Life is simply way too complex to have evolved on its own. It is 4D prescriptive information orders of magnitude more complex than any code mankind has ever devised. It is simply ludicrous to believe interrelated parts, entire systems, and interrelated systems can have evolved by accident. When have we ever seen prescriptive information write itself into existence?
@@TheJonnyzeus Don't bother me with semantics. Non-life cannot organize itself into living systems, as we all know. Your theory is a bankrupt fairytale for atheists. Down with Darwin.
@@profoundgreetingsfromneptune but why? It's a pretty strange claim to make that life couldn't self assemble after each year some new breakthrough study gets published that overcomes a previous challenge.
@@HH-ru4bj I'm sitting here looking at my small fan nearby. (The breeze it affords feels great, btw.) How many billions of years will it take for my inanimate fan to become a living thing? Thirteen point seven? Now, with respect to life, let's start with some softballs: did the cell membrane evolve before the nucleus? If so, what told it to form a membrane since no genetic instructions where given both to create and to maintain a membrane? Further, where did the energy to create and to sustain the cell membrane come from since we have no mitochondrion? If the nucleus evolved before the cell membrane, what is protecting the nucleus from the destructive outside world? Further, from where is the energy to power the nucleus coming? Another softball: Which came first? DNA, which is used to make RNA, or RNA, which is used to make DNA? In essence, when have you or anyone else ever seen 4D prescriptive information, which is what life is, create or write itself into being? Here's an easier question: when have you or anyone else ever seen 2D prescriptive information (e.g., a recipe), write itself into being? If we wouldn't expect 2D prescriptive information to be able to write itself into being, even in 13.7 billion years, how much more impossible would it be for 4D prescriptive information to do so?
@@profoundgreetingsfromneptune yeah those aren't difficult. I'll answer what I can from memory, but there are literally thousands of videos here on yt that can explain your questions more concisely. There's no reason to think that a spherical lipid structure had to come first, or the nucleus, or rna/dna. I fact there are numerous experiments showing how spherical lipid structures self assemble with ordinary ingredients and under mundane conditions and are naturally attracted to nucleotides due to respective molecular charged. If you're looking for what told it too assemble, well what tells the wind to blow or hydrogen and oxygen to self assemble into water? The same chemical processes responsible for literally everything. If you're wondering about the different tiers of information, well those are completely artificial assignments. Stephen meyer calls dna digital information due to how we interpret its bad pairing being similar to binary coding. Well sure one can make that distinction however it doesn't mean that dna itself must therefore be artificial itself. Some hydrocarbon molecules like methane consisting of only hydrogen and carbon can also be described as having binary coding properties under meters basic definition. So the fact that we can assign an information value to something in that context isn't anything special.
Well, it seems to me that living things are only thousands of times more complex than could possibly have come about spontaneously . . but there's a lot I haven't heard even a simplified explanation of yet, so it could be millions of times ; ) I used to believe in GOS Evolution (Grand Origin Story evolution), but now I realize it was only because I was extremely uninformed about how hyper complex even "simple" living things are. I'd have never believed in it had I known even what this single video deals with superficially. Never.
Is this an "open" class for laymen? Or is this a staff meeting/discussion for round table discussion for cross training? It's interesting either way. Just curious about the format and all the other lectures that I've watched from your channel.
Life is simply too complex to have evolved. It MUST have been designed and created. That famous quote by Crick (at the beginning of this video) pretty much sums up the problem exhibited by Evolutionists.
According to Aristotle, nature (by which he means living beings) is that which has in itself the principle of motion (in the sense of change) and repose. So, if something changes by itself, for example it grows, it has life; stones do not change by themselves, therefore they are not living beings. The principle of life is the soul (not in the supernatural sense) which can either be vegetative, sensitive or rational.
