Complexity isn't that Complex of an Argument | Reacteria
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 вер 2022
- 🌏 Get exclusive NordVPN deal here ➵ nordvpn.com/valkailabs It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!✌
Forrest Valkai, a biologist who teaches science on the internet, embarks on a quest to endure videos from people who claim everything he studied in college is wrong. Will he be convinced by creationist claims? Or will he remain steadfast in his study of science? Let's find out!
Subscribe at / renegadescienceteacher
Need more science in your life?
Follow Forrest!
ValkaiLabs.com
TikTok - TikTok.com/@RenegadeScienceTeacher
Instagram - RenegadeScienceTeacher
Twitter - ForrestValkai
Visit the Valkai Labs Giftshop!
www.bonfire.com/store/renegad...
Don't miss Forrest's terrible weekly podcast "I'm Not Comfortable with This" on UA-cam, Spotify, Breaker, Google Podcasts, Radio Public, and Pocketcasts!
/ imnotcomfortablewiththis
Want to send Forrest something?
Send your letters, artwork, science kits, or other surprises to
P.O. Box 1810
Broken Arrow, OK
74013
Want to help fund more shows like this?
Become a patron at Patreon.com/RenegadeScienceTeacher
or Donate with
Venmo - @ProfForrest
CashApp - $ProfForrest
PayPal.me/YourScienceTeacher
Have an awesome day and never stop learning!
"The more complex the code, the more intelligent the programmer."
-No software developer ever
Given that the code is no more complex than necessary, the more complex the code the better the programmer. Cheers! :)
It also has the built in nonsense assumption that intelligence is some quantifiable number that can go up infinitely.
Like "god must have an IQ of 1000" level thinking.
@@eoincampbell1584 There are maxims that work over a significant range, and are not meant by the user to scale to any level
Moore's law is a good maxim, even granting a fundamental limit in transistor minaturizarion.
Fractals are a good model of lung anatomy, even though branching eventually terminates in avioli.
So to the oft-derided notion conveyed in the original quote. That notion need _bot_ entail that it scales 'up to infinity'
Cheers! :)
@@zapazap "Given that the code is no more complex than necessary the more complex the code the better the programmer. Cheers! :)"
*Well made* code is no more complex than necessary, which is precisely why code being *less* complex means it's *more* likely it was made by a good programmer.
Code could be extremely complex but with very few actually necessary components (as is the case with DNA if we're likening it to code) or it could be extremely simple because the task it's doing didn't need it to be any more complex and the programmer was quite good at programming. Complexity doesn't indicate very much by itself.
You pretty clearly didn't pay attention to the video since the fact that DNA isn't really that much like computer code in reality, the fact that complexity of a given thing does not tell you much about how it was created, and the fact that the whole argument works off the assumption that there must be a programmer are all covered in it.
Cheers! ┌∩┐(0_0)┌∩┐
@@zapazap (keep in mind this "code" is just a visualisation and won't actually work in any program language)
if i wanted to program a code that tells me if "int" is 1, i could do something akin to:
int = 1
if int==1, do "noise"
OR i could do something akin to:
int = 1
variable A = int
Variable B = variable A - 1
Variable C = Variable B +1
if Variable C == 1, do "noise"
One of these "codes" is way more complex than the other, but it's needlessly complex and any person who would program such a mess would be called an idiot. Complexity isn't a sign of intelligence.
A good Code is no more complex than necessary, which automatically means that complexity isn't necessarily a good thing.
Creationists: Random glitches in code cannot be beneficial!!!
Speedrunners: Hold my beer
essentially creating a new version of the game.
Isn't that literally how we got rocket jump in Team Fortress?
This gave me a great laugh
Damn, that's a good one.
Mutations are not "glitches", they are variations and if we didn't have that we'd be fucked.
Actually true, I transitioned and as soon as I became a girl I signed an eldritch contract w a demon to forgo my humanity and join the collective consciousness of the eyeball lords
Congratulations!
Oculon watches all.
The ocular council calls upon you to sexualize the children and push the agenda. All hail SATAN.
Not fair, I didn't get a contract when I came out as non-binary 😠. Or is it only for trans girls? 🤣
@@waffles3629 Greetings, sign to to give me your soul
_________________________
Please enter your spiritual insurance number in the space below
_________________________
Congratulations in your union with the ocular lords of pain, death, and wokeness.
The really funny thing about this is that there is a common saying in coding - "it's not a bug, it's a feature". Coders often accidentally write code that does something good that they didn't indend while writing it. Even in coding accidental complexity is a thing.
That quote though normally refers to something being actually wrong but the programmer or team refusing to fix it, so calling it a feature for convenience.
@@JochCool Depends on who's saying it. For users, it's "this guy won't fix what's wrong." But for people making things? Hey, sometimes shit just works out
I'm thinking about the infamous TF2 Coconut rn lmao
As a gamer, a good example of "it's not a bug" is Quake's rocket jumping. it was totally an accident of different code strings causing interesting reactions when interacting, and gamers fell in love with the feature to the point it became something that was included in future Quake titles and even crossed over into other games.
One very good phrase from _the Hacker's dictionary_ is "creeping featurism or is it _feeping creaturism?_ "
Remember when physical objects were irreducible? Remember when elements and atoms were irreducible? Remember when protons/neutrons/electrons were irreducible? Remember when quarks and the rest of the subatomic particles were irreducible? Oh wait there's antimatter too?? The point is we're constantly learning and I don't understand why people seem to just stop at the highest level and claim they know everything... Christ
no, actually no christ :D
I heard once that all humans are born as scientists, eager to explore the world. It's just that most of us have the curiosity beaten out of us by adulthood.
Well, I'm pretty sure quarks are irreducible.
So you reply to "analogies are not valid" with more analogies...
I don't care what you say! Earthquakes are caused by Loki writhing in pain when the serpent venom touches his skin! There is no other explanation! (yes that is sarcasm lol)
As a software engineer, all of these arguments were just so infuriating
"Code must be written by someone very smart" Ah, so they've never read my code :D
It's also not a proper analogy since DNA is not in any shape or form "code" apart from what WE apply to it.
@@sinshadow1993 Lmao, that's all of us when we start xD
I'd argue a good portion, probably like 70% of all code is written by inexperienced people and ends up pretty shite...
@@michaelmay5453 Agreed, that was one of the annoyances, it feels like such a horrible analogy lmao
Every argument the god-squad makes, for anything/everything, is infuriating
"Biola University is a private, evangelical Christian university"
i love how that is just said with nothing else because it truly speaks for itself
God waved his wand and said, "Biola!"
@@stacisewell7824amazing joke 10/10 I chuckled
Gotta say, the idea that they have to build up institutions mimiking what a university looks like to say things like "a scientist says".
@@stacisewell7824 nice
"Stupid people admire complexity. Intelligent people admire simplicity."
Totally paraphrasing the legend himself, Terry Davis.
The simplest explanation is the best! To explain the complex requires us to postulate an intelligence not directly evident. You don’t go looking for an engineer inside a Corvette nor do you look for an architect to be wall or a staircase in a building. You see a building; there was a builder. You see a Corvette evolve over the years and you know he’s not a piece of the car. He’s back in the factory somewhere!
I feel that one can admire both. If sometimes in a "holy shit, it's amazing that this absolute house-of-cards full of glaring issues has not come crumbling to the ground" sort of way. But then again, I'm mostly interested in chemistry and geology, not programming or engineering. While simple compounds and crystals are nice and all, they're also kinda boring most of the time. The fun part about chemistry for me is seeing all the different ways you can fit things together, and the cool part of geology is seeing how weird and complex crystal structures can get. .
Then again, I've also never thought of myself as all that intelligent. Knowledgeable, perhaps. But I know full well that I am my own worst enemy, and that I think something along the lines of "this is a terrible idea, but I want to do it and see what happens" far, _far_ too often. I don't always give in, but still.
