REFERENCES: (1) "Where Did Life Come From? (feat. PBS Space Time and Eons!) "ua-cam.com/video/_uAJY1mqtw4/v-deo.html (2) "Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?" ua-cam.com/video/fgQLyqWaCbA/v-deo.html (3) "What Is the RNA World Hypothesis?" ua-cam.com/video/K1xnYFCZ9Yg/v-deo.html (4) “What Is Indicative Mood? In grammar, the indicative mood is a verb form you use to make declarative statements that you assume to be factually accurate, such as when you ask a question in the form of a statement or state an opinion as if it were a fact.” www.masterclass.com/articles/indicative-mood-explained (5) The passive voice is a sneaky way to avoid explaining embarrassing facts. (“I broke the vase.” VS “The vase just… broke.”) (6) Prebiotic chemicals for the Miller/Urey experiment: Kasting JF. Earth’s Early Atmosphere. Science 1993: 259; 920-926. (7) The predominant molecular structures produced in prebiotic scenarios are "toxic" in the chemical sense, because they would hamper or prevent desired reactions. see: Wotos A. el al., Synthetic connectivity, emergence, and self-regeneration in the network of prebiotic chemistry. Science 2020; 369: 1584. (8) References to articles by the lab of Sijbren Otto: (a) Carnall JMA, Waudby CA, Belenguer AM, Stuart MCA, Peyralans J J-P, Otto S. Mechanosensitive Self-Replication Driven by Self-Organization. Science 2010: 327; 1502. (b) Malakoutikhah M, Peyralans J J-P, Colomb-Delsuc M, Fanlo-Virgós H, Stuart MCA, and Otto S. Uncovering the Selection Criteria for the Emergence of Multi-Building-Block Replicators from Dynamic Combinatorial Libraries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 18406-18417. (9) “Even the impressive fidelity of the three hydrogen bonds in a single Watson-Crick G ·C nucleobase pair is insufficient to pay the cost of assembly, and hydrogen bonds between individual nucleotides or nucleobases are not observed in aqueous solution until higher order oligomers are used (n >= 4)” From: Sawada T, Fujita M. A single Watson-Crick GC base pair in water: Aqueous hydrogen bonds in hydrophobic cavities. JACS 2010: 132; 7194-7201. (10) References to anhydrous synthesis, storage and use and DNA monomers: (a) Sinha, N. D., et al., Polymer support oligonucleotide synthesis XVIII: use of beta-cyanoethyl-N,N-dialkylamino-/N-morpholinophosphoramidite of deoxynucleosides for the synthesis of DNA fragments simplifying deprotection and isolation of the final product. Nucleic Acids Res, 1984. 12(11): 4539-4557. (b) Beaucage, S. L., Oligodeoxyribonucleotides synthesis: Phosphoramidite approach. Methods Mol Biol, 1993. 20: 33-61. (11) "A second major problem with the chemical replication of RNA is that RNA duplexes >20- 30 nucleotides in length are difficult or impossible to thermally denature under template copying conditions" From: Engelhart, A., Powner, M. & Szostak, J. Functional RNAs exhibit tolerance for non-heritable 2′-5′ versus 3′-5′ backbone heterogeneity. Nature Chem 5, 390-394 (2013). doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1623
Looked at ur references and looked at other papers; by me i mean i had gpt4 analyze them and compare; all in all ive realized anyone can do these bullshit debunking videos, just as anyone the scientific community with enough expertise can debunk them😊
@@sensen9235 so you used an A.I. which has known bias and flaws built into it to analyze data for a field it was not designed to contemplate or understand? Don't be lazy. Go look at the references yourself.
These videos are phenomenally good! I can't thank you enough for making them. In fact, I want to know more about who made and sponsored them , and if I can support your work in some way.
@fruitylerlups530 It doesn't sound like you're trying to learn anything. If there are misstatements in the video, point them out. If there aren't any, then you're learning something and hopefully, you will end up with a more truly scientific mind.
@@AchHadda That’s an extremely ironic comment given you can’t state your argument in plain English. Just openly say “I don’t think abiogenesis is possible”. Ofc you’re too cowardly to say it in plain term became you know it makes normal people (correctly) think you’re stupid
I think that part of the problem is that we have had so many scientific advancements in the recent past and have gained so much knowledge as a species that we feel like we know everything. It's hard to believe that a subject that has been studied so intensely and deeply has not produced any meaningful answers. It's ok to admit we have no idea how life started . It doesn't make you some sort of religious fundamentalist if you admit we are lacking in knowledge. It just means that you believe in science and know that science has not figured this one out yet.
Exactly right, they have no real evidence or clue to back their hypothesis but pretend otherwise. But junk “science “ is Uber present in the biological realm. They claim a sequence of chance events led to life, but ignore basic probability and statistics that support the impossibility of their theories. Ie if probability calculations says something is likely to happen once in 100 billion years; we are safe to say it can never and has never happened.
True, but the video is itself hypocritical, hostile and somewhat dishonest itself, so not a great source of information. In general it is a good idea to say we don't know when we, well, don't know though
@@christophermonteith2774 They think they know because their religion tells them so. This is not merely somewhat dishonest unfortunately. It is willfully deceptive, and disingenuous and I am pretty sure that you are merely being polite about it. We don't know neither do they but they fight against us ever learning how things really happened. See Dr Tour's demand that such research stop.
I feel like this is a purposefully-made reflexive exercise for a critical thinking course. Like, this video says that you should be wary of people burying their hypothesis and presenting unsubstantiated facts in a biased way, and yet, whoever made this video refuses to disclose who they are, their own research background, or even who those “5 PhD scientists” mentioned at the start even are.
So you deger to the use of applying a genetic fallacy in order to reject the information presented? Anonymity has its purposes and we can all attest that this is irrelevant to whether or not the claims made are legitimate, yes?
@@pigzcanfly444 The main issue here is that the video criticises others for weaknesses in their arguments whilst displaying the same weaknesses. This is very common. We tend to demand more rigorous standards for the things we don't agree with than with the things we agree with. We should all be aware of this if our aim is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
@Mark Allenby rather we should all be made aware of legitimate problems to get a better picture of what we are dealing with so as not to skew our understanding of reality. When you accept some data at face value and reject the other data points based purely on the fact that it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of reality then you are merely seeking confirmation of your bias and cannot follow the data where it leads. Seeing these videos as mere critical attacks is also shallow considering that the point of the videos is to drive people to think about the big picture with all known aspects of current understanding in the relwvant fields of study. Attempts to stifle the truth of the situation are from those who do not admit these problems actually exist and must be overcome.
@@abbynormal9836 Well, the consensus will change now and then, contradicting prior consensus. I can think of a couple of topics right away.. And common sense is sometimes only common because the consensus published it. The human incentives are money, prestige, and/or power. Not everything, including 'science' is as squeeky clean as people think. I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes, and I found a lot of foxes...
@@abbynormal9836 Do you recall the recent James Webb telescope images showing fully-formed galaxies only 300 million years after the big bang? Or how about dinosaur soft tissue found in dinosaur bones that were supposed to be fossils. Or how about the global cooling crisis of the 70's changed to global warming crisis of the 90's changed to climate change crisis in the 2000's? Or the discovery of new sub atomic particles from the LHC? The 'boundary' of our knowledge of the physical universe is constantly expanding and causing us to rethink and rewrite old ideas
I find it funny that the basis of this argument is that this person thinks the word ‘like’ meanings that the chemicals used weren’t the same as the chemicals since durning early earth. When we do know in fact that these chemicals were in fact the same; methane, ammonia, nitrogen … etc that would be found in the atmosphere at that time. It makes no difference that these chemicals were manufactured or not
The early atmosphere is now believed to be carbon dioxide and nitrogen not the reducing one Miller-Urey thought. To be honest I don't really think it matters, naturally occurring amino acids and nucleic acids are not really the problem. Them putting themselves together into a replicator is the problem. Also I think it does make a difference if you are using large quantities of bought in chemicals. How is nature producing the large volume that you are using, how is nature extracting the things you need from the rubbish. For example if you find trace ribose in a meteor at a dilution of 7 parts per billion, nature has no way of extracting it from the crap surrounding it, if you then go buy a jar of ribose and can't see an issue in using it with the other pure for chemicals you bought, then I think you're kidding yourself.
@borkior1977 Wow, way to miss an explicit argument. The video pokes fun at the idea that the Urey-Miller experiment was representative of the conditions of the prebiotic world (pbw) because the chemicals used were in concentrations and purities not found in the nature, so the idea that they were _like_ those in the pbw are disingenuous if not outright misleading. It's like saying a KFC drumstick is "like" a chicken, or vice versa. No, it isn't. I recently came across an idea that stupidity is not a function of intelligence, but of morality. You are intellectually dishonest, hence you say stupid things. The video is clear in its meaning, but you aren't able to be honest enough with yourself to deal with what it really said, so you create this dumb strawman.
@@adrianthom2073 did you catch how he tried to slam methodological naturalism. They really didn't have the guts to make supernatural or magical claims, but deep down they wanted to.
@@richtomlinson7090 the videos does make valid criticisms of Abiogenesis and the flaws it has. However the channel clearly promotes ID as the alternative solution. You can watch many of the previous videos and you can see that.
@@adrianthom2073 well at least they don’t try to water board us with their beliefs. It’s still a tad annoying that they’re trying to influence what people believe even if it’s by a little bit
One of the biggest problems that not a lot of creationists seem to get is that you can critique evolution all you want but if you want your conclusion to be taken seriously by scientists you need to actualy come up with some testable model. Otherwise you're not doing science just speculation or at worse trying to shove religion into science.
Try actually looking at the models instead of pretending that they don't exist. Dr Russ Humphries has made an alternative model, clearly creationists believe that God created life so that in itself would constitute as a theory. The true irony is that anything proposed by secular science would automatically fall in alignment with any proposed model a creationist could hypothesize. BTW calling something science when it has been falsified shows just how much you want to cling to lies over what the data actually has shown true.
But Creationist have no models. All they can do is try poke holes into scientific theories. As they seem to think debunking a scientific theory automatically makes their conclusion correct. But that is not how science works. Abiogenesis however does have issues and many holes. And this channel does a great job at pointing out the flaws in Abiogenesis. But the channel then wants to input ID as the alternative solution. Abiogenesis however would a still a hypothesis. It has not yet been proven and met the criteria to be upgraded to a scientific theory.
@Adrian Thom there is obviously so.ething wrong with you when you intentionally ignore alternative theories while claiming that there are none simultaneously. What exactly is your issue with ID?
@@pigzcanfly444 ID isn't a scientific theory. It's not like a new theory of biological diversity or an attempt to explain data that the theory of evolution can't, it's just 'god did it' but say intelligence instead of the word god. That's not science, that's just religion. Science and religion are different.
"It's easy to say things that aren't true and get people to believe in them, especially when they sound sciency and are mixed in with well known facts." And you know all about it. A creationism channel in all but name trying to distract with cute animations, replacing the dry scientific rigour required to debunk papers it claims to with silly jokes, half-truths and hand waving.
In that case why not point out the statements that are not true, point out the half truths and the handwavium. I'm not religious, I'm not into creationism, I can't find a lot wrong with what's said. It's obviously dumbed-down to reach a wider audience so people other than cellular biologists and organic chemists can understand it, but I don't see the lies you do, why not point them out.
The ‘storytelling’ bit is dishonest. Science can’t ‘prove’ anything, it provides best explanations based on the most up to date evidence. In that sense, any explanation for anything is ‘storytelling’ in your terms, and thus can be ruled out as unreliable. That would include even the most simple explanations. We have to ‘tell a story’ to explain how water boils for example. No different to explanations of the origins of life.
The point he was making is the use of terms that denote fact or plausible causality when, in reality, this is not shown to be applicable to the data collected. The dishonesty would be in using such terms in that way.
@@pigzcanfly444 if we can’t use the indicative mood to explain anything unless it is proven, then nothing can be described in the indicative mood, because nothing is ever proven. But that’s obviously absurd. It’s a standard he’s applying to explanations of the origin of life, but not anything else.