To anyone who understands computers enough to just use one, this is simple. What he's saying is that the human genome is literally 'plug n' play,' which is known by many by the acronym 'PnP.' For example: When a computer device, such as a USB WiFi adapter, is advertised as 'PnP,' it simply means that the user only needs to plug it in to a USB port and the machine will instantly recognize it as a WiFi adapter, making setting the device up much, much easier. Think 'DVD': when you insert one into your DVD player, it automatically starts up. That's a perfect example of 2 'plug n' play' devices (the player), and the media (the DVD). This is why a DVD will play on such a huge array of different DVD players - they're all PnP. In other words, God made our genome, along with every other genome on the planet, PnP, which would account for the universal complexity of life, since a biological PnP mechanism would allow for more complexity whenever it's required, and more importantly, enable quick fixes on the fly, allowing for adaptation on the fly also. So what he's saying is that God devised the genome much like today's computers, software, and their accessories, PnP, but just like computers, just because something is PnP, such as a DVD, it won't work as say a WiFi adapter - this is because everything is designed for a specific purpose, and to do a specific job - just like our DNA. This is an extremely brilliant way to view the situation, since it brings home, with force, how impossible abiogenesis (spontaneous life coming from non-living molecules) really is, since it is an unshakable fact that information only comes from an intelligent mind - ESPECIALLY when our genome is PnP...BOOM! (Goes the Darwinian fairy fable...again)!
interesting presentation... just for the record, mitochondria has its own dna (mtdna), inherited from the mother line. This makes sense, because it is the "cellular powerhouse", the basic for all, it must be stable and will not have any benefit from recombination or similar techniques... again design? ;)
Its not that he personally doesn't like the idea of complexity occurring in nature. The basic concept is "irreducible complexity" and this video is some specific examples of such. A basic principle for evolutionary models is that systems develop in stages and for that to occur each piece has to have individual value as its added. Everyone jumps to the Miller-Urey experiment as proof that life could emerge from the "primordial soup". Casting aside any arguments about what the soup might have been or how it came to be... All that experiment showed was that amino acids could be formed, but there's been no evidence discovered of any natural attraction or ordering mechanisms for the amino acids. That's like saying that because brick shaped rocks can be found in nature that cities can occur naturally, and that's just to get to DNA which without the rest of the cell system is still useless. DNA is just one piece of a cell system which requires all parts of the system to function. In this video he's describing all the inner workings of the systems and how they are interdependent. The concept of an irreducibly complex system cannot exist in an evolutionary model.
@@ianmcaton that's been argued to death though. The henry meuller experiment wasn't to show that life could occur, only the building blocks previously thought to be too delicate to occur under natural conditions. The mechanism or attraction are ordinary chemical processes. Then with examples of amino acids being found in meteorites suggests very strongly that the formation of them isn't anything special. Thoughts on irreducible complexity typically revolve around finding things as they are now under current conditions, with little to no consideration or even down right dismissal of the core argument that summer systems were already hypothesized to support more complex developments in the first place.
@@HH-ru4bj Comments section is a difficult place for actual scientific discourse lol. Your original comment seemed a simple dismissal and I only sought to spark more consideration of the science behind it. So the experiment showed the building blocks could exist... Forgive me, my understanding is rudimentary... The attachment mechanisms are ordinary chemical processes but that's not the same as attraction or at least not as I'm trying to say it. The experiment required an electric motive to create amino acid chains and they were very short and random. To my knowledge there has been no experiment that has shown how long amino acid chains on an order of magnitude that's even close to a DNA sequence could form naturally. Even the simplest single celled organisms on earth are a complex and totally interdependent system. I understand that there are hypotheses of simpler systems that theoretically could have existed, but I'm not aware of what the observable evidence for them or the evidence for how those systems could develop into the more complex systems if they did exist? Not trying to say that they shouldn't be explored.... The discussion jumps quickly to genetics and the fossil record etc. and I'm not equipped with the time to have that discussion here. Science is rooted in what we can observe in the here and now, current conditions as you say, and extrapolations thereof thru experimentation etc. So to say that irreducible complexity is invalid because its based on that and may not fully consider some yet undiscovered evidence seems a bit of an underdeveloped argument to me. I'm certainly not an expert in biology or genetics or geology and all I'm trying to do is encourage keeping an open mind and actually considering the scientific basis for all view points. There's also other things to consider on the philosophical side... If some day science somehow proves that there is no God you will have lost nothing by giving full consideration to the scientific arguments for creationism. On the other hand, if there is a God who created all things who seeks relationship with you then you have everything to gain by fully exploring the science of creationism...
