Anyone can look at their own bodies intensely for 60 seconds and conclude that they are designed to live from head to toe. Plus they have a conscience and a soul and they know it in their hearts.
+atxangel512 Oh, but you are looking at your body through your teleological worldview, says Vimal! Sure the finished product looks designed, but that doesn't mean you were designed, he will tell you. So whether we look designed or not, we KNOW that we were NOT designed - says Vimal and his fellow followers of Materialism. Well, sure, through their worldview, that is the only conclusion possible. And it is a conclusion that cannot be demonstrated to be accurate by science. Fortunately, we are not bound by the same constraints of his worldview and we are able to allow for the possibility of actual design - which seems to fit the data much better.
It is true that materialism and naturalism cannot establish their own worldviews. At best one would be left with agnosticism, which means that your position is to have no position. There are two great and short videos that prove this, one titled "Dr. Craig humiliates Dr. Shook" and the other is titled "The End of Materialism" by Inspiring Philosophy. I usually ask the professing "atheists" to directly answer 3 simple questions that really get them stumbling: 1. Do you have a soul? 2. Do you have a conscience? 3. Are humans the most powerful and most intelligent living organisms in the entire Universe?
The precisely administered gradual unfolding, activation and deactivation of the information that runs the building process, is much like the organized way the building process of a house takes place. You can't have the different workers showing up at the building site randomly. The carpenter cannot start on his roof before the walls are done, and the sewer must be in place before the foundation is made. The electrician must run his wires at one point in the process, and return at a later time to install switches. All this is managed by a chief builder who has the oversight and foresight that makes the project possible. To imagine biological machinery achieve this level of organization by means of random physical and chemical processes, by blind trial,- well that's just silly. A single cell is far more complicated than a house, and houses do not come into existence without a consciousness that directs the building process, so there's no reason to believe that other rules apply to the building of living organisms. I have the impression that those who insist on believing in evolution are driven by ideological reasons, not scientific reasons. Evolution is a main supporting pillar for materialism and therefore a necessity for atheism,- abandon evolution and you'll have to abandon atheism, and that's a tough camel to swallow for some, I can understand that.
i can't get it too, what makes them believe that stuff IDK, maybe they really cannot process REAL information, i have a background in CS and trust me, what they say is completelly absurd, is like ok, i will leave my program alone and one day, giving it time, it will create the program, i don't need an incompetent scientist to come and tell me it will create by itself to know that it WONT, i know because is easy for anyone to understand, who thinks that something like a program will auto create by itself does really need a mind reset, you must be completelly messed up to believe this, it's almost laughable when you see them so confident confirming evolution, everything is guided in nature, and we all know that guidance implies a logic behind, logic requires instructions, instructions requires an istructor, why this is so hard to understand i will never know...
What makes a cell "want" to divide in the first place? And, where does the information in the DNA, which is the blueprint for everything, come from? Random chance?
What a wonderful illustration of intelligent design at work. Darwinian evolution is tantamount to not knowing where you are going before you begin, and not knowing where you are when you get there...LOL.
Excellent video! I missed this when it first came out. "So you begin with a single cell, the egg, THE FERTILIZED EGG HTHAT HAS ALL THE INFORMATION FOR ALL THE OTHER CELLS, and as that starting point divides, the two daughters that it produces asymmetrically, don't have the same capacity. In other words, they have already, at that first cell division, down regulated some of their genes respectively so that this daughter is going to give rise to a whole bunch of different cells that'll do particular jobs; this daughter cell will give rise for instance, to the germ line, ultimately the cells that will become the egg and sperm for the next generation." "There must be some governing logic, some control system that tells those lineages what they are going to do as they are specializing. And I think from the perspective of an undirected process like natural selection, or evolution generally, it's very hard to see how you could build that without knowing where you are going." Let's ask ourselves a question. The excellent scientific research done by these three scientists in delineating the process of how a c elegans is built from the ground level up, which paradigm does this data fit better with? For me, it is a no brainer! ID. You have to have all the information organized and ready to go from the beginning. You have to know where you are going and have a control system that is able to direct the process. When Materialists are able to show how this can evolve by blind random directionless purposeless natural processes like mutation and natural selection, then we will listen, but just telling us it happened isn't science nor does it sound very rational to me. The more we learn about nature, the more surprised the Materialists are and the more they have to ramp up their faith to accomodate the growing amount of data that can easily be explained by a Mind, but which the Materialist paradigm struggles to explain - in fact, cannot explain. Excellent video!
I remember reading an article about a robotic nematode; it had a photocell for an eye, a steerable front wheel and two drive wheels behind. They somehow decoded the nematodes reflexive/reactions and converted them into programming for the robot. It was given an obstacle course to traverse. They found the programming from the nematode to be superior to the programming the researchers had written; The robot was able to operate longer under deteriorating conditions (the battery and wheels wearing down) where it would shut down under the programming from the researchers. The remark that it was hard to understand how such a powerful algorithm could have arisen naturally. Indeed.
Not only do the cells have to specialize in the right place, and in the right place relative to other kinds, but at the right time. If bones grew too much faster than muscle, they couldn't connect and function. If the brain grew faster than the skull, it would damage the brain. Every part of every plant or animal shows the fingerprints of a brilliant creator.
I don't agree with everything thing from Discovery Institute but Paul's work is worth following. Also this case with the worm 🪱 is extremely compelling. Oh if you live in the U.S.A and owe the I.R.S don't wait for a payment to the debt to evolve 🤷🏾♂️
This is a very impressive video. I think it is pretty concise and does lay out the precision chemistry found in a cells to develop an organism. It is no wonder that biology textbooks like the "The Machinery of Life" and "Bionanotechnology: Lessons From Nature" see cells as nanotechnology. The natural world does not show a capacity to make longitudinal and functional nanotechnologies like cells especially since we do not see independent "pools" of even simpler but still sophisticated cellular equipment spontaneously forming such as DNA, RNA, enzymes, and even simpler proteins after 4.6 billion years of chance (they have short life span either and they get damaged easily). Instead we only find these in assembled cells - the finely-tuned nanotechnologies or systems. Similar to how we do not find parts of computers (e.g. Sound cards, graphics cards, CD ROM drivers, key board, etc) forming spontaneously independently. These components are found in the world in functional computers (i.e. system). The evolution of corn is an excellent example of design emerging of new species. And the emergence of mules is another one via splicing. Artificial selection and natural selection are both components of the emergence of novel species. It is not black or white but living creatures are now being seen in the light of systems engineering phys.org/news/2015-02-biologist-optimized-cellular-replication-problem.html . Furthermore, more function is being discovered in places where many though junk which implies more design involved in the chemical programming of cells - ua-cam.com/video/Y3V2thsJ1Wc/v-deo.html .
Well produced! Amazing the amount of info in those first fertilized cells. All the instructions exist there. ( evolutionists tend to be blind to it however)
The previous post by SungW just explained it. Quoting John 3:19, "And this is the judgment: the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light because their works were evil."
As per the Vedic scriptures, they actually want to take the place of the supreme designer. Deny God, because inherently, you actually want to take His place. The Vedas described such persons mentality as follows: "I am the lord of all I survey".
Wow! Differentiation without a project manager. We design engineers cannot even do that as skilled designers. We need management for system engineers, mechanical engineers, firmware engineers, electrical engineers, RF engineers and manufacturing engineers need a project management director top down for us to do what is needed synchronously. This Worm DNA is doing that somehow ... according to Darwin's posterity, undirected by atomic particles driven merely by the least path of resistance from all forces in 3 dimensionsl space, did this without an outside designing architect? Really? I ain't buying it?
