Molecular Machines - ATP Synthase: The power plant of the cell
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 січ 2013
- The Intelligent Design of Molecular Machines in the Cell:
ATP Synthase is a molecular machine found in many living organisms. It serves as a miniature power-generator, producing an energy-carrying molecule, adenosine triphosphate, or ATP. The ATP synthase machine has many parts we recognize from human-designed technology, including a rotor, a stator, a camshaft or driveshaft, and other basic components of a rotary engine. This machine is just the final step in a long and complex metabolic pathway involving numerous enzymes and other molecules-all so the cell can produce ATP to power biochemical reactions, and provide energy for other molecular machines in the cell.
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Twitter: #!/DiscoveryCSC
Websites: www.evolutionnews.org and www.intelligentdesign.org - Наука та технологія
I didn't know such beautiful music was played inside my body while my cells are at work to keep me alive
It must be coming from the "ORGAN-elles"
@@rodchronister1830 good one mate 😂
All jokes aside, does anyone know the name of the piece? It's really quite beautiful. If the information is listed at the end credits, unfortunately it's now hidden, but the "other suggested video" windows that pop-up over the video.
@@scaper8 ua-cam.com/video/mJ_fkw5j-t0/v-deo.html Beethoven 5 secrets
@@scaper8 sounds like an instrumental version of secrets by one republic
This video is so jubilant, a veritable celebration of one of the most fascinating human microscopic machinery
I spent 20 years documenting technology for industry, aerospace and the military. Understanding a mechanism was a process of determining the design intent: what function were the components made to accomplish? What is described here is elegant, amazing and clearly the result of a Designer.
As aerospace engineer, I can confirm this as well.
Or natural selection. Lol.
Nothing humans have ever designed is something that does not already exist in nature.
Hey, but wait, my biology teacher told me that cells were simple. ;)
@@sjl197 They should NOT have done that. Unfortunately that WAS all the Biology textbooks were suggesting back then.
@@sjl197 Simple enough. lol
Having an engineer's mind, l appreciate seeing the marvelous technology that goes into the cell. ATP Synthase whizzes thousands of RPM (not slowly like in this brief video). What amazes me is that these motors are spinning inside every cell, but we don’t hear anything. Even the millions of motors spinning in our ears are absolutely silent - we can hear a baby breath or a clock ticking, but nothing from the ATP motors around the cochlea. This technology is so efficient, so elegant, so quiet !
Maybe we hear it as a silent Noise. When you are in a total quiet room and hear this tiny machines ringing sound
I think alot of people hear ringing in the ears.
I learned about evolution many years ago, and I get the whole time+mutation thing. BUT! When I started learning about the incredibly complex mechanisms of the cell I started thinking,"Wait a Minute"! This is by accident?
FYI, the "bump" is called a "cam" and the shaft is a "camshaft"
The car guy
And after knowing this, still a lot of people say that there is no creator for it !!!
Because the real problem is spiritual, not intellectual. That's what I've come to realize about most UA-cam atheists
Thats because they are to stupid to comprehend.
The video and claim to intelligent design oversimplify the strategies of this enzyme that actually make it so special. The energy input required to rotate the rotor involves types of reactions that we cannot intuitively understand unless we use more complicated tools than a rotary engine would require. The actual rotation of the enzyme’s rotor does also not continuously flow in a circle as the animation depicts, but spends most of its time at critical locations and then spends about a tenth of its rotation actually rotating to the next location. Since the rotor needs to rotate only between three locations, it parallels a three-toothed gear more than a rotary engine; something humans have not successfully made.
What!
They forgot to mention one EXTREMELY important fact: ADP+P can bind to the subunits and form ATP, but ATP can only be released from the subunit again, if hydrogen ions flow through it, against their concentration gradient.
This is very important, because the body's need of energy is regulated through this exact mechanism.
A recent paper showed that the rotor rotates some 100 to 300 times per second, some 60 times faster than the gun on the A-10 spins. Also, the ATP Synthase generates three ATP per rotation, while the seven barrels fire one round per rotation. Hundreds to thousands per mitochondria and 100s to 100,000 mitochondria per cell, except for red blood cells which have none, and how many cells per person? Lots of spinners, spinning really fast.
To God be the glory!!
great background music mate
The song is Secrets by OneRepublic
Yeah it is a rip off.
Simplement merveilleux! Est tellemen emouvant savoir qu'il a dans mon corps quelque chose de si complexe, précise, et harmonieuse, comme une symphonie! Merci pour votre video!
Thank you to everybody involved in the creation of this presentation, It will help many interested in life science appreciate natural microscopic wonders.
Does anybody realize that his background music is the Instrumental to Secrets by One Republic, just about 2 1/2 steps up in tone?
Similar,
This is the most LIT my biology homework has ever been.
JESUS died for our sins the cross, HE shed HIS holy, innocent, precious blood for us (HIS blood washes away ALL sins) HE was buried but on the third day GOD raised HIM from the dead. All you have to do to be saved is: Believe in JESUS, trust in HIS blood. JESUS did everything for you, no works are required for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9)
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
Should probably have included the respiratory complexes here. Otherwise ATP synthase makes no sense. Not gonna comment on ID, other than that it is interesting to note that our bacterial endosymbiont organalles mitochondria contain a unique family of phospholipids (cardiolipins) that otherwise are found only in bacteria. And these are required for ATP synthase to function. And that the rotary mechanism is very similar to bacterial flagellum. But its all probably just a coincidence.
Yep, just a coincidence ... like I have a brain and can think thoughts that are logical and can reason through problems, is also a coincidence. You know, there are an awful LOT of coincidences in living things, in the physical nature of things, and throughout the universe as everything coincidentally looks coincidental. It all coincidentally came from when NOTHING existed, and then NOTHING expanded, and the NOTHING became EVERYTHING. Somehow, that seems to make sense to some people. I think that it's because they rebel against the thought of having to be subjected to a Supreme God that Created Everything from the Power of His Spoken Word. NOT by magic, but by His Power.
that sounds like efficiency to me. if its already in the body and works to perform a function, why create new unnecessary material to do the same job?
It's highly logical to say that there is an all powerful designer. We look at a nuclear power plant and say that intelligent engineers designed the power plant to produce power for our cities and homes but when we look at ATP Synthase (which is millions of times more complex and produces more energy more efficiently than the nuclear power plants) we say it is the result of accidental process. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that logic?
+Jack Bailey No, but notice how it took us a few years to go from the invention of atomic weapons to nuclear power. Then notice how it has taken us millions and millions of years of refining genetics from previous organisms to get to modern humanity. We weren't made in a short time - we grew, evolved from earlier organisms. Might as well say the Solar System is proof of intelligent design because it's so big and complicated, or honeycombs because they're so efficient and strong. Incomprehension does not prove whatever you want it to prove; it just shows that you haven't learnt how such complexity came to be.
+Jack Bailey Except ATP Synthase doesn't function anything like that, they just lied about how it worked and what it looks like in order to trick people too lazy or too stupid to know any better. What's wrong with your logic is you picked your source really, really poorly. The Discovery Institute makes a living off lying about this kind of thing, it's literally their job, so ATP Synthase isn't actually comparable to nuclear power plants or cities or homes; they just lied about what it was in order to make people like you jump top that conclusion without looking into the matter.
If it had not existed, we would not be here to notice that it does not exist. Existence of everything that keeps us alive is mandates by our existence. If we don't, 10^10000000000000 years could pass without any consciousness detecting the passing of time, enough such that these molecules and atoms literally go where they go by chance.
***** Rightio:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278611/
***** To be blunt: Actually "seeing" a protein is hard to do, they don't have clear shapes, with the exception of fibrous proteins they can all be described with the word "blob" or something to that effect.
This would probably be the best I can find in the few seconds I could be bothered:
giantshoulders.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/20071020-atpase.png
And even this isn't very good since the real thing obviously isn't colour coded. In most cases this is just to make things simpler but in the case of the Discovery Institute they used it to make the thing look more mechanical than it really is. Proteins don't move like that. They don't open and close on hinges their actual morphology changes. For example: In the video they show a small bump in the gamma subunit pushing the beta and alpha subunits open. Not only is that not how it works, but that bump doesn't even exist in that way. They lied in order to make it appear more mechanical than it really is.