@@ianmcaton well that's mostly fair. It's a rare experience to encounter an actual expert on anything randomly in the comments sections. I agree with your frustration for how conversation tend to jump from one topic to another, I encounter that quite often before I can encourage someone to happen across the right question. I will ask you to look up a video called "the rna world" by stated clearly. It's not comprehensive but it does give a pretty good understanding from a basic and extrapolative pov for why irreducible complexity for rna isn't a strong contention. Now as far as proving god doesn't exist? That's as impossible of a standard to meet as proving abiogenesis is the mechanism for how life began on earth. Requiring say something like a re machine and an immaculate record of each iteration of successful pair bondings is something we will never be able to demonstrate, and thats something that even of could be proven there are those that still wod deny it claiming the evidence was fabricated, because they do that now. Take for instance that I'm currently on a discussion about lucy, and the claim is that the fossil is a hoax because the pelvic girdle was manipulated with power tools to fit a specific function. Despite spending the last 45 mins looking for that specific claim and having some inclination that the original fossil had been altered, I can't find anything supporting either side except through creationist sources. It's a bit frustrating because I know it was to correct a deformation from the fossilization process, but can't find a source to cite.
@@HH-ru4bj It's an interesting hypothesis, but as the RNA World video openly admits it is in the infant stages. At least as presented in the video it consists "what if some of the self replicating properties of RNA chains we've observed in a lab environment could have started all life?...". I would say that irreducible complexity is the main concept they would need to work through to make the hypothesis viable. Giving it a very generous head start and assuming they get to a point where they can show that some of these ribozymes could form "in the wild" from a somehow naturally occurring, stable, nucleotide soup without "minimal assistance from a lab technician". You still just have RNA chains that are less than 200 nucleotides long churning out more RNA chains and hoping for meaningful mutations that lead to different RNA chains and there’s no natural mechanism to get you any closer to a 3Bil base pair DNA (that isn’t just random formation, but a massive piece of bio software). Which is yet another quantum leap from a fully functioning cell system. That is where irreducible complexity, especially as it is represented in this video, comes in. In cells, all the components are interdependent, and it is also an incredibly efficient system. What the presentation in this video is getting at is that the cell system is comparable to systems that have been designed using ‘intelligence’. From an evolutionary perspective everything should get increasingly simple the smaller you get (building from the simplest piece with continuous and gradual increased complexity and branching etc.), but that’s not what we see. Sure the basic building blocks are simple, but at the cell level we have a complex system that is beautifully efficient that contains an almost unfathomable amount of information. Which is evidence of intelligent design. You wouldn’t pile up silicon and conductive bits and expect an SSD with Windows pre-installed to form in a few million years would you? So why do we see that as a reasonable assumption for where DNA came from? Never mind that to complete the analogy with respect to a cell the rest of the computer also has to also spontaneously form and assemble itself before any of the pieces degrade… “Creation Facts of Life” by Gary Parker is a good book to read that covers a lot more on the biological evidence for creation. Gary Parker was an evolutionary biologist that after years of teaching evolution realized that blind faith in the theory of evolution was actually keeping him from evaluating the scientific evidence for what it was. It’s only a few bucks on amazon. Of course its an impossible task to prove God doesn’t exist. I was just trying to convey that it is absolutely worth the time to explore and understand all the scientific evidence that supports creationism. Darwin himself said that for the fossil record to support evolution as an origin you’d need to find the “innumerable transitional forms”. Which we haven’t. Considering the very specific conditions required to make a fossil, fossils are actually a rare phenomenon. What we find in the fossil record is actually a perfect picture of a global catastrophe involving massive tectonic activity and flooding. ‘Is Genesis History’ also has a number of videos on this.
this is so interesting - How it all works - or at least as much as we know is just mind-blowing
Life is simply way too complex to have evolved on its own. It is 4D prescriptive information orders of magnitude more complex than any code mankind has ever devised. It is simply ludicrous to believe interrelated parts, entire systems, and interrelated systems can have evolved by accident. When have we ever seen prescriptive information write itself into existence?