I've noticed a few things while sampling people's opinions about creationism and evolution, and I'm obliged to ask: Why is evolution directly tied to atheism? Are evolution and creationism/intelligent design mutually exclusive? Does proving evolution disprove intelligent design? I mean, the theory of evolution as it stands now *arguably* provides feasible answers (which do not require an intelligent designer) to many questions, but it does not reveal the entire picture. Of course, as any scientist would know, revealing the 'entire picture' might as well be impossible; we can only get ever closer to the truth. So the (rhetorical) question is, why is evolution used as an argument against creationism? Why aren't newton's laws of motion being used as an argument instead? Or literally any scientific explanation to anything? This leads me to another question: Does refuting some part of the theory of evolution somehow prove intelligent design? I've never in recent history witnessed a scientific theory harbor so many supporters who chose to overlook its flaws and openly mock anyone expressing a contrary opinion. It's like one can only be pro-evolution or anti-evolution. My understanding is that's not how complex scientific theories work! I say this: There's little reason in thinking that the theory of evolution should have any strong bearing on one's opinions of theism/atheism/intelligent design, and vice versa. Should there prove to be major flaws in the theory of evolution, an evolutionist could always try to refine the theory or look for another scientific explanation. Should evolution as we now discuss it prove to be convincing in a way that's difficult to deny, a religious person or a proponent of intelligent design can accept the theory and consider themselves closer to understanding how the designer works. After all, most religious people don't deny the other physical laws of the universe by saying "God did it". Basically, keep your beliefs in higher concepts like theism or atheism, which are of a more philosophical nature, from interfering with your opinions on the scientific concept that is evolution. I think that would clear up alot of the confusion and allow for more open-minded debates.
Where can I find more information about this? I would like to know more about what functions of the organism is connected to each cell division. Is there a chart?
This video shows the cell to be programmed containing specific information to carry out, to achieve a certain overall meaningful goal. It's funny to note that if you were to Google "is the cell programmed" you will initially find more about "programmed cell death" than about cells programmed to do anything else. It is as if it's easier to say cells are programmed to death but not to life. There's no theory of evolution. Biological systems are fully formed, fully designed, fully functional, programmed with the ability to adapt and have variation. Any changes that's not of the system's program will ultimately down grade the system and this is the only so called "evolution" (according to the theory) that we really see. Life begins in specified complexity and becomes more meaningful with change. There's no logical reason to accept a brainless (stupid) process, having no evidence at all of what it can do in time unimaginable that is propped up to give it hope and support.
I often wonder if supporters of Neo-Darwinism can contemplate the complexity involved to orchestrate in even in the simplest of living things such as a nematode , the amount of information (100,000,000 base pairs of DNA ) which is required and somehow recognized or realized at each cell division to start producing not only specific types of cells, but also the information required to build then into the specific purposed organs , nerves , muscles and so forth that have to continually be integrated thru-out development to the final purpose of a living organism? So essentially , not only are the same types of cells being produced to create something like specifically shaped muscles , but it has to be incorporated with specific schematics of the nervous system to create a very specific action of that one particular muscle. And all of this information "HAS" to be already in place right from the start which necessitates foresight to accomplish this end goal result of the extremely complex development of one the simplest of living organism's. I would think that the winning of one of the most prestige's awards in science, the Noble Laurette to three researchers for actually documenting these incredibly complex steps required for the development of a simple nematode would give others some actual "INSIGHT" into how pitifully lacking materialist claims are in their explanations. Excellent analogy .
Okay, so one thing I don't get is how the daughter cells communicate. There's got to be some mechanism so that, say at the 8th or tenth or hundredth differentiation, cells are not dividing into gut tissue when some other cells already did that several steps ago, and those cells are supposed to be dividing into nervous system tissue. Now, it is possible that there is no communication between cells during the formation of the organism, but that then implies an even greater level of pre-planned and orchestrated organization. It would seem there would be some kind of feedback loop in the process to function as a quality control mechanism. In any case, if evolution were true, wouldn't organisms evolve some mechanism that would prevent mutations from being expressed? And wouldn't that then eventually shut evolution off? And what about genetic entropy? With 100 million base pairs of DNA, wouldn't there be some, small, fractional degradation in every seceding copy that would multiply errors over time?
"Of the simplest machines, a toothpick has no moving parts. Of the most complex of machines, a protein has the highest of manufacturing requirements. Given every tree on the planet and infinite time, evolution could never make a toothpick. Even incompetent engineers know that. Without totalitarian censorship and persecution, evolution would not last a month."--Joseph Mastropaolo Want a healthy dose of reality? Take a spoonful of www.lifescienceprize.org/
So the guy, pretty much says evolution cannot explain how this simple organism gets created - the main problem here is that the first cells have a "map" of how the "final result" should be. Therefore randomness and "natural" selection cannot explain this at all. There's truly just one conclusion - "someone" a lot more intelligent than us, human observers, set all things in motion... :)
And why is this not put in every biology book ? I mean how many millions of children have grown up only reading the ridiculous theory that the first life flopped out of a muddy pond by blind random chance . Truly sad more people do not understand the mind blowing complexity of the simplest living cell And only believe what learned in grade school on the origins of life.
Get to know the worm builder! Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (our intelligent designer). Believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead and you will be saved! (Romans 10:9) Life with Christ is INCREDIBLE!
Fine, we are now only left with one little question: Is the intelligent designer the result of intelligent design ? (And if so, who designed the intelligent designer of the intelligent designer ? :-))
Not sure if any scientists read this, but how does a virus mutate so quickly to ensure its survival while evolutionary biology mutations (that are beneficial to an organism to a organisms survival) are basically a mathematical impossibility? I know an organism is infinitely more complex than a virus, yet a virus seemingly understands the internal mechanisms of a cell to be able to take advantage of it to replicate itself and perpetuate its own survival? I am not a scientist so I don’t have access to any real scientific research or scientific minds to find an answer... any smart guys have an answer to my question, any help would be much appreciated...
Paul Nelson has replied to my post on ENV: www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/does_our_c_eleg095371.html What he wants to know, in essence, is the step-by-step evolutionary account of how a fertilized egg turned into the C. elegans adult form. This is funny because no ID theorist, including Paul, has ever provided such a detailed account of how the designer went about doing his handiwork, yet that's what they demand from evolutionary biologists! Paul's argument is based on the fact that only the C. elegans adult form is subject to natural selection and not the various developmental stages leading up to it. So he can't imagine how that specific developmental pathway came into being. Who selected that path if natural selection can only see the end result? But this is only as smart as asking "Who selected the path that led to Paul Nelson?" How did Paul's great grandparents meet? How did Paul's grandparents meet? How did Paul's parents meet? Who brought these couples together? In each of those unions, only one among roughly 50 million sperm cells fused with one specific egg cell. Had a different sperm and egg fused in any of the unions leading up to Paul, then he wouldn't be here! Some other human would be here in his place. So the path leading up to Paul is very specific and highly improbable. Yet that path came about by sheer chance. Nobody scripted the path or selected it. Nobody had Paul Nelson as a final goal in mind. This is analogous to the developmental path leading up to any animal including C. elegans. Random, stochastic molecular interactions constrained by physical & chemical laws, as well as the context, produce an end result - a reproducing adult animal visible to natural selection. Nature selects that adult form no matter how it came about. Looking back and saying that the path which produced the animal is very specific and goal-directed is pointless. It reflects a failure to understand and appreciate the big role chance and contingency plays in evolution. As I said in my first post, teleological thinking is ID's bane.
