Відео

What nonsense are you talking about? Intelligent Design?

Energy can be stored in chemical bonds. There are organisms alive today who literally get their energy from inorganic molecules. They are called lithotrophs, which means “rock eaters.” The high energy electrons in these chemicals can be used to synthesize organic matter and drive other reactions/processes .

@@brentfodera377 Not only energy is stored in chemical bonds, but it is also inside every atom. The standard model of physics particles teaches so. That means energy is there before chemistry starts. There is energy inside every massive particle. Life is energy therefore, life was there before chemistry took off. Chemistry cannot be behind energy; it must be after (E=MC2).

Seaweed farming will be good option

@@jobsonjames3810 Yes, fertilizing some ocean areas for more seaweed, algae etc growth could be best since there we lose no land. It seems always overlooked, this option.

thomassshwarz1973 you are one hundred percent wrong logically, mathematically and biologically. Kudos

​@@TheMickeymental If all you have to contribute is a brusque put down and give no reason for your statement, then your post is 100% useless.

@@chastetree Would you like to confer on science?

Why would anyone want to confer with an arrogant, abrasive know it all?

😖

Why would an intelligent designer chuck rocks at his intelligent design?

Who says?

@@jonathanrussell1140 Simple mathematics!!!

​@@Billy-u8s ah, the Douglas Axe poo that comes out of Stephen Meyer's mouth? That's been debunked by Jackson Wheat in his 2-part video "Darwin's Confidence"? That simple maths that's founded on false assumptions?

@@jonathanrussell1140 Sure thing buddy. Keep drinking that cool aid!!!

​@@Billy-u8swatch the video.

This is vacuous, simplistic tripe.

You are Preacher-Man James Tour and I claim my £5 😂😂😂

epigenetics does not undermine darwinian evolution and most certainly do not prove existence of god called jesus christ

it didnt "just happen" if it sounds like that you are hearing wrong

You could try to understand what they are saying, or do you lack the prerequisites?

Ah, so it's not "Magic", after all? What is it, then?

The minimum complexity of the first possible cells has been computed. It still makes this narrative false...that life comes from nonlife. It has never been observed or repeated

​@@Billb9I3computed by whom? Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer? Debunked by Jackson Wheat. Check out Darwin's Confidence Pts 1&2

And thunder and lightning are caused by angry gods.

Do You really believe in 'Angry God's' ?

@@holgerjrgensen2166 No, but I just compare the ancient believe in gods causing thunder and ligthning to the modern believe in some magician being responsible for anything else science can not explain yet.

The most exposed 'Modern Believe', is that Intelligence can be 'artificial'. But spacetime and big bang got the kick out, things is moving. Onsdag and Torsdag, (DK) refer' to Odin and Thor, nordic mythology, the God of Thunder. Well, Electricity, is the finest of all Maya's Layers, We are in principle Electric Beings, along with the natural development, We will grow from low-electric to High-voltage Electric beings. Much more to tell, but hold short.

@@holgerjrgensen2166 but nothing supernatural, that's the point.

Life arose twice, each with completely different DNA replication nanomachine complexes, and for RNA transcription as well.

Now after all that, tell me magic is real. Then apply your scientific rigor to that. That this research is extremely difficult is understood but that it is impossible is a baseless claim made by creationists to rationalize their mythology.

@@lrvogt1257 please explain how atoms possess information processing abilities.

@@lrvogt1257 thoughts dance across neural nets, rely on them, but are not caused by brain cells. The immaterial must exist (read, the Mary's Room conjecture) The laws of logic and mathematics exist independently of matter, but requires matter to make them real. Information is immaterial, arises from relationship. The information in DNA is semiotic, and has no back-coding. The base sequences which specify a topoisomerase has no connection to that enzymes function. The squiggly andstraight lines of the sentence "My dog has fleas" has no connection to one specific dog, who owns it, and what a flea is, except through the complex process of information which has a decoding system which links letter shape, order, spaces to concepts off of and outside of the medium where the message occurs. Therefore, the base sequences require a built in intelligent mechanism which annot refer to some function without the product's parameters specified in advance of its construction. This is intelligent design. I think your issue is the human description ( or your imagined description, without which you cannot reject or accept a premise) of just what such a god-like Intelligence must look like. I accept that any description of such an Intelligence must be so dumbed down from the real one.

