The Definitive Guide to Debunking Creationists Part 2: Abiogenesis

[@ChristianIce]

I don't have anything against Homochirals, as long as they replicate themselves in the privacy of their houses.

[@DoctorX101]

". . . and don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." - Mrs. Patrick Campbell

[@Nxck2440]

Those trans unsaturated phospholipids are a step too far though.

[@DoctorX101]

@@Nxck2440 Trans unsaturated phospholipids ARE unsaturated phospholipids!!!1!!!

[@VaughanMcCue]

Are they naturally sinister or are some dexter?

[@jeremywillis7139]

You sir, win. That is all.

[@vitalbuggy6907]

Hello Dave. On the off chance that you end up reading this, I would like to thank you on behalf of the people in parts of the world where religious dogma is omnipresent. I myself come from a country in the middle east, where I have been exposed to religious dogma for my whole life, and for years I thought there was something wrong with me for not being able to accept their arguments based on fallacious reasoning and purely unscientific explanations. I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but you are a very important component for intellectually curious minds born into these conglomerates. Your videos on these kinds of people give us a sense of sanity for what we believe in, in a micro-world full of people calling these ideas "scientific dogma". Every single video of yours I watch, my immense respect grows for you, as you do what many people dare not to in this age of intellectual dishonesty and propaganda. Once again, thank you very much, and please keep doing what you're doing. It's pivotal in preventing the downfall of human civilization and educating the masses on what we actually know, not the conclusions reached by bullshit ad-hoc reasoning.

[@fiercemonkey1]

Stay curious and honest truth seeker. Be wise as well and do your best to find the safety of your kin who will let you find what your seeking. 🖖 stay safe over there 😊

[@Albertandearthie]

@@fiercemonkey1 ?

[@unrecognizedtalent3432]

It's really heartening to see someone from a religious brainwashing community choosing sense over absurdity

[@bEverCurious]

@@Albertandearthie translation: Stay safe and seek out likeminded people.

[@canbest7668]

@@unrecognizedtalent3432 "choose sense over absurdity". Now, _that_ would make a great slogan.

[@SapphireScroll]

Mr. Farina! GO, GO, GO, GO!!!

[@phammanh2689]

lol this never gets old

[@SapphireScroll]

@@phammanh2689 Honestly I'd love to know what was going on inside James' head then. Like, was this an uncontrolled outburst or did he really think it would prompt Dave to do anything? Or maybe he just wanted to start a meme carrer but never followed through with it? This man's a mystery

[@FutureWorldX]

You Don't Do It! I told you I would treat you as I would with my graduate students! Show me the Chemistry! Come to the board and write!

[@kappasphere]

@@SapphireScroll Basically James was trying grandstand about how Dave was "unable" to do whatever James asked him to do. First make an unreasonable request, like refusing to discuss any paper unless its results are written on a blackboard, and then call Dave incompetent for not complying with the request.

[@SapphireScroll]

@@kappasphere Huh, somehow I didn't think of that, but you're right. Glad we at least got a great meme out of it

[@GamePlayMetal]

I love how the watchmaker argument is inherently incoherent and self defeating. If we find a watch on a beach, we can indeed tell it's designed, which is why we single it out from... all the nature around it which is obviously NOT designed. lmao

[@enlacostaizquierda]

Dave did a great job in this video of explaining their willful ignorance of time and vast amounts of iterative formative events. There was no "goal" (or god!) required.. just lots of time and repeated chemical processes. Some had better outcomes for promoting further outcomes and thus "won" the abiogenesis derby. But I'm certain they'll turn that into "God 'designed' the chemistry!" arguments because they always find some way to insert magic into everything.

[@Khann_2102]

Yeah, the argument backfired 😂😂😂

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Because all watches ever found are always designed by humans. Because we can experience this. directly. No one has ever experienced a god crafting an animal in some heavenly workshop. The process is always reproduction with modification.

[@TheCodeJunkie]

The argument fails for an even simpler reason. To a theist everything is "designed" so what are they even comparing the watch to exactly?

[@Julian0101]

It is worse for abrahamic apologists, in the scenario the theist is walking in a beach, sees a watch, kneels and takes a grain of salt and claims 'this grand of sand was designed'.

[@AbsoluteAmoeba]

Always a good day when Professor Dave debunks creationists.

[@GrammeStudio]

i absolutely love the snowflake example. it shows how creationists want to use BOTH simplicity and complexity to prove a designer. they including creation 'scientists' are never scientifically rigorous enough to set up the test criteria first.

[@ChristianIce]

"Do it in a lab or it isn't true" - This is not how it worked "DO IT!" - Ok, as long as you shut up... done. "You see, you used your intelligence to do it, it means the process requires an intelligent designer!" :|

[@Julian0101]

Yeah, that is what i call the refrigerator fallacy, their argument is "if you can produce snow flakes in a lab (aka. refrigerator) then snow flakes cannot happen in nature... What is it? snow flakes are not complex? Have you looked one in a microscope, they are obviously complex."