The same is true of the paper I cited:
Jonckheere's review is exactly that; a review. It's a comprehensive description of morphology, assembly and pathology of ATP synthase. At no point does she reference ADP magically transforming into ATP in a flash of lightening, protons entering an ion channel one by one, any kind of mechanical movement of the protein at all or phosphate groups magically appearing from solution as if ATP synthase can just poof them into existence. These are real chemical processes not the mixture of machinery and magic DI claim it to be. The only thing they got right is that it spins.
Nicely done!
Wouldn't it be accurate to say that "the bump" on the shaft is a cam and therefore the shaft is a bonifide camshaft?
The newly released book "Your Designed Body" by Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksman, MD use that exact term.
Well said!!!
Intelligent design!!! I love this video!
Simply amazing!
Cars don't replicate and evolve, and evolution isn't random.
Get thee behind me, Darwin!
Thanks for this awesome video and God Bless
You had me in the first half not gonna lie...
Fantastic animation, and very good simplistic, yet accurate description of the mechanism of ATP synthase. Well done.
Incredible! But one question. What is it that positions the ADP into the correct position in the ATP Synthase? Do they just randomly bump all over and some make it to the correct place? Or is there some mechamism to deliver them to the correct position?
I've seen many of these kinds of animations and we see machines "going places" as if they're little spacecraft with guidance systems. How do these various machines and molecules move around the cell to where they need to go?
We need More awesome videos like this ! please provide more. I am a student and it really helps us.. thank you.
That's a terrible idea.
If you're actually a student then this is an awful source. It's a professionally produced video only because the people who funded it have very, very deep pockets. ATP Synthase doesn't look or behave even remotely similar to the way it's portrayed in the video, the makers just lied about it in order to push their conspiracy theory. If you're a student then the information in a source should outweigh how pretty it looks. Even though the video's very pretty they still lied about what ATP Synthase is, what it looks like and how it works.
That's not helpful.
+Uzziya Thanks, for your reply. But in order to understand the machinery I really need to watch some animations. If you know any trustable source from where I can get authentic animations, please share with me, it will help me a lot....
Bibs Photography Well that's the thing, proteins aren't machines; it doesn't work like that. They don't move like motors they move like chemicals. Dr.Barry has a lot of that sort of thing but aside from him nobody aside from those who just want something pretty to show off (and in this case trick stupid people) can be bothered. Even then, Dr.Barry's work is like real proteins in that the ball-and-stick molecule kits are like real atoms.
Nicolás Vera Cabello Yes, that's a great idea.
"The animation is completely accurate. Now plug your ears and don't listen to anyone who knows better. They're just haters"
What a wonderful way to go about life. If you never listen to people explaining how you're wrong then you never have to confront it. Brilliant! We'll never have to think critically again. We can just block out the wrong think.
Nicolás Vera Cabello Bullshit.
Also I think you might want to re-evaluate your source. I can't even read the language and I know from the diagram alone that it doesn't agree with you either.
Awesome! Thank you. :)
The process of atp to energy to adp to organic back to atp is irreducibly complex.
Thanks for your view. I'll take that into consideration.
Accurate biological animations are hard to come by. This one was great until the last sentence, "ATP synthase: an example of intelligent design."
Oh well, I could still use it with the audio turned off.
Evolution is only possible via intelligent design. This video is a great example.
"That make your life and all known life possible"
Someone better tell all the micro-organisms that don't generate ATP in this way...
They called back and said they still needed them to balance pH within their cytoplasm. If they can't pump protons out of their cytoplasm, they die.
There is no way this kind of specified complexity could have ever arisen without a lot of planning and conscious input from an intelligent designer.
Great video!
=)
so clear and cool
At last ! Someone who agrees with me...
There is no way this complexity was generated by blind processes
I am honestly very surprised to see quite literally machines at work at this level. I find it even more interesting that those same mechanisms are what the human mind came up with to solve everyday challenges not knowing that is at the core of life itself. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Hi ! i have a question for the Discovery team or for everybody who is able to answer me !
I'd love to know if every phase af the cellular machinery is defined by steps validated by conditions like in an industrial automatism or in a computer program ?
Fred Hoyle, from Cambridge University said "...Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
He was also in disagreement with the theory of the bing bang, until such evidence was found (background microwave radiation), and he failed on this particular issue.
@Cool ATGC Are the 4 bases for DNA. ATGC also stands for All Things God Created (DNA). We can do both, have both, believe in both. They are not exclusive of each other.
@@oliverleslie7382 or All Things God Couldn't
@@veganbackpacking-8559 Science can't prove god doesn't exist. Whatever science says about how things came to be, the religious side could always say yeah, and god made that so; god created the big bang, created the moon and stars, nitrogen, rain and ice cream. Religious folk can say "go science and continue to do the math, figure out the details to explain god's work, have at it." And science, all they can do is shrug their shoulders and just keep on keepin on. I don't see why it is any kind of important for one side to be right. Both can exist and be valid and serve respective purposes.
Ollie, That just comes across as theists leeching off the work and efforts of scientists to make wildly unjustified claims and ad hoc rationalizations for why reality doesn't behave the way their favorite book of myths claims it does. "As long as you never outright disprove my unfalsifiable claim, I get to act like we're on equal footing, while being a lazy armchair philosopher who contributes nothing to our understanding of reality."
Either put up or shut up.
This is some of the best animation on ATP synthase I've seen so far, yet it's lacking in the exact processes the synthase goes through and this video is attached to the Discovery Institute. So, average.
By now you have probably checked out Omar Ali's videos on this topic. None better than his.
I like the level at which you approach the subject. Respectful dialogue always pleasant.
Thanks you, it is a great animation. Thanks God for life and this molecular machine and related photosyntesis.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.
GLORY TO GOD!
what has this to do with your god?! stop using biology for your weared theses.
HOOOOWWWWW do you look at something this intricate and precise at such a small motherfucking scale and say "That happened by chance. There's no intelligent design."
So a rapid expansion from a single point in space transformed into an infinitely massive universe that's expanding exponentially, and this massive universe is ENTIRELY made up of particles you can't even see without an electron microscope, that somehow fucking line electrons up and shit-HOW IS THAT ALL JUST RANDOM?!?!
*Pants for breath* Goodnight.
+TheLast2nd Crack a science book or two ... it is way more exciting than a religion book. And yes, it certainly can explain how life evolved. Really.
Glen Lancaster One, "crack a science book"? You'd have to be more specific about what subcategory of science. Also, how does one crack a book? I can try to bend it. I doubt I'd have any luck trying to crack paper.
Also, nowhere did I mention Religion. But I'll try to crack a "religion book" as well. Again, not guaranteeing I will be successful.
***** I'm certain my brain would be able to comprehend this entire universe of complexity pretty easily. What my brain does not comprehend is how people can be SO CERTAIN that this isn't because of intelligent design, but simply a chemical reaction.
+TheLast2nd Intelligent design is but another way of saying god.
No invisible deities required to explain the universe and life.
+Glen Lancaster basic structure of dna are made of adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine
(C), and thymine (T) and those basic structures are made of oxygen,
carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. how is it possible for non-life and
un-intelligent elements like nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon will
organise by itself to form T, A C & G dna and repeat itself many
times to form as dna, bio-molecular machines or synthase. maybe you are
intelligent enough to enlighten us how non-life and unintelligent
elements like nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon and oxygen to organise itself
to form as dna, bio-molecular machines, membrance and sythase and maybe
you have degree better that these two guys and you can google them like
francis crick (co-discover of dna) or leslie orgel (father of origin)
and both were pro-evolutionist and had phd physics, chemistry and
bio-molecular scientist from cambridge and oxford university and said
this by leslie orgel "Leslie Orgel had the courage to say, 'It would be
a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth" or
francis crick (co-discoverer of dna) said this "An honest man, armed
with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in
some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been
satisfied to get it going".