"Ignorance is not evidence" - Forrest Valkai 2022. It's a perfect summing up of the creationist argument.
Yes! What an amazing comeback to creationist argumentation.
And of the fallacies underlying it: the Argument from Incredulity ("I can't imagine how such a thing could arise") combined with False Dichotomy ("if your favorite explanation fails, then my favorite explanation wins.")
Almost as telling is the underlying epistemic position. Ordinarily, we're all pretty comfortable with "I don't know" as the honest answer to an honest question:
"Who won the FA Cup Final in 1872?"
"I don't know."
"Okay, fair enough. It was a trick question. The Cup Final was not inaugurated until 1872."
But somehow:
"What created life in the universe?"
"I don't know."
"Well then, it must have been a mysterious supernatural mind."
The epistemic position to really big and difficult questions COULD be that it's equally as possible to say "I don't know" as it is for small inconsequential questions but, somehow, it ISN'T taken as possible by some people.
And so we come back to "ignorance is not evidence." Indeed not. It's perfectly okay to be ignorant. Just be honest about it, and don't try to spin it into something.
In particular, you can't convert "I don't know" into "I do know" by inference. You might wish that you could. But sorry, you can't.
Children = literally under Attack by the GOP as "Some More News" points out in his Third GOP-Video.
I call it "Argument from Stupidity"
@@tedarcher9120
I can do better: "religion"
My favorite “Watchmaker argument” is the misrepresented Darwin quote about the structure of the eye. One, because the next sentence refutes it, and two, because if an eye was so perfectly designed I wouldn’t have needed glasses by age 13
I suspect a lot of creationists would argue that your poor eye function is the product of sin and Adam and Eve’s eyes were perfect, our eyes have just been getting worse ever since they et the wrong fruit.
If, as creationists claim, we are the absolute pinnacle of God's creation it makes you wonder why he gave so many other creatures much better eyes than us. Even the squid has better vision than we have. Maybe the entire universe was created for the Peregrine Falcon and we just happen to one of the millions of other lesser species.
I also needed glasses at age 13, that's seriously bad for survival isn't it?
Shit the intelligent designer made simple things terribly. Why the fuck do we breathe and eat through the same tube? One extra tube could have saved so many people.
Most of theists I see using eyes (or wings) for their argument are trying to argue for something along the lines of irreducible complexity. Their main point usually seems to be that partial eyes or wings can't "see" or "fly", thus they're not beneficial enough to help survival and be selected for. Like most theist claims they're wrong about virtually every assertion and subsequent conclusions. For eyes I like to bring up parietal eyes, there's a bunch of parietal eyes and they're a perfect example of the very thing many creationists claim are impossible/useless.
IF ANYONE WAS WONDERING WHAT THE BINARY AT THE END MEANT, IT SAYS "This is binary, not DNA. See the difference?" AND THAT IS SUCH A GOOD CLOSER WELL DONE FORREST
THANK YOU!!
Is that encoded as ascii? Or unicode? Or some other encoding?
We could put up random numbers in binary and claim they mean anything, if we don't specify the encoding... bit like the creationists who make claims without any evidence to back it up.
@@mattsadventureswithart5764ascii and Unicode are functionally identical since 1 byte is used for each of the characters in the message, although the point still stands I just wanted to note that specific distinction isn't important with this set
@@willdaisey7406pedantic nerds like to be pedantic, so they comment pedantic stuff.
Unicode/ASCII is pretty simple to identify. 010 or 011 starting 8 bit words, probably unicode/ascii. And when you follow through on your assumption and get "be sure to drink your Ovaltine", you probably decoded correctly.
Do you ever get the impression that people who confuse the analogy of DNA being a "code" think that if they could zoom in close enough to a DNA strand there would actually be letters written on it? As if they don't even realize it is an analogy but think there is a literal code written with letters on our DNA.
I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. One idiot called DNA even digital code.
DNA is a literal computer code uses 4 different chemicals instead of 2 different charges. It's a slow but highly efficient and data dense code. That's why we want to use it for data storage.
@@vladimirsilver2633It’s not *literally* a computer code, that’s ridiculous. It’s similar and can be used towards effectively the same end, but saying it’s literally computer code makes no sense.
@@vladimirsilver2633 I mean...they actually use trinary instead of quaternary for DNA digital data storage, and they have to jump through a number of hoops to prevent homopolymers from forming, so I don't know that "efficient" is precisely the right word. And "slow" with regards to read-time seems...generous. But even in that case, the DNA isn't computer code. It's currently being converted between trinary and binary code through look-up tables. That may change as biological computing develops further, but for now, it's more an interesting concept than a practical solution.
@@vladimirsilver2633I've never heard of DNA being used for data storage. Pretty sure it would take way more energy to make and use.
“Wait till these guys find out that girls are humans!” I had to pause the video to laugh at that one.
Saddest part is that too many Abrahamic faith denominations clearly don't see girls or women as people. Too busy saying that wives must be subordinate to their husbands.
Clearly they are NEVER going to discover that!
@@idrabohm3678 : I don't know.. Forrest doesn't have a creepy mask, so yea.
🙄lols
Yeah, not to mention that most Abrahamic Creationists will pretty much Never admit that *Humans Are Animals* , despite that being factual & provable in _every sense_ of the word. The idea that we're not only 'superior' beings but even special little snowflakes made by Skydaddy just feeds into their ego and sense of importance too much.
Same with me and the power strip thing lol
Creationist: "There are no beneficial mutations".
Me: (Eating ice cream without sharting my pants)
Some creationists, or all creationists?
Cheers! :)
I am drinking a cup of milk right now and enjoying my cheesy soup
@@zapazap well they're all incompetent so it really doesn't matter
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexiteI am asking someone what _they_ mean by _their_ words, and you say it doesn'r matter?
That:s rich
@@zapazap yes. It doesn't matter
I like the argument that the eye is too complex to have occurred without a designer when all of the steps from light sensitive cells to the eyeball are extant in various animals.
Those people see everything that's complex as something that is impossible to achieve. Everything from the Universe, to living creatures, to eyeballs and to even bananas. They're so dumb that they find everything complex and random and they can't really understand science and the laws of physics. Like literally just show them anything that's hard to understand and they'll start arguing that there must be God.
Basically the philosophy behind their argument is:
"It's impossible for something too complex to have occurred at random without an intelligent designer".
@@time3735 imagine finding everything so complex you deem the achievements of other hard working people fake
@@time3735 John Horton Conway's "Game of Life" mentioned in the 1970s by Scientific American, and you can "play" it with the program *golly* available by the web, has three rules, and a simple planar world, and is a world of utterly astonishing complexity.
You cannot *_intelligently design_* its even mildly complex examples but you can get lots by writing some rules of _Computational Selection_ .
I programmed a stable but overcrowded collection, of variable size, of six dot hexagons with spaces, and in a 60 x 80 set introduced one flaw. The resulting chaos by sheer accident produced the fifteen generation repeating set called a pentadecagon.
And let's also not forget about the blind animals that HAVE eyes. Did God give them eyes just cause he didn't know how to make a new pattern? Lol
I am having a hard time reading this; let me grab my glasses 😎
My Dad was an engineer and he would very much disagree with "the more complex, the more intelligence is needed."
As a chemist, I would disagree. Building a complex molecule takes a lot more intelligence and work (unless you're a lazy biochemist who just builds proteins all day, or synthesize things from bacteria). Especially in energetics (read: "explosives"). Due to the fact that ring strain adds to the power of an explosive, more complex molecules are usually better for blowing things up. Also, the simple explosives (and commonly used) are often toxic, like lead azide. That's why we're considering replacing it with things like hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane. It's like trying to build the most stable and tallest house-of-cards you can.