[@ChristianIce]

@@Julian0101 You gotta do what you gotta do, apparently. If you want to prove the Earth is not Flat, just build a round planet in a lab! Once you're done, guess what, it would look flat to them anyway :D

[@Philalethes101]

​@@Julian0101I think the argument goes more like this; structures like cars, building ,smartphone, computers ,bicycles are made by an intelligent agent, if we find something like that we infer an intelligent agent build it. so if another view hypothesize that we can get it through natural processes without an intelligence, then that person has to demonstrate that those structures will arise without an intelligent agent. Life is just an elaborate arrangement of proteins nucleotides some lipids and sugars, likewise a computer chip is also an elaborate arrangement of certain atoms, can it happen through natural processes devoid of intelligent agent? You will probably admit the computer chip cannot but my view is that life also cannot form without an intelligent agent. Therefore, it's up to you to show me that it can, should you do that then my position fails. That's why demonstrating abiogenesis experimentally is important.

[@granienasniadanie8322]

Ok, now go to the lab and PROVE GOD!

[@Philalethes101]

@@granienasniadanie8322 only if you should be consistent in your thinking. in which case, cars, buildings, computer, bicycle, smartphone etc are not designed until the designer is provided. That means natural processes create the pyramids in Egypt because we can't provide the designer. I want you to go through life with this reasoning, if this reasoning is not rational to you, then your argument is not a rational one to begin. Reason better before commenting.

[@DeadEyeJedi]

The problem is, it isn't about facts, it never was. We seem to have reached a position where people actually think that being 'right' is the same as being agreed with by other people who share their views. The whole reason Science was created was because we are human, we needed a system that did its best to remove our own biases from observation, whereas things like Creationism and Flat Earth are, quite literally, observer bias made manifest. Only the outcomes that can be presented in such a way as they appear to meet the desired results are used. Sometimes the manipulation is sub-conscious, but often it is not. it's the difference between feeling you are 'right' and feeling you are 'accurate'.

[@johnjohnUnited]

I have come to a similar conclusion, and I'm currently stuck between "We should just give up and let them be" and "We need a new approach". By now I've watched a lot of debates, debunks and other content in "science vs. anti-evolution, creationism and/or flat-earth", and it's very clear the very different approaches the parties take. Science is very proof based. It's centered around trying to explain why phenomenon are the way they are. The opposition’s approach is based on strategy, metaphors and conspiracy, it’s very close to politics. In other words, one side is focused on what is being said, while the other side is focused on who’s saying it, and/or how does it fit into my world view. That is just destined to fail, at least if the goal is to convert people. At the end of the day, they’re not going to care about your facts, as you say. I still think the approach should be logical, but not scientific.

[@shassett79]

Has anyone else noticed a recent trend in which creationists try really hard to equate abiogenesis with Spontaneous Generation?

[@enlacostaizquierda]

Is that old chestnut making a comeback? That was a popular misconception in the 19th century. If it is gaining in popularity it's likely creationist trying to muddy the waters. They love to misuse words and take things out of context. Basically creating strawmen they can easily knockdown.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

That is not a "recent trend", they tried to do that already decades ago.

[@embryophytelove]

I have. Even read a comment by a creationists that "Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis", seemingly referring to his seminal experiment, thus conflating spontaneous generation with abiogenesis.

[@alexanderingraham8255]

They almost never do anything new (creativity isn’t really their thing… 😏). They just recycle their old material when their most recent attempts have failed.

[@shassett79]

​@@bjornfeuerbacher5514I know, but then they stopped for what felt like a long time, and now it seems to be coming back again.

[@gabri41200]

The values of the Enlightenment are sadly being degraded in this post-modern, post-truth society. Guys like Dave are heroes of reason.

[@StopMotionDryptosaurus]

All hail Professor Dave!

[@PlanetoftheWhites]

I like the Enlightenment but our leaders need to actually do good for the people because the way things are going its not looking good.

[@gabri41200]

@PlanetoftheWhites They won't move by their own. Only the pressure of the masses can change things.

[@PlanetoftheWhites]

@gabri41200 Sorry, but this is untrue. The "masses" have never ruled themselves in the history of humanity. A tiny elite has always been in charge. This is known as "elite theory," and you can read more about it from Italian philosopher Gatano Mosca. Even in so-called "democracy," it's always been those who are better connected, have the moral, and the material means to take power are the ones who end up leading the rest and making the decisions. The elites will always be in charge, and the majority accept it due to an ideology that supports the interests of the ruling elite. In today's age, it's "democracy" or liberalism but as I said before, those who have the power are usually people who have the will and moral to lead others.

[@PlanetoftheWhites]

@gabri41200 Sorry, but this just isn't true. The majority have never been the ones in charge. It's always a small elite that takes charge. You can read about elite theory from Gatano Musca; an Italian philosopher. The majority of people never have power it's always those who have better moral and will that lead others.