SCIENTIFIC METHODS MEANS is OBSERVABLE AND REPEATABLE EVIDENCE. SO IF
YOU DON'T HAVE AN EVIDENCE IT IS JUST A BLIND FAITH.
which first evolved or appeared? dna, dna polymerase, rna polymerase,
helicase, ribosome, nucleus, atp synthase, mitochondria, kinesin or
amino acyl transfer synthethase, many more bio-molecular machines,
nucleus, chaperon, chamber protein or cell itself? those bio-molecular
machines, synthase, synthethase and cell organelle are required to
create a protein from m-rna and transfer-rna. aminoy acyl t-rna
synthethase is required to form anti-codon and protein before it goes
to ribosome and pair it with m-rna. protein will come out of pairing
those 3 pairs and chaperon protein is helping the unshape protein to
bring it to chamber protein and shape by it base on specificity of dna
molecules.
can you point me to any scientists or lab test that have managed to make
life from those 4 elements without pre-amino acids prepared
Great animation!
All these different parts randomly arranged themselves in a way that makes all this work... sure
Matthew Morycinski dude you’re under a spell man. That this or other features of life would ever happen on accident is a joke. Snap out of it.
EZ Money by accident I just mean anything that happens apart from intentionality
The coolest part isn't even the design. The coolest part is that you can come to personally know the designer. Jeremiah 29:13
Thank you God
+Bill CZY every shred of scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning tells us that the universe (all time space and matter) had an absolute beginning, which means that whatever caused all time space and matter to begin to exist must be timeless spaceless and IMMATERIAL because it's logically impossible for matter to cause itself to begin to exist. This cause must also be eternal (uncaused) because there can't be an infinite regress of causes. It must be very powerful and personal. This list of descriptions is God by definition because it is a very good minimal description of how the bible describes God. Odin cannot be the cause of all time space and matter because Odin is a material being. Odin was believed to have a body made out of matter and therefore cannot be the cause of all matter. This is called the kalam cosmological argument. Look it up if you aren't already familiar with it.
+Bill CZY I understand that you do not literally believe in Odin lol. You are trying to parody the belief in the Christian God by replacing Him with Odin. The point is that your parody does not work because Odin is not an adequate explanation for the universe while the Christian God is.
+DEUTSCHER ZOCKERSTAMMTISCH no that does not follow at all. This is bad reasoning known to philosophers as the "genetic fallacy".
I can use your exact words in this police analogy: "there are 4200 suspects who are suspected of committing the murder. Some say 4199 are not the real murderer. Some say none of them are the real murderer. The chances that any 1 of them is the real murderer is 0.023%." So what would the police say? "There must be no real murderer. Let's just throw out the whole case."?
No of course not. When they find the suspect that the evidence points to, that person becomes the prime suspect and that is the same reasoning you should use is the case of concluding which worldview is true. I think the case for Christianity is head and shoulders above every other world view, especially atheism, so I conclude that Christianity is the correct world view.
+Matthew C "why a being that exists eternally is more logical than an infinite regress?"
God exists eternally in the sense that He was timeless before creating the universe. But prior to the universe coming into existence there are no events occurring because there is no space or matter and therefore no problem of infinite regress. Only an immaterial timeless personal being (God) can solve the problem of infinite regress. So an eternally existent being is more plausible than an infinite regress I think.
+Matthew C God on the Christian worldview is immaterial meaning non-physical meaning God has no body. God doesn't have neurons or vocal cords or hands or any part of a body. By "made in Gods image" the bible just means we are endowed with some of Gods attributes like rationality, free will, and moral awareness etc. It doesn't mean we physically look like him. And personhood does not require cause and effect. There is nothing incoherent about a being with free will who exists timelessly until He freely chooses to create and then God would enter into time.
ADP Synthase an example of Millions of years of evolution
Amazing Thank you
without getting into debate about intelligent design vs evolution i will state this simple fact
at one point in history we did not even know what our individual organs did
at one point we did not even know cells existed
at one point we did not even know DNA existed
at one point we did not even know these molecular machines existed
at one point we did not even know how these molecular machines worked
This means that just because we do not understand something here and now works does not mean we will never understand. these breakthroughs in our scientific knowledge and understanding take time.
were these machines and life as we know it created by some higher power? we do not know
were these machines created through evolution and natural selection? science is fairly sure but one can still make the argument we do not know.
in 120 years we went from just getting electricity to where we are now in technology. where will we be in another 120 years? what will we know?
one must never jump to conclusions, one should always we looking for for a better understanding of how and why.
Notice that every step along the process that you mention is a recognition of an increase in complexity. Materialistic evolution, though always questionable, was far more believable 100 years ago than it is today.
It's also too good to come out of nowhere from nothing "13 billion" years ago. Thats like sitting down to a three course meal and denying there was a cook that made it....
Good animation especially after the design thing
WONDERFUL VID!
Psalm 139:14 - I will give thanks to you because I have been so amazingly and miraculously made. Your works are miraculous, and my soul is fully aware of this.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:21 - For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 1:22-23 - Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Psalm 14:1 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
Glorified is God
Yay now I know I’ll pass this essay question on my exam!! Thanks 😊
This is absolutely beautiful. I'm a Biochemistry and Molecular Biology major and am constantly amazed at how I can be in such awe of a God that has created such beauty from the smallest parts of our cells to the most vast areas of our universe. Whether He did this through darwinian evolution or some other mechanism is not the point. Can we not just appreciate the beauty and complexity of the life that is all around us?
Occam’s Razor, people. As science advances, the supernatural retreats. Religion can exist only at the margins. And those margins are constantly getting smaller. Religion may try to disguise itself with scientific sounding talk, but it's always a stop gap, a battle in retreat. What isn't necessary to explain some phenomenon must be eliminated. That includes intelligent design.
"As science advances, the supernatural retreats."
With origins (ie. how did these biological machines arise) that simply hasn't been happening. Hasn't been happening for decades! The more we learn about how these things work and how unexpectedly sophisticated they are, the less is understood about how they could have arisen via mindless processes. Most scientists of course continue to BELIEVE this actually is how they arose (because they are philosophical materialists) but there is less and less scientific justification for holding such beliefs as we continue to fill in the blanks about how they operate. What science can do can, is to study all about how they work, and evolutionary biology will attempt to link them into some kind of phylogenetic tree to try to get an idea of what they have supposedly evolved from, but such tree building hasn't been very successful in the big picture, as there are many conflicting trees being generated by such exercises, when there ought to be convergence towards the ONE TRUE tree of life. At the moment it seems to be the case that such a tree does not exist.
Intelligent design as an explanation for how they arose is the obvious alternative.
***** What makes you think IC has been refuted? You been listening to Ken Miller perhaps? He changes the definition of "system function" and then (since the sub parts of an IC object can in many cases have their own function separate to the IC system of which they're a part) he claims that IC is a bogus concept.
But making that claim is bypassing the argument to say something different which is in and of itself self evident, but is also irrelevant to the original IC claim regarding how the stated 'system function' requires all of the parts of the irreducible core in order to carry out the system function..
For example, if I said a car engine is an IC assembly of the engine block with cylinders bored into it, conrods, pistons, crankshaft, and head with camshaft and valves bored into it, with a carburettor and fuel supply (and an atmosphere with an oxidant gas) and that the 'system function' of that engine is = 'rotation of the crankshaft to produce torque'.
Then it's as if Ken Miller has come along and is saying that a conrod can make a reasonable spoon for eating, and that a piston can be a plate, and that the engine \block makes a VERY effective paperweight.
All true.
But then he would say - therefore --> combustion engine is not IC.
NO! Because he has ignored THE WHOLE POINT of the claim about what it was that was IC. That claim being that the SYSTEM FUNCTION (rotation of the crankshaft to produce torque) is iC because it requires all of those parts to function.
What conrods and pistons and engine blocks etc. can also do outside of an engine is irrelevant to whether or not the system function (rotation of the crankshaft to produce torque) is IC or not.
See what I mean?
Also, a throttle for example isn't a part of the 'irreducible core' of parts required for the previoulsy defined system function. The throttle enables control of the torque, but torque control (although very useful) wasn't in the system functions definition as previously stated. An unthrottled engine will still produce (maximum) torque.
