This video is amazing, a bit fast on the commentary but the information provided was amazingly accurate and entertaining, great marketing communication skills.
I would say (without a hint of bias) that you have made an honest and straightforward assessment of where the science community is at right now, but doesn't want to admit. Most people who take a common sense reading of the evidence and who can set ideological motives to one side, would agree with you.
I love seeing the animations on this, keep this going because life is so infinite both on the outside world and deep with in our making. our DNA composes everything from deep with in the cells nucleus and it's amazing. I feel like I am in a cell and I have a job to do that's important to mankind just like all the cell parts and functions that have instruction on how to synthesize all of our food's nutrients and everything else. I love biology and chemistry, this is what is the answer.
I want to see the video with sound effects. Big clunking machines, buzzers and beeps, and a large stone door being pushed away. Actually I do love this video. Look what Jehovah as done! :-)
Stephen Meyer's argument is God or intelligent design based not religion based.I am a muslim but what Stephen Meyer wants to describe is intelligent design whether is God,Alien
Absolutely astounding visually! Love that most all "Machines" were named & explained. The process of transcription / translation description is very creatively & easy to understand. Feedback - Starting with the sentence - "When the construction of the chain is complete, it is transported to a barrel shaped machine that helps fold it into the precise shape required to perform it's function." During this long silence there is time to both NAME & describe the Golgi Apparatus - otherwise - LOVE IT!
Modern biochemistry along with our knowledge of nanotechnolgy is making it more difficult for people to believe the life originated by pure dumb luck. In other words - by chance.
Right. It's far too complex to have happened by mere chance, that makes no sense. But inventing a sky-fairy, and attributing to him the power to have created all of it with a wave of his hand makes PERFECT sense. I see where your head is at and I weep for the de-evolution of our species.
Dave - no one "invented" a sky fairy, a rational person who looks at the universe can come to only one conclusion that it was created (or designed by an intelligence). If you found computer code on a cave wall would you think that happened by chance? Atheists have admitted that the universe and life "looks designed" but they insist it is an illusion. It has to be an illusion to them since they have admitted their atheism is based on sexual moral reasons (they don't want a God judging their warped sex life - it's as simple as that)
I live in France my English can be bad but know that : Yehshuah man is the son of YHWH. Son because without sin. And because he is his son, YHWH gave him his name. The name of YHWH revealed. The biggest name. Yehshuah = YAHWEH SAVES. Yehshuah is the name of YHWH and his real son. So Yehshuah is the Creator.
@5tonyvvvv When I discovered that amino acids found in life were principally left-handed, it was one more nail in the coffin for naturalistic abiogenesis. Even without the homochirality constraint, it is easy to show that the improbability of sequencing a single, average sized protein, exausts the entire probability resources of the universe. I am also a former atheist, who has chosen to follow the evidence. Nice to meet you!
@knethrea: the DNA system is an encoding-decoding system and an information compression, storage, and retrieval system. Every organism is a decoded/decompressed result of the information in their DNA. How's that for repeatability? All such systems whose origins are known (the jpeg image compression algorithm, for example) are the result of intelligent design (i.e., us). It is, therefore, a logical assumption that the DNA system (whose origin is unknown) is also the result of intelligent design.
@Kairusan I am a physics graduate, and I have always considered the standards of proof accepted in Darwinian circles as laughable. Their theory is no more than a set of anecdotes, and their important claims go lightyears beyond the evidence. Physicists, chemists, mathematicians, programmers and engineers, who have some knowledge of design principles, computer programming, probability etc, tend to agree.
Correction/Clarification: When I said, "I could follow one," I meant that Abel's references were so poor that I only found one. ~3/4 of the 30-odd references are repeated citations of ID icons (ten to Dembski, followed by Meyer, Johson and 4 to himself). None cited the actual passage referred to.
It is said that DNA is a digital language, or in other words, DNA is the living word of a Creator. Most people embrace Evolution because it bolsters their atheism. There is a Creator.
@Rao665 Sure, "a cell doesn't need a nucleus for it to contain DNA", but the video does not claim to be talking about a minimalistic cell. And all of the cells in your and my body have a nucleus. So I appreciate that the video shows me what is happening in my cells on a regular basis.
without waiting i'll answer myself 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption answered to this "puzzling"questions It ripped up trees from a single forest and deposited them in mudflows and also in Spirit lake. There they became water-logged, sank to the bottom, and were buried upright in distinct layers as if they grew during different times( again its under our very hands to check without hiding under coverage of "millions of years") the logs, still in an upright position.
What is the source of this animation? Did the DI make it? Is it the one stolen from Harvard? I ask because I see no credits. Your response would be much appreciated!
