The Scientific Problems with Chemical Evolution | Polymerization

Abiogenesis: Before life began, assuming that we’ve got some of the building blocks needed for life - what’s the next step in chemical evolution we’d need to turn them into something actually living?
This video has been produced in collaboration with and reviewed for scientific accuracy by a panel of PhD scientists in the relevant fields.
Video References: docs.google.com/document/d/1QmWuFfHjeri_9eF15D-YlpYSUfGY4q_XD_csXhuVtcQ/edit?usp=sharing
#originoflife #evolution

[@Raptormind1]

Hey, quick question. You do know that even the “simplest” living organism today is still the end result of billions of years of evolution, right? And you must then understand that even said “simplest” organisms are almost certainly many, many orders of magnitude more complex than anything that would have formed via abiogenesis, right?

[@deanmoncaster]

No they don't. They're religious. They think, contrary to reality, that God made the hole to fit the puddle in rather than the water fitting to the hole.

[@NovikNikolovic]

@@deanmoncaster then why are they making a scientific video (I am only on the first minute of the video, I don't see the red flags yet(

[@deanmoncaster]

@@NovikNikolovic because they don't really know what they're talking about. They're trying to convince Christians it isn't right. It's called the dunning Kruger effect

[@NovikNikolovic]

@@deanmoncaster I see.

[@sionsmedia8249]

“Even said “simplest” organisms are almost certainly many many orders of magnitude more complex than anything that would have formed via abiogenesis” Then how did it form then if it’s even more unlikely than this video shows.

[@JessicaSunlight]

He is absolutely correct I advice to go watch James Tour 14 part series on a biogenesis. The problem with this series is that he simplified very complex ideas to simplicity and they still complex and require explanation - you cant just through them at people without explanation. I tried to follow but without any background on the subject I had 0 understanding and ability to follow, once I spent at list 1 year familiarizing myself with synthetic chemistry, now coming back to his videos I can understand what is he talking about and what problems he is addressing. Those problems are very real and they are pain in the butt for any one who believes in materialism and things like mindless natural selection. Chemical elements are not designed to hook up randomly under random conditions to further down become even more complex to become from inorganic chemistry to organic chemistry. There is not even a hypothesis on Origin of life exist to this day... No one has any idea how inorganic might have become organic chemistry.

[@HW-sw5gb]

There is literally no scientific debate whatsoever about the facts that abiogenesis is possible.

[@JessicaSunlight]

@@HW-sw5gb Well if its possible they should have been proven it buy now right? At list something, at list 1 aspect of it. They have not proven any natural spontaneous coming to gather of building blocks of building blokes, not even talking abut anything complex. I hope you are not in denial of the fact that they do not even have a theory on abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is at best a wild speculation. You can say its a hypothesis but even a hypothesis must base its assumption on something that has validity. There is no debate because who is going to debate it? People who believe in natural explanation? Highly unlikely such people will question their own mental box. People who are dogmatic the least to question their belief system. They have no issue point this to religious people but they themselves are doing exactly the same thing. Despite what consensus is in scientific community, abiogenesis is not a fact. Its a fact in some people's heads - yes.

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@JessicaSunlight Jesus would be legitimately so disappointed in you. Deliberately believing things you know are illogical just because your faith is so weak you feel you desperately. need external evidence. It’s very obvious you have no clue about the actual research being done or how much scientific advancement has been made in the field lol. What you’re doing is the intellectual equivalent of saying “it’s impossible for humans to create a way to fly” in 1850. The reality is we’ve already managed to create the basic building blocks of life this decade past decade. It’s going to be an extremely sad day for you when we inevitably manage to recreate it and you’ll lose another coping mechanism for your crisis of faith

[@derhafi]

@@HW-sw5gb " Deliberately believing things you know are illogical just because your faith is so weak" That is pretty much the extent of her mental capabilities....It's like talkig to a wall. A wall that ignores all reason and at some point will just accuse you of being mean and prays for you...Pointless

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@HW-sw5gb Just 5 elements are basically what amino acids are made of. Is time some kind of catalyst? That caused 5 out of 98 elements to arrange themselves into amino acids? And out of 300 kinds listed in the Practical Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, assembled 16.8 billion of only 20 specific in their 100% left handed forms (except glycine) into the thousands of different types of the 42 million proteins in the simplest cell? In the specific sequences as specific as the letters are in words? IE The 20 exclusive amino acids are letters spelling protein words averaging 400 letters. These sequences define the proteins function and ability to fold into its 3D shape. There is much more specified information in the simplest cell than the encyclopedia britannica’s 206.8 million letters arranged in 44 million words averaging 4.7 letters.

[@kofiafriyie4329]

I really appreciate the effort put in these videos to explain complex issues. Thank you and keep up the good work.👍

[@applejuice7215]

Even though you may get a lot of backlash for this - thank you still for making these videos. The amount of effort and time you put into them is enormous - the fact that this is even for free is insane :D Thank you so much - and keep searching! Let the force be with you while you research /lh! Btw, do you happen to know about Dr James Tour? He seems to be talking about similar stuff

[@Rakscha-Sun]

Yes that is the sad thing, that the best contend often has to be produced for free and doesn't get the audience it deserves.

[@CesarClouds]

A lot of these videos unashamedly and irresponsibly spread misleading information.

[@donovancumby5835]

@@CesarCloudswas their any in this vid. If so can you tell me please

[@CesarClouds]

@@donovancumby5835 I'll go through the video and let you know.

[@mirziyodm]

​@@CesarClouds And of course you'll elaborate on that, right?

[@FranzFleeter]

Great video series! It really illuminates complex issues in a way we all can understand them! Keep up the great work!

[@Shalrath239]

Lipid vesicles solve a lot of the problems mentioned in this video. They are self assembling and will link with each other until they form volumetric shapes. This provides a safe place for polymerization to occur, while acting as a one-way filter to allow increased concentration inside the vesicle. (Polymer components can wiggle through the lipid wall, but polymer chains are too big to escape) Within a given vesicle, polymerization will tend to produce polymer chains that follow certain criteria, namely that they are built from the most common base pairs available, they don't tend to kink or glue themselves together, and finally they don't form a strong enough bond to prevent copies from separating from the parent chain. This produces a selection of polymer chains that no longer rely on pure luck to assemble. When the parent lipid vesicle grows large enough, it will split and form two or more daughter vesicles from mechanical turbulence, and each vesicle will contain copies of all the successfully self-reproducing polymer chains that developed in the parent. With this mechanism in play, the requirement of chance to produce successful polymer chains is virtually eliminated. Interesting video, but I disagree with the conclusion

[@Dobermann89-dr2rc]

Nope not really because = Lipid vesicles (liposomes) are a unique and fascinating type of polymolecular aggregates, obtained from bilayer-forming amphiphiles-or mixtures of amphiphiles-in an aqueous medium. So synthetic and not actually found in nature but made in a lab hmm why you lying. And why do you need lipid vesicles to exist already for your abiogenesis problem. So you want given already made in lab lipid vesicles to make your origin of life possible. So in other words you want to be able to cheat again

[@Dobermann89-dr2rc]

Nope not really because = Lipid vesicles (liposomes) are a unique and fascinating type of polymolecular aggregates, obtained from bilayer-forming amphiphiles-or mixtures of amphiphiles-in an aqueous medium. So synthetic and not actually found in nature but made in a lab hmm why you lying. And why do you need lipid vesicles to exist already for your abiogenesis problem. So you want given already made in lab lipid vesicles to make your origin of life possible. So in other words you want to be able to cheat again

[@Dobermann89-dr2rc]

Nope not really because = Lipid vesicles (liposomes) are a unique and fascinating type of polymolecular aggregates, obtained from bilayer-forming amphiphiles-or mixtures of amphiphiles-in an aqueous medium. So synthetic and not actually found in nature but made in a lab hmm why you lying. And why do you need lipid vesicles to exist already for your abiogenesis problem. So you want given already made in lab lipid vesicles to make your origin of life possible. So in other words you want to be able to cheat again

[@Dobermann89-dr2rc]

Nope not really because = Lipid vesicles (liposomes) are a unique and fascinating type of polymolecular aggregates, obtained from bilayer-forming amphiphiles-or mixtures of amphiphiles-in an aqueous medium. So synthetic and not actually found in nature but made in a lab hmm why you lying. And why do you need lipid vesicles to exist already for your abiogenesis problem. So you want given already made in lab lipid vesicles to make your origin of life possible. So in other words you want to be able to cheat again

[@Dobermann89-dr2rc]

Nope not really because = Lipid vesicles (liposomes) are a unique and fascinating type of polymolecular aggregates, obtained from bilayer-forming amphiphiles-or mixtures of amphiphiles-in an aqueous medium. So synthetic and not actually found in nature but made in a lab hmm why you lying. And why do you need lipid vesicles to exist already for your abiogenesis problem. So you want given already made in lab lipid vesicles to make your origin of life possible. So in other words you want to be able to cheat again

[@SammytheStampede]

Nice explanation of biomechanics, it brought me back to my college years with the clarity. Cheers!