@Celestina incorrect. He applied them in the analogous scenarios to explain why the terms used do not fit what is espoused. You apparently just missed all of the examples or just didn't watch the video. For the record, nothing can be proven apart from mathematical equations, so the point is moot from the start. It's never been about what could be proven but rather about what is reasonable considering the actual data at our disposal. Remember you only have a specific amount of time assuming the Big Bang model holds up and this means you can only push back the circumstances which could allow for life to probablisticially arise randomly anywhere in the universe and even less likely if you assume more than one abiogenesis event like Richard Dawkins or other biologists assume.
May all of us be guided to the truth, from my heart I thank you for your hard work in your factual and scientifically backed videos and wish you the best.
I'm not too keen on the prebiotic chemistry stuff, so I have nothing much to say about it.... but I can spot a bad analogy and fallacy from a mile away. *Methodological Naturalism* doesn't preclude intelligent causation... it precludes *"Supernatural Causation"* , thus your entire analogy falls flat. You would have made a better analogy by saying that an investigator may assume the person was murdered by someone else, but is strongly reluctant to assume that they were killed by magic. That's how science and scientists work.
That's a fair criticism of the end of the video. You're correct that they pointed out a number of cases in prebiotic chemistry where people took the conclusion too far. But in wrapping up their conclusion, it leaves open the question of what the analogy to "murder" would really be in this case. How do you have intelligent causation without supernatural causation? My understanding is this is because intelligent design advocates don't really want to commit to a single model or history of design. There's not a single historical narrative in the same way that Darwinian evolution has a coherent narrative. Instead, it's an open ended question and observation of available evidence. If you read books like "The Design Inference" and "Edge of Evolution" they give you tools for determining when something is intelligently caused and when it's not. It's possible to determine what could be caused by evolution. But you don't get a story and certainly not supernatural causation or a timeline. Maybe that makes their approach more humbly scientific than either the evolutionists or the creationists.
@@LongStoryShortVideos What's the joke? You're acting like an intelligent agency can exist in any other way than natural. It must be physical to manipulate matter, it must be physical to process and store information. If you're physical then you must be subject to laws of physics.
Well done for misunderstanding and misrepresenting the scientific method. Putting up captions with silly noises and using logical fallacies are merely strawman tactics tailored to an infantile audience.
@@captainzappbrannagan No you have it backwards. Life and it’s complexity arising naturally without any goal or purpose is magic. Takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe that all this is an accident rather than it was intended.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Lol listen to yourself, a magic fairy did it because you don't understand chemistry and biology. Go to your knees and take it from your easter bunny if that makes you happy.
It's about time. I really dislike someone who uses word like "Smart" while spreading misinformation/stupidity, they're insufferably ironic and cringy. Thanks a lot for the video.
@@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda The proof and references say that 99% of scientists believe abiogenesis is possible & saying it isn’t has as much respect as being a flat earther lol. They say this because we’ve made significant progress in building basic structures these past few years & saying we won’t figure it out is like saying “humans will never build a flying machine” in 1870
@@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda dude please tell me you're not really falling for this b******* propaganda.🤣🤣🤣 There is a mountain of evidence is piling up and it's not in favor of this guy.
How exactly are scientist who “keep an open mind” supposed to find evidence for, let alone prove, that your god or whatever supernatural thing went down, actually started life?
Genetic entropy is the replacement mechanism for evolution. Chemical evolution is a misnomer since you cannot get heavier elements to form without supernova and cannot fuse past iron. considering that this channel is only covering the tip of the iceberg in terms of problems for abiogenesis and evolution it will be interesting to see how long you hold up the cognitive dissonance.
That's a false choice. Let's just follow the facts (not stories) and discover where they lead us. It's also okay (and refreshing) to say, "we don't know how it happened", instead of coming up with a confident narrative that is not proven ridiculously implausible.
To be honest you have two options designed or not designed. We seen enough failure of not designed argument how about you consider the designed part of it, and forget about religions for now just focus on what science tell you about this designer by critical thinking, all knowledgeable, all powerful, ever lasting with no beginning and end. And then go from there.
The problem I have with origin of life science is I'm not even sure if it's science. Usually in science you come up with a hypothesis then rigorously test your hypothesis accepting the evidence no matter if it supports your hypothesis or not. When it comes to origin of life science it seems that they have a hypothesis, take it as a fact that the hypothesis is right, ignore all evidence that points away from their theory, over exaggerate the evidence that points toward their theory and work on the assumption that anything that appears implausible is simply because we haven't worked it out yet. The field seems to engage in a extreme form of bias that is not seen in any other field. I'm not religious by the way I just think the evidence to support abiogenesis is really poor, I don't get how its pretty much sold as fact. Just as a thought exercise: Lets say science new these two things as indisputable fact: 1: There is a being called God that travels round the universe creating designer life on planets of his choosing. 2: The force of nature is also cable of creating a form of life on planets when the conditions are right. Science asks the question, is the life we find on earth the result of Gods creations or Natures creations. I think any honest person looking at the evidence would conclude that the complexity in the life on this planet and the extraordinary number of things that would need to come together for it to happen would point to this being one of God's planets not natures. That's not a claim from myself that God created life only that if God or nature creating life on this planet were equally likely then the evidence would point to God not nature. (I'm also not claiming God and nature are equally likely by the way) What we have here though is a extreme form of bias in which science has reached a conclusion without any evidence, it has ruled out all other possibilities at the start of the research, it has decided there can be no God, that aliens didn't do it and that there are no other possibilities. If you decide at the start that everything outside of your hypothesis is wrong then all roads must lead to your hypothesis being right. This doesn't seem like good science to me.
@@blockhead1899 you understand correctly. I think at present we have no idea how life began. Religious people believe it’s god and their belief is faith. Atheists believe nature did it and their belief is faith.
@@houstandy1009 You do not understand origin-of-life research, and you assume that it is based on faith. I recommend that you peruse scientific journals before letting creationists mislead you.
@@richardevans6529 but the video implies that science in general is behind some sort of collective deceit, when in fact its just some bad videos, which are likely simplified for kids anyway. UA-cam is full of Nick Lane lectures; why don't they attack his opinions? Because he has no dogma and constantly states that, like all us, he can't explain the origin of life. Like James Tour, this video just seems to be a long-winded and strangely angry way of saying 'i don't know and they don't know'; yet no one claims to know. And not knowing does not make God any more of a likely hypothesis; in case that's the underlying implication.
@@richardevans6529 , Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It is considered the best hypothesis for how life stated and has lots of evidence for it. But it also has many issues, and this channel does a good job at explaining those issues. The only issue I have with this channel is that it concludes that because Abiogenesis or any other natural explanation for life has not yet been proven, the alternative answer is ID (aka God). Yet god has no evidence, just assertions.
@POWWOWMIK you clearly haven't been paying attention to this discussion. There are many people that have made the claims that there is only a natural cause, and it was implied in both of the videos critiqued in this response. They used several key statements that exclude alternatives from the outset, and every proposal assumes naturalism. That was in the video in case you didn't watch it.
@@pigzcanfly444 no, you haven't been paying attention. Claiming there's a natural cause while not being able to explain the process has the same status as you claiming an unnatural cause and not being able to explain the process; which is exactly where you're at. Like I said: i've not heard anyone claim to know how life started. Nick Lane - who is obsessed with the subject - simply admits that he doesn't know. Like all Deists, you're hoping that this gap in knowledge somehow proves God. It might do yet; but for sure it won't be the God that you have in mind. And in any case - what do you desire; that all research on the subject stops? Why; to prove that a disinterested God designed a cell a few billion years ago? Why do you want that to be true so badly?
We’ve already recreated primordial environments and seen that it produces all amino acids, produces proto-cells, and even naturally produces cell membranes. The only human intervention is getting the starting conditions rights. All these developments occur through chemical reactions on all their own. Eventually we’ll find the exact set of conditions that resulted in the first cell on Earth. We say this not out of blind hope, but because we have made progress to doing so already (which this video conspicuously just doesn’t ever mention lol). Saying that we won’t is like saying “the Higgs Boson isn’t real” in 1975
.... its so sad to see all those comments here ... they literally take this video as a reliable source. They are using science (internet, phones ...) to disparage science. Its insane. .... and sad. Very sad.
Funny thing that this video showed up at the top of my suggestions as a paid ad. Who paid for it? This channel appears to be dedicated to the art of debunking other videos that attempt to explain scientific consensus in easy to understand ways. What it doesn’t do is offer their own alternative explanations. Why? Because that’s not their purpose. Their purpose is to sow doubt about accepted scientific theories. That leaves the back door to your brain to be open to the intended alternative: “God did it!” Ask who paid for the ad space. Nice try though!
They have nothing else to grasp, it’s intellectually dishonest to pick on abiogenesis when origin of life researchers gladly admit we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle, it’s an incredibly complex topic and this video is another version of the “god of the gaps” fallacy.
@@thesoldierssideYeah, researchers gladly admit that we don't have all the pieces while at the same time claiming to the public that we have solved the problem and we know where life came from to the public all the time. Who is intelectually dishonest there? Just replace "God of the gaps" with "Evolution of the Gaps" and you esentially have the exact same "fallacy".
What I love is how the evolution discussion changes the more we learn about the cell. Darwin's theory belongs in the victorian age yet we still see people holding on to it DESPITE the growing evidence against it. Calling one video in a variety of topics nitpicking is a case in point of the cognitive dissonance among materialists.
"Nitpicking" implies that a basic premise is true, while certain fine points could be argued. Of course, the basic premise of OOL is not in any way proven or true. In fact, the assertion that "chemical evolution" actually happened has been disproved consistently by many thousands of experiments for 70 years! The fact that this concept is considered "true' by much of the general public, and many ignorant scientists, is a testament to the misinformation and outright lies promulgated by the popular science community.
@ferrisbeuler8657 our understanding today is much better than darwins. He was one guy with a great idea, but we now know about genetics, epigenetic, sexual selection, etc.
@@LongStoryShortVideos can you do a video about yourself, like how/where you learned all that you know, and what made you look the other way everyone was looking (your story). or does this request needs time to evolve/bake itself
@@uriabinenshtok an origin story may not be on the recipe list. Besides he can do this debunking anonymously and still be correct about everything he is saying. At the very least this is teaching critical thinking and analysis of data.
Complaining about half truths while making a video filled with YOUR half truths is just tad dishonest. So are you Young Earth Creationist or just a free lancer for the Discovery Institute.
@@robstadler927 It would help the purely religious cause if they did not use half truths. Real science is done with packaged chemical because that is how you can be sure the results were not due to contamination yet the video pretends is cheating. Its not, its real science.
@@robstadler927 The video lied about the Miller-Urey experiment that used what was thought to be at the time the components of the Earth's atmosphere at that time as if its made up nonsense. Also there was a lot of amino acids not vey little. The amino acids did not have to be the same as we see life using today. The tar included lot of amino acids.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 At 2:40 in the Long Story Short video, the Be Smart video is quoted, stating: “Miller’s experiment took some simple chemicals like those found on early earth.” The Be Smart video was released in 2018.
In the 66 years between the Miller Urey experiment and the Be Smart video, nearly everyone agreed that Miller and Urey used the wrong chemicals - they were not like those found on early earth. The Long Story Short video is saying that Be Smart should have known better than to propagate this error. And now, you want to amplify the errors by claiming that Long Story short is using half-truths. Ugh.
@@pigzcanfly444 this is may be the dumest thing i have heard to day "people only say something must have happened if they're really not sure that it happened but when it acts like they're sure that it did happen"
@@pigzcanfly444 3:06 of cause they got them from industrial lapritory suply shopes where else do you expect chemist to get there chemicals. also some quick googling they used methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia not exactly out of the fordenary for early earth
@problem solver3 you have not been paying attention if you believe that you don't need pure ingredients. Even with pure ingredients, you end up with a mess of compounds that are nearly impossible to separate, and that is only one of dozens of problems.
You Evoulotionist have some pretty good stories too, just look at the art involved in Dinosaur videos, its really good stuff. Maybe an Aron Ra video for example.
@@iamalittler You're putting your intelligence on display, Nowhere did I say photos, I was talking about the amazing amount of art Evolutionist use when telling their stories.