Your reference to “accident” reveals the fact that you know nothing about the Theory of Evolution.
@@TheJonnyzeus Don't bother me with semantics. Non-life cannot organize itself into living systems, as we all know. Your theory is a bankrupt fairytale for atheists. Down with Darwin.
@@profoundgreetingsfromneptune but why? It's a pretty strange claim to make that life couldn't self assemble after each year some new breakthrough study gets published that overcomes a previous challenge.
@@HH-ru4bj I'm sitting here looking at my small fan nearby. (The breeze it affords feels great, btw.) How many billions of years will it take for my inanimate fan to become a living thing? Thirteen point seven?
Now, with respect to life, let's start with some softballs: did the cell membrane evolve before the nucleus? If so, what told it to form a membrane since no genetic instructions where given both to create and to maintain a membrane? Further, where did the energy to create and to sustain the cell membrane come from since we have no mitochondrion? If the nucleus evolved before the cell membrane, what is protecting the nucleus from the destructive outside world? Further, from where is the energy to power the nucleus coming?
Another softball: Which came first? DNA, which is used to make RNA, or RNA, which is used to make DNA?
In essence, when have you or anyone else ever seen 4D prescriptive information, which is what life is, create or write itself into being? Here's an easier question: when have you or anyone else ever seen 2D prescriptive information (e.g., a recipe), write itself into being? If we wouldn't expect 2D prescriptive information to be able to write itself into being, even in 13.7 billion years, how much more impossible would it be for 4D prescriptive information to do so?
@@profoundgreetingsfromneptune yeah those aren't difficult. I'll answer what I can from memory, but there are literally thousands of videos here on yt that can explain your questions more concisely. There's no reason to think that a spherical lipid structure had to come first, or the nucleus, or rna/dna. I fact there are numerous experiments showing how spherical lipid structures self assemble with ordinary ingredients and under mundane conditions and are naturally attracted to nucleotides due to respective molecular charged. If you're looking for what told it too assemble, well what tells the wind to blow or hydrogen and oxygen to self assemble into water? The same chemical processes responsible for literally everything.
If you're wondering about the different tiers of information, well those are completely artificial assignments. Stephen meyer calls dna digital information due to how we interpret its bad pairing being similar to binary coding. Well sure one can make that distinction however it doesn't mean that dna itself must therefore be artificial itself. Some hydrocarbon molecules like methane consisting of only hydrogen and carbon can also be described as having binary coding properties under meters basic definition. So the fact that we can assign an information value to something in that context isn't anything special.
DEEP & cool!
Interesting.
Great title!
Well, it seems to me that living things are only thousands of times more complex than could possibly have come about spontaneously . . but there's a lot I haven't heard even a simplified explanation of yet, so it could be millions of times ; ) I used to believe in GOS Evolution (Grand Origin Story evolution), but now I realize it was only because I was extremely uninformed about how hyper complex even "simple" living things are. I'd have never believed in it had I known even what this single video deals with superficially. Never.
Is this an "open" class for laymen?
Or is this a staff meeting/discussion for round table discussion for cross training?
It's interesting either way.
Just curious about the format and all the other lectures that I've watched from your channel.
Life is simply too complex to have evolved. It MUST have been designed and created. That famous quote by Crick (at the beginning of this video) pretty much sums up the problem exhibited by Evolutionists.
According to Aristotle, nature (by which he means living beings) is that which has in itself the principle of motion (in the sense of change) and repose. So, if something changes by itself, for example it grows, it has life; stones do not change by themselves, therefore they are not living beings. The principle of life is the soul (not in the supernatural sense) which can either be vegetative, sensitive or rational.
To anyone who understands computers enough to just use one, this is simple. What he's saying is that the human genome is literally 'plug n' play,' which is known by many by the acronym 'PnP.'
For example: When a computer device, such as a USB WiFi adapter, is advertised as 'PnP,' it simply means that the user only needs to plug it in to a USB port and the machine will instantly recognize it as a WiFi adapter, making setting the device up much, much easier.
Think 'DVD': when you insert one into your DVD player, it automatically starts up. That's a perfect example of 2 'plug n' play' devices (the player), and the media (the DVD). This is why a DVD will play on such a huge array of different DVD players - they're all PnP.