[@otopico]

I am loving this series. Having been raised as a young Earth creationist, I wasn't exposed to evolution in an honest way until I was in my 20s. And while seeing similar systems and constructions (like being able to see how bones in a lizard foot are similar to a human foot) the place where I struggled with seeing how well the concept of evolution explains what we see boiled down to "why did this happen instead of that?". This video, as well as many of your previous ones, layout the step by step of what we think happened in a way where it makes the pieces fall in together. Like with chirality, that it might be something as simple as one requires slightly less energy than the other to explain why one is seen more prominently takes a complicated concept, and makes it easy to understand. Your cosmology series was like this as well. The steps from the Big Bang to atoms then matter then everything takes a very complicated process and makes it understandable without ever need to revet to the crutch of my youth; "faith" I have been watching your content for years and have been guided into learning more about our natural world where Im at the point that the fairytales of my youth seem tired and lazy, and the science seems almost like magic, and I cannot get enough of this stuff. Thank you Dave. Your work allows someone like me to find the same sense of awe and wonder I had as a child, but with some understanding of the things I am seeing that makes this universe we liven even more awe inspiring. And I have evidence of it. Not faith.

[@subcitizen2012]

Glad you made it out. It's people like you that give the rest of us hope.

[@tevin6134]

This was really beautifully said. ❤️

[@hrtofvenus]

dave, if you’re seeing this, thank you so much for what you do. as a student who loves both biology and internet drama, you’re one of my favorite youtubers to watch whenever i want to listen to something

[@danemanton86]

Cant get enough of this! waiting for the upcoming parts is like waiting for a new season of a show to come out lol..also will be binge watching the entire series when all parts are released...bring on the 3 hour edition!! love ya Prof. Dave

[@SuperJohnmusic]

Is time for Netflix to replace Making a Murder for these series. Prof Dave material should be on the streaming platforms, it is just necessary.

[@Gremriel]

While I listen to this, I hear James Tour screaming in the distance.

[@yanisrigaudy5469]

MISTER FARINA !!!

[@tamastasi428]

I thought I was the only one. Especially at the amino acid part.

[@ThorsDecree]

​@@tamastasi428Nope, me too. I came looking for these comments, I perpetually read "Mr. Farina" in Jim's voice nowadays lmao

[@simongiles9749]

Best place for him.

[@azuranokurobuchiumi]

MR FARINA HERE GO GO GO GO GO!!!

[@catpoke9557]

This series is actually just tricking us into learning about various scientific topics that happen to be contentious with a lot of creationists

[@lukesnyder4183]

I, for one, am grateful for the creationists. If not for them, we might never have gotten this excellent primer on abiogenesis!

[@IOSALive]

Professor Dave Explains, ur content makes me happy

[@leopard3131]

"if you want to understand the truth, you will have to resist the urge to see whatever suits you.” - T Ellery Hodges

[@dreamworld3319]

Dave destroyed James Tour yet again without even mentioning his name. Loved all the (not-so) subtle shots!

[@Apophis1010]

I was in a meeting room waiting for people to show up. So I was making small talk witht the first guy that showed up. He brought up how amazing cells are and dropped the name James Tour. What a weird feeling. I was suddenly looking into the eyes of some strange creature and I had to choose my words carefully.

[@antondovydaitis2261]

@@Apophis1010 So did you pass the Touring Test?

[@nostur4984]

@@Apophis1010 shouldve just said ZERO!!!

[@aliensoup2420]

Always allow strangers to do the talking, so you can know who you are dealing with, and don't inadvertently reveal your identity to a nut-case. Which is also why I don't advertise my politics or other beliefs on my car bumper. That is simply inviting trouble.

[@PlanetoftheWhites]

You don't have to agree with them but don't be opposed to others having a different opinion.

[@nostur4984]

@@PlanetoftheWhites opposing factuality is not a difference of opinion, it is misinformation and obfuscation of the truth. James tour's band do not respect evolutionary scientists anyways so what's even the point?

[@cilantroboy5584]

9:51 He's trying his best, Dave

[@neilcaskey3305]

Rude! He's perfect!

[@heavymetalpancake1133]

looooool.

[@_KnuXles]

"Nature tries everything and keeps what works" is such a brilliant way to word it. Creationists are basically just victims of survivor bias.

[@DustyB]

Ok retard

[@toukoenriaze9870]

we are survivors biased xD

[@johnedge2216]

Instantly one of my favorite videos of yours. The long form vids are my favorite, but this succinct version is super nice since it's easier to remember everything you say. I think I've had a creationist friend bring up every point you do here, but at least as far as I can remember, none of them has had an argument which couldn't be refuted by quoting some part this video. Like arguing with parrots, but parrots who were raised listening to Discovery Institute videos on repeat.

[@sci1905]

Creationists are the kind of people who think evolution is not real because a bottle of Mt Dew cannot give birth to a dinosaur.

[@TronBonneVonne]

Yes it can. Only someone who drank my Mt. Dew would say that, did you drink my Mt. Dew? Let me smell your breath!

[@enlacostaizquierda]

Drat.. tried adding a link to the allego non troppo video and my "Life evolves from Coke" joke got eaten by KZbin. Silly comment bots are silly.

[@circleo1992]

"We've never seen a Protista [protist] produce a non-Protista." -Kent Hovind

[@Julian0101]

​@@circleo1992 We have never seen a kent producing a non-kent!!!1

[@ShadyNetworker]

That's a complex way of saying 'creationists are fucking stupid'

[@ArthurTanner-d7s]

"Nature tries everything and keeps what works". An excellent point which prompted me to think’ If god is so great how come so many of his creations became extinct?’.

