Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : De Impact Apologetics: FREE Download of sermon I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!: 👉📱https://cutt.ly/cInI1eo>> <<@dagwould says : The materialist idea of 'natural selection' invented tendentiously by Mr Darwin seeks to reify 'nature' as part of his project to pretend that nature has the same selective intelligence as man. Even if this is portrayed as an analogical usage, its force remains greater than this. It gives 'nature' an occult (i.e. hidden) goal directed change engine, without warrant for such an attribution. Nature has no such mechanism. Its 'selection' had no criteria for action, only biochemical outcomes. What populations experience is intra-specific genetic filtering which rejects deleterious mutations (and even neutral mutations impose an energy load on the organism and for no benefit). This filter culls out the poorer gene lines through differential reproduction, at best, and differential degradation and culling at worst. So let's stick with bio-mechanical terminology instead of trying to dress up nature with a goal directed selector, but with no end in mind but the haphazard of discordant mutations.>> <<@offcialmackdog says : This helped A lot>> <<@callumclarke1733 says : Natural Selection is not Evolution, chemical Evolution is impossible.>> <<@antonyg2685 says : All are wrong ! Bible says ! If any doubt, search ! If couldn't find ..... Ask>> <<@THINKSOIAM says : Talk about boiled toads. These guys have accepted so many lies to facilitate their beliefs that they can alter anything in their minds to justify their axioms>> <<@regstoy says : Strange how god botherers, claim that only a deity could possibly explain the origin of life, but never question the mistakes with said life, cancer, disease, the need for one form of life to consume another form of life, while others only need vegatation.>> <<@tbone8119 says : Very good point: natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but not its arrival.>> <<@colinmatts says : Nature is the selector. Clue is in the definition>> <<@KamenKunchev says : 1:37 - "you don't use it, it degrades over time" - let's take muscle atrophy - you don't use your muscle, you lose muscle mass but that doesn't mean that your kids will be born with less muscles than you. You are applying personal physical development to the process of evolution and natural selection and that's really not how it works. You are deceiving the audience. All 3 guys in the video have receding hairlines, does this mean that they don't use their hair enough? Natural selection is not a theory of how life began. It's a scientific observable explanation of how life in general manages to adapt to its environment by gradually making random changes to its genetic code resulting in features that either give it an advantage over other species and the environment or not. Sometimes a mutation that is considered negative can prove to be beneficial in a certain environment - look up sickle cell anemia and how people with this genetic mutation have better chances of survival against malaria. Sometimes there are 2 different types of mutations for the same type of environment - people in Nepal have adapted in one way to living in high altitude with less oxygen and people in Ethiopia have a different type of genetic adaptation for the same environment problem. Yes, this is a different new type of genetic information for the same type of high altitude-related issue. Why not have just one type of adaptation? Because it's random and not directed by one almighty creature. 0:26 - yes, there is plenty to select - in a drop of water there are millions of microorganisms that reproduce and die at any given moment. Natural selection is constant and it's everywhere. So, the guy in the middle says that organisms become more complex over time but then they degrade over time? You don't add sequentially, that's not evolution. That's not adding more RAM to you computer so it can run more tasks. An apex predator can be a microscopic virus without jaws that we can't find the cure for or we can't adapt to fast enough. It doesn't need to be able to mutilate your body with brute strength, it can poison you having mutated poison glands and still be less complex and more adapted to the environment than any human. 2:15 - optimize or degrade? Are you making judgments on genes? Good mutations and bad mutations? There's no such thing as good and bad in science. These are human constructs, not natural or scientific norms. You don't find mutation innovation? Let's discuss dog breeds... That's really 3 apologists patting each other on the back while filling their lack of knowledge with half-baked terms that you can't find in any biology book. I have never heard any of my teachers speak of good or bad mutations, good or bad genes etc. It was just unbiased study with facts and it's usually religious nuts that say this is a good gene and this is bad gene, this is a good mutation and this is a bad mutation. There's no such thing as good or bad mutations and genes.>> <<@poppyneese1811 says : It seems to me the Universe is lazy and gets lazier everyday, life is a lot of work, a lot more work than a lazy non thinking universe wants to do.>> <<@ironmike5192 says : Animals adapt they don’t evolve, if that was the case we would be digging up countless fossils that are clearly in the process of evolution like a fish with partial limbs etc we don’t see it anywhere.>> <<@joeschmoe4205 says : These are people who started with a desired conclusion and working hard to justify it. No wonder no real scientist takes you seriously.