In other words, God made our genome, along with every other genome on the planet, PnP, which would account for the universal complexity of life, since a biological PnP mechanism would allow for more complexity whenever it's required, and more importantly, enable quick fixes on the fly, allowing for adaptation on the fly also.
So what he's saying is that God devised the genome much like today's computers, software, and their accessories, PnP, but just like computers, just because something is PnP, such as a DVD, it won't work as say a WiFi adapter - this is because everything is designed for a specific purpose, and to do a specific job - just like our DNA.
This is an extremely brilliant way to view the situation, since it brings home, with force, how impossible abiogenesis (spontaneous life coming from non-living molecules) really is, since it is an unshakable fact that information only comes from an intelligent mind - ESPECIALLY when our genome is PnP...BOOM! (Goes the Darwinian fairy fable...again)!
Good title.
interesting presentation... just for the record, mitochondria has its own dna (mtdna), inherited from the mother line. This makes sense, because it is the "cellular powerhouse", the basic for all, it must be stable and will not have any benefit from recombination or similar techniques... again design? ;)
DNA was there when we even did not Know what was DNA!
Similarly, GOD is there when we do not know He is there!
Can you use concepts from a game developer to help explain our space
The constant changing of camera angels is 🧐😖😬
Nit picker
Just FYI....there are no essential carbohydrates
We could be some other kind's automated system?
I think you need to take a quick look at your title. 😉
So his whole argument is since he doesn't like the idea of complexity occurring naturally, then it can't be true.
Its not that he personally doesn't like the idea of complexity occurring in nature. The basic concept is "irreducible complexity" and this video is some specific examples of such. A basic principle for evolutionary models is that systems develop in stages and for that to occur each piece has to have individual value as its added. Everyone jumps to the Miller-Urey experiment as proof that life could emerge from the "primordial soup". Casting aside any arguments about what the soup might have been or how it came to be... All that experiment showed was that amino acids could be formed, but there's been no evidence discovered of any natural attraction or ordering mechanisms for the amino acids. That's like saying that because brick shaped rocks can be found in nature that cities can occur naturally, and that's just to get to DNA which without the rest of the cell system is still useless. DNA is just one piece of a cell system which requires all parts of the system to function. In this video he's describing all the inner workings of the systems and how they are interdependent. The concept of an irreducibly complex system cannot exist in an evolutionary model.
@@ianmcaton that's been argued to death though. The henry meuller experiment wasn't to show that life could occur, only the building blocks previously thought to be too delicate to occur under natural conditions. The mechanism or attraction are ordinary chemical processes. Then with examples of amino acids being found in meteorites suggests very strongly that the formation of them isn't anything special.
Thoughts on irreducible complexity typically revolve around finding things as they are now under current conditions, with little to no consideration or even down right dismissal of the core argument that summer systems were already hypothesized to support more complex developments in the first place.
@@HH-ru4bj Comments section is a difficult place for actual scientific discourse lol. Your original comment seemed a simple dismissal and I only sought to spark more consideration of the science behind it.
So the experiment showed the building blocks could exist... Forgive me, my understanding is rudimentary... The attachment mechanisms are ordinary chemical processes but that's not the same as attraction or at least not as I'm trying to say it. The experiment required an electric motive to create amino acid chains and they were very short and random. To my knowledge there has been no experiment that has shown how long amino acid chains on an order of magnitude that's even close to a DNA sequence could form naturally. Even the simplest single celled organisms on earth are a complex and totally interdependent system.
I understand that there are hypotheses of simpler systems that theoretically could have existed, but I'm not aware of what the observable evidence for them or the evidence for how those systems could develop into the more complex systems if they did exist? Not trying to say that they shouldn't be explored....
The discussion jumps quickly to genetics and the fossil record etc. and I'm not equipped with the time to have that discussion here.
Science is rooted in what we can observe in the here and now, current conditions as you say, and extrapolations thereof thru experimentation etc. So to say that irreducible complexity is invalid because its based on that and may not fully consider some yet undiscovered evidence seems a bit of an underdeveloped argument to me.