[@Tyrantlizardking105]

Before paleontology became a field, this was precisely the theological view: extinction wasn’t possible

[@madeline6951]

Mr. Farina, going at it, utterly clueful

[@heavymetalpancake1133]

i like the "clueful" lol.

[@stevenprutton194]

Imagine living in a world where we start going backwards intellectually, and need to fight tooth and nail to prove what we've already learned...wait...

[@goodbye6490]

🤔 that sounds familiar wonder where I hear that

[@ChadFaragher]

I like these videos because you aren't targetting individuals, but instead just invalidate the arguments that they use.

[@kujojotarostandoceanman2641]

"Complexity does not correlate with design, simplicity is" is such a amazing line, and beautiful

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@ 26:00 Exactly. It's great fun to tell creacrappers that the Laws of Thermodynamics not only make life and evolution possible, but are even a necessary condition.

[@Philalethes101]

Describe how the laws of thermodynamics Lead to protein formation. Make it Step by step with experimentally verifiable scenarios.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Get yourself an education. Pethaps you'll learn to ask questions that make sense.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

With respect to the question of chirality: just a few weeks ago, an interesting new paper was put into the bioRxiv. "Membrane permeability selection drove the stereochemistry of life", Olivia Goode et al.

[@simongiles9749]

Ooh, thanks for the heads-up. The thing that creationists get wrong about chirality is that it isn't necessary (there are some bacteria with D-amino acids and/or metabolise L-sugars, for instance). It just happens to be. And all it takes is for there to have been some tiny tiny energetic favourability for one enetiomer over the other, and the effect would build. They also like to assert the untruth that chemicals of the "wrong" enentiomer are "deadly to life". If this were true,you wouldn't find invert sugar in the list of ingredients on thousands of products. They just go through you is all.

[@Theprofessorator]

I love what you do Prof. Dave and this is great stuff. Thank you! One critique I'm starting to have in general with Apologists is with terminology. I think we need to accept that "complexity" is a biproduct of a mind attempting to understand a system. The system itself is not daunted by the number of steps... we are. Complexity doesn't exist in nature, things are just doing what they do. Complexity arises when *WE* try to understand what is happening. So I don't think saying "Snowflakes are geometrically complex" is necessarily combating what they're saying, so much as playing into it. As long as they have "complexity" in their toolkit, they'll lean on it, because they don't understand they're putting the cart before the horse. Minds don't make complex things, things are complicated in *OUR* minds. It's a personal thing. Maybe, reframe it challenges the concept more. Like, "In what way is this process complex?" EDIT: I have a similar problem with the words "God" and "Nature" as well. These are just really bad terms (and I'm aware I used 'nature' above), because they almost always mean the same, or similar, in the in-group, but rarely ever mean the same thing between in-groups.

[@Julian0101]

Yep, 'complexity' is just a buzzword creationist use to press upose a designer. And then turn around and claim their god is the designer. Press upers in philosophy do the same schtick with 'logic'.

[@Philalethes101]

​​@@Julian0101a smartphone and a rock, what is more complex? If you truly believe complexity is a buzz word, sorry bro, i think you are stupid!!!

[@simongiles9749]

I'd like to see the graph that would exist if creationist arguments were valid, that plots "complexity" vs "probability of having been designed", and how they think it would go.

[@Kualinar]

Repeating the Miller-Urey experiment with updated atmospheric composition more closely matching what Earth's early atmosphere led to much higher yields and broader variety of aminoacids. Creationists on the subject : I don't understand and have zero expertise on the subject, but, with my faith, that make me a Top Expert of the field.

[@ProgenitorFoundry]

Its an uphill battle fighting anti intellectualism, and conservative nonsense , people trying desperately drag us back into the stone age. Keep up the good fight dave!

[@goodbye6490]

Uphill more like a completely vertical edge

[@BuIIetBiII]

Hi Dave! can't wait for the series on Origin of life. It's such a fascinating field and it's incredible how far it's progressed

[@thunderd7904]

No joke, I was debating with a creationist today and brought up how the first protocells came to be (describing a process similar to the miller Urey experiment), and I shit you not, his rebuttal was “who made the lightning and applied the pressure?” At this point, idk if it’s even worth trying to convince these idiots anymore.

[@goodbye6490]

That is actually the most believable thing a creationist would do They try so hard to deny and lie to prove that their magic man exists

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

I'd prefer an answer like that. At least he's admitting a miracle.

[@ArthurTanner-d7s]

“who made the lightning and applied the pressure?” Answer: Physics. What’s his next question? 😁

[@kabivose]

Thor

[@jamescarrico1233]

Damn it, I'm supposed to be catching up on work, but theres a new Professor Dave video. Looks like I'm gonna have to put off work for another 31 min 49 sec. Thanks a lot

[@bactrosaurus]

I always wanted a comprehensive abiogenesis breakdown like this 👍

[@rockdoctor767]

Thank you so much for what you do, your channel is so informative and entertaining. I just stumbled across this KZbin channel “is genesis history?” that could make for some good debunking. They have many parallels to the discovery institute, which was my favorite series of yours.