[@souljabob217]

Thank you! Wow! KZbin you actually pushed a video to me that I really enjoyed! I feel like the chances of that are smaller than chemical evolution!

[@TheMilkMan8008]

Do you need me to explain chemical evolution to you? Because its not that hard. We have done it in jars.

[@OneTruePhreak]

@@TheMilkMan8008 no, you haven't. You've created a solution believed to be able to develop into life. Not one scientific experiment has ever created life, without starting with life. You're completely full of shit.

[@AchHadda]

​@@TheMilkMan8008 you created life in jars?

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@AchHadda It’s going to be an extremely sad day for you when we inevitably discover how to replicate abiogenesis. We’ve made significant progress already.

[@HW-sw5gb]

The chance of chemical evolution is 100%, and anyone who isn’t blinded by their religious faith understands that’s. The respect for people who deny the loss of nature abiogenesis in the scientific community is literally the same as flat earthers. And I’m not exaggerating whatsoever when I say that. It’s extremely sad your faith is so weak you’re desperate for a “scientific” way to prove it and you have to resort to pretending abiogenesis isn’t real. We have made extremely typical scientific progress towards recreating it, exactly the same as we have for all the other mysteries of in the past. It’s like being in 1860 and saying humans will never learn how to build a passenger flying machine.

[@twbascom]

You do an amazing job with your videos. Thanks for all the hard work. I'd love to see you continue your creations!

[@derhafi]

This channel is run by the ill-named Discovery institute, a christian propaganda mill, where they do no research at all, none, and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. Every so called alternative to a naturalistic origin for life, rests on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. THAT is not credible.....that is an apppeal to the supernatural, not different from claiming "magic did it".

[@lukasbryant9881]

I really appreciate hearing the details of the situation. I haven't heard it on this level before. Great video.

[@mcmanustony]

@@lukasbryant9881 try listening to actual scientists who actually work in this field

[@isaiahfoulidis3363]

Well done. You have done a tremendous job. And for the many who don’t use their brains or are blinded because of their total rejection of God, there are a few who will listen, I pray.

[@cllax14]

This is the most redundant video I have ever seen. You make a whole video making critiques of chemical evolution about unanswered problems that have been known in the field for decades. Yet in your “conclusion” you provide nothing as far as a theory that better explains how complex polymers came to be. Oh yeah, it’s because you can’t. Modern science is our best *current* understanding of the universe that the collective knowledge of humankind can muster up. Just because science cannot currently explain something doesn’t mean it won’t ever be able to. Since evolutionary biology & chemistry are the best theories we have in how life came to be, it is far more believable than some god invented by desert people 5,000 years ago just *poofed* life into existence. Compared to any ID argument (and I say argument not theory because theories have evidence: which ID arguments have none of) abiogenesis is astronomically more probable. You are happy to critique scientific theories, yet never provide any alternatives hmm… it’s almost as if you can’t. Submit a video with a better theory that explains how life came to be since you claim to understand these concepts better than actual experts in chemistry and biology. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence buddy. Until then you’re just another keyboard warrior who thinks they know more about the world than actual experts.

[@restorationofidentity]

I agree with you cllax this channel at first appeared to be rational when I first liked at it. Truth is it's a Ruse a Trojan horse of ID/creationism.. it's pathetic I say. It's crazy how so many folks feel that they're chosen that there special in some way. That god is everything, someone has an experience that they can't fully grasp and so allocate it to God!!

[@troywright359]

The theory of evolution isn't flawless. I don't understand why you are annoyed when people point that out, as I'm sure you have thousands of flaws you'd like to point out with alternatives

[@cllax14]

@@troywright359 "the theory of evolution isn't flawless"-no sh*t captain obvious. Nobody who actually understands evolution will argue agaisnt that. That's how the scientific process works. A classic response by someone who fundamentally doesn't understand the scientific process. If you actually took the time to read my comment correctly I happily acknowleged that science cannot 100% explain everything in chemistry and biology. In fact, scientists love that aspect about science. It makes the process of discovery that much more fascniating. All you evolution deniers think we have some dark secret that we hope intelligent design proponents don't find out about, when it's actually the total opposite. We love having unanswered questions because that gives scientists questions to answer. People who are evolution deniers and support intelligent design in its stead are the ones who get annoyed. You are simply projecting your feelings because ID proponents can't accept the fact that evolution has something ID arguements lack: evidence. I challenged the creator of this video and any ID proponent to bring forth evidence that ID is a more viable theory than evolution and neither the creator of this video nor you have (nor will you be able to). Sorry reality hurts your feelings because your made up god turns out to not exist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@troywright359]

@@cllax14 you still seem so annoyed when others aren't satisfied with it, as if this means you have to accept somebody's god as real, that's not what this video says. it doesn't force you to get on your knees and pray. yes scientists love to keep discovering, what did i say that disqualified that part? the fact i can talk to you know is via discovering how the world works and applying that knowledge. 'science'. i dunno, it seems the reality is that we can't have a civil discussion without one of us being snide and smarmy. i already said you have thousands of flaws with alternative beliefs, i never said u have to accept a god or anything. anyway. you have a nice day.

[@cllax14]

@@troywright359 sorry you are unable to refute my central argument. Your comment only further demonstrates you have nothing to pose as a counter argument. Don’t bother responding if you cannot address my main point. Here, I’ll even restate it for you to make it easier for you: if evolution is so “flawed” propose something that better explains how life came to be. You say I’m smug when I’m not the one over here acting like I know more about biology and chemistry than people with doctorates and are tenured at our most elite universities in the world. To me, people who criticize experts in science with no valid counter argument sound as foolish and arrogant as a cashier at a retail store criticizing a brain surgeon in how they perform surgery. Also to clarify, since you said I “have to” accept somebody’s god as real… which one? The judeo-Christian god is only one of thousands. Humans have worshipped an estimated 8,000-12,000 gods throughout human history. I’ll go with itzamná the Maya god of the calendar and mathematics since that one sounds cooler than the judeo-Christian one.

[@msvh-l9616]

Hi, quick question here! Do you think autocataylsis can solve the problem of homochirality for the origin of life?

[@pedrocruz4409]

You’re expecting evolution to have taken what 6,000 years? I can’t believe I stayed for the whole video Like in billy madison, “I’m dumber for having heard this”

[@tartagliussy529]

Fr life has existed on earth for over 4 billion years

[@theewl6xer166]

@@tartagliussy529 yeah pedro, its kinda a big deal for life having to be formed in a way that doesnt break all know laws of physics

[@lunamuna664]

@@tartagliussy529 🤡🤡🤡

[@doctaflo]

he’ll have you know this video was made out of 5 PhD scientists!

[@peteconrad2077]

@@doctaflo what?

[@stegokitty]

Excellently done.

[@HW-sw5gb]

Jesus would be legitimately so disappointed in this channel. Desperately believing what they want to be true instead of accepting the obvious evidence in front of them. The chance of abiogenesis and evolution is 100%, and anyone who isn’t blinded by their religious faith understands that’s. The respect for people who deny the loss of nature abiogenesis in the scientific community is literally the same as flat earthers. And I’m not exaggerating whatsoever when I say that. It’s extremely sad your faith is so weak you’re desperate for a “scientific” way to prove it and you have to resort to pretending abiogenesis and evolution isn’t real. There’s a reason Catholics and mainstream Protestants actually have respect and you don’t. We have made extremely typical scientific progress towards recreating it, exactly the same as we have for all the other mysteries of in the past. It’s like being in 1860 and saying humans will never learn how to build a passenger flying machine.

