Biologist explains scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 03. 2013
- Dr. Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute, will be a featured speaker at the fourth annual Westminster Conference on Science and Faith on April 5-6, 2013 at Covenant Fellowship Church in the greater Philadelphia area. This year's theme is "How Did It All Begin?" How did the universe begin? How did life start? How did complex living things arise? Explore these big questions and more at the conference. Details and registration available at www.scienceandgod.org/wts
- Věda a technologie
As a software engineer. I design stuff to work on purpose. It would be easy enough to write software that generated random bits, and then attempted to run the bits as code. This could be done trillions of times in short order. But nobody responsible for producing code that works ever uses this method. Evolutionists tell me an unguided process turned a land animal to a whale in a mere million generations or so. I have trouble believing that until I see them at least gene splice a land animal into a whale by hand. How hard should it be if it could happen by dumb luck? Easier than writing code like I do if they are right about it happening in a mere million steps unguided. And yet it is in fact far too hard to do, or even seriously attempt to do, for modern humans. [edited grammar and spelling]
Look, reality is absolutely enormous. It takes the totality of existence to satisfy these chances we are talking about. We are not talking about a mere million steps, those are the ones we can count and percieve and there are a lot of steps more than that which we can't even access empirically. Moreover, there's a kind of arbitrary selection when it comes to the changes that happen as a consequence of interactions between organisms. The aesthetic primitive mind made symmetry based choices that would narrow the number of possible next steps into the gene pool logic. See?
More specifically, females and even some portion of males made mating decisions that would basically determine the software and hardware of next generations, expelling the considered bad genes. There is an outside component to evolution, which is basically the environment and all it's past, as well as the physical things, but there's an inner component to evolution which is exactly the symmetry it tends to.
In software we can write something called a "unit test" where we test the code automatically. This testing can be very very very efficient and quick compared to the ridiculously slow inefficient processes of waiting years and hoping the better mates in the limited animal population are selected or that the marginally better animals somehow happen to tend to be the one that survive. It blows such things out of the water a billion times over in terms of how many selections can be made in short order and in accuracy of which selection is an improvement to be kept. And yet nobody every uses a random bit generator to write code which they then test against the unit tests hoping that generations of such a process will improve the code base. If it worked in nature, it would obviously work way better in software. But nobody is investing in this method in software. The ONLY investment in this method is by those SPECULATING about what happened long ago...people who in fact do not lose anything if they are wrong like those in the business world. Frankly, people who can afford to be wrong, even ridiculously wrong.
@@GMMDMMG in other words, you are saying it's a mystery and you don't know but you don't want to come to the conclusion that the numbers lead to. That's your choice, but stop forcing your fairy tales onto other people who think logically.
You, like me, are a software engineer; we have been trained to think and infer logically. Evolution is not dumb luck or chance; it is exactly the opposite. It is the non-random selection of randomly varying genes. A pandemic is ravaging the world presently. The Covid virus is mutating constantly - that mutation is random. However, only those strains of this virus are surviving which are transmissible and can to a degree evade our immune system. In other words, our immune system + vaccines + masks are the forces of natural selection. Those mutants which can cope with these factors are surviving (see no chance involved here). Thus a very small self-replicating molecule over many mutations and over hundreds of millions of years can produce something as diverse and as complex as elephants, lions, chimpanzees (our nearest cousins) and humans. This is, as borne out by research in molecular biology and genetics, a perfect family tree. So we are not here by dumb luck....we can be extremely proud that none of our ancestors, and a very long line it is from a bacteria to a fish to primates to Homo erectus (our immediate predecessor) to us, died young or died before it could reproduce.
Billions of years ago, lightening struck a mud puddle creating an instantly self replicating and evolving life form, and that led to humans... Sure... I'm not religious, and am a former staunch atheist, but after studying evolution and the beginnings of life, I have to admit that you can say "fairies did it!" and you'd be just as right as the most high level evolutionary biologist. Basically, we have no answers when it comes to the origins of life, only conjecture. We haven't left square one.
Actually you might be interested that the existence of life is one of the proofs for the existence of God. Ask yourself where your life came from, you might point to your parents, but they would point in turn to their ancestors and so on. Life has to come from an Eternal life!
wardy Thank you, and an infinite regression of dependant things is impossible, God must come into this.
You have not studied evolution. You have no expertise in science.
They do have answers to more than that, they love to toy with you 😉 Get into politics to figure out more
How ever we got here, there was intelligence and design behind it. No one that considers itself a real thinker can align him or herself with the theory of evolution.
Watch youtube. Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It will make you smart.
Yeah, actually the creation of a single protein (just one out of the 2000 the simplest organism need) by random processes takes up the probabilistic resources of the entire universe (around 1 in 10^150 trials), that's why chance-base theories of the origin of life were ruled out by atheists themselves in the 1980's. All atheists have now is necessity-based theories, but they're heaviliy flawed (the RNA-world hypothesis is an example of that). Atheism will not survive the 21st century.
Dang buddy, I bet your jaw is pretty dropped now😂😂 only a few Christians left
@@stetsonnecaise3507 Few Christians ? People not believing in god because it's a trend is completely different from people not believing in God because of scientific evidence !
Nowadays, with all the entertainment we have, social media, and how the media drives focus away from any religious ideas, it's totally normal that people "forget" about God, but they cannot prove he doesn't exist.
@@HamZa-mm2im exactly
@@stetsonnecaise3507 Just another Christian reporting to be counted. Anyway, your view of things is dumb: I'd rather spend eternity in a very exclusive company in Heaven than in huge company in Hell. If you're for Christ you choose Heaven over Hell. Educate yourself to think before attacking those who are actually ahead of you on the way to Heaven.
Hahah I think literally everything you said was incorrect. Where are you getting your information??
Finally, people who are not living in pokemon world but in reality.
Ikr😂
Scientific evolution and Pokemon evolution are completely different, maybe educate yourself.
@@aryanvadher4376 why are there birth defects if God exists?
@@thanushan3981 that doesn’t really make sense, why does a printer jam if engineers exist? That doesn’t mean engineers didn’t design a printer for a function down to refining crude resources to make even the screws involved, etc.
@@JeffPenaify that doesn't apply here, engineers get paid for what they do but since god is all powerful he could get rid of birth defects and also god doesnt get paid.
Another reason is that birth defects can be the case of life or death, but a printer jamming is just annoying lol.
Could you dare to explain how the DNA bases could arranged themselves by chemical necessity in the complex sequence necessary to form the first self replicating system with all it's functioning enzimes so to start natural selection?
I remind you that you can't use natural selection to explain the origin of the first living organism because NS doesn't start until you already have a self replicating mechanism. So, can you explain how that first organism appeared? Scientificly please.
Also, water, in the absence of a complete functioning cell, rips apart nucleotide bases necessary for DNA.
Who says that NS starts with life? It could have simply started with something as simple as the first organic molecules, which aren’t considered living
You can't make something from nothing! ******Drops Mic and walks off*******
@@stetsonnecaise3507 then you don't understand how natural selection works
@@stetsonnecaise3507 Huh? Have atheists gone mad? 😂
Too much faith required for evolution (full origin of life)
EVOLUTION IS NOT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
it is the process of how life changes
@@jasonbourne1126 "The modern theory of chemical evolution is based on the assumption that on a primitive earth a mixture of simple chemicals assembled into more complex molecular systems, from which, eventually came the first functioning cell(s)". A New Method for Testing Models of Prebiotic Peptide Assembly
Melanie Bengtson, Eric D. Edstrom, in Advances in BioChirality, 1999 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080434049500097
@@dmitriy-k732 you realize that's a totally different theory
@@dmitriy-k732 chemical evolution is a different theory
@@dmitriy-k732 all evolution is, is the process of how life turned from the first cell into all the life that exists today, there's no than enough proof
Which part of Axe's paper(s) supported ID? Be specific.
Axe, D. 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology. 301 (3): 585-595.
"Researchers just announced the systematic laboratory induced mutation of successive amino acids over the entire sequence of a simple bacterial protein. The results showed how even the simplest of life's proteins have irreducibly complex chemical structures. The research also showed how random evolutionary processes that are ascribed to mutations are unable to propel evolution."
Axe, D. 2004. Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. Journal of Molecular Biology. 341:1295-1315
"DNA holds the coded information that cells use to produce proteins, which are ordered chains of amino acids. Three successive nucleotide bases of DNA code for a single amino acid of a protein. Publishing in Nature, researchers successively changed the DNA code of an entire bacterial gene to mutate every amino acid of an 83-amino-acid protein. They then tested the ability of each mutant protein version to interact with its biological target in the cell.