+Vimal Ramachandran Well that would only be fair. If you're going to require ID not only give evidence to an affect but then also have to produce the designer or first cause.. Then Neo Darwinist have the same standard of evidence as well.. So if Neo Darwinist say natural selection, unguided causes, plus Time, Chance and Random can produce not only specified functional living organisms. It better show the naturalistic mechanism that can reproduce it. Using only the four fundamental forces found in nature. That actually cause something to happen. As that is all you have to produce a functional specified cell. It also has to do this twice for reproduction to take hold. As it has to overcome predation and a hundred other problems that can kill it. I might add. The video shows not only the result but the whole process is a top down only solution. As the cell nucleus and the embryonic cell level is holding all the cards. It will only produce that species and nothing else. As they have tried to change the genetic expression and both early stages and later. The early stage the cell aborted and killed the production. Later stages they got dysfunctional species with lost vision, parts missing or to many parts, etc.. So the cell is very flexible but not at changes that affect what will be produced, in what order, go where, and how they get assembled. One reason the information is all there from the very start and the cell then turns on or off the functions that will regulate the species the rest of it life just to keep it alive. As it has to know not only where the part goes buy how to find it, repair and maintain it. As the human body can go a lot longer then anything humans have ever produced without major breakage.
///So if Neo Darwinist say natural selection, unguided causes, plus Time, Chance and Random can produce not only specified functional living organisms. It better show the naturalistic mechanism that can reproduce it. /// The natural mechanisms involved in the development of various organisms have already been shown. On which planet are you? Your problem is that you reject all natural mechanisms and then invoke an imaginary designer when such a thing is neither necessary nor supported by evidence. Time + Chance is not what produces organisms. It's the specific genetic pathways. Where did those pathways come from? From simpler molecular interactions that preceded them? Where did those interactions come from? From the inherent and spontaneous chemical nature of the molecules involved. One phenomenon leads to another, which in turn leads to another phenomenon and so on. That's how everything in nature arose - from stars and galaxies to life. ///It will only produce that species and nothing else. As they have tried to change the genetic expression and both early stages and later. The early stage the cell aborted and killed the production. Later stages they got dysfunctional species with lost vision, parts missing or to many parts, etc./// That's because you're mutating key genes involved in development. But what if neutral mutations that have no effect on development accumulate over generations? Then on that background a new mutation arises which would have had a deleterious effect in isolation, but not in the backdrop of the earlier neutral mutations. That new mutation can now tweak the developmental pathway a little bit. Over generations such tweaks will eventually produce a different organism. The interplay of mutations is complex and not as simple as altering one residue here or there.
Vimal Ramachandran You seem dense. I'm asking for Neo Darwinist to give me the first cause not Mendels Laws on gene expression. As that applies after a species already exist. So lets start with the cell. Show me the mechanism that created living matter from none living material. I want the scientific paper name, Author, and date published. Thank You
It is clear you have no clue about biology. Nobody gave you "Mendel's law of gene expression" (there's no such law at all!). What I gave above was an explanation for why you cannot artificially fiddle with the development of an organism to produce a new one, whereas naturally arising mutation patterns can tweak development and cause new organisms to evolve gradually over time. But to understand this you need to have some background in biology which you seem to lack. Next you pull out the usual creationist canard of demanding a step-by-step account of life's origins while feeling no obligation to provide such an account for how your creator did it. If we had a recipe of how to make life, we could have created life in the lab from scratch. We don't know every little detail, but that's why we haven't shut down our labs and gone home. However, we know enough to conclude with confidence that life arose naturally. Biochemically, life is a set of chemical interactions and reactions which can spontaneously occur with no external intervention. Moreover, there are volumes of evidence showing life evolved over time and that life on earth descended from a common ancestral population. Genes, fossils and embryos all point to this inescapable conclusion. There's absolutely no case at all for your designer.
I am a Human with brain to make sence about my reality , therefore I can not be arrogant and ignore this very clear fact about this complex system of living Cells and how they intract with each other in very precise way , and attribute it to natural cause , and not a Creator , whether that Creator was God or An Allien or Programmer who run our reality ..... It's that simple .....
Anyone here seen the "Mathematical Refutations to Neo-Darwinsim?" video w/ Steven Meyer, David Berlinski, and David Galehrnter (sp?). It's mind blowing.
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." - 1 Corinthians 1.21 - 22 (NKJV) I'm not seeing any misotheists in the comments. That little worm is quite miraculous, isn't it?
Paul Nelson, At www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/does_our_c_eleg095371.html you wrote: "In particular, the origin of the developmental stages between fertilized egg and reproductively capable adult are hard (or impossible) to explain via natural selection." I think it might help people understand the issue if you considered a more advanced species like a mammal. Could a Darwinist explain any of the developmental stages of a mammal via natural selection? If so, giving an example of a case where he could would help to highlight the problem by contrasting it with why he could not do it for nematodes. If a Darwinist could not explain any mammalian developmental stages via natural selection, then you might explain why not and why you chose nematodes as the example. What is the process by which a Darwinist might explain a developmental stage via natural selection? What is necessary for an explanation? What is missing that prevents an explanation for nematode development? I think one point of confusion is that people will think that embryonic stages represent a series of adult ancestors. But a Darwinist would say that during evolution, developmental stages do not diverge from an adult of an ancestor species they diverge from an embryo of an ancestor species. So he doesn't need to explain the past function of current embryonic tissue in an adult of an ancestor species. He needs to explain the past function of current embryonic tissue in an embryo of an ancestor species. To explain development by natural selection, you don't need a series of adults of ancestor species you need a series of embryos of ancestor species. Of course embryos imply adults existed, and only mature adults reproduce, but tissues in embryonic stages diverge from ancestor embryo tissue not ancestor adults. No one ever reported an adult fish swimming in the womb of a pregnant mammal.
Paul Nelson’s reply to Ursula Goodenough yet again demonstrates his incompetence at understanding evolution. www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/the_deeper_issu_1095991.html He cannot imagine how cell-cell adhesion and cell-cell separation mutations can sustain in populations before there’s a reproducing animal for natural selection to operate on. When will Paul learn that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution? Mutations don’t have to be selected for initially, they can be maintained by sheer chance, aka "genetic drift" in population genetics parlance. Over-reliance on natural selection is totally outdated. If ID proponents still cling on to selection all the time, then it’s very easy to dismiss their flawed logic.
+Vimal Ramachandran Hi Mr. Ramachandran, I understand your point, but genetic drift doesn't begin to be an answer to the question this video presents; if anything, genetic drift compounds the problem, as it requires smaller populations, which usually leads to extinction.
From the farthest reaches of the known universe, down to the cell, and even further down at the quantum level- are irreducibly complex systems within systems within systems within systems within systems all of which require their component parts extant and functional. Of course God created life the universe and everything in it ☦️
Why even give them a rock. The joke below explains it!😀 A scientist got into an argument with God... The scientist said, "We have decided we no longer need you, as we can create anything in the laboratory just as easy as you can create something." God said, "OK let's see who can create a human from dirt." The scientist reached down and gathered up some dirt... God said, "Hey! Get your own dirt!"
The problem with Darwinian evolution is that it was a poor idea in the first place, built on a highly partial view of the natural world and man's place in it. It is less well known that a significant number of Darwin's contemporaries saw the flaws in his reasoning and were vocal in drawing attention to them. The Darwinian model is finally disintegrating, thankfully, due in no small part to genuinely well-motivated establishments, such as The Discovery Institute.