[@kylebowles9820]

When we design algorithms we copy nature: randomly mutating an element like the path of a ray of light. A new wave of state of the art algorithms for doing things as mundane as matrix multiplication are now probabilistic. Randomness, and a way to genly shape it, is all you need! A lot of people really dont understand how it's essentially inevitable.

[@TheDMan2003]

I can almost hear James Tour screaming his insane gibberish to the camera about how all of this is wrong, and knowing that disgrace of a scientist is getting worked up again brings a smile to my face.

[@JCW7100]

Creationists make the mistake of thinking that, if they can invalidate evolution, the case for creation has been strengthened. This is not the case. Creationists are only half way there, as now they have to present their evidence/reasons for accepting creationism.

[@mtbee9641]

As creationists haven’t even put a dent in Evolution yet, they are really still on the start line, needing to both disprove Evolution AND show a valid evidence based alternative!

[@phantomstarsx9343]

well halfway still implies they've accomplished something. its more like if they invalidate evolution, it kind of just sets everything back to 0. which would be interesting lol

[@JCW7100]

@phantomstarsx9343 I guess I meant it more like "step 1, debunk evolution. Step 2, prove creation" or something like that (they want to say "step 1, disprove evolution therefore creation is true"). But yeah regardless they have their work cut out for them

[@TCM1231]

I haven’t cared whether evolution is real or not since I was 10… wish I could say this to every viewer here.. stop learnsterbating!

[@mtbee9641]

@@TCM1231 I think most people don’t care if Evolution is true. Which is fine. Those people should not then try and push some unsupported god belief onto those who accept what the evidence so obviously shows.

[@jakoverslept3096]

I cant wait for the theology section to be honest. I don't know why but i absolutely love it. What people can come up with is so interesting to me.

[@zrzx999]

Can't wait for 3 and 4

[@OlivierBillard]

Why do I hear James Tour screaming in my head while listening this brilliant summary? 😂

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Systems chemistry come from non-life. Cells come from systems chemistry. Life comes from cells. -Life can only come from life.-

[@ronen44444447]

Great video Dave, I can't wait for the next video! Evolution is the single most misunderstood and misrepresented thing in a creationist mind

[@amojc3573]

I've also watched the first part, and as someone who believe that science is just men discovering how God's universe operates, this series is definitely interesting to me as it debunks those who think otherwise in terms of how science and religion connect! Will be looking forward to the rest of it! And yes, it was also quite nice to find out that there is a name this kind of belief, "Deistic Evolution" as mentioned in Part I.

[@jamierichardson7683]

What do you do about natural but grossly horrific aspects of life on this planet? Or the practice versions of hominids that didn't work out?

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

@amojc3573 , I agree. Science can be seen as a way of understanding God's creation.

[@amojc3573]

@@jamierichardson7683 Sometimes even God needs to start again and come up with new things, like the fable of Noah and The Ark is basically God restarting civilisation, and especially God sent Jesus because humanity was so morally unsaveable in general that he had to stoop down to our level. As for life being horrible, well, all of life has to be balanced. The Buddhists call it Yin and Yang, we just call it the natural state of things always wanting to be balanced.

[@velleity5369]

“Make it in a lab!” “The lab isn’t like nature!”

[@synthetic240]

Kinda proves they like to argue in bad faith. It's pretty much demanding, much like flat earthers do, for scientists to create an entire 1:1 model Earth from scratch or else it's not relevant. They'll move the goal posts so far you can't even see it.

[@Tiktaalik59]

Yup, the ol "heads I win, tails you lose" . . . .

[@Ahriman1700]

Hello Malaysian atheist here

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Brother from the Philippines here! Lima 🖐️

[@alazarbisrat1978]

Ethiopian here don't tell anyone I know because that's illegal here and I'm 17 and living with parents who aren't

[@kingmenelaus7083]

@@alazarbisrat1978 careful with that digital footprint bro, as liberating as it feels to admit online, I don't want you getting found out

[@alazarbisrat1978]

@@kingmenelaus7083 well no one in my family can access my computer or my comment history, and since they're not really suspecting they're not gonna look too deep, at least not anytime soon. anyways, might have that conversation at one point with them so I'll be fine.

[@chbu7081]

I wasn't going to watch the entire thing in one sitting, but dammit Dave, that was just too damn interesting.

[@enlacostaizquierda]

I'd love to see a video about the current attempts at building the simplest possible synthetic life. A cell wall with RNA that can replicate. When science creates that it will change the game about what the simplest life was and what it took to happen about 4 billion years ago. [update] Wow.. at around 31m mark he says he'll be doing just that. Thank you Professor!

[@MANIPULATSIOON]

You dont create life then, this is main problem! You can't add basic information and then tell that is synthetic life. You made life if you create RNA. All other is bs

[@Evolved_Skeptic]

It's truly wonderful how much we've been able to glean of these remarkably complex *Natural Systems* in barely a few years - especially when the sciences that we're using to achieve these discoveries may themselves be only in their infancy (such as *Systems Chemistry* (+) which has been around for only a few decades. (+) - *Systems Chemistry* is also proving to be invaluable in the development of entire libraries of new *Ligands:* Artificial or natural biomolecules which interact with *Cell Receptors* to trigger certain responses. (Activation/Suppression/Modulation/etc.) These *Ligands* may become the basis for entirely new medications by constantly being evaluated & revaluated (according to the principles of Natural/Artificial Selection) - _with the least effective getting discarded & the best getting retained for the next iteration_ - rinse & repeat, until they finally design a new *Ligand* which performs the planned function in the most efficient way possible. All of which occurs at such tremendously fast speeds, that it would have been considered Science Fiction a mere few years ago...