What they proved was that proteins have a variety of specific regions that are highly sensitive to mutation-meaning that changes in these amino acids are not tolerated. Instead, they destroy protein function and negate evolution. These results support the prior research of Douglass Axe, a famous Cambridge protein biochemist who has also mutated large segments of bacterial proteins and is a strong critic of protein evolution and defender of intelligent design principles."
Both of the above quotes come from the following article which, at least partially, bases its pro-ID argument upon Dr.Axe and his work.
www.icr.org/article/study-shows-proteins-cannot-evolve
Evolution is a nutshell: If you throw shit at a wall for long enough, you will eventually have a beautiful painting.
You got to be kidding me! You are saying that evolutionist are following their professors blindly? But your whole believe in a god is blind faith. You got no proof at al. I can somewhat disprove your all powerfull god right here right now! Fuck god if he would be that powerfull i could not even disobey him/her. I can do and say what I want! Blind faith makes hou stupit!!
Remco V.A
Right on baby doll.
You go girl.
Smack that bitch up, fo shizz.
Remco V.A
Some people may have blind faith. I don't. I base my faith on historical, archaeological, philosophical, and scientific evidence, as well as putting a small amount of personal experience into the mix.
What kind of a "good" God would God be if he didn't even let you have free will to disobey him? Geez. Do ya think an all-powerful God has to be a dictator?
I dont but thats the god of the bible, and your faith is based on historical ect, but i guess you do forget most findings that do disput the god, life after dead, orgin of love, wonders, praying, faith healing anything you could think of has never been proven, but people believe them anyway.
Remco V.A
Maybe you can't prove miracles, but you can't disprove them. You can disprove specific cases, sure, but you can't disprove them as a whole, because science cannot make judgements on the supernatural. That is out of the realm of science entirely.
Anyhow, the God of the Bible doesn't force people to believe in him. He just tells 'em like it is: unless they choose to accept him as their friend, they are going to die and be separated from him.
He obviously doesn't want them to reject him or he wouldn't have sent Jesus to die, but he doesn't reach into people's brains and flick a switch that says "believe in God". It's like a little kid choosing whether or not to obey their parents: they'll be punished if they don't obey, but it's still completely their choice to obey or not.
I see a number of people from 6 years ago talking about junk DNA. I wonder if they still want to talk about it.
They used to be all about ‘useless’ organs like, for example, the pancreas. Research type 1 diabetes and you will see a challenge to this 19th century notion, as well as a challenge to the notion of our ‘evolutionary superiority.’
Thomas Robinson - no scientist talks about our superiority. That is not how evolution works.
Happy to explain how evolution works, if you are interested.
Tanya Nguyen it is just a theory
@@naser1109 So is the theory of gravity, the heliocentric model, the germ theory, etc. Please fly away from earth and take a picture showing that it is flat and then prove that diseases are not caused by microscopic beings.
I still hold to my statement, it is just a theory
Very good one keep on searching for anything but the truth
Genetic engineering doesn't solve anything, it just puts the problem elsewhere. Either that or you have to resort to special pleading.
There are some peoples who almost worship the evolution thing in my country.
It's 100 percent true.
@@AceofDlamonds you are correct. Uneducated people treat evolution as a religion. Evolution is not science, it is a faith. Faith in assumptions about the past.
@@jt2097
Evolution is FULLY SCIENCE. And it's inference, not assumption based.
@@AceofDlamonds science is not inference or assumption based. Science, knowledge, is based on provable, testable facts. Anything which is not based on testable facts is guesswork. Neo Darwinian evolution is guesswork, rather stupid, narrow minded guesswork at that. We have known since the 1950s that changes in finch beak size, resistance to antibiotics or breeding dogs from wolves is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. There is in fact no evidence for Darwinian evolution. It is all in the minds of fairytale believers.
@@jt2097
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOl. I will address your nonsense post later when I have more time.
Dude is trynna refute an understanding of evolution people had 100 years ago 😂
Darwin never meant for it to be an absolute all encompassing theory, he knew it was just a stepping stone to something more profound and clear.
I want evolutionist I've done is add more words... to an impossible theory!! You would have been just as deceived by fewer words 100 years ago! 😭😭
@@Anonymous-rj2lk I mean Darwin is still at the core, mostly random modifications and natural selection.
I appreciate the video may lower the background music on such videos as it would be easier to focus on what he is saying.
It made me smile when I heard Dr. Axe describing the chance that a protein could be created randomly in the movie “Expelled”; Doctor Axe, says it’s one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!! That’s a lot of zeros!!
And reality is really big. So big it's enough to satisfy even those possibilities. And we know it's possible because we literally see it happening.
@@GMMDMMG oh what did you see ? Have you finally found the lost fossil of the ancestors of all living beings ?
@@GMMDMMG You obviously haven’t taken the time to do the math. Try doing that first and get back to us.
@@GMMDMMG reality is not that big. This number is bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. Think about it.
@@joeschmoe1794 there is no scientific inference about how species variability extends to species diversity
scientific inference is based on maths and calculation and statistical test
Ok Diogenes Lamp , I will rephrase my request: explain how interactions with environment caused nucleotides in DNA to arrange themselves into sequences which represent complementary parts of the female and male reproductive systems.
It's estimated sexual reproduction appeared around 2 billion years ago in eukaryote protists. This happened when the spontaneous complexity evolved into systems capable of this type of exchange.
@@GMMDMMG wow. are these unfounded estimations referred to as science?
@@metallicbaldwin how are they unfounded estimations u f*cking moron?
@@snorristurluson5849 you beleive
sa rs co v2 exists also, don't you?
@@snorristurluson5849 how many beliefs do hold to that have zero foundational science behind them.
Interesting!
Hard to understand why so many take offense at the notion of God, when, as St. Paul observed, “Ever since the creation of the world his [God’s] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20). One man's opinion you might say, but I challenge anyone to close his/her eyes and meditate for a while on the infinite complexities of the microcosmic and macrocosmic universes and honestly conclude that it all came about via chance and "selection". Impossible. The idea of God is important as being the origin of LOVE. Love is a force of compelling magnitude and variations that clearly must have come from a creator embued with love. It's not a sign of intellectual weakness to posit the existence of the divine. Quite the contrary.
A large fraction of eukaryotic genomes consists of DNA that is not translated into protein sequence, and little is known about its functional significance. Here I show that several classes of non-coding DNA in Drosophila are evolving considerably slower than synonymous sites, and yet show an excess of between-species divergence relative to polymorphism when compared with synonymous sites."
If there was no background music, it wouldn't be disturbing to hear.
The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer supposedly said there are three phases in the revelation of any truth:
1) Firstly, it is ridiculed
2) Secondly, it is resisted
3) Finally, it is accepted as self-evident
Max Planck purportedly said science moves forward one funeral at a time. By his logic, we need some funerals in in the field of evolutionary dogma.
If the quotes are true or not it doesn’t matter, the sentiments however are valid.
Evolution is still a theory though.
@@rdkayyvalorant Buddy, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation for a certain natural phenomenon. Our technologies are based on many scientific theories, including evolutionary theory. In fact, evolution is both a fact and a theory, since it is a fact that organisms evolve. The theory of evolution then explains how this occurs through mechanisms such as mutations and natural selection. Please pay attention in your Science lessons.
Why would we expect "junk" if DNA is inherited, and performs a role?
There is no logic in what you are saying.
It does have a role.
Look up "Telemore". 36 hour fast rule. Nobel prize.
the fascinating thing about "junk DNA" is that it often carries UNIQUE SEQUENCES OF DNA that are inherited from the ANCESTRAL SPECIES IT EVOLVED FROM. This is what Francis Collins, devout evangelical, saw to make him say:
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
Genetics didn't even exist as a science in Darwin's time. Yet today, it provides INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF OF COMMON ANCESTRY, and thereby Evolution.
Why is someone playing the piano while he is trying to speak and others are trying to listen to him?
Another thing I don't understand is that how does one trait helps the organism survive every disaster. E.g. a giraffe might be able to survive a drought because it can reach high trees and look for water far away, and all the other animals die but can it survive a flood or a plague or a thousand other disasters. After a drought girrafe is the only thing standing alive but it doesn't mean that it is best creature in the area.
That's a wrong concept. plants are easier to understand. There is a moth by the name of Biston bitularia Which is found in Manchester. There are two traits- one makes it light coloured and the other, dark coloured. Before industrial revolution in Manchester, the trees, where this moth habited, were covered with lichens. Lichens are white-ish so the light coloured moths hid from birds very well while the darker ones were spotted easily. As a result , there were very few dark ones and 98% or so were light.
