Why can't anyone see this, its like a great delusion.

[Job 33:6]

You make three very valid points, thanks for that
I guess the first one is my bad. I didn't read his book I just saw the title "the origin of species" . and guess I mixed it up with life. Looks like he purposely stayed away from the title "origins of life".
As far as the something from nothing is concerned I heard Dawkins talking about this.
And your third point, well I'm not sure about it because we can create things that run themselves also. The watch for example was created by someone and given to someone else who has no idea how it works but it still works.

This is good, its very important to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution. Many Christians (including family and friends and loved ones that I know in my community) mistake one for the other.

Really, a lot of misconceptions give science a bad name. Richard Dawkins is an atheist and he preaches all sorts of things about evolution, so it makes people assume that the science is automatically a bad thing, or that its wrong.

To understand it, you really have to approach it with an objective mind, cleared from preconceived ideas made in the media or by religious or anti-religious folks.

Its not a discussion between theism and atheism, its a discussion about what is objective and what is not. And theists and atheists can fall on either side of that scientific coin.

 

[Nicholas taylor]

First sentence. Really?

Evolution theory is about the origin of SPECIES. Not of life itself.



Maybe, just maybe, that is because evolution theory doesn't even address the origins of life?



And the discovery of DNA was a slam-dunk confirmation of evolution theory (being descend with modification followed by natural selection).

DNA provided exactly what was a predicted: a carrier by which traits are past on to off spring AND which is subject to modifcation during reproduction.



Evolution theory doesn't claim that either.



Maybe, just maybe, you should inform yourself, before making threads about this subject?



I guess it's a good thing then, that no evolutionary biologists (or geneticist) claims that any such thing ever happened.



Not really, if you actually understand the underlying processes.
But, as you admit yourself, you have no understanding of any of this.

Yet, you feel qualified to spew nonsense about it.



"beauty" is subjective. It is not an objective unit of measurement.



Errrr.... are you for real?
You do not realise that flowers form the basis for an entire eco-system of insects as a food source? Regardless of what we humans think of them?

Do you also not realise that there are flowers out there that have a smell that will make must humans puke their guts out? Or that are just plain ugly? Or will make them sick with their exotic spores?

Get over yourself - the universe is not here just for you.



Trees don't "care" about anything.




Clearly. "Confused" is a good word to describe your state of mind, indeed.



I can guarantee you that you are...



There is no "but". If you are wrong in your understanding of the sciences concerning this subject, then all your objections fall dead in the water.

There is no "but" after that "if".
If your premise is incorrect, your argument is invalid.



Because letters aren't living things that reproduce with variation and which compete with peers of limited resources. Nore is there any selection pressure to arrange a string of letters in a meaningfull english sentence.

Your analogy makes no sense and is not analogous at all.



"one cell" doesn't "know" anything.

Cells in complex living multi-celullar organisms don't know anything about the rest of the body. Cells operate on their own, obbeying local rules with no knowledge at all about what goes on elsewhere.

No matter how smart you think you are there is one thing for sure, mockery isn't a course for correctness. The more intellectual we believe we are the more blind we become. Humans have not touched the surface of where life came from. To have an idea that they can work it out through their sciences or even try to discuss the matter with reasoning is silly.

My point was not about scientific jargon to prove God exists. i am not a biologist etc but thanks for pointing that out. My point was "how can people dismiss God so easily when even their science is pointing towards him"

 

[Nicholas taylor]

I shall, at least, view the first several minutes. It is only fair I make you aware of my biases and prejudices up front, when they are relevant to a discussion.

I'm not a fan of YouTube videos as a source of sound technical information, or as a medium for presenting a reasoned argument. In science that is generally done through textbooks and research journals respectively. Consequently I am suspicious of anything that is presented in what I tend to think of as a "dumbed down" format. That said there are honourable exceptions and perhaps this video is one of those, but I shall be approaching it with a high degree of skepticism.

That skepticism is enhanced when I read the title of the video Undisputable Proof of God. This offends me on several levels:
1. Science rarely deals in absolutes. This reads like bombastic rhetoric designed to attract those who are predisposed to accept the argument presented.
2. Since I expect to dispute their "proof", such proof is clearly not undisputable (sic)*
3. Undisputable! Clumsy, ugly, rarely used variant of the preferred indisputable. (Yes, I am a Grammar and Stylistic Nazi.)