[@Arcadia_warlic]

9:50 One would think an intelligent creator would not make such sloppy biological design if they were crafting them... Almost as if they did not. Great overview.

[@AlbertaGeek]

Right? What clown of a designer would put the sewage disposal right through the recreation area?

[@Asstra_Eatz-hg5kv]

I came to look for a microbio video and was greeted by this series!! Excited for more on this series so i can procrastinate

[@hex_8]

Dave casually reducing the already dead horse to atoms

[@goodbye6490]

The dead horse already decomposed

[@thefeasibilianproject5094]

I love definitive guides that helps debunk ridiculous non-arguments of fundy Christians.

[@mrdraco3758]

This video was awesome, learned a lot of new things about OoL and a lot of good arguments against creationists too. I can't wait for part 3 though! :)

[@54eopifkg3ehfkj43]

If something like Elan Vital existed, then the claim that "life can't come from non-life" would make sense. But life is the same atoms and sub-atomic particles as anything else. It's carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. So I don't even understand what creationists mean when they say that "life can't come from non-life".

[@simongiles9749]

Apparently carbon atoms combining to form a fatty acid requires magic, whereas carbon atoms combining to form diamond doesn't. For reasons.

[@Philalethes101]

​@@simongiles9749same situation in which a set atoms form microchips while others form sand, the difference between the two is that one could exist naturally the other certainly cannot, why? Magic or an intelligent mind forced those atoms into that state? It seems you lack critical thinking when it comes to things like this.

[@simongiles9749]

@@Philalethes101 Nobody needs to do anything to make carbon atoms form polymers. I think *you* lack a deeper understanding of chemistry, and biochemistry.

[@lamppost7356]

I can’t stop watching these videos

[@NoahK216]

Don't show James Tour this video!

[@enlacostaizquierda]

LOL.. he wouldn't understand it if he did. But he might produce a really dumb, easily debunked response which I'd love to see Dave shred to bits.

[@shassett79]

_HE DOESN'T DO IT!_

[@jamierichardson7683]

MR FARINA! Just Do It

[@ldarrow221]

MR. FARINA!!!!!

[@WeBareTheBears]

HERE. GO, GO, GO, GO!!!

[@Wunjogenius]

I love these series so much. please keep going!!

[@asd35918]

“Amino acids. These are trivial to synthesize…” [stares at James Tour]

[@McBlammy-x]

29:18 it is interesting when ancient alchemical terminology is still used in similar ways in modern chemistry. Like the word “sublime”, which is then later used by the psychoanalysts for a function of libido and symbols

[@lreadlResurrected]

Uh, uh. "Rice Professor Demands Transparency on Origin of Life Chemistry". Jimmy's latest genius production. Uploaded 8/30/24. Have fun, Dave!

[@simongiles9749]

"Transparency" like published papers easily located via Google Scholar and the like. Even if some are behind journal subscription pay walls, you can always get st least the abstracts. Tour is a buffoon.

[@AironExTv]

This is awesome. An actual reference from which to jump off from not just for countering unscientific rubbish, but for learning a great deal on these subjects. Thank you.

[@nostur4984]

This would be much more believable if you wrote it on a chalkboard 🤔

[@mattlegge8538]

Nice reference!!

[@brave_sir_robin5214]

I understood that reference.

[@cooperszone]

Excellent video. Looking forward to the more detailed reviews of ongoing research. Thank you!

[@UCXEO5L8xnaMJhtUsuNXhlmQ]

Actually I'm pretty sure we're completely clueless about it. After all I saw a man write the word clueless on a chalkboard so or must be true right?

[@Wh40kFinatic]

Saw the notification, and jumped right over! ❤

[@anthonymorris5084]

The best way to debunk any God is to simply demand evidence for said God. There is none.

[@k.m.sparks1190]

No good evidence, small but important distinction.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@k.m.sparks1190 Sorry my friend there is no evidence to support the existence of any Gods, none, zero.

[@k.m.sparks1190]

@@anthonymorris5084 again, no *good* evidence. im not a believer either

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@k.m.sparks1190 There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" evidence. There is only "evidence." Before we just keep flogging a dead horse, please enlighten me, what evidence do you have?

[@DansuB4nsu03]

​@@k.m.sparks1190If the only evidence you have is an old book, hearsay and tales told in the style of "trust me, bro", then what obligation do I have to believe into a heavenly uncle who performs miracles and judges my every mistake?

