Right, I always wonder why they spend so much time and energy trying to disprove the theory of evolution when that would do nothing to demonstrate their own argument.. so weird.
@@jacobdad2742 it cause 1) they can't prove their arguments. 2) since they can't prove their side right all they can do is try to disprove the other side wrong thinking "if they are wrong then my opinion is right by default" 3) and when they can't disprove well establish science all they're left with is to try and miss show and pull down the other side to their level in a pathetic hope they can say they are on equal footing. to sum up they got no faith and want to win the argument that they are right.
@@jacobdad2742 From their perspective, they see it as delegitimizing science that tells them they're wrong or could be wrong. They see it as "what I believe is right, therefore evolution has to be wrong. And yet, they're teaching evolution in schools but banning prayer and the Bible." Even though prayer is allowed...just that a public school cannot endorse it (or in theory lead it from their place as a school employee, though that theory only applies when you don't have a 2-1 neocon majority SCOTUS) And the Bible is not only NOT banned, it's widely available in almost every school library in multiple versions. It's even the center of classes about the Bible as literature rather than religious text, a workaround to teaching the Bible in public schools.
It wouldn’t demonstrate creationism true but macroevolution is still pretty obviously an obstacle to creationism and also a widespread scientific belief? If you can falsify that you can also cast doubt on the wider scientific community. There is nothing confusing or unreasonable about their logic in targeting it
What I find so hilarious about the "DNA is computer code" argument is that it has only come about since the discovery of DNA and the invention of electronic computers. Go back to 1920, 1820, 1720, etc. and you'll still have creationists arguing that "god done it all", but for completely different reasons.
All that really means is that something new has become a common part of human experience and they're taking advantage of that to make an analogy they couldn't readily make before. I don't think that's a case of goal posts being moved or anything.
@@tetsujin_144 It's a false analogy, though, because they draw comparisons from computer code which have absolutely nothing to do with DNA whatsoever. It's fine to treat some facets of DNA as superficially similar to computer code, like the idea of "instructions" for the "machine" to follow, for the purpose of explaining it to lay people. It's not fine to say that changing one letter will always make DNA non-functional because computer code would usually get a compiling or execution error from any random letter changing: - In coding languages, most keywords and syntaxes are wildly different - rather than one letter apart - and there are dozens of options for a single point change between numbers, letters, spaces, and symbols. - In coding DNA, all 64 possible codons do 1 of 22 actions - so about a third of the time, a totally random point mutation wouldn't even modify the action performed in any way whatsoever, and all the time it should still do something (even if that's not viable). Note that a significant portion of human pregnancies (like a quarter, iirc) end in miscarriages due to genetic copying errors... Almost as if organisms actually do fail to reproduce successfully at a rate commensurate with unsurvivable genetic mutations. Of course, even that is oversimplified, but it shatters the illusion that the similarities run deep enough for _DNA must be designed because obviously it's code lol._
@@tetsujin_144 I guess it depends on how one looks at it. Instead of "God done it," it's "OK, we know what genetics are, so that would indicated God didn't done it, but let's say that DNA functions like computer code and any changes screw it up." That happens to not be the case. They're taking Thing A, computer code, and applying its traits to Thing B, actual DNA functioning. So they're taking a further understanding that scientists fought hard for, and are perverting it.
DNA is "like" computer code is not the same as DNA IS a code. Lacking the intellectual maturity to comprehend the difference just leads creationists to seek out layman's simplification for biological chemistry, which in turn causes them to reach a childish misunderstanding of what DNA is.
And, as if it's not bad enough that they think they're computer science experts, they typically pair this false analogy with "genetic entropy" - without even knowing what entropy even is in the first place and why that genetic mutation is not even "like" entropy.
Don't even have to refute them. The idea of God is scarier than anything else my paralysis demon can conjure. An all powerful, all-knowing, and all loving entity that allows evil. You have the power to stop X, but choose not to. Except in this case, X isn't just one thing. It's everything, everywhere, all at once.
Science: "We're always trying to refine, correct, and improve our understanding of how the universe works." Religion: "We already know how everything works and always have: someone else did it."
@@budd2nd Weirdly, they say they have an explanation, but it doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything. How did humans get here? "God made them." Ok, but why are they like they are? "That's how God made them." Thanks for nothing. Meanwhile, evolutionary biology explains exactly WHY things work the way they do.
Creationists confuse information as a thing that is being given, rather than a thing that is being interpreted. This leads them to think that DNA actually contains those letters that we really are only using to describe its processes. My favorite way to describe information (or data) is the lonely asteroid floating through space. As it occasionally bumps into things, or experiences gravitational stresses, it accumulates those scratches and holes and dents we all associate with that "classic" asteroid look. Those scars are information, or data, and exist whether or not there is anybody there to ever interpret it. They are not being given or provided to anybody. There is no superior, divine mind assigning letters or a code to them. They just exist, and maybe a human will get a camera close enough to see them and interpret that data.
Frankly, enough YECs are "theistic determinists" and would happily tell you that the asteroid was specifically caused to exist and follow that path so as to leave marks like that by design as a form of communication. Literally, the entire universe is a sign from God to them... "Look at the trees" arguments for absolutely everything, because if everything is designed, then everything is designed.
Also, God designed CRISPR for us to find. If he hadn't created genetic diseases to torture babies to death, you wouldn't have the ability to create cures.
@@libertyprime9307 . Something like the Adam and Eve story is an essential part of any creation story. A creation story has to have an explanation for why a perfect world, produced by the creator, is obviously not perfect. The Greeks had Pandora's box as their explanation. The idea it was literally what happened is utterly nonsensical, as is the idea of Original Sin. The latter being invented in the 4th century to ensure no one could claim they were sinless.
No shit, the watch has a watchmaker. The human body has a back that doesn't take walking upright well, knees that are critical to walking and very fragile, a breathing hole also used for eating and drinking which makes daily necessities a likelier brush with death, permanent teeth that don't last nearly as long as the life expectancy even with good maintenance, permanent teeth that actively cause problems that require just ripping them out, organs that readily store death sludge that can burst for no apparent reason, has not yet adapted to a star that gives it cancer, an immune system that fights infection by making it too hot for the intruders to live but can also make it too hot for the human to live, immune organs in the eating/breathing/drinking hole that get too overloaded and needs removal, a tendon that, if you have it, will only be used to put something useful back together when you rip it apart... A watchmaker who made a watch that complex with that many design flaws would be a shitty watchmaker. They'd have to find new work real quick.
@@goonerbear8659If you want a whole book about how badly are bodies are "designed" read the book by Abby Hafer titled The Not So Intelligent Designer.
@@goonerbear8659 Some more examples; The vagus nerve goes from your brain along the spine to underneath your aortic arch to your larynx. Basically the longest possible way without leaving the head and neck completely. Made sense when we were still fish-like, the distance was much smaller. We have a skin layer in the abdomen that would be taut and prevent the intestine from slipping out if the stomach is injured, if we were quadrupeds. Lost its function because we walk upright and just kind of hangs there. We still have muscles used to point ears in the direction of sounds, only it is atrophied to the point of only allowing mildly amusing ear wiggles for some people. The perfect, all-powerful creator of the universe as depicted by the bible is an incompetent buffoon if he made us.
yeah, i would love for them to demonstrate anything that reproduces and is designed at the same time. sinds they are always pointing at human made things and comparing them to living things
Well it's more than that. Watches aren't self replicating, they don't undergo random mutations or anything analogous, they don't have acquired traits and so on.
"Its just like computer code." No DNA is analogous to computer code. What that means is that its enough like computer code for it to be a useful analogy. There are some pretty bad differences, but to get a very simple understanding of what DNA does its useful to compare it to computer code. But that's it, the analogy provides a surface level understanding of what DNA does. I really wish these creationists would listen when these things are explained to them.
I was homeschooled back in the 90s. My science curriculum had a lot of YEC nonsense in it because there was no accredited programs back in that day (at least none that I knew of) …that derailed my brain for decades (just now getting toward recovery)
The flaw with the "bad mutations" argument is that it assumes what the final outcome is supposed to be. The "program" only breaks if you are trying to get it to do something *specific". If you are just trying to get it to do *something*, the criteria for breakage are much harder to meet. ex: if you want your program to make Red, but your change makes Blue, it's broken. If you just need it to make a color, it's still fine. Evolution doesn't have an end design in mind, because it's a process not a mind. Anything that works is a go. So that's where the programming metaphor breaks down, and why it doesn't lead to a god.