Now industrial revolution happened, pollution happened and the lichens died. So the tree barks were exposed which were dark in colour. So the darker moths hid well and the lighter ones spotted by birds easily. As a Result, its population numbers switched.
So , before industrial revolution, the trait for light colour made the moths fitter to survive, hence there were more lighter ones. But after industrial rev, the trait for dark colour made them fitter to survive now and so their numbers increased and almost completely replaced the lighter ones. This is called Industrial melanism. So natural selection acted through birds for this
It's not necessary that evolution will happen only after a disaster. Its happening all around us all the time. Even in humans. 40% of Africans in countries worst hit by malaria have sickle cell anaemia. This is a genetic trait which is usually bad. But people who have this don't get infected by malaria. So even though this trait is rare in the general population, it's very common in these countries, because it makes them fitter to survive. Those without it die much much more often than those with it, as a result, the normal trait is slowly being replaced by this
It's not necessary that evolution will happen only after a disaster. Its happening all around us all the time. Even in humans. 40% of Africans in countries worst hit by malaria have sickle cell anaemia. This is a genetic trait which is usually bad. But people who have this don't get infected by malaria. So even though this trait is rare in the general population, it's very common in these countries, because it makes them fitter to survive. Those without it die much much more often than those with it, as a result, the normal trait is slowly being replaced by this
who said it is "the best creature"??? Did you think it killed all other creatures off???
NO. It just MANAGED TO SURVIVE. Evolution isn't about MAKING THINGS BETTER. It has NO GOALS. It simply confers CHANGE and then ENVIRONMENT may determine whether that helped it or not.
In fact, the MAJORITY of evolutionary changes do nothing, or don't help but hurt... 99% of all species are EXTINCT.
The only way they end up like that was that EVOLUTION DIDN'T HELP THEM SURVIVE "EVERY DISASTER".
Smart dude
We don't worship Darwin. Bringing him up is a waste of time.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 0:51
evolution is a myth just a story
Actually, it is a fact. It is also the theory about how that fact comes to be. We have so much evidence to show evolution, from genetics, to more fossils coming from China, to cladistics.
The fact of evolution fuels medicine.
@@tanyanguyen3704 its fossil drama of atheist is also proven wrong by MORDEN SCIENCE
Bhat Sajid - modern science, the field that discovered evolution, that uses evolution to inform all kinds of other discoveries, with fields as divers as geology, chemistry, genetics, medicine all reinforcing our understanding of evolution and abiogenesis, and which shows evolution to be one of the most sound scientific discoveries, that modern science has “proven evolution wrong”?
Mkay.
@@tanyanguyen3704 MORDEN SCIENCE don't believe in human are from apes
@@tanyanguyen3704 and fossil discovery has fake drama to disprove christianity and published in that time in new York time later SCIENCETIS said it was fake in 90 till today some peoples like you don't know ABOUT it
I don't think any one is trying to say that life arose (a cell for example) eg 'popped into existence' fully assembled with all the complex processes of the cells just already functioning. I would assume that cells with these processes arose...essentially evolved... from previous arrangements of long-chained complex replicating molecules which were themselves descended from earlier simpler self replicating molecules. At least that's what I would envision happening if I were to guess how life may have arisen naturally. A significant amount of serendipity was involved, but none of it happened randomly...all matter and energy acts and reacts in regular ways. Under certain conditions things happen...atoms come together automatically and then under different conditions and in the presence of other molecules they either change into yet other molecules or are degraded/broken down.
A significant number of 'just so' conditions would have likely had to happen in just the proper sequence for long chained molecules to form that could replicate and mutate. That has been demonstrated in a matter of days in laboratories. Then the conditions likely had to change at just the right moments for these simpler molecules to eventually combine and form longer chained, more robust molecules which themselves had to continue...replicating and mutating and passing on those mutations...long enough to form more robust molecules until actual cell like forms evolved. I would assume these 'cooking pots' of 'just so' conditions existed in literally trillions of locations around the early earth...each one with slightly varying conditions for slightly varying durations. And with each chemical reaction which may lead to a long chained self replicating molecule occurring in a matter of many times per minute, the 'tries' would be almost infinite and this would be going on for 100s of millions of years before the first 'just right' set of conditions resulted in a robust enough complex molecule to call it...life.
Then, lets add another factor. The puzzle seems to be 'how could life arise and evolve to sentience' in the time allotted. It's always assumed we can only talk about processes here on earth. But the complex processes needed to achieve this endpoint weren't just happening here on earth, but on trillions of planets throughout the universe. And if it hadn't have happened to occur here, but DID occur somewhere else, then THAT is were beings, like us, would be peering out into space and looking at themselves and saying, how in the world did WE evolve in such a short time on this planet. IOW we'd be them if life arising spontaneously was such a rare event.
The final factor since we're talking about a natural world without a designer. If universes occur cyclically from an eternal natural background, then this universe is just one in essentially an infinite number of universes. So all the above 'attempts' at life would have been going on, essentially forever, such that all those almost infinite attempts described above in THIS universe can be multiplied by, essentially, an infinite number of universes. And when it did finally happen...a whole series of just so conditions coming together to eventually form sentient life...there we'd be...that would be us. So maybe there was time for life....and us to evolve.
Finally, this guy is talking about how complex the cell is and...seems to be saying THIS makes a difference in whether it is likely/possible that life arose naturally. Well, here's a thought experiment. Let's say that life is as we see it now...all the different critters, plants and life forms...all 'existing away', but on closer inspection there are no complex internal components. No matter what any scientist does, how he dissects, how he disembowels, tears apart ANY life form from the smallest bacteria to the largest whale. there is NO...and I mean ZERO complex internal structure. All life looks and acts, moves, flies, eats, sleeps procreates as we see it now, but there is nothing on the inside of ANY of these critters. When dissected, it's a homogeneous gamish of nondescript and unidentifiable 'stuff.' There are no cells, no DNA, no RNA, no complex molecules with 'information' or a program, no organelles...because there are no actual cells except for unicellular organisms and they are all...everyone of them...with NO internal components, etc. Ok, you have the picture? NOW, do you think we'd be imagining that life like THIS was more likely to have evolved naturally than the life as we see it now or would that be an even greater reason to believe life was created by a supernatural creator? IOW, is it really the complexity that leads you to believe life had to have been 'created?'
Did you just say you didn't believe... Or that no one is saying that complex life just popped into existence!?! And then spent a half-hour typing explanations on how... "Complex life just popped into existence"!?!! 😭😭😭👍
l their funding and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix. And silence...
Why is the background music this loud? It splits the attention so much. What a pity, this subject is so important. Thx for the video anyway - of course.
I can't imagine how someone could ever deny God exists!! It is more than obvious.
Glad to be a Muslim.
You cant imagine how people could have different life experiences to you? That's concerning, empathy is like a really important part of the human condition and without it... damn.
Who the hell engineered that brilliant engineer? It's impossible someone so bright and complex just pops up like that.
Same question applies regardless of your worldview. An infinite regression of causes is fundamentally illogical, so whether material or spiritual there has to be an uncaused first cause. Before science discovered the beginning of the universe from literally nothing (or nothing nothing as some put it not something nothing like energy or waves or gravity etc) the prevailing non-theistic view was the universe was eternal.
samuel liljeholm, God is not really outside of time, nor is he within it: it is part of his nature. Time is simply a series of before’s and after’s. When applying this view to creation, it is easy to sea that Time is part of God’s nature: the creation of the universe implies that there was a time when it did not exist, a state of before. If time is a series of before’s and after’s, it is reasonable to assume that time existed when God alone existed. Therefore, as nothing besides the trinity existed before creation, time is part of the nature of the trinity.
I know that some people insist that God would have to be outside of time to know the future, but that is simply not the case.
God does not see the future: he creates it. He works history towards long range goals that are set in stone.
Short term goals, like destroying Nineveh, can be changed, as God is outside the pagan idea of fate and can change his mind and the way he manifests Himself. This is exemplified in Christ who, formerly, had only a divine nature, but who took upon Himself a human nature.
God can change. His character and fundamental attributes that make Him God, cannot. He however, changes his mind and experiences emotion, contrary to teachings in some Calvinist corners.
By the way, you should probably point out that some atheists believe in a cyclic universe that had no beginning, but will not allow the same for an all powerful God. Double standard? I think so.
Thomas Robinson you lost me at trinity. Jesus himself never heard of it.
Zakaria Cheriet, Jesus continually references the Father and the Holy Spirit/Ghost throughout his ministry as recorded in the gospel. A multi person Godhead is hinted at when, in Genesis, God refers to himself in the plural, as in the case of creation: “Let us make man in our image,”.