@Rao665 ~ The original 'digital' was a mathematic system based on 10, now known better as decimal. In computer terms, digital is used to refer to binary code, consisting of 2 variables, 1 and 0. DNA and RNA are very definitely NOT digital, as there are more than 2 variables (eg: 4 amino acids, plus the sugar base, which is variable). At the very least, they would have to be thought of as quinquinary or larger. Additionally, digital is also used to refer to discrete packets of information, as ...
I really don't understand how the molecules(phosphaste, sugars, nitrogen base etc....) inside of the nucleus are assembled to make mRNA. Do the enzymes that catalyze these reactions go out and find those building blocks, or do they just happen to pass by and get caught up in that particular process ? Sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough.
People are stupid or jsut aren't curios enough these day to actually go learn the materials themselves to draw their own conclusion. I enjoy science. This is a nicely created visual representation.
How does the RNA reach the Nuclear Pore Complex? Is it attracted to it electromagnetically? Is it similar to a ball with holes on the side in which the RNA simply falls out from? Thanks.
@Jesuisking~ "it is acceptable to say that A,T,C and G in the genetic code of a DNA molecule CAN be compared to the 0 and 1 in the binary code." Except for the fact that each amino acid is different, meaning that it would have to be 0,1,2,3. Thus it is NOT binary, and not digital. Last time I looked, no human is perfect.All of us can be mistaken, including Dawkins and Meyer. The Nature quote is correct about the complimentarity, but wrong about it being digital. I suspect it is a misuse of ...
I was simply warning hapless 13 year olds stumbling upon this video to do their homework, finding it interesting, subscribing to discovery institute, and getting deliberately false info.
@IDtaksovr do you have a source for your claim about huxley's belief? the cell nucleus was discovered long before -drawing from the 18th century show the cell nucleus- and Darwin studied cell structures in detail. Where is the claim about huxley from? can you cite where he expressed this? or where you read that he did?
@Kairusan Since you are having considerable "difficulty" agreeing that living systems look designed, lets make it a bit easier by considerinbg only one tiny part: the bacterial flagellum. Search for "Revealing the mystery of the bacterial flagellum - A self-assembling nanomachine with fine switching capability " where you can look at the computer images and watch the video called "A Rotary NanoMachine" . Now tell me if you think the flagellum LOOKS designed.
also studies of the Yellowstone plants, including pollen analysis, show that there are many more plant species than would be expected in a local or nearby forest. often the pollen doesn’t match the nearby trees. However, this would be explainable if the trees had been uprooted and transported from much further and several places.and also much easier logic why do trees in different layers have the same ring structure? Where are the soil zones between forests?
@noitnettaattention Same source: "Trees that sank later would be buried higher up, that is on a higher level, although they grew at the same time. This was confirmed by sonar and scuba research by a team led by Drs Steve Austin and Harold Coffin. By 1985, there were about 15,000 upright logs on the bottom. Later, the lake was partly drained, exposing some of the bottom, revealing upright logs stuck in the mud." And this time, instead of capitalizing "LAYERS," you added a period.
There is a simple syllogism that puts ID on the top of the plausibility list that Meyer presents in his book. Roughly put: S has not been observed to produce evidence E P has been observed to produce evidence E Therefore, P is a better explanation for evidence E S- Material Processes P-Intelligence E- Information If we ever saw a material process create information, this would change. But we haven't. So for now, we must accept ID as the best explanation. Unless we don't WANT to...
i have some important points about evolution: first- i think have a very strong evidence for design in nature a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer b) from a material prespective the ape is a self replicate robot a+b= the ape need a designer
Trees that sank later would be buried higher up, that is on a higher level, although they grew at the same time. This was confirmed by sonar and scuba research by a team led by Drs Steve Austin and Harold Coffin.By 1985, there were about 15,000 upright logs on the bottom. Later, the lake was partly drained, exposing some of the bottom, revealing upright logs stuck in the mud..
@lopezmolano If you are so sure that there is no intelligent design required for the protein assembly depicted in this video, then please post a link or ID of a video that explains how this assembly apparatus could have evolved from a cell that did not have it before. .... Of course that then needs to also explain how such a cell could live and reproduce while it not yet had this apparatus, since now protein assembly is critical to cell growth without which a cell cannot divide.
@anguspure The need for an external source of energy is fulfilled in the theory presented in the video by a geothermal vent. Currents allow complimentary strands of polymerized nucleic acid sequences to disassociate and re polymerize (effectively reproducing). External energy sources and self polymerization provide a means of reproduction, nucleic acid sequences provide a means of capturing information, and competition and selection provide the information. Does that all make sense?
So science as a whole benefits from the challenges of people who support creation. As they often ensure that interpretations of facts are not being replaced with stories. All scientists need to be able substantiate with direct evidence. Indirect evidence is often another way saying interpretations that cannot truly be substantiated.