This is nonsense. Paul Nelson, you're making the mistake of looking at the end result - a worm with muscle, nerves, germ cells and intestine - and concluding that this was the only possible outcome. Therefore, everything should have been programmed upfront to produce this particular creature with this particular characteristic. You then liken this to human architects who plan ahead to work towards a pre-decided end result. But this is wrong and you won't understand evolution unless you free yourself from such teleological thinking. We know of even simpler animals that don't have such well-differentiated tissues or developmental patterns - sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, placozoans, all of which are evolutionarily even more ancient than C. elegans. Thus, we can see that animals don't have to have nerves and muscles to survive, they started out as mere colonies of daughter cells, gradually acquiring specializations through evolutionary time. Different mutations produced different animal lineages which went different ways. One lineage led to the ancestor of C. elegans and its cousins including us. Random chance events and adaptation can explain this because the way C. elegans ended up was just one among countless possible outcomes, out of which only one outcome stuck. This outcome stayed on because it was good enough to produce a creature that can survive enough to reproduce in its given environment. Likewise, another outcome stayed on for placozoans and yet another outcome stuck for sponges. It is wrong to look at the end result and see teleology. Rather, you must appreciate the role of how chance and contingency can produce diverse patterns from a simple beginning. I'm worried about young students who will be misled by such wrong propaganda.
Vimal Ramachandran Well a worm was in fact the only possible outcome. Of course a mutation could have produced a dead, a handicapped, or in rare cases an advantageous variation,- but still a worm,- not anything else. The point Nelson is making is that there's a trajectory all through the development, with intermediate cells which are specialized in doing specific jobs at specific times. This screams FORESIGHT and again strongly implies intelligens behind.
No, the worm is just the current end result of a long evolutionary process in which multiple other possibilities existed, but never got realized due to chance events. This is much like how your life reached its present state via random chance events. You won't claim that someone scripted your life story, will you?
Actually, I worry more about students who will be misled by wrong propaganda, in this case, natural processes and chance as a mechanism for the origin of life and its diversity. There has to be empirical scientific evidence shown to prove that natural mechanisms are a more plausible explanation for what we have discovered in biological life than intelligence. If chance and necessity accounted for the amount of logical organization we find in life, where is the evidence for that? Until now, there hasn't even been a single shred of scientific evidence supporting any hypothesis of abiogenesis, so how can we rely on natural mechanisms as a possible explanation in the first place, let alone the most plausible one? We know from our everyday experience that intelligence is the only thing capable of creating the design we find in nature, because it's able to plan ahead and organize and guide matter to its final product. Natural processes have to rely on a chance mechanism just to produce that exact same output, and worse yet, it's not just a flip of a coin. Each probability in life had to become a specific result, or life as we know it wouldn't even exist. Chance isn't a viable mechanism at all not only because of the lack of empirical evidence, but also because of the fact that mathematically speaking, it is incredibly implausible to assume that every functional aspect we see arose in biological life (and biological life itself) without a myriad of errors as a result. The only alternative explanation is intelligence. And intelligence is the exact explanation that best fits the evidence we find. And no, in the end, life itself didn't have any simple beginnings. From the very beginning of life around 3 billion years ago, we already began seeing living cells almost spontaneously pop into existence as we see it in the fossil record. The earliest fossils of living organisms weren't simple in any way, especially considering how much complexity we have found in a _single_ prokaryote cell, let alone a eukaryote and a multicellular organism. And that's just the beginning. To make matters worse for Darwinian evolution, we have the Cambrian explosion; an event during the earliest beginnings of life in which _millions_ of new multicellular species arose almost spontaneously in just a few million years; a feat that is too spontaneous to have been considered a "simple" beginning...
Vimal Ramachandran Vimal is right. Random chance is all you need. I liken it to throwing Legos in a box, shaking it for a few million years, you get what's pictured on the box. I also believe I'll win the lottery every week for the next few months.
Vimal Ramachandran : If any process is repeating, there is intelligence. That is pure science. So if the cloning or division is repeating (with progressive & predictable result), that must be guided by an intelligence. As for your example of "life story" - it is not a physical thing to be guided by an intelligence, but guided by decisions - by the subject - i.e the human/any specimen. A driver will try to avoid accidents by making "decisions" (which is not a physical thing, but a software function using brain and logical decisions) but sometime that decision went wrong and accident happens. That accident does not alter the fact that human is a complex mechanism of hardware and software. And complex repeating mechanisms does not happen by chance!!! There must be an intelligence.
So the video is ascribing a methodology to God? Rather than supporting your religious bias with the unknown (a poor foundation) why not just admit we don't know, and look for more answers? "God did it" is not science, because no one knows (though many assume) whether or not the universe is in any way intentional. Pointing at things we don't understand and saying "look this proves God" is how religion works, not science. Trust me if science finds God does exist, then what and how God interacts with existiance will become much more clear. Don't hold your breath.
+Tj Bradders So basically what you are saying Tj, is that there is NO evidence that will ever convince you that ID could be true. Got it. Listen, do you think, given the data the video reveals, that one possible explanation could be that of a Mind? Why or why not? See, Materialists and IDers and creationists all have the same data. We just interpret it differently. No one can prove their interpretation. We are not claiming to be able to prove it. We are dealing with history here. No one can roll back history and watch what happened. And, it cannot be repeated because history only happens once. So, we have to take the incomplete data that we have and try and piece it together to see what might have taken place. Certainly, this kind of data would lend itself very well to the idea of Intelligence, a Mind, planning, purpose, etc. wouldn't you say? In fact, to claim that there can be no Mind involved in the emergence of life and all it's varied forms, is really something that you cannot know for sure - unless you are God. Science is very useful for telling us how things work, which can be examined and tested in the present, but it is not so useful when it comes to telling us how things came to be, which relates to things that happened one time in the distant past and cannot be tested or repeated in the present. In the end, since we only have limited data and that data has to be interpreted, how we interpret it will depend on our worldview. Materialists will see no teleology in the data - indeed, their worldview precludes them from seeing such. So they think everything has a natural cause, even though there are many many things that have yet to be explained. Still, that is what their worldview tells them and it is what they believe. But there are no guarantees and the types of problems facing us today are far more complex than the types of problems that scientists dealing with origins faced 100-200 years ago. In fact, there is really no comparison!
Anyone can look at their own bodies intensely for 60 seconds and conclude that they are designed to live from head to toe. Plus they have a conscience and a soul and they know it in their hearts.
+atxangel512 Oh, but you are looking at your body through your teleological worldview, says Vimal! Sure the finished product looks designed, but that doesn't mean you were designed, he will tell you. So whether we look designed or not, we KNOW that we were NOT designed - says Vimal and his fellow followers of Materialism. Well, sure, through their worldview, that is the only conclusion possible. And it is a conclusion that cannot be demonstrated to be accurate by science. Fortunately, we are not bound by the same constraints of his worldview and we are able to allow for the possibility of actual design - which seems to fit the data much better.
It is true that materialism and naturalism cannot establish their own worldviews.
At best one would be left with agnosticism, which means that your position is to have no position. There are two great and short videos that prove this, one titled "Dr. Craig humiliates Dr. Shook" and the other is titled "The End of Materialism" by Inspiring Philosophy.