[@blackholesun9068]

Jesus said God created Adam and Eve and he should know he was there. So how can you say he'd be disappointed, actually he'd be smiling on this young man.

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@blackholesun9068 Science and religion do not have to contradict. The Old Testament is not meant to be taken literally. It says that the Tigris flows from Africa, when we know for a fact it does not and never has. It says there was a global flood and only two of ever animal, when we know for a fact this did not happen and is actually an Ancient Sumerian myth first

[@commonsense0692]

Shame u are sadly trying to push ur fake propaganda creationism, u are actually very good animations and funny, hope u grow out of believing in fairytales

[@ryanlengacher]

Evolution is a fairytale

[@commonsense0692]

@@ryanlengacher how? 95% of scientists are atheist and 80-90% of world know evolution is proven fact due to the mountain of evidence. Creationist propaganda has been disproven 1000 times and even in a court of Law in the religious state of US, Faith literally means without evidence, Christianity has zero eyewitness or archaeological evidence of Jesus, god and bible are doing proven parables stories not real, u can’t prove anything in ur religion Religion especially Christianity is a business which indoctrinates and takes money from the weak and stupid and gives little to none back in charity….why give tithe to church? Never said in bible to. Creationist propaganda now tries unsuccessfully to deny proven science it’s sad and pathetic

[@jetski-oo5oe]

@@ryanlengacher Go on?

[@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda]

Your comment is a logical fallacy of "appeal to emotion". dismissed.

[@commonsense0692]

@@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda what? 😂 so instead of answering questions to give BS fallacy normally committed by emotional Christians without evidence….as I said science has all the evidence…religion is a faith based fairytale 😂🤦‍♂️🤡

[@ryanlengacher]

I like how you’re triggering all the Evolution supporters in the comments they don’t like when someone challenges their religion.

[@shitposter1000]

Evolution isn’t a religion

[@adrianthom2073]

How is evolution a religion? Evolution is our best explanation for the diversity of life we find on this planet and the theory of evolution is supported by evidence from all fields of science coming to the exact same conclusion. Not once in the 150 years has any evidence been found that debunks the Theory. I wonder why that is?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks Adrian for your comments. At the highest level, there are only two hypotheses for how life got started. Life started itself (abiogenesis), or something else did. The strongest support for abiogenesis is methodological naturalism - the requirement that science is constrained to only consider purely natural causes. It is likely that adoption of methodological naturalism is what leads you to conclude that “Abiogenesis is our best hypothesis for how life got started”. This is because the alternate hypothesis is excluded a priori - it cannot be considered. Maybe you can appreciate that there are epistemological concerns with excluding a hypothesis beforehand because an imposed constraint only allows the first hypothesis? Abiogenesis tends to be accepted and its alternatives rejected at the outset, not on the basis of actual evidence, but for other reasons. I'd argue the proper approach is to allow yourself to be open to where the evidence leads and examining it objectively. For example, we know that natural processes always produce an equal mixture of the possible chiralities. Therefore, if life started through natural processes, we would expect life to contain an equal mixture of chiralities. But we see the opposite - a very unnatural dependence on only one chirality: homochirality. We also know that natural processes drive chemical reactions toward minimal enthalpy and maximum entropy. But in life, we see the opposite - life has extremely high enthalpy and extremely low enthalpy. This is a fancy way of saying that chemicals don’t naturally organize themselves to produce the kids of molecules life depends on. We also know that life is replete with examples of chicken-and-egg phenomena, such as Eigen’s paradox, as explained in the video. Natural processes do not (and cannot) produce chicken-and-egg phenomena. There are many, many more examples that would suggest that abiogenesis is not, in fact, a scientifically sound hypothesis.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@LongStoryShortVideos , are you also Rob Stadler? As I received a response from Rob that is almost a cut and paste of your above response. I have copied and pasted my response to his below: “but we have only ever observed natural causes. Abiogenesis is not the only hypothesis for how life started. Another Hypothesis is a God created all life, but this can not be tested. But is still a hypothesis. Entropy does not affect life. Living organisms are not closed systems. We need to eat to maintain our body heat, if we don’t eat we DIE. Why do Creationist not understand the laws of thermodynamics? Regarding the egg and the chicken, the Egg came first. Not hard. You clearly do not understand how evolution works” Abiogenesis is a scientifically sound hypothesis. Your ignorance of Abiogenesis or science is not evidence against it. If Abiogenesis is false, what is this unnatural cause you think created life? Their are also other hypothesis for life that is not a God, but these hypothesis don’t have strong supporting evidence for them, and Abiogenesis does. That is why Abiogenesis is the leading hypothesis for a natural cause.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Not me, no; however, Rob Stadler is one of the scientists advising on the videos though. Hang tight for the next couple videos, they should shed some light on your questions. Thanks Adrian.

[@william2496]

Non-biologist trying to make sense of the prevailing thought about genesis. Does this seem like the conventional idea? Abiogenesis, on hydrothermal vent and subject to ‘natural selection’ by geo and hydrological processes with chemical reactions: RNA > polymerisation, with natural electrolysis > symbiosis with Enzymes > acquisition of ATP Synthase = Protogea Biogenesis: Prototogea > Virus & Girus Protogea > Luca > Prokaryotes

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

There are many competing high-level concepts for abiogenesis, but none have strong empirical support, unless life is falsely portrayed as vastly oversimplified. This series of videos is attempting to inject some reality by focusing on the actual requirements for life and pointing out the known limitations of natural processes.

[@jonathansule5813]

Great short film on the impossibility of the random interaction of raw matter and raw energy throughout a finite time frame producing anything except dust. I’ve often considered the bio polymer long chain fatty acid portion of the phosphobilipid bimembrane required to form the cell membrane portion of all living cells. These don’t and can’t form outside of living cells as they require enzymes which only exist inside living cells. Enzymes which are encoded by dna or rna. Which exist only inside living cells. But living cells are only cells because of the cell membrane. Let’s not even talk about the ribosomes required to form the protein which makes those enzymes. Nor the folding proteins which are required to shape those proteins (amino acid chains) into their 3D and even ‘4D’ shapes. Nor the energy producing systems required to power all this massive amount of complexity. I could go on and on and …. That natural processes somehow managed to produce a prokaryotic cell is an absurd statement and a failed argument. It’s not a theory. Theories must have been proved at some point. It is a silly illogical hypothesis made by people who refuse to admit that a Creator, a Designer, is required for life. Period.

[@ZytrikX]

Funny how he had to make it an ad just so people would look at this dumb stuff

[@lunamuna664]

Imagine everything the devil has to do 🤣

[@OneTruePhreak]

Imagine using common sense and still believing an owl can shit out an elephant.

[@ZytrikX]

@@OneTruePhreak ???

[@yoursoulisforever]

Who the heck are you to call this dumb stuff? And if your going to make such claims, at least have the courage and honesty to use your real name.

[@biochemlife]

@@yoursoulisforever leave Britney alone

[@daddada2984]

To God be the glory.

[@johnquigley1366]

Hi thank you putting these very easily understandable shorts out there. I got my degree in Biochemistry and have been a research chemist for over a decade and as I have these discussions of abiogenesis with people it’s very hard for them to visualize what I am saying. So I appreciate having these. You’ll be getting more views on these 😂 do you have a tik tok?

[@tcarp77]

Very much looking forward to your video on vestiges structures. The vengeance is so, so sweet.

[@HW-sw5gb]

“Vengeance” lmao. Evolution is real and you should feel stupid and bad for ever thinking otherwise

[@tcarp77]

Lololol "it's real. My fifth grade science teacher told me so. Santa Claus is real. My parents told me so." Sorry my friend, you were lied to, and unfortunately you were not able to develop the critical thinking skills to think for yourself and actually think about the probabilities of evolution as described. It's a complete joke and is completely political.