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 and you somehow don't manage to see the correlation between photos and imagination? Not at all? Not once? And you're the one telling stories, kid.
Fantastic video. I found that the scientific community lacked a lot of logical reasoning and common sense during COVID. Your way of explaining how stating false claims sprinkled with certain facts and half truths can be validated as strong science hit it on the nail. Thank you for making this video.
I have been obsessed with science and Nature my entire life. The one thing I CANNOT stand, is that Any scientist Thinks they understand how biological life started AT ALL from non-organic material. We have no idea and we shouldn't act like we know because we are so far away from understanding this aspect of science and Nature. Sometimes it's Okay to admit that we don't understand something. It's fine. It's better than faking that we fully understand it. So yes, I can't stand those science video's that explain how biological life 🧬 started (like it's so simple) when it's far from it.
Fantastic work at being critical without addressing the vast mountains of evidence. Just curious, how do you explain ERVs? Id love to see a video explaining those
What "mountains" of evidence??😂😂😂 That's the problem. Man is not God nor did he create the universe nor was he around or had a hand in creation being formed. Talk about evidence, watch "man walked with dinosaurs proof" find a good documentary on it. Fascinating! Men called dinosaur's dragons. The name dinosaur barely came about close to the mid 1800's. A T- Rex thigh bone was recently discovered not long ago with actual tissue with DNA that according to science was impossible but there we have it. Maybe they have been off with all these ridiculous numbers like 236 million or billion years ago, how do you know it wasn't just 230 million or billion years ago? How do you know period because none of us were around that long ago to test or witness a thing. That recent discovery should've been taught in every school and should've literally have science go back to the drawing board. Watch the documentaries I suggested. I believe man walked with dinosaurs. There's over whelming evidence to back that claim up not scientism which is a religion. You have to have faith that anything happened as they say! Something came from nothing?😂😂😂😂 The theory has already started with a lie unless a creator created it!
The ERVS are not junk unlike what evolutionists would claim. Read this peer-reviewed science paper published on the journal of virology: Switching Sides: How Endogenous Retroviruses Protect Us from Viral Infections
@deiluxx there is SO much evidence. The people who think there aren't have had the truth hidden from them by dishonest creationists. There is so much genetic evidence. We have tons of fossils of many hominid species including DNA sequencing of some of them. We have so much fossil evidence. Creationists push quote mining and straight up lie about and don't acknowledge most of the evidence. There is a reason why millions and millions of scientists across every field of study accept this as being well established. It's considered as substantiated as gravity and germ theory.
There’s another thing that gets said: “given long enough” (anything can happen - enabling the vanishingly unlikely things that you describe). Can you address that please?
Is there a point to this video or is it just complaining that a video made for kids is not complicated and hard to understand. Like if the point was to tell a complete story of life, youd be there for 8years and by the end youd have a degree. So stop complaining about things you dont understand without research.
You talk about misleading information, but you, yourself are very misleading. 4:29 - Just because chemicals are mixed in with other chemicals does not mean they are "utterly unusable." For immediate evidence, look at what the air is made up of. It's a mix of chemicals we can't breathe, and yet the oxygen isn't "utterly unusable." - Your cake example is nonsense. You wouldn't make a cake out of dog poo. Yes, you may find some "cake ingredients" in dog poo, but that's an unfair example. No one is under the impression you can make a cake out of that just because the smallest percentage of it contains the ingredients you need. You need filtered and separated ingredients, but they do not need to be pure, as you misleadingly put. There is a tolerance for pollutants in substances. It's next to impossible to create a pure substance. 2:48 - That's a lie. They didn't use just any chemicals. To our knowledge, as of the experiment, the gases and liquids used were our very best estimate of what the earth's early atmosphere contained. - And no. "Chemicals are chemicals," is an intentionally misleading way to undermine the intelligence of the experiment. Again, they didn't just pick any gas or liquid willy-nilly and say, "well chemicals are chemicals, am I right?" 3:08 - Of course there wasn't a "chemical supply shop." You're being hyperbolic. You're undermining modern science by implying that because they got their "chemicals from a lab," that it makes their experiment invalid. Labs can produce high concentrations of many different substances for use in productions or experiments. It's up to the scientists to dose things correctly. ---------------- You are doing the very thing you claim to be correcting others for. I can't watch anymore. This is horrible.
Rather, you're quite ignorant of how specific chemicals interact and bond. When you spoke about how oxygen is in the atmosphere "mixed with other chemicals," those chemicals are not bound together. They are also gaseous and quite distant on the molecular scale. For them to bind, it would take a high-pressure air compression system and extreme levels of heat. The analogy in the video was regard compounds like sugars(pentoses) which easily chemically bind to other compounds and how they can be found in dog poop but that they would already be bonded to many of the other chemicals found in said poop. You need high concentrations of free unbonded specific chemicals for the chemistry to even be probable, let alone plausible, which was one of the points made in the video. I am going to assume you didn't finish the video since you seem to have a rage quit mentality and a lack of honest inquiry into opposing viewpoints or data that contradicts your preconceived notions of reality. 0
If "natural causes" is too narrow-minded (and "other ideas" outside of natural causes are even entertained), then conversation is over. By the way, in the murder analogy, "someone did it" is also a natural cause: some human, animal, or disease, which exists in "nature", could have caused the death through some "natural way". Just because the cause of something isn't readily explained through ways of nature, it doesn't necessitate a SUPERnatural cause -- that's wishful thinking. Just because a cookie's whereabout is unknown, one wouldn't automatically assume that a cookie demon has caused the cookie to dematerialize through some spell; instead, the first thought usually would lean towards the more "natural" cause, like some sugar-loving kid living under the same roof couldn't resist the temptation. If anyone wants to believe in god, go ahead and believe. I would think that your faith shouldn't require any need to debunk science.
First off they're not meant to be in-depth analysis on the origin of those are just simple science videos for UA-cam. They're meant to convey information to lay people as an introduction to origin of life.Secondly we don't have every single answer to how this happen science is still working on some of these things. And some of these things we might never know. And that's okay it's okay to not have all the answers. It's not okay to say one side doesn't have all the answers so it must be God. If you have such a problem with evolution or abiogenesis you should come up with a competing model that explains everything that those theories do but does it better. Been waiting to hear about that model forever now but it's pretty clear now that they don't have one. And lastly even if you disprove evolution and abiogenesis this does not definitively prove God.
I fear you are writing these off as "simple science videos" when the demonstrated problem is that they are misleading the public. "Simple" does not justify misleading. You also suggest that they "convey information" but they actually propagate false information. That is not OK. It is OK to not have the answers, but not OK to suggest that we do have the answers by providing false statements. The video certainly does not attempt to say "one side doesn't have all the answers so it must be God."
if we DON'T KNOW how life began, then saying that WE KNOW how life began would be unjustified, right? what this video is all about is the fact that many videos that you find on youtube on OoL are misleading, because they say that we know something that actually there is no justification for; but the common layman would simply accept that because, as he sayd in his video, it sounds "scientific".
@@robstadler927 no they certainly do not propagate false information. Abiogenesis is the best theory that we have that explains all of the data available. And evolution is just a fact of life that's how this works we can see this in action. Again if there's a better theory or model out there that has better explanatory power using the facts and data available I would love to see it. Haven't heard a peep from them though because they don't have a better theory. They have God which explains everything which actually means it explains nothing. You do a little digging and you can find out where this video comes from and what side they are clearly on. This is the propaganda.
@@musaaziri3568 no I've seen a lot of videos on this topic and they usually clarify that this is the best theory that we have for origin of life when you put the totality of facts, evidence, and decades of research in multiple different scientific fields. I've never once heard any video say this is definitely how it happen we know everything and you can't question anything that we have put forth. I think it's good to be skeptical in to question things but this video is just propaganda from creationists. It's pretty clear to see if you just do a little digging
@@kevinlawrence1582 sow, you are saying that, given what we objectively know until now, abiogenesis is justified? when I say objectively know, I mean really objective data, not some just so stories or guesses. And I don't understand why you think that this is propaganda. I mean, he is simply saying that there are videos on youtube who are putting forward misinformations about the OoL; that we know something that actually we don't. Is this propaganda? I think that he is doing a good job, and he is making a lot of people to understand that it is better to read the papers for youself if you are interested and not to trust some "scientific" youtube channel for that.
Omg your channel is INCREDIBLE!!!! I think people who watch those channels and enjoy it would LOVE your channel!! You have found a gigantic audience where you are a special one among the creators, so you will grow FOR SURE!! Good luck!
@@caryfrancis7412 so you just say “bs” and couldn’t give one thing wrong with it? This video at least made arguments you on the other hand just ridiculed with not a single point made. Which logically, rationally, and academically speaking makes you full of bs. This video might be wrong, but it’s more logical than you, and that should scare you.
@@BK-hq7tn Since you cant tell, this is funded bya rligious organization that is putting their religion , above science. Much of what they are saying, are lies or misrepresentation of fact. I can refute the points made, and it isnt hard, but there are so many, where to start ? This is not logical, rational or academic. I cant fugure out what group funds this, can you ? Because why would they hide UNLESS this is BS and they know it is ?
ther author of this video is purposly avoiding a host od different naunces of the english language in order to literally nitpick the very way in which we speak. the only alternative is to adopt the lever of "Lawyerese" inharent in legal documents where we have to take time and effort to throughly dand exhautivly difine every single use of words in our mostly shared language. None of this lends to legibility for the general target audience of these videos. Therfore I would counter that this video is in fact a blatent attack on the open disemination of scientific information to the masses. He clearly has a hypothosis counter to abiogenisis. AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO JUST BIT THE BULLET AND GET look for proof of his theory! If he can find the smoking gun to life being created by some sentient being--As he seems to place forward. If he cannot, then he has to except that his hypothisis has no proof against coperting theories which while not fully proven, are demonstratabley so.
Greetings. Between you and Dr. Tour, I will have no shortage of considerations, thoughts and information in both a intricately detailed format and in a layman's format that can be used to help others consider and analyze if other videos, and even your videos, are using supportive science or unsupported speculation. I see that some feel such a critique is nothing more than an invitation to Creationist views but I would ask then if an inspection of the current science highlights issues or holes within the experiment or theory, then wouldn't that just be an impetus to either find more supportive science to fill the gaps, or to review the theory completely if science is unable to adequately support it?
Very often, you will see sharp, sarcastic rebukes against the ID crowd, putting something like the following words in their mouths: "Since we don't know the exact natural means by which abiogenesis and other evolutionary processes took place, that we MUST throw up our hands and attribute it to GOD since we don't understand how else it could possibly have happened!" This is strange...because this is not remotely what ID scientists are saying at all. The proper way to evaluate a hypothesis is to examine it in the context of what we already know to be true, through previous observation and experimentation. In the case of Abiogenesis, we have the luxury of observing the way that RNA, DNA cells, and proteins behave, and we can clearly document the processes and dependencies on which life depends. The problems that ID scientists bring up are not exclusive to the current abiogenesis hypothesis... instead, they simply point out that ANY theory of the origin of life thorough natural processes faces the same set of issues. Perhaps troublingly for some people... these issues suggest that in order for life to originate naturally... the necessary conditions would need to run contrary to what we already know to be feasible, or that the processes would need to behave differently in a way that we already know that they cannot behave. In short...the issues that this video brings up are not a simple matter to wave away...they cut to the foundation of the very premise of life-from-non-life. When it comes to life, it CAN'T be "Anything is Possible!"... it's a matter of understanding the limitations of nature, and what is possible, and what is not. For someone to suggest that "we just need to wait until the right discovery is made"...they are denying the reality of what our observations are clearly showing us: That life from non-life runs counter to the reasonable interpretation of the data we ALREADY have. This shouldn't be controversial, but for some reason it is? If investigation clearly indicates that a "cause" is required to produce the "effect" that we observe, I'm not sure what motivation would cause me to ignore that conclusion.