I usually ask the professing "atheists" to directly answer 3 simple questions that really get them stumbling:
1. Do you have a soul?
2. Do you have a conscience?
3. Are humans the most powerful and most intelligent living organisms in the entire Universe?
The precisely administered gradual unfolding, activation and deactivation of the information that runs the building process, is much like the organized way the building process of a house takes place. You can't have the different workers showing up at the building site randomly. The carpenter cannot start on his roof before the walls are done, and the sewer must be in place before the foundation is made. The electrician must run his wires at one point in the process, and return at a later time to install switches. All this is managed by a chief builder who has the oversight and foresight that makes the project possible. To imagine biological machinery achieve this level of organization by means of random physical and chemical processes, by blind trial,- well that's just silly. A single cell is far more complicated than a house, and houses do not come into existence without a consciousness that directs the building process, so there's no reason to believe that other rules apply to the building of living organisms. I have the impression that those who insist on believing in evolution are driven by ideological reasons, not scientific reasons. Evolution is a main supporting pillar for materialism and therefore a necessity for atheism,- abandon evolution and you'll have to abandon atheism, and that's a tough camel to swallow for some, I can understand that.
i can't get it too, what makes them believe that stuff IDK, maybe they really cannot process REAL information, i have a background in CS and trust me, what they say is completelly absurd, is like ok, i will leave my program alone and one day, giving it time, it will create the program, i don't need an incompetent scientist to come and tell me it will create by itself to know that it WONT, i know because is easy for anyone to understand, who thinks that something like a program will auto create by itself does really need a mind reset, you must be completelly messed up to believe this, it's almost laughable when you see them so confident confirming evolution, everything is guided in nature, and we all know that guidance implies a logic behind, logic requires instructions, instructions requires an istructor, why this is so hard to understand i will never know...
Thankyou very much for making these scientific videos which proves God .
Totally fascinating.
What makes a cell "want" to divide in the first place? And, where does the information in the DNA, which is the blueprint for everything, come from? Random chance?
And the Lord said, "Let life evolve! Let it diversify into many forms!"
What a wonderful illustration of intelligent design at work. Darwinian evolution is tantamount to not knowing where you are going before you begin, and not knowing where you are when you get there...LOL.
Excellent video! I missed this when it first came out.
"So you begin with a single cell, the egg, THE FERTILIZED EGG HTHAT HAS ALL THE INFORMATION FOR ALL THE OTHER CELLS, and as that starting point divides, the two daughters that it produces asymmetrically, don't have the same capacity. In other words, they have already, at that first cell division, down regulated some of their genes respectively so that this daughter is going to give rise to a whole bunch of different cells that'll do particular jobs; this daughter cell will give rise for instance, to the germ line, ultimately the cells that will become the egg and sperm for the next generation."
"There must be some governing logic, some control system that tells those lineages what they are going to do as they are specializing. And I think from the perspective of an undirected process like natural selection, or evolution generally, it's very hard to see how you could build that without knowing where you are going."
Let's ask ourselves a question. The excellent scientific research done by these three scientists in delineating the process of how a c elegans is built from the ground level up, which paradigm does this data fit better with?
For me, it is a no brainer! ID. You have to have all the information organized and ready to go from the beginning. You have to know where you are going and have a control system that is able to direct the process. When Materialists are able to show how this can evolve by blind random directionless purposeless natural processes like mutation and natural selection, then we will listen, but just telling us it happened isn't science nor does it sound very rational to me.
The more we learn about nature, the more surprised the Materialists are and the more they have to ramp up their faith to accomodate the growing amount of data that can easily be explained by a Mind, but which the Materialist paradigm struggles to explain - in fact, cannot explain.
Excellent video!
I remember reading an article about a robotic nematode; it had a photocell for an eye, a steerable front wheel and two drive wheels behind. They somehow decoded the nematodes reflexive/reactions and converted them into programming for the robot. It was given an obstacle course to traverse. They found the programming from the nematode to be superior to the programming the researchers had written; The robot was able to operate longer under deteriorating conditions (the battery and wheels wearing down) where it would shut down under the programming from the researchers. The remark that it was hard to understand how such a powerful algorithm could have arisen naturally. Indeed.
Creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity
-Henry Quastler
Very Fruitful video, thank you for sharing!
Not only do the cells have to specialize in the right place, and in the right place relative to other kinds, but at the right time. If bones grew too much faster than muscle, they couldn't connect and function. If the brain grew faster than the skull, it would damage the brain. Every part of every plant or animal shows the fingerprints of a brilliant creator.
I don't agree with everything thing from Discovery Institute but Paul's work is worth following. Also this case with the worm 🪱 is extremely compelling. Oh if you live in the U.S.A and owe the I.R.S don't wait for a payment to the debt to evolve 🤷🏾♂️
Life comes from life!
Life comes from life
The more I learn about evolution, the least it makes sense
This is a very impressive video. I think it is pretty concise and does lay out the precision chemistry found in a cells to develop an organism. It is no wonder that biology textbooks like the "The Machinery of Life" and "Bionanotechnology: Lessons From Nature" see cells as nanotechnology. The natural world does not show a capacity to make longitudinal and functional nanotechnologies like cells especially since we do not see independent "pools" of even simpler but still sophisticated cellular equipment spontaneously forming such as DNA, RNA, enzymes, and even simpler proteins after 4.6 billion years of chance (they have short life span either and they get damaged easily). Instead we only find these in assembled cells - the finely-tuned nanotechnologies or systems. Similar to how we do not find parts of computers (e.g. Sound cards, graphics cards, CD ROM drivers, key board, etc) forming spontaneously independently. These components are found in the world in functional computers (i.e. system). The evolution of corn is an excellent example of design emerging of new species. And the emergence of mules is another one via splicing. Artificial selection and natural selection are both components of the emergence of novel species. It is not black or white but living creatures are now being seen in the light of systems engineering phys.org/news/2015-02-biologist-optimized-cellular-replication-problem.html . Furthermore, more function is being discovered in places where many though junk which implies more design involved in the chemical programming of cells - ua-cam.com/video/Y3V2thsJ1Wc/v-deo.html .
Thank you for your work!
Simply a fantastic lecture about what we should look for in Science... Thank you!
Well produced! Amazing the amount of info in those first fertilized cells. All the instructions exist there. ( evolutionists tend to be blind to it however)
It's so hard to understand why, in the face of all this knowledge, so many people refute the obvious conclusion of a designer.
The previous post by SungW just explained it.
Quoting John 3:19, "And this is the judgment: the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light because their works were evil."
As per the Vedic scriptures, they actually want to take the place of the supreme designer. Deny God, because inherently, you actually want to take His place. The Vedas described such persons mentality as follows: "I am the lord of all I survey".
Beautiful
wonderful
Just this: Wow!!!
Welldone
Wow! Differentiation without a project manager. We design engineers cannot even do that as skilled designers. We need management for system engineers, mechanical engineers, firmware engineers, electrical engineers, RF engineers and manufacturing engineers need a project management director top down for us to do what is needed synchronously.
This Worm DNA is doing that somehow ... according to Darwin's posterity, undirected by atomic particles driven merely by the least path of resistance from all forces in 3 dimensionsl space, did this without an outside designing architect? Really? I ain't buying it?
I've noticed a few things while sampling people's opinions about creationism and evolution, and I'm obliged to ask:
Why is evolution directly tied to atheism? Are evolution and creationism/intelligent design mutually exclusive?
Does proving evolution disprove intelligent design? I mean, the theory of evolution as it stands now *arguably* provides feasible answers (which do not require an intelligent designer) to many questions, but it does not reveal the entire picture. Of course, as any scientist would know, revealing the 'entire picture' might as well be impossible; we can only get ever closer to the truth. So the (rhetorical) question is, why is evolution used as an argument against creationism? Why aren't newton's laws of motion being used as an argument instead? Or literally any scientific explanation to anything?