@@glenliesegang233 : You made the claim that something other than natural processes produced life. It's on you to defend your claim. What is the alternative and what is the evidence for it besides your personal incredulity? I'm not asking for proof or a detailed mechanism just some tangible evidence. I only state that there is no evidence or data for anything but natural phenomena. If you deny that show me some.

@@glenliesegang233 : You don't know... can't know that thoughts aren't emergent from brain activity. Humans develop concepts that follow our rules of logic but that doesn't alter the laws of physics that makes biology function. That 2+2=4 is not a supernatural phenomenon. There may be 2 of something but the 2 is not a thing other than a useful human description. Your DNA coding argument is another James Tour-like attempt at saying what isn't. It doesn't help explain what is. Code is just descriptive symbols invented by people to describe something else. The DNA is just chemicals linking together based on atomic bonds. The universe is awash in quantum waves and we perceive some of it. The idea that anything complex must be intelligent is very anthropomorphic. Primitive people were desperate for meaning so they extrapolated what they knew. The father built a house, provided food and shelter, and set down rules and punishments so they imagined a super-father that did it for the world. Creationists still cling to that for the origin of the universe and of life as everything else they imagined done by a god has been explained scientifically. No more Thor's hammer. There is still no evidence or data that can describe the mechanism by which the alleged supernatural can influence the real world.

Exactly. It was not magic. It was not contrary to the laws of nature. It was a natural phenomenon.

The processes may still happen, but how could you isolate the results as being new? You'd have to know that the compounds weren't in a certain patch of seawater already, and then found a way to predict a lightning strike on the vast ocean...

@@scj8863 so a theory that can't be tested, goes to the bottom of the list of possibilities

@@bshul10 yes. thats why origin of life researchers are doing. testing out all possibilites and paths that chemistry could've took to form proto cells and eventually life. also, even if new organic compounds are forming from inorganic ones today in the field, life that is already there and consumes organic matter would eat it instantly. thats why you need to have prebiotic environment, because when life was forming earth was sterile. thats why you make an lab experiment that simulates such environment that was on earth more than 4 billion years ago

Earth at the time of abiogenesis was very different and life has filled every niche since so the conditions are likely no longer suitable. It will be extremely interesting to see what may be in the liquid water on Enceladus and Europa.

Sounds like you have had this conclusion ready to hand and feel no need to understand what the lab expirements are about.

chemistry is not purposeless, accidental, or random. everything they do in labs is to simulate prebiotic environment that would be present on earth 4+ billion years ago. nobody is trying to prove god doesnt exist. they are trying to prove how life started... but if you have presupposed narrative that god created life by casting magical spells and incantations, that is your problem. because evidence doesnt show anything of sorts. evidences points to chemistry.

so how does life happen?

@@spatrk6634 there are some questions that science cannot answer. These questions must forever remain unanswered.

@@sentientflower7891 so you dont know how it happen... but you know the science is wrong about it. because you are afraid that they might be correct. hence your "these questions must forever remain unanswered"

also, just because science cannot explain something now. doesnt mean it never will. there was a time when we didnt understand how lightning forms. so we invented a powerful beings that live above clouds, create lightning in a forge, and toss them like spears down on earth.. we gave them names, called them gods, they had background stories and differnet relationships... humans are curious by nature. we want to know everything, even if it means making stuff up, just so that we can move on with our lives. but science doesnt operate by making stuff up with intent to decieve and stop people asking questions about it.

@@spatrk6634 that isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that Abiogenesis is impossible. If you would like to argue contrariwise you are going to have to do some chemistry.

Entropy engines

Uhm, you appear to be talking about a specific statement made, somewhere in an hour-long video. You couldn't think to put a timestamp in your post?

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger At 8’25” biochemistry is pretty close to equilibrium. At equilibrium we are dead. Our chemical concentrations fluctuate around certain points, like around the Km of Michaelis and Menten enzymes. During fight or flight responses glycogen phosphorylase increases glucose concentration very rapidly to keep up with flight or fight energy needs.