@@jessebrady2614 Interestingly enough, this doesn't even include the ID viewpoint. It doesn't include the Creationist viewpoint either. All this is saying is the way the evolutionary or naturalist scientists are saying things work - don't. It's using practical and testable science to show what can or can't work. Not once has Long Story Short brought up ID or God or Creation at all. Only that the current theories being pushed as factual or true really don't work at all. It's exactly what the evolutionists keep harping they want from Creationists or ID'ists but when they get it, they rail against it and call it bad science. C'mon guys - stop being hypocrites. If it's show the current theories are wrong, then be smart and find better ones.
As for abiogenesis, it’s going to be extremely funny and sad for you the day we inevitably discover exactly how to reproduce it. We’ve already made significant progress
@@popularmisconception1 You’re 100% right it should. But sadly I don’t think he accepts the standard Catholic + mainline Protestant doctrine on science if he’s so desperate to disprove it+evolution lol :/ The person who first theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Intelligent design and real science are completely compatible. It means accepting Genesis as a metaphor, but in exchange you should be excited to get to see the real way God created the universe.
Notice you said “ the day we inevitably discover “ you are doing exactly what this video talks about. It hasn’t happened yet and no amount of hoping it will can be considered evidence or fact.
@@jonathanb858 What this video doesn’t do is tell you the undeniable fact we have made significant progress in recreating the chemistry of simple life forms in a lab for the past decade. We’ve even managed to 3D print DNA and living cells. What this video is doing is the equivalent of saying “humans will never invent a flying machine” in 1850 or “humans will never find the Highs Boson” in 1980. If 99% of scientists in all related fields agree something exists and is possible, you are being purposefully illogical and obtuse to argue it doesn’t. It should be reserved as a neat “what if?” scenario at most, and only actually explored if after decades at the advanced technological level where it should be obvious- it still isn’t found.
@@jonathanb858 Also this channel doesn’t actually care either way, because there is more than enough evidence for evolution (and specific branches they argue, like the evolution of whales), but they still make videos acting like it’s a contested issue anyways. It’s unironically no different than making a video showing all the (100% correct) “gaps” in the Higgs Boson theory in 2023. None of those gaps overwhelm the insane amount of evidence supporting it, including a clear and recorded detection of the phenomenon itself .
thanks for useful information. Can you make video about vestigial organs and genetic diseases? we have some questions about its and intelligent design?
They are a hard evidence that ways of God are mysterious. And their practical use is to test our faith and separate the doubters from the 144 thousands. Only a heretic would doubt God's plan for us. If god didn't want us to put disbelievers on gallows, why would he put the thought of inventing the gallows into us? and so on...
Its actually both hilarious and disgusting how deceptive this channel is. What i mean is the attempt to deceptively inject distrust into the science is disgusting yet the fact that this is so evident is hilarious. Anyone who honestly fact checks this will know exactly what im talking about.
Okay, let’s say that life didn’t come about naturally. Where is your evidence for that? And remember absence of evidence for another theory doesn’t prove yours. Where is the scientific proof it didn’t come about naturally.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 I watched this like a year ago. I have absolutely no interest in watching it again or to have a debate with someone that wants to argue in bad faith on youtube.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 I responded to you our of courtesy. Spin it however you'd like. I simply have no desire to argue with a troll on youtube. Go cry about it.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 wait wait wait. You responded to my comment trying to get me to debate you. I tell you I'm not interested. Arguing on youtube is foolish and a waste of time. You didn't like that so you try to mock and in insult my intelligence to goad me into doing something I told you I had no interest in doing...then you try to witness to me?? Work on your approach and respect when someone says no to you.
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 I already told you 😩 We HAVE seen evidence of abiogenesis in prehistoric conditions we have recreated. We’ve seen proto-cells, RNA duplication, cell membranes, and the development of organelles. This video makes it out to be that scientists have no way to explain it but just think it’s something that “should” happen. In reality it’s like the graviton. Something we know exists and we’ve gotten closer to finding it, we just have to work more. This channel doesn’t actually care about science though, look at their anti evolution videos for that lol
have you thought of doing some review of the Tour-Farina debate on the origin of life? I mean, only the relevant data that was put forward by both parts.
Man it,‘ll be therapeutic when a big Creationism-debunking channel comes across this. Also why do you want to believe that we can’t understand how life formed?
The biogenesis researchers make their living coming up with these ideas. It's not in their interest to prove themselves wrong. And the mystery of creation runs against their materialistic view of reality.
I suggest you have a look at the last 'reference' these 'Long story short' (actually Ls wrong) charlatans provide, where one of the fields' leading scientists Jack Szostak discusses the problems associated with their work and origin of life hypotheses. The distorted information given in these LSS videos is pure creationist propaganda, and the makers cowardly refusal to state their position clearly; instead, at 11:43, calling them "other ideas", only accentuates their lack of educational or societal value. Though the 'Stated Clearly' and 'Be Smart' videos leave very much to be desired in the 'accurate and complete' department, every one of these 'Long Story Short' videos are at least an order of magnitude worse, for exactly the same reasons stated in the first part of this video. If the producers of this disinformation jubilee didn't take themselves so seriously, I'd think the video was a parody of psychopathic projection...
That part at the end of getting tenure, money, and a Ted talk is a big one. Lots of science communities are less and less about actual science and more about making papers fitting the status quo, getting that decent job by not being risky with ideas, and just continuing the cycle because it's easy and risk free.
When you show that unguided origin of life claims are garbage, you are right. There's really nothing left but an intelligent creator. For the atheists...sorry bout that, but facts are facts.
@@richardevans6529 except for the fact that the intelligent creator argument holds even less water than hypothesis based on abiogenesis.there is a reason intelligent design isn’t considered a valid hypothesis.
Except that this video only discredits any theories and never says anything about creationism, there are so many proofs of evolution with undeniable evidence that isn’t based on assumptions that it’s impossible do deny them
.. .I think you are being intentionally deceptive. Are you seriously objecting to the fact that science is asking what are the "natural origins of life" instead of just the "origins of life"? Maybe before you should worry about rebutting the science, you should ask yourself what science is. It's an inquiry into the NATURAL world, not supernatural. It can ONLY give a natural explanation....
Supernatural is a loaded word. Only a Superintelligence acting at an atomic and small molecule level can explain what the science demonstrates. Information is non-random arrangements of symbols which specify unique outcomes of which the symbols themselves do not participate in. Both base 4 encoded information and nanomschines capable of using the information have to be present simultaneously in a tiny area of space-time for life to begin. And, life began twice, each with completely unique setsvof nanomachine complexes to process DNA and copy it. ONLY a Superintelligence which visited a young Earth at a geologically and environmentally stable period of Earth's history can explain the megabytes to terabytes of information as coding and non-coding sequences. This is conceptually light year's beyond what rational people can grasp. But so is quantum physics and the higher math of tensor in 4 dimensional geometry. But, this is the truth. You ignore truth at the expense of maintaining the belief one is wise by remaining in ignorance.
REFERENCES:
(1) "Where Did Life Come From? (feat. PBS Space Time and Eons!) "ua-cam.com/video/_uAJY1mqtw4/v-deo.html
(2) "Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?" ua-cam.com/video/fgQLyqWaCbA/v-deo.html
(3) "What Is the RNA World Hypothesis?" ua-cam.com/video/K1xnYFCZ9Yg/v-deo.html
(4) “What Is Indicative Mood? In grammar, the indicative mood is a verb form you use to make declarative statements that you assume to be factually accurate, such as when you ask a question in the form of a statement or state an opinion as if it were a fact.” www.masterclass.com/articles/indicative-mood-explained
(5) The passive voice is a sneaky way to avoid explaining embarrassing facts. (“I broke the vase.” VS “The vase just… broke.”)
(6) Prebiotic chemicals for the Miller/Urey experiment: Kasting JF. Earth’s Early Atmosphere. Science 1993: 259; 920-926.
(7) The predominant molecular structures produced in prebiotic scenarios are "toxic" in the chemical sense, because they would hamper or prevent desired reactions.
see: Wotos A. el al., Synthetic connectivity, emergence, and self-regeneration in the network of prebiotic chemistry. Science 2020; 369: 1584.
(8) References to articles by the lab of Sijbren Otto:
(a) Carnall JMA, Waudby CA, Belenguer AM, Stuart MCA, Peyralans J J-P, Otto S. Mechanosensitive Self-Replication Driven by Self-Organization. Science 2010: 327; 1502.
(b) Malakoutikhah M, Peyralans J J-P, Colomb-Delsuc M, Fanlo-Virgós H, Stuart MCA, and Otto S. Uncovering the Selection Criteria for the Emergence of Multi-Building-Block Replicators from Dynamic Combinatorial Libraries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 18406-18417.
(9) “Even the impressive fidelity of the three hydrogen bonds in a single Watson-Crick G ·C nucleobase pair is insufficient to pay the cost of assembly, and hydrogen bonds between individual nucleotides or nucleobases are not observed in aqueous solution until higher order oligomers are used (n >= 4)” From: Sawada T, Fujita M. A single Watson-Crick GC base pair in water: Aqueous hydrogen bonds in hydrophobic cavities. JACS 2010: 132; 7194-7201.
(10) References to anhydrous synthesis, storage and use and DNA monomers:
(a) Sinha, N. D., et al., Polymer support oligonucleotide synthesis XVIII: use of beta-cyanoethyl-N,N-dialkylamino-/N-morpholinophosphoramidite of deoxynucleosides for the synthesis of DNA fragments simplifying deprotection and isolation of the final product. Nucleic Acids Res, 1984. 12(11): 4539-4557.
(b) Beaucage, S. L., Oligodeoxyribonucleotides synthesis: Phosphoramidite approach. Methods Mol Biol, 1993. 20: 33-61.
(11) "A second major problem with the chemical replication of RNA is that RNA duplexes >20- 30 nucleotides in length are difficult or impossible to thermally denature under template copying conditions" From: Engelhart, A., Powner, M. & Szostak, J. Functional RNAs exhibit tolerance for non-heritable 2′-5′ versus 3′-5′ backbone heterogeneity. Nature Chem 5, 390-394 (2013). doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1623
Looked at ur references and looked at other papers; by me i mean i had gpt4 analyze them and compare; all in all ive realized anyone can do these bullshit debunking videos, just as anyone the scientific community with enough expertise can debunk them😊
@@sensen9235 huh?
@@sensen9235 so you used an A.I. which has known bias and flaws built into it to analyze data for a field it was not designed to contemplate or understand? Don't be lazy. Go look at the references yourself.
The RNA hypothesis it not dead. Nice of you to lie to those that don't much science.
@@sensen9235
The videos were not debunked nor was the actual science. Its just the usual Discovery Institute anti-science propaganda.
These videos are phenomenally good! I can't thank you enough for making them.
In fact, I want to know more about who made and sponsored them , and if I can support your work in some way.
You can join as a channel member, that's currently the best way to support the work. Thanks!
These videos are nothing more than creationist propaganda. They are crap.
These videos are creationist propaganda. If you think that is "good", you have a very different definition for "good" than mine.
@@walkergaryawhat did he get wrong?
@@murrayrothtard6072 RNA has been shown to develop on its own. The people who wrote this video are NOT scientists, they are frauds.
I can't watch a evolution documentary without seeing these everywhere.
You and me both
im so sick of this crap while im just trying to learn about biology and paleontology.
Cause its not true
@fruitylerlups530
It doesn't sound like you're trying to learn anything.
If there are misstatements in the video, point them out. If there aren't any, then you're learning something and hopefully, you will end up with a more truly scientific mind.
@@7ebr830 what are the misstatements
"Did you know that penguins are left-handed?" That gave me a real good laugh! Well done.
Yes, the undying humor of this channel
@@raspberryflash583 which fails to hide the anti-science religious agenda
It's sad that this channels gets purposefully buried by the algorithm for simply asking science to science correctly...
Well that's an assertion thought 😂
@@AchHadda That’s an extremely ironic comment given you can’t state your argument in plain English. Just openly say “I don’t think abiogenesis is possible”. Ofc you’re too cowardly to say it in plain term became you know it makes normal people (correctly) think you’re stupid
sorry, but this video criticized no science, only some popularization of science
im suprised they havent had it removed tbh
@@User10111 There is no “they” lol. This is just a shitty pro-creationist channel in a sea of thousands. You should feel bad for believing in them
After ‘em guys!