Not in engineering and not in programming. The Kalashnikov is revered because its as dumb of a gun as it gets. Hard to jam, simple to make. In software, same holds true. The more complex the code, the easier it is to break. Doing more with less is the exact opposite of what genetics has. Tailbone, funny bone, wisdom teeth, blind spots, sinus infections. The human body sure has that house of cards structure alright.
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is an insanely common, best-practise strategy in programming for a reason. Every time someone makes an argument from complexity, it just shows that even if they're right, God is a bad designer.
The three Ms of programming:
Make it work
Make it fast
Make it simple
Every good programmer knows that the best code is the one that accomplishes the goal in as little time and steps as possible. DNA is complex, yes, but also convoluted and redundant. If it were code, it would be awful code.
It makes sense, since evolution as an optimisation algorithm is basically "if it works it works"
@@LordOfTheTermites Yess! The tremendous web program called Apache was a refinement of working code that originally was a collection of patchy code. A patch is something that works, but is inelegant.
In DNA redundancy is useful, because it can mean when one version is damaged, another version will still function. DNA's still awful code though
@@charlesfisher-kh5sw I disagree, unless you just mean it's a lot of work to analyse. DNA base code has lasted billions of years, and the DNA vehicle (the two acid helices) that the organic bases occupy must bea damn Good vehicle for the job.
Yeah if it were designed by a super intelligent being it would be way more optimised and less convoluted
As a software engineer, yes changing a piece of code can make something break, my job was actually to remove unnecessary coding, which means I took out pieces that while worked weren’t necessary and with taking them out made the software run better.
Aye indeed. When I read about the US government looking for Cobol programmers to fix some ancient financial distribution stuff, I reckoned there are half a dozen far better languages that programmers told what the original Cobol code was supposed to do, could do a better job of it.
While what you're saying is self evident, recent evidence shows us that it is simply not true because greater intelligence is linked with greater complexity. This is why my first "hello world" program was 300 lines long, written in python.
@@israelhoffman5964 At the beginning of my career working for the US government, my previous boss in a company which had a contract with a different department told me that they needed to accomplish a certain task in less than three months. The best estimate with the programming that was available, in Cobol, using tape drives because the intermediate datasets exceeded the disk storage available, would take too long and could I perhaps in my own time do better?
I examined the code and concluded that with my intelligence I could simplify it, by converting the data from EBCDIC to binary (or float, I don't remember) and doing the sort in JCL rather than internal to the Cobol. I estimated I could do it in three weeks, for a fee of $1000 in the days when that was quite handsome, and in fact it took two weeks and everyone was pleased.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 very nice 👍 I'm not familiar with JCL?
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 I did a little googling, that sounds epic. Is it fair to say that JCL is Cobol metaprogramming? I have never worked on a mainframe, most of my experience is personal projects focussed largely on embedded devices.
Not gonna lie “The God Code” sounds like an awesome name for a sci fi book
not wrong
It's the sequel of The DaVinci Code
Look up onisions reapers creek
You'll shrivel up and die
Or better yet look up Krismon rogues or kappa kaiju videos on the book
It sounds like a sim becoming self aware that it's a program
@@davidkonevky7372 that’s such a great idea, i can imagine it now. in fact I’m gonna start writing. Brb
"cells are so complex that humans couldn't make them"
me growing
That does not constitute 'making' for many senses of 'make' in the standard lexicon, which probably includes the sense intended by someone using the sentence you quoted.
Cheers! :)
@@zapazap Still been repeatedly refuted, regardless of its intended meaning in usage. Seeing as how Simple Lipid Proto-Cell Equivalents (perfectly capable of imperfectly self-replicating) have been made in that sense, as have more advanced & complex iterations, many many times, using only naturally-occurring molecules & chemical processes (though _technically_ encouraged to speed its way along unnaturally, a bit, relative to its likely probable timeframes, for practicality purposes).
Moreover, one possible point behind David's joke is to encourage critical-thinking, and to [hopefully] help discourage Creationists from being intellectually-dishonest (such as when or if they deliberately ignore the fact that our cells literally make themselves, just like even the simplest of single-celled organisms, despite how 'complex' they are). If we were to entirely throw away all sense of agency for the natural actions of our cells (although in fairness we don't truly have any conscious control over them individually), then in arbitrarily laying it upon the MAGIC of Some Mystical Super-Being (rather than Nature+Time) that would be awfully akin to Claiming or Implying that Humans Literally Can't Make Anything At All (not even Choices for that matter).
Cheers! 🙃
Growing a cell and creating one is not the same. No one ever created any cell out of nothing or even with some materials. Know the topic before speaking. Every one can share their idiocity, try for once be real.
@@JessicaSunlight calm the fuck down. who hurt you? its just a joke.
@@JessicaSunlight Lab synthesized cells have been a thing for nearly twenty years and the pioneering work of people like Dr. Craig Venter. Anyone can indeed share their idiocy, which is precisely why there are so many creationists who think that if they shout "IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED MAN AND WOMAN" enough times science, LGBT people, and the Jews will disappear.
I as a computer programmer can understand that this man has never ready any line of code in his life. As AI are a thing
If I wrote a program where one part obscurely influences another part in a completely different locations (analogous to genes triggering the production of hormones that suppress or activate other genes), it would be considered bad design (or a bug)...
@@simond.455 or turned feature, depending on results.
@@simond.455 The fact that everything about genetics is the definition of spaghetti code is one of the best argument against intelligent design
I lol'ed at "you have to spend hours just writing a couple hundred words of code." erm... Someone's never heard of a function or modular programming. Hell, i can write a "Hello world" with some nifty input variables that is a few hundred lines in like 15 min max.
@@TheClearwall Oh brother... You know what he meant.
I have to admit, I love this classic unwarranted generalization, because it tells me that
- DNA is complex, therefore god must have made it
- I wrote a code once, which is very complex
- Therefore, I am god.
I like the implication that every coder is part of God.
The hallmark of a true expert is how he or she can explain things to a non specialist. You possess that quality. Thanks.
I remember seeing someone use the complexity argument while using a smartphone as their "irreducibly complex object"
Like, do they think Steve Jobs invented the phone and the first phone was an iPhone?
Steve Jobs is the unmoved mover
@@washada more like Steve Gods
A lot of the phone parts could be removed if necessary. You dont need wifi, bluetooth, the gyroscope and other parts to use the phone
@@reicavera2235 just like a human being. We don't need tonsils and certain other parts to function
@@LadyOfTheEdits Wisdom teeth are only there to get impacted, the appendix is there only to get ruptured, you could easily live with one fewer kidneys, the reproductive system can be discarded, there's a lot of dead weight if you were stripping the human body down to the bare essentials.
"This argument is SO bad that even if it were good, it would STILL be bad."
I LOVE that line. I love this entire video. Stunningly well done Mr. Valkai!
Teachers are TERRIFIED of being Sued today and the massive Issues that i KNOW
Valkai has close to his Heart, got their own Video Essay thx to 'Some More News'.
That UA-camr made 1 Hour and 20 Minutes about important Stuff.
@@loturzelrestaurant I found it, it's actually an awesome channel :) ua-cam.com/video/mVXk2GqhUK4/v-deo.html
@@loturzelrestaurant ?
@@JessicaSunlight Lie? Did you mistype "line?" Perhaps I've missed your meaning?
@@DariusRoland You heard be correct.
And Behe's flagella argument was literally debunked in Kitzmiller v. Dover when the opposing lawyers literally dumped a huge stack of papers that explained the evolution of the flagella onto the desk, and Behe stated that not only had he not read them and wouldn't read them, he wouldn't change his opinion even if they were correct.
And that caused the Judge to basically trash Behe's credibility in his opinion.
I may be wrong but I could have sworn the papers they used were about immunology.