This is also reflected in the Old Testament requirement for 2-3 witnesses. This is referenced by Jesus when he says, “If I bear witness of myself, then I am a liar and do not the truth. But my father in heaven bears witness of me, and through me does great works that bear witness of me.
In the trinity, there are always 2 witnesses attesting to the truthfulness of the third’s claim to the title of God. They can also come together to bear witness of a things truthfulness: hence the 2-3 witness requirement.
@@thomasrobinson8789 But God cannot die and no one can or has resurrected themselves from the dead. Acts 2:32 "God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses." John 14:28 "You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am"
I see that Axe also repeated the standard Creationist lie "evolution says all this came about by random chance" at least twice. Evolution is an iterative feedback process that has a random component (genetic variation), but the end product is driven by interactions with environment and is anything but random.
Please don't lie and talk utter rubbish. You do NOT know the mechanism.
@@phillipgriffiths9624 you're talking as if you understand what hes talking about
get an education. what are you saying. Evolution is driven by stochastic mechanisms. Genetic mutation event is a Poisson variable.
What about the first cell?🤦😂
@asisit2424
Iterative feedback process, sounds like it needed to be initiated don't you think where does that information comes from
If matter cannot be created or destroyed how was it created during the big bang
Digitally coded information? How does that encompass prions within your incredulity?
I like to think that it’s more reasonable to believe that if there was a singularity at the beginning of time or big bang, then all combinations of matter would have existed in the same point of space every variation of dna, rna, cells everything, and when it was released some of it would have stayed together and spread across the whole cosmos in the form of extremophiles and maybe flash frozen in space until it came in to contact with a planet then evolved from there. I’m still waiting for my grammar to evolve tho lol. I don’t except that it happened by chance on earth not for 1 second.
Could you imagine the amount of friction in all those atoms racing around? Would that cause huge amounts of static some of which had no place to earth out and so just continued spreading out to become the background radiation we see today. Just a theory don’t get salty.
There's still the problem of where the energy and material came from in the first place. Realistically time and space didn't exist before the universe came into existence. The energy and matter would have had to come from somewhere.
The Big Bang violates law of thermodynamics
@@jaylingraves8800 hmm... that's what i think
@Pine Fresh ???
From goo to you by way of the zoo ...
Ooo...
we are more engineered not sure if there is a god or we were made but we must go with the truth of what we see. And we are more mechanical than we thought. Darwin was esoteric and like many of his age into mysticism. That was how old science was. We must deal with facts regardless if we like them.
Axe is only a fraction of the way there if you want to believe in the empty grave. Or ani wrong? Do you guys here suggest I join the jahovah witness or Mormon church!
1:22 We also know that materialism (evolution) has no explanation for Information, which is the all-important precursor to biological life.
/Information always comes from Mind.
Evolution is more connected with naturalism then materialism.
Materialism explains information as a product of the interaction of material objects.
Also today materialism becomes more and more replaced by physicalism.
Materialism is to much fixated on matter and matter alone cannot explain space and time. (Also things like light are not material)
Also why should Information always come from a mind?
A „random generator“ can also produce information.
And Evolution is not even like a random generator or the infinite monkey theorem because it uses natural selection.
@@plantae420 --No, naturalism & materialism are one in the same…
And materialism does not explain Information. Information is a non-material entity and it is not a property of matter....
.... A random generator does not produce Information. A random generator is an algorithm for merely generating a sequence of numbers. A machine does not produce Information.
/All Information comes from Mind.
@@plantae420 --No system can undergo evolution by pure trial and error, by mutation or natural selection] nor can the scientific method be used on it... This alone disproves the whole clumsy Darwinian paradigm of nature.
"They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord." Qur'an (53:23)
Hahhaha lol out of nowhere
Indeed! Allah hu akbar... subhanallah! In His creations are signs for the believer!
I read an article once that said belief in creation does not require blind faith. It actually rests on sound reasoning. When you see a car, a plane, or a house we know someone designed them. Why should we abandon that reasoning when we consider the human eye, a bird in the sky, or our planet Earth? Is it reasonable to think that an airplane was designed, but a bird was not?
I think it is. We can observe planes being made...cars, trucks, other man made objects. And even those we don't see BEING made all have a milled, fabricated appearance which is indicative of being man made. Stones carved have the appearance have been shaped by tools we are familiar with. We know humans who design things exist. We know about stone carvers. We are those kinds of humans. The things designed actually stand out as different than the other designed life forms you are talking about. So the suspicion is that without an obvious explanation...ie evidence that there IS some sort of being who can create these life forms...that the process that 'designed' natural life may have been a natural process. It might be incorrect, but unless we opt for an intervening, interfering God, there's nothing left. And if we opt for an intervening/interfering God that puts into question all scientific observations and the underlying laws we think they suggest because one can never know if something they found or something they observed is due to natural ongoing processes of is due continuous miracles. No lab or field observation is reliable or meaningful. In fact it puts into question if there even ARE laws of nature and not just a god continuously choosing to make all of the natural world act in ways that only simulate natural processes.
Can you name anything not designed?
@@eddyeldridge7427 I assume you're responding to me? Natural existence is/was not designed. But nature in turn designs many things...like birds which in turn design nests, and humans which in turn design cars, trucks etc. Almost everything we see around us...maybe everything we see is designed, by nature. Least wise I don't have any reason to doubt that.
@@rizdekd3912
I was actually asking Silver.
Creationists will always point to things as being "obviously designed." But they can't point to something natural to compare it to.
@@eddyeldridge7427 I agree. They often use the 'finding a watch on the beach' thought experiment to somehow prove that there must be a god who designed thus and so, life for example. The problem is their thought experiment proves just the opposite. If everything is/has been designed, why would a 'designed' watch stand out from anything else on the beach? The answer is that actually, both the clam shell AND the watch were designed, just by different processes and in different ways. The watch is recognized as having been designed and made by humans because we're familiar with the milled, fabricated appearance of the materials. The clam shell is also 'designed' but by nature.
An origin of DNA is not required to verify evolution, or to test for common ancestry.
Just like an origin of atoms is not required to perform Chemistry.
Common ancestry--the result of INHERITANCE, literally IS evolution.
explain the process and stop speculating
Cool. And now try to explain how interactions with environment cause molecules to arrange themselves into the complementary parts of the female and male reproductive systems.
Do you REALLY need help with that??? We see this happen in EVERY SINGLE PREGNANCY. What do you think other than "molecules" makes up ANY part of any human body within a womb???
Where does love come from if we are made of matter and matter cannot feel complex emotions? @@brianmi40
I wonder if Darwin were alive today with much progress on the human gene and the signature in the cell and much of his evolution theory in trouble with natural selection and material thinking down hill what would he say and do? He would dismantle his theory and accept much of ID theory.
Darwin would have never believed in evolution had he understood DNA.
@@headleyspringer7158 Yes please tell us more about how a man who died about 200 years ago would think because clearly, you are an authority on the matter. All our understanding of DNA reinforces evolution. DNA replication and the mistakes that sometimes occur during it are literally the driving forces behind it.
@@mihneaionescu6724 I've read Origin of Species. Darwin was a free-thinker, not a kool-aid drinker like the evo- establishment,. He formulated the ToE on utterly false concepts of inheritance, and relied on those concepts to justify his beliefs. DNA replication mistakes cannot possibly create a digital code with intricate algorithms and overlapping messages.
Headley Springer Intricate algorythms and and overlapping messages? Do excuse me but i find that a bit vague and incorrect. An algorithm is a set of rules to be followed in calculations, your DNA is not a calculator. Digital relates to signals or data expressed in 0s and 1s. DNA is not a digital code. There are no “overlapping messages” in DNA, there are no messages overall. So while your statement sounds intellectual, it is nothing more but word salad. Darwin based his theory on inheritance, yes. The idea that useful traits allow an animal to survive better and pass those traits on. We understand now that those traits are due to the DNA of an animal, and also understand how new traits can arise from mistakes in the copying of code. If mistakes in DNA replication does not create new genetic code, please explain to me how bacteria placed in petri dishes with antibiotics develop antibiotic resistance over a few generations, and why these new antibiotic resistant strains also happen to have different DNA than their non resistant cousins.
Edit: Darwin didn’t formulate the theory of evolution, evolution was a proposed idea before he came around. Darwin formulated the idea of natural selection, the driving force behind evolution. I feel like a reader of his book would know that.
@@mihneaionescu6724 DNA is valid information, this is why we are able to identify that you belong to your parent. It's arranged in discernable patterns. There's no randomness.