The UPB portion of Abel's paper provides poor references. I could followed one. Lloyd's, "Computational capacity of the universe," estimated the capacity in bit-operations. That's a concept from Von Neumann's linear machines. If the universe is a computational device, I expect it does something like quantum computations, which are not linear and cannot be well described in terms of bit-operations. This causes problems with IDtaksovr's "entire probability resources of the universe."
@130adi "There's no reason why ID and Evolution can't both be right. " I was about to congratulate Kairusan for making his first sensible comment, but then I noticed that the comment was yours. BTW. we should remember that this animation is a gross simplification, only intended to convey the basic elements in the cell. Groups of complex highly specified molecules are displayed as blobs of colour. There are many thousands of ribosomes and transport vesicles in a real cell, and little free space
Genetic mutations occur at a regular rate, called the molecular clock. However, the specific base of DNA that is mutated is extremely random. You can find this information in any freshman level college Biology textbook. For the eye, just as you can see light far away without immersing yourself in it, you would be able to see radiation without immersing yourself in it. So the eye doesn't need immunity. The point is, our eyes were not designed, they evolved.
@pontecanis - Have you e-mailed him or his publisher or the discovery institiute to get a clarification? I am quarter way through his book and so far so good. Meyer is a super bright guy.
@Kairusan Kairusan @IDtaksovr "You are required to prove the following: 2) ID actually HAS evidence for it" What evidence would you be prepared to accept?
@ragnarthoris ID is a theory that in fact promotes the broadening of the scientific horizin from the narrow constricts of the naturalistic evolutionary frame. How the origin happened is still on the table and logic tells us that that it is the ID'er that can expect a coherent answer to the question while opposition have no right to expect such a thing.
ok dude, we are going to have to agree to disagree, and I think we should leave it at that, as when people have such completely different world views it can be next to impossible to come to an agreement, so anyway, I genuinely wish you the best in life and hope you have a good one... take care and best of luck dude :) peace
@noitnettaattention A quick bit of reading revealed that all those "layers" of petrified wood in the Specimen Ridge area are a fav of creationists. These are multiple fossil beds from the Eocene which were formed in association with multiple events of the Absaroka volcanic province between 48 and 46 ma. These events included ash falls which preserved trees in situ, as well as pyroclastic and mud flows which transported trees to the fossil beds. Noah (Utnapishtim?) lived ~46e6 years later.
@OBSERVATIONSBYLENNY First of all, not knowing doesn't mean you can say with certainty that your creation myth applies unless you can create a valid test if it's true. Secondly, believing in a naturalistic "cause" to the universe doesn't mean saying it came from nothing. Do you know the true nature of the universe? How can you be certain that the universe needs one? What if there are parts of the universe that are unfathomable by us humans that are eternal or outside of causality?
things dont move in a directed way on there own. im sorry to tell you the movie is just not detailed enough to show everything going on. everything in the cell is conected when something happens, another molicule is activated that is attached to another ect ect which moves along another molecule to creat directed motion.
When not ranting, IDtaksovr often pitches snippets of Dembski's incomplete musings about information and complexity. When advising recitation of a mantra "10^150 times," IDtaksovr refers to Dembski's absurd notion the "Universal Probability Bound" (UPB). In proclaiming that some phenomenon "exausts [sic] the entire probability resources of the universe," IDtaksovr passes on Dembski's confused application of his absurd UPB. There are 10^166 arrangements of two decks of cards.
@noitnettaattention I didn't use your links because I already knew that fast petrification had been predicted and later found, uniquely, at Spirit Lake. The example highlights a ubiquitous mistake made by young earthers. Gradualism is confused, often intentionally, with the central principle of uniformitarianism. Many geologic processes are gradual, but by no means all. One unique instance of rapid fossilization does not mean that all fossilization occurs rapidly.
@lopezmolano Good question. However the inference to the intelligent designer is not philosophical nor from "not knowing yet". Instead it comes from now knowing that it is impossible for the mechanisms of evolution to produce the nano machinery in the cells that we can observe today. Likewise we know now that it is against chemical laws that these would ever self-assemble. Thus the intelligent designer explanation is the most rational and scientific theory matching the facts known today.
@anguspure "what mechanism is proposed that does not involve intelligence?" An exoponential growth in complexity due to natural physical processes. Nah, that's why there are chemists, and physicists. Evidence of such growth is visible within the Sun, it fuses the simple hydrogen into the relatively more complex Helium. And so on, resulting in greater complexity in atoms.