*****
In order to summarize my previous point:
I claim - the combustion engine was most likely designed, argued in part, because the system function of the engine (rotation of the crankshaft to produce torque) is IC.
To which you say - the engine isn't IC, because I can use conrods as spoons!
Huh? It just doesn't follow.
***** " 'Design' isn't nearly so obvious in that case is it?"
Why wouldn't it be? If you then commented that you could use those 'floating in the sea engine conrod spoons' as spoons to eat with, how in the ocean would that show that such an engine wasn't irreducibly complex? Especially as it happily manages to keep on running while floating in water! That's a pretty well designed engine. No?
***** "Remember the onus is on ID proponents to prove that something IS irreducibly complex, not on everyone else to show that it's not."
Demonstrating irreducible complexity has been done. If you take away any of the components in the irreducible core of an irreducibly complex machine, then the system function of that machine will cease.
That has been done experimentally for the flagellum. There are many other IC machines, but the flagellum is the one talked about all the time because everyone is pretty falimilar with it.
It has probably also been done (in practise) for the internal combustion engine. Although a fairly simple to imagine thought experiment demonstrates that an internal combustion engine is irreducibly complex.
For example, try operating an internal combustion engine without the cylinder head. It's not going to work because the cylinder head acts as the combustion ceiling for each cylinder (without it you can't pressurize the cylinders) and also (thanks to the inbuilt (in the cylinder head) valves and camshaft) enables there to be 4 engine cycles (intake, compression, power & exhaust). Without the cylinder head you also won't have fuel injection, although it would be possible to put the injectors separately in position over the cylinders, along with the spark plugs too. But in that case, all that would happen is that the fuel would spray out, be lit by the spark plugs, and basically set the engine block on fire, but there's no power stroke, so there no rotation. In that case there would be one stroke - "heat stroke" - ha ha ha ha!!!
So once we have the machine demonstated to be irreducibly complex, we then can think about how it might have evolved. We need there to be a whole series of changing systems functions over time. Given the level of system interdependability and precision required, we can argue in just about all cases that such an evolution scenrio involving changing system functions along with the evolution of new functions and the exaptation of existing functions along with sufficient modification to enable interoperability, causes such an evolutionary scheme (referred to as an infdirect Darwinian pathway) to be extremely improbable. Improbable enough that we ought to then infer to the far and away best known process which has been empirically (and pervasively) shown to be able to rapidly design and construct irreducibly complex machines. That being engineering (which is 'intelligent design' as understood be humans).
What reason would there be for a person to reject this inference to ID and instead opt for a mindless evolutionary process?
That would be for two main reasons.
(1) They wan't to explore the possibility of it having evolved rather than having been designed. There's nothing wrong with that - knock yourselves out. Such a research schemne cannot help but advance scientific knowledge whether it is successful or not.
(2) They wan't to reject an ID inference because they are materialists and do not believe ID has been responsible for the origins of biology. Again they can believe that if they want to, but in that case (as their choice depends not on the results of scientific research, but on their world view of philosophical materialism, such a choice is optional to science.
It basically boils down to the notion that some will accept the inference to ID and others won't. I'm fine with that. The problem comes when those with a materialist worldview attempt to impose their view on others who don't. That should not be done, but it very often is.
Doing that (saying that ID isn't science because materialism disallows it) is the same thing as saying that evolution will be disallowed because the Bible teaches special creation.
It's OK for a group to hold a belief, and for them to attempt to convince othrs that they should also hold that belief. It's not OK for that group to impose their belief on others if the others do not choose to accept it.
If we're talking about scientists, then the same principle holds, that scientists are free to hold any belief they want to, but they're not free (as scientists) to impose their belief on others in the name of science, when their belief has not been scientifically demonstrated.
That holds for both ID and materialism.
Until one side is shown to be correct, then whether to accept or reject both ID and materialism has to be up to the individuals.
If god created us out of a miracle, why do people think they can scientifically prove that a miracle took place. All God says is look at the residue that my miracle left behind. That we can observe, thats science.
Nobody is trying to prove that a miracle took place (although that's actually possible.) You're begging the question by asserting that ID proponents are looking for a miracle.
ID proponents are attempting to prove that certain events took place because of the deliberate intervention of sentient agents. Such things are proved all the time by the application of forensic analysis, by anthropologists, and even (at the margins of science) by astronomers attempting to locate signals from non-human intelligences in our universe.
If you don't agree, please explain to me by what magic or faith an anthropologist infers human agents from the presence of ashes, arrowheads, or shards of pottery. If that's not science, what is it?
+Lurch Hightower
What you describe is the dilemma of the concept of divine intervention. It can be invoked to explain just about anything as being the result of some divine intelligence outside the natural world. The hand of divinity (god, devil, etc) from outside the natural world comes in and manipulates it to make an event happen, often an event that is perceived to be extraordinary in goodness or evil, one that had a low chance of happening, or one that involved a significant effect on the condition of people (a flood, famine, etc). It gets worse. This type of explanation can be invoked all the time, not just for special events. The force between atoms can be considered a divine act. The entire process of natural biological evolution can be described as a continuous act of the hand of the divine constantly manipulating the arrangements of atoms to evolve or devolve life. Even gravity can be considered to be the manipulation of mass by a divine being.
www.theonion.com/article/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int-1778
In an attempt to deny how ad hoc the concept is, some people try to say that it doesn't happen all the time but rather only on 'special occasions' that they personally deem to be the 'special occasions' which are usually consistent with the religious beliefs (immaculate conception, etc) that they have been taught to believe. Others won't even make an effort to explain the time and location of the act of divine intervention and simply make vague references to 'intelligent design'. They usually fail to make any reference to 'intelligent failure' to describe all of the biological failures that have occurred during the time that biological evolution occurred.
In the Judeo-Christian faith, a strong distinction is made between the natural and supernatural world, hence the popular concept of something supernatural intervening with the natural world on special occasions. In other religious faiths there isn't a clear distinction between natural and supernatural and there isn't a need for the 'special events' divine intervention that is popular in the JC faith.
looks like I've started some discussion here
bahut gandha hai
I admire your certainty. It must be comforting.
Agree with Zac, I think we can all agree this is AWESOME beyond words. What a machine?!!
Forget how it got here, it's still incredible.
The god of evolution could not design that.
The best argument against evolution is that religious people still exist... but then again, so does the appendix.
Except that I work in gastroenterology, and the doctors that I ask say that the appendix is NOT a vestige of our past, but indeed has a purpose. It is surrounded by lymph tissue that is visible upon endoscopy, and it perhaps houses good bacteria in order to replenish the gut when we get sick or an imbalance.
What amazing design
amazing.
Pretty good animation until the design thing
Mankind are capable to 'create', made (assemble) *_artificial intelligent robots / machines_* (an inanimate non-living thing), _program_ it, even _'communicate'_ with it and _command_ it to perform certain amazing tasks.
...but *God* is far more beyond, *He* created _quarks, atoms, molecules_ (an inanimate non-living thing) or even the thing smaller than those ;
Just imagine, like as a *_miniature Nano Super AI robots / machines_*, God could _"programs"_ it, _inspires_ and _commands_ them to perform certain astounding, splendour tasks, such as a _molecular bio-machines_ in a cells.
_Al-Qur'an, Surah 41 ~ Fussilat (Explained in detail)_
_41:11__ ~ Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."_
God guides, inspires the Universe, inspires to all things.
_The answer for ;_
_The "missing gap" of Molecular Evolution hypothesis for the atheist scientists._
+Cherry Grey basic structure of dna are made of adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T) and those basic structures are made of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. how is it possible for non-life and
un-intelligent elements like nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon will organise by itself to form T, A C & G dna and repeat itself many times to form as dna, bio-molecular machines or synthase. maybe you are intelligent enough to enlighten us how non-life and unintelligent elements like nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon and oxygen to organise itself to form as dna, bio-molecular machines, membrance and sythase and maybe you have degree better that these two guys and you can google them like francis crick (co-discover of dna) or leslie orgel (father of origin) and both were pro-evolutionist and had phd physics, chemistry and bio-molecular scientist from cambridge and oxford university and said this by leslie orgel "Leslie Orgel had the courage to say, 'It would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth" or francis crick (co-discoverer of dna) said this "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".