@@thepapschmearmd Yup. From Rothschild's closing arguments: "I showed Professor Behe more than 50 articles, as well as books, on the evolution of the immune system. He had not read most of them, but he confidently, contemptuously dismissed them as inadequate. He testified that it's a waste of time to look for answers about how the immune system evolved."
Gotta love the mousetrap analogy. I saw someone else use the wooden base of a mousetrap as a doorstop just to make the point that parts of a system could originally be used for something else.
I always love when one of these videos says "Many scientists believe"
That's like the seal of guarantee that whatever they're about to say is completely made up
The highly appropriate term for that is “weasel words”.
Many scientists believe that the universe will end in a so-called heat death. Cheers! :)
Many scientists believe I am the greatest person who ever lived. Citation? Oh, look at the time! I have to be going!
Yeah, it's right up there with "An atheist approached me and said..." whatever comes after these strings of words is almost guaranteed to be USDA Grade A bullshit.
@@FakingANerve The USDA does not grade bullshit sir. Are you bullshitting us?
Cheers! :)
I go to a Christian school and one of my classmates said “given infinite time, wouldn’t anything that is possible happen?” And my physics teacher said “no, not if it’s too unlikely” because he knew where the conversation would be headed if he said yes. It’s insane that actually smart people are so ignorant at times, they are so close to truth but intentionally push it away.
So what are you saying is the truth that some push away?
Your physics teacher should be fired for that answer alone. A physics teacher that doesn't know how infinity works, isn't a physics teacher.
yes dishonesty is the fundamental pillar of theism/christianity/creationism/apologetics.
I heard this from an atheist biology teacher I had in highschool, arguing it was impossible that a (fair) coin tossed by me would turn up 'heads' one hundred times in a row.
Cheers! :)
@@zapazap that’s just stupid. Of course it could happen.
All he needs to do is toss a coin a couple of times and notice that sometimes it’s the same side that is facing up.
Going from 10 to a 100 in this case wouldn’t be that much of a leap of faith.
Though of course it’s unlikely.
"Glitches don't make a new game."
Have they seen speedruns? lol
Thanks god for intelligently giving me genetic disorder thats sending me blind because you designed my eyes so well.
Thanks for my dyslexia that made my education hard work along with my autism that's had me painted as troublesome at best.
Thanks for all that making me have extra hours of study throughout my whole childhood education sometimes in the evening after school when others were playing out.
That said I got to uni got my degrees etc but with again all the issue of not quite fitting in.
Thanks to some peoples fantasy sky man.
Don’t forget to thank god for connecting your breathing tube to the same hole as your food tube
Or for giving you a spine that sucks at supporting your bipedal posture
Or for giving you a jaw too small for your third sets of molars
Extreme christians will answer: "BE THANKFUL OR HE WILL SEND YOU TO THE ETERNAL BARBECUE!!!!!" But he loves you. 😉
@ethanmiller3200 And the fact that feet are actually really inefficient for bipedal walking. It’s almost like… we evolved from something and had to make so with what we had…
The creeper in Minecraft (the most well known mob probably) started as a typo in the code. They were trying to make a pig but entered the axis wrong. This resulted in the iconic look of the creeper wich they kept in the game 'cause it looked fun. So in a way, a random code mistake did spawn a new element of the game. Checkmate creationists
Brilliant example!
You can literally just look up “glitches that became features” on UA-cam or Google or anything, and you will see dozens of examples of glitches (mostly the creeper in Minecraft and Nuclear Gandhi in Civilization lol) in video games that were so useful and/or entertaining that they were kept bad features in later iterations of the game! It’s almost like these people are using coding as an empty prop to hold up their argument without actually having more than the barest knowledge of how it works in the real world lmao
Got ‘em
You missed the point, this error code still had an AGENT behind and the AGENT chose to keep the error.
And the argument for DNA is the same, there is an agent behind it because it's complex.
Obviously, this cannot be empirically proven other than using logic, reasoning and rational, so believe what you want to believe, but dont strawman the argument.
If you think its an agent, then look into ideologies that claim this agent contacted humans, if not then believe whatever you want 🤷🏾♂️
@@freeyourmind7538 if theists argued that the universe was a funny mistake that their God accidentally created and just left cause it was funny, then there would be WAY fewer arguments against God.
Unfortunately they argue that it's an all-powerful, perfect, good, loving being that did it.
I was a hardcore Christian and I remember when I would go to Sunday school they would always tell me that scientists weren't trustworthy and even though I had a interest in science I would get shot down for asking questions then I got taken out of Sunday school cause we couldn't afford it so I went on until high school not caring about science until I took a biology class. I loved it and it got me interested in science and then I found Forrest's channel and I have loved science and him for so long and I soon will be a patron on Patreon. Thanks for everything dude!
_"... that scientists weren't trustworthy and even though I had a interest in science I would get shot down for asking questions..."_
On the eh... "bright" side, they at least read Romans 1 and lived by it. Paul says that people who rely on science, like we all necessarily do, do that not out of curiosity or to make the world better but out of a hatred for god and for doing what god tells us to do and that they deserve death as much as homosexuals, rapists, and murderers do. We just want to sin, so we rely on what man (people) made (do), instead of on god. The bible and quran both repeatedly tell their followers to not trust in people, even though everything that improved is because of people and every saved life is because people save people. It's abusive and manipulative and distracting from the simple fact that we rely on people every day. God didn't bake bread or make computers, we did.
So you believe Rats are your direct family.
Rats eat their own feces btw.
Every skeptic or science based UA-camr I follow has often said "I don't know" or "we may not ever know some answers" which is the MOST honest thing any human can say!
Just so you know, he is not teaching you science, he is teaching you materialistic dogma or ideology if you will. One of those dogmas is natural selection or belief that unconscious process can create complexity. I would encourage you to learn science before you will indulge yourself into materialistic science and what they preach. And since their ideology revolves around topic of God then its a religion too. As with every religion "we have The truth" other side doesn't. Science is fun, ideological overlay is poison. Swapping one ideology to another have not freed your mind - you still trapped in a lies. its just you believe in other set of lies.
it's funny to see the Creationist acknowledge that a mousetrap is reducible by his own logic- "A mouse could trip on the bar and impale itself"- so, it still kills mice... rarely, but still
I like it when Dr Ken Miller showed up at the Dover trial with an elegant mouse trap tie holder
I am a former theist. My education growing up was very limited with its exposure to Evolution and evolutionary theory. Basically I was told "it's wrong don't believe it." I was taught to be annoying and keep asking how teachers know what they're saying to be true by other Christians to frustrate them to admitting they don't know. I'm looking forward to this new series. I feel I understand science a bit better now but I am always filling in gaps in my knowledge because of the way I was brought up. Thank you for doing this.
Aron Ra “systematic classification of life” is great playlist about evolution from the very first lifeforms up to us. Incredibly interesting, informative and easy to digest. I must have watched it 3 or 4 times. I highly recommend it if you don’t already know it. Plenty of former theists in the comments expressing their gratitude to Aron for filling in the gaps in their education.
The internet has its problems but it’s also a powerful vehicle for the dissemination of knowledge. I wish I had it when I was a kid.
@@pansepot1490 I second this comment
Yea, when someone has to pull stunts as opposed to just have a conversation to get their ideas across, some part of them doesn't believe it themselves.
@@pansepot1490 : That sounds like something I'd enjoy watching too, even though I have always been agnostic and so still hold to the principle of following evidence, not making assumptions based on a lack thereof.
@Coercri Don't be discouraged, there are many times more knowledge than any one human could ever hope to learn. Even a very narrow field of study can keep you learning for your entire life.
The power strip bit is the most elegant analogy for circular reasoning I've ever seen 😂
I have to admit, it did make me LOL- fantastic visual metaphor.