@Donal "So basically your answer is..." ....that in Darwins time, everybody was completely ignorant about the unfathomable complexity of the cell, and life in general. It was not unreasonable for Darwin to propose his theory of evolution by variation and selection. However, we can no longer claim ignorance of the unbelievable sophistication of living systems. It is not our lack of understanding, but rather our incredible knowledge of this sophistication that calls for a inference to design
@alivingock Friend, but sedimentary layer is accepted as kind of a timeline (far as i know) and most of fossils found in this layer. Hovinds idea is pointing out the fact of global abundance of sedimentary rocks and different animal remains trapped in it which doesn't contradicts to Biblical story(and not only Biblical) of world wide catastrophe at one point of time in earths history which wiped out every breathing animal and every growing huge amount of forests(now coal and oil deposits)
@alivingoc There's a paper called: "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)" which explains the problem with basing theories on vastly improbable assumptions. Science NEEDS some kind of metric to allow us to decide between what is PLAUSIBLE and what is merely POSSIBLE. As a crude example, It's possible that the first cell appeared in one vastly improbable event by purely naturalistic means, but is it plausible. You see, this metric is already being applied implicitly.
@Kairusan " It's hard to see how an all powerful designer wouldn't just poof everything in at once ...." The difficulty you are experiencing is not evidential, given that the fossil record seems to support the sudden appearance of the major animal groups. ID does not try to get into the mind of a Designer, and does not address the kind of theological questions you feel obliged to pose on why a Designer would choose to do this or that. ID simply tries to recognize / detect design.
"In fact, using this logic, we conclude just about anything and say we're gaining knowledge." Do you disagree? "All I said is that it is totally useless in science." In that case, how does that statement relate to our discussion about the plausibility of Intelligent Design?
@noitnettaattention From Creation Ministries International: "At Specimen Ridge, there are said to be 27 layers, while Specimen Creek contains about 50. This means that the Specimen Creek formation is especially huge-its total vertical height is 1,000 meters (3,400 feet)." From you: "At Specimen Ridge, there are said to be 27 LAYERS , while Specimen Creek contains about 50. This means that the Specimen Creek formation is especially huge-its total vertical height is 1,000 meters (3,400 feet)"
They weren't "Universities". They were more like schools of philosophy. There were also religious houses, like the Diocletians, that were dedicated to knowledge and scientific achievements. Many of these religious orders made great strides in many kinds of disciplines; mettalurgy, for example. Another was brewing and wine-making. Still others made great strides in agriculture.
@IDtaksovr "random mutation and natural selection can easily do cells in their lunch break" ... I do not understand your reasoning... the video is about protein synthesis, a process needed even in the very first cell. So it needs to be set up before the first cell, i.e. without random mutation and natural selection. Or you need to explain how the first cell could function and replicate without protein synthesis. Please provide an explanation for one of these two options.
@Kairusan "How would you disprove any theory? 1) Run a rigorous experiment that fully disproves it." In my uniform experience, there is only one test that Darwinists grudgingly offer to test / refute Darwinism. They as you to find a Bunny in pre Cambrian strata. How would you turn this into a "rigorous experiment". Can you be more specific on how to test Darwinism?
@anguspure When you refer to tornados in a junkyard, I assume you're talking about the argument; Tornados in a Junkyard don't produce 747s. This argument is fallacious because it is a hasty generalization. You give an example of a chaotic system that doesn't produce complex orderly structures, then conclude that no chaotic system can give rise to complex orderly structures. You then go on to point out a counterexample to that conclusion in the phenomenon of crystallization. (to be continued)
Man this is so complex, amazing!
This is such a well illustrated video, I get it more than just reading it. I'm such a visual learner
This video is amazing, a bit fast on the commentary but the information provided was amazingly accurate and entertaining, great marketing communication skills.
I would say (without a hint of bias) that you have made an honest and straightforward assessment of where the science community is at right now, but doesn't want to admit. Most people who take a common sense reading of the evidence and who can set ideological motives to one side, would agree with you.
This is a gorgeous video on deoxyribonucleus acid. The goose-bump music combined with clear colorful graphics make this video a short masterpiece.
I love seeing the animations on this, keep this going because life is so infinite both on the outside world and deep with in our making. our DNA composes everything from deep with in the cells nucleus and it's amazing. I feel like I am in a cell and I have a job to do that's important to mankind just like all the cell parts and functions that have instruction on how to synthesize all of our food's nutrients and everything else. I love biology and chemistry, this is what is the answer.
Thr Earth is a cell.
Its amazing!
I want to see the video with sound effects. Big clunking machines, buzzers and beeps, and a large stone door being pushed away. Actually I do love this video. Look what Jehovah as done! :-)
Jehova the one and only🙏🙏🙏
Who is Jehova? there is no Jehovah in Israelite's God, but YHWH
That would be awesome -
Stephen Meyer's argument is God or intelligent design based not religion based.I am a muslim but what Stephen Meyer wants to describe is intelligent design whether is God,Alien
Absolutely astounding visually! Love that most all "Machines" were named & explained. The process of transcription / translation description is very creatively & easy to understand. Feedback - Starting with the sentence - "When the construction of the chain is complete, it is transported to a barrel shaped machine that helps fold it into the precise shape required to perform it's function." During this long silence there is time to both NAME & describe the Golgi Apparatus - otherwise - LOVE IT!