[@JulioHernandez-jq9wg]

Awesome. Thanks for your honesty, bravery and hard work!

[@chriswilloughby48]

So this is some young earth creationist channel. lol

[@csmoviles]

Thank you for speaking out the truth

[@joshuapatrick682]

I took over a dozen classes on biology and biochemistry in high school and college and Mass Effect (a video game) is what introduced me to the concept of chirality….yeah….

[@fbsfgr]

So, you took the classes. Did you attend? If so, why weren't you paying attention?

[@swhite7929]

Bro I learned about chirality in high school chemistry, where did you go to uni?

[@sunnythegreat9312]

Chirality is actually taught in science classes, but I'm not sure if it's discussed in relation to abiogenesis.

[@galileog8945]

I do not know which scientists reviewed this, but after five minutes I already gave up: you are confusing kinetics and thermodynamics, which is an appalling error. Biopolymers are thermodynamically unstable to hydrolysis but kinetically quite stable: try to hydrolyze a protein in water at neutral pH. You will need hundreds of years even though the process is thermodynamically favorable. Polymerization of monomers occurs readily in bulk water upon chemical activation. The scientists you consulted for accuracy must have been those of the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE. Did I guess right?

[@billholbert2393]

Love your videos and share them with as many high school kids as I can.... GREAT WORK

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Fantastic! Love it :)

[@Apollos2.2]

These are great little videos! Breaks it down nicely into bite size chunks! Please keep it up 👍

[@jacquirose1994]

Really informative in a quirky fun way, thank you 😎👍🏻

[@TheMilkMan8008]

I mean this in all sincerity and I genuinely wish to know what part you found informative

[@jacquirose1994]

@@TheMilkMan8008 hydrolysis, chirality. 👍🏻

[@TheMilkMan8008]

@@jacquirose1994 I apologize, but I do not understand what you mean. You just stated two scientific words and that means literally nothing to me. Its as if I asked you why you liked the movie Saw, and you said "plot and profoundly". I just don't know what you mean. You'll have to be more specific.

[@jacquirose1994]

@@TheMilkMan8008 I just like you video. Thank you

[@robstadler927]

@@TheMilkMan8008 You have posted comments that profess a great confidence in abiogenesis: "Do you need me to explain chemical evolution to you? We have done it in jars" and "We have a pretty darn good idea on how things got started. And by pretty good I mean its basically set in stone." But here, you just stated that you don't yet understand what chirality means or why hydrolysis is a concern. It may help to watch the video. Posting strong ideological statements while ignoring the evidence is not helpful.

[@csmoviles]

Please keep it up❤❤❤❤

[@dontebush895]

If you don’t believe chemical evolution ever happen, then you also can’t believe in biological evolution? Can you make a video why biological evolution is not true?

[@robstadler927]

Chemical evolution and biological evolution are somewhat distinct. Here's a great video on biological evolution by the same group: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3nQpKxvhK50jrc

[@ikemiracle4841]

More people should really watch this video, people nowadays just take what their sci Fi teachers say instead of reality it's really painful 😖

[@derhafi]

This channel is run by the ill-named Discovery institute, a christian propaganda mill, where they do no research at all, none, and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. Every so called alternative to a naturalistic origin for life, rests on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. THAT is not credible.....that is an apppeal to the supernatural, not different from claiming "magic did it".

[@deanmoncaster]

Pot?!?! Kettle?!??! You're black!

[@coldcreation6676]

Why this is my father go with my mother for walking he was going daily before now he doesn't go y?

[@mikeaffaneh2015]

Do you really read every single comment?

[@SynoPTL]

Not the ones he doesn't like

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

maybe

[@zizuwest1]

for those who challenge this video, pls answer.. ... how the 4 building blocks, (lipids, sugars, nucleo bases amino acids) could have been "created" in a prebiotic earth? (pls no... miller urey, (dig deeper on this first))

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

Will you make more?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Yes, of course! The next one is already underway.

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

@@LongStoryShortVideos on discovery institute?

[@philipps6032]

@@LongStoryShortVideos which topic?

[@angelmapping6086]

@@philipps6032 be patient

[@philipps6032]

@@angelmapping6086 ok.

[@phigou]

I didn't understand many things since it's clearly not my field, but I only have one question : what are you defending ? I mean, after watching 3 or 4 of your videos on chemical evolution, I can't help but see a pattern and wonder why you're always bringing other theories down. You're always (and only) proving things wrong and pointing to incoherences which, in itself, isn't a bad thing... but what are you trying to build here ? What do you propose *instead* of these theories ? Science is about adding knowledges together, making sure they fit by try and error. Sure, stepping back and pointing when things go in the wrong direction is always good, but systematically tearing apart every theory WITHOUT PROPOSING ANYTHING INSTEAD doesn't sound like science to me. You're often saying "we're supposed to believe..." but what do YOU want us to believe watching your videos ? sounds like creationism and/or obscurantism to me...

[@Mr-op9tx]

i think your reaction is a valid and visibly apparent case of someone who's theories are shattered by a video. He is not trying to push anything or take a side, he is saying that believing in Abiogenesis is just not rational, regardless of what the actual correct theory exists on the origins of life. Most people in this comment section just link this to the existence of a creator, which they so strongly do not wish is true due to personal hate towards how they were raised (with christian or other religious values etc). His videos make perfect sense to someone who is searching for the truth, but they instead sting and burn people who think they figured it all out and everything is explained by science, because it shatters their world. I do not need to make further statements on this, I am sure you understand.

[@brandongilbert6488]

Woops misclick

[@lochandichabod3084]

Same

[@7ebr830]

@johnglad5 Notice these people never have a decent argument; they only have stories that require you to accept their assumptions. When you don't, they trot out that old "flying spaghetti monster" even though you've never uttered a word about religion or creationism. Lol

[@shaneboxhall1614]

Mr pickles, he's a gooood boy!

[@shaneboxhall1614]

Or should I say, momma named me sheriff.

[@shaneboxhall1614]

Ooh, i got it, God created life, and then the laws of thermal dynamics. Lol

[@terriekraybill9724]

These videos are great! Just make the topics fun to listen to, but still full of information and a good summary of the argument.

[@djones02]

Love your videos, this is amazing. Even though I've know about this stuff for years its great to see it all in an easy to digest and shareable format.

[@damiendenathrius2839]

Music cartoons facts information jokes i love all of it keep up good works god bless u ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@charlestownsend9280]

The simplest lifeforms have more, yes today but even the simplest lifeforms today are far more complex than life at the beginning. So what is your better explanation for life? Magic?

[@justalaborer713]

Aliens. AKA, atheist's stand in for a god.

[@dylanpresidafonseca2545]

@@justalaborer713 damn meth psychosis hits you hard.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@justalaborer713 , Aliens do not explain how life started. This is a stupid argument. Panspermia maybe true, and explain how life started on earth, but Panspermia does not advise how life started. That is why Abiogenesis is the best hypothesis because it explains how life can start anywhere in the universe with the right chemistry and conditions. Magic or God is another hypothesis for how life started.

[@andoapata2216]

@@justalaborer713 you mean SKY IMAGINARY FRIENDS ????

[@jamesperkins2552]

Intelligent design? You knew that so why did you ask? The problem is still there. How could any of this happen and become self sustaining in isolation? Odds blowing up into infinity don’t go away with the assumption that “ it must have been simpler way back when.” You need a route to get there. You don’t have one. Nothing proposed makes any sense as a progenitor of what exists. No logical argument gives us one. If you want to wave it all away and say “life exists therefor there is some on known mechanism by which it came to be by accident” you are making a leap of faith. You are doing what you are accusing Christians of doing. You are assuming a hidden chain of events that leads to the conclusion you believe.