I'm certainly not an expert in biology or genetics or geology and all I'm trying to do is encourage keeping an open mind and actually considering the scientific basis for all view points.
There's also other things to consider on the philosophical side... If some day science somehow proves that there is no God you will have lost nothing by giving full consideration to the scientific arguments for creationism. On the other hand, if there is a God who created all things who seeks relationship with you then you have everything to gain by fully exploring the science of creationism...
@@ianmcaton well that's mostly fair. It's a rare experience to encounter an actual expert on anything randomly in the comments sections. I agree with your frustration for how conversation tend to jump from one topic to another, I encounter that quite often before I can encourage someone to happen across the right question. I will ask you to look up a video called "the rna world" by stated clearly. It's not comprehensive but it does give a pretty good understanding from a basic and extrapolative pov for why irreducible complexity for rna isn't a strong contention.
Now as far as proving god doesn't exist? That's as impossible of a standard to meet as proving abiogenesis is the mechanism for how life began on earth. Requiring say something like a re machine and an immaculate record of each iteration of successful pair bondings is something we will never be able to demonstrate, and thats something that even of could be proven there are those that still wod deny it claiming the evidence was fabricated, because they do that now.
Take for instance that I'm currently on a discussion about lucy, and the claim is that the fossil is a hoax because the pelvic girdle was manipulated with power tools to fit a specific function. Despite spending the last 45 mins looking for that specific claim and having some inclination that the original fossil had been altered, I can't find anything supporting either side except through creationist sources. It's a bit frustrating because I know it was to correct a deformation from the fossilization process, but can't find a source to cite.
@@HH-ru4bj It's an interesting hypothesis, but as the RNA World video openly admits it is in the infant stages. At least as presented in the video it consists "what if some of the self replicating properties of RNA chains we've observed in a lab environment could have started all life?...". I would say that irreducible complexity is the main concept they would need to work through to make the hypothesis viable. Giving it a very generous head start and assuming they get to a point where they can show that some of these ribozymes could form "in the wild" from a somehow naturally occurring, stable, nucleotide soup without "minimal assistance from a lab technician". You still just have RNA chains that are less than 200 nucleotides long churning out more RNA chains and hoping for meaningful mutations that lead to different RNA chains and there’s no natural mechanism to get you any closer to a 3Bil base pair DNA (that isn’t just random formation, but a massive piece of bio software). Which is yet another quantum leap from a fully functioning cell system. That is where irreducible complexity, especially as it is represented in this video, comes in. In cells, all the components are interdependent, and it is also an incredibly efficient system. What the presentation in this video is getting at is that the cell system is comparable to systems that have been designed using ‘intelligence’. From an evolutionary perspective everything should get increasingly simple the smaller you get (building from the simplest piece with continuous and gradual increased complexity and branching etc.), but that’s not what we see. Sure the basic building blocks are simple, but at the cell level we have a complex system that is beautifully efficient that contains an almost unfathomable amount of information. Which is evidence of intelligent design. You wouldn’t pile up silicon and conductive bits and expect an SSD with Windows pre-installed to form in a few million years would you? So why do we see that as a reasonable assumption for where DNA came from? Never mind that to complete the analogy with respect to a cell the rest of the computer also has to also spontaneously form and assemble itself before any of the pieces degrade…
“Creation Facts of Life” by Gary Parker is a good book to read that covers a lot more on the biological evidence for creation. Gary Parker was an evolutionary biologist that after years of teaching evolution realized that blind faith in the theory of evolution was actually keeping him from evaluating the scientific evidence for what it was. It’s only a few bucks on amazon.
Of course its an impossible task to prove God doesn’t exist. I was just trying to convey that it is absolutely worth the time to explore and understand all the scientific evidence that supports creationism. Darwin himself said that for the fossil record to support evolution as an origin you’d need to find the “innumerable transitional forms”. Which we haven’t. Considering the very specific conditions required to make a fossil, fossils are actually a rare phenomenon. What we find in the fossil record is actually a perfect picture of a global catastrophe involving massive tectonic activity and flooding. ‘Is Genesis History’ also has a number of videos on this.