>> <<@RangerRyke says : We’ll yeah, if you look at natural selection without the context of chemistry and the rest of evolution of course it is lacking. It’s one part of a mechanism.>> <<@eswn1816 says : "Survival of the fittest" does not explain "arrival of the fittest." This is the key. 🗝️ Life from inorganic chemistry without added information is improbable to the extent of being practically impossible.>> <<@Imaginathor-1k0 says : I am the selector>> <<@guidosalescalvano9862 says : Death is the selector. You are sculpted by the death of those your ancestors did not mate with because they died.>> <<@SojournerDidimus says : The thumbnail contains a question that's not talked about and even in the model of creationism misrepresents what part of natural selection can be demonstrated as true.>> <<@RobertA-oi6hw says : Glad to see you bringing in the creationist scientists brother Frank! Very nice 👍>> <<@Linkintime1 says : I have this whimsy thought experiment where I imagine the design hypothesis. Instead of natural selection, I think of what I best call programmed adaptability. Imagine a proto Cat with all the goings on to produce the various subtle changes the creature might need and the various programmed tools therein. Is the adaptability itself programmed?>> <<@vol4jesus684 says : ✝️❤️>> <<@knightclan4 says : Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism. Please discuss these theories in detail. The real question is whether the single catastrophic global flood in Genesis is true. If it was a real event, old earth believers are found wanting.>> <<@inquisitorbacon8170 says : What if I just don't care about the origin of life? Why should it be important to me?>> <<@lesyeuxsansvisage1539 says : Why discuss things when you know in the end nothing can prove it? Exercise of the mind? Then what? Your enlightened?>> <<@eeelvis777 says : You Guys should put these videos on Instagram. The 2000s kids are on IG>> <<@chrisscameraview5453 says : I have a question, how we shouldn’t follow the old laws because Jesus Christ saved us. Does that mean we should still/ shouldn’t follow the 10 commandments? Were they meant for the Israelites or for all of us . Please and thank you 😊 ✝️>> <<@sierraclark6129 says : “If you declare with your mouth “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Now is the time to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Obey His commands and repent of your sins because Jesus is coming back soon. Tomorrow isn’t promised.>> <<@lushieelangbam0 says : Hope you guys may be building the first Church on the moon very soon.>> <<@philb4462 says : Stephen Meyer is a total quack. Don't listen to him. Turek says people don't understand is that for there to be natural selection, there has to be a selector. People do understand that, and there is a natural selection process that is logical, well understood and has been demonstrated in experiments.>> <<@michaelrunk5930 says : Natural selection is selected by who or whatever is the strongest or most adaptable. Take a look at crocs and alligators. They are in fact prehistoric animals. They were able to survive against all odds and adapt and evolve into what they are now.>> <<@Yesica1993 says : Of course not. When has life ever arisen from non-life? And if it did, how? Anti-theists NEVER address that question.>> <<@Godlimate says : “Cross examined” tag is getting bombarded with the Depp vs heard defamation case.>> <<@theoskeptomai2535 says : There is not a single fabricated excuse that a Christian will adopt when it comes to circumventing actual facts.>> <<@theoskeptomai2535 says : Natural Selection doesn't address the _origin_ of life (abiogenesis) but the _diversity_ of life (speciation). Rid yourself of your ridiculous and unfounded mythology and your understanding of the process of biological evolution will not be impeded.>> <<@Grizzly-i6s says : I have a question, maybe two for everyone who would like to answer. I am a christian, and I dont believe we come from apes. But how should christians explain the many similarities between humans and apes, and why we dont come from them? Also, most scientists say that the earth is so and so many millions of years, apes who they say we come from have existed for tens of thousands of years..and so on. How do we argue with the "proof" that they always refer to? God bless all>> <<@kevinwesterville2115 says : This video is disingenuous. Natural Selection and Evolution doesn’t even attempt to explain fundamental generation arrival that abiogenesis.>> <<@sidwhiting665 says : The conditions to create life, much less on a planet capable to sustain it, much less sustain it to where it can evolve to a high order, much less to give rise to rational intelligence, is so infinitesimally small it takes the multi-verse theory to work it all out. . And even if we are the 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that this is what actually happened, then what does that mean from a practical standpoint? . It means we're a cosmic aberration, a fluke, a roll of 100,000 dice that all turned up "6", and one day the universe will fade away and grow cold, and nothing you, or your ancestors or you descendants have done or will ever do will amount to anything at all in the vast scheme of the cold dark void that could not care less about you or any sentient life form. It also means that the sum total of your being: the things that make you "You" instead of Bob or Jill are just chemical reactions that have come together by chance and are firing off left and right. It means your opinions, views, values, loves, hates, joys, sorrows, etc are all due to a slightly higher concentration of hydrogen in your cranium forcing you to react to stimuli, nothing more. You are, in short, a chemical experiment in the uncaring cosmos of random chances, and everything about "you" is actually just a law of physics playing itself out for no particular reason and with no particular purpose other than this is what it is and you have no real control over any bit of it. Even your reaction to my post is based on the chemical composition of your brain and what some other chemical composition in someone elses' brain did today when they were forced to cut you off in traffic by their slightly elevated level of bromine. . Might as well be a microbe living it's short 1-3 day lifespan on a dog's turd. At least it has no delusions of grandeur that it somehow MATTERS in the grand scheme of things! . Kind of depressing, when you consider it honestly.