[@sunnythegreat9312]

Some people who argue against abiogenesis state that the mechanisms required to create life are rare and there are n number of other possible mechanisms that could harm life as we see today. My argument against that is that consciousness and order are abstract concepts. In truth, we are just a random arrangement of particles. Other sorts of life could've evolved that might think that the mechanisms that create us are toxic for them. The n number of possible mechanisms is like having 100 uniquely shaped beads in a bag and we pull out a bead. Basically, the other possible mechanisms that are toxic to us might have an equal probability of actually occurring. Also, life evolved in a very specific area more suitable for life as we know it. The first life might've been simple. Much simpler than the simplest living organism alive today. The n number of other mechanisms are about equally as rare. Basically, there are n number of mechanism pathways when it comes to reactions mentioned in abiogenesis meaning that all pathways are quite rare and the mechanisms to create life are the ones that we landed on. 7:05 The improper linking has n number of improper linkages which means that all improper linkages are equally as rare as proper linkages. Here's how ChatGPT refined my argument: Some people who argue against abiogenesis state that the mechanisms required to create life are rare and that there are countless other possible mechanisms that could have harmful effects on life as we know it. My counterargument is rooted in the understanding that consciousness and order are abstract concepts. In reality, life is simply a random arrangement of particles. It's conceivable that other forms of life could have evolved with different biochemical foundations, perceiving our mechanisms of life as toxic to them. The notion of 'n' number of possible mechanisms is akin to having 100 uniquely shaped beads in a bag and randomly selecting one. The mechanisms that might be harmful to us could have an equal probability of occurring. Additionally, life originated under specific conditions suitable for its emergence, likely starting out much simpler than even the most basic organisms we know today. Therefore, the argument that abiogenesis mechanisms are rare overlooks the fact that all potential pathways are equally rare in the grand scheme of chemical reactions. The processes that led to the creation of life on Earth represent just one among many possible outcomes.

[@jamesbrend2431]

I'm hearing a lot of it's hard or unlikely for this and that to form or link.. but not impossible. It only takes 1 time to work and billions of years is a long time

[@sfdfsc2483]

Actually for this to work, you'd need not just one but multiple specific biopolymers. And not just then either. You would need them to all be perfectly in one place. And this is still not even going on to the fact that keeping it is more than a solvable challenge. All in all, even if this was possible, a single cell has an incredibly small chance to survive the conditions of a pre-biotic earth. You would need this to happen a very large of times before it would be sustainable. If you were to crunch the numbers, this would probably have worse odds than everyone in the entire world winning the lottery every single day by choosing the same numbers for a century.

[@peteconrad2077]

@@sfdfsc2483 like he said. Small chance plus big time = very high probability.

[@alfieshepherd6522]

@@sfdfsc2483 You underestimate how long a billion years is and how big the universe is

[@JM-jj3eg]

Billions of years is a very short time compared to what is needed

[@andrewholdaway813]

@@JM-jj3eg So you agree it's possible, what timescale would _you_ put on it.

[@shaneboxhall1614]

Ooh, i got it, god created life, and then the laws of thermal dynamics.

[@Mr-op9tx]

That is correct

[@michaelduncan5236]

Could you please explain if this problem with RNA is so complex, how MRNA vaccines are created and what are the effects on our DNA once it comes in contact with this MRNA? Or do I mix things which don't have anything in common at all?

[@sentientflower7891]

MRNA vaccines are created with 21st century technology so complicated that professional scientists would take several hours explaining how they work. Vaccines are meant to educate your immune system and they are very effective.

[@robstadler927]

I don't know the precise method the pharma companies use, but RNA is commonly produced in laboratories by a carefully guided chemical process. Each nucleotide is added to the growing biopolymer through a 5-step process. The steps are very unnatural, especially the careful exclusion of water and construction of RNA in the opposite direction of living organisms. Here is a reference to the process: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide_synthesis The mRNA is intended not to interact with DNA - it is intended to only be used to produce proteins (COVID spike proteins), which then cause an immune response.

[@ericanderson3364]

As others have said, we have advanced technology to create the exact mRNA sequences needed. Even so, mRNA is still quite fragile at room temperatures. That is why both mRNA vaccines need to be stored at very low temperatures and only thawed just before use, or else they begin to deteriorate as the video described. One of the vaccines needs to be kept especially cold for storage, but the requirements for the other are not quite as severe. That is because one of them was designed with a better lipid coating that holds up better and protects the mRNA better. That lipid coating is also important for getting the cells to take the vaccine through the cell gateways into the interior of the cell (where the mRNA is processed to make the spike protein). A completely closed cell would die. To stay alive, there must be openings. But every cell must be careful about what it lets in and what it keeps out. It's like not being able to get through the door unless the guard lets you through. That's just one more reason why it's apparent that cells are not unintentional accidents. Scientist Marcos Eberlin has written about this in his book on Foresight. p.s. For more about that book and an excerpt about the cell membrane, search for the article "With Three Nobel Endorsements, Chemist Marcos Eberlin Advances Case for Intelligent Design".

[@maryaigler7651]

Also, DNA is in the cell nucleus , and mRNA is in the cell cytoplasm. They never interact.

[@fbsfgr]

@@maryaigler7651 uhm, do you have a source for that. No, of course you don't.

[@Ms-Fortune]

I love your channel and the videos you make. Keep up the fantastic work!

[@derhafi]

You like to be lied to? This channel is run by the ill-named Discovery institute, a christian propaganda mill, where they do no research at all, none, and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. Every so called alternative to a naturalistic origin for life, rests on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. THAT is not credible.....that is an apppeal to the supernatural, not different from claiming "magic did it".

[@theoveranalist6381]

Remember folks: some religious people were spouting the same nonsense when Galileo told them the Earth revolved around the sun. Give it another 50 years or so and this should sort itself out

[@alfieshepherd6522]

*Flat Earthers enter the chat*

[@adrianthom2073]

@@alfieshepherd6522 , sad that in the 21st century many people still reject reality for the belief in fantasy. Even the US, 50% of the population still think the sun orbits the earth.

[@alfieshepherd6522]

@@adrianthom2073 I hope that statistic is heavily inflated

[@adrianthom2073]

@@alfieshepherd6522 , so do I, so do I. Or at least has reduced significantly since the poll was ran.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@alfieshepherd6522 , it is actually 25%, 1 in 4 Americans think the sun orbits the earth. That number is still extremely worrying as it should be 0%.

[@takkikay4344]

This video is amazing !I can't imagine how much or research you put into this. Thank you for your time and effort and you strengthening my faith in God. I'm not sure if I should ask this or not, but can you talk about the 98% or whatever it is on monkeys and humans being simular? I tried to understand the idea or how it is even possible seeing i don't believe in evolution. But looking somewhat into it (Not much, because I couldn't understand) i couldn't find much on it that i could understand.

[@thispersonwriting1889]

In my opinion, the very premise of trying to understand things through reasoning, is essentially just a way to categorize and order information so it allows better speculation on unknowns through pattern-recognition. In other words, I wonder whether we, being made of atoms and molecules, can understand atoms and molecules, or if we can only understand other things also made of atoms and molecules. I think, with this subject, the limits are hit.

[@fbsfgr]

Well you should probably try to understand what the scientific method actually is, then?

[@zvorenergy]

Nice antidote to the Darwin Uber Alles groupthink

[@weaselworm8681]

Made with “5 PhD scientists”? Wow that’s a HUGE credibility red flag. You should just remove that from your intro. First 5 is an insignificant number versus the total number of scientists. Even 20-50 wouldn’t signify that your video is correct, you’d need hundreds or thousands. Science covers a huge number of topics. Competence in one field gives zero credence in a different field. That fact that you felt the need to specify “PhD” scientists is a sign of weakness. Most would assume your scientific experts are naturally PhDs as you imply that they are working scientists, not students or administrators, etc. Anyway maybe the rest of the video is great and convincing? I stopped after about a minute. Good luck doing whatever you’re trying to do. I’m positive there are huge numbers of people who believe as you do and will enjoy your work.

[@ryanlengacher]

why don’t you actually challenge what he’s saying ?

[@weaselworm8681]

@@ryanlengacher because I am commenting about his intro. Duh. That’s like someone says that car is too expensive and you say why don’t you talk about how fast it is?