This leads me to another question: Does refuting some part of the theory of evolution somehow prove intelligent design? I've never in recent history witnessed a scientific theory harbor so many supporters who chose to overlook its flaws and openly mock anyone expressing a contrary opinion. It's like one can only be pro-evolution or anti-evolution. My understanding is that's not how complex scientific theories work!
I say this: There's little reason in thinking that the theory of evolution should have any strong bearing on one's opinions of theism/atheism/intelligent design, and vice versa. Should there prove to be major flaws in the theory of evolution, an evolutionist could always try to refine the theory or look for another scientific explanation. Should evolution as we now discuss it prove to be convincing in a way that's difficult to deny, a religious person or a proponent of intelligent design can accept the theory and consider themselves closer to understanding how the designer works. After all, most religious people don't deny the other physical laws of the universe by saying "God did it".
Basically, keep your beliefs in higher concepts like theism or atheism, which are of a more philosophical nature, from interfering with your opinions on the scientific concept that is evolution. I think that would clear up alot of the confusion and allow for more open-minded debates.
Thank you for producing videos that show God’s creative genius in even the most humble of creatures. Praise Jesus!
And there wasn't even any mention of HOW the different types of cells end up WHERE they are supposed to be WHEN they are supposed to be there.
It's like a eletrônic circuit.
All praise the God of worms and it's special creation!
+dazzmatazzz Yes, we should definitely thank the Creator for worms! They play a very important role in this world! Good point!
***** Ramen brother!
Wow. This is brilliant
5 years before this was on my recommendations?
Where can I find more information about this? I would like to know more about what functions of the organism is connected to each cell division. Is there a chart?
This video shows the cell to be programmed containing specific information to carry out, to achieve a certain overall meaningful goal.
It's funny to note that if you were to Google "is the cell programmed" you will initially find more about "programmed cell death" than about cells programmed to do anything else. It is as if it's easier to say cells are programmed to death but not to life.
There's no theory of evolution. Biological systems are fully formed, fully designed, fully functional, programmed with the ability to adapt and have variation. Any changes that's not of the system's program will ultimately down grade the system and this is the only so called "evolution" (according to the theory) that we really see.
Life begins in specified complexity and becomes more meaningful with change. There's no logical reason to accept a brainless (stupid) process, having no evidence at all of what it can do in time unimaginable that is propped up to give it hope and support.
I often wonder if supporters of Neo-Darwinism can contemplate the complexity involved to
orchestrate in even in the simplest of living things such as a nematode , the amount of information
(100,000,000 base pairs of DNA ) which is required and somehow recognized or realized at each
cell division to start producing not only specific types of cells, but also the information required to
build then into the specific purposed organs , nerves , muscles and so forth that have to continually
be integrated thru-out development to the final purpose of a living organism?
So essentially , not only are the same types of cells being produced to create something
like specifically shaped muscles , but it has to be incorporated with specific schematics of
the nervous system to create a very specific action of that one particular muscle.
And all of this information "HAS" to be already in place right from the start which necessitates
foresight to accomplish this end goal result of the extremely complex development of one
the simplest of living organism's.
I would think that the winning of one of the most prestige's awards in science, the Noble Laurette to
three researchers for actually documenting these incredibly complex steps required for the development
of a simple nematode would give others some actual "INSIGHT" into how pitifully lacking materialist
claims are in their explanations.
Excellent analogy .
Fantastic, Paul. Thank you.
Okay, so one thing I don't get is how the daughter cells communicate. There's got to be some mechanism so that, say at the 8th or tenth or hundredth differentiation, cells are not dividing into gut tissue when some other cells already did that several steps ago, and those cells are supposed to be dividing into nervous system tissue. Now, it is possible that there is no communication between cells during the formation of the organism, but that then implies an even greater level of pre-planned and orchestrated organization. It would seem there would be some kind of feedback loop in the process to function as a quality control mechanism. In any case, if evolution were true, wouldn't organisms evolve some mechanism that would prevent mutations from being expressed? And wouldn't that then eventually shut evolution off? And what about genetic entropy? With 100 million base pairs of DNA, wouldn't there be some, small, fractional degradation in every seceding copy that would multiply errors over time?
"Of the simplest machines, a toothpick has no moving parts. Of the most complex of machines, a protein has the highest of manufacturing requirements. Given every tree on the planet and infinite time, evolution could never make a toothpick. Even incompetent engineers know that. Without totalitarian censorship and persecution, evolution would not last a month."--Joseph Mastropaolo
Want a healthy dose of reality?
Take a spoonful of www.lifescienceprize.org/
So the guy, pretty much says evolution cannot explain how this simple organism gets created - the main problem here is that the first cells have a "map" of how the "final result" should be. Therefore randomness and "natural" selection cannot explain this at all. There's truly just one conclusion - "someone" a lot more intelligent than us, human observers, set all things in motion... :)
And why is this not put in every biology book ? I mean how many millions of children have grown up only reading the ridiculous theory that the first life flopped out of a muddy pond by blind random chance . Truly sad more people do not understand the mind blowing complexity of the simplest living cell And only believe what learned in grade school on the origins of life.
God if Great and he is one and alone, the mighty the wise the knower of all things
Get to know the worm builder!
Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (our intelligent designer). Believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead and you will be saved!
(Romans 10:9)
Life with Christ is INCREDIBLE!
YEA !
Brilliant. Thank you.
Very good presentation!
Fine, we are now only left with one little question: Is the intelligent designer the result of intelligent design ? (And if so, who designed the intelligent designer of the intelligent designer ? :-))
Not sure if any scientists read this, but how does a virus mutate so quickly to ensure its survival while evolutionary biology mutations (that are beneficial to an organism to a organisms survival) are basically a mathematical impossibility?
I know an organism is infinitely more complex than a virus, yet a virus seemingly understands the internal mechanisms of a cell to be able to take advantage of it to replicate itself and perpetuate its own survival?
I am not a scientist so I don’t have access to any real scientific research or scientific minds to find an answer... any smart guys have an answer to my question, any help would be much appreciated...
Interesting that there are so few comments attached to this fabulous video...What does it say though...😳😔😔
Top! 🇧🇷
"You've got all the information there?" That sounds like Stephen Meyer?
Atheist : " shit, how the hell do we explain this away?"
Paul Nelson has replied to my post on ENV:
www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/does_our_c_eleg095371.html
What he wants to know, in essence, is the step-by-step evolutionary account of how a fertilized egg turned into the C. elegans adult form. This is funny because no ID theorist, including Paul, has ever provided such a detailed account of how the designer went about doing his handiwork, yet that's what they demand from evolutionary biologists!
Paul's argument is based on the fact that only the C. elegans adult form is subject to natural selection and not the various developmental stages leading up to it. So he can't imagine how that specific developmental pathway came into being. Who selected that path if natural selection can only see the end result?
But this is only as smart as asking "Who selected the path that led to Paul Nelson?"
How did Paul's great grandparents meet? How did Paul's grandparents meet? How did Paul's parents meet? Who brought these couples together? In each of those unions, only one among roughly 50 million sperm cells fused with one specific egg cell. Had a different sperm and egg fused in any of the unions leading up to Paul, then he wouldn't be here! Some other human would be here in his place. So the path leading up to Paul is very specific and highly improbable. Yet that path came about by sheer chance. Nobody scripted the path or selected it. Nobody had Paul Nelson as a final goal in mind.