As a programmer I'd like to say a simple sentence about glitches not improving stuff: "it's not a bug, it's a feature"
That powerstrip analogy is hilarious and i love it
a big flaw i just noticed in the "genetic code is Literally Like Computer Code" is that they always START with the premise of computers having binary digits akin to dna nucleotides, but then immediately shift to the idea of like, programming languages. which is not really the same thing as the computer's binary language
To be fair, though, machine code was for a significant time the only means of programming computers.
However, the fact that abstract algorithms are typically represented as strings of binary digits doesn't somehow imply a designer for any string of binary digits. After all, anything can be represented that way, including noise. So it's not at all the strong argument that creationists try to make of it. As usual, it's merely begging the question.
In computer science, we define a "language" as a grammar over a set of symbols. There is nothing in this definition about intelligence or even agency.
@@starfishsystems On the very primitive English Electric DEUCE computer that nevertheless persuaded me I was better at computer programming than Schrödinger equations to solve nuclear fusion problems, we knew the numeric codes of the machine codes, and could profitably keypunch them on program cards, in what we called "Chinese binary" wherein decimal 27 is binary 11001, and you punch 10011.
The language for four organic bases A,C,G,T is that there are 64 possible sequences of three such codes , which allows any such triplet to code for one of the amino acids needed to chain together a protein. This incldes coding Start or Stop. It's a language for describing product.
But back to computers -- I now use the interpreter languages Python and Perl, because computers are fast enough that I'd only need compiled code like 'C' or even Pascal for monstrously heavy work.
There's a program called 'golly' that is quite dazzlingly fast at John Horton Conway's "Game of Life", which creates cellular automata of quite astounding complexity, based upon a set of exactly three rules for their "metabolism", i.e. whether they live, or die, or create life in a neighbouring cell.
Binary code can also mutate. Those mutations are called bit flips. They can be caused by a variety of things, such as cosmic rays. Bit flips can cause everything from computer crashes to a change in election outcome. (Yes, it happened. The number of votes for a candidate was changed because of a bit flip caused by a literal cosmic ray.)
In fairness, they know exactly as much about computer programming as they do about evolutionary biology.
@@optimuseprime7887 Also, world-record Super Mario 64 speed-runs.
What saddens me the most is most of the people who NEED to hear this, won’t. I’m willing to bet that the only people who watch your videos are the ones that have an open mind and like to learn and understand. Please never stop! If I had a teacher (of any subject) like you, I might have done better in school.
I agree 💯👍
I disagree. A tiny percentage will actually think about what he said and slowly begin to understand his lesson.
forrest's is one of the channels I always send creationists to when they say that evolution doesn't make sense, I point them towards this channel, along with Aron Ra and professor daves channels, because they can all explain it a lot better than I can
My son introduced his Christian school cousins, now they're hooked
that is a depressing thought, and I've thought about that a lot. But take heart! We need to be watching and learning this information. First of all it's important and fun; but also it sharpens our understanding of evolution and the rhetorical methods of discussing these most important topics. It informs us about how to be on our guard when charlatans and frauds are on the prowl. It also helps us be informative to others that might be open to the scientific method and logical understanding. Finally, if you decide to have children or be a teacher you can inform young people how to think critically and be on the look out for non sense. And, my comrades in the other responses already pointed out that yea most people who 'need' this understanding reject it or won't see it, but some will and some will begin to think critically. One of the commenters even pointed out, acf kelly says his son introduced his cousins and they are hooked: that's because it's fucking science and as a great human once said, "science rules!".
In my extremely limited coding experience, you’re absolutely right that needless complexity is not a good sign for the quality of the designer.
If you’re coding something for a practical interview for a software engineer position, and you wrote a code as long, redundant, and full of glitches as our genome, you’d be passed up for someone who did the same thing work with 1% of the code.
Complexity isn’t always the same as efficiency or efficacy
19:08 The ireduceable complexity argument is so funny. More often than not complex things can work with a missing part. If your hairbrush loses a tooth it still works, but the simplest things need all of their parts
And even then, if the parts/components of a very simple thing can serve a purpose independent of the simple thing, or as a component of some other thing, then those parts/components are available to be incorporated into the “simple thing”.
Exactly as can be done each of the components of the mousetrap!
I think what bugs me most is that they don’t seem to understand how programming works. Yes, programs can occur randomly. Yes, they can build themselves under certain conditions. Yes, glitches can create improvements.
Like, the analogy is flawed to begin with, but it doesn’t even help their case that well!
I was a Christian, liberal Presbyterian Scot, among folk who regarded religion as what you used, to know about being Good.
I spent a year in England, working for IBM, and wasn't interested in going to church.
I got a 'temporary' transfer to an IBM programming lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and tried a few churches in the hope of company. I was so little interested in being "Saved" that I dumped God and Christianity entirely. As a Presbyterian, I was my own priest, and as such I soon concluded that I didn't need a God.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069
Okay… What does this have to do with what I said in this thread?
@@bhull242 It was an example to show how much analytical power a program can have, as an amplification your first statement. Also of Forrest's general theme about God.
programs can occur randomly. what?
@@gsp3428 Bits can get arbitrarily flipped by various outside forces, which can alter the code, sometimes with significant impacts. This famously happened during a Super Mario 64 speed-run, where a glitch occurred due to a cosmic ray flipping some bits that saved a significant amount of time (by the standards of a speed-run, where fractions of seconds can be significant).
The thing that really drives me crazy about DNA = CODE, is that they compare DNA to a programing language, not code. In a programing languages, changing one word, one letter, or one symbol, can make the whole thing gibberish. But if you're working with code, that allows the use of only 0, 1, 2 and 3 (base-4, the closest to DNA) there is no way you can write something, that doesn't make sense. 1230 is a valid value, so is 1032, even if it's different. Even the analogy of DNA = CODE is misleading.
Very good analogy
Your neck must be sore from carrying the weight of your massive brain, my good sir.
Nah, mate, you're really out of your depth here. All code is eventually transpiled into machine code, which is just 0 and 1, and that is what actually gets executed. In principle, it's not too different from base-4, nor does it exclude the possibility that some other language can transpile into DNA, which can act in the exact same way as a programming language.
Screwing up 1230 somewhere in DNA can lead to organism not functioning, likewise changing certain parameters in programming languages does not necessarily mean the whole program will become gibberish.
DNA is definitely code, just in the broad sense of the word, not in the "computer code" sense, obviously. But it's just a bad argument. To see that, just substitute every symbol in the programming language of choice with a unique digit, you'll get an equivalent of binary code, both visually and functionally. Then, convert the binary code into positional base-4, and you've got a "DNA" equivalent, once again visually and functionally.
Given that the Covid 19 virus spike *protein* is indeed a protein with about 1200 amino acids. Aren't we in the middle of huge proof of the evolution of a protein, driven by selective pressure brought about by the adaption of the human immune system, whereby the spike protein mutates (mutations that arise in the viral RNA) in a manner that is not only not deleterious, but beneficial to the organism because it can now escape the immune system response? The naming of these new variants that result from mutations of the spike protein, include descriptions of the exact mutation as a substitution of one RNA base for another (eg. E484K is a glutamate (E) to lysine (K) substitution at position 484 which improved the viruses binding to the human cell and was present in several variants starting with the Beta variant )
I mean we're living the complete repudiation of this Christian nonsense, and the complete validation of protein evolution driven by selective pressure resulting in better adaptation.
There are actually FIVE different biological codes in every cell. They are the DNA code, the mtDNA, the 'sugar code', epigenome code, and the lipid code that is comprised of 44,000 different lipid configurations. This is not misleading. Evidence of it being code? When these go off-skew, it causes one of over 250,000 different genetic or autoimmune diseases along with cancers. The amount of things needing to be right for health is something dumb luck zero IQ evolution could accomplished. The complexity surpasses mathematical threshold for mathematical impossibility by chance. I hope this doesn't make your head explode.