Bio-Complexity is an example of the very kind of in-house journal that assist2424 was talking about. Ann Gauger is on Bio-Complexity's board of editors, and they've never published a submission from anyone *other* than one of the editors or a known ID supporter. They certainly have never published an article critical of ID. So you handed assist2424 the evidence for his or her statement in your 'refutation'. Well done. LMAO!
Their publication frequency is impressive too: 1 article in 2013. LOL!
Dr.Strange?
"Design" is an observable scientific cause, aka, explanation for the structure of a thing.
"Laws of nature" are also observable scientific causes.
Designed things also affected by the laws of nature.
A theory that cannot distinguish between design and natural causes cannot be disproved.
A theory that cannot be disproved is not scientific.
Evolutionary theory lacks the ability to different design from natural causes, ergo, evolution is not disprovable.
Since evolutionary theory is not disprovable it is not scientific.
Every major scientific theory of the 20th Century contains mathematical proofs and predictions while evolutionary theory contains no such mathematical proofs. It is a story about the past that meets the description of a myth more than it does the description of a scientific theory. As a narrative about the past, the theory has no practical application; there's is nothing a scientist can do who accepts the theory that a scientists who rejects the theory cannot do also.
i beg to differ. You can absolutely make predictions and observations about organisms placed in certain environments that will adhere to the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Bacteria are a great example because they go through many generations very quickly. If you put a colony of bacteria in an environment with antibiotics, most will die. But the ones with the ability to survive, will survive, and pass on whatever genetic information that helped them survive the antibiotics to future generations. Soon enough, you will have an entire population of bacteria that is resistant to a certain antibiotic.
That is the theory of evolution of natural selection at its core. The example I gave you is testable, and observable, and in fact, has real life implications, as antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming a huge problem.
You also said that evolution can’t make predictions about the past either which is false. I don’t want to type up an entire explanation here, but just look up intermediary species in the geologic record. An animal that bridges the gap between water and land had to have existed for there to be land dwelling animals, and they’ve found those animals.
Evolution IS falsifiable, but the thing is, there is so much evidence that supports that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the emergence of species. Whereas, the case for intelligent design or a creator, *is* in falsifiable, because if you ever find any evidence that points to the contrary, or fills any gaps in our knowledge about the origin of life, one could just say “yeah because the creator made it happen”. Also the theory of evolution by natural selection makes zero claims about the origin of life, but only how the diversity of species and life on the planet came to be.
"Every major scientific theory of the 20th Century contains mathematical proofs and predictions while evolutionary theory contains no such mathematical proofs."
Thankfully, since most Geneticists have zero background in math, Genetics alone proves common ancestry and therefor Evolution to be a FACT.
It's WHY a devout evangelical like Francis Collins said:
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
You see, what Collins saw, was that the GENOME of living things, including humans, contains DNA SEQUENCES that are UNIQUE TO THAT SPECIES, *AND* the SPECIES THAT THEY EVOLVED FROM, proving COMMON ANCESTRY. It's like a form of forensic science PROVING Evolution, in that it proves the relationship between species due to SPECIFIC SEQUENCES OF DNA THEY *SHARE* --- but that OTHER SPECIES DO *NOT* HAVE IN THEIR DNA.
This is where the NONSENSE, er, I mean, NON-SCIENCE of evangelical wishful thinkers like you, FAILS MISERABLY.
Here's a fuller explanation of this:
"Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis-the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent, all the way back to the last universal common ancestor, by developing testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and constructing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
*Comparison* of the *DNA* *genetic* *sequences* of organisms has revealed that organisms that are *phylogenetically* *close* have a higher degree of *DNA* sequence *similarity* than organisms that are *phylogenetically* *distant* . *Genetic* *fragments* such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from *cumulative* *mutations* *support* *common* *descent* alongside the universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns found in all organisms.
Additional genetic information conclusively supports the relatedness of life and has allowed scientists (since the discovery of DNA) to develop *phylogenetic* *trees* : a construction of organisms evolutionary *relatedness* . It has also led to the development of molecular clock techniques to date taxon divergence times and to *calibrate* these with the fossil record."
HERE'S THE KICKER: you are ANYONE ELSE can go STUDY GENETICS and actually SEQUENCE and COMPARE THE GENOMES of living things, and see EXACTLY WHAT FRANCIS COLLINS SAW.
So, please, please, stop BEING AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE HUMAN RACE... because like the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes", well ACTUALLY, there are "no geneticists that deny evolution and common descent". Because DOING SO, would be as STUPID as you denying that Exodus 21 SPEAKS OF OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY TO PASS ON TO YOUR CHILDREN as PART OF GOD'S LAWS. Because it ALWAYS HAS BEEN REALLY STUPID TO DENY WHAT'S AVAILABLE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
If Francis Collins can GET IT, you can TOO.......
Never forget Orgel's 2nd Law: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
@@jonathansilvestri7648 Yes, the problem is that there is no fossil evidence that supports evolution. In fact, the fossil record, which is supposed to be the greatest evidence for evolution, is the biggest enemy of evolution. This is not forgetting, of course, the history of deception, forgery and fabrication of evolution.🤔
@@brianmi40 there is no scientific inference about how francis Collins is descendant of some evolutionist just because he doesn't do math
@@oilcan3585 that's too incoherent to even reply to.
Typical
Even my dog knows that things don't create codes.
Nobody discovered a code that wasn't designed.
Apart from the rudeness in your post, I see that you dismantle the myth of "expelled ID-affiliated-scientists" very well.
My thanks for that!
Looks like doctor strange (Avengers)
a "biologist" who doesn't know the difference between abiogenesis and darwinian evolution? yikes
wow that is bad
If I were to try and recreate abiogenesis in my backyard with a pot that's heated and the 'right conditions' why can't I create bacteria or life?
1. We have records off transitory fossils for animals and around 6000 for humans these fossils are dated hundreds of thousands of years for humans and millions of years for animals
2. We have observed evolution including bacteria for example annual Vaxiens and we have to make our antibiotics stronger for bacteria over time because they evolve
3. We have observed more complex things evolve like insects and small fish and birds what happens? they change overtime
4. Human Embryos have gills on them, and I don’t think humans can breath underwater
5. Human embryos also share similarities with chicken embryos. The look of them are identical. A lot of mammal embryos are very similar to each other also
6. Human height has changed a lot over the course of history in fact humans have gotten around one inch taller from the 1800s to now
7. Humans have also gotten weaker over time and also have gotten way smarter over time. Brain sizes are also shrinking (skull sizes are smaller)
8. Humans and chimps share a lot of the same social structures. They both have traditions and rituals. Chimps might have religions the evidence is a bit iffy though
9. The similarities with all animals. A lot of animals share of similar structures and most animals have very similar dna structures
Abiogenesis is flawed (I can explain why), which is the backbone of evolution. The idea of evolution in a nutshell is: if you throw crap at the wall for long enough you'll have a beautiful painting. If I made my own animal in the lab, you would say "that had a mind behind it", yet we say every creature came from evolution, even though we were given minds and eyes to see that's not true. Also, apparently we came from fish and bananas and apes because we share similar DNA with them 😂Don't you think that's so silly?
The music is stupid and unnecessary, could barely hear the audio.
Dont ignore the remaining of our previous ancestors, in our organs and brain,which was used in the past,and are for animal sense .Such as ;pineal gland,the inactive part of the brain,and a few more.
-Or the six sense, how you prefer.
We lost that sense,because logic took over the sixth sense..In a evolution process.
"The pineal gland, conarium, or epiphysis cerebri, is a small endocrine gland in the brain of most vertebrates. The pineal gland produces melatonin, a serotonin-derived hormone which modulates sleep patterns in both circadian and seasonal cycles."
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland
I don't think you would do as well without your pineal gland. I don't think it is inactive. Who have you been listening to?
@@rubiks6 hardcore materialist don't understand therefore what they don't understand are false
So, in this video, this good sir often uses the word "darwinism".
What's that? Is this a thing? And is there also something like Einsteinism? Newtonism? Kepplerism?
1:20
Well... no, it's actually fairly unlike human design. If a person designed something like the genome, he probably wouldn't be a very good designer, given that the genome in pretty much all organisms is quite a mess. It works just fine, but the comparison between human top-down design and the natural bottom-up design of the genome is quite flawed.
1:26
Sure. That's why nobody today believes in it being the result of a "chance-process". It's the result of evolution. We've figured that out over a century ago.
1:35
Sure. You look at it and think it looks like brilliant engineering. I look at it and think it looks like a piece of a ham-chees-sandwich. And these two opinions are on equal ground, until you present any evidence for this engineering or I show evidence for this ham-chees-sandwich.
1:52
I agree. If somebody e.g. believes iiiiiin... let's pull out something random here: A god, then he might be more likely to look at complex natural structures and see intelligent design in it, even though there isn't any there.