I like how different parts of the cell were referred to as "machines" and "devices". Technology and nature are one in the same.
Modern biochemistry along with our knowledge of nanotechnolgy is making it more difficult for people to believe the life originated by pure dumb luck. In other words - by chance.
Right. It's far too complex to have happened by mere chance, that makes no sense. But inventing a sky-fairy, and attributing to him the power to have created all of it with a wave of his hand makes PERFECT sense. I see where your head is at and I weep for the de-evolution of our species.
Dave - no one "invented" a sky fairy, a rational person who looks at the universe can come to only one conclusion that it was created (or designed by an intelligence). If you found computer code on a cave wall would you think that happened by chance? Atheists have admitted that the universe and life "looks designed" but they insist it is an illusion. It has to be an illusion to them since they have admitted their atheism is based on sexual moral reasons (they don't want a God judging their warped sex life - it's as simple as that)
Try hangman 1128 channel,original forest,it might shine a bit of light
Roy Baty yeah I’ve heard bill maher say something like that.
That God doesn’t agree with his sex life or something.
@@roybaty7439 who created the creator?
"My creation is not the boss of me." - God
God is the creator!!!
Adji Pahlevi Yehshua is the Creator !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Neko Uriah God is the Creator by means of Yehshua... or Jesus... or as he was formerly known: the Word of the LORD (YWHW)
I live in France my English can be bad but know that : Yehshuah man is the son of YHWH. Son because without sin. And because he is his son, YHWH gave him his name. The name of YHWH revealed. The biggest name. Yehshuah = YAHWEH SAVES. Yehshuah is the name of YHWH and his real son. So Yehshuah is the Creator.
Neko Uriah check out 1 Cor 8:6 ... all things come from God... by or through the Lord Jesus Christ.
+Adji Pahlevi coreect; diddo; agreed
Excellent
Simple illustration touches on the awesomeness of living organisms as systems!
"Ratings have been disabled" Figures.
@5tonyvvvv
When I discovered that amino acids found in life were principally left-handed, it was one more nail in the coffin for naturalistic abiogenesis. Even without the homochirality constraint, it is easy to show that the improbability of sequencing a single, average sized protein, exausts the entire probability resources of the universe. I am also a former atheist, who has chosen to follow the evidence. Nice to meet you!
OMG this is so much more exciting than my textbook!!
@knethrea: the DNA system is an encoding-decoding system and an information compression, storage, and retrieval system. Every organism is a decoded/decompressed result of the information in their DNA. How's that for repeatability? All such systems whose origins are known (the jpeg image compression algorithm, for example) are the result of intelligent design (i.e., us). It is, therefore, a logical assumption that the DNA system (whose origin is unknown) is also the result of intelligent design.
Anyone know the music used in this video?
What is the "barrel shaped machine" called?
That's a very excellent point!
I noticed you just recently joined UA-cam. Hope you keep leaving thoughtful comments like that!
@ragnarthoris Which testable theory did abiogensis bring to science?
@Kairusan
I am a physics graduate, and I have always considered the standards of proof accepted in Darwinian circles as laughable. Their theory is no more than a set of anecdotes, and their important claims go lightyears beyond the evidence. Physicists, chemists, mathematicians, programmers and engineers, who have some knowledge of design principles, computer programming, probability etc, tend to agree.
Correction/Clarification: When I said, "I could follow one," I meant that Abel's references were so poor that I only found one. ~3/4 of the 30-odd references are repeated citations of ID icons (ten to Dembski, followed by Meyer, Johson and 4 to himself). None cited the actual passage referred to.
It is said that DNA is a digital language, or in other words, DNA is the living word of a Creator. Most people embrace Evolution because it bolsters their atheism. There is a Creator.
@WildOkapi ...wait, *transcription and translation* of codes is NOT a sign of intelligent design?
@eaglestudios829
How would abiogenesis proponents conduct their experiments differently?
@Rao665 Sure, "a cell doesn't need a nucleus for it to contain DNA", but the video does not claim to be talking about a minimalistic cell. And all of the cells in your and my body have a nucleus. So I appreciate that the video shows me what is happening in my cells on a regular basis.
Fascinating!
without waiting i'll answer myself 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption answered to this "puzzling"questions
It ripped up trees from a single forest and deposited them in mudflows and also in Spirit lake. There they became water-logged, sank to the bottom, and were buried upright in distinct layers as if they grew during different times( again its under our very hands to check without hiding under coverage of "millions of years") the logs, still in an upright position.
Finally the discovery institute comes out with something that isn't blatantly dishonest.
@Kairusan
"They have oxidation levels measured...."
Big deal. How does extra O2 help to correctly sequence libraries of DNA nucleotides?
Excellent video!
This was very good.
Where'd you get the music from?
+Crabby Lobster -i watched it w/o headphones!!!!!!!! so, agreed; diddo, correct
What is the source of this animation? Did the DI make it? Is it the one stolen from Harvard? I ask because I see no credits.