[@soggybiscotti8425]

Nothing makes me happier than watching a video like this, and seeing just how little I understand, and how much more there is for me to learn. Then you see proponents of creationism that blatently understand even less than I do, yet insist that they are capable of arguing against these topics being discussed. If i understand only 30% of the content in this video, and they understand 5%, yet I dont feel like I'm capable of constructing an argument against evolution, abiogenesis etc.. or even creationism to a certainty, then should you really be trying to tell me what is or isn't correct? Let alone arguing the topic with an actual biologist/chemist of whom understands every aspect shown? I still can't understand how you can see something like this, see just how little you understand of these concepts, and yet still insist that your hypothesis is the correct one, and that all researchers and scientists are incorrect. Who needs an education when you can insist that your argument is correct against all known science and without any factual, scientific backing like a petulant child?

[@simongiles9749]

Well, of course, we all know that when it comes to abiogenesis we are CLUELESS! CLUELESS! because Dave didn't draw it on a blackboard.

[@goodbye6490]

MR FARINA!!!

[@olabassey3142]

best creator on youtube hands down

[@BinaryHedgehog1]

What I don't understand is why abiogensis is such a hard concept to grasp on a basic level. Yes, it's somewhat an entire field of study on the technical level but "how can life come from non-life?" They ask, as if Adam wasn't made from non-life.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

And of course ignoring the fact that all life is made of non living matter.

[@monkerud2108]

There could be directed change in the context of evolution as well, for example with the immune system, i'm not an expert in the field, but basically lamarckian mechanisms can form as a consequence of completely blind evolution. We don't see evidence of it being a dominant mechanism of genetic change, and i'm not sure about the existence of such effects on reproductive cells, but i'm sure it has happened and does happen to some degree in at least some cases. The key thing to remember though is the caveat that it has to arise as consequence of neo-darwinian evolution, it has to evolve like any other function, because of how unstable such change could be, it is likley subtle where it exist. This might have started as simple regulation of mutations and redundancy, like the tuning of duplication of genes for instance, and evolved into a more directed process, but again i don't know how common it is, it seems not very much, but it could be something as simple as increasing or decreasing the rate of duplication of genes in all cells and by virtue also sperm or egg cells, based on things like disease or malnourishment, it doesn't have to be as straightforward as changing the genome of egg cells due to stretching your neck, that seems very far fetched, but it is a possible kind of evolution that could be selected for if it can arise at all due to mutations and selection.

[@hellyeah6127]

Saying life "randomly" appeared is like saying that magnetic metals "randomly" collide with each other.

[@embryophytelove]

Watch the video again, with a grown up.

[@robsquared2]

Glad I have 3 more of these to look forward to.

[@wadehathawaymusic]

Excellent content. I love your videos of this nature. Not so much for proving creationist are idiots (in most cases, you can't fix what one does not want to fix) but for the high quality education. I just can't get enough! Thanks Dave.

[@jameswest7528]

Part two time! Woop woop! 🎉

[@AbhiramN_1289]

Humans are created to perfection, yet we still have to remove our wisdom teeth!

[@DoubleAAce]

who is we

[@Tomato_Dragonzord]

According to creationists, it would be one of thousands of defects installed into us because apparently the creator threw the greatest tempter tantrum of all time after two people ate a fruit long ago.

[@synthetic240]

That's just like your opinion, man.

[@zeendaniels5809]

Indeed... And it's hilarious that those teeth are called "wisdom"... Wisdom of who? Not god's for sure! 😂

[@IGORGOUZENKO22]

Recurrent laryngeal nerve

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

professor dave with other few youtube gems literally carried my education. thank you professor dave ❤

[@2010hyundaielantra]

This is why I'm glad My faith is in a church that doesn't deny science and/or reality

[@Filosofos1]

bahahahahaha

[@maythesciencebewithyou]

And yet you still believe in something very silly like a god.

[@Member0403]

​@@maythesciencebewithyou Oh, just shut up, don't be an asshole

[@bobjone8039]

@@maythesciencebewithyouyou are being a jerk. His faith has nothing to do with you, and unlike most he isn’t trying to push dogma on you. Stop shitting on peoples belief for no reason.

[@bobjone8039]

@@maythesciencebewithyouyou are being a jerk. His faith has nothing to do with you, and unlike most he isn’t trying to push dogma on you. Stop shitting on peoples belief for no reason.

[@timtechdude4339]

Prof Dave you are a legend. Thanks for all your hard work.

[@1nchwonder290]

This is perfect for a Tour rematch

[@monkerud2108]

Just have to say that your videos are amongst the best basic science ed videos around. I think it would be cool if at some point in the future more advanced topics can also be covered in a similar format, but ofc it is hard to do without other references material like textbooks. Keep up the good work, free public resources like this is golden, i wish the ladder went further up so to speak, would be nice if by only using free internet resources a person could become an expert in modern topics, ofc this is hard but i think it can be done, with additional resources.

[@gabri41200]

Christians: Everything can't come from nothing! Also Christian: God created everything from nothing

[@Apophis1010]

...using magic.

[@lamppost7356]

lol I always forget about that

[@User4567u8]

Yeah who created God?

[@gf11511]

The sad part is that, either everything really has to have started from a nothing, or that there was never nothing to begin with... ... I don't know which hypothesis is more scary or mindbogling to be honest: The antithesis of a place, or the antithesis of a nothing, and by nothing i mean the TRULY nothing, for even the black abyss of space itself still has particles and other crap floating around, for lack of a better word.