*However, wikidiff suggests "As adjectives the difference between undisputable and indisputable is that undisputable is while indisputable is not disputable; not open to question; obviously true."

I agree the title put me off also. he does make some compelling pints though

 

[KenJackson]

Yet the idea of even 1 protein creating itself by chance is said to be so far beyond impossible it’s hard for an intelligent mind to grasp.

You're right, Nicholas. I like to put meat on that bone with this argument.

Proteins are long, very precise sequences of amino acid molecules. Consider how evolution would add one protein. Maybe there would be one random amino acid per mutation added to the end of the partial protein being evolved. Darwin required "numerous, successive, slight modifications" so the amino acids can't all jump together at once. What's the probability of creating the particular needed protein?

There are 20 amino acids to choose from, so for a new, relatively small protein with only 100 amino acids, there are 20^100 (20 to the 100 power) possible arrangements or permutations, which is 10^130. Only one or a very small number of those permutations will work for any particular function. The probability that the right protein will be added is a few in 10^130.

Even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion years old with a non-stop trillion mutations per second, that would still be way, way, way too few for evolution to have produced even a single small protein. I'm not exaggerating at all. A trillion is 10^12 so this hypothetical universe could only produce 3x10^67 mutations. Dividing by the 100 amino acids gives the number of complete proteins tried, which is infinitesimally small compared to 10^130. The math is shocking but it isn't that tough.

But it's worse. Proteins don't duplicate from proteins. Their code is stored in DNA which molecular machinery reads to "express" the gene and build the protein. So each new amino acid must be encoded in a three-nucleotide codon. So the probability is lower.

But it's worse. Natural selection removes features that don't work. Partial proteins don't work. You can't keep building a partial protein for generations because natural selection will delete it even if it's totally correct though incomplete.

Some have argued that natural selection acts as a filter which significantly improves the probability. They claim only the incorrect sequences get removed and the correct but incomplete proteins are kept. But that doesn't work. Incomplete proteins don't perform any valuable function, so there's no mechanism for natural selection to determine if they're correct or not.

Also, notice that I've assumed the molecular machinery that expresses the gene already exists. But it would have had to evolve first. How do you evolve the machinery that builds the machinery to express genes? Some people propose there must have been an RNA world, but there's no evidence it ever existed.

You have to have a lot of blind faith in evolution to believe it.

 

[KenJackson]

I In a nutshell, any probability calculations regarding the origin of life/DNA/etc are pretty meaningless, since we don't have enough information (i.e. known variables) to make a meaningful calculation.

We DO have enough information to rule out evolution. Darwin proposed "numerous, successive, slight modifications". But in recent decades molecular biology has revealed a lot of information about proteins that Darwin couldn't have guessed in the 19th century.

Proteins are kind of immune to improvement. They are precise sequences of amino acids that have to be folded up just right to form structures that each do a specific job. Just a few mutations will destroy its ability to perform that job.

If Darwin had a tiny fraction of the knowledge we have now, he never would have proposed his theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree the title put me off also. he does make some compelling pints though

I do like a compelling pint. Ice cold lager is best. Any man who makes compelling pints should be listened to.

I have started to view it. It is more satisfactory than the title promised. Stephen Meyer is author of a book championing ID, "The Signature in the Cell". It's been a while since I read it. (I have a copy, so I'll revisit it if the video is intriguing enough.) What I mainly recall is that his argument was interesting, but wholly unconvincing. I'll see if I find his personal presentation has anything more substantial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No matter how smart you think you are there is one thing for sure, mockery isn't a course for correctness. The more intellectual we believe we are the more blind we become.

I don't consider myself intellectual at all concerning this subject. Nothing I wrote is above high school level biology.

You might consider it mockery or condescending or whatever, but maybe that's just you?
If you're wrong, you're wrong and I don't see why I would have to be "tactfull" about it.
The fact is that there is so much material out there to learn from, that frankly I don't feel like any adult with access to the internet has any excuse for not knowing at least the basics. Especially if they feel like weighing in on it and even think to be qualified to argue against it....

Humans have not touched the surface of where life came from

Nevertheless, we have an amazing grasp on how life works.

My point was not about scientific jargon to prove God exists. i am not a biologist etc but thanks for pointing that out. My point was "how can people dismiss God so easily when even their science is pointing towards him"

Which science would that be? And how exactly does a god show up there?