[@ryanlengacher]

@@weaselworm8681 OK, so if you can’t actually Dispute anything he’s saying then what are you even blabbering about ? Sounds like you’re just insulting him.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@ryanlengacher , if chemical biology is false, what is the alternative? Why does he not provide his hypothesis for the explanation of the origins of life and the diversity of life we find on this planet. Abiogenesis is our best hypothesis, which has not yet been proven. And evolution is our best Theory for the diversity of life and has yet to be proven false.

[@robstadler927]

@@adrianthom2073 At the highest level, there are only two hypotheses for how life got started. The first is abiogenesis: life is a result of purely natural physics and chemistry. The alternate hypothesis is that natural processes could not have started life. The strongest support for abiogenesis is methodological naturalism - the requirement that science is constrained to only consider purely natural causes. It is likely that adoption of methodological naturalism is what leads you to conclude that “Abiogenesis is our best hypothesis”. This is because the alternate hypothesis is excluded a priori - it cannot be considered. Maybe you can appreciate that there are epistemological concerns with excluding a hypothesis a priori because an imposed constraint only allows the first hypothesis? The proper approach is to allow yourself to be open to both hypotheses and look at the evidence objectively. For example, we know that natural processes always produce an equal mixture of the possible chiralities. Therefore, if life started through natural processes, we would expect life to contain an equal mixture of chiralities. But we see the opposite - a very unnatural dependence on only one chirality: homochirality. We also know that natural processes drive chemical reactions toward minimal enthalpy and maximum entropy. But in life, we see the opposite - life has extremely high enthalpy and extremely low enthalpy. This is a fancy way of saying that chemicals don’t naturally come together to produce perfectly organized, information-packed molecules. We also know that life is replete with examples of chicken-and-egg phenomena, such as Eigen’s paradox, as explained in the video. Natural processes do not (and cannot) produce chicken-and-egg phenomena. There are many, many more examples that favor the alternate hypothesis over the first hypothesis. So, when science is open to consider the evidence, the conclusion is clear.

[@vickiecutts238]

Who are the 5 PhD folks responsible for these videos? I cannot find where the creators of this series identify themselves nor do they disclose their credentials.......I find it hard to accept these as credible without identification of the authors/creators---true, they provide a bibliography of their sources---but WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE? What organization do you represent?

[@jarrittstillprays3929]

I like your work. Keep making more

[@danielboone8256]

Idk why you get so much hate. If people think you are so wrong, why do they have to use such vitriol in their responses? Can’t they rationally defend their claim without getting angry if the alternative theories are as worthless as they say?

[@Rakscha-Sun]

Indeed anger hints to the flight or fight response, they are in the fight response and that means they are afraid.

[@waspanimations7037]

Probably because most of the things he's "debunking" are already proven

[@derhafi]

Deliberately lying about entire fields of science, as Tour does, sparks some anger...that s a perfectly adequate resopnse.

[@justalaborer713]

This was the first video of yours I wanted and I have now subscribed. Looking forward to seeing more of your stuff.

[@mdl2427]

Amazing work, really interesting stuff

[@MLeoM]

It is true, this is one of the best Long Story Short episodes ever made. Love Respect Peace.

[@user-zy8ct8yr7n]

Excellent vids to show the kids 👍

[@truthbebold4009]

And the adults 👍

[@khoundoker]

loved it

[@jacobfrazier2203]

These videos really strawman the ideas of chemical evolution. You act like we need a protein or RNA strand that needs to self-replicate, when all we really need is some chemical process that makes the environment more likely to produce that process. Life as we know it approximately reproduces itself, but the origin of life doesn't need even approximate reproduction. It just needs a certain type of positive feedback loop.

[@chadlynn9043]

Love your videos. My kids enjoy your humor and makes their learning easier. Thanks

[@jontherevelator9663]

this stuff is easy to solve. Biochemistry happened with reactions of the 4 nucleotides. The nucleotides were just molecules naturally created byt the universe that reacted with Earths biochemistry through panspermia..or "pansporemia" since it was a spore that carried in Adenine and Guanine. They began to react with the chemistry on earth and slowly ordered from disorder. THEN advanced life came to be and now we are going toward disorder yet again because it's a full circle of life. We should quit being bias,and just see everything for what it is. Easy and logical and obviously a binary male and female system. Alpha and Beta.

[@nayR5]

Great video, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

[@CesarClouds]

A new paper states: "The formation of protein precursors, due to the condensation of atomic carbon under the low-temperature conditions of the molecular phases of the interstellar medium, opens alternative pathways for the origin of life" _Formation_ of_ _extraterrestrial_ _peptides and their_ _derivatives_ Science Advances April 17 2004

[@miburo7]

Excellent video!! Keep up the good work ☺️

[@NovikNikolovic]

This video is extremely confusing, I know there's supposed to be a red flag but I don't see it

[@oxcart4172]

Yeah, scientists (the true experts) are all wrong and somebody who reads one very old book (written by people who didn't even know where the sun went at night!) Are somehow right!

[@ryanlengacher]

He never mentioned anything about the Bible He’s just pointing out why the evolution theory is BS.

[@oxcart4172]

@@ryanlengacher And I was pointing out that the experts would tell him (and anyone else) that anyone who doesn't understand evolution is generally an idiot, religious or both!

[@ryanlengacher]

@@oxcart4172 Why don’t you actually try to challenge what he’s saying ? All you’re doing is rambling and throwing insults.

[@oxcart4172]

@@ryanlengacher I'm no expert. I just know that evolution hasn't been under debate since about 1870! And I can never understand why these people can't use Google.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@ryanlengacher , how is the theory of evolution BS? When the theory best explains the diversity of life we find on this planet. And the theory is based on reality not fantasy. It has a ton of evidence from multiple fields all supported it and coming to the same conclusion. And most importantly the theory is falsifiable.

[@michaelbryanlaodvm4344]

So many ad hominem attacks here instead of countering the argument. . . You can't prove your point by using insults guys. . .

[@a.wriley3350]

This is science misinformation.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

Why?

[@MogaTange]

I just conducted a survey of all of the times life has formed and turns out most of them don’t exist. What are the chances that it’s us out of the many others that existed? Why haven’t they conducted any surveys of their own yet?

[@peteconrad2077]

Where did you get the survey information of all the time life formed?

[@alphi4868]

TL:DR, “I don’t understand it, so GAAAWWWDDD done it with Jesus magic and I have absolutely no reason or intention to scrutinize that with even a fraction of what I used here.”

[@timschneider8662]

No, it's actually showing how evolution is like "I don't understand it, so evolution done it with science despite this scientific evidence that evolution couldn't have happened"

[@alphi4868]

@@timschneider8662 “scientific evidence that evolution couldn’t have happened”🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂…that I found on Answers in Genesis😄😆😆😆…that’s super scientific and any day now every science field is going to stop using the evolution model to predict literally anything…😆😆😆😆😆…stop stop…it’s too much…my sides hurt..

[@timschneider8662]

Oh? How's the James Webb telescope doing for astronomical assumptions?

[@alphi4868]

@@timschneider8662 Pretty sure it hasn’t spotted any gods😂😂😂Holy shit, dude. From evolution straight over to James Webb. Any other sciencey sounding topics your pastor tell you to make fun of while simultaneously knowing nothing about and claiming refutes rather than enhancing our understanding of the universe

[@timschneider8662]

@@alphi4868 oh, so you haven't heard. Well, never mind then. And I don't make fun of science, I'm interested in the best theory with the best evidence. That's why counter evidence needs to be carefully considered. It could be where the next advancement happens. I try to keep an open mind because I can be wrong about my assumptions. Isn't that your attitude too?

[@adrianthom2073]

Are you able to advise who the 5 Phd Scientists are?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

I can, but I'd rather the discussion focus on the science rather than the scientists. If you have a particular question for one of them, I can put you in touch privately if you like.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@LongStoryShortVideos , I like to know what fields they have their PhD in, and if is relevant to evolution? They could have a PhD in Theology, and try promote their PhD that they are an expert in Evolution Theory. This happens all the time. Ken Miller is a Christian that happily accepts Evolution. It is only the Creationist who refuse to accept it.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Fair enough, no theology degrees here. 2 PhDs in Biochemistry 1 PhD in medical engineering 1 PhD in Chemistry, practicing in the field for over 26 years 1 Geologist Other scientists reviewed it as well before publishing but these all had an active role in developing the script and final review.