Your response would be much appreciated!
@Rao665 ~ The original 'digital' was a mathematic system based on 10, now known better as decimal. In computer terms, digital is used to refer to binary code, consisting of 2 variables, 1 and 0. DNA and RNA are very definitely NOT digital, as there are more than 2 variables (eg: 4 amino acids, plus the sugar base, which is variable). At the very least, they would have to be thought of as quinquinary or larger. Additionally, digital is also used to refer to discrete packets of information, as ...
People they make a great efforts to gives us the fruits. Thanking them very much and all scientists in the world.
How long does this process take?
@chafish "even the invisible things know what to do" never thought about it that way @chafish. fantastic! thankyou.
Thomas Nagel put it this way, and I agree with him. I’m paraphrasing here: the Darwinian synthesis of evolution defies common sense.
Beautifully said!
I really don't understand how the molecules(phosphaste, sugars, nitrogen base etc....) inside of the nucleus are assembled to make mRNA. Do the enzymes that catalyze these reactions go out and find those building blocks, or do they just happen to pass by and get caught up in that particular process ? Sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough.
People are stupid or jsut aren't curios enough these day to actually go learn the materials themselves to draw their own conclusion. I enjoy science. This is a nicely created visual representation.
How does the RNA reach the Nuclear Pore Complex? Is it attracted to it electromagnetically? Is it similar to a ball with holes on the side in which the RNA simply falls out from? Thanks.
@Jesuisking~ "it is acceptable to say that A,T,C and G in the genetic code of a DNA molecule CAN be compared to the 0 and 1 in the binary code." Except for the fact that each amino acid is different, meaning that it would have to be 0,1,2,3. Thus it is NOT binary, and not digital. Last time I looked, no human is perfect.All of us can be mistaken, including Dawkins and Meyer. The Nature quote is correct about the complimentarity, but wrong about it being digital. I suspect it is a misuse of ...
I was simply warning hapless 13 year olds stumbling upon this video to do their homework, finding it interesting, subscribing to discovery institute, and getting deliberately false info.
awesome, love the music!!
@Muaythai81 What is that?
@IDtaksovr
do you have a source for your claim about huxley's belief? the cell nucleus was discovered long before -drawing from the 18th century show the cell nucleus- and Darwin studied cell structures in detail. Where is the claim about huxley from? can you cite where he expressed this? or where you read that he did?
Great video.
@noitnettaattention By "whom" and how are we getting "lied?" I'm not sure I understand.
@Kairusan
Since you are having considerable "difficulty" agreeing that living systems look designed, lets make it a bit easier by considerinbg only one tiny part: the bacterial flagellum. Search for "Revealing the mystery of the bacterial flagellum
- A self-assembling nanomachine with fine switching capability " where you can look at the computer images and watch the video called "A Rotary NanoMachine" . Now tell me if you think the flagellum LOOKS designed.
Please re-upload this one in 1080p or 4K. Thank you!
also studies of the Yellowstone plants, including pollen analysis, show that there are many more plant species than would be expected in a local or nearby forest. often the pollen doesn’t match the nearby trees. However, this would be explainable if the trees had been uprooted and transported from much further and several places.and also much easier logic why do trees in different layers have the same ring structure? Where are the soil zones between forests?
Great video!
@noitnettaattention
Same source: "Trees that sank later would be buried higher up, that is on a higher level, although they grew at the same time. This was confirmed by sonar and scuba research by a team led by Drs Steve Austin and Harold Coffin. By 1985, there were about 15,000 upright logs on the bottom. Later, the lake was partly drained, exposing some of the bottom, revealing upright logs stuck in the mud."
And this time, instead of capitalizing "LAYERS," you added a period.
There is a simple syllogism that puts ID on the top of the plausibility list that Meyer presents in his book.
Roughly put:
S has not been observed to produce evidence E
P has been observed to produce evidence E
Therefore, P is a better explanation for evidence E
S- Material Processes
P-Intelligence
E- Information
If we ever saw a material process create information, this would change. But we haven't. So for now, we must accept ID as the best explanation. Unless we don't WANT to...
i have some important points about evolution:
first- i think have a very strong evidence for design in nature
a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer
b) from a material prespective the ape is a self replicate robot
a+b= the ape need a designer
Thank you, very helpful video!
Trees that sank later would be buried higher up, that is on a higher level, although they grew at the same time. This was confirmed by sonar and scuba research by a team led by Drs Steve Austin and Harold Coffin.By 1985, there were about 15,000 upright logs on the bottom. Later, the lake was partly drained, exposing some of the bottom, revealing upright logs stuck in the mud..
@alivingock
"Application of "Design Detection" will be accepted if the methods described are actually used."
This is already happening.
What's the point of allowing ratings when a large number of people will "dislike" the video just because of who its from?