2:10
Well... no.
We know that a lot of the genome, at least in most organisms, doesn't have any specific function. There are bits and pieces of useles parts all over the place. That's just what happens when you have something like the DNA that constantly changes and reforms.
2:30
Actually, you misrepresent the scientific view on this "junk-DNA" quite a bit here.
There has never been the claim that junk-DNA is useles, at least as far as I can tell not in the scientific literatur. Some people today think it is, some think it actually does stuff. The concept of "junk DNA" simply referes to DNA that doesn't code for proteins. But I think you will be hard-pressed to find any scientific paper that concludes that all non-coding DNA is junk, in the sense that it is not needed or has no function.
2:45
Well... no. Darwin didn't make this prediction... He didn't know about DNA, so how could he have made this prediction?
And no, the idea that there would be junk-DNA isn't a prediction that fallows from evolution at all. Which is why so many scientists were surprised, when we took apart the genome, because they thought there would be much, much more coding DNA than non-coding.
2:52
Wait... this is again false.
You say that it "turns out not to be correct"...
Has it? We still have more DNA that seems to do nothing and seems to be just junk in our genome, than actually functional DNA. Now, I'm not saying that it IS just junk, but you say that "it becomes clear" that it isn't... and again, this would have to be supported by data. And the data simply isn't there to make this case.
I would have expected more understanding on the subject from an actual biologist...
This is quite poor, Dr. Axe, it really is.
+Dooker Bewitt 1.) "If a person designed something like the genome, he probably wouldn't be a very good designer, "
I don't know what your standard of a good designer is, because the best designers are pretty much in awe of dna..
“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more ADVANCED than any software ever created.”- Bill Gates
How can someone be a bad designer when he can design something more advanced than what the best designers can conceptualize?
2.)"That's why nobody today believes in it being the result of a "chance-process""
Chance means unintentional. Only a mind can have intent. If evolution is not a "chance process" then it is a guided process...ergo intelligent design by way of evolution.
3.)"There has never been the claim that junk-DNA is useles".."you will be hard-pressed to find any scientific paper that concludes that all non-coding DNA is junk."
Oh really?
"In fact, the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments,orphaned genes, junk DNA,
and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot
be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design.(Kenneth R. Miller, Life's Grand Design, Technology Review 97(2):24-32, Feb/Mar 1994).
Why call something that MIGHT be performing a vital function 'junk', and classify it together with 'pointless dna sequences?'
4.) 'junk-DNA isn't a prediction that fallows from evolution at all."
Forget following from evolution, in 2009, leading evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins thought 'junk dna' was extremley powerful proof of Darwinian evolution against intelligent design:
"It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene -- a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a
superannuated version of a gene that used to do something"- Dawkins 2009.
In 2012 when it was found to have a function, Dawkins changed his tune. Suddenly the fact that "junk dna" isnt junk proves evolution
"I have noticed that there are some creationists who are jumping on [the ENCODE results] because they think that's awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary it's exactly what a Darwinist would hope for, to find
usefulness in the living world...."-Dawkins 2012.
When "junk dna" is thought to be junk-irrefutable proof of evolution.
When "junk dna" is thought to be NOT junk-irrefutable proof of evolution.
Please do not insult Dr. Axe because of your ignorance on the subject. Contrary to your claims, biologists repeatedly claimed that junk DNA had no function, and that it made up over 80% of our genome. As the fellow above me has pointed out, Darwinists hailed this as a successful prediction of evolutionary theory. The ENCODE project, however, found that the vast majority of this "junk DNA" had different functions, fullfilling a prediction of intelligent design. And lastly, yes, Darwinism is a thing, if you had bothered to read any scientific literature on evolution. It is the view that all life-forms today are the result of natural selection acting on mutations, also known as neo-Darwinism.
@@chaldeanur8108 if someone claim or spread foolish idiotic, whether it's Dr, Alex or Albert Einstein, bullshit is called bullshit.. Einstein showed evidences to support his claim.. But Alex assumes and think with an emotional appeal.. His conclusion are not product of rational thinking and scientific evidence,its just from a bullshit faith
So whenever there is a homeostatic need God or that intelligent engineer come on earth and says okay guys we need to fix this one , just because we don't know how Natural selection for sth this complex happened we can't say oh there is a God .
I think there is a God, but he is actually a very good designer and made things so they don't need constant supervision. So, He used evolution and the laws of nature. That's just an opinion of course; the laws themselves can be verified but their origin may never be known.
Most attempts to overturn evolution focus on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Evolutionists try to weasel out of the argument by saying that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution can be mathematically disproven on many levels, especially through the observation of molecular convergence.
Evolution is descent with inherent genetic modification. From generation to generation mutations happen and they are the source of variation. Sorry, because life exists, and because life is self-replicating, and because mutations occur generation to generation, evolution happens.
If there was evidence against evolution it wouldn't be called "theory" in the first place
Well done evolutionary myth has its guards fearing for their positions and personal interests
They still can’t figure out the living cell
It look about 90 seconds to tell a big lie. Then he frames himself as a rebel. Cool.
If he is lying, then that child in the photo has no purpose other than to survive and reproduce. He's just composed of random, changing, inorganic material. The only thing you should feel if something were to happen to him, is a loss of affection. Which is just a chemical response in your brain.
What lie? He’s right
LOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR GOD
For those of you struggling with the concept of the existence of a CREATOR GOD and who do not want it rammed down your throat with the BLIND FAITH approach of religious fanatics, perhaps this logical line of reasoning will help you make a more informed decision…one not based solely on blind faith alone but based also on the FACTS and the evidence that we do SEE.
Speaking as a TRIAL LAWYER of thirty years and accustomed to always relying upon the BEST EVIDENCE, and speaking as an experienced ALT medicine researcher, I have studied the arguments for and against the existence of a CREATOR GOD for many years and from the perspective of various scientific disciplines. There will still be some element of BLIND FAITH involved but this opinion is also based on INCONTROVERTIBLE, UNDENIABLE and IRREFUTABLE FACTS.
HERE IS WHAT I MEAN
I have examined the EVIDENCE of the complexity of our magnificent DESIGN OF LIFE, and I see a machine with unlimited capacity for self repair and maintenance and with numerous back-up and FAIL SAFE systems. Our design of life has a HARD DRIVE, a set of detailed programs called DNA and a built in factory which can manufacture materials that we need from scratch.
The “ evolutionists “ want me to believe that this just developed by itself? Are they kidding? Instead, based on my observations, and borrowing an expression from my thirty years as a trial lawyer, I came to the conclusion that;
From the PREPONDERANCE OF PROOF and on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, it is much more LOGICAL to conclude that our DESIGN OF LIFE is the work of a CREATOR GOD or an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER and the product of an INTENTIONAL design rather than just the result of RANDOM chance and the mere passage of time.
For example, when you examine our INNATE IMMUNE SYSTEM, one of TWO such systems that we have, the other being the ADAPTIVE immune system, you learn that it takes on average twenty (20) separate and distinct chronological chemical steps, executed in perfect SEQUENCE, to illicit even one immune response. If a major system, like the LYMPH system fails to eliminate lymph fluid in its normal way, it is backed up by a hidden fail-safe system which we are not even aware of and which will kick in and allows LYMPH to excrete through the skin.
Recently we discovered another program hidden in our DNA which we were unaware of whereby the body cleanses itself of pathogens and even cancer cells when we go through an extended FAST. This has been dubbed AUTOPHAGY, has won a NOBEL prize for its discoverer, and it raises the prospect that there are other such wonderful programs hidden in our machine which GOD has installed into our hard drive and software which only come into play in emergency and special circumstances and which we have yet to discover. This to me confirms the GOD given origins of this prescription in the BIBLE because there is no way our primitive ancestors would have known about this " program".
Even more recently the researchers at Cardiff University in Whales discovered the existence of what could be a UNIVERSAL marker they called MR-1 which can identify any and all cancer cells in the body no matter which kind they are and an existing killer T-cell which reacts to it… something I have intuitively known had to be part of GOD'S great and complex design and which it was only a matter of time till we discovered it. This system must be working perfectly most of the time otherwise everyone would develop cancer all the time since our environment is so poisoned. We just have to now figure out why in some cases its normal efficiency is interfered with.
Just look at an anatomy chart of the structure of our MUSCULAR system. You have multiple over-lapping layers of muscles criss-crossing at different levels and at different angles, each pulling in different directions and having a specific action and a role in movement. I want some evolution theorists to explain how the SUPRA-SPINATUS muscle developed according to the principles of conventional “ evolution theory” and its improvement by inherited MUTATION explanation…it is sheer and utter NONSENSE.