[@Data-Expungeded]

@@adrianthom2073 whos ken miller, what sect is he is he a protestant, catholic, evangelical, eastern orthodox, some other weird ive never heard of. He doesnt seem to have ever read the bible as the idea of macro evolution completely contradicts the first book of the bible. Edit: so hes catholic and an evolutionist

[@adrianthom2073]

@@Data-Expungeded , reality contradicts everything in the Bible. Maybe you should research Ken Miller and read some of his works.

[@joshuapatrick682]

Great video, sad that the Great Algorithm Overlord probably won’t like it but I would definitely recommend.

[@NicTheGreek1979]

It was an ADVERT......

[@TheMilkMan8008]

It really wasn't. There was no substance. I've actually seen GOOD creationist arguments and videos. This was one of the worst.

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

These short videos present the problems of abiogenesis so clearly. The materialist always falls back on the black box of time plus chance as though the right chemicals can survive long enough to eventually build a living self reproducing cell. This displays a complete lack of understanding of what has to happen for one single cell to assemble. The chemical components will dissolve in a matter of hours before even a single partial biopolymer can be formed much less a functioning cell to arrive. Cell division is itself is a complex ballet and forget about sexual reproduction. Mathematicians have calculated the odds of a single simple organism arising spontaneously at 1 in 100 million. Given the supposed age of the universe in seconds and the number of atoms in the universe, there is zero chance of abiogenesis. The French mathematician Borel has said that anything than is less than 1 in 50 million is essentially impossible. All of this ignores the information coding of DNA and information only comes from a mind. To deny teleology in nature in all of its aspects is to be blind. Materialism cannot explain cooperative organ systems, epigenetic regulation, self consciousness, altruism, logic, ethics, art, music, beauty, miracles, and some accounts of NDAs. It cannot even posit how a finely tuned universe just popped into existence. Finally, time means entropy increases without a system that can meaningfully convert energy into homeostatic work.

[@mcmanustony]

@@seaknightvirchow8131 what immaterial considerations should science be looking at? Ghosts? Leprechauns? Unicorn farts?

[@mcmanustony]

@@seaknightvirchow8131 can you name these mathematicians and cite these calculations?

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

@@mcmanustony I can but why don’t you look it up yourself. Or, you could take a protein with 300 amino acids taking into account chirality and proper bonds and do the math. I will help you part way (1/20)^300 X (1/2)^300=? That is for only one protein.

[@mcmanustony]

@@seaknightvirchow8131 why don’t you just name them? Is it because you can’t?

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

@@mcmanustony Why don’t you give up on your insolence and try to understand epistemology in general. You can start with the origin of a finely tuned universe and a plausible theory of abiogenesis given that a cell needs all parts to even function. The DNA code is a unbelievably sophisticated information system that defies an explanation by random physicochemical laws. Language, codes, and other forms of information only come from a mind. Design can be intuited by science for example forensics. There are truths and phenomena that are inexplicable by materialism. Materialism is metaphysics and is not applicable to historical unreproducible events like origins. There is no evidence of leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, or the other things atheists invoke.

[@dustyviper3279]

Lol, good try though.

[@CardinalTetra]

Funny how many people commented without watching the whole video

[@BreadofLifeChannel]

Great video! Thanks!

[@DhieuChadong]

Evolution. A lie from the abyss

[@walkergarya]

The nonsense in the bible does not refute evidence based science.

[@mikeoxbig1978]

Dang! Here I was thinking a creationist was finally going to explain how a man can come back to life after 3 days of ZERO heart function and ZERO brain function! Oh! And why an all powerful god, specifically their personally preferred god of choice, magicked the entire universe in to existence from nothing, yet needed a pile of dust to make a human... 🤔

[@technicianbis5250]

God created man with his hands, the belief is that man was special to God so he created man with his hands and then breathed life into him. We arrive at this because Jesus died for us, not the Earth or moon nor even the stars, he died for us. He was brought back to life by our Father, so if Jesus died for us willingly, we can deduce we are special to God.

[@terrypussypower]

@@technicianbis5250 How did “Jesus die”? All this malarkey about “giving his life” is pure tosh. He knew after 3 days he was guaranteed to go back up to “heaven” to rule the entire Universe, so what kind of sacrifice is that? If someone was guaranteed $100 million after 3 days of torture that was guaranteed not to leave any lasting effects, they’d do it! And that’s just a lowly human being! So, offering the same deal to an immortal being who will still rule the Universe afterwards, is no sacrifice at all! The claim that “he died for us” is ludicrous. And certainly not one that demands others to be “thankful” for.

[@technicianbis5250]

@@terrypussypower "how did Jesus die?" Why is it a lie? We have secular records of his crucifixtion so why doubt it? He made a sacrifice in the sense that he existed in the spirit realm before he came to Earth as a fleshly man. Jesus existed before the Earth was created, in fact while Yehovah (God) created Jesus himself, Jesus created everything else and gave the glory to God. Jesus was called the word of God before his human life, his task was to pass on the commands of God to Angels and man. Read Col ch 1 v 13 to 18.

[@technicianbis5250]

@@terrypussypower "after 3 days" Yes God blessed Jesus with the keys to Heaven and Earth but Jesus still rules in God's name not his own, a better picture of this is when Joseph son of Jacob was sold into slavery and taken to egypt, he becane 2nd only to pharoah, that is a lot of power for a slave is it not? In like manner, Jesus will rule Heaven and Earth forever and 2nd only to God, Jesus has earned that. The sacrifice is the fact that Angels are not supposed to die, they are spirit creatures and are impervious to death unless God allows it, only God can kill the flesh and the spirit, humans cannot kill Angels. Jesus died because he was flesh, by his death we have eternal life if we believe he is the Son of God, that just as he was resurrected by God, so will we be. "lasting effects" The skin of Jesus is marked forever, those whip marks remain as a reminder to us. "died for us" When Adam sinned he gave up immortality, perfection, health and youth, to redeem mankind back to God, a perfect human had to replace the animal sacrifices that were done since Abel, Jesus willingly offered himself out of love for us and God sent him to die for us so that we would have a mediator for ourselves. He took our sins and paid for them with his life and if we believe in him, he will spare us from wrath. You can be thankful we have an option to choose death or eternal life with God, whether you live or die is your choice but it's one you must make because God won't allow falsehood to be preached to his children for much longer and by falsehood, i mean false Christianity as well as evolution theory. God want's Earth the way it was to be from the begining.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@technicianbis5250 , sorry but the fictional story of Jesus has Jesus killing himself due to his own stupidity. He did not sacrifice himself for our sins. The Bible is a work of myth, fables and fairytales. It is a work of fiction.

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

Many simply say well life was simpler as if this is an answer??? Life needs a functioning cell membrane,an injection of information for metabolsism ,transcription sysyems,and self replication aparatus along with code correction capabilities . Explain,how life replicates and lives without these and many more foundational. requirements. One can arbitrarily claim such absurdity but its meaningless non scientific quackery

[@nickpuencho]

U awesome

[@jonntischnabel]

The human mind has been conditioned to think there had to be a beginning. And an end, and there has to be a smallest and a biggest. It struggles with the concept of infinity. What if there was no start to life, if it has existed for eternity?

[@JessicaSunlight]

Everything has a beginning and an end in the world of form. It doesn't mean it must self destruct but it can transform itself into something else. Another way to consider infinity - Its just is.

[@kinetic7609]

Except for the fact that literally all of the available data very clearly indicates the universe had a beginning.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

From yesterday, we have progressed 24 hours to reach this point in time today. From the big bang we have progressed approximately 13.7 billion years to reach this point in time today. Infinity is not a point to progress from so how could we possibly reach this point in time today from infinity?

[@JessicaSunlight]

@@andrewdouglas1963 Because time is not real. There is only now. 0 seconds passed since creation of universe. You can artificially measure and tie numbers to infinite now.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@JessicaSunlight We can observe entropy occuring. We cannot reverse entropy. Entropy logically must have a starting point.