@lopezmolano If you are so sure that there is no intelligent design required for the protein assembly depicted in this video, then please post a link or ID of a video that explains how this assembly apparatus could have evolved from a cell that did not have it before. .... Of course that then needs to also explain how such a cell could live and reproduce while it not yet had this apparatus, since now protein assembly is critical to cell growth without which a cell cannot divide.
@anguspure
The need for an external source of energy is fulfilled in the theory presented in the video by a geothermal vent. Currents allow complimentary strands of polymerized nucleic acid sequences to disassociate and re polymerize (effectively reproducing). External energy sources and self polymerization provide a means of reproduction, nucleic acid sequences provide a means of capturing information, and competition and selection provide the information.
Does that all make sense?
@markDMH1
This isn't just a science video... read the video description.
So science as a whole benefits from the challenges of people who support creation. As they often ensure that interpretations of facts are not being replaced with stories.
All scientists need to be able substantiate with direct evidence. Indirect evidence is often another way saying interpretations that cannot truly be substantiated.
and if i may ask why this is bad for Creation model ???
The UPB portion of Abel's paper provides poor references. I could followed one. Lloyd's, "Computational capacity of the universe," estimated the capacity in bit-operations. That's a concept from Von Neumann's linear machines. If the universe is a computational device, I expect it does something like quantum computations, which are not linear and cannot be well described in terms of bit-operations.
This causes problems with IDtaksovr's "entire probability resources of the universe."
@130adi
"There's no reason why ID and Evolution can't both be right. "
I was about to congratulate Kairusan for making his first sensible comment, but then I noticed that the comment was yours. BTW. we should remember that this animation is a gross simplification, only intended to convey the basic elements in the cell. Groups of complex highly specified molecules are displayed as blobs of colour. There are many thousands of ribosomes and transport vesicles in a real cell, and little free space
Genetic mutations occur at a regular rate, called the molecular clock. However, the specific base of DNA that is mutated is extremely random. You can find this information in any freshman level college Biology textbook.
For the eye, just as you can see light far away without immersing yourself in it, you would be able to see radiation without immersing yourself in it. So the eye doesn't need immunity. The point is, our eyes were not designed, they evolved.
It taks a LOT of faith to believe this evolved.
@alivingock i thought you said NO deal ,or something? but yeah 1986-1996 is same as 200 to 300 millions of years.
@pontecanis - Have you e-mailed him or his publisher or the discovery institiute to get a clarification? I am quarter way through his book and so far so good. Meyer is a super bright guy.
@Kairusan
Kairusan @IDtaksovr
"You are required to prove the following:
2) ID actually HAS evidence for it"
What evidence would you be prepared to accept?
i like the video, surprised to see its from DI, thought it was suspicious the narrator said "digital information".
@ragnarthoris ID is a theory that in fact promotes the broadening of the scientific horizin from the narrow constricts of the naturalistic evolutionary frame.
How the origin happened is still on the table and logic tells us that that it is the ID'er that can expect a coherent answer to the question while opposition have no right to expect such a thing.
ok dude, we are going to have to agree to disagree, and I think we should leave it at that, as when people have such completely different world views it can be next to impossible to come to an agreement, so anyway, I genuinely wish you the best in life and hope you have a good one... take care and best of luck dude :) peace
@noitnettaattention A quick bit of reading revealed that all those "layers" of petrified wood in the Specimen Ridge area are a fav of creationists. These are multiple fossil beds from the Eocene which were formed in association with multiple events of the Absaroka volcanic province between 48 and 46 ma. These events included ash falls which preserved trees in situ, as well as pyroclastic and mud flows which transported trees to the fossil beds. Noah (Utnapishtim?) lived ~46e6 years later.
Ron Wyatt's Discoveries 2022 on UA-cam. Noahs ark was found in Turkey in 87'...get with the program
@OBSERVATIONSBYLENNY First of all, not knowing doesn't mean you can say with certainty that your creation myth applies unless you can create a valid test if it's true.
Secondly, believing in a naturalistic "cause" to the universe doesn't mean saying it came from nothing. Do you know the true nature of the universe? How can you be certain that the universe needs one? What if there are parts of the universe that are unfathomable by us humans that are eternal or outside of causality?
things dont move in a directed way on there own. im sorry to tell you the movie is just not detailed enough to show everything going on. everything in the cell is conected when something happens, another molicule is activated that is attached to another ect ect which moves along another molecule to creat directed motion.
Amazing! Through such means we have developed the ability to think!
When not ranting, IDtaksovr often pitches snippets of Dembski's incomplete musings about information and complexity.
When advising recitation of a mantra "10^150 times," IDtaksovr refers to Dembski's absurd notion the "Universal Probability Bound" (UPB). In proclaiming that some phenomenon "exausts [sic] the entire probability resources of the universe," IDtaksovr passes on Dembski's confused application of his absurd UPB.