You can absolutely get "errors" in programming that end up making the whole thing better. A pretty noteworthy example is from the original super mario bros, bowser turning into an enemy when you defeat him with fireballs was originally an error but they kept it because it just made sense that that wasn't really bowser but just an enemy disguised as him
A christian is walking through an empty field. No houses, no buildings, no people, nothing. As he's walking, he finds a watch. He knows watchmakers make watches, but he doesn't see one anywhere. Must have been god.🤣🤣🤣
One thing i have noticed with Creationists is that they always say that all genetic mutations are not beneficial. There is one mutation of the genetic code that causes a form of blood cancer viz Sickle Cell Anemia. The interesting thing is that this condition is common in persons of West African descent as it conferes a level of immunity to Malaria. So we have a non-beneficial mutation with a beneficial effect. Also as a Brit we do not spell words wrong people from the USA do.
"Something must have made everything, and whatever made them will be mad if you don't follow the rules WE tell you, and also tell him you LOVE HIM." He's unimaginably smarter than you but has the exact same petty, selfish emotions we all have.
It didn’t occur to me until late in life that the Abrahamic gods have self esteem issues. “Worship, bow and kneel before me or else”. I’m a human and I don’t require constant praise.
@@kwood55 exactly. It makes zero sense that a real god would just be like a big, needy person. In fact, traits like that seem to confirm that people made the gods up.
I love your take on the watch-maker argument!... And probability. Oh. So they just redefine information... And programming is an effective analogy when explaining DNA to someone unfamiliar with it, but to say they're synonymous is either dishonest or a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. My brain keeps shouting "citation needed". 😂
@@danger.snakes I say something like "OK, the watch is designed. But why did you make that distinction between the watch and the field?" Since their presupposition is that the field is designed. The watch-maker argument is a bit of a bait-and-switch.
Literally all teleological/watchmaker/look at the trees/design arguments are fundamentally false analogy fallacies that play on intuition. DNA is not code, or language, or text, or communication, or anything of that sort; to say it is analogous to something else and then apply unrelated features of the analogy backwards onto DNA is to completely miss the point. Here's a fun example: computer code has a stereotype of being created by virgins in parents' basements. Obviously DNA inheritance must also therefore be created by virgins. Makes perfect sense, right?
Regarding the errors changing things: I am a professional game developer and I made so many errors that ended up improving the game that my catch phrase was serendipity, I used to joke about putting it on a banner above my desk. My favourite one being some sloppy code to keep the cards attached to each other in a solitaire game so each card was 1 frame behind the one it's supposed to be on top of, it ended up creating this really cool elastic swinging animation. From there the error was "fixed" by turning it into an intentional feature so we could tweak the swing to feel the best.
A multi-BILLION dollar franchise and company is the result of a computer bug. The entire Grand Theft Auto series of games is technically the result of a computer bug. They didn't intend to create that type of game at all, the testers had MORE fun playing the version that had that particular bug that they entirely pivoted the design of the game such that said "bug" became the core element of the game.
@@thomaspriewasser6660 Not trying to chide you so much as offer advice but a search engine is where you want to ask questions, not a web forum or comments section. You can do it in microseconds and keep refining your search terms to get closer to what you are looking for vs never getting anything useful answer to your question, much like this response.
The cosmic ray on the N64 story is most likely false because it couldn't cause a bit flip strong enough to cause it change the game the way it did, it was likely a connections error because the guys console was slightly faulty. Though cosmic rays can impact computers but it's extremely rare.
DNA is not a true code. They're using code as an analogy to make it easier for the layman to understand. What it is, in fact, is chemistry. It's chemicals doing what chemicals do. This chemistry can even change, depending on the conditions they are under. Also, there is nothing digital inside of the human body. Certain chemicals are assigned certain letters to make things easier, especially when writing papers. It's a kind of shorthand, if you will. C T G A are just the first letters in the name of four different chemicals. So if anybody wants to consider it digital, it is digital by our own making.
Congratulations on overcoming that indoctrination ; it took me about 30 years to overcome my indoctrination that I mostly did to myself(began around age 20 in Xtianity).
@@NeedSomeNuance My first spiritual mentor was all about "sola scriptura", so, no, not exactly. Instead I got a kjv Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Without actually understanding the original languages I had to guess a lot of the time at the meaning of words as I studied, and I convinced myself that I was uncovering secret knowledge.
And second comment just because it infuriates me personally. I work in a lab for microbiology. I prepared some site-directed Q5 mutagenesis PCRs today. DNA is nothing like computer code. Nothing like it! You can't just insert an entire new set of instructions into the code of minesweeper to display a Rickroll video and have it run as normal. You can insert fluorescent protein markers into plasmids and the cell will just work with that. You can't transfer code from one program to another to produce a new program feature seamlessly within the old UI. It just isn't the same. And it isn't a language either, it has no syntax, no grammar, nothing we didn't impose upon it to make it more legible.
Out of curiousity. Is this ability of DNA to read in all directions due to it being molecules acting upon the neighbours it has, not the directions those are in? Does chemistry care about directions as much as writen computer code?
@thomaspriewasser6660 that's a good question. I'm looking at getting a job exploring that. Only about 20 years ago we (the scientific community) started looking into the 3D shape of chromosomes and our genome and how some operator segments could be several hundred thousand base pairs away from the actual coding area of the gene. It's, from my still limited understanding, due to how the DNA is arranged both in the order of base pairs as well as the structure of the genome. Additionally, genes are "read" in a 3 base frame, so three bases respond to one of twenty possible amino acids. This frame can be influenced by where the operator is, what promotors and what inhibitors are involved and what proteins or other molecules exist in the surrounding environment. Really fascinating and really complicated stuff.
@thomaspriewasser6660 and, in all honesty, really inefficient. Our human genome is 6.5 billion bases long and prone to so many errors and so full of 'junk' DNA that, as far as we know, doesn't do anything. It'd be like God tried to code the "Hello World" basic programming lesson but accidentially included the entire script of the Bee movie in his code. If I was the infallible and perfect creator, I think I'd manage to make a less convoluted system.
@@l0rf i've also used the 'hello world' example when arguing against ID and Creationism. I don't understand anything about biology, but i did learn some programing languages back in technical college. So the argument that design would show efficiency before complexity seemed reasonable. Why would anyone make a 1 TB size file to print hello world if he could do so with a couple KB?
Yep, most parents want more for their kids than they had, except for home schoolers. I have a sibling who home schools (but not for religious reasons) and even though the oldest is 15 none of them can read or write at all, and they have no interest in anything. It should be criminal.
@@thedeadgypsy _"none of them can read or write at all"_ Hmm, sounds like a great way to prepare adults for 'economic realities'.. ..and getting lost riding a bus.. 😣
Funny thing is that creationists also believe that evolution (at an impossibly fast rate of speed) occurred in the few thousand years after "the flood" in order to explain the current diversity of life on earth.
@@thomaspriewasser6660 . Ken Ham claims things that are utterly ridiculous. Like the break-up of Pangea into the continents, we see today happened during the Flood.
ikr? As Jimmy Carr said, "I don't have an accent, this is what English sounds like when spoken properly." "The English spell English wrong." What a nit.
this is not the dangers of homeschooling this is the dangers of not properly teaching your children this stuff can happen with kids in public school too if the parents are failing them in the same ways. dont demonize homeschool because religious cult types use it as an excuse to not teach their children.
These kind of videos are not intended to convert people over to intelligent design. These videos are intended to fool believers into thinking that they have good, solid scientific reasons for their belief. It's a desperate attempt to try and stop the exodus of people leaving the faith. Fortunately, there are lots people like London Storm ready and willing to call them out on their BS.
The gene code is designed to do this and designed to do that, therefore god. But why does god need redundancy? Is he incapable to design a better system? Is he not all powerful? On the other hand if evolution is true, those redundancies are an advantage, because they allow for an increased adaptibility while also lowering the effects of detrimental mutations.