SCIENTIFIC METHODS MEANS is OBSERVABLE AND REPEATABLE EVIDENCE. SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN EVIDENCE IT IS JUST A BLIND FAITH.
which first evolved or appeared? dna, dna polymerase, rna polymerase, helicase, ribosome, nucleus, atp synthase, mitochondria, kinesin or amino acyl transfer synthethase, many more bio-molecular machines,
nucleus, chaperon, chamber protein or cell itself? those bio-molecular machines, synthase, synthethase and cell organelle are required to create a protein from m-rna and transfer-rna. aminoy acyl t-rna synthethase is required to form anti-codon and protein before it goes to ribosome and pair it with m-rna. protein will come out of pairing those 3 pairs and chaperon protein is helping the unshape protein to bring it to chamber protein and shape by it base on specificity of dna molecules.
can you point me to any scientists or lab test that have managed to make life from those 4 elements without pre-amino acids prepared
+stargate goku Have you ever heard of the famous Russian biochemist Алекса́ндр Ива́нович Опа́рин?
+stargate goku a common mistake creationists make is sticking to a simplistic, definition of scientific method and dismissing anything that doesn't fall strictly into the narrow sentence that SCIENCE IS OBSERVATION AND TESTING GTFO its possible to hypothesise without first observing a phenomenon.
Also DNA did not arise straight from single nucleotides, its hypothesised tha RNA preceded it and served both as genectic code and protein function.
+Defgunt it's been tried by leslie orgel (evolutionist) the father of origin of life and said this ""Leslie Orgel had the courage to say, 'It would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth" and also how an RNA can organise itself from non-life elements life nitogen, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen. also you have to remember each time there's an activity, atp is required and you know the process, without mitochondria, there's no atp synthase and no food intake, there will be no glucose to synthesise. the question is which first appeared and evolved. even a simple organism of 397 dna, it would require a combination of 3.6^1253 combination to have one simple organism. can you show me a scientist who managed to create self-replilcating single cell from those non-life element without pre-amino acid prepared?
Some of the comments here are just so ignorant: "Wow I can't believe this thing just evolved, it's so complex it must be god".Now I don't blame anyone for not undestanding how biological systems work and evolve but please just don't make conclusions without having the knowledge about the subject.It's very complex with many factors having to be taken into consideration in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology to explain how this "machinery" works.But it's all natures laws at work.And again it's very COMLEX.That's why these things are not taught in such detail like for example mathematial theories schools, because the concept is too advanced unless you are studying the field.
And you can be in awe of nature without having to link it to some deity.
Peace!
nice try pocko, simple question, how do you incorporate all the non living chemistry to a living organism. there is no mechanism to accomplish this. the cell wall, and all the parts are run by the dna. transforming an asexual organism to sexual is beyond undirected natural process...God done it is not by ignorance, but by knowledge. God's best
i liked it cos the background music and the guy's voice is just a perfect combination ahahha >_
+Amy Irmayanti Indeed !! xD
Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
Oh my you are just the brightest aren't you! So which deity exactly designed all of this? several thousand to choose from! I take it your God designed humans in his own likeness too?
How many realities there are? - only one.
How many eyes there are here? - more than one.
One 'world' of possibilities.
Many expressions of this 'field' of possibilities.
There are things we are not obligated to impose to ourselves or superpose onto ourselves...
Like self-inflicted stuberness or stupidity. (No ofense intended)
It's sad that some of the best animations of bio molecules are made by the nutjobs.
Anyway, great animation and thanks to billions of years of evolution.
MrTridac lol it's obviously designed
How many types of ATPases do you know? I know quite a lot, and if you compare those it becomes obvious that it's not designed.
Or the designer was either really drunk, really lazy or really stupid (I'd guess all of it).
MrTridac nope life is obviously designed and God did a marvelous job designing it. Are there some things God could have made better? Of course. IF HE WANTED TO God could have made us all much physically stronger or our brains a million times smarter or God could have made our bodies impervious to death and disease or our cells impervious to aging. But, on the Christian world view Gods purpose for this life is not to make our lives comfortable and perfectly happy. Gods purpose for this life is to bring the maximal number of people into a saving relationship with Himself. And a world that is infused with various degrees of pain and sorrow may very well be the world in which the maximal number of people freely come into a saving relationship with Him.
wow ....this is the most beautiful film i have seen ever
Anyone know where I can download this song? Can't find it.
Mindless and unguided evolution couldn't have done this.
Yes. It could. Just because you cannot fathom it, does not make it less true. This is design alright. Trial and error over millennia.
MSU BMB 401 trial And error!! There should be something intelligent in order to ...TRY!
@@jean-marclamothe8859
That's not what trial and error means in evolutionary biology.
I Know, i know you guys are adapting your definition to fit your beliefs and this is another demonstration of intelligence too! But anything you can say could ever change my mind that the beginning of life was somewhere intentional. Just mix chemicals together even with a flash of lightning or two could never make that! It is just irrational to me. You have your belief and I have mine!
@@jean-marclamothe8859
I understand that you don't have much idea about what you don't believe in. Either that or you're wilfully distorting what it really is and citing that as a reason for your disbelief. Either way, if you are determined to hold on to your beliefs no matter what, which is okay, then maybe science isn't for you, which is okay as well.
Scrolled downwards to cringe at triggered atheists.
Wasn't disapointed xD
@Gabe Norman Deadly joke
Very nice video
I love this animated illustration of the nano world within. Well done Discovery, and Thankyou for your dedication to this field. Progress on the intricate understanding of the cell has certainly moved light years forward from the mysterious jelly blob cell era of 150 years ago. Thanks again, for the inspirational video. Murray Forbes.
intelligent design my ass. its called evolutionary search of solutions.
Prove it was evolution. Oh, that's right... you can't. And neither can any molecular biologist on the planet. Do some research and see for yourself. Richard Dawkins is a bold-faced liar, and you're a fool if you believe him.
***** Not necessarily Matt. Duplication events are one of the main drivers of evolution because they provide genetic redundancy. So it allows one copy to randomly be mutated to possibly gain new function while the other one acts as a backup. Moreover, a lot of speciation doesn't necessarily require development of new DNA or denegeration, just changes in regulation. If your bird had an offspring with a mutation that released more "beak growing hormone", then perhaps thats how the birds gained those big beaks.
You have to remember, evolution happens over generations. A worm cant crawl up onto the surface and try to evolve eyes. But over MANY generations these can develop and be selected for.
john smith "A worm cant crawl up onto the surface and try to evolve eyes. But over MANY generations these can develop and be selected for."
And pray tell, has this been scientifically verified yet? Matt clearly said speciation occurs via loss of genetic data. For a worm to gain eyes, information has to be added, regardless of the number of generations. It can't be randomly inserted via endogenous retroviruses either, as that mainly leads to destruction of function. Statistically speaking, it would only amount to an overall increase of "noise" or junk. So, has this development been verified yet or is it a "just-so" story being thrown around? And then you guys say evolution is *scientific*? Err.. what???
ZZ Stop Prove it was intelligent design. That argument gets you nowhere.
Dagonet Centauri Not completely sure what your question is. Here are a few points though 1. I disagree with matt in that speciation occurs via loss. I argue that speciation, like you say, requires new genetic "data". 2. I assert that duplication events, or chromosomal insertions, from endogenous cellular processes are sources of "new information". 3. I agree, retroviruses would be a poor source of genetic variability. 4. You cannot necessarily scientifically verify that this is the cause, but the evidence supports this theory. By having redundant copies of a gene, it provides a backup, so that mutation events aren't lethal. Subsequently, in a large population, on the off chance that you have a gain of function mutation, this provides the source of "new information".
Hope this helps
Sweet animation, terrible argument. Human design has still a long road to go before approaching the molecular complexity that natural selection has achieved. If human machines and molecular machines are loosely analogous, it is because the laws of physics impose constraints on what could and could not work.