There are 10^166 arrangements of two decks of cards.
@noitnettaattention I didn't use your links because I already knew that fast petrification had been predicted and later found, uniquely, at Spirit Lake. The example highlights a ubiquitous mistake made by young earthers. Gradualism is confused, often intentionally, with the central principle of uniformitarianism. Many geologic processes are gradual, but by no means all. One unique instance of rapid fossilization does not mean that all fossilization occurs rapidly.
This is so interesting!!
@lopezmolano Good question. However the inference to the intelligent designer is not philosophical nor from "not knowing yet". Instead it comes from now knowing that it is impossible for the mechanisms of evolution to produce the nano machinery in the cells that we can observe today. Likewise we know now that it is against chemical laws that these would ever self-assemble. Thus the intelligent designer explanation is the most rational and scientific theory matching the facts known today.
@anguspure
"what mechanism is proposed that does not involve intelligence?"
An exoponential growth in complexity due to natural physical processes.
Nah, that's why there are chemists, and physicists.
Evidence of such growth is visible within the Sun, it fuses the simple hydrogen into the relatively more complex Helium. And so on, resulting in greater complexity in atoms.
@Donal
"So basically your answer is..."
....that in Darwins time, everybody was completely ignorant about the unfathomable complexity of the cell, and life in general. It was not unreasonable for Darwin to propose his theory of evolution by variation and selection. However, we can no longer claim ignorance of the unbelievable sophistication of living systems. It is not our lack of understanding, but rather our incredible knowledge of this sophistication that calls for a inference to design
@alivingock Friend, but sedimentary layer is accepted as kind of a timeline (far as i know) and most of fossils found in this layer. Hovinds idea is pointing out the fact of global abundance of sedimentary rocks and different animal remains trapped in it which doesn't contradicts to Biblical story(and not only Biblical) of world wide catastrophe at one point of time in earths history which wiped out every breathing animal and every growing huge amount of forests(now coal and oil deposits)
@alivingoc
There's a paper called: "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)" which explains the problem with basing theories on vastly improbable assumptions. Science NEEDS some kind of metric to allow us to decide between what is PLAUSIBLE and what is merely POSSIBLE. As a crude example, It's possible that the first cell appeared in one vastly improbable event by purely naturalistic means, but is it plausible. You see, this metric is already being applied implicitly.
@Kairusan
" It's hard to see how an all powerful designer wouldn't just poof everything in at once ...."
The difficulty you are experiencing is not evidential, given that the fossil record seems to support the sudden appearance of the major animal groups. ID does not try to get into the mind of a Designer, and does not address the kind of theological questions you feel obliged to pose on why a Designer would choose to do this or that. ID simply tries to recognize / detect design.
@watergaia Wow you sound enlightened, can I join your drum circle?
"In fact, using this logic, we conclude just about anything and say we're gaining knowledge."
Do you disagree?
"All I said is that it is totally useless in science."
In that case, how does that statement relate to our discussion about the plausibility of Intelligent Design?
@noitnettaattention
From Creation Ministries International: "At Specimen Ridge, there are said to be 27 layers, while Specimen Creek contains about 50. This means that the Specimen Creek formation is especially huge-its total vertical height is 1,000 meters (3,400 feet)."
From you: "At Specimen Ridge, there are said to be 27 LAYERS , while Specimen Creek contains about 50. This means that the Specimen Creek formation is especially huge-its total vertical height is 1,000 meters (3,400 feet)"
They weren't "Universities". They were more like schools of philosophy. There were also religious houses, like the Diocletians, that were dedicated to knowledge and scientific achievements. Many of these religious orders made great strides in many kinds of disciplines; mettalurgy, for example. Another was brewing and wine-making. Still others made great strides in agriculture.
@IDtaksovr "random mutation and natural selection can easily do cells in their lunch break" ... I do not understand your reasoning... the video is about protein synthesis, a process needed even in the very first cell. So it needs to be set up before the first cell, i.e. without random mutation and natural selection. Or you need to explain how the first cell could function and replicate without protein synthesis. Please provide an explanation for one of these two options.
Disable voting??
@Kairusan
"How would you disprove any theory?
1) Run a rigorous experiment that fully disproves it."
In my uniform experience, there is only one test that Darwinists grudgingly offer to test / refute Darwinism. They as you to find a Bunny in pre Cambrian strata. How would you turn this into a "rigorous experiment". Can you be more specific on how to test Darwinism?
@anguspure
When you refer to tornados in a junkyard, I assume you're talking about the argument; Tornados in a Junkyard don't produce 747s.
This argument is fallacious because it is a hasty generalization. You give an example of a chaotic system that doesn't produce complex orderly structures, then conclude that no chaotic system can give rise to complex orderly structures.
You then go on to point out a counterexample to that conclusion in the phenomenon of crystallization.
(to be continued)