Forrest, you have such a knack for taking something that's huge and a lot to talk about and not only delivering it in a way most people can understand, but also covering so many things in such a succinct way--all of this with an infectious passion, attitude, and humor that just makes it so enjoyable to watch. I first saw you on The Atheist Experience (I came back after a long time of not watching and just picked random new videos.) and I was so impressed by not only this, but also how well you can just break things down into a line of simple questions to really get to the heart of a discussion. You're awesome.
I knew about this tired Watchmaker argument back when I was in college trying to learn about evolution basics (I only took a starter Biology course) and seeing people online argue with me the complexity of the eye, but the ways you've torn the argument apart are so many more than I could've ever thought of. It's so cool to both learn new things and see new ways to think critically about old arguments that get thrown out regularly today as if they're something new or simply understood as "obviously true".
"This is not how actual thinking works." Love it.
When your opponent says it couldn't happen and you show how it happens *in space*, you've won.
Hi, engineer here! Tools like mousetraps can absolutely be made bit by bit getting better each time. I'm fact, this is such a cornerstone of what we do that we have a special name for it. We call it iterative design! (Note, the use of the term "design" is not indicative of a designer. This is just a term for the process, it is not what the process actually is.)
Yeah, it's like these people think no animal was ever trapped before the invention of the common mousetrap.
@@JCTheSniper15 My favorite one is still US Patent 269,677: the revolver mousetrap. Which, of course, came from Texas. It's an absolute health and safety nightmare that is likely to literally shoot you in the foot, but the illustration makes me crack a smile, if not laugh, every time.
@@Nixeu42 I've seen that!
I've also known some old Vietnam vets that used tin cans and blasting caps to make mouse traps back in the day and they were almost as horrifying.
@@JCTheSniper15 Mouse landmines? I guess that's one way of getting rid of them. Reminds me of good ol' explosive flypaper. Soak strips of paper in nitrogen triiodide solution, hang it up, let it dry, and watch the little buggers vanish in puffs of violet smoke. Classic.
@@Nixeu42 yeah, apparently they had a real problem with rats and they thought it was hilarious to watch them get fired out of the cans lol
At the 8 minute mark I completely lost it 🤣 Never stop making content. Brilliantly done as always
"This argument is so bad, that even if it were good, it would still be bad!" I love it!
A slightly different, but no less devastating news spin on the old classic "It's so wrong that it's not even wrong!"
@@tjenadonn6158 I think the original was "this isnt right! this isnt even wrong!"
"Fractally incorrect"
It's always a good day when there's new Forrest Valkai content out :D
I agree!! My day just got better!
@@f3lifica Yepp :D Same here!
3:33 Good to see I'm not the only one who has these conversations with the UA-cam videos he's watching...lol
Lehigh University rejects Behe's position:
_The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific._
I cannot WAIT for these people to learn about neural networks, where a computer QUITE LITERALLY codes itself
But the thing is that that network was created in the first place.
It doesn’t matter, in this case, whether it can develop itself by itself later on.
@@guciowitomski3825 Yeah and life was created in the first place, we still dont know how that happened. What we do know is life is its own neural network that at some point was created and then through countless generations formed better iterations of itself to survive and thrive.
@@jqsm1neS life wasn't "created" that's the thing.
You might say it "happened" or that it "came to be" or whatever. But "created" is a very specific term.
@@guciowitomski3825 i mean to be fair we dont know how life itself started, for all we know it could have been deliberately created, but besides that, I was just extrapolating the analogy of programming to evolution to the conception of both. You're right tho, "created" probably wasn't the best word
@@jqsm1neS I mean, yes, sure, I knew what you were getting at. I'm just pedantic, that's all
Want to hear more on the shortcomings of Michael Behe and irreducible complexity? Professor Dave just so happens to have released a video on him today! Also: anyone else want a Professor Dave / Forrest Valkai collab? I'd certainly be here for it
Me too
@@kha30s22 me three!
@@nightlydrugs6927 me four!
me infinity! (i cant count D: )
Hell yeah!
8:18
"Glitches cannot produce a new video game"
Arbitrary Code Execution recreating Breath of the Wild models in Ocarina of Time:
Link?
@@zachattack1279 ua-cam.com/video/PNbkv_DJ0f0/v-deo.htmlsi=ghHSuD3m_nziYC5H
18:36 if you look up "mousetrap evolution" there's a website that details every step down to removing staples that would work their way out over time.
It's weird how often the God of the gaps argument still is touted like it's some victory, when the gaps get smaller and smaller the further in time we go.
Here's the thing about Creationists, they don't think the gap has ever gotten smaller. Everything about Christianity that's ever been disproved, they argue is still valid.
I think you should be arguing that the gaps get filled, not that they get smaller. Gaps in knowledge getting smaller over an infinite period doesn't suggest anything either way.
@@RickJaeger Only if you believe in some sort of ultimate truth.
The real problem is Christians say "Evolution is wrong" and rational people try to prove them wrong. What Christians are *really* saying is that all life was created at the same time, dinosaurs walked at the same time as people, germs don't exist, Noah carried kangaroos and Sifakas to Turkey and they somehow managed to get to Australia and Madagascar without leaving any traces anywhere else, and that Neanderthals and Denisovans were ... what? Humans not from the garden of eden? The people Cain married? I never heard any of that addressed.
You don't have to prove evolution is true. You just have to prove that the reasons they won't believe it are obvious nonsense.
@@Detson404 No? What?
I am talking about gaps in knowledge, which doesn't presuppose anything except the correspondence of Knowledge to some aspect of Reality. If that's what you mean by "ultimate truth," then I daresay the vast majority of atheists believe in such a thing.
This Reacteria was by far the funniest one yet. Entertaining and educational as always. Thank you Forrest, you definitely brighten my dark days.
Agreed. The Santa analogy, and how he delivered it, both brought me to healthy chuckles for a bit. I feel it should be a meme .gif
Children = literally under Attack by the GOP as "Some More News" points out in his Third GOP-Video.
My desk drawer is an extremely complicated arrangement of random stuff, it's very hard to understand the purpose of every piece of junk in it. Thus I must have superior intelligence.
Bro what?!? Santa Claus didn't get me that present without a name tag? 😭
You and proffesor Dave Explains released a video about this subject on the same day. What an amazing day to be off work and learn about real science!
I’ve lived with chronic pain and exhaustion almost my entire life. I’ve been clinically depressed my entire life. If I believed in a god who intentionally designed me like this, or even just set things in motion knowing that I, and countless others, would suffer like this, I would punch him, not worship him. This argument really, really irritates me. Thanks for destroying it, Forrest! 😊
Oh man, I totally agree. I've likewise had chronic pain, chronic illness, and depression all my life due to multiple congenital disorders, and now I'm 25, bedridden from the pain, too sick to complete the final year of my Microbiology degree, and _quite_ an agnostic atheist. My mother tried to keep me believing in Christianity up to 19 years old, even once attributing my recovery from a PFO surgery (PFO being a hole in the heart from a birth defect) at 14 to faith. Admittedly, I was miffed; I worked my ass off with physical therapy to actually recover to the point of walking again. Though my questioning began around 9 years old, curiously researching every major religion's fundamentals that I could find, the final straw was an event at 15 that spawned a PTSD diagnosis I'm working through to this day.
Sorry for the text wall! The rest of the discovery's backstory is a few paragraphs no matter how I edit it, so I'll cut it off here to keep my reply short, lol. Thank you for sharing your health struggle; it's always comforting to relate to a fellow internaut on a condition that uniquely shapes how we have to navigate daily life, let alone our aspirations.
And he created this entire universe just for you. Just so he can put a tiny speck of dust somewhere, and make 99,5% of that completely inhabitable to your species. Just for you. Now keep your hands above the sheets and don't eat shellfish!