32:59 "these work together in a bueatiful mind boggling complexity" just reminds me of the phrase "An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity" -terry davis
something that pretty much all designed complex items humans make have in common is buttons, of any kind. volume too high on your phone? turn it down with buttons. volume too low? turn it up. brightness? buttons. some buttons are touch, some are knobs... your vaccume is not sucking hard enough? buttons to dial it up. car? buttons. and so on. knee hurts? shit, live with it. can't turn off the pain. tinnitus? sorry, you're hard-wired to suffer, no dials for that one. chronic pain? nope, no buttons. want to sleep? nope, no buttons. want adrenaline? nope, can't have it by pressing a button.
interesting that "Long story short" quoted Francis Collins who actually acknowledges that all the evidence points to evolution but he also thinks that the Christian god is the primal cause of the Universe if they really promote YEC why are they thinking that mentioning Francis Collins will help them
It’s always painful to watch creationists use science they don’t understand to debunk the science they REALLY don’t understand 😂😂😂 And we’re almost at 5k people!!!! Keep liking, commenting and sharing!!!! Wooooooo 🥳
I sometimes watch videos of Mars. These videos come from NASA probes on Mars but the footage has been overlaid with comments from somebody with a UA-cam channel. The videos often pause while the UA-camr inserts comments suggesting that what we are seeing is the wreckage of advanced machines or the ruins of Martian buildings. All I ever see is rock, dirt, and sand. I view these videos as being much like a Rorschach ink blot. Some people expect to see evidence of an advanced Martian civilization on Mars so that is what they see even when there are just rocks, dirt, and sand present. One of the problems with religion is that it conditions people to see things in terms of their religion. Where I see natural processes at work, they see their God at work. Of course, each religion tends to view these things in terms of their own religion. Where Hindus might see processes driven by karma and reincarnation, Christians see the Trinity at work. Each is looking at nature’s inkblot and interpreting it in light of their own religious beliefs.
Saying DNA is "like" a computer code is not the same as saying DNA "is" code. DNA is not a written code. It is bio-chemistry. A very, very long chemical chain which leads to chemical reactions, resulting in the formation of proteins. This "chain" is copied over and over as cells multiply and in the production of gametes. Mutations are essentially copying errors. Sometimes these errors are detrimental to the healthy function of an organism, as in cancerous cells. Other times, these errors can be useful in that they help an organism be better suited to its environment, increasing its survival rate. But for vast majority of cases, the errors are neutral, in that they don't affect the function of the organism in any meaningful way. There is no code writer. The errors are usually random. But the evolution of a population of a species is guided by natural selection, genetic drift and other factors, so that it may appear to be designed. But that is only an outward semblance, not inward reality at all.
If a dog stood up and said “I want tacos”, I would immediately go to a doctor or psychiatrist and make sure I wasn’t hallucinating. It would actually communicate LESS information from the dog than the dog barking.
Appreciate the reference to the Mario 64 upwarp, but it having been a cosmic ray is a common misconception. It might have been one, but it has not been proven
@@danger.snakes that's not to say cosmic rates messing stuff up doesn't happen. but the community isn't convinced. Certainly pannenkoek2012 (the man who put a bounty out on it) isn't convinced
@@dead-eyedarrel3878 I have followed the debate and the bit flip is slightly different from what is recorded happening. There are videos on it. A faulty slot seems a better explanation, and a more mundane one, but it has yet to be reproduced. Thus far, it's anyone's guess.
don't forget their secret weapon word: IF. "IF my religion is true, then it's true. now do you believe me? oh, you don't? well, hahaha, i feel sorry for you. my god created a special torture place for people like you" - theists.
That's funny that you mention Forrest Valkai. I was thinking how he would be ripping this ignorant misdirection apart, point by ill conceived point. Hopefully, theres a Reacteria in the works on this one. Also, simplicity is the mark of intelligence, not complexity.
That doesn't compute to the theist. Their god made them. It has to be that way or everything is meaningless. The thought that God is made-up is unthinkable to them. I wasn't able to think it and remain theist. Ouch, flashback.
What's more: religions are intelligently designed/codified and patched until they fall too far behind humanity's core operating system version. The most virulent ones can be made to run on some homeschool emulator, however.
The problem with AI code and AI in general is that it has no understanding of what it is creating. Therefore there is no way to verify it except reviewing it It is good for generating boiler plate code though. Unit tests. Comments and doco as well AI is up against the hard problem of consciousness. It’s something we can’t define and understand so expecting an automated system to is a fools errand. At least with the AI science we have just now
@@Puketapu I don't necessarily disagree regarding the current AI tech/science, but I think it underestimates the advances that will be made in the next several years. Also, I'm not convinced that AI writing good, useful, and better code is a problem related to "consciousness". If we view code as what it ultimately is--i.e., instructions--then there is little there that actually intersects consciousness, even as the "instructions" that drive DNA replication have nothing to do with consciousness (at least so far as we know). Therefore, if AI advances enough in the next year or two where it can fall into a paradigm of self-evolution that mirrors the biological (but accelerated to a much faster pace), then there seems to be no inherent problem of imagining that it could evolve down pathways that our "consciousness" could scarcely imagine. Granted, the path this evolution takes may not ultimately seem productive or beneficial in our assessment of it, so in that regard the notion of "good"/"better"/"more useful" code might be like comparing mismatched fruits.
The only creationist who will listen to common sense are the ones who are on the fence about it to begin with. When I was deep in religion no one could tell me I was wrong until I was already questioning it through self-discovery
A lot of the fun stuff we enjoy in games started out as exploits or glitches that the devs left in, or even improved to make it an intended part of the gameplay. Such as rocket jumping.
Haha. The cartoonist said the British spell words wrong all the time? This person must be an American. Does he think everyone that doesn't speak English like he does has an accent, but HE doesn't?
good luck getting them to define anything. they have to keep their terms vague so the can easily backtrack when in any actual conversation and so their followers can fill in the blanks with premade answeres.
The cosmic ray thing happens well often enough. There was a voting scandal that turned out to just be a cosmic array wasn't there? I think error correction is much more robust and redundant in satellites precisely because of this too right?
The long and short of the evolution of complex systems including those claimed to be irreducibly complex is that it's perfectly possible to postulate stages in their natural evolution. Even if the current function of a modern system would cease if one of the components was removed, all of its components would have evolved from those participating in simpler systems. You can do this without even involving the loss of the original function simply by gene duplication, so one copy of the gene can continue its original function, while the second copy can evolve to perform a new one. A biological cell is "irreducibly complex" in the same way the Empire State Building is irreducibly complex - remove one story and the whole thing collapses, yet we know it was built in stages, with the supporting scaffolding subsequently removed. If you didn't have some idea of how skyscrapers are built, you might as well assume it was planted there by a god. And as London Storm points out, if everything in nature must be intelligently designed, then everything is intelligently designed, and there's no way of distinguishing between a natural process and an artificial one. All processes would be artificial by definition, including your personal biochemistry which would have to have the hand of god guiding each molecule to its proper place. After all, there are so many ways of arranging the components of any modern cell, it's astronomically impossible for any cell to have a functional structure without the hand of god making sure it follows the correct path. And you have billions of these evidently unreliable objects in your body, and that's just the non-bacterial ones.
Another idea creationists always ignore is: the more complex something is, the more likely it's to break down. Meaning god meant for for everything in the universe to break down.
Loved most of your video. But at around 12:40, you mention an explanation for a glitch that was NOT (determined to be) caused by a cosmic ray, as widely spread as it is. The Mario64 speedrunning community is still evaluating what the cause was. Most likely scenario is a faulty cartridge slot. But the cosmic ray bit flip does not result in the same glitch recorded, but a very, very similar one. You can find current debate and tests on this issue online with a couple minutes of googling.
Also, it didn't lead to a record, but to something worth investigating as a possible exploit to allow time saves for future records... which it ended up not being. It was a run that happened to get recorded, but it was mostly casual.
