They think that a prokaryotic cell (still very complex) popped out of a random primordial sludge. It's really frightening how illogical our society is becoming.

Penasaran.ya.liat.orang2.yg..cerdas..seperti.pak.reza.indra.giri.bang.asep.irawan.bang.saor. bang.maeten..sima juntak.bang Kamarudin.simanjuntak.bang.jonTan.baskoro.ifma.hutabarat.bang.uya.kuya.pak.jamin Ginting.pak.roni Talapessi.sehat.selalu.pak.umur.panjang.smoga.kecetdasa n.mu.sampai.nenek.kakek.ya..komentar.ini.dari.nntt.labuan.bajo

Well it’s only paradise where everything will be perfect. In order to get there, struggle patiently in this life

Yes, and Behe is telling the same truth about the genetically altered mice in the video that he was telling at the Dover 2005 trial. Unfortunately, the official transcript is flawed: at one point it switches from quoting Behe to quoting Doolittle's blunder about the mice without making it clear that it wasn't giving Behe's own correction of the blunder any more. If you listen to the video and then read the transcript carefully, you will see where the mixup took place.

Because they are told to believe it and the unspoken rule is that you should never question it like what is in this video, lest you be labeled a creationist.

I think the problem is that people extrapolate the fact that all life has the 'ability to adapt to changing environments by natural selection of genetic variants created within the cell' into Darwinian evolution and common descent. Adaptation is fact, Darwinian evolution is imagination about the past. (Wishful thinking)

@@jt2097 What is Darwin evolution? I didn't realize that there is more than one version of evolution and can only find the Scientific Theory of Evolution when I search

@@imafeltersnatch7634 you have not heard who Darwin is?

Ss

It’s because people don’t want to be responsible to anyone other than themselves.

@@Arbutuscoveretreatvery well put..u hit the bull's eye..everybody needs to read ur answer..ur answer is brief but very precise and deep 👌👌🙏🙏

Ken👍👍

@@Arbutuscoveretreat When I read your comment I was surprised, I have used exactly the same words myself. People are willingly and wilfully blind. To adhere to a belief, which assures only death, surely is human stupidity at its apex.

My thoughts exactly

Of course, He is! He invented chemistry. He designed and implemented all the physical properties that make atoms do what they do.

@@rubiks6 When did he do this?

Evolution isn't 'pure random chance'.

​@@hammalammadingdong6244 Do you think mutations are NOT due to random chance? Of course, there is natural selection to help evolution along, but that in turn depends on the (random?) role of the environment determining whether a mutation is beneficial, neutral, or deleterious. For instance, as the video explains, the sickle cell trait is beneficial in a malaria-infested environment, but deleterious in the absence of malaria. Severely deleterious, for those with sickle cell anemia.

@@peternyikos8020 Evolution isn't pure random chance, but mutations kinda are random. They're not exactly one and the same.

Chance dont exist if so it would need something to work with Like a coin for someone to make and pick up and flip then odds would be head or tail Name one thing that is 100 percent what you preach to be chance Well 100 percent anything aint so called chance at all but instead purpose

I'll have to find the link, but I read a study that showed the mRNA vaccines were literally causing morphologic changes to the erythrocytes (red blood cells) causing abnormalities.

I’ve seen enough to know that either the Quran or the Bible is true, because they totally contradict one another on vital points. Although the Muslim religion teaches that the Bible has been altered, and is no longer reliable, the dead sea scrolls, found in 1947 in a cave, show that is just not true. The scrolls were written 2000 years ago, well before the Johnny-come-lately prophet appeared. They had many portions of the Old Testament in them, and in one case the whole book of Isaiah. Comparing those scrolls to the Bibles in synagogues and churches in 1947, when they were found, we saw very minor differences. Things like punctuation and spelling. We know the Bible has been well preserved. It is not only supported by archaeology, such as with those scrolls, but by history and science.

​@@loricalass4068you should do your research

It causes clots due to damage of the blood vessels and when those occur in the heart, retina and other vital areas illness and death may occur.

Ironic that you insist upon believing in a very incomplete and imperfect past state of affairs, that ANY ceature ever survived even one whole day, i.e. that life might ever exist, much less keep developing at random, collecting bit by bit its bare mimimal essential attributes. Consider more critically such a fundamental metabolism of say respiration. One either has a functional Kreb's cycled tapping an energy supply, or one doesn't. Yet you insist you be granted some imaginary wiggle room where FAR from fully functioning forms of life EVER got by.