>> <<@gorillaz_jbi says : Natural selection is considered to be the survival of the fittest and is often confused with evolution. But far from being proof for evolution and against creationism, natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment. Genes that are pre-existent are those genes that have always been there but certain environmental factors behave as a selection pressure that weeds out other genetic traits that are unsuitable. Hence, those that carry unsuitable genotypes are eventually removed from the gene pool. The best example of natural selection in a modern-day environment is the peppered moth, Biston betularia. This moth has adapted through changes in genotype— not the result of random or spontaneous mutation, as evolutionists would prefer—to having two different appearances or “traits” within that species. The peppered variety live in the country on surfaces covered in lichen. Their “peppered” appearance has developed so as to appear invisible to birds. In the cities, where there is more pollution, the surfaces are darker, and the melanic form dwells there. These two types are of the same species, but environmental factors have predisposed a “selection” pressure on each type, so that only one type exists in each particular environment. Clearly, the peppered moth types were rapidly spotted in the towns, by birds and other predators, and so were easy prey. However, within the pool there were a small number which were dark and less visible and survived to be able to pass on their traits, which in time led to a “gene pool” of predominantly dark moths. The environment only has an indirect effect; the provision of one particular allele leads to the selection of one favorable genotype. This genotype is permitted the survival of the fittest. It is because natural selection favors “pre-existent” genetic traits in any particular environment or situation that enables creationists to agree with the process. Clearly, there are many arguments against evolution, but the very fact that natural selection permits the expression of genetic material that may have never been manifested, due to the effects of being recessive or being diluted due to other, stronger traits, suggests that God has provided the means for survival in changing environments. If anything, natural selection would have been more prevalent after the flood due to the rapid change in climatic conditions. Despite all the consequences that the Fall brought into creation, the Most High had the wonderful ability to foresee the need for a process that would ensure the continuing survival of life on earth, for which He continues to care (Psalm 24:1; Job 12:7-9).>> <<@spooky6902 says : Neither natural selection nor evolution have anything to do with the origin of life, (abiogenesis).>> <<@mitch6352 says : Man I wish I was smart enough to understand this stuff.>> <<@kevinwesterville2115 says : Wouldn’t God be the ultimate example Irreducible complexity? Based on this God was created.>> <<@frankcardano4142 says : This is like watching the unsuccessful candidates of a job interview make excuses up for not landing the job.>> <<@akoskormendi9711 says : The answer to the title: No. Natural selection and Evolution explains the biodiversity of life. Abiogenesis intends to explain the origin of life, but the science of it is not there yet unfortunately. Altho it is the best explonation.>> <<@Kaymen1980 says : If Frank Turek was a sound, it would be; _Millennium Falcon when it can't start.._>> <<@joen.8364 says : Thankfully, we will never know the omniscience of God, especially when it comes to material facts. I myself, am more interested in the spiritual truth, and the presence of our Lord. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.>> <<@patprr1756 says : Through , clown .>> <<@shinywarm6906 says : The conference referred to by Meyer is presumably the 2016 Royal Society one, and the quote from Gerd Muller. What Meyer *doesn't* mention is the statement from the "Third Way" group of evolutionary biologists, of which Muller is a prominent member. It reads: "It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website *and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else."* If you honestly want to understand the frontiers of evolutionary biology, don't waste time listening to more of this dishonest parasitism on the work of real evolutionary biologists. Read what the researchers themselves are saying.>> <<@cisuminocisumino3250 says : The simple answer is no, natural selection is a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life and not the origin of life, however we as believers know that life originated from God the creator. Remember Jesus loves you, stay blessed and be strong in faith.>> <<@godofsaiyans3929 says : We're created by god dna wasn't meant to mutate>> <<@dannyboyakadandaman504furl9 says : Omg. Geez Natural selection is the the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. It’s called adaptation for reason.. There isn’t an intelligent design behind it.>>