Can you please show me when and how natural selection has designed something like this? I know you believe it already but have you see it for yourself? Has anyone?
No one has seen the process occurring in real time, this is because natural selection is similar to cosmic processes, they occur along vast expanses of time and space. For understanding how life and the universe came into existence, human beings must recur to indirect evidence like sampling, statistics and inference. The existence of protobacteria and extremely simple life forms, which have molecular machinery that seem to predate more complex forms, as well as the self-assembly and auto-organization of organic chemistry, is convincing evidence that you do not require a creator. In any case, if you believe in a creator (say god), then you are the one that must explain how such a highly complex and improbable being came into existence. If you think natural selection is not a probable cause for complexity, then you must explain how do you believe in god, which is necessarily much more complex than a biomolecule. With the latter I want to challenge you on the same grounds you have established. It does not suffices to say god did it, you must explain how such being came into existence first.
I know we shouldn't stereotype people, but would you agree if I said that understand the biochemical process of life makes implicitly a pantheist, or an atheist ?
There are scientists that believe in god, for example Francis Collins, one of the directors of the Human Genome Project. How they are able to compartmentalize both science and religion is not easy to understand by me. However, learning science often generates a healthy dose of skepticism that will distance you from the dogmas of religion.
Thank you for the example, I'll hear what he has to say.
My aim wasn't at religion, as I know them, they answer with dogmas rather than rational proof when they are asked. I wanted to know what would be the "norm" in the belief of a superior being that made the universe. At what we would call a religiousless God, basically. Even if we are talking about a small trace of energy without any will.
Plus I've already seen amny religious people combine modern science with religion, which is also irrational if you oppose a few religious facts with sciences but their paradigm are... agreeable I guess. We don't have to accept it, but it's a view that can't be refuted.
Thank you for your answer.
Could you, plz, add names of the subunits, cause it's hard to anderstand what is what. Anyway, thanks for your video)
The point of shared specific gene sequences is that it points to shared sources; if you compare gene families across species, it is more likely from a common descent perspective that the less changed a gene is between two organisms, the shorter ago is the time that they diverged.
2:45 Did he just say 'elegantly designed'? Why would he say that on a science youtube channel? It sounded like he was implying religion when he said that.
hi nic, you must not have seen many evolution (dawinist) vids. even words like miracle are used or the best example is "there must be an element of strategically improbability in each of these evolutional steps...that build up complex improbability...but the mega improbability...can only come about by a cascade of micro improbable steps."
or “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1} or
“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}
how looney. at least hes being honest with the math and engineering even though dawkins has made a career out of explaining it away.
God's best
boyofGod81 And this!- "This Amazing complex Nano Machines (talking about the Kenesin in the cell that carries out protein to the right place in the body ) that HAS evolved by evolution in million of years and bla bla bla... How did anything worked in the cell Before the things find the right way to do it???
hi Susanne Stenmark we are just using ear rational arguments. we need to have "scientists" tell us their fairy tails. God's best
boyofGod81 I dont know if I was somehow missunderstood? I dont belive in evolution. I have been reeding ALL arguments in every subject in detail- both sides! And to hear words like "we cant explaine how this happend-but we DO know that it DID happen, somehow.." Something that started to uppset me more and more, was this argument that becouse we all have the same genetic Construction- we must have evolved. No.. God just used DNA and cells and proteins to do Everything living on this planet :)
YourArgumentIsInvalid Yes :) I do know that..
Brilliant video, but Intelligent Design? Get real. You just don;t understand evolution, molecular genetics and chance and necessity. Read 'Chance and Necessity' by Jaques Monod if you think there is any credence to ID.
Read Stephen Meyer's books "Signature in the Cell" & "Darwin's Doubt" if you still give credence to Jaques Monod.
I haven't read that, but what would necessity have to do with evolution?
Chance? Did you say chance? the word chance? Oh man that was a good one, it made me cry while laughing X..D
awesome!
I'm more of a math and physics person and I'm not that really interested that much into Biology but I really understood this because of the animation and I'm a car guy so it really caught my attention when I heard the terms rotary engine and driveshaft
Those last 5 seconds ruined the video.... Intelligent design? I believe in a god but the idea of 'irreducible complexity' is just plain wrong.
+Jaffar Raza Jamshead maybe you are intelligent enought to enlighten us how non-life and
unintelligent elements like nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon and oxygen to
organise itself to form as dna, bio-molecular machines, membrance and
sythase and maybe you have degree better that these two guys and you can
google them like francis crick (co-discover of dna) or leslie orgel
(father of origin) and both were pro-evolutionist and had phd physics,
chemistry and bio-molecular scientist from cambridge and oxford
university and said this by leslie orgel "Leslie Orgel had the courage
to say, 'It would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the
primitive Earth" or francis crick (co-discoverer of dna) said this "An
honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only
state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to
be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to
have been satisfied to get it going".
how is it possible for non-life and non-intelligent elements like
nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon will organise by itself to form T,
A C & G dna and repeat itself many times to form as dna,
bio-molecular machines or synthase. SCIENTIFIC METHODS MEANS is
OBSERVABLE AND REPEATABLE EVIDENCE. SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN EVIDENCE IT
IS JUST A BLIND FAITH.
which first evolved or appeared? dna, dna polymerase, rna polymerase,
helicase, ribosome, nucleus, atp synthase, mitochondria, kinesin or
amino acyl transfer synthethase, many more bio-molecular machines,
nucleus, chaperon, chamber protein or cell itself? those bio-molecular
machines, synthase, synthethase and cell organelle are required to
create a protein from m-rna and transfer-rna. aminoy acyl t-rna
synthethase is required to form anti-codon and protein before it goes to
ribosome and pair it with m-rna. protein will come out of pairing those
3 pairs and chaperon protein is helping the unshape protein to bring it
to chamber protein and shape by it base on specificity of dna
molecules.
can you point me to any scientists or lab test that have managed to make
life from those 4 elements without pre-amino acids prepared and just
putting
+Jaffar Raza Jamshead "I believe in a god but the idea of 'irreducible complexity' is just plain wrong."
IC means there's a threshold of neccessary parts assembled in a certain manner in order to achieve some particular system function. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with that. Do you? I'm thinking that someone has redefined what IC means to you perhaps, so that you're actually arguing against a straw man version of IC, rather than how it was originally defined.
Lets get more precise. IC is defined this way: "A system performing a basic given function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts, such that each part in the set is indipensible to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensible parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."
Do you disagree with that defintion of IC? Or are you really arguing against some other concept otherwise related to IC?
Check out the following article:
www.discovery.org/a/3408
***** It's your opinion that the design inference is wrong, but nevertheless a strong case exists for design because at the moment no other scenario (meaning - all evolutionary scenarios yet conceived) can explain how such high levels of functional information could have appeared. In short, because there could not have been even close to enough evolutionary trials (rounds of mutations followed by the effects of natural selection) that could explain the appearance of high level functional information, which has been scientifically demonstrated to be very very rare combinations of amino acids (if we're talking about proteins, or protein machines for example). Remember that the reason evolutionary scenarios are scientific, is because they make predictions about what can happen (and what cannot) and thus, can be tested. So far such testing has failed to explain the origin of high level functional information in biology.
DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME THOUGH. I'm NOT saying that theories of evolution fail all tests. NO! It has been scientifically demonstrated many times over that evolution is real, and we can say that evolution has been observed in both the laboratory and in nature. Many of it's predictions are also confirmed by observations. But - even though evolution is a valid scientirfic theory, it nevertheless does not manage to explain the origin of functional information beyond a very low threshold. In other words, evolution has limitations, based on the time available, the mutation rate, the population sizes, the ratio of advantageous versus deleterious mutations, etc. Simply put, evolution has a kind of a speed limit. What evolution is good at is in making small adjustments to existing functional information, but what it doesn't explain is how the large amounts of already existing functional information got there in the first place. It's "speed limit" means that in order to explain the amount of functional information we observe in biology, it would have to have been proceeding for much longer than the time available, and / or with much larger populations than are actually available.