The Emperor wears no bloody clothes.
@praxitelispraxitelous7061 Neither do penguins.
@@dilbertfish the difference is that everyone knows about penguins
"And invited to do a TED Talks" 😆
Literally the most promising UA-cam channel I've seen, your work is outstanding!
You think it’s “promising” because it’s manipulating science to push an religious agenda you like. You should feel ashamed
You need to get out more and I mean that in a kindly way.
@@jrssutherland Why not you get out, out of here more often? It seems you have nothing to offer any way 🙂 And I also mean it in a kind way.
I think that part of the problem is that we have had so many scientific advancements in the recent past and have gained so much knowledge as a species that we feel like we know everything. It's hard to believe that a subject that has been studied so intensely and deeply has not produced any meaningful answers. It's ok to admit we have no idea how life started . It doesn't make you some sort of religious fundamentalist if you admit we are lacking in knowledge. It just means that you believe in science and know that science has not figured this one out yet.
The problem is the video is from religious fundamentalists, its look like standard Discovery Institute anti-science propaganda.
Exactly right, they have no real evidence or clue to back their hypothesis but pretend otherwise. But junk “science “ is Uber present in the biological realm. They claim a sequence of chance events led to life, but ignore basic probability and statistics that support the impossibility of their theories. Ie if probability calculations says something is likely to happen once in 100 billion years; we are safe to say it can never and has never happened.
True, but the video is itself hypocritical, hostile and somewhat dishonest itself, so not a great source of information. In general it is a good idea to say we don't know when we, well, don't know though
@@christophermonteith2774 They think they know because their religion tells them so. This is not merely somewhat dishonest unfortunately. It is willfully deceptive, and disingenuous and I am pretty sure that you are merely being polite about it.
We don't know neither do they but they fight against us ever learning how things really happened. See Dr Tour's demand that such research stop.
you naively assume that this account is just science skepticism. they're on team jesus and think they know exactly how life came to be.
Where can we support this channel?
So what you are saying is, "They make what they cannot use, and use what they cannot make"?
You say that chemical evolution is impossible and it had to be "something else" then why dont you tell us what that "something else" is?
I feel like this is a purposefully-made reflexive exercise for a critical thinking course. Like, this video says that you should be wary of people burying their hypothesis and presenting unsubstantiated facts in a biased way, and yet, whoever made this video refuses to disclose who they are, their own research background, or even who those “5 PhD scientists” mentioned at the start even are.
Exactly. This video so perfectly does what it criticises others for doing that I wonder if it's really a clever parody of creationism.
So you deger to the use of applying a genetic fallacy in order to reject the information presented? Anonymity has its purposes and we can all attest that this is irrelevant to whether or not the claims made are legitimate, yes?
@@pigzcanfly444 The main issue here is that the video criticises others for weaknesses in their arguments whilst displaying the same weaknesses. This is very common. We tend to demand more rigorous standards for the things we don't agree with than with the things we agree with. We should all be aware of this if our aim is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
@@pigzcanfly444 Not what I'm sayin', buddy.
@Mark Allenby rather we should all be made aware of legitimate problems to get a better picture of what we are dealing with so as not to skew our understanding of reality. When you accept some data at face value and reject the other data points based purely on the fact that it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of reality then you are merely seeking confirmation of your bias and cannot follow the data where it leads. Seeing these videos as mere critical attacks is also shallow considering that the point of the videos is to drive people to think about the big picture with all known aspects of current understanding in the relwvant fields of study. Attempts to stifle the truth of the situation are from those who do not admit these problems actually exist and must be overcome.
Haha, I actually just watched that PBS video a few weeks ago and commented on that - not having references! You are so right (and very-referenced)😂
Probably because of common sense and scientific consensus
@@abbynormal9836 Well, the consensus will change now and then, contradicting prior consensus. I can think of a couple of topics right away.. And common sense is sometimes only common because the consensus published it. The human incentives are money, prestige, and/or power. Not everything, including 'science' is as squeeky clean as people think. I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes, and I found a lot of foxes...
@@ronysmith1 It’s been more than a 100 years since a scientific theory was debunked and replaced with a new one.
@@abbynormal9836 Do you recall the recent James Webb telescope images showing fully-formed galaxies only 300 million years after the big bang? Or how about dinosaur soft tissue found in dinosaur bones that were supposed to be fossils. Or how about the global cooling crisis of the 70's changed to global warming crisis of the 90's changed to climate change crisis in the 2000's? Or the discovery of new sub atomic particles from the LHC? The 'boundary' of our knowledge of the physical universe is constantly expanding and causing us to rethink and rewrite old ideas
@@abbynormal9836 Very true, absolutely nothing has changed, scientifically, in the lastt 100 year. It's been a very quiet time.
I find it funny that the basis of this argument is that this person thinks the word ‘like’ meanings that the chemicals used weren’t the same as the chemicals since durning early earth. When we do know in fact that these chemicals were in fact the same; methane, ammonia, nitrogen … etc that would be found in the atmosphere at that time. It makes no difference that these chemicals were manufactured or not
Exactly. What more do we need, editor? Time machine?
@fruitbouquet5479 that would work, yeah, build a time machine.
At least then you can see the lack of evidence for your oh so scientific theory
The early atmosphere is now believed to be carbon dioxide and nitrogen not the reducing one Miller-Urey thought. To be honest I don't really think it matters, naturally occurring amino acids and nucleic acids are not really the problem. Them putting themselves together into a replicator is the problem.
Also I think it does make a difference if you are using large quantities of bought in chemicals. How is nature producing the large volume that you are using, how is nature extracting the things you need from the rubbish. For example if you find trace ribose in a meteor at a dilution of 7 parts per billion, nature has no way of extracting it from the crap surrounding it, if you then go buy a jar of ribose and can't see an issue in using it with the other pure for chemicals you bought, then I think you're kidding yourself.
@borkior1977
Wow, way to miss an explicit argument. The video pokes fun at the idea that the Urey-Miller experiment was representative of the conditions of the prebiotic world (pbw) because the chemicals used were in concentrations and purities not found in the nature, so the idea that they were _like_ those in the pbw are disingenuous if not outright misleading.
It's like saying a KFC drumstick is "like" a chicken, or vice versa. No, it isn't.
I recently came across an idea that stupidity is not a function of intelligence, but of morality. You are intellectually dishonest, hence you say stupid things. The video is clear in its meaning, but you aren't able to be honest enough with yourself to deal with what it really said, so you create this dumb strawman.
@@7ebr830care to link to the study about stupidity and morality? Sounds interesting
Your ability present unbiased and factual information is very satisfying. Thank you. Great content!
How is it unbiased?
@@adrianthom2073 did you catch how he tried to slam methodological naturalism.
They really didn't have the guts to make supernatural or magical claims, but deep down they wanted to.
@@richtomlinson7090 the videos does make valid criticisms of Abiogenesis and the flaws it has.
However the channel clearly promotes ID as the alternative solution. You can watch many of the previous videos and you can see that.
@@adrianthom2073 well at least they don’t try to water board us with their beliefs. It’s still a tad annoying that they’re trying to influence what people believe even if it’s by a little bit
@@LazyUggugg , agree, things could be worse. Some countries non believers or people of other faiths are prosecuted.
One of the biggest problems that not a lot of creationists seem to get is that you can critique evolution all you want but if you want your conclusion to be taken seriously by scientists you need to actualy come up with some testable model. Otherwise you're not doing science just speculation or at worse trying to shove religion into science.
Try actually looking at the models instead of pretending that they don't exist. Dr Russ Humphries has made an alternative model, clearly creationists believe that God created life so that in itself would constitute as a theory. The true irony is that anything proposed by secular science would automatically fall in alignment with any proposed model a creationist could hypothesize. BTW calling something science when it has been falsified shows just how much you want to cling to lies over what the data actually has shown true.
But Creationist have no models. All they can do is try poke holes into scientific theories. As they seem to think debunking a scientific theory automatically makes their conclusion correct. But that is not how science works.
Abiogenesis however does have issues and many holes. And this channel does a great job at pointing out the flaws in Abiogenesis.
But the channel then wants to input ID as the alternative solution.
Abiogenesis however would a still a hypothesis. It has not yet been proven and met the criteria to be upgraded to a scientific theory.
@Adrian Thom there is obviously so.ething wrong with you when you intentionally ignore alternative theories while claiming that there are none simultaneously. What exactly is your issue with ID?
@@pigzcanfly444
ID isn't a scientific theory. It's not like a new theory of biological diversity or an attempt to explain data that the theory of evolution can't, it's just 'god did it' but say intelligence instead of the word god. That's not science, that's just religion. Science and religion are different.
@@calebr7199 try telling that to forensics analysts, and SETI researchers.
"It's easy to say things that aren't true and get people to believe in them, especially when they sound sciency and are mixed in with well known facts."
And you know all about it.
A creationism channel in all but name trying to distract with cute animations, replacing the dry scientific rigour required to debunk papers it claims to with silly jokes, half-truths and hand waving.
In that case why not point out the statements that are not true, point out the half truths and the handwavium. I'm not religious, I'm not into creationism, I can't find a lot wrong with what's said. It's obviously dumbed-down to reach a wider audience so people other than cellular biologists and organic chemists can understand it, but I don't see the lies you do, why not point them out.
You can attack bad science without supporting the other side, you know
The ‘storytelling’ bit is dishonest. Science can’t ‘prove’ anything, it provides best explanations based on the most up to date evidence. In that sense, any explanation for anything is ‘storytelling’ in your terms, and thus can be ruled out as unreliable. That would include even the most simple explanations. We have to ‘tell a story’ to explain how water boils for example. No different to explanations of the origins of life.
Wrong evolutionary tree of life is 90% based on story telling and not fact or observation
@@AchHadda
Nope
Tree of life is based on many factors
Stop telling LIES
The point he was making is the use of terms that denote fact or plausible causality when, in reality, this is not shown to be applicable to the data collected. The dishonesty would be in using such terms in that way.
@@pigzcanfly444 if we can’t use the indicative mood to explain anything unless it is proven, then nothing can be described in the indicative mood, because nothing is ever proven. But that’s obviously absurd. It’s a standard he’s applying to explanations of the origin of life, but not anything else.
@Celestina incorrect. He applied them in the analogous scenarios to explain why the terms used do not fit what is espoused. You apparently just missed all of the examples or just didn't watch the video. For the record, nothing can be proven apart from mathematical equations, so the point is moot from the start. It's never been about what could be proven but rather about what is reasonable considering the actual data at our disposal. Remember you only have a specific amount of time assuming the Big Bang model holds up and this means you can only push back the circumstances which could allow for life to probablisticially arise randomly anywhere in the universe and even less likely if you assume more than one abiogenesis event like Richard Dawkins or other biologists assume.
May all of us be guided to the truth, from my heart I thank you for your hard work in your factual and scientifically backed videos and wish you the best.
I'm not too keen on the prebiotic chemistry stuff, so I have nothing much to say about it.... but I can spot a bad analogy and fallacy from a mile away.
*Methodological Naturalism* doesn't preclude intelligent causation... it precludes *"Supernatural Causation"* , thus your entire analogy falls flat.
You would have made a better analogy by saying that an investigator may assume the person was murdered by someone else, but is strongly reluctant to assume that they were killed by magic. That's how science and scientists work.
That's a fair criticism of the end of the video. You're correct that they pointed out a number of cases in prebiotic chemistry where people took the conclusion too far. But in wrapping up their conclusion, it leaves open the question of what the analogy to "murder" would really be in this case. How do you have intelligent causation without supernatural causation?
My understanding is this is because intelligent design advocates don't really want to commit to a single model or history of design. There's not a single historical narrative in the same way that Darwinian evolution has a coherent narrative. Instead, it's an open ended question and observation of available evidence. If you read books like "The Design Inference" and "Edge of Evolution" they give you tools for determining when something is intelligently caused and when it's not. It's possible to determine what could be caused by evolution. But you don't get a story and certainly not supernatural causation or a timeline. Maybe that makes their approach more humbly scientific than either the evolutionists or the creationists.
@@chiastics7361 Easy... if the intelligent agency is natural.