Two game series that refute the errors cannot create anything new off the top of my head are Street Fighter (the reason why fighting games have combos is an error/ oversight), and Gta (the reactions of the police in the early builds caused by an error caused the developers to switch the outcome of what they were creating)
On the topic of cosmic rays. There was a radio lab episode about this in particular and it's really interesting. If memory serves me correctly, this is why airplanes and car computer systems where the car has control over the accelerator (to help with gas mileage) it has to have some system where three computers make the decision and at least two have to agree. It appears that there was an issue with Toyota Prius early on and an accident related to this was captured sadly on an 911 call. Did not end well because the accelerator would not stop. There's also an airplane crash apparently for essentially something similar with a computer program being corrupted before they had the three system method. And even an election in another country where a cosmic ray hit just the right bit switch somehow and it gave the person the precise number of votes in their favor that was aligned to that bit being in the other position. And it didn't make sense because the person was an anomaly with the number of votes they got because of that. This next thought is purely speculative. I sometimes wonder if the half life of atoms has a relationship to causing changes that would be a part of the alterations to DNA and such. It seems very probable that atoms are constantly experiencing the half-life thing and I guess that gives off some radiation and also creates a new type of atom or something. I don't know. It just seems like an existing internal process that perhaps could have a part to play in the process. If there was any truth to this then it would be a very consistent and reliable thing to cause change.
I love your take on this subject. I think emphasizing that evolution is anything but random, as Richard Dawkins puts it, would help get the nature of evolution across to the less educated listeners. Keep up the good work.
19:47 Funny how this sounds almost nothing like computer code and more like a chemical process that isn't precariously balanced on a particular DNA sequence.
How come god can create planets and stars with no issue, every rock and supernova is perfectly functional with no secret code inside it... but when he wants to make a frog he needs blueprints all of a sudden?
Notice how apologists always jump to complex animals and say how complex the DNA is, and wow, the chances have so many zeros they couldn't possibly have happened by chance!!! Totally ignoring the vast expanse of time starting most likely with simple proteins and RNA and systems developing greater complexity over billions of years. It suggests that apologists are being very disingenuous. It also suggests that they cannot lose the idea that everything was made in 7 days. But when you start with the conclusion and try to work out an argument to prove it, then you are going to look like a fool.
0:47 how? if everything is "designed" by god, what makes the rocket special? why wouldn't we, without knowledge of how rockets are made just assume it's also made by god?
I'm not convinced by making an analogy, then think that the analogy is real. As in, "The brain is like a computer" becomes "The brain works by binary code". AFAIK, the brain is not a computer and does not use a binary code. When Bill Gates says DNA is LIKE computer coding, the key word is LIKE It does not mean the two are exactly comparable, it's a metaphor to help understand how a biological process works. As said in the video, one is natural, and one is artificial. Dolphins and bats use echo location. This is LIKE sonar and radar. There's no reason why echo location in animals needed a designer.
My kids are still recovering from the forced homeschooling during Covid. One is back at school full time, but doesn't seem to have the knack of making friends despite being an extrovert. The other is slowly being re-integrated into full-time school, after having terrible experiences prior to Covid (she is special needs but high-functioning), but again lacks the skills to make friends. Just as well as the school district have just informed us that they will not have a home-schooling program come Fall.
It is not odd to use scientific language to dispute scientific theories. The odd part here is the platform used - Science is debated by using the scientific method: researching, testing, producing scientific papers, submitting them to peer review, and so on. Things that creationist, obviously, never do.
20:25 "Basically, the British spell words wrong all the time, but we still know what they mean, usually." Wow. Wow. Just wow. No little chuckle, like it's a joke, wink, wink, we all know British English and American English have just evolved different spellings but I'm being facetious, ha ha. Nope. This dude apparently thinks an entire nation of people are just horrible spellers. I see what you mean about homeschooling...
I've written plenty of computer code that [re]write's itself. "Self-modifying code" is as old as electronic computers. This guy knows nothing about DNA or computers.
I was taught this sort of stuff when I was homeschooled! 😆 🤣 😂 I literally "learned" that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark in my actual "science" book written by Duane T Gish, of the Gish Gallop (lying faster than the fact checking of your opponent)
The British DO NOT spell words wrong it's our language, it's the rest of the world which spells my language incorrectly. The cheek of this creationist. 😉
*DNA code implies evolution* For two software programs that accomplish the same thing, the more complex code reflects poorer programming. Simplicity is the hallmark of greater knowledge or intelligence or both. This code analogy ends up corroborating evolution. Nature builds weirdly complex systems compared to computer software because nature can’t start from scratch or remove whole modules when it sees a better way, etc. Nature has to tack on to existing systems and often retain vestigial parts that are no longer very useful.
Even if creationists could falsify the theory of biological evolution, that would not demonstrate creationism true.
Right, I always wonder why they spend so much time and energy trying to disprove the theory of evolution when that would do nothing to demonstrate their own argument.. so weird.
@@jacobdad2742 it cause 1) they can't prove their arguments. 2) since they can't prove their side right all they can do is try to disprove the other side wrong thinking "if they are wrong then my opinion is right by default" 3) and when they can't disprove well establish science all they're left with is to try and miss show and pull down the other side to their level in a pathetic hope they can say they are on equal footing.
to sum up they got no faith and want to win the argument that they are right.
@@jacobdad2742they have no way to demonstrate their argument. It’s the same reason flerfers spend all their time “debunking” the globe.
@@jacobdad2742 From their perspective, they see it as delegitimizing science that tells them they're wrong or could be wrong. They see it as "what I believe is right, therefore evolution has to be wrong. And yet, they're teaching evolution in schools but banning prayer and the Bible." Even though prayer is allowed...just that a public school cannot endorse it (or in theory lead it from their place as a school employee, though that theory only applies when you don't have a 2-1 neocon majority SCOTUS) And the Bible is not only NOT banned, it's widely available in almost every school library in multiple versions. It's even the center of classes about the Bible as literature rather than religious text, a workaround to teaching the Bible in public schools.
It wouldn’t demonstrate creationism true but macroevolution is still pretty obviously an obstacle to creationism and also a widespread scientific belief? If you can falsify that you can also cast doubt on the wider scientific community. There is nothing confusing or unreasonable about their logic in targeting it
What I find so hilarious about the "DNA is computer code" argument is that it has only come about since the discovery of DNA and the invention of electronic computers.
Go back to 1920, 1820, 1720, etc. and you'll still have creationists arguing that "god done it all", but for completely different reasons.
yeah, they are constantly moving the goal posts.
The god of the ever-narrowing gaps.
All that really means is that something new has become a common part of human experience and they're taking advantage of that to make an analogy they couldn't readily make before. I don't think that's a case of goal posts being moved or anything.
@@tetsujin_144 It's a false analogy, though, because they draw comparisons from computer code which have absolutely nothing to do with DNA whatsoever.
It's fine to treat some facets of DNA as superficially similar to computer code, like the idea of "instructions" for the "machine" to follow, for the purpose of explaining it to lay people. It's not fine to say that changing one letter will always make DNA non-functional because computer code would usually get a compiling or execution error from any random letter changing:
- In coding languages, most keywords and syntaxes are wildly different - rather than one letter apart - and there are dozens of options for a single point change between numbers, letters, spaces, and symbols.
- In coding DNA, all 64 possible codons do 1 of 22 actions - so about a third of the time, a totally random point mutation wouldn't even modify the action performed in any way whatsoever, and all the time it should still do something (even if that's not viable). Note that a significant portion of human pregnancies (like a quarter, iirc) end in miscarriages due to genetic copying errors... Almost as if organisms actually do fail to reproduce successfully at a rate commensurate with unsurvivable genetic mutations.
Of course, even that is oversimplified, but it shatters the illusion that the similarities run deep enough for _DNA must be designed because obviously it's code lol._
@@tetsujin_144 I guess it depends on how one looks at it. Instead of "God done it," it's "OK, we know what genetics are, so that would indicated God didn't done it, but let's say that DNA functions like computer code and any changes screw it up." That happens to not be the case. They're taking Thing A, computer code, and applying its traits to Thing B, actual DNA functioning. So they're taking a further understanding that scientists fought hard for, and are perverting it.
DNA is "like" computer code is not the same as DNA IS a code.
Lacking the intellectual maturity to comprehend the difference just leads creationists to seek out layman's simplification for biological chemistry, which in turn causes them to reach a childish misunderstanding of what DNA is.
And, as if it's not bad enough that they think they're computer science experts, they typically pair this false analogy with "genetic entropy" - without even knowing what entropy even is in the first place and why that genetic mutation is not even "like" entropy.