It makes no sense that such a complex DESIGN OF LIFE is merely the result of RANDOM CHANCE. If you said this about any other manifestly magnificent design structure like an automobile… you would be called BRAIN DEAD.
The evolutionists THEORY, which is still an UN-PROVEN theory, is as ridiculous as the argument that if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters long enough then eventually, over a long enough period of time they would produce the complete works of SHAKESPEARE !
What do the “evolution” theorists want us to believe? That a bolt of lightening hit a pile of doo-doo four billion years ago…and BINGO…here we are? This is patent NONSENSE and violates plain COMMON SENSE. The MAIN arguments in the theory of EVOLUTION are so fragile that they can be dismissed with numerous arguments but this following simple argument is more than enough;
If EVOLUTION alone explains our existence then how come APES are still swinging in the trees? There is no valid or convincing answer for this FLAGRANT CONTRADICTION within that “ theory ”. Saying that we “ split “ off from a common ancestor would still not explain why the other ape line did not build skyscrapers before we did. As President Johnson once said;
“ You cannot SUCK and BLOW at the same time”.
Either we ‘ evolved’ from the more primitive APES or we did not. The fact that APES still exist or that they did not build skyscrapers before we did…cannot be explained by this theory. There are MANY, many more caveats and exceptions pitched by this unfounded theory of evolution but this is enough by itself to discredit it.
Finally, we are no longer primitive camel drivers or sheep herders and we can accept the possibility and probability that the CREATOR GOD is an actual, real and physical being in whose “ image we were made “, as it says, and not just some imaginary, intangible or mystical entity.
GOD’S GREAT DESIGN OF LIFE SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERED WITH
One of the main consequences of this perspective about the origins of our design of life being the work of a CREATOR GOD or INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is that mankind should reconsider the way the mainstream medical community deals with catastrophic illnesses and cancer and the constantly newly emerging pathogens like the COVID-19 virus which has baffled the medical community and paralysed the entire planet. The obsession with toxic drugs, burning radiation and slashing surgery is a flagrant and INEFFECTIVE failure. We should consider looking for a new and paradigm shift in the way we deal with these diseases and try to explore new ALTERNATIVE sciences which do not interfere with some of the very elements of this design of life that GOD gave us to protect us and eventually just provide it with a little help it needs to work at its optimal potential.
It is mankind’s divine duty and privilege to try to find better ways to deal with these illnesses and cancer and pathogens, like these new viruses, and stop what I call the WANTON SLAUGHTER of so many of GOD’s children of all ages where millions of people die every year because of the current primitive state of knowledge about this design and methods which interfere with some of the very components of it which GOD gave us to protect us which should be an embarrassment to our medical community.
One such non-intrusive and non-toxic ALT science is that of DR. RAYMOND ROYAL RIFE who back in the 1930’s cured many diseases and killed numerous pathogens and viruses using only RADIO FREQUENCY to destroy them. His methods were proven so obviously effective in a controlled clinical trial at USC in 1934 where he cured 16 out of 16 terminally ill patients, 14 with Cancer and 2 with Tuberculosis, that the A.M.A tried to buy shares in his company. When RIFE refused, the A.M.A. banned his method, and prosecuted doctors using it. Unlike other wild and unproven “ conspiracy “ theories about suppressed secret CURES, these groups ended up in a COURT battle where all of this evidence is a matter of public record.
Efforts to revive the science of RIFE and his methods have failed to date because they have not EXACTLY duplicated his ORIGINAL work and have not used his original killer frequencies nor the other elements of his treatment protocol. This is what we should be exploring along with various forms of OXYGEN therapy, WHICH have also been proven effective.
I hope that these arguments help some of you to finally resolve this issue and to accept the LOGICAL conclusion of the existence of a CREATOR GOD…and if so, then welcome to the team !
1:23
And why is it impossible that this scale of information didn’t appear through Chance plus natural selection?
Is the amount and quality of information not determined by natural selection?
Harmful information which occur through mutations die out and beneficial information survive.
Can not even a point mutation be a new information?
Like if you insert one „symbol“ in a word it can gain new meaning like
„as you know“ and „ass you know“ if you insert one symbol it will become an insult and contains the information that you don’t like the person for which the sentence was.
I mean Evolution does not exactly work like in the infinite monkey theorem because it uses natural selection and therefore can accumulate beneficial information.
Yes, that is key. I can't roll twenty sixes in a row, but I can easily roll the dice until all twenty are sixes, by putting aside the sixes when they turn up.
The problem there being is that his papers in the JMB had nothing to do with either disproving protein folding by hydrophobia or positively evidencing design. He showed that in 4 attempts, a random fold cannot produce a novel functional protein fold.
Try again.
TheScienceFoundation random folds out of the infinite possibilities. Trying for a trillion years won't help
Look at how complex everything is. I can’t think of any other way how this came about, therefore a highly more complex God did it! Oh, by the way, I don’t need to explain God! 😂
So you used your logic and intuition to arrive at that conclusion, right ? Daniel Dennett has done extensive works on the human brain, which shows how our brains don't really see what's there and therefore draw wrong conclusions. You[and I] cannot understand such enormous complexity, but that is because we are a very small part of the whole thing. We are like a chimp trying to get a degree in mathematics. Because you cannot get your head around it is no good reason to suppose there is a creator.
@@spatrk6634 You might be right about Crudballian's comment. It can be read in two different ways. He should have used inverted commas if it was a sarky comment. Well, anyway, have a nice day.🙂
I've never seen any person make the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity step-by-step as basic as this comment, it's almost remarkable.
first this man is not a biologist, he has a degree in chemistry. And him not questioning his religion shows he had a bias. as soo as you bring in a god, your are no longr doing science.
listen to science. He is talking chemistry . Proteins are chemical compounds. Evolution is not science
Assist2424: you are right, Axe and every other creationist employs the "blind chance" straw-man attack. It's like saying tornadoes form a vortex shape by the "blind chance arrangement of atoms"... no, it's worse than that. Could Darwin have picked a less random-sounding word than "selection"? If Darwin had called natural selection "natural non-randomness", creationists would just tell people non-randomness means randomness.
Why the irrelevant piano music?
Genesis 1:1-31 KJV
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. [11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [13] And the evening and the morning were the third day. [14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. [20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. [30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. [31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning …
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -William Dembski
It seems to me that the fittest are not always selected and many times it’s just dumb luck
Part of the problem is that it isn't and never was 'survival of the fittest.' That was a misrepresentation of the process. The basic premise is that the gene pool that produces individuals with behaviors, structures, features, and capabilities adequate to produce the next generation will continue and the gene pool that doesn't won't. Gene pools evolve, not individuals. So 'the fittest' isn't always important...often it's whether individuals are 'fit enough.' That explanation doesn't predict or explain WHY/HOW the genes change, just why, if there are genetic changes, why some end up permeating the entire population while other changes die out with the individuals who own them.
[7 of 7]: Here I conclude proving Doug Axe lied when Axe said that geneticists equated non-coding DNA = Junk DNA. In fact scientists said non-functional DNA is a SUBSET of non-coding DNA, not the reverse.
The ribosome was known to be largely nucleic acid in the 1950's, general molecular structure known since the early 1970s, by the 1980's it was known the ribosome was a ribozyme-- based on functions residing in non-coding DNA.
Evolution works but Darwin had in 19th century no chance to explain the intricate mechanisms hiding behind it. Even last century brought no progress, evolution mechanisms are still lurking in the dark.
For the first time in history I will explain how evolution works in detail. After that no questions should remain.
COMING SOON!
Watch out for the big thing.
ok
lets hear it
@@cloroxbleach3809 thanks
There is nothing to explain a fairy tale in 21 century 👍👍👍
This is funny and sad at the same time. Why don’t you prove what you’re saying and flip current understanding of biology and get a Nobel Prize and become a household name a hero and get your name in Biology books for eternity. Because you can’t prove anything.
What are the odds of a fully loaded, fighter jet with AIM-120 missiles and a full tank of fuel being formed in pure random chance without involvement of any intelligent being?
Yeah, that makes sense but they will just say "the first particle was created by random chance"
Is a jet a biological organism? No? So it’s not really relevant is it.
Symmetry in the design of creatures seem to be evidence against evolution. Just an opinion
Then why does everything eat everything else? God make that fiasco?
Well for one. most creatures are fairly asymmetrical (including people), and two, why couldn't evolution cause symmetry? Its just a product of replicating the same thing again, doesn't sound like something that needs a mind to create, thats for sure.
If you don't care for this guy's monologue, then at least one can enjoy the relaxing background music.
