain and errors would eventually grow until all error correction processes and DNA no longer functioned. So evidently, the continuation of life cannot be explained by just material physicality, as you keep trying to do. It's meant to look that way because it's a test and you're failing it. Your approach does not convince opponents of intelligent design because they can always say that if life is just based on the physical then it's possible (despite being statistically impossible) for it all to come about on its own eventually, even if they may not fully understand how. It must be shown that it really is physically impossible, not just statistically. In your terms, there must be a Super Librarian who is unaffected by physical laws (increasing entropic errors). An intelligent error correcting something, seemingly outside our universe, which is able to maintain life's DNA against these inescapable errors.

[@robstadler927]

The genes for the repair enzymes (and all the required genes to manufacture the enzymes) certainly do need to be protected by repair mechanisms. Those repair mechanisms (as shown by the examples in this video) are largely proteins that are produced by the cell and are available to continuously check the DNA for errors. So, the "librarians" (i.e., the DNA responsible for coding the repair processes) are indeed on fire, but those fires are put out by the protein repair mechanisms that have been previously produced and are currently at work. So, I don't see a need here for vitalism - some force beyond physical reality that is continuously required to keep life going. I'm not saying that vitalism is impossible - just that I don't see a valid argument for it here.

[@flyyynt]

@@robstadler927 So everything else is on fire but the proteins are not on fire. They are somehow immune to damage or errors and have no need for repairs?

[@robstadler927]

@@flyyynt the proteins degrade eventually, but if the DNA were damaged, the previously produced proteins would be available in the cell to fix the DNA, hopefully before the proteins degraded.

[@flyyynt]

​@@robstadler927 It sounds like you're saying that life survives by luck. Protein degradation can occur at any time randomly. A damaged protein may not function or it may continue on repairing DNA incorrectly. Bottom line is that without constant error correction, DNA will eventually fail to function. So how does life continue if proteins have no error correction?

[@robstadler927]

@@flyyynt If a protein malfunctions, it is tagged for recycling and new fully functional proteins are made. I wouldn't say that life survives by luck - it has mitigation plans that can "take hits", but if there are too many hits, death will result. My family has 2 cars. If one "takes a hit", we have a mitigation plan and can continue to function. But if both cars "take a hit", we run out of mitigation and are in trouble. Life is similar.

[@petercbrandon]

Fyi: Saturated fats are not dangerous, and french fries are made with seed oils not saturated fats. Bad way to start.

[@citationsloth]

Assumption the first cell needed our style of cell repair Did it I didn’t know you had access to the first cell idk if this is true I can think of several other ways an can get around these issue Multiple copies being created over and over Since the dna ( or its analogy at that point ) would likely be simpler and possibly in pieces But point is when you assume Idk Something about 2 donkeys

[@RafaelSilva1981]

When - in - Spanish????????? Pretty please????

[@tarod3]

You ask how these things hyper adapted for a specific environment could have existed outside that environment without the machinery to maintain them. It’s like asking what the first word ever was and then insisting the chemical signaling of bacteria doesn’t count.

[@j0hncon5tantine]

That is not what he is doing. Both human language and the chemical signals that bacteria use come from irreducibly complex system, where multiple systems need to be there at once to get anything functional for signalling or language. That is really a better analogy of what he is trying to show and I explained more to you below..........

[@tarod3]

@@j0hncon5tantine chemical signaling between cells is the most basic response to external stimuli with associations past the direct. An elevation in this one chemical outside kills or helps all cells that don’t respond in certain ways. Eventually cells react to each other in a predictable way. And that’s the origin of communication. At a few points, it felt like he was asking why cells can’t speak and write. Is that called begging the question? Or is the irreducibly complex system life? I admit that one’s beyond me. I did learn some crazy biology.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@@tarod3 he is talking about prior to cells existing. You are conflating the two and fail to see the problem. Not only that but you are anthropomorhizing molecules and giving them forethought, eyes and teleological ability which is only actually existent in minds. You appear to do all of this while pretending there is no teleology involved. You clearly haven't watched the series or read any of the papers cited. Maybe come back here when you have?

[@tarod3]

@@pigzcanfly444 you underlined my point. These things that couldn’t have existed before cells may very well have not existed before cells as they do now. I cannot imagine how, but over and over we’ve seen this same argument from complexity form from the same motives and fall apart with further research. You’ve also confused communication with comprehension. Trees and molds have complex communications between themselves and each other. A router communicates with all kinds of things. It’s a refusal to see how animal and predictable we are as humans when you want to see yourself as sacred, but it’s no more meaningful than an ancient Christian protesting heliocentrism for calling into question his importance in the grand scheme of things.

[@j0hncon5tantine]

@@tarod3 I would say communication between living organisms itself is irreducibly complex, even in microorganisms, because think about it, you need multiple complex mechanisms all there at once for it to occur the first time, you need a mechanism that can receive stimulus, that can interpret and analyze said stimulus, some mechanism that can make a decision to send a signal or not due to the stimulus in question, a mechanism that can make a signal, a mechanism that sends the signal, a mechanism to receive that particular type of signal that would be relatively unnatural to regular environmental signals and be able to discern from among those, possibly with another extra mechanism, a mechanism to interpret that signal correctly, a mechanism that decides what to do from receiving that signal, etc......... Bacteria are extremely complex, I have read that they can make their own gang member groups and you can train them to come get food or train them to all get scared and they send warning signals or positive signals to each other seemingly all at once.....

[@awesium4077]

This is my second comment, but I decided to try to calculate how probable it would be for life to come about on its own. These calculations are likely biased toward randomness, due to the use of a very simple organism that can't even reproduce by itself (rabies virus, which has FIVE genes, or 12,000 bases as I looked up online), and only looking at its RNA and not the production of a membrane and such. There are SOME biases that go toward creation, like the fact that there could be multiple combinations of DNA that could bring about a living organism, but these biases are overall well in favor of random coincidence. Since there are 4 nucleotide bases and 12,000 bases, making 4^12,000 combinations. Since this number is too large for numbers to calculate, I decided to approximate what this would be like in base 10. Using desmos, I have determined that log base 10 of 4^x gives a linear function with a slope of slightly more than 1/2, so I rounded it down to 1/2 to give even more bias to random chance. That means that Rabies has approximately 10^6,000 combinations its genome could be in, which is WELL over a googol btw (but nowhere near a googolplex). Considering how a billion years only has 3*10^16 seconds, barely putting a dent in the number of combinations. So basically, you would need to make MANY, MANY googols of combinations of 12kb genomes PER SECOND just to make the genome of a nonliving organism with FIVE GENES. Keep in mind that I suck at math and someone should probably check my calculations lol.

[@twbascom]

You guys are epic!

[@waples88]

Thanks!