I think they really believe there are letters encoded in DNA which are literally read and enacted by the codons and cells.
I've just spent over an hour arguing with two young earth creationists. 🤦🏻♂️ good grief, the ad hoc arguments they come up with!
And you'll never get that hour back, you feckin' heathen. My condolences.
Don't even have to refute them. The idea of God is scarier than anything else my paralysis demon can conjure. An all powerful, all-knowing, and all loving entity that allows evil.
You have the power to stop X, but choose not to. Except in this case, X isn't just one thing. It's everything, everywhere, all at once.
@@StormCrownSr agreed. I don't know why I waste my time with 🤷🏻♂🤦🏻♂🙇🏻♂
@@johnburn8031 I haven't found many who are good faith actors. They're belligerent, rude, snarky, and of course...ignorant.
@ButConsiderThis I honesty don't know 🤦🏻♂🙇🏻♂
Science: "We're always trying to refine, correct, and improve our understanding of how the universe works."
Religion: "We already know how everything works and always have: someone else did it."
Yes, that is exactly why it appeals to educationally deprived theists. No need to think, just pass the problem on to an “apparently” unknowable deity.
@@budd2nd Weirdly, they say they have an explanation, but it doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything.
How did humans get here? "God made them."
Ok, but why are they like they are? "That's how God made them."
Thanks for nothing.
Meanwhile, evolutionary biology explains exactly WHY things work the way they do.
@@itsROMPERS... yes, I completely agree with you. It is a total farce of an explanation.
The only thing that adapts is how the wizard did it
Gibberish says the guy who probably speaks in tongues
Imagine copying a computer file and it getting mutations every time
The theist would say that the computer is demon posessed 😂🤪
@@katarinatibai8396 all computers have sinned and fallen short of my glory
Creationists confuse information as a thing that is being given, rather than a thing that is being interpreted. This leads them to think that DNA actually contains those letters that we really are only using to describe its processes. My favorite way to describe information (or data) is the lonely asteroid floating through space. As it occasionally bumps into things, or experiences gravitational stresses, it accumulates those scratches and holes and dents we all associate with that "classic" asteroid look. Those scars are information, or data, and exist whether or not there is anybody there to ever interpret it. They are not being given or provided to anybody. There is no superior, divine mind assigning letters or a code to them. They just exist, and maybe a human will get a camera close enough to see them and interpret that data.
Frankly, enough YECs are "theistic determinists" and would happily tell you that the asteroid was specifically caused to exist and follow that path so as to leave marks like that by design as a form of communication.
Literally, the entire universe is a sign from God to them... "Look at the trees" arguments for absolutely everything, because if everything is designed, then everything is designed.
Has anyone asked a YEC how they square up CRISPR fixing mistakes their creator made, like muscular dystrophy?
“Pol II was error free before the fall” -creationists, probably 🙄
Also, God designed CRISPR for us to find. If he hadn't created genetic diseases to torture babies to death, you wouldn't have the ability to create cures.
They always say such things only started after Adam & Eve ate the fruit.
As though that makes sense.
Satan, probably?
@@libertyprime9307 .
Something like the Adam and Eve story is an essential part of any creation story. A creation story has to have an explanation for why a perfect world, produced by the creator, is obviously not perfect. The Greeks had Pandora's box as their explanation.
The idea it was literally what happened is utterly nonsensical, as is the idea of Original Sin. The latter being invented in the 4th century to ensure no one could claim they were sinless.
When you open with the watchmaker argument, all you deserve is an eyeroll.
No shit, the watch has a watchmaker.
The human body has a back that doesn't take walking upright well, knees that are critical to walking and very fragile, a breathing hole also used for eating and drinking which makes daily necessities a likelier brush with death, permanent teeth that don't last nearly as long as the life expectancy even with good maintenance, permanent teeth that actively cause problems that require just ripping them out, organs that readily store death sludge that can burst for no apparent reason, has not yet adapted to a star that gives it cancer, an immune system that fights infection by making it too hot for the intruders to live but can also make it too hot for the human to live, immune organs in the eating/breathing/drinking hole that get too overloaded and needs removal, a tendon that, if you have it, will only be used to put something useful back together when you rip it apart...
A watchmaker who made a watch that complex with that many design flaws would be a shitty watchmaker. They'd have to find new work real quick.
Yep, and they are so predictable that it took all of 5 seconds to know thats what was coming.
@@goonerbear8659If you want a whole book about how badly are bodies are "designed" read the book by Abby Hafer titled The Not So Intelligent Designer.
@@goonerbear8659 Some more examples; The vagus nerve goes from your brain along the spine to underneath your aortic arch to your larynx. Basically the longest possible way without leaving the head and neck completely. Made sense when we were still fish-like, the distance was much smaller. We have a skin layer in the abdomen that would be taut and prevent the intestine from slipping out if the stomach is injured, if we were quadrupeds. Lost its function because we walk upright and just kind of hangs there. We still have muscles used to point ears in the direction of sounds, only it is atrophied to the point of only allowing mildly amusing ear wiggles for some people. The perfect, all-powerful creator of the universe as depicted by the bible is an incompetent buffoon if he made us.
yeah, i would love for them to demonstrate anything that reproduces and is designed at the same time. sinds they are always pointing at human made things and comparing them to living things
I hate the watch analogy so much. Like obviously we assume the watch was designed because WE KNOW humans can make, have made, and do make watches lol
Well it's more than that. Watches aren't self replicating, they don't undergo random mutations or anything analogous, they don't have acquired traits and so on.
AND are only ever made by humans. Once we find another species, that can make them, they will fall back to 'intelligence'.
Long Story Short: DNA is like computer code!
Stephen Meyer: Hey, that’s my li(n)e!
"Its just like computer code."
No DNA is analogous to computer code. What that means is that its enough like computer code for it to be a useful analogy. There are some pretty bad differences, but to get a very simple understanding of what DNA does its useful to compare it to computer code. But that's it, the analogy provides a surface level understanding of what DNA does.
I really wish these creationists would listen when these things are explained to them.
I was homeschooled back in the 90s. My science curriculum had a lot of YEC nonsense in it because there was no accredited programs back in that day (at least none that I knew of)
…that derailed my brain for decades (just now getting toward recovery)
How would an alien tell the difference between: A)Bunch of sticks in a canyon creating a dam after a flood; vs. B)Beaver dam?
A beaver dam would have a nest, organic residue left by the beaver, chew marks, scent trails, possibly a nearby population of beavers.
You have to destroy the dam and wait for beavers to come fix it.
Faulty analogy fallacy built upon faulty analogy fallacy
It's false analogy turtles all the way down!
at this point its a skill
The flaw with the "bad mutations" argument is that it assumes what the final outcome is supposed to be. The "program" only breaks if you are trying to get it to do something *specific". If you are just trying to get it to do *something*, the criteria for breakage are much harder to meet.
ex: if you want your program to make Red, but your change makes Blue, it's broken. If you just need it to make a color, it's still fine.
Evolution doesn't have an end design in mind, because it's a process not a mind. Anything that works is a go. So that's where the programming metaphor breaks down, and why it doesn't lead to a god.
You can absolutely get "errors" in programming that end up making the whole thing better. A pretty noteworthy example is from the original super mario bros, bowser turning into an enemy when you defeat him with fireballs was originally an error but they kept it because it just made sense that that wasn't really bowser but just an enemy disguised as him
18:14 Cause his target audience doesn't understand the slightest bit of any of this so he'll seem very knowledgeable.
A christian is walking through an empty field. No houses, no buildings, no people, nothing. As he's walking, he finds a watch. He knows watchmakers make watches, but he doesn't see one anywhere. Must have been god.🤣🤣🤣
One thing i have noticed with Creationists is that they always say that all genetic mutations are not beneficial. There is one mutation of the genetic code that causes a form of blood cancer viz Sickle Cell Anemia. The interesting thing is that this condition is common in persons of West African descent as it conferes a level of immunity to Malaria. So we have a non-beneficial mutation with a beneficial effect.
Also as a Brit we do not spell words wrong people from the USA do.
"Something must have made everything, and whatever made them will be mad if you don't follow the rules WE tell you, and also tell him you LOVE HIM."