 

[HitchSlap]

You're right, Nicholas. I like to put meat on that bone with this argument.

Proteins are long, very precise sequences of amino acid molecules. Consider how evolution would add one protein. Maybe there would be one random amino acid per mutation added to the end of the partial protein being evolved. Darwin required "numerous, successive, slight modifications" so the amino acids can't all jump together at once. What's the probability of creating the particular needed protein?

There are 20 amino acids to choose from, so for a new, relatively small protein with only 100 amino acids, there are 20^100 (20 to the 100 power) possible arrangements or permutations, which is 10^130. Only one or a very small number of those permutations will work for any particular function. The probability that the right protein will be added is a few in 10^130.

Even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion years old with a non-stop trillion mutations per second, that would still be way, way, way too few for evolution to have produced even a single small protein. I'm not exaggerating at all. A trillion is 10^12 so this hypothetical universe could only produce 3x10^67 mutations. Dividing by the 100 amino acids gives the number of complete proteins tried, which is infinitesimally small compared to 10^130. The math is shocking but it isn't that tough.

But it's worse. Proteins don't duplicate from proteins. Their code is stored in DNA which molecular machinery reads to "express" the gene and build the protein. So each new amino acid must be encoded in a three-nucleotide codon. So the probability is lower.

But it's worse. Natural selection removes features that don't work. Partial proteins don't work. You can't keep building a partial protein for generations because natural selection will delete it even if it's totally correct though incomplete.

Some have argued that natural selection acts as a filter which significantly improves the probability. They claim only the incorrect sequences get removed and the correct but incomplete proteins are kept. But that doesn't work. Incomplete proteins don't perform any valuable function, so there's no mechanism for natural selection to determine if they're correct or not.

Also, notice that I've assumed the molecular machinery that expresses the gene already exists. But it would have had to evolve first. How do you evolve the machinery that builds the machinery to express genes? Some people propose there must have been an RNA world, but there's no evidence it ever existed.

You have to have a lot of blind faith in evolution to believe it.

Have you ever taken a genetics course?

If I were to guess, based on the absurdity of your post, that’d be a no.

 

[HitchSlap]

We DO have enough information to rule out evolution. Darwin proposed "numerous, successive, slight modifications". But in recent decades molecular biology has revealed a lot of information about proteins that Darwin couldn't have guessed in the 19th century.

Proteins are kind of immune to improvement. They are precise sequences of amino acids that have to be folded up just right to form structures that each do a specific job. Just a few mutations will destroy its ability to perform that job.

If Darwin had a tiny fraction of the knowledge we have now, he never would have proposed his theory.

Where did you source this information?

 

[xianghua]

Some have argued that natural selection acts as a filter which significantly improves the probability. They claim only the incorrect sequences get removed and the correct but incomplete proteins are kept. But that doesn't work. Incomplete proteins don't perform any valuable function, so there's no mechanism for natural selection to determine if they're correct or not.

good point. many papers actually support that claim. according to this paper for instance about 310 aa out of 497 are need to perform flagellin function:

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

 

[bhsmte]

We DO have enough information to rule out evolution. Darwin proposed "numerous, successive, slight modifications". But in recent decades molecular biology has revealed a lot of information about proteins that Darwin couldn't have guessed in the 19th century.

Proteins are kind of immune to improvement. They are precise sequences of amino acids that have to be folded up just right to form structures that each do a specific job. Just a few mutations will destroy its ability to perform that job.

If Darwin had a tiny fraction of the knowledge we have now, he never would have proposed his theory.

You can personally rule out evolution if you like, knock yourself out.

 

[KenJackson]

Have you ever taken a genetics course?

Rather than address the issue, you run to credentials.

Young Einstein, before he published, wrote to the author of a science paper that he read challenging the author's conclusions. Rather than replying with explanations, logic or examples, the author replied that some famous scientist had read his paper and had not challenged it. Einstein laughed about this appeal to authority for years.

Evolutionists didn't need to defend probabilities in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the nature of proteins, DNA, genes, gene expression and the molecular machinery that expresses proteins weren't known or understood. Now they are. So now we need to hold evolutionists' feet to the fire until they address these impossible probabilities.

Appealing to authority might be the only defense you have.

 

[Speedwell]

Rather than address the issue, you run to credentials.