So it's science itself that explains why (KNOWN) theories of evolution cannot explain much of what we see, but perhaps do explain certain minor features of what we see.
An analogy would be with rockets. You can't expect a fireworks rocket to go higher than a few hundred feet. You certainly would reject the notion that it could go all the way to the moon. Science tells you the reasons why.
Another way to put this is - while (currently known theories of) evolution do explain the survival of the fittest, these theories cannot explain the arrival of that just about all of that pre-existing fitness.
Of course, many believe that evolution does explain all of this, but then debates ensure over these issues. Once we clear the air about whether evolution is real or not (it clearly is real) we can then show that while it's real, it also has real limitations (a "speed limit" so to speak) such that it fails to explain the origin of most of what we see in biology, due to the fundamental limitations of time, muations rate and population sizes. And I don't mean it's misses the mark by a little. You couldn't even say it misses the mark by a lot. It misses the mark, HUGE, BELIEVE ME, as Donald Trump might say.
***** No, you're right, an eternal / cyclic / multiverse type scenario could in principle explain everything by sheer force of probablity overcoming scientific laws (once in a long long while). But until we observe such a scenario being real, it's not verifiable science. On the other hand, until we observe God (or whatever the designer is) we also cannot say that DESIGN (in the case of biology) is verifiable science either.
But one thing we do observe is that whenever in the here and now we need to explain the rapid origin of a large amount of functional information, we'll automatically attribute it to the work of intelligent design, and mostly because we see this routinely (in science, engineering, art, etc.) being carried out by humans. We also have a potential scenario to invoke design as the explanation to (as yet unobserved, but plausible in principle) patterns of space signals which do not fit material explanations. In other words, if nature seems unable to do it, design can explain it. It's a kind of obvious GO TO explanation since we are so accustomed to it here on earth. After all we don't just observe it, we do it, and to be honest we really don't know how we do it, as we don't really know what intelligence is, but we do know we do it from experience.
Now you said that "the design hypothesis has been shown to fail time and time again in pretty much every other way, and because naturalistic explanations automatically are more plausible (if you rightly adhere to methodological naturalism like a good scientist will)"
Well, first I'd need to know some examples of how it fails time and again. I think that's debatable, unless of course you're talking about the initial attributions of things like thunder and volcanoes etc. to the work of the god's perhaps. But pre-scientific eras aside, I don't agree that design fails again and again as an explantion. If you're talking about protein machines like the flagellum having been explained apart from design, all I can say is that there is by now a large body of literature that disagrees with and refutes such claims.
You said that natural explanation are automatically more plausible than design. I very much agree. But with the obvious proviso being the natural explanation actually needs to be able to explain the origin of (fill in the blank) not just generally hint at a general approach to a solution that may or may not stand up to scrutiny. As for methodological naturalism, again it is more plausible than design when one has to choose between two explanations that both explain the data. So if some kind of process fully explains the evolution of antibacterial resistance, then we of course choose to invoke that natural explanation. A working natural explanation renders design not false, but uneccessary.
But when natural explantions fall far short, then the ONLY reason "good scientists" will choose to rule out design at the start, is because they have limited themselves to a "correct choice" of origins scenarios, that being those which do not include design as a possibility. Need I say more than that such an approach is biased and not in the spirit of following where the evidence leads in the pursuit of truth.
So basically it comes down to what one is willing to consider as an explanation. If one choose to rule out design at the start, then such an approach will be blind to design regardless of the evidence. Seriously! Such an approach means that you cannot see what might be a "staring-you-in-the-face watertight case for design". Whereas on the other hand, if one doesn't rule out design at the satrt, then one can accept design as a tentative interim explanation, either ffom then on, or up until such a time as some natural explanation turns up that explains the data. Why not use an approach that includes both options? Why is ruling out design altogether a better approach? There's always going to be competition and scientists who want to explore the natural world and make a name for themselves by discovering natural explanations for the hitherto unexplained.
It has been said that including design "shuts down the search for a scientific explanation of (fill in the blank) but nothing could be further from the truth. As you and I both know, designating the origins of some phenomena as "best explained by design" will serve as the greatest challenge imaginable to a large group of scientists who are more than willing to take up such a challenge and have a go at refuting the design inference and perhaps even winning the Nobel Prize. But if we automatically consider all questions of origins as "settled science" then there's going to be less of a challenge to discover the details. In fact ity could be said that ideas like the multiverse already explain everything that needs to be explained. So in a sense, ideas such as "the multiverse" are arguably as much or more "research killers" and "discussion enders" as was any idea of origin by design.
See, "origin by design" proposals and proposlas like "multiverses" are both unverifiable at the moment. Either could be potentially verifiable in the future though. But for now, it really comes down to competing philosophies of origins. Which philosophy you choose to follow, and why you choose to follow it. The choice is yours. My overall point is that while both options remain on the table, the idea that one philosophy has to be rejected out of hand, is wrongheaded, and ultimately, a denial of the principle of following the evidence wherever it leads.
***** "it seems like you're putting forward something similar to the watchmaker analogy in the second paragraph, and i hope i don't have to point out all the flaws in that.
we know how complexity can arise over time, and natural selection is a brilliant example of this."
For now I'll concentrate on this, because I think this is where we can argue constructively.
So yes, I guess I am putting forward design as a version of Paley's watchmaker argument. The argument from design still holds. I would in fact be interested for you to go over the reasons why you think that it doesn't hold up anymore. You say that we know how complexity can arise over time, but my argument is that it cannot feasibly do so given the constraints of our current universe. And I can explain why natural selection cannot assist very much in the increasing of such complexity over time in a feasible manner.
Now of course, if we assume that the multiverse exists, then we can in principle argue that probabilistic arguments can be disregarded, but as we know, a belief in the multiverse at this point, is akin to a belief in God. In fact a physicist once said that if you don't want to invoke God, then you're going to want to invoke the multiverse, in order to explain what would otherwise be inexplicable.
What I'm basically saying is that - without the multiverse - we indeed cannot explain how complexity can arise over time. In fact everything we observe argues for the time reversal of that. We CAN explain how complexity (functional complexity that is) decreases over time (which also involves a role for natural selection). But at the moment, without virtually infinite probabilistic resources, evolution and natural selection don't explain how it can increase as time runs on into the future (which is a similar kind of argument to the second law of thermodynamics, but involving functional order, rather than thermal or other "order". This inability of natural selection to be able to build novel functional complexity feastures, is mainly due to the "irreducible complexity" effect, which renders NS irrelevant to the evolution of novel irreducibly complex features up until such a time as the feature has managed (somehow) to evolve into being by pure unassisted chance, or "random evolution". This makes sense since after all, what natural selection does, is to act on differential fitness. So in order for a novel feature involving an irreducibly complex system to come onto the radar of NS, it must first be able to operate. This is because a tenth, a half, or even three quarters or even ninety percent of a complete irreducibly complex system, will not have the system function in operation of the completed feature. So whatever lack of function, or different functions the evolving new feature may happen to show along the path of evolution, then the involvement or noninvolvement of NS during the evolution pathway, will be irrelevant to the completed function. So as far as the completed function is concerned, there are no guidance forces (like NS) guiding the evolution towards convergence to the final function. Which means the evolving pathway effectively takes place rnadomly, without any of the benefits of NS in order to get it there. And since it can be convincingly argued that the set of functional configurations is vastly outnumbered by the set of functionless and useless configurations, we can conclude that on average, such novel complex features will be unable to evolve. And that if we seek to explain there origin, we need to resort to SUPER-LUCK = the presence of the multiverse, or else design. Don't forget also that in biology, we don't just have to explain a few such apparent miracles of probability, but literally millions of them, all of which will fail an explaination via known laws of nature, but may perhaps be explained by SUPER-LUCK to the millionth power. It seems to stretch the credibility of the Copernican principle into becoming an excuse for the non-acceptance of design, rather than an explanation.of how biology could have originated - in my opinion.
Nice explanation based on research until the last cretinous sentence based on an unproven hypothesis that has killed millions in its defence.
Thank you for not disabling the comments like some of these videos. I'm going to talk to talk to UA-cam about that-you shouldn't be able to put your ideas in a public forum like this without feedback. One constitutes the other mere propaganda. So thanks.