[@gf11511]

Unless of course, we consider the hypothesis of the laws as we know it just not making any sense in the beginning of everything, so nothing and place might not even mean anything, so then what we are left with? Some eldritch bugaloo?

[@davidfitnesstech]

Why did I have a mental picture of James Tour screaming like a toddler in my head during this video ? ;-)

[@siaotak4657]

I'm a religious man. Whenever someone tries to relocate Christianity from the field of Philosophy to the field of science and the scientific method, I get second hand embarassment 😂😂😂

[@davelaneve2446]

I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist cult. Fortunately I was a very intelligent kid who questioned everything. By the time I was in middle school, I had figured out that religion and god were made up and incompatible with reality. I was always interested in and pursuing science. I felt that I needed to continue to play religious in order to avoid conflict, shaming, and shunning from my friends and family. But once I left for university, I was no longer quiet about my position as an atheist. I went on to receive my PhD in biological sciences, MScRes in cellular/molecular biology, MSc in genetics sciences from UC Berkeley, BSc in biochemistry, chemical biology, organic chemistry, molecular physics from Purdue University. Went on to work in evolutionary genetics research for more than 30 years. I'm constantly debating science vs religion with ignorant and dishonest creationists. Two of the big claims from them are- how did everything come from nothing, and life can't come from non-life. I inform them that only ignorant Christians use the 'something from nothing' claim. No legitimate scientists do. The overwhelming consensus from the scientific community is that all energy has always existed in some state or form. That is the default state, not nothingness and all matter in the universe came from that eternal energy. I ask them to demonstrate nothingness. They cannot, because nothingness is impossible. When they claim that life cannot come from non-life, I ask them to prove it. Tell them to provide scientific peer reviewed research that provides evidence to support that claim. Of course they cannot. I logically inform them that because life and biology is completely based upon chemistry, then it is absolutely required that life must originate from non-life. And remind them that their own god is claimed to have formed man from non-living clay, and then animated him using a golem spell. At that point the conversation usually deteriorates into them quoting bible verses, calling me names, saying I'm a demon possessed heathen, and then telling me that they will pray for me. I respond telling them that I will likewise put a positive spell on them. There is little one can do with ignorant and dishonest creationists who are indoctrinated beyond being logical and reasonable.

[@overtoke]

creationists deny the power and the glory of god. if god comes here he will commune with a scientist, not some idiot.

[@shehabgamal8640]

I mean, writing a book on that scale and convincing people on that large scale and manipulating them certainly makes them smarter than a lot of scientists.

[@pristineperistome5696]

@@shehabgamal8640 Name 1 scientist you are referring to by name.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@shehabgamal8640 Since more people accept the scientific explanations than the claims of the creationists, the scientists apparently are smarter. And what "book on that scale" are you talking about?

[@Soundbrigade]

@@shehabgamal8640The problem with “that book” is that it isn’t original. It has borrowed or stolen chapters from other books and stories, especially the chapters describing the clockmaker argument.

[@simongiles9749]

They do like to make their god tiny.

[@JackRippa-bq9qo]

As someone who actually believes in god i dont really like the idea of "it couldnt have evolved " bcz thats such a materialistic way of looking at god as if god is some physical thing which god is not Why wouldn't he make a system like evolution . Although i disagree with your materialistic way of viewing the world which is just a reflection coming from us but As you said at the beginning people use feelings to answer these kind of things either they believe in god or dont either they believe that the sky is yellow or blue.people tend to always use their feelings while giving answers and that is never a good thing.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Great video, as always. Before I finish it or forgot: at 19:33, where have you read about autocatalysis from 40-50 units? I've looked through some of your links but haven't found it there.

[@erneststyczen7071]

1:31 bacterial cell? idk all i see is a cat face

[@animeida3099]

mrow :3

[@erneststyczen7071]

@@animeida3099 i mean it even has a tail

[@numericalcode]

Glad you covered information. It is a cottage industry of Discovery Institute.

[@freddan6fly]

Creationists are the kind of people who believe Flintstones is evidence for man living with dinosaurs.

[@xeb746]

Whenever i feel sad i remind myself that my presumptions aren't unrivaled by even the most unhinged assessments of evolution.

[@lezeger40]

if i werent an athiest, i would belive in you dave.

[@lezeger40]

seriously though when is eric's debunk coming

[@Soundbrigade]

But you believe in Lisa (or is it Liza … we Swedish Lisaians regard Lizaians as heretics) the Rainbow Giraffe- leaves upon her.

[@k.m.sparks1190]

@@Soundbrigade lisa, and its leaf be upon her

[@Soundbrigade]

@@k.m.sparks1190 More hen!

[@lezeger40]

@@Soundbrigade who's that

[@nothingbasic8147]

How to debunk creationists: Not be a creationist

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

So don't believe in God or gods?

[@mrhuman4049]

@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth no, you just have to be a somewhat reasonable person

[@mrhuman4049]

although ur not wrong

[@MLaak86]

“Mr Farina! Go!” In all seriousness, it’s stunning that we’ve learnt so much and horrorifying that people want to throw it all away in favour of a book

[@EngineeriumEnergy]

MR. FARINAAAAAAAAA!

[@shreyvarad]

GO GO GO GO