@@chiastics7361 not sure of *"Design Inference"* but *"Edge of Evolution"* certainly does not show how to detect Design in nature.
"Easy..." lol 👍
@@LongStoryShortVideos What's the joke? You're acting like an intelligent agency can exist in any other way than natural.
It must be physical to manipulate matter, it must be physical to process and store information. If you're physical then you must be subject to laws of physics.
Well done for misunderstanding and misrepresenting the scientific method. Putting up captions with silly noises and using logical fallacies are merely strawman tactics tailored to an infantile audience.
What's your credentials?
What are the alternatives to life arising naturally?
Dude, you need to catch Dr James Tour on the fallacies of naturally-occurring ‘Origin of Life’.
@@tomobrien5795 The alternative is magic. Grow up. No gods exist, santa died lady.
@@captainzappbrannagan No you have it backwards. Life and it’s complexity arising naturally without any goal or purpose is magic. Takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe that all this is an accident rather than it was intended.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Lol listen to yourself, a magic fairy did it because you don't understand chemistry and biology. Go to your knees and take it from your easter bunny if that makes you happy.
What other alternative do you see ?? And be honest and don't limit yourself to natural causes, and you will get your answer
Thanks bro
"Must have" xD
Condescending and "straw man".
Yet not a single example you’ve provided of what he’s “strawmanned.”
Based and redpilled creationism. I hope your channel grows exponentially!
Thanks for the taco money! Will turn it into more videos 💪
@@LongStoryShortVideos Canadian money is more like monopoly money but I hope you do haha!
@@shazibjehangir 🤣
Unfortunately the US is no longer the world economic standsrd either. It's a tragedy but His will be done.
It's about time. I really dislike someone who uses word like "Smart" while spreading misinformation/stupidity, they're insufferably ironic and cringy. Thanks a lot for the video.
If you don’t believe evolution is real you’re the stupid one. Same with if you don’t believe abiogenesis is possible
Yet you're literally praising misinformation. Try to be "smarter".
@@bivvystridents3752 Let the proofs & references talk, not your own mouth
@@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda The proof and references say that 99% of scientists believe abiogenesis is possible & saying it isn’t has as much respect as being a flat earther lol. They say this because we’ve made significant progress in building basic structures these past few years & saying we won’t figure it out is like saying “humans will never build a flying machine” in 1870
@@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda dude please tell me you're not really falling for this b******* propaganda.🤣🤣🤣 There is a mountain of evidence is piling up and it's not in favor of this guy.
How exactly are scientist who “keep an open mind” supposed to find evidence for, let alone prove, that your god or whatever supernatural thing went down, actually started life?
Thanks for your team putting out such an effort, very educative.
So what do you propose that must replace evolution?
an invisible man in the sky.
Genetic entropy is the replacement mechanism for evolution. Chemical evolution is a misnomer since you cannot get heavier elements to form without supernova and cannot fuse past iron. considering that this channel is only covering the tip of the iceberg in terms of problems for abiogenesis and evolution it will be interesting to see how long you hold up the cognitive dissonance.
An intelligent Designer. That's where the evidence leads.
That's a false choice. Let's just follow the facts (not stories) and discover where they lead us. It's also okay (and refreshing) to say, "we don't know how it happened", instead of coming up with a confident narrative that is not proven ridiculously implausible.
Lost me when you started with your first point being inane semantics
So where are the links the the face slappingly obvious alternate hypotheses?
Genesis chapter 1.
To be honest you have two options designed or not designed. We seen enough failure of not designed argument how about you consider the designed part of it, and forget about religions for now just focus on what science tell you about this designer by critical thinking, all knowledgeable, all powerful, ever lasting with no beginning and end.
And then go from there.
@@richardevans6529 genesis has already been disproven decades ago.
@@richardevans6529
That’s the claim
Where is the evidence?
@@richardevans6529 , Genesis fails to explain anything correctly about the natural world.
Not a very good alternative for a scientific theory.
The birthday cake 🤣
The problem I have with origin of life science is I'm not even sure if it's science.
Usually in science you come up with a hypothesis then rigorously test your hypothesis accepting the evidence no matter if it supports your hypothesis or not.
When it comes to origin of life science it seems that they have a hypothesis, take it as a fact that the hypothesis is right, ignore all evidence that points away from their theory, over exaggerate the evidence that points toward their theory and work on the assumption that anything that appears implausible is simply because we haven't worked it out yet. The field seems to engage in a extreme form of bias that is not seen in any other field.
I'm not religious by the way I just think the evidence to support abiogenesis is really poor, I don't get how its pretty much sold as fact.
Just as a thought exercise: Lets say science new these two things as indisputable fact:
1: There is a being called God that travels round the universe creating designer life on planets of his choosing.
2: The force of nature is also cable of creating a form of life on planets when the conditions are right.
Science asks the question, is the life we find on earth the result of Gods creations or Natures creations.
I think any honest person looking at the evidence would conclude that the complexity in the life on this planet and the extraordinary number of things that would need to come together for it to happen would point to this being one of God's planets not natures. That's not a claim from myself that God created life only that if God or nature creating life on this planet were equally likely then the evidence would point to God not nature. (I'm also not claiming God and nature are equally likely by the way)
What we have here though is a extreme form of bias in which science has reached a conclusion without any evidence, it has ruled out all other possibilities at the start of the research, it has decided there can be no God, that aliens didn't do it and that there are no other possibilities. If you decide at the start that everything outside of your hypothesis is wrong then all roads must lead to your hypothesis being right. This doesn't seem like good science to me.
If I may ask, what is keeping you from becoming a believer? To me, it’s clear that there is God. Everything is literally pointing out to Him.
@@fishtheman I’m just not religious, I would probably fit in the agnostic bracket.
@@houstandy1009 I understand your like no one really knows how it started and you are skeptical at how confidently these hypothesis are put out there
@@blockhead1899 you understand correctly. I think at present we have no idea how life began. Religious people believe it’s god and their belief is faith. Atheists believe nature did it and their belief is faith.
@@houstandy1009 You do not understand origin-of-life research, and you assume that it is based on faith. I recommend that you peruse scientific journals before letting creationists mislead you.
Those people: (gulp)🤫 “Hopefully they buy it.”
This guy: “FBI OPEN UP!”
But no joke this guy and his videos are awesome! 🎉
Who are you attacking here? I've never heard a single scientist claim to know the origin of life.
The Discovery video says who it is creating, 3 popular science videos. One of them is from PBS. They include exact quotes in the Discovery video.
@@richardevans6529 but the video implies that science in general is behind some sort of collective deceit, when in fact its just some bad videos, which are likely simplified for kids anyway.
UA-cam is full of Nick Lane lectures; why don't they attack his opinions? Because he has no dogma and constantly states that, like all us, he can't explain the origin of life.
Like James Tour, this video just seems to be a long-winded and strangely angry way of saying 'i don't know and they don't know'; yet no one claims to know. And not knowing does not make God any more of a likely hypothesis; in case that's the underlying implication.
@@richardevans6529 , Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
It is considered the best hypothesis for how life stated and has lots of evidence for it. But it also has many issues, and this channel does a good job at explaining those issues.
The only issue I have with this channel is that it concludes that because Abiogenesis or any other natural explanation for life has not yet been proven, the alternative answer is ID (aka God). Yet god has no evidence, just assertions.
@POWWOWMIK you clearly haven't been paying attention to this discussion. There are many people that have made the claims that there is only a natural cause, and it was implied in both of the videos critiqued in this response. They used several key statements that exclude alternatives from the outset, and every proposal assumes naturalism. That was in the video in case you didn't watch it.
@@pigzcanfly444 no, you haven't been paying attention. Claiming there's a natural cause while not being able to explain the process has the same status as you claiming an unnatural cause and not being able to explain the process; which is exactly where you're at.
Like I said: i've not heard anyone claim to know how life started. Nick Lane - who is obsessed with the subject - simply admits that he doesn't know.
Like all Deists, you're hoping that this gap in knowledge somehow proves God. It might do yet; but for sure it won't be the God that you have in mind.
And in any case - what do you desire; that all research on the subject stops? Why; to prove that a disinterested God designed a cell a few billion years ago? Why do you want that to be true so badly?
We’ve already recreated primordial environments and seen that it produces all amino acids, produces proto-cells, and even naturally produces cell membranes. The only human intervention is getting the starting conditions rights. All these developments occur through chemical reactions on all their own. Eventually we’ll find the exact set of conditions that resulted in the first cell on Earth. We say this not out of blind hope, but because we have made progress to doing so already (which this video conspicuously just doesn’t ever mention lol). Saying that we won’t is like saying “the Higgs Boson isn’t real” in 1975
.... its so sad to see all those comments here ... they literally take this video as a reliable source. They are using science (internet, phones ...) to disparage science. Its insane. .... and sad. Very sad.
What religious group is behind this army of lies ?
Discovery Institute 😂😂
Funny thing that this video showed up at the top of my suggestions as a paid ad. Who paid for it? This channel appears to be dedicated to the art of debunking other videos that attempt to explain scientific consensus in easy to understand ways. What it doesn’t do is offer their own alternative explanations. Why? Because that’s not their purpose. Their purpose is to sow doubt about accepted scientific theories. That leaves the back door to your brain to be open to the intended alternative: “God did it!” Ask who paid for the ad space. Nice try though!
Another amazing video, keep up the good work man
Not a single negative comment even attempts to debunk the content of the vid… that says it all… “It’s wrong because it’s just wrong!!!”
I love how creationism has gone from trying to argue against evolution to nitpicking abiogenesis 😂
They have nothing else to grasp, it’s intellectually dishonest to pick on abiogenesis when origin of life researchers gladly admit we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle, it’s an incredibly complex topic and this video is another version of the “god of the gaps” fallacy.
@@thesoldierssideYeah, researchers gladly admit that we don't have all the pieces while at the same time claiming to the public that we have solved the problem and we know where life came from to the public all the time. Who is intelectually dishonest there?
Just replace "God of the gaps" with "Evolution of the Gaps" and you esentially have the exact same "fallacy".
What I love is how the evolution discussion changes the more we learn about the cell. Darwin's theory belongs in the victorian age yet we still see people holding on to it DESPITE the growing evidence against it. Calling one video in a variety of topics nitpicking is a case in point of the cognitive dissonance among materialists.
"Nitpicking" implies that a basic premise is true, while certain fine points could be argued. Of course, the basic premise of OOL is not in any way proven or true. In fact, the assertion that "chemical evolution" actually happened has been disproved consistently by many thousands of experiments for 70 years! The fact that this concept is considered "true' by much of the general public, and many ignorant scientists, is a testament to the misinformation and outright lies promulgated by the popular science community.
@ferrisbeuler8657 our understanding today is much better than darwins. He was one guy with a great idea, but we now know about genetics, epigenetic, sexual selection, etc.
Question. where do I get that self baked cupcake (my neighbor is out of cupcakes)
A laboratory chemical supply shop probably (some baking or stealing may be required).
@@LongStoryShortVideos can you do a video about yourself, like how/where you learned all that you know, and what made you look the other way everyone was looking (your story). or does this request needs time to evolve/bake itself
@@uriabinenshtok an origin story may not be on the recipe list. Besides he can do this debunking anonymously and still be correct about everything he is saying. At the very least this is teaching critical thinking and analysis of data.
@@pigzcanfly444 but he has not debunked anything. He has shown that Abiogenesis does have many problems.
@@adrianthom2073 is abiogenesis an unfalsifiable claim?
Complaining about half truths while making a video filled with YOUR half truths is just tad dishonest.
So are you Young Earth Creationist or just a free lancer for the Discovery Institute.
It might help your cause if you could add some specifics to back your claim that this video is filled with half-truths.
@@robstadler927
It would help the purely religious cause if they did not use half truths.
Real science is done with packaged chemical because that is how you can be sure the results were not due to contamination yet the video pretends is cheating. Its not, its real science.
@@robstadler927
The video lied about the Miller-Urey experiment that used what was thought to be at the time the components of the Earth's atmosphere at that time as if its made up nonsense. Also there was a lot of amino acids not vey little. The amino acids did not have to be the same as we see life using today. The tar included lot of amino acids.