@@JO-mg6xc "When the reactants are present at values close to their equilibrium values, [C]eq[D]eq/[A]eq[B]eq ~ Keq, and [delta]G ~ 0. This is the case for many metabolic reactions, which are said to be near-equilibrium reactions." (Fundamentals of Biochemistry: Fourth Edition. Voet, Voet, and Pratt. John Wiley & Sons. 2013. p443)

@@JO-mg6xc By the way, to put a timestamp in your post, just put it as MINUTES[COLON]SECONDS. For example, 8:25.

Further, this is what he actually said, which is correct because he qualifies it. 8:21 "A gross generalization of biochemistry as a whole, especially the core metabolic biochemistry, is pretty close to equilibrium."

Only if the vortical fluxes of quantum perburtations oscillate the quantum field of excitability of entropic violations, of course.

The systems and methods intrinsic within the genesis of environments conducive towards life. #emilyLinge🤷🏼‍♀🙇🏻‍♂

XPRIZE CARBON PARTICLE CAPTURE FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting into a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com

The system I'm familiar with works on a 15MW gas fired turbine. The interesting part is it can also dissociatie the NOx and SOx from the flue gas.

"Information ALWAYS is the result of intelligence " Uhm, many rocks that formed through purely natural processes contain information, such as: (a) how long ago the rocks formed (65 million years ago? 250 million years ago? etc.) (b) under what conditions the rocks formed (at the bottom of a shallow sea, along a shoreline, from dry sand dunes, at the surface by lava cooling, etc.) (c) what life existed when the rocks formed (do the rocks contain fossils of trilobites? Fossils of T. rex? Fossils of Australopithecines?)

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Re: (a): It depends who you ask. If you ask humans (who have intelligence) they can venture a guess. If you ask the rock (that you say is conveying information) then I think you might have rocks in your head. Rocks do not have intelligence, never created a language to convey information with, and, therefore, never convey information. Re (c): So are you saying life existed before the Big Bang? That life existed before everything was in existence and was deposited in the rocks as the materials blasted into existence had fossils in it? I doubt you are saying that so, obviously, the fossils were put into rocks that had been changed from their original form. There is a saying: "Information can be transmitted by energy and it can be stored in matter (rocks as you say) but information is neither energy nor matter". Nor are energy or matter the source of that information. Only an intelligence can create it, form a language to convey it etc.

@@bungeebones "Rocks do not have intelligence, never created a language to convey information with, and, therefore, never convey information." Irrelevant. The information gets into the rocks by purely natural processes. You lose.

@@bungeebones " Re (c): So are you saying life existed before the Big Bang? " I didn't say, suggest, or imply that. Stop being a child. You lose.

@@bungeebones " Only an intelligence can create it, form a language to convey it etc." Nope, I refuted you. Information can form naturally. I already showed that. I did not just claim you are wrong, I demonstrated it. You lose.

Why is it extraordinary? They are trying to figure out something that occurred only 1 time, some 4 billion years ago, under conditions that are not widespread on Earth today. There are a myriad different combinations of temperatures, changes in temperatures, pHs, changes in pHs, concentrations, changes in concentrations, pressures, changes in pressures, wet or dry, changes in wet or dry, chemicals present, changes in chemicals present, etc. that need to be investigated.

Hmmm. Did you ever have to replace something on your car and think to yourself, " What a pain... this can't be the way they assembled it at the factory."? I don't think it's a matter of the math, chemistry, and physics that we have being inadequate. I just think it's going to be a challenge to account for all the variables in a laboratory the size of a young planet. I'm also not sure that life occurred only once on this planet. It may have occurred multiple times, with less successful occurrences ending up being a snack tray for the more successful or most successful appearance. It does seem that life on this planet occurred almost as soon as it was possible - as soon as the planetary surface became stable enough for complex organic chemistry. That has implications for our interstellar neighborhood. While life seems to have occurred relatively quickly, what took a much longer time was multicellular life. It may be that our galaxy is well populated with alien life... And it is mostly oceans filled with our equivalent of bacteria and single-celled algae.

Abiogenesis is not possible

@@TonyTigerTonyTigerhow do you know it only happened one time

@@hosoiarchives4858 You made a claim. Now support it.