He's unimaginably smarter than you but has the exact same petty, selfish emotions we all have.
It didn’t occur to me until late in life that the Abrahamic gods have self esteem issues. “Worship, bow and kneel before me or else”. I’m a human and I don’t require constant praise.
@@kwood55 exactly. It makes zero sense that a real god would just be like a big, needy person.
In fact, traits like that seem to confirm that people made the gods up.
@@kwood55 *god. There is only one. Three versions of the same religion believing in and worshiping the same unbelievable god.
I love your take on the watch-maker argument!... And probability.
Oh. So they just redefine information... And programming is an effective analogy when explaining DNA to someone unfamiliar with it, but to say they're synonymous is either dishonest or a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts.
My brain keeps shouting "citation needed". 😂
I have to refine it somewhat but it's the right direction at least
@@danger.snakes I say something like "OK, the watch is designed. But why did you make that distinction between the watch and the field?" Since their presupposition is that the field is designed. The watch-maker argument is a bit of a bait-and-switch.
It's a silly word play. If humans were truly " intelligently designed " why are we the only " animal " that has to wipe its ass?
Literally all teleological/watchmaker/look at the trees/design arguments are fundamentally false analogy fallacies that play on intuition.
DNA is not code, or language, or text, or communication, or anything of that sort; to say it is analogous to something else and then apply unrelated features of the analogy backwards onto DNA is to completely miss the point.
Here's a fun example: computer code has a stereotype of being created by virgins in parents' basements. Obviously DNA inheritance must also therefore be created by virgins. Makes perfect sense, right?
Dishonesty is the trademark of ALL religions
Regarding the errors changing things: I am a professional game developer and I made so many errors that ended up improving the game that my catch phrase was serendipity, I used to joke about putting it on a banner above my desk. My favourite one being some sloppy code to keep the cards attached to each other in a solitaire game so each card was 1 frame behind the one it's supposed to be on top of, it ended up creating this really cool elastic swinging animation. From there the error was "fixed" by turning it into an intentional feature so we could tweak the swing to feel the best.
A multi-BILLION dollar franchise and company is the result of a computer bug. The entire Grand Theft Auto series of games is technically the result of a computer bug. They didn't intend to create that type of game at all, the testers had MORE fun playing the version that had that particular bug that they entirely pivoted the design of the game such that said "bug" became the core element of the game.
@@pigpuke which bug was that, sounds interesting
@@thomaspriewasser6660 Not trying to chide you so much as offer advice but a search engine is where you want to ask questions, not a web forum or comments section. You can do it in microseconds and keep refining your search terms to get closer to what you are looking for vs never getting anything useful answer to your question, much like this response.
The cosmic ray on the N64 story is most likely false because it couldn't cause a bit flip strong enough to cause it change the game the way it did, it was likely a connections error because the guys console was slightly faulty.
Though cosmic rays can impact computers but it's extremely rare.
DNA is not a true code. They're using code as an analogy to make it easier for the layman to understand.
What it is, in fact, is chemistry. It's chemicals doing what chemicals do. This chemistry can even change, depending on the conditions they are under.
Also, there is nothing digital inside of the human body. Certain chemicals are assigned certain letters to make things easier, especially when writing papers. It's a kind of shorthand, if you will.
C T G A are just the first letters in the name of four different chemicals.
So if anybody wants to consider it digital, it is digital by our own making.
I was raised homeschool evangelical and literally the majority of my education was this type of propaganda
Congratulations on overcoming that indoctrination ; it took me about 30 years to overcome my indoctrination that I mostly did to myself(began around age 20 in Xtianity).
@@zemorph42thank you. Yeh I know, I feel like we should get trophies 😂 did you get a bunch of extra biblical propaganda like this also?
@@NeedSomeNuance My first spiritual mentor was all about "sola scriptura", so, no, not exactly. Instead I got a kjv Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Without actually understanding the original languages I had to guess a lot of the time at the meaning of words as I studied, and I convinced myself that I was uncovering secret knowledge.
@@zemorph42 yeah, that’s what my parents are like still. It’s crazy to see their manipulative tactics evolve each generation 😰
And second comment just because it infuriates me personally. I work in a lab for microbiology. I prepared some site-directed Q5 mutagenesis PCRs today. DNA is nothing like computer code. Nothing like it!
You can't just insert an entire new set of instructions into the code of minesweeper to display a Rickroll video and have it run as normal. You can insert fluorescent protein markers into plasmids and the cell will just work with that. You can't transfer code from one program to another to produce a new program feature seamlessly within the old UI. It just isn't the same. And it isn't a language either, it has no syntax, no grammar, nothing we didn't impose upon it to make it more legible.
Out of curiousity. Is this ability of DNA to read in all directions due to it being molecules acting upon the neighbours it has, not the directions those are in? Does chemistry care about directions as much as writen computer code?
@thomaspriewasser6660 that's a good question. I'm looking at getting a job exploring that. Only about 20 years ago we (the scientific community) started looking into the 3D shape of chromosomes and our genome and how some operator segments could be several hundred thousand base pairs away from the actual coding area of the gene. It's, from my still limited understanding, due to how the DNA is arranged both in the order of base pairs as well as the structure of the genome. Additionally, genes are "read" in a 3 base frame, so three bases respond to one of twenty possible amino acids. This frame can be influenced by where the operator is, what promotors and what inhibitors are involved and what proteins or other molecules exist in the surrounding environment. Really fascinating and really complicated stuff.
@@l0rf no wonder he tried to make it into a 'god did done did it' argument. It's significantly different to written code.
@thomaspriewasser6660 and, in all honesty, really inefficient. Our human genome is 6.5 billion bases long and prone to so many errors and so full of 'junk' DNA that, as far as we know, doesn't do anything. It'd be like God tried to code the "Hello World" basic programming lesson but accidentially included the entire script of the Bee movie in his code. If I was the infallible and perfect creator, I think I'd manage to make a less convoluted system.
@@l0rf i've also used the 'hello world' example when arguing against ID and Creationism. I don't understand anything about biology, but i did learn some programing languages back in technical college. So the argument that design would show efficiency before complexity seemed reasonable. Why would anyone make a 1 TB size file to print hello world if he could do so with a couple KB?
Home School : Children dμmber than their lazy parents.
Yep, most parents want more for their kids than they had, except for home schoolers. I have a sibling who home schools (but not for religious reasons) and even though the oldest is 15 none of them can read or write at all, and they have no interest in anything. It should be criminal.
@@thedeadgypsy _"none of them can read or write at all"_
Hmm, sounds like a great way to prepare adults for 'economic realities'..
..and getting lost riding a bus.. 😣
Funny thing is that creationists also believe that evolution (at an impossibly fast rate of speed) occurred in the few thousand years after "the flood" in order to explain the current diversity of life on earth.
some of them might. I think Ken Ham does. But there's also hardcore ones, who dispute the existance of fossiles.
@@thomaspriewasser6660 .
Ken Ham claims things that are utterly ridiculous. Like the break-up of Pangea into the continents, we see today happened during the Flood.
I like how he says English spell english words wrong
ikr? As Jimmy Carr said, "I don't have an accent, this is what English sounds like when spoken properly."
"The English spell English wrong." What a nit.
We British cant help it if you lazy Yanks don't learn how to spell properly the Canadians are much better at spelling.
The Mario 64 cosmic ray is actually more likely an urban legend, I've been learning about it recently but I'm not entirely certain
this is not the dangers of homeschooling this is the dangers of not properly teaching your children this stuff can happen with kids in public school too if the parents are failing them in the same ways. dont demonize homeschool because religious cult types use it as an excuse to not teach their children.
These kind of videos are not intended to convert people over to intelligent design. These videos are intended to fool believers into thinking that they have good, solid scientific reasons for their belief. It's a desperate attempt to try and stop the exodus of people leaving the faith. Fortunately, there are lots people like London Storm ready and willing to call them out on their BS.
It's kind of cute how they keep trying to bingo the god thing, until it's annoying
god-cha? ;)
Oh, and someone needs to show those people videos of cats and dogs using talking buttons to communicate with their owners.
The gene code is designed to do this and designed to do that, therefore god.
But why does god need redundancy? Is he incapable to design a better system? Is he not all powerful?