[@eliurresti7232]

Your video’s are awesome. It’s so good to be able to send someone a link where proper evidence is clearly and comprehensively presented. Keep it up! :)

[@eliurresti7232]

By the way, only now I noticed that you don’t have that many views (yet). Please don’t be discouraged by that. Just keep doing what you feel like is best. Keep spreading the truth. Even if only a handful of people might see it, still that handful of people equipped with the truth could change the world.

[@deanmoncaster]

Your post is the problem with the religious. You don't know enough to know how wrong you are. :-\

[@terrypussypower]

@@eliurresti7232 “Spreading ‘the truth’ “? What truth would that be? These videos are typical Christian BS. They make a big deal out of pointing out areas in certain scientific theories they either don’t understand, or that are areas of contention in the scientific community…yet they NEVER provide any scientific alternatives that can stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

[@NicTheGreek1979]

"Evidence"....

[@anthonytassinari939]

I really find your videos Julian I just discovered them today. I’m binge watching. I assume the underlying thesis is creation is by intelligence Design not evolution

[@alddav181]

Awesome video! I discovered your channel yesterday when I was researching evolution. I then binged watched all of your videos. I was saddened to realize how few videos you had made. (I imagine making quality content takes a lot of time). I had resigned myself to the pitiful fate of waiting a few months for the next one. Then, the very next day, I got a happy notification! You really do a great job simplifying things and making them easy to understand, as well as showing the holes in the evolution theory calmly and rationally. There is no need for personal attacks, cyclical arguments or hiding behind faith-based conviction; We can simply collect all of the evidence, both for and against, and then make an informed decision.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the encouragement! Yep, working on these does take time, the next one is already well underway :)

[@sentientflower7891]

You certainly should watch Dr. James Tour's 14 part series on the subject.

[@fbsfgr]

Lmfao uhm evidence "for" what? This is yes, a list of imperfections in current theories. it IS NOT a valid alternative theory we can compare anything too. He doesn't even attempt to say what DID happen, he just pointed out that scientists haven't answered every question about the theory. Which is not surprising. At all. It's not a perfect, finished theory. Very, very few are. It's just a WAY WAY Way better theory than any alternative theories.

[@adrianthom2073]

After researching you will come to the conclusion that evolution is true, it happens, has been observed and is the best explanation at explaining all the diversity of life we find on this planet. And yet we still have lots to learn and understand regarding evolution. As much is still unknown or not understood clearly as indicated by this video.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@fbsfgr knowing what didn't happen and couldn't happen benefits science.

[@Jimmy-gg7og]

So it looks like the source of life is information…. Wonder where that came from?

[@BoneySkylord]

This is pure “God of the gaps”. There. I’ve saved you 11 minutes of your life. Go watch an actual educational video instead.

[@seal9390]

More like Science of the gaps.

[@dm95b]

Fabulous!!!

[@drewlop]

Hello, use me as the dislike button

[@LTworkshop]

Here we need reason, not emotion.

[@GemAppleTom]

And your point? For the sake of argument, I'll grant everything you're saying. We don't know how biopolymers got started and it is such a difficult question that we will never work it out. Granded for the moment. What conclusion do you think we should draw from that?

[@gentlyvillainous]

I think the point is many people are treating the *THEORY* of evolution as science fact and are to afraid to admit its just another guess they cling to like others cling to gods, you cant prove the big bang anymore than someone can prove god exists, inversely you cant disprove the big bang anymore than you can disprove some form of divinity. Then they use the fact they don't believe in a god ( even though they basically do) to insult, degrade, belittle and attack anyone who does even if they are very polite. At least religious people admit they dont know for sure and admit it takes some trust and faith to believe, atheists put just as much faith in a theory as a Christian does in god. TLDR: dont bash people for believing in the theory of god if you believe in the theory of a random flash from literally nothing creating a perfectly formed solar system. Both are unprovable, both have tons of guesswork, both require tons of trust and faith. Sincerely an agnostically inclined fellow that's sick of bull headed atheists.

[@GemAppleTom]

@@gentlyvillainous Thanks but if I accept what you say then you’ve just given me reason not to accept the Big Bang or God. Why accept either if neither can proved or disproved?

[@gentlyvillainous]

@@GemAppleTom that's the point, any belief is about trust. I cant and shouldnt make you believe either, its up to you what you choose to believe based on your thoughts and ideals. Being agnostic helps but in the end that's still a form of belief, the smartest one mind you but still a belief. Bing bang, god, an elephant on a giant turtle on buddahs head, a simulation, eldritch beings dreaming all existence. Its all about faith, no matter what anyone says. Even something as simple as the sun, scientists can guess what its made of but we will never actually know untill we can touch it and even then its still a guess. Personally I think the universe is too immaculate and ordered to have been an accident, there's too many things that have intelligent design and cant be replicated even with our technology. But again, that's my personal belief.

[@GemAppleTom]

@@gentlyvillainous Shouldn’t belief have a foundation of evidence? True I could hold that the world sits on the back of four elephants, which in turn stand on the back of Great A’tuin (and that would be awesome ‘cause I’d be on Terry Pratchett’s Discworld). But if there is no evidence that we are swimming through space on the back of a turtle and a lot of evidence that we are not - should I not reject the idea? Similarly, if expeditions had gone over the rim, counted the elephants and landed on the shell would it not be reasonable to accept it? (I refer to myself as atheist because of the connotation in agnosticism that one *can’t* know if a god exists - without complete knowledge how could one justify the claim? Though, depending on the god claim you could call me an agnostic atheist)

[@GemAppleTom]

@@gentlyvillainous A bit off topic from what we've been discussing but... It sounds like you're equivocarung the word theory. I'm sure you've heard this before but there is a world of difference between the common use of the word meaning guess or hypothesis and how it's used in science. I use atomic theory and dislocation theory all the time in my day job. Neither are guesses or wishful thinking. They are extremely useful models of how things work (within their own area) with lots of evidence backing them up. It's true not all theories are made equal (I'm thinking of string theory - interesting maths but not currently testable even if it's right). But dismissing evolution, using your own example, as 'Just a Theory' is... well... it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about (whether you do or not).

[@2freetz]

Really wish the dislike button wasn't gone right about now..

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

Why the hate?

[@absquereligione5409]

Don’t let these dishonest creationists confuse you. Life exists and all the processes to create life have been demonstrated.

[@huntertony56]

Could u link to some good papers on the subject?

[@absquereligione5409]

@@huntertony56 Are you a creationist?

[@huntertony56]

@@absquereligione5409 no I'm seriously interested in reading the papers. I find orgins very fascinating

[@absquereligione5409]

@@huntertony56 Scientific papers cost money. But there are some good channels on KZbin that explain these papers in understandable language, while demonstrating the lies of creationists. Check out: Forrest Valkai and professor Dave for starters

[@derhafi]

@@huntertony56 There are dozends of peer-revied papers on that subject linked in the description of all of Dave Farinas videos...those are the apers that render TOur as the liar he is. Those are predominantly publicly available. Just in general...Abiogenesis has no credibla alternative. Every so called alternative to a naturalistic origin for life, rests on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.

[@FurlogTheGiant]

5 PHD scientist (who work for a church with zero peer review). VS. MILLIONS OF SCIENTIST WITH PEER REVIEW. LOL. Hi dummies !

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

How do you know they work for a church? Isn't that a ad popullum fallacy?

[@GustavoFring19.]

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 Uh no, argumentum ad-hominem means taking unrelated points about someone as a means to discredit their argument, saying that these quacks work at a religous propaganda mill isn’t an ad-hominem, it is a statement of fact that is directly related to the subject, learn the definiton of words before you use them in a sentence

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

@@GustavoFring19. I said ad popullum, not ad hominem which means you have committed a strawman fallacy.

[@seal9390]

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 haha God bless you brother. I got a video for you.

[@seal9390]

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZyke6SvjrB7l9U

[@pavelshalnwv8494]

Keep up a good job Have you think about extending your ministry to Russian speaking audience?

[@nicknemecek6140]

Your videos are awesome. Thank you!

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for watching!

[@juaniravaioli]

LOVE ALL OF YOUR VIDEOS.