Amazing!!!
What an awful choice of words.
you will use the same words, if you find a computer build with sand particles in a desert, that's the only explanation
If you think that, you're very simple minded.
Prometheee give me another explanation then ? gaussian distribution of send coupled with brownian motion of air molecules ? the best explanation is an "intelligent design",
i did use probability, and the principle of increasing entropy, that's not a simple tool.
Username
Too complicated=My imaginary friend must've made it. Its magical too!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker
Oh just realised this is a religious propaganda channel, I shouldn't have taken it seriously. My bad.
Which softwear you use
I don't think this molecule was "designed" per se, but the basic laws that make up the universe ultimately allowed such a molecule to exist.
Ya, I think the same thing about my computer. The basic laws of the universe allow it to exist.
What basic laws are you talking about. That's the whole point of a designed machine, TO OVERCOME THE BASIC LAWS OF NATURE and achieve the unnatural. The basic laws of the universe show themselves when we die. What happens, everything in our bodies breaks down almost immediately. We rot into a pile of mush.
Please explain how ATP synthase evolved through random point mutation. How did single point mutations create all the various proteins that go into making these machines. Then how did the proteins get together. What brought them together and assembled them. Was it other machines? You can bet it was! And how were they made?
So what you have is molecular machines building other molecular machines. That's pretty cool. But it brings up the question, how do random, single-point mutations build machinery that is only later, once it is all built, build another machine?
***** Hi Joe.
I have to disagree with you on a number of points.
1. You say: "evolution doesn't have to happen via single-point mutations"
My reply: In another post you list a number of other ways DNA is manipulated. But, those other ways are just changing or swapping around the existing genes. So it can all come back to how did the original gene or pieces of the gene come about in the first place?
2. You say: "and the mutations don't even have to be perfectly random"
My reply: Yes they do, according to Darwinian Evolution. If they aren't random, then what is guiding them or making them non-random?
3. You say: "the genes to build a simpler version of that machinery could've served another purpose in the ancestral organism"
My reply: I understand this argument. But, you have to ask yourself, with all the machinery in modern life, did every single bit of it come about through changes from earlier, simpler forms. That is a LOT of special circumstances of everything (and there is a LOT of things) having a previous function in an earlier and simpler design. Then everything is taken, changed ever so slightly, and reconfigured into a more complex and new version - over and over again. I think even teams of engineers would have a tough time bringing, for example, the first calculator through similar processes in order to create today's modern computers. At some point, there has to be a complete scrapping of existent sub-systems and a newly designed system put in its place. That sort of thing usually happens when a new technology is found, like going from vacuum tubes to intergrated circuits. It's pretty tough to change around the parts and make ever so slight variations of the original (vacuum tubes) in order to bring about an eventual change into a what we see today. So when you think about life, it appears to be impossible (don't get hung up on my wording here) to just tinker around with single-point mutations and transposing or duplicating existing genes to create the modern things that we see today. At some point in the creation of these things, there must be a de-novo design to a lot of this stuff. Have you ever studied molecular biology and anatomy and physiology? I agree that with some things, one can come up with a story about how it may have or might have had some plausible evolutionary pathway, but to say that about everything, and all at once, is too over the top for me to buy.
4. You say: "although astronomically unlikely it only has to happen once"
My reply: The astronomical odds that we are talking about when you talk about things getting created by random ordering of DNA is so astronomical to be considered impossible. Most common proteins contain hundreds if not thousands of properly ordered amino-acids. So when ordering DNA to code for these proteins, you don't get anything useful until you have a significant amount of the right stuff to work with. And most molecular and cellular machinery is made up of lots and lots of specialized proteins all working together for a particular function. There is usually sub-machinery involved in its function and regulation, and complex sub-systems also present to power, control, and regulate it. So when one starts to do the calculations on this stuff, it gets ridiculous to say that it only had to happen once.
5. You say: "was introduced to earth from an extraterrestrial environment" and "something living arose from something nonliving in the universe"
My reply: I agree there is no point in moving the problem off to an earlier time in some far off place. But I disagree that it is necessary, without the presupposional view that life must have started naturally through only materialistic mechanisms, to conclude that life arose from something nonliving when we have no evidence that life arises from non-living material. Abiogenesis is a neat idea and there are lots of neat stories about how it may happen. But Biogenesis is the observed fact of nature. It can be tested, repeated, demonstrated over and over again that life only comes from life. This scientific idea has stood the test of time. So, I think it folly to turn this idea on its head in order to not upset a presuppositional worldview that life must come from non-life through natural means.
6, You say: "Irreducible complexity is not good evidence of intelligence design because every supposed example of it put fourth by creationist has been shown to not be irreducibly complex after all "
My reply: This is not true. People have attacked a few popular examples of irreducible complexity and attempted to give a narrative of how it could have or may have came about through an evolutionary pathway. But, there is no testable, demonstrable evidence that it actually did. And furthermore, the narratives of how it may have happened are oversimplified and leave out glaring problems in the imagined pathway. They usually focus on a very narrow and select part of the mechanism or machine, and forget about all the other integral parts of it that have to be accounted for also. What I see is that when any story is put forth, people say, "see, that intelligent design argument is destroyed." when it isn't. And then people say, "the idea of irreducible complexity has been destroyed" when it certainly has not. It's nice to claim that one's opposition is finished, but that is just part of warfare and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
7. You say: "Evolution is part of the "basic laws" of the universe, though its biological form is much less pervasive than say the general laws of thermodynamics, but they both reflect tendencies of the underlying mechanics of our universe."
My reply: Your first statement is an assertion and not evidence or proof of the assertions validity. Basic laws of this universe have a very simple, one dimensional aspect to them. Like gravity, it attracts. Thermodynamics has to do with energy and how it moves and disperses and how matter is affected by it. This is a basic, mathematically modelable phenomena. Basic laws create simple thing like spheres, crystals (although those can seem complex sometimes, they are still simple repeating patterns) movements, orbits, and things like this. Creating life (if you understand its complexity) is not the function of a basic law. That's why I described earlier about how the point of designed tools and mechanisms is to overcome the basic laws of the universe. The take the basic laws and use them in special and complex ways to achieve something wonderful. For example, a basic law of the universe could be seen through a lighting bolt, but a computer uses some of these electrical principles to do what it does. But the design of a computer would never be a basic law of the universe. Another example would be explosions and the energy created by them is a basic law, but an internal-combustion engine is a designed machine to use this basic force and turn it into a usable mechanical force to power other designed machines. The basic laws are seen to overcome design when these things break down; for example when the computer melts down or the engine wears out, rusts out, or overheats and blows up. So I don't agree with you that evolution is a basic law of the universe. I understand evolutionary theory and how it would just be a very complex set of happenings that supposedly naturally created all of life, but I don't think that the idea holds water when properly criticized. I realize that his flies in the face of all of popular science. But, there you go.
Peace.
Wherever you have laws, you need a law-giver. Sigh and Sigh again. Or did laws legislate themselves? Did they evolved too?
***** They could, just like my Italian car also could have evolved, In the case of ATP, what we are looking at is the smallest rotatory motor , if that could evolved, why not the engine in my car? Nobody will deny that ATP is more complex than a luxury car´s motor. And if you believe that the universe originated by chance without the need of a designer. I think something inside you know that you are lying to yourself about the origin of life, I deny to accept that people believe there is a chance that everything we are, the universe, consciousness, the data found in our dna, genetic information, enzymatic makeup etc, just is a cause of chance and millions of years, by chance and with so much faith really, I´d love to have that kind of strong faith, but at the same tiime goes beyond faith, is irrational and stupid. If I see this wonderful creation of God, and you think im the dumbest idiot, a moron, I´ll take it, Im so stupid, the worse.
That's an affirming of the consequent and a non-sequitur. The machines we make are artificial and the product of known design with actual mechanisms. In fact, one of the sub-definitions of machines is actually 'a living organism or one of its functional systems '
I love biochemistry animations
well said
Thanks for proving my point.
I keep discussing this with you because I think there is hope for you always.