@@robstadler927
The video is nothing but Discovery Institute anti-science propaganda masquerading as real science.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 At 2:40 in the Long Story Short video, the Be Smart video is quoted, stating: “Miller’s experiment took some simple chemicals like those found on early earth.” The Be Smart video was released in 2018.
In the 66 years between the Miller Urey experiment and the Be Smart video, nearly everyone agreed that Miller and Urey used the wrong chemicals - they were not like those found on early earth. The Long Story Short video is saying that Be Smart should have known better than to propagate this error. And now, you want to amplify the errors by claiming that Long Story short is using half-truths. Ugh.
The big bang must of happened
Actually most things in this video is very misleading and inaccurate
Care to elaborate?
@@pigzcanfly444 this is may be the dumest thing i have heard to day "people only say something must have happened if they're really not sure that it happened but when it acts like they're sure that it did happen"
@@pigzcanfly444 3:06 of cause they got them from industrial lapritory suply shopes where else do you expect chemist to get there chemicals. also some quick googling they used methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia not exactly out of the fordenary for early earth
@@pigzcanfly444 the usumption that life need pure ingridiants is unfounded
@problem solver3 you have not been paying attention if you believe that you don't need pure ingredients. Even with pure ingredients, you end up with a mess of compounds that are nearly impossible to separate, and that is only one of dozens of problems.
I love the channels you talked about, but you do make a very compelling video :)
Thank you for your service to humanity via the truth Long Story Short.
Best thing about this channel is watching the dogmatic Atheist rage in the comments while very few make any attempt to prove the video wrong..
Because if there is anyone thats never been to, nor even heard mention of Imagination Story Time Land... it's creationists.
You Evoulotionist have some pretty good stories too, just look at the art involved in Dinosaur videos, its really good stuff. Maybe an Aron Ra video for example.
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 where is anyone claiming those are photos of dinosaurs.
@@iamalittler You're putting your intelligence on display, Nowhere did I say photos, I was talking about the amazing amount of art Evolutionist use when telling their stories.
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 then do, pray tell, enlighten me as to what the fuck you think you’re taking about.
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 and you somehow don't manage to see the correlation between photos and imagination? Not at all? Not once?
And you're the one telling stories, kid.
Fantastic video. I found that the scientific community lacked a lot of logical reasoning and common sense during COVID. Your way of explaining how stating false claims sprinkled with certain facts and half truths can be validated as strong science hit it on the nail. Thank you for making this video.
The video is pure bunk.
I have been obsessed with science and Nature my entire life. The one thing I CANNOT stand, is that Any scientist Thinks they understand how biological life started AT ALL from non-organic material. We have no idea and we shouldn't act like we know because we are so far away from understanding this aspect of science and Nature. Sometimes it's Okay to admit that we don't understand something. It's fine. It's better than faking that we fully understand it. So yes, I can't stand those science video's that explain how biological life 🧬 started (like it's so simple) when it's far from it.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It is has not yet been proven. So science has never concluded that it knows how life started.
Absolutely award-winning presentation!! 💪🙏😍🎉🎉
🌮
I so much like the Be Smart dissing.
Can't stand that channel. Even their channel name is garbage but it's better than their previous name...'It's OK To Be Smart' 🤦♂️
When investigating a death, would you also seriously include the possibility that a ghost did it? Or nah?
I think where a lot of these misconceptions also come from the simplifications of topics with a lot more technicality’s to them.
What misconception?
Thanks so much for exposing these dogmatic Darwinists
Woof, woof! 🐩
What’s Abiogenesis have to with Evolution?
@@adrianthom2073 you see, creationists have a hard time understanding that evolution is separate from abiogenesis and the origin of the universe
@@clubpenguin13531 , I know and it’s frustrating.
But what should you expect from people who reject reality for the belief in fantasy.
@@clubpenguin13531 Oh I know the distinction alright. Doesn’t change the fact that they are Darwinists and are also dogmatic.
Fantastic work at being critical without addressing the vast mountains of evidence. Just curious, how do you explain ERVs? Id love to see a video explaining those
What "mountains" of evidence??😂😂😂 That's the problem. Man is not God nor did he create the universe nor was he around or had a hand in creation being formed. Talk about evidence, watch "man walked with dinosaurs proof" find a good documentary on it. Fascinating! Men called dinosaur's dragons. The name dinosaur barely came about close to the mid 1800's. A T- Rex thigh bone was recently discovered not long ago with actual tissue with DNA that according to science was impossible but there we have it. Maybe they have been off with all these ridiculous numbers like 236 million or billion years ago, how do you know it wasn't just 230 million or billion years ago? How do you know period because none of us were around that long ago to test or witness a thing. That recent discovery should've been taught in every school and should've literally have science go back to the drawing board. Watch the documentaries I suggested. I believe man walked with dinosaurs. There's over whelming evidence to back that claim up not scientism which is a religion. You have to have faith that anything happened as they say! Something came from nothing?😂😂😂😂 The theory has already started with a lie unless a creator created it!
The ERVS are not junk unlike what evolutionists would claim. Read this peer-reviewed science paper published on the journal of virology:
Switching Sides: How Endogenous Retroviruses Protect Us from Viral Infections
“Mountains of evidence” 😮okay
@deiluxx there is SO much evidence. The people who think there aren't have had the truth hidden from them by dishonest creationists. There is so much genetic evidence. We have tons of fossils of many hominid species including DNA sequencing of some of them. We have so much fossil evidence. Creationists push quote mining and straight up lie about and don't acknowledge most of the evidence. There is a reason why millions and millions of scientists across every field of study accept this as being well established. It's considered as substantiated as gravity and germ theory.
There are no mountains of evidence.
Thanks for telling the truth!
I will give this channel this though he's definitely getting some good funding from someone. I only ever see these videos as ads. 🤣🤣🤣
Theistic nonsense masquerading as science, all behind a cute cartoon that is easy for you all to digest
There’s another thing that gets said: “given long enough” (anything can happen - enabling the vanishingly unlikely things that you describe). Can you address that please?
He has made previous videos on this topic
Is there a point to this video or is it just complaining that a video made for kids is not complicated and hard to understand. Like if the point was to tell a complete story of life, youd be there for 8years and by the end youd have a degree. So stop complaining about things you dont understand without research.
You talk about misleading information, but you, yourself are very misleading.
4:29
- Just because chemicals are mixed in with other chemicals does not mean they are "utterly unusable." For immediate evidence, look at what the air is made up of. It's a mix of chemicals we can't breathe, and yet the oxygen isn't "utterly unusable."
- Your cake example is nonsense. You wouldn't make a cake out of dog poo. Yes, you may find some "cake ingredients" in dog poo, but that's an unfair example. No one is under the impression you can make a cake out of that just because the smallest percentage of it contains the ingredients you need. You need filtered and separated ingredients, but they do not need to be pure, as you misleadingly put. There is a tolerance for pollutants in substances. It's next to impossible to create a pure substance.
2:48
- That's a lie. They didn't use just any chemicals. To our knowledge, as of the experiment, the gases and liquids used were our very best estimate of what the earth's early atmosphere contained.
- And no. "Chemicals are chemicals," is an intentionally misleading way to undermine the intelligence of the experiment. Again, they didn't just pick any gas or liquid willy-nilly and say, "well chemicals are chemicals, am I right?"
3:08
- Of course there wasn't a "chemical supply shop." You're being hyperbolic. You're undermining modern science by implying that because they got their "chemicals from a lab," that it makes their experiment invalid. Labs can produce high concentrations of many different substances for use in productions or experiments. It's up to the scientists to dose things correctly.
----------------
You are doing the very thing you claim to be correcting others for.
I can't watch anymore. This is horrible.
Rather, you're quite ignorant of how specific chemicals interact and bond. When you spoke about how oxygen is in the atmosphere "mixed with other chemicals," those chemicals are not bound together. They are also gaseous and quite distant on the molecular scale. For them to bind, it would take a high-pressure air compression system and extreme levels of heat. The analogy in the video was regard compounds like sugars(pentoses) which easily chemically bind to other compounds and how they can be found in dog poop but that they would already be bonded to many of the other chemicals found in said poop. You need high concentrations of free unbonded specific chemicals for the chemistry to even be probable, let alone plausible, which was one of the points made in the video. I am going to assume you didn't finish the video since you seem to have a rage quit mentality and a lack of honest inquiry into opposing viewpoints or data that contradicts your preconceived notions of reality. 0
We missed you so much ❤
If this were shown to me as a kid, I would not have had an atheist phase.
If "natural causes" is too narrow-minded (and "other ideas" outside of natural causes are even entertained), then conversation is over. By the way, in the murder analogy, "someone did it" is also a natural cause: some human, animal, or disease, which exists in "nature", could have caused the death through some "natural way". Just because the cause of something isn't readily explained through ways of nature, it doesn't necessitate a SUPERnatural cause -- that's wishful thinking. Just because a cookie's whereabout is unknown, one wouldn't automatically assume that a cookie demon has caused the cookie to dematerialize through some spell; instead, the first thought usually would lean towards the more "natural" cause, like some sugar-loving kid living under the same roof couldn't resist the temptation.
If anyone wants to believe in god, go ahead and believe. I would think that your faith shouldn't require any need to debunk science.
First off they're not meant to be in-depth analysis on the origin of those are just simple science videos for UA-cam. They're meant to convey information to lay people as an introduction to origin of life.Secondly we don't have every single answer to how this happen science is still working on some of these things. And some of these things we might never know. And that's okay it's okay to not have all the answers. It's not okay to say one side doesn't have all the answers so it must be God. If you have such a problem with evolution or abiogenesis you should come up with a competing model that explains everything that those theories do but does it better. Been waiting to hear about that model forever now but it's pretty clear now that they don't have one. And lastly even if you disprove evolution and abiogenesis this does not definitively prove God.
I fear you are writing these off as "simple science videos" when the demonstrated problem is that they are misleading the public. "Simple" does not justify misleading. You also suggest that they "convey information" but they actually propagate false information. That is not OK. It is OK to not have the answers, but not OK to suggest that we do have the answers by providing false statements. The video certainly does not attempt to say "one side doesn't have all the answers so it must be God."
if we DON'T KNOW how life began, then saying that WE KNOW how life began would be unjustified, right?
what this video is all about is the fact that many videos that you find on youtube on OoL are misleading, because they say that we know something that actually there is no justification for; but the common layman would simply accept that because, as he sayd in his video, it sounds "scientific".
@@robstadler927 no they certainly do not propagate false information. Abiogenesis is the best theory that we have that explains all of the data available. And evolution is just a fact of life that's how this works we can see this in action. Again if there's a better theory or model out there that has better explanatory power using the facts and data available I would love to see it. Haven't heard a peep from them though because they don't have a better theory. They have God which explains everything which actually means it explains nothing. You do a little digging and you can find out where this video comes from and what side they are clearly on. This is the propaganda.
@@musaaziri3568 no I've seen a lot of videos on this topic and they usually clarify that this is the best theory that we have for origin of life when you put the totality of facts, evidence, and decades of research in multiple different scientific fields. I've never once heard any video say this is definitely how it happen we know everything and you can't question anything that we have put forth. I think it's good to be skeptical in to question things but this video is just propaganda from creationists. It's pretty clear to see if you just do a little digging
@@kevinlawrence1582 sow, you are saying that, given what we objectively know until now, abiogenesis is justified?
when I say objectively know, I mean really objective data, not some just so stories or guesses.
And I don't understand why you think that this is propaganda.
I mean, he is simply saying that there are videos on youtube who are putting forward misinformations about the OoL; that we know something that actually we don't.
Is this propaganda?
I think that he is doing a good job, and he is making a lot of people to understand that it is better to read the papers for youself if you are interested and not to trust some "scientific" youtube channel for that.
Omg your channel is INCREDIBLE!!!! I think people who watch those channels and enjoy it would LOVE your channel!! You have found a gigantic audience where you are a special one among the creators, so you will grow FOR SURE!! Good luck!
Well, its actually religious BS.