This is analogous to the developmental path leading up to any animal including C. elegans. Random, stochastic molecular interactions constrained by physical & chemical laws, as well as the context, produce an end result - a reproducing adult animal visible to natural selection. Nature selects that adult form no matter how it came about. Looking back and saying that the path which produced the animal is very specific and goal-directed is pointless. It reflects a failure to understand and appreciate the big role chance and contingency plays in evolution. As I said in my first post, teleological thinking is ID's bane.
+Vimal Ramachandran Well that would only be fair. If you're going to require ID not only give evidence to an affect but then also have to produce the designer or first cause.. Then Neo Darwinist have the same standard of evidence as well.. So if Neo Darwinist say natural selection, unguided causes, plus Time, Chance and Random can produce not only specified functional living organisms. It better show the naturalistic mechanism that can reproduce it. Using only the four fundamental forces found in nature. That actually cause something to happen. As that is all you have to produce a functional specified cell. It also has to do this twice for reproduction to take hold. As it has to overcome predation and a hundred other problems that can kill it.
I might add. The video shows not only the result but the whole process is a top down only solution. As the cell nucleus and the embryonic cell level is holding all the cards. It will only produce that species and nothing else. As they have tried to change the genetic expression and both early stages and later. The early stage the cell aborted and killed the production. Later stages they got dysfunctional species with lost vision, parts missing or to many parts, etc.. So the cell is very flexible but not at changes that affect what will be produced, in what order, go where, and how they get assembled. One reason the information is all there from the very start and the cell then turns on or off the functions that will regulate the species the rest of it life just to keep it alive. As it has to know not only where the part goes buy how to find it, repair and maintain it. As the human body can go a lot longer then anything humans have ever produced without major breakage.
///So if Neo Darwinist say natural selection, unguided causes, plus Time, Chance and Random can produce not only specified functional living organisms. It better show the naturalistic mechanism that can reproduce it. ///
The natural mechanisms involved in the development of various organisms have already been shown. On which planet are you? Your problem is that you reject all natural mechanisms and then invoke an imaginary designer when such a thing is neither necessary nor supported by evidence.
Time + Chance is not what produces organisms. It's the specific genetic pathways. Where did those pathways come from? From simpler molecular interactions that preceded them? Where did those interactions come from? From the inherent and spontaneous chemical nature of the molecules involved. One phenomenon leads to another, which in turn leads to another phenomenon and so on. That's how everything in nature arose - from stars and galaxies to life.
///It will only produce that species and nothing else. As they have tried to change the genetic expression and both early stages and later. The early stage the cell aborted and killed the production. Later stages they got dysfunctional species with lost vision, parts missing or to many parts, etc.///
That's because you're mutating key genes involved in development. But what if neutral mutations that have no effect on development accumulate over generations? Then on that background a new mutation arises which would have had a deleterious effect in isolation, but not in the backdrop of the earlier neutral mutations. That new mutation can now tweak the developmental pathway a little bit. Over generations such tweaks will eventually produce a different organism. The interplay of mutations is complex and not as simple as altering one residue here or there.
Vimal Ramachandran You seem dense. I'm asking for Neo Darwinist to give me the first cause not Mendels Laws on gene expression. As that applies after a species already exist.
So lets start with the cell. Show me the mechanism that created living matter from none living material. I want the scientific paper name, Author, and date published.
Thank You
It is clear you have no clue about biology. Nobody gave you "Mendel's law of gene expression" (there's no such law at all!). What I gave above was an explanation for why you cannot artificially fiddle with the development of an organism to produce a new one, whereas naturally arising mutation patterns can tweak development and cause new organisms to evolve gradually over time. But to understand this you need to have some background in biology which you seem to lack.
Next you pull out the usual creationist canard of demanding a step-by-step account of life's origins while feeling no obligation to provide such an account for how your creator did it. If we had a recipe of how to make life, we could have created life in the lab from scratch. We don't know every little detail, but that's why we haven't shut down our labs and gone home.
However, we know enough to conclude with confidence that life arose naturally. Biochemically, life is a set of chemical interactions and reactions which can spontaneously occur with no external intervention. Moreover, there are volumes of evidence showing life evolved over time and that life on earth descended from a common ancestral population. Genes, fossils and embryos all point to this inescapable conclusion. There's absolutely no case at all for your designer.
How do those first two cells differentiate?
I am a Human with brain to make sence about my reality , therefore I can not be arrogant and ignore this very clear fact about this complex system of living Cells and how they intract with each other in very precise way , and attribute it to natural cause , and not a Creator , whether that Creator was God or An Allien or Programmer who run our reality .....
It's that simple .....
What's this music? I love it!
Anyone here seen the "Mathematical Refutations to Neo-Darwinsim?" video w/ Steven Meyer, David Berlinski, and David Galehrnter (sp?). It's mind blowing.
Using the SAME 4 base pairs!
Let us not kid ourselves. Can a program (information) not have a programmer? How? You need a mind.
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."
- 1 Corinthians 1.21 - 22 (NKJV)
I'm not seeing any misotheists in the comments. That little worm is quite miraculous, isn't it?
The stubborn fool in rank denial has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
We are all just avatars in the dreams of an AI
If a cell divides into two daughter cells what has happened to the parent of these daughters?
That's a fact !!!
Brilliant! Maranatha >
Paul Nelson,
At www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/does_our_c_eleg095371.html you wrote:
"In particular, the origin of the developmental stages between fertilized egg and reproductively capable adult are hard (or impossible) to explain via natural selection."
I think it might help people understand the issue if you considered a more advanced species like a mammal. Could a Darwinist explain any of the developmental stages of a mammal via natural selection? If so, giving an example of a case where he could would help to highlight the problem by contrasting it with why he could not do it for nematodes. If a Darwinist could not explain any mammalian developmental stages via natural selection, then you might explain why not and why you chose nematodes as the example.
What is the process by which a Darwinist might explain a developmental stage via natural selection? What is necessary for an explanation? What is missing that prevents an explanation for nematode development?
I think one point of confusion is that people will think that embryonic stages represent a series of adult ancestors. But a Darwinist would say that during evolution, developmental stages do not diverge from an adult of an ancestor species they diverge from an embryo of an ancestor species. So he doesn't need to explain the past function of current embryonic tissue in an adult of an ancestor species. He needs to explain the past function of current embryonic tissue in an embryo of an ancestor species. To explain development by natural selection, you don't need a series of adults of ancestor species you need a series of embryos of ancestor species. Of course embryos imply adults existed, and only mature adults reproduce, but tissues in embryonic stages diverge from ancestor embryo tissue not ancestor adults. No one ever reported an adult fish swimming in the womb of a pregnant mammal.
Woo hoo
Paul Nelson’s reply to Ursula Goodenough yet again demonstrates his incompetence at understanding evolution.
www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/the_deeper_issu_1095991.html
He cannot imagine how cell-cell adhesion and cell-cell separation mutations can sustain in populations before there’s a reproducing animal for natural selection to operate on. When will Paul learn that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution? Mutations don’t have to be selected for initially, they can be maintained by sheer chance, aka "genetic drift" in population genetics parlance. Over-reliance on natural selection is totally outdated. If ID proponents still cling on to selection all the time, then it’s very easy to dismiss their flawed logic.
+Vimal Ramachandran Hi Mr. Ramachandran, I understand your point, but genetic drift doesn't begin to be an answer to the question this video presents; if anything, genetic drift compounds the problem, as it requires smaller populations, which usually leads to extinction.