@@LittleBitVic I understand! It’s difficult to get into stories like ours without listing years worth of events! I’m very sorry you have such a similar situation though. I also would have been angry if I’d worked so hard in PT only to have it attributed to god. That would have felt very insulting to your efforts! I’m also sorry for whatever event led you to developing ptsd. We share that as well and it really does suck; I’m sorry you live with it.
At the risk of being one more annoying person offering you advice, (and I don’t know where you live; it’s only available in a few states in the US) have you considered ketamine therapy for your ptsd? I’ve been doing it for about a year; an at-home kind instead of IV, so it’s about 1/4 of the usual price. Still expensive as hell, don’t get me wrong, but I save up for it, and it’s also not something I’d want to do every weekend even if I could. It’s a little hard on my body and tiring, but it really does work to help rewire and rewrite painful experiences in your past. I can tell you more about it if you’re interested, but I won’t go on about it now!
If you’d ever like to talk, I’m Artosthebear on IG and Twitter. I don’t always check the apps, so sometimes I might be slow to respond, but I’m always happy to have another spoonie friend! I hope you find yourself feeling just a little bit better when you wake up today and find something good about the day despite everything!
@@knastvogel Haha, indeed!
same, I have a progressive disability and chronic pain and I'm extremely neurodiverent (multiple diagnosed neurodiverencies), and if someone did this intentionally they are some kind of sadist running a cruel experiment and don't deserve to be worshipped. people really argue "trans people aren't valid because god doesn't make mistakes" and completely ignore the existance of disabled people?? anyway I'm also trans
The funny thing is about the video game argument is if you let the code to a game randomly changed and then set up a way for natural selection to occur for the game you would eventually get a different program it might take a while but it would
5:09 This is _literally_ just the Watchmaker argument repackaged in a modernized wrapper…
It's one of the three pillars of creacrap (including Behe's IDiocy). Ironically it doesn't even conflict with evolution theory.
The other two are the Gods of the Gaps fallacy and "evilution theory is false, doesn't matter how.
I like how they say "We always come back to a mind." No, we always come back to a HUMAN mind, so by their own logic, evolution must be directed by HUMANS. If they have any example of a non-human mind who has done this, then they need to present it.
We also seem to have to ignore that everything we make is from existing material. And we are formed out of existing material. So let's add that to the equation, eh.
God is made from existing material and built DNA from existing material. So... where did all that material come from? It sure as fuck didn't come from a creator god. Besides, if it has a mind it emerges from something. Our minds don't exist without a brain. So they not only have to show that a non human mind can do it but that a mind can exist without emerging from something.
And then they'll have to show how a god created DNA by showing the mechanisms or at the very least a mathematical model of how it would work.
I'm just saying, theists don't just assume some things, but a fuck of a lot of things. But most of all they rely on gaps in our knowledge to shove their god in. There's a whole lot of other fallacies in their arguments, but at the bottom of all that shit there's always ignorance and wishful thinking and the manipulative ways they use the wishful thinking to appeal to people's intuitions to agree with them. All religions do this and they're all manipulative and abusive by their very nature.
Zing! 🍻
If irreducible complexity were a thing, couldn't that be evidence that the plot of the Star Trek: TNG episode "the Chase," in which the Enterprise crew learns our DNA was seeded by an ancient civilization, is true? Why would the designer automatically be the god of any of the religions humans have created?
Nope. If it couldn't have been humans we infer it was some other mind.
@@CPTDoom Irreducible complexity is a thing.
I really hate when people use the term "purpose" instead of "function". Parts can have a function, but a purpose has to be demonstrated. The purpose of a wrench is to turn nuts and bolts (it was designed to do this by its designer) but it can have the function of a hammer, just not as good as it is to turn nuts and bolts.
Why didn't god make the DNA as "read-only" so no changes can be made.
Creationists count on their target audience (people that already agree with them) not to fact check them or to do any google searching on the topics that they are saying. Why investigate if you already have the answer?.
Don't forget to hit the like button.
Exactly. To know the purpose of a thing, you need to know the context of the thing that uses it. So in order to use "the purposefulness" of life to prove god exists, you'd have to have proved god exists in the first place... so it is fundamentally not a winning argument.
So is telos a priori unscientific? Cheers! :)
@@zapazap what’s your deal with all those „cheers”?
You’re literally responding to every comment under this video.
@@peppermintgal4302 Even if they prove all of science is wrong, that still doesn't mean a god did it. It's a false dichotomy.
I always wondered if Behe realizes how hard it is to 1) grow a tree, cut it down, cut into small lats, size for the base 2) mine for ore, 3) smelt the ore, 4) make a machine to stretch the metal into wires 5) wrap the spring, 6) extract minerals for pigment, 7) create polymers as binders for paint, 8) design a logo and template to print on the wood... It isn't a simple process. There's a lot that has to happen, including millenia of research and trial and error.
Hmmm, now that you mention it I haven't seen any frost giants around lately... 🤔
This is one of my favorite series on UA-cam. I love the way Forrest explains things
I grew up in Christian doctrine, i.e. Bible history classes instead of proper Science classes. These videos have given me such a great foundation for learning against the grain of my youth. Thank you!
Then you've fallen for the scam by Atheists.
They downplay, deceive and lie about everything.
Now you believe Rats are your direct ancestors. Wake up.
Then you've fallen for the scam by Atheists.
Now you believe Rats are your direct ancestors. Wake up.
Ah yes, Bible history class, aka historical fanfiction. Rather than actually teaching the way the Bible as a book has developed over time. Gotta keep the myth going that the Bible is a book written by multiple authors that hasn't changed in 2000 years, much less been translated multiple times through multiple languages and lost long since forgotten meaning in the process.
8:17 Minecraft creeper, literally a bug in the code they expanded apon
Creationists usually calculate the probability of "the evolution of a protein" as the probability of getting the exact extant protein entirely at random. That's where the ridiculous estimates come from. What they either don't know or aren't saying is that the same functionality of the extant protein can be performed by a huge variety of different sequences. A base pair here or there doesn't change the structure very much, and in many cases, even entirely different structures can perform the same function.
This is in stark contrast to computer programming languages or machine languages - computer languages are designed to be highly constrained so that they will break quickly instead of partially or silently failing. The number of tasks that a programming language is capable of is actually very narrow; ultimately, almost everything they can do is store numbers in memory. A protein, in contrast, lives in an enormous space of possible functions. Theoretically, you could see proteins as pattern matching expressions, like RegExp, but also subject to an externally defined chemistry that acts constantly on data.
"Irreducible complexity" also falls to similar misunderstandings. Proteins live in a densely populated code space where unrelated functions are potentially close neighbors. Furthermore, a functionless protein is not typically going to cost an organism much fitness, so a species can carry around some population of pointless genes until they finally fit together into something nice. Throw in transcription regulation and every organism has a huge library of code snippets hanging around, just waiting to be un-commented and tried again for a new role.
I like David wellman's response to this 'complexity argument'.
- Complex things are made by *intelligent,* physical, mortal and limited beings.
- Dna is complex.
- Therefore dna was made by a *intelligent,* physical, mortal and limited being.
@C L Exactly, the argument of complexity is just begging the question. Your example also highlights that.
Good to see you finally are understanding it.
@C L
the point is that its an argument made from looking at available examples. There is nothing about the idea of complex systems that inherently make it unable to exist without being made my an agent. So any argument that says that complex systems are made by someone invariably argues by looking at available examples of complex systems being made by people. If so then why cherry pick certain aspects of the maker and why leave out the rest ?
@C L
Why does that matter ?
@C L Are you going to show that organisms have a purpose any time soon? You just added the purpose and intentionality without showing a reason for it. Begging the question much?
Also, minds are an emergent phenomenon from matter in spacetime and they're mortal. Want proof? I can destroy your brain and I bet both my arms that your mind will die as well. So, unless you can show mechanisms of how a mind can exist without being a result of the universe we're in, a creator god is still not an option.