Ultimately the contrast between the Christian and the atheist is where their hope lies. The Christian has the hope of being in the presence of God unashamed, the atheist has the hope that he/she will never have to because of their shame. The issue is in the heart not the head.

😍😍

There's no such thing as "nature." Everything you see, _everything,_ is designed by a person with a mind. Nothing is natural. Since nothing is natural, there is no such thing as "nature."

@@rubiks6 Paul disagrees. He says, "the natural man receives not...". Natural is just a reference of the created universe...that which is not spiritual.

The evolution theory is powered by scientific evidence, which is why it’s a theory.

​@@therick363 The naked fact of common descent of whole phyla of animals is powered by scientific evidence, especially of fossils. Behe has endorsed this and even strongly argued for it in two of his books, The Edge of Evolution and Darwin Devolves. Where Behe parts company is with the under-evidenced claim that natural selection WITHIN interbreeding populations, all in the same species, is adequate for explaining how the vast panorama of life on earth today came from humble bacteria without intelligent intervention. I assume that that was what S. Unosson was talking about also. That panorama had barely started 1 billion years ago, and most of the foundation was laid during the Cambrian explosion ca. 550 - 510 million years ago.

No, it's not embarrassing to use objective evidence to understand reality.

​@@hammalammadingdong6244 So please tell us about this objective evidence, and why you think Behe's evidence is not objective. Is your evidence enough to explain how Darwinian gradualism was enough to produce our entire biota, humans included, from bacteria?

@@peternyikos8020 They grunt and run, lol...sad.

The question of who designed the designer is not the point of this video. The point of the video is to address what theory of Life best accounts for the existence of complex systems and their ability to adapt to deferring conditions. By the way it sounds like you're simply throwing the word fallacies around without actually giving an example of what kind of fallacy they are committing. The other problem is that when you use the term fallacies you're actually applying them onto the theory of evolution itself if they apply to Michael behe's argument. How so? Because evolution itself is the theory of survival of the fittest so if you're going to say that there's no explanation of what the mutations are fit for, then you're basically saying that evolution itself commits these fallacies also so you're actually defeating your own argument by criticizing one of the fundamental points of evolutionary theory itself. Which in turn actually grants Dr Behe's point. So your argument ends up defeating itself in the process. The point in regards to mutation is that the term beneficial mutation ends up becoming a very subjective term because beneficial conditions for mutations can vary depending on different variables. This is why Dr behe takes all mutations into account because all mutations can either be neutral, beneficial, or non-beneficial. His point is that the issue lies on the subjectivity on what qualifies as a beneficial mutation. Evolutionary biologist keeps shifting this definition around all the time for different species which on the surface makes sense because each species evolves differently, but we're also trying to understand an all-encompassing theory as to how life in general evolves. So therefore we need to have a more fixed definition across the board. Dr behe is saying that that is not consistent especially in terms of different evolving systems and how different mutations function beneficial in one's instance but non-beneficial in another. So no he's not committing any fallacies he simply pointing out that there is an inconsistency with what evolutionary biologists are trying to categorize as beneficial versus non beneficial mutations. It's not consistent across the board which makes the account for evolutionary biology even weaker.

I saw a reply to you a few minutes earlier, and it disappeared somehow. Its gist was that whether a mutation is beneficial, neutral, or deleterious depends very much on the environment. Malaria is a prime example: the sickle cell trait is beneficial only where malaria or some other parasite that lives in red blood corpuscles and needs oxygen is rampant. Otherwise it is slightly deleterious, as the video points out. MOREOVER, even in a malaria infested environment, it is only beneficial to those who are heterozygous for the trait (in Mendelian terms, hybrid between normal and carrying the trait). Those who are homozygous are at a disadvantage, on the average, even in comparison with those who have malaria: they have sickle cell anemia. And so, you are incorrect in saying "if there were enough malaria all around, all would die except the mutants." Terrible though malaria is, it is not generally fatal, and its effects can be mitigated with quinine and other drugs.

I love being an Agnostic also my below comments hasn't got nothing to do with your post. Spaces may be the final frontier but it's made in a hollywood basement also Never A Straight Answer. Level Earth, Level Water, Ice Rink & Ice Resurfacer.

@@josephthomasmusic ALL experiments start with the beginning. Randomly jumping in a Making a claim is the typical creationists style.

@@imafeltersnatch7634 All the evidence shown in this video and yet you want to double down on this still being an assertion with no evidence presented. Your comment is a prime example of confirmation bias.

Ummm ... ya think? Why aren't _you_ biased against Darwinian evolution?

And yet you never have any pictures of how this supposed flat earth looks…. You never explain away things like gravity….