@@caryfrancis7412 so you just say “bs” and couldn’t give one thing wrong with it? This video at least made arguments you on the other hand just ridiculed with not a single point made. Which logically, rationally, and academically speaking makes you full of bs. This video might be wrong, but it’s more logical than you, and that should scare you.
@@BK-hq7tn Since you cant tell, this is funded bya rligious organization that is putting their religion , above science. Much of what they are saying, are lies or misrepresentation of fact.
I can refute the points made, and it isnt hard, but there are so many, where to start ?
This is not logical, rational or academic.
I cant fugure out what group funds this, can you ?
Because why would they hide UNLESS this is BS and they know it is ?
@@caryfrancis7412 Go on start refuting, Do it in the name of science
ther author of this video is purposly avoiding a host od different naunces of the english language in order to literally nitpick the very way in which we speak.
the only alternative is to adopt the lever of "Lawyerese" inharent in legal documents where we have to take time and effort to throughly dand exhautivly difine every single use of words in our mostly shared language. None of this lends to legibility for the general target audience of these videos.
Therfore I would counter that this video is in fact a blatent attack on the open disemination of scientific information to the masses.
He clearly has a hypothosis counter to abiogenisis. AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO JUST BIT THE BULLET AND GET look for proof of his theory! If he can find the smoking gun to life being created by some sentient being--As he seems to place forward. If he cannot, then he has to except that his hypothisis has no proof against coperting theories which while not fully proven, are demonstratabley so.
Greetings. Between you and Dr. Tour, I will have no shortage of considerations, thoughts and information in both a intricately detailed format and in a layman's format that can be used to help others consider and analyze if other videos, and even your videos, are using supportive science or unsupported speculation. I see that some feel such a critique is nothing more than an invitation to Creationist views but I would ask then if an inspection of the current science highlights issues or holes within the experiment or theory, then wouldn't that just be an impetus to either find more supportive science to fill the gaps, or to review the theory completely if science is unable to adequately support it?
Very often, you will see sharp, sarcastic rebukes against the ID crowd, putting something like the following words in their mouths:
"Since we don't know the exact natural means by which abiogenesis and other evolutionary processes took place, that we MUST throw up our hands and attribute it to GOD since we don't understand how else it could possibly have happened!"
This is strange...because this is not remotely what ID scientists are saying at all. The proper way to evaluate a hypothesis is to examine it in the context of what we already know to be true, through previous observation and experimentation. In the case of Abiogenesis, we have the luxury of observing the way that RNA, DNA cells, and proteins behave, and we can clearly document the processes and dependencies on which life depends. The problems that ID scientists bring up are not exclusive to the current abiogenesis hypothesis... instead, they simply point out that ANY theory of the origin of life thorough natural processes faces the same set of issues.
Perhaps troublingly for some people... these issues suggest that in order for life to originate naturally... the necessary conditions would need to run contrary to what we already know to be feasible, or that the processes would need to behave differently in a way that we already know that they cannot behave. In short...the issues that this video brings up are not a simple matter to wave away...they cut to the foundation of the very premise of life-from-non-life. When it comes to life, it CAN'T be "Anything is Possible!"... it's a matter of understanding the limitations of nature, and what is possible, and what is not. For someone to suggest that "we just need to wait until the right discovery is made"...they are denying the reality of what our observations are clearly showing us: That life from non-life runs counter to the reasonable interpretation of the data we ALREADY have.
This shouldn't be controversial, but for some reason it is? If investigation clearly indicates that a "cause" is required to produce the "effect" that we observe, I'm not sure what motivation would cause me to ignore that conclusion.
@@jessebrady2614 Interestingly enough, this doesn't even include the ID viewpoint. It doesn't include the Creationist viewpoint either. All this is saying is the way the evolutionary or naturalist scientists are saying things work - don't. It's using practical and testable science to show what can or can't work. Not once has Long Story Short brought up ID or God or Creation at all. Only that the current theories being pushed as factual or true really don't work at all. It's exactly what the evolutionists keep harping they want from Creationists or ID'ists but when they get it, they rail against it and call it bad science. C'mon guys - stop being hypocrites. If it's show the current theories are wrong, then be smart and find better ones.
Can you leave a link of resources backing your claims?
Thanks
REFS updated in the pinned comment
As for abiogenesis, it’s going to be extremely funny and sad for you the day we inevitably discover exactly how to reproduce it. We’ve already made significant progress
Actually, from his point of view that might only prove that it indeed could have been a result of intelligent design :D
@@popularmisconception1 You’re 100% right it should. But sadly I don’t think he accepts the standard Catholic + mainline Protestant doctrine on science if he’s so desperate to disprove it+evolution lol :/ The person who first theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Intelligent design and real science are completely compatible. It means accepting Genesis as a metaphor, but in exchange you should be excited to get to see the real way God created the universe.
Notice you said “ the day we inevitably discover “ you are doing exactly what this video talks about. It hasn’t happened yet and no amount of hoping it will can be considered evidence or fact.
@@jonathanb858 What this video doesn’t do is tell you the undeniable fact we have made significant progress in recreating the chemistry of simple life forms in a lab for the past decade. We’ve even managed to 3D print DNA and living cells. What this video is doing is the equivalent of saying “humans will never invent a flying machine” in 1850 or “humans will never find the Highs Boson” in 1980. If 99% of scientists in all related fields agree something exists and is possible, you are being purposefully illogical and obtuse to argue it doesn’t. It should be reserved as a neat “what if?” scenario at most, and only actually explored if after decades at the advanced technological level where it should be obvious- it still isn’t found.
@@jonathanb858 Also this channel doesn’t actually care either way, because there is more than enough evidence for evolution (and specific branches they argue, like the evolution of whales), but they still make videos acting like it’s a contested issue anyways. It’s unironically no different than making a video showing all the (100% correct) “gaps” in the Higgs Boson theory in 2023. None of those gaps overwhelm the insane amount of evidence supporting it, including a clear and recorded detection of the phenomenon itself .
0:12 That's exactly what you did in your video titled "Darwin's Biggest Problem". I debunked it in the comments section. Shame on you.
Penguins can't be left handed, they don't even have hands...
thanks for useful information. Can you make video about vestigial organs and genetic diseases? we have some questions about its and intelligent design?
They are a hard evidence that ways of God are mysterious. And their practical use is to test our faith and separate the doubters from the 144 thousands. Only a heretic would doubt God's plan for us. If god didn't want us to put disbelievers on gallows, why would he put the thought of inventing the gallows into us? and so on...
Its actually both hilarious and disgusting how deceptive this channel is. What i mean is the attempt to deceptively inject distrust into the science is disgusting yet the fact that this is so evident is hilarious. Anyone who honestly fact checks this will know exactly what im talking about.
Okay, let’s say that life didn’t come about naturally. Where is your evidence for that? And remember absence of evidence for another theory doesn’t prove yours. Where is the scientific proof it didn’t come about naturally.
😂 all of this to get to god of the gaps
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Tell him to go pick up his Nobel Prize then. Oh, and yes that is exactly what was is in that video.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 I watched this like a year ago. I have absolutely no interest in watching it again or to have a debate with someone that wants to argue in bad faith on youtube.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 I responded to you our of courtesy. Spin it however you'd like. I simply have no desire to argue with a troll on youtube. Go cry about it.
@@Enturbulant Repent and believe the gospel while you have the chance.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 wait wait wait. You responded to my comment trying to get me to debate you. I tell you I'm not interested. Arguing on youtube is foolish and a waste of time. You didn't like that so you try to mock and in insult my intelligence to goad me into doing something I told you I had no interest in doing...then you try to witness to me?? Work on your approach and respect when someone says no to you.
thank ya mane
As always, best scientific commentary anywhere!!
Dude said "expecially" 😐
Thanks!
Thanks for the support 🏆
This channel needs *more* funding!
And needs to reach more people...
No, it does not. It is a Christian fundamentalist propaganda channel and nothing more
Need to fund more propaganda?
@@HW-sw5gb Which part was wrong?
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 I already told you 😩 We HAVE seen evidence of abiogenesis in prehistoric conditions we have recreated. We’ve seen proto-cells, RNA duplication, cell membranes, and the development of organelles. This video makes it out to be that scientists have no way to explain it but just think it’s something that “should” happen. In reality it’s like the graviton. Something we know exists and we’ve gotten closer to finding it, we just have to work more.
This channel doesn’t actually care about science though, look at their anti evolution videos for that lol
@@HW-sw5gb Your evidence is insufficient. You shouldn't cry about the channel, prove the channel wrong.
have you thought of doing some review of the Tour-Farina debate on the origin of life?
I mean, only the relevant data that was put forward by both parts.
yaaaaaaaaaaaay new vid!!! 🥰
Thank you, keep up the good work
Well done!
This channel is not it.
Man it,‘ll be therapeutic when a big Creationism-debunking channel comes across this. Also why do you want to believe that we can’t understand how life formed?
I really like your video! I laughed so hard when they were explaining MRNA replication??? 🤣🤣🤣
Excellent video. Not only informative but entertaining.
The channel in a nutshell
The biogenesis researchers make their living coming up with these ideas. It's not in their interest to prove themselves wrong. And the mystery of creation runs against their materialistic view of reality.
I suggest you have a look at the last 'reference' these 'Long story short' (actually Ls wrong) charlatans provide, where one of the fields' leading scientists Jack Szostak
discusses the problems associated with their work and origin of life hypotheses.
The distorted information given in these LSS videos is pure creationist propaganda, and the makers cowardly refusal to state their position clearly; instead, at 11:43, calling them "other ideas", only accentuates their lack of educational or societal value.
Though the 'Stated Clearly' and 'Be Smart' videos leave very much to be desired in the 'accurate and complete' department, every one of these 'Long Story Short' videos are at least an order of magnitude worse, for exactly the same reasons stated in the first part of this video.
If the producers of this disinformation jubilee didn't take themselves so seriously, I'd think the video was a parody of psychopathic projection...
That part at the end of getting tenure, money, and a Ted talk is a big one. Lots of science communities are less and less about actual science and more about making papers fitting the status quo, getting that decent job by not being risky with ideas, and just continuing the cycle because it's easy and risk free.
Examples?
Awesome video 🔥
are you a bot. if not this is god propaganda
So creationism without actually saying it.
When you show that unguided origin of life claims are garbage, you are right. There's really nothing left but an intelligent creator. For the atheists...sorry bout that, but facts are facts.
@@richardevans6529
Haha.... you ¡d¡ot
This looks to be a crypto-creationist channel, yea
@@richardevans6529 except for the fact that the intelligent creator argument holds even less water than hypothesis based on abiogenesis.there is a reason intelligent design isn’t considered a valid hypothesis.
Except that this video only discredits any theories and never says anything about creationism, there are so many proofs of evolution with undeniable evidence that isn’t based on assumptions that it’s impossible do deny them
The forensic sciences are the least scientific based mostly on speculation and assumptions.
.. .I think you are being intentionally deceptive. Are you seriously objecting to the fact that science is asking what are the "natural origins of life" instead of just the "origins of life"? Maybe before you should worry about rebutting the science, you should ask yourself what science is. It's an inquiry into the NATURAL world, not supernatural. It can ONLY give a natural explanation....
Supernatural is a loaded word.
Only a Superintelligence acting at an atomic and small molecule level can explain what the science demonstrates.
Information is non-random arrangements of symbols which specify unique outcomes of which the symbols themselves do not participate in.
Both base 4 encoded information and nanomschines capable of using the information have to be present simultaneously in a tiny area of space-time for life to begin.
And, life began twice, each with completely unique setsvof nanomachine complexes to process DNA and copy it.
ONLY a Superintelligence which visited a young Earth at a geologically and environmentally stable period of Earth's history can explain the megabytes to terabytes of information as coding and non-coding sequences.
This is conceptually light year's beyond what rational people can grasp. But so is quantum physics and the higher math of tensor in 4 dimensional geometry.
But, this is the truth. You ignore truth at the expense of maintaining the belief one is wise by remaining in ignorance.
@@glenliesegang233 And can you prove this intelligence is a thing?
Ty for your science videos & breaking it down for easy understanding. Love your animations!⛄️
SNOW MAN!!! ☃
@@JessicaSunlight ☃️
@@NaturalismFlops ☺♥