You see, the argument relies on a gap in our knowledge where we can then insert an unproven idea as a possibility, but for something to be considered possible, it first has to be shown actually possible in actual reality.
@C L Does a car reproduce sexually or asexually? Does a computer or a robot?
Would it be posible the 'complexity argument' is simply a bad argument?
Good job highlighting again one of the problems of the 'complexity argument'.
Behe's getting it from both Dave and Forrest in the same day. I'd feel sorry for him. Except I don't.
Keep up the good work!
That was my thought exactly - kind of like tying the victim to the business end of a cannon after it is loaded with grape shot and firing it.
Ah, another being of culture 👍
If Behe wants to profit from selling his snake oil, he should at least put the effort in to amuse the rest of us tangling up his own illogical views.
Prof. Dave has a video about this, too? I now know what I'm watching after Forest's video.
You talk about biology the way I talk about telescopes -- throwing way too much information way too fast with the same level of excitement as a rambunctious puppy, and I love it!
I don't think there is anything more awakening than curiosity stirred by well explained digestible factual data.
"what about this"
Forrest: Yes.
I don't know why, but that entire exchange was hilarious.
You got to my point with the mouse trap vs. the board game Mouse Trap. I was going to say: In 9th grade I got to take a Visual Basic programming class. I wrote some code to replicate the game Tetris. I was brand new to programming. When I turned in my assignment I got an A. It worked. However, my teacher showed me four places in my code where I could have written simpler code. It didn't change the overall function of the game. What it did do was eliminate the delay when a line formed and the game continued. I made point calculator that stalled the program a few seconds. The teacher made it work better without a visible stall. So design does not mean intelligence. I was not a good programmer at 14 years old. At 40, I'm better. It's a dumb analogy.
Wait.... are you.... are you GOD?
And if you're GOD, is your programming teacher "SUPER-GOD"?
And if your programming teacher is SUPER-GOD, WHO CREATED SUPER-GOD?
We jointly deserve the Nobel Prize in Religious dipsh*ttery, because we just proved the existence of SUPER-DUPER-GOD!!!! (We'll split the prize money 70-30 my way, K?)
So you're telling me that the complexity of life is evidence of a stupid designer?
@@PunnamarajVinayakTejas Pretty much. if you claim your designer is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, but they design people to be born with missing limbs or organs, or conditions that cause them to live a life in constant pain and die without living a moment of contentment, yeah that's a stupid designer. However, if there is no designer then no one suffers because of the stupidity or malice of a being who claims to be in charge of everything.
Thank you for acknowledging that Odin was really really good at eliminating the Frost Giants.
I haven't found any yet, so far so good.
Seriously... this is so true of creationists: "When I don't understand... it's magic. (because trying to understand requires effort, and might make me think differently - and we can't have that)"
"No computer code has ever been written by chance"
AI engineers: *awkward stare*
ah yes lol like trackmania evolution ever (the game archives your input in text)
@@beaclaster what
“Bu bu the ai train bu bu”
In order to refute this argument that someone will make, there are plenty of esoteric languages that use as close to random as we can get.
“Notice how both of those statements said the exact same nothing? *This is not how actual thinking works.”*
Forrest, you’re the best
Wait until he discovers what DSDs are.
The funniest thing about "a computer glitch cant make a video game" is that partially glitches or oversights in video games have lead to some of the most iconic video game franchises, games or characters.
Argument from personal astonishment. "I can't imagine, therefore I conclude".
Back in high school in the 1960s I learned about Drosophila Melanogasta, the fruit fly. Now that I'm in my 70s it's suddenly become useful. 🙂
I was also an engineer who designed stuff, and in my discipline simplicity is everything. The creationist's love of complexity for proof reveals a stalled education rather than excellence in education.
You still designing right or everything builds itself using some kind of magical law of evolution?
@@JessicaSunlight Engineering evolves with the designs it introduces. A factory that produces one thing doesn't forget all things and then reinvent every step of production every time it makes the same object.
@@JessicaSunlight Since you base your whole world view on magic, I can see that this would be hard to grasp. For those of us not using magic to explain things, as Forrest has pointed out numerous times, we've found protein chains on asteroids in space. We've shown how simple proteins add complexity. We've seen how DNA can create new features to fit an environment. All provable, repeatable findings that humans can reproduce. So please stop spamming this channel with your nonsense views. No designer is required to take the basic building blocks of chemistry and make life, especially in a universe with billions of galaxies worth of material.
@@Heimdal001 And who says Creator is standing still? I am not.
Drosophila hasn't suddenly become useful, it's one of the oldest model organisms in biology!:) Over a century, in fact.
Dude, you're a talented educator. You really package the information in a very digestible manner.
You just swallowed lies. nothing he said has any reality.
@@JessicaSunlight We're all ears, please show the lies that he told. Quote the part where he lied, then show how it's a lie. Then back up your assertion with facts.
@@BlowsTube In any case, for start, if things do not work at chemical level then what is there to speak about mindless evolution ua-cam.com/video/v36_v4hsB-Y/v-deo.html
so glad i found your channel. When you interrupt to add a source my old heart just teared up with joy.
Although you worry me about one of my novels where i have a future species on another world putting their entire knowledge of the world in the dna of their plant-life and other things. Then i realized it's fiction, on another world, far in the future, they figured some shit out.
maybe they geneticaqlly engineer a secondary nervous system? or it's through some foreign but benign dna? tyty
Plenty of computer coding mistakes have resulted in improvements in the code
The mouse trap did evolve. Look at older mouse traps before the spring was invented. The idea was the same they just usually used weight instead of spring power so it was much bulkier.
I laughed out loud when you held up the plugs, but that 'Wait until they find out girls are human' is freaking wonderful. I still wish you were teaching my sons. because, god damn, they would love science with a person like you at the helm.
He used girls vs uterus owner? Shocker.
@@blacktigerpaw1 the picture’s labeled “girl”, stop making things about people’s genitals ya nonce.
@@blacktigerpaw1 You have a bunch of transphobic comments on this video (and channel in general), so I don't feel bad calling you out right now bc I know that dogwhistle you just dropped was intentional. Please go find a hobby, other than insulting people like me. Sincerely, a tired trans person who just frickin wanted to watch a cool science video.
@@cheddarcheezit2647 Ah yes, it's always a dogwhistle to you people. Everything is in bad faith.
Dear 'tired trans person": your sex was determined when daddy's sperm met mommy's egg. Now, Forrest here knows what girls are when he's talking about Fundies, but he calls us 'vagina owners' and 'uterus owners' when he references gender theory. What a nice, good male feminist.
@@blacktigerpaw1 umm, he was commenting on the video labeling someone a girl. Not sure what you are implying here. How is he supposed to know if she has a uterus?
31:05 The analogy he makes is like saying "well, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so it's flat"
Computer code is the definitive proof of unintelligent design.
Ah yes, a mouse trap is so complex that it requieres a creator. There's no way nature could create such a complex machine. Like it would be very impossible for a plant to evolve a scent to attract flies, and then the mechanism to trap thar bug inside. Imagine if such a plant existed, there's no way evolution could make a fly trapping plant, of course that doesn't exist.
To be fair, they would argue that the fly trapping plant is proof of god too. 😛
It might be hard to understand how much you connect with your audience because you can’t see us, but the amount of joy and wonder I feel whenever I watch your videos shows in my face. I wish you could see how much your videos affect me and make me happy. You’re doing such wonderful things.
I love the idea that the only people to ever be divinely inspired were whoever made paper towel patterns, and the person that made the recipe specifically for pink starburst
"Wait'll these guys learn girls are humans" Thumbs up!
You make me wish I had kids so they could have you as a teacher. Thank you for all your work🙂