On the other hand if evolution is true, those redundancies are an advantage, because they allow for an increased adaptibility while also lowering the effects of detrimental mutations.
32:59 "these work together in a bueatiful mind boggling complexity" just reminds me of the phrase "An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity" -terry davis
Many of us literally just want God to regrow a human limb in response to a believer's prayer (but not after humans figure out how to do it).
something that pretty much all designed complex items humans make have in common is buttons, of any kind.
volume too high on your phone? turn it down with buttons. volume too low? turn it up. brightness? buttons. some buttons are touch, some are knobs... your vaccume is not sucking hard enough? buttons to dial it up. car? buttons. and so on.
knee hurts? shit, live with it. can't turn off the pain. tinnitus? sorry, you're hard-wired to suffer, no dials for that one. chronic pain? nope, no buttons. want to sleep? nope, no buttons. want adrenaline? nope, can't have it by pressing a button.
interesting that "Long story short" quoted Francis Collins who actually acknowledges that all the evidence points to evolution but he also thinks that the Christian god is the primal cause of the Universe
if they really promote YEC why are they thinking that mentioning Francis Collins will help them
Cherry picking is a tried and true methodology in apologetics.
@@scienceexplains302 yup
It’s always painful to watch creationists use science they don’t understand to debunk the science they REALLY don’t understand 😂😂😂
And we’re almost at 5k people!!!! Keep liking, commenting and sharing!!!! Wooooooo 🥳
I sometimes watch videos of Mars. These videos come from NASA probes on Mars but the footage has been overlaid with comments from somebody with a UA-cam channel. The videos often pause while the UA-camr inserts comments suggesting that what we are seeing is the wreckage of advanced machines or the ruins of Martian buildings. All I ever see is rock, dirt, and sand. I view these videos as being much like a Rorschach ink blot. Some people expect to see evidence of an advanced Martian civilization on Mars so that is what they see even when there are just rocks, dirt, and sand present.
One of the problems with religion is that it conditions people to see things in terms of their religion. Where I see natural processes at work, they see their God at work. Of course, each religion tends to view these things in terms of their own religion. Where Hindus might see processes driven by karma and reincarnation, Christians see the Trinity at work. Each is looking at nature’s inkblot and interpreting it in light of their own religious beliefs.
Saying DNA is "like" a computer code is not the same as saying DNA "is" code. DNA is not a written code. It is bio-chemistry. A very, very long chemical chain which leads to chemical reactions, resulting in the formation of proteins. This "chain" is copied over and over as cells multiply and in the production of gametes. Mutations are essentially copying errors. Sometimes these errors are detrimental to the healthy function of an organism, as in cancerous cells. Other times, these errors can be useful in that they help an organism be better suited to its environment, increasing its survival rate. But for vast majority of cases, the errors are neutral, in that they don't affect the function of the organism in any meaningful way. There is no code writer. The errors are usually random. But the evolution of a population of a species is guided by natural selection, genetic drift and other factors, so that it may appear to be designed. But that is only an outward semblance, not inward reality at all.
Soooo American to claim that the inventors of a language use it incorrectly because they don't use it the American way.
that's the joke yes
If God is so smart at design, why do ducks need to eat rocks?
Rocks don't float.
If a dog stood up and said “I want tacos”, I would immediately go to a doctor or psychiatrist and make sure I wasn’t hallucinating.
It would actually communicate LESS information from the dog than the dog barking.
“Woah that suddenly got satanic” I died. 😂
The software glitch that you are referring to in the Mario speed run is known as a bit flip
"They have only one known cause."
So there must be things we didn't know.
Appreciate the reference to the Mario 64 upwarp, but it having been a cosmic ray is a common misconception. It might have been one, but it has not been proven
it seems likely, we'll say
@danger.snakes Nah. It was put forward as a possible explanation, but not too many people considered it likely. Cosmic ray of the gaps.
@@danger.snakes that's not to say cosmic rates messing stuff up doesn't happen. but the community isn't convinced. Certainly pannenkoek2012 (the man who put a bounty out on it) isn't convinced
@@dead-eyedarrel3878 I have followed the debate and the bit flip is slightly different from what is recorded happening. There are videos on it. A faulty slot seems a better explanation, and a more mundane one, but it has yet to be reproduced.
Thus far, it's anyone's guess.
"strongly suggest", "points to", they always use weasel words that actually don't mean anything.
don't forget their secret weapon word: IF. "IF my religion is true, then it's true. now do you believe me? oh, you don't? well, hahaha, i feel sorry for you. my god created a special torture place for people like you" - theists.
That's funny that you mention Forrest Valkai. I was thinking how he would be ripping this ignorant misdirection apart, point by ill conceived point. Hopefully, theres a Reacteria in the works on this one.
Also, simplicity is the mark of intelligence, not complexity.
26:31 "Paul is a dead man. Miss him, miss him, miss him!"
The thing they always fail to grasp, HUMAN BEINGS, made everything. Including their God they love so much.
That doesn't compute to the theist. Their god made them. It has to be that way or everything is meaningless. The thought that God is made-up is unthinkable to them. I wasn't able to think it and remain theist. Ouch, flashback.
What's more: religions are intelligently designed/codified and patched until they fall too far behind humanity's core operating system version.
The most virulent ones can be made to run on some homeschool emulator, however.
DNA is not a computer code. Saying it is is equivocation and fallacious.
I reckon if these people ever watched the anime “Cells at work” they’d probably think it’s a documentary. 🤦♂️🤪
If it takes a decade for AI to write better code than humans, something went terribly wrong.
I give it 2 years max
@ButConsiderThis not today, sure, but in two years? It is inevitable
The problem with AI code and AI in general is that it has no understanding of what it is creating. Therefore there is no way to verify it except reviewing it
It is good for generating boiler plate code though. Unit tests. Comments and doco as well
AI is up against the hard problem of consciousness. It’s something we can’t define and understand so expecting an automated system to is a fools errand. At least with the AI science we have just now
@@Puketapu I don't necessarily disagree regarding the current AI tech/science, but I think it underestimates the advances that will be made in the next several years. Also, I'm not convinced that AI writing good, useful, and better code is a problem related to "consciousness". If we view code as what it ultimately is--i.e., instructions--then there is little there that actually intersects consciousness, even as the "instructions" that drive DNA replication have nothing to do with consciousness (at least so far as we know).
Therefore, if AI advances enough in the next year or two where it can fall into a paradigm of self-evolution that mirrors the biological (but accelerated to a much faster pace), then there seems to be no inherent problem of imagining that it could evolve down pathways that our "consciousness" could scarcely imagine. Granted, the path this evolution takes may not ultimately seem productive or beneficial in our assessment of it, so in that regard the notion of "good"/"better"/"more useful" code might be like comparing mismatched fruits.
The only creationist who will listen to common sense are the ones who are on the fence about it to begin with. When I was deep in religion no one could tell me I was wrong until I was already questioning it through self-discovery
A lot of the fun stuff we enjoy in games started out as exploits or glitches that the devs left in, or even improved to make it an intended part of the gameplay. Such as rocket jumping.
Haha. The cartoonist said the British spell words wrong all the time? This person must be an American.
Does he think everyone that doesn't speak English like he does has an accent, but HE doesn't?
I wonder if anyone asked him why we call it “English”?
I will qualify, I know that not all American's think this way... so the cartoonist is a special kind of an American.
Did you have a channel before this one? Your quality is so high for such a small channel. You're going to do well 👍
nah I did a couple videos on politics but nothing like this
Intelligent design gives no predictable outcomes.
Good take on Watchmaker. Matt Dillahunty made the same point several years ago about everything being designed according to the creationist.
Dillahunty is the OG, we are all just existing in his footsteps
@@danger.snakes I feel that I have moved past the teacher in some ways.
Creationists need to define "information." 🤦🏻♂️
For real! They seem to think that "information" is an identifiable and measurable thing that we encounter in the universe.
good luck getting them to define anything. they have to keep their terms vague so the can easily backtrack when in any actual conversation and so their followers can fill in the blanks with premade answeres.
FIRST.. (again!!)
at this point.. Imma SUPER FAN!! 🎉🎉🎉
LAST
"Information: a message or instructions with meaning."
That's begging the question if I've ever seen it.