From the farthest reaches of the known universe, down to the cell, and even further down at the quantum level- are irreducibly complex systems within systems within systems within systems within systems all of which require their component parts extant and functional. Of course God created life the universe and everything in it ☦️
Macro cannot explain forethought or coordination, both emphatically a product of intelligence.
Information
Go pick up a rock. Now rationally turn that into a living organism. I can't get there.
Why even give them a rock. The joke below explains it!😀
A scientist got into an argument with God...
The scientist said, "We have decided we no longer need you, as we can create anything in the laboratory just as easy as you can create something."
God said, "OK let's see who can create a human from dirt."
The scientist reached down and gathered up some dirt...
God said, "Hey! Get your own dirt!"
Still not one commenter trying to refute this.
I see the elegance of our creator.
In see elegans
سبحان الله
Glory to God ..the Creator of everything
God is great; He is the only One who could have done so...
Brilliant, but almost ruined by the completely unnecessary musical accompaniment.
The problem with Darwinian evolution is that it was a poor idea in the first place, built on a highly partial view of the natural world and man's place in it.
It is less well known that a significant number of Darwin's contemporaries saw the flaws in his reasoning and were vocal in drawing attention to them.
The Darwinian model is finally disintegrating, thankfully, due in no small part to genuinely well-motivated establishments, such as The Discovery Institute.
This is nonsense. Paul Nelson, you're making the mistake of looking at the end result - a worm with muscle, nerves, germ cells and intestine - and concluding that this was the only possible outcome. Therefore, everything should have been programmed upfront to produce this particular creature with this particular characteristic.
You then liken this to human architects who plan ahead to work towards a pre-decided end result. But this is wrong and you won't understand evolution unless you free yourself from such teleological thinking.
We know of even simpler animals that don't have such well-differentiated tissues or developmental patterns - sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, placozoans, all of which are evolutionarily even more ancient than C. elegans. Thus, we can see that animals don't have to have nerves and muscles to survive, they started out as mere colonies of daughter cells, gradually acquiring specializations through evolutionary time. Different mutations produced different animal lineages which went different ways. One lineage led to the ancestor of C. elegans and its cousins including us.
Random chance events and adaptation can explain this because the way C. elegans ended up was just one among countless possible outcomes, out of which only one outcome stuck. This outcome stayed on because it was good enough to produce a creature that can survive enough to reproduce in its given environment. Likewise, another outcome stayed on for placozoans and yet another outcome stuck for sponges.
It is wrong to look at the end result and see teleology. Rather, you must appreciate the role of how chance and contingency can produce diverse patterns from a simple beginning. I'm worried about young students who will be misled by such wrong propaganda.
Vimal Ramachandran Well a worm was in fact the only possible outcome. Of course a mutation could have produced a dead, a handicapped, or in rare cases an advantageous variation,- but still a worm,- not anything else. The point Nelson is making is that there's a trajectory all through the development, with intermediate cells which are specialized in doing specific jobs at specific times. This screams FORESIGHT and again strongly implies intelligens behind.
No, the worm is just the current end result of a long evolutionary process in which multiple other possibilities existed, but never got realized due to chance events. This is much like how your life reached its present state via random chance events. You won't claim that someone scripted your life story, will you?
Actually, I worry more about students who will be misled by wrong propaganda, in this case, natural processes and chance as a mechanism for the origin of life and its diversity. There has to be empirical scientific evidence shown to prove that natural mechanisms are a more plausible explanation for what we have discovered in biological life than intelligence. If chance and necessity accounted for the amount of logical organization we find in life, where is the evidence for that? Until now, there hasn't even been a single shred of scientific evidence supporting any hypothesis of abiogenesis, so how can we rely on natural mechanisms as a possible explanation in the first place, let alone the most plausible one? We know from our everyday experience that intelligence is the only thing capable of creating the design we find in nature, because it's able to plan ahead and organize and guide matter to its final product. Natural processes have to rely on a chance mechanism just to produce that exact same output, and worse yet, it's not just a flip of a coin. Each probability in life had to become a specific result, or life as we know it wouldn't even exist. Chance isn't a viable mechanism at all not only because of the lack of empirical evidence, but also because of the fact that mathematically speaking, it is incredibly implausible to assume that every functional aspect we see arose in biological life (and biological life itself) without a myriad of errors as a result. The only alternative explanation is intelligence. And intelligence is the exact explanation that best fits the evidence we find.
And no, in the end, life itself didn't have any simple beginnings. From the very beginning of life around 3 billion years ago, we already began seeing living cells almost spontaneously pop into existence as we see it in the fossil record. The earliest fossils of living organisms weren't simple in any way, especially considering how much complexity we have found in a _single_ prokaryote cell, let alone a eukaryote and a multicellular organism. And that's just the beginning. To make matters worse for Darwinian evolution, we have the Cambrian explosion; an event during the earliest beginnings of life in which _millions_ of new multicellular species arose almost spontaneously in just a few million years; a feat that is too spontaneous to have been considered a "simple" beginning...
Vimal Ramachandran Vimal is right. Random chance is all you need. I liken it to throwing Legos in a box, shaking it for a few million years, you get what's pictured on the box. I also believe I'll win the lottery every week for the next few months.
Vimal Ramachandran : If any process is repeating, there is intelligence. That is pure science. So if the cloning or division is repeating (with progressive & predictable result), that must be guided by an intelligence. As for your example of "life story" - it is not a physical thing to be guided by an intelligence, but guided by decisions - by the subject - i.e the human/any specimen. A driver will try to avoid accidents by making "decisions" (which is not a physical thing, but a software function using brain and logical decisions) but sometime that decision went wrong and accident happens. That accident does not alter the fact that human is a complex mechanism of hardware and software. And complex repeating mechanisms does not happen by chance!!! There must be an intelligence.
So the video is ascribing a methodology to God?
Rather than supporting your religious bias with the unknown (a poor foundation) why not just admit we don't know, and look for more answers? "God did it" is not science, because no one knows (though many assume) whether or not the universe is in any way intentional. Pointing at things we don't understand and saying "look this proves God" is how religion works, not science.
Trust me if science finds God does exist, then what and how God interacts with existiance will become much more clear. Don't hold your breath.
+Tj Bradders So basically what you are saying Tj, is that there is NO evidence that will ever convince you that ID could be true. Got it.
Listen, do you think, given the data the video reveals, that one possible explanation could be that of a Mind?
Why or why not?
See, Materialists and IDers and creationists all have the same data. We just interpret it differently. No one can prove their interpretation. We are not claiming to be able to prove it. We are dealing with history here. No one can roll back history and watch what happened. And, it cannot be repeated because history only happens once. So, we have to take the incomplete data that we have and try and piece it together to see what might have taken place.
Certainly, this kind of data would lend itself very well to the idea of Intelligence, a Mind, planning, purpose, etc. wouldn't you say? In fact, to claim that there can be no Mind involved in the emergence of life and all it's varied forms, is really something that you cannot know for sure - unless you are God.
Science is very useful for telling us how things work, which can be examined and tested in the present, but it is not so useful when it comes to telling us how things came to be, which relates to things that happened one time in the distant past and cannot be tested or repeated in the present.
In the end, since we only have limited data and that data has to be interpreted, how we interpret it will depend on our worldview. Materialists will see no teleology in the data - indeed, their worldview precludes them from seeing such. So they think everything has a natural cause, even though there are many many things that have yet to be explained. Still, that is what their worldview tells them and it is what they believe. But there are no guarantees and the types of problems facing us today are far more complex than the types of problems that scientists dealing with origins faced 100-200 years ago. In fact, there is really no comparison!