Young Einstein, before he published, wrote to the author of a science paper that he read challenging the author's conclusions. Rather than replying with explanations, logic or examples, the author replied that some famous scientist had read his paper and had not challenged it. Einstein laughed about this appeal to authority for years.

Evolutionists didn't needed to defend probabilities in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the nature of proteins, DNA, genes, gene expression and the molecular machinery that expresses proteins weren't known or understood. Now they are. So now we need to hold evolutionists' feet to the fire until they address these impossible probabilities.

Appealing to authority might be the only defense you have.

It depends on what one is invoking authority for. In this case, authority is being invoked for what the theory of evolution claims, not whether ithose claims are true or not.

Suppose someone said to you, "Christianity is a stupid religion. It says in the Bible that Jesus was an Olympic figure skater and we're all going to Heaven on Ice skates. Isn't that stupid?" Might you not invite him to actually read the Bible?

 

[bhsmte]

Rather than address the issue, you run to credentials.

Young Einstein, before he published, wrote to the author of a science paper that he read challenging the author's conclusions. Rather than replying with explanations, logic or examples, the author replied that some famous scientist had read his paper and had not challenged it. Einstein laughed about this appeal to authority for years.

Evolutionists didn't need to defend probabilities in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the nature of proteins, DNA, genes, gene expression and the molecular machinery that expresses proteins weren't known or understood. Now they are. So now we need to hold evolutionists' feet to the fire until they address these impossible probabilities.

Appealing to authority might be the only defense you have.

Every hour of every day, you enjoy the conveniences that science has provided society and yourself. Do you challenge all of the discoveries of science, or just the ones that are threatening to your personal faith belief?

 

[HitchSlap]

Rather than address the issue, you run to credentials.

Young Einstein, before he published, wrote to the author of a science paper that he read challenging the author's conclusions. Rather than replying with explanations, logic or examples, the author replied that some famous scientist had read his paper and had not challenged it. Einstein laughed about this appeal to authority for years.

Evolutionists didn't need to defend probabilities in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the nature of proteins, DNA, genes, gene expression and the molecular machinery that expresses proteins weren't known or understood. Now they are. So now we need to hold evolutionists' feet to the fire until they address these impossible probabilities.

Appealing to authority might be the only defense you have.

It's obvious from your posts you don't posses even a basic understanding of genetics. Literally everything you claimed is untrue. It sounds to me that you've read a few web pages about arguments from big numbers and you were impressed, and felt empowered question actual science, and are probably starting to realize you've made a mistake, as there are people who do understand molecular biology and genetics. I simply asked the question of your competence, because, quite frankly, it would be a waste of time to discourse with you, if you literally have no idea what you're talking about. We see this a lot here; Christian reads web page, and they believe the bible makes them right, then they jump right into the deep end, not realizing they actually have to swim - yeah, professional creationists actually do that to you.

Ask a question, if you like.

 

[KenJackson]

In this case, authority is being invoked for what the theory of evolution claims, not whether ithose claims are true or not.

No. In recent years, science has revealed evolution to be wrong, so we're challenging it.

 

[KenJackson]

Every hour of every day, you enjoy the conveniences that science has provided society and yourself. Do you challenge all of the discoveries of science, or just the ones that are threatening to your personal faith belief?

You missed the point. It's modern science, not religion, that has shown the problem with the 19th century evolution theory.

 

[KenJackson]

It's obvious from your posts you don't posses even a basic understanding of genetics. Literally everything you claimed is untrue. ...

You refuse to address the issue. There's no merit in complaining without specifics.

Christian reads web page, and they believe the bible makes them right, ...

You misunderstand. The theory of intelligent design (ID) has NOTHING to do with the Bible or any sacred text. It's all based on what science, especially molecular biology, has revealed in recent decades.

 

[Speedwell]

No. In recent years, science has revealed evolution to be wrong, so we're challenging it.

And so science has picked you--far from an expert on the subject--to be its herald.

OK, how is evolution wrong? Or maybe I had better ask, how do you know evolution is wrong when you don't appear to know what it is?

 

[KenJackson]

And so science has picked you--far from an expert on the subject--to be its herald.

OK, how is evolution wrong? Or maybe I had better ask, how do you know evolution is wrong when you don't appear to know what it is?

Your sarcasm is noted. That suggests irritation or anger. I don't understand that.

Did you read my first post? I encourage you read it and think.