The cosmic ray thing happens well often enough. There was a voting scandal that turned out to just be a cosmic array wasn't there?
I think error correction is much more robust and redundant in satellites precisely because of this too right?
Great point about the watchmaker analogy!
There's a video by TMM of Percy Shelly refuting the watchmaker argument.
A refutation of deism by Percy Shelly.
The long and short of the evolution of complex systems including those claimed to be irreducibly complex is that it's perfectly possible to postulate stages in their natural evolution. Even if the current function of a modern system would cease if one of the components was removed, all of its components would have evolved from those participating in simpler systems. You can do this without even involving the loss of the original function simply by gene duplication, so one copy of the gene can continue its original function, while the second copy can evolve to perform a new one.
A biological cell is "irreducibly complex" in the same way the Empire State Building is irreducibly complex - remove one story and the whole thing collapses, yet we know it was built in stages, with the supporting scaffolding subsequently removed. If you didn't have some idea of how skyscrapers are built, you might as well assume it was planted there by a god.
And as London Storm points out, if everything in nature must be intelligently designed, then everything is intelligently designed, and there's no way of distinguishing between a natural process and an artificial one. All processes would be artificial by definition, including your personal biochemistry which would have to have the hand of god guiding each molecule to its proper place. After all, there are so many ways of arranging the components of any modern cell, it's astronomically impossible for any cell to have a functional structure without the hand of god making sure it follows the correct path. And you have billions of these evidently unreliable objects in your body, and that's just the non-bacterial ones.
Another idea creationists always ignore is: the more complex something is, the more likely it's to break down. Meaning god meant for for everything in the universe to break down.
Imagine thinking home school wasn’t the superior option 😂
It’s not odd for me, I’m saddened that he’d waste his talents on this. At least when he deconstructs he’ll have some experience in animation.
Xtians would just say "yes, God could have just created the watch.". Lol
It feels like the cartoon is for a special ed class on life and dna,maybe its just me
Loved most of your video.
But at around 12:40, you mention an explanation for a glitch that was NOT (determined to be) caused by a cosmic ray, as widely spread as it is.
The Mario64 speedrunning community is still evaluating what the cause was. Most likely scenario is a faulty cartridge slot.
But the cosmic ray bit flip does not result in the same glitch recorded, but a very, very similar one.
You can find current debate and tests on this issue online with a couple minutes of googling.
Also, it didn't lead to a record, but to something worth investigating as a possible exploit to allow time saves for future records... which it ended up not being. It was a run that happened to get recorded, but it was mostly casual.
Two game series that refute the errors cannot create anything new off the top of my head are Street Fighter (the reason why fighting games have combos is an error/ oversight), and Gta (the reactions of the police in the early builds caused by an error caused the developers to switch the outcome of what they were creating)
On the topic of cosmic rays. There was a radio lab episode about this in particular and it's really interesting.
If memory serves me correctly, this is why airplanes and car computer systems where the car has control over the accelerator (to help with gas mileage) it has to have some system where three computers make the decision and at least two have to agree.
It appears that there was an issue with Toyota Prius early on and an accident related to this was captured sadly on an 911 call. Did not end well because the accelerator would not stop.
There's also an airplane crash apparently for essentially something similar with a computer program being corrupted before they had the three system method.
And even an election in another country where a cosmic ray hit just the right bit switch somehow and it gave the person the precise number of votes in their favor that was aligned to that bit being in the other position. And it didn't make sense because the person was an anomaly with the number of votes they got because of that.
This next thought is purely speculative. I sometimes wonder if the half life of atoms has a relationship to causing changes that would be a part of the alterations to DNA and such. It seems very probable that atoms are constantly experiencing the half-life thing and I guess that gives off some radiation and also creates a new type of atom or something. I don't know. It just seems like an existing internal process that perhaps could have a part to play in the process. If there was any truth to this then it would be a very consistent and reliable thing to cause change.
I love your take on this subject. I think emphasizing that evolution is anything but random, as Richard Dawkins puts it, would help get the nature of evolution across to the less educated listeners. Keep up the good work.
Technically nothing is Unnatural.
Rocket ships were designed to perform one task. DNA arose out of mutations with no other task than to survive. It is also a horrid design.
Not all combinations of C, T, and A that build proteins have 6 possible alternative combinations.
It took seconds to know exactly what his argument was and how to debunk it.
Cells and DNA are vastly less complex than rockets and computers.
19:47 Funny how this sounds almost nothing like computer code and more like a chemical process that isn't precariously balanced on a particular DNA sequence.
How come god can create planets and stars with no issue, every rock and supernova is perfectly functional with no secret code inside it... but when he wants to make a frog he needs blueprints all of a sudden?
Notice how apologists always jump to complex animals and say how complex the DNA is, and wow, the chances have so many zeros they couldn't possibly have happened by chance!!!
Totally ignoring the vast expanse of time starting most likely with simple proteins and RNA and systems developing greater complexity over billions of years.
It suggests that apologists are being very disingenuous. It also suggests that they cannot lose the idea that everything was made in 7 days.
But when you start with the conclusion and try to work out an argument to prove it, then you are going to look like a fool.
We can use evolutionary algorithms in computer science to create complex things and find solutions no person could find.
‘Exception’ we have about 2 examples, how can it be
0:47 how? if everything is "designed" by god, what makes the rocket special? why wouldn't we, without knowledge of how rockets are made just assume it's also made by god?
I'm not convinced by making an analogy, then think that the analogy is real.
As in, "The brain is like a computer" becomes "The brain works by binary code". AFAIK, the brain is not a computer and does not use a binary code.
When Bill Gates says DNA is LIKE computer coding, the key word is LIKE
It does not mean the two are exactly comparable, it's a metaphor to help understand how a biological process works.
As said in the video, one is natural, and one is artificial. Dolphins and bats use echo location. This is LIKE sonar and radar. There's no reason why echo location in animals needed a designer.
I know two people who were homeschooled and it doomed them socially.
My kids are still recovering from the forced homeschooling during Covid.
One is back at school full time, but doesn't seem to have the knack of making friends despite being an extrovert. The other is slowly being re-integrated into full-time school, after having terrible experiences prior to Covid (she is special needs but high-functioning), but again lacks the skills to make friends. Just as well as the school district have just informed us that they will not have a home-schooling program come Fall.
It is not odd to use scientific language to dispute scientific theories. The odd part here is the platform used - Science is debated by using the scientific method: researching, testing, producing scientific papers, submitting them to peer review, and so on.
Things that creationist, obviously, never do.
no, the peculiarity is using evolutionary science to dispute the existence of evolutionary science whole cloth
20:25 "Basically, the British spell words wrong all the time, but we still know what they mean, usually." Wow. Wow. Just wow. No little chuckle, like it's a joke, wink, wink, we all know British English and American English have just evolved different spellings but I'm being facetious, ha ha. Nope. This dude apparently thinks an entire nation of people are just horrible spellers. I see what you mean about homeschooling...
I've written plenty of computer code that [re]write's itself. "Self-modifying code" is as old as electronic computers. This guy knows nothing about DNA or computers.
Man I wish you had just brought up the library of Babel. If you don’t know what it is, look it up. 16:45
DNA is not really like a computer program. It's also the computer.
I was taught this sort of stuff when I was homeschooled! 😆 🤣 😂 I literally "learned" that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark in my actual "science" book written by Duane T Gish, of the Gish Gallop (lying faster than the fact checking of your opponent)
Where in the bible say that DNA was a code written by god and where is it listed the hod was a computer engineer? Can I theist point to that?
In a way, it says the opposite
1 Corinthians 15:39 says different animals have different kinds of flesh, as if Paul had no idea about DNA.
The British DO NOT spell words wrong it's our language, it's the rest of the world which spells my language incorrectly. The cheek of this creationist. 😉
It IS Tuesday, & my dog would LOVE a taco! 🐶🌮✌🏼
*DNA code implies evolution*
For two software programs that accomplish the same thing, the more complex code reflects poorer programming. Simplicity is the hallmark of greater knowledge or intelligence or both.
This code analogy ends up corroborating evolution. Nature builds weirdly complex systems compared to computer software because nature can’t start from scratch or remove whole modules when it sees a better way, etc. Nature has to tack on to existing systems and often retain vestigial parts that are no longer very useful.