He is right about questioning everything being thought. The problem is that whenever there is something he does not understand, has not information about or don't agree with, he has always the same answer ready; it has to be god. Zero of what he has to say supports the bible. Intelligent design is just another word for creationism. Different wrappings, same content. It is no coincidence that those who supports intelligent design are also bible supporters.
Evolution: A Useless Dogma
Tell me u know nothing bout evolution w/out telling me u know nothing bout evolution
at least evolution has advanced the field of biology. religion is not only useless but causes harm.
It is a dogma.
"If you believed everything was cobled together through random processes then there would be a lot of junk. There would be the residue of cobbling."
Firstly nice strawman.
Secondly I would assume that since you are a biologist would have heard of the term vestigial structures. It could be defined as features of an organism that are considered to have lost much or all of their original function through evolution, or as you put it ,"the residue of cobbling." I am uncertain what kind of biologist you are but you look at whales skeleton you would notice that they have leg bones, which is considered to be vestigial (As most would agree you use your legs to walk and modern whales are not known for their maranthon running abilities.)
I will assume as a biologist that you genuinely had no idea of any of these terms, the fact that whales have leg bones and that you did not plan to strawman and mislead since you "...never tend to do that, I always questioned what I was taught."
W.o.w.👍!!!!❤
This guy is a joke and he pretty much says it himself at 1:32 "I remember thinking at the time that this [the genetic code] looks like something, not just the product of engineering but the product of brilliant engineering and that was the point where it occured to me that someone needed to do the experiments to test whether that was really the case of not." ... "It's strange how your preconceptions really colour the way you process data"
Doug got his PHD from Cal,Berkley / CalTech and ran the Cambridge Biolab for 12 years-- what do you do for a living?? curious?
Not sure about your sense of humour. You must laugh pretty easily. I thought he made his point well, but there again I understood what he was talking about. By the way, do people avoid you at parties ?
Darwin was such a genius… He saw that birds had different sized beaks and figured humans must have come from underwater worms. Amazing how smart atheists are.
That's a pretty big strawman. Darwin wasn't even an atheist.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 Yup, that is a strawman argument.
They only follow conjecture. The Holy Quran
What's funny to me is they keep finding out more and more... And still haven't the foggiest idea how to build a cell!... Not really a concern to me except for... The government is stealing my money to pay for their houses and cars! 😭😭
DNA that has function is even more evidence for evolution:
We know where organisms get there DNA from--they inherit it.
From where? Inherited from what?
@@qfranklin2777 and 7 years later still waiting no answer haha
@@qfranklin2777 what a idiotic question.. From pre organism idiotic.. Now if your argument is going to question where does the first DNA from.. Then it's from abiogenesis.. Uri miller experiment.. And there is no fucking way for intelligent bullshit..
@@absurdist5938 you still didn't answer my question how did DNA came in existence? what created DNA?
saying organisms inherit it DOES NOT answer the question how it came to be.
WHERE DID THE PRE-ORGANISM CAME FROM? even darwin could not answer that.
oh another question what mechanism cause the abiogenesis process from (non-life to life)?
DNA is the instruction of how a person should be made like for example (DNA INSTRUCT WHAT COLOR EYE PIGMENT AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD HAVE.) and for you to say that intelligence have no place in organism or creatures is dumb.
@@qfranklin2777 you didn't understand abiogenesis don't you.. Anyway it's not created no DNA no complex molecule is created they are formed.. DNA comes from RNA.. Now first cell formation, through uri miller experiment we understand that fat, protein, biomolecules, sugar, nitrogen bases can be formed naturally.. That's one big evidences.. They are the things used to make not just DNA but full cell.. DNA is the building block of life it created life.. Self replicating DNA was formed.. And lipid layers are formed inside the deepest part of sea, which is the building block of cytoplasm.. Now for a science student it's enough to assume that these show abiogenisis is true.. Not only coz it say so but coz of physics, every thing in the body is made of stardust so it's perfectly reasonable.. Now, DNA created life, first DNA is not just a molecule, it can replicate and it can produce other DNA.. This give rise to a cell.. Either u don't know it or simply belived else what.. Now no any one of the evidence in the world can prove "creation of human by sand" and "intelligent design".. And no need for " God did It"😂for me to say intelligence is formed from non living organisms is the most reasonable, but for u It isn't, know why? You don't know anything about evolution at all ..that's why.. Your Ignorance is not my fault.. Now Darwin's proposed the theory of evolution in raw.. He described it as in a way of natural selection through environmental ways.. Now today's evolution is more more advanced than even, Darwin if came back don't understand.. Now saying Darwin said yadda yadda.. Doesn't matter if there is no evidence..
This person explained nothing
atheists doesn't like this XD
I'm sorry, "a questioning gentleman", about your remark regarding "brilliant design", are you really a biologist? I'm having a hard time believing that it's not just a title, because the only people who propose the notion of "brilliance" in biology are undereducated, uncurious people who only look at puppies and kittens, and occasionally on trees, of course, and even then only paying attention to the surface level, beyond that childish viewpoint, biology definitely does not support such a notion.
For those who are truly skeptical, I recommend to learn about aquatic mammals, and why their design is anything but "brilliant" and only the blind and uncaring process of biological evolution is capable of explaining such phenomenon. If you don't propose that your god is evil, of course, in that case, you can still use "the god of the gaps" I guess, but what is the point then...
[4 of 5]: Here I am proving Doug Axe lied, by showing that for the last several decades, the Nobel Committee has handed out a shelf-full of Nobel prizes to scientists (ALWAYS evolutionists, NEVER creationists) for finding novel function in non-coding DNA.
1. Nobel Prize for Jacques Monod and co-workers, 1965, for finding functions in non-coding DNA (regulatory elements).
2. Nobel Prize for Barbara McClintock 1983 for her discovery of new function in non-coding RNA (mobile genetic elements.)
God doesn't make junk.
True. If any atheist tells you that there are degenerate mutations “proving” that an omniscient God didn’t design DNA,
No.1 genetic entropy is a known phenomena and that started at the fall in Eden when we rejected God.
No.2 but I thought evolution was supposed to give us good mutations? Why do there seem to be mostly harmful mutations?
Also, a good joke for them is, “Well, according to you, we’ve been falling off cliffs for years! So far, all evolution has done is give us the ability to scream!”
@@thomasrobinson8789 both good and bad mutations happen
@@thomasrobinson8789 evolution doesn't have to go against the idea of God, it just goes against the idea of creationism
@@jasonbourne1126 agree. I believe in God and I have studied evolution in school and in the field, and it explains much of what we see in nature. Not everything, but a lot.
He also gave us minds to see past these lies but some people have their thinking cap off
He actually raises an interesting point. I hope he's not trying to say that a God clearly created everything. I hope he is on the right track to understand that consciousness affects matter.
You should be seeking truth and not be predisposed to hating the idea that it may have come from God.
@@austinjohn8713 Not sure what that has to do with evolution, but after rewatching this video its clear the speaker is conflating natural selection with random processes and that can’t be further from the truth.
@@User3rror prove your point or keep quiet.
@@austinjohn8713 Natural selection removes mutations that aren't beneficial for the environment they're in, thus the only genes that are allowed to take over the gene pool are the ones that are beneficial. Therefor its not random in its result.
@@User3rror natural selectin if at all you can proof it is not a cowboy with a pistol that stands at the quality assurance stand and instantly eliminates defective items as they exit the evolutionary assembly. stochastically it is a normal/gaussian random variable . what it even selects is produced by other mechanisms like genetic mutation which itself is a Poisson random variable. if you knew mathematics you would throw evolution out of the window''
What you lack is a good education in science and mathematics go study that first then come back for an intellectual debate with me
" a large fraction of the non-translated genome is functionally important and subject to both purifying selection and adaptive evolution. These results imply that, although positive selection is clearly an important facet of protein evolution, adaptive changes to non-coding DNA might have been considerably more common in the evolution of D. melanogaster."
DNA, whether coding or non-coding, is more proof of evolution.
"evolution is a fact" 🤓
Evolution is the religion of the atheist.more faith than fact. the atheist denies that there could be a supreme being ...and we are creations(GMO)
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.
A product of "brilliant" engineering? My inflamed appendix begged to differ.
Lol, this guy understands evolution about as well as a dead toad can fly.
I love Darwin . I hate the brain manipulation with God invented
Flat earther's feel the same way. Reality doesn't agree with your world view and the truth doesn't care about your feelings.
Jesus is coming !
LOL Keep telling yourself that buttboynick. Don't let the laughter from real scientists interrupt your prayers.
Thats not what his lips says...the sound does match his lips...
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)