Suchen:

Mykonos Paros Santorin Naxos antiparos Andros Tinos

Preview - "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"

Gesund schnell abnehmen | Abnehmen leicht gemacht
Gesund schnell abnehmen | Abnehmen leicht gemacht Gesund schnell abnehmen | Abnehmen leicht gemacht
Gesund schnell abnehmen | Abnehmen leicht gemacht

This is a preview for Illustra Media's "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The documentary dives into the biological case for Intelligent Design, a theory which holds that certain features of the Universe and in living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a blind process such as natural selection. http://intelligentdesign.podom... this preview, origins of life researcher Dean Kenyon (author: "Of Pandas and People," a book so challenged in the classroom it makes me want to read it just to see what the fuss is about) explains some of the molecular machines in living systems that defy explanation by chance alone. It mostly emphasizes the process in which genetic information (DNA) is translated into a protein. http://www.go2rpi.com/prodinfo... folks, all comments that add to the discussion are allowed, I do NOT block comments.In my personal opinion this video segment illustrates an interesting point in the design theory, mainly because it shows one of the problems with getting the DNA transcription process into existance by evolutionary processes alone. You need genetic information to end up with molecular parts and machines, but you need molecuar machines to make and maintain genetic information in the first place. So what we end up with is similar to the "which came first the chicken or the egg" dilema. One other way you could look at it is through the computer or mobile device you're using to watch this video. The computer/device needs information (in the form of the binary programming of 1's and 0's) in order to function and do it's various tasks. But in order to keep and maintain that information you need the hard drive, CPU, graphics card, etc. to have the functional ability to store and maintian that information. So was it the programming or the parts that maintain the programming that came first? Neither, in fact for such things to run and operate it took "intelligence" (in the form of human intervention) for it to come into usability. To me this is a far more damning example of Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" since it basically poses a huge problem for abiogenesis theories, theories which attempt to explain the origin of the very first living cell. You need BOTH the DNA transcription AND the parts to decode and utilize it (such as the ribosome, or the entire nuclear pore complex) in place all at once in the cell for anything to happen. I tried to make a conservative estimate on the odds for the necessities of a working cell coming together; I came out to less then one chance in 10 to the 65,000th power (that's ten followed by 65,000 zero's), but what I failed to realize is the fact that in order for amino acids to form a protein in the first place a bonded sequence must be transported into a barrel-shaped machine that folds the amino acids into a usable protein part after that. If I took that into account the odds would be drastically more impossible then 1/10 x 65,000. This is because I was only attempting to calculate the odds of getting a usable "sequence" of amino acids (there are thousands that can work) but didn't take into account that a sequence cannot fold into a protein on it's own even after it beats the odds of coming close enough to bond on it's own. Here's my question to those who think Intelligent Design is baseless and that biogenesis can happen without guidance: Explain to me how to solve the dilema of getting the INFORMATION into place along with the PROTEIN PARTS that assemble and decode that information. You need BOTH in a cell membrane, and that poses yet another problem. A selective cell membrane is produced by protein parts inside the membrane, but for those parts to be in place... you need the membrane (chicken or egg?) to surround and keep them in place so they don't float apart and disentigrate. Explain how these all came to be by nature alone:1. Genetic information (not just the same code self replicating but NEW information as well) - How can such a thing come to be without Protein machines to maintain and utilize it? Dawkins had a hard time giving a rational response to the issue of new genetic information. http://intelligentdesign.podom... Protein parts/Machines - How can they come to be without the genetic information or the membrane that keeps them all together?3. Selective Lipid Membrane (not just a simple lipid layer forming a hollow sphere shape despite the odds, but a selective one that keeps the necessary things in, and the bad stuff out) - How can such a thing come to be without the various protein parts and filaments that help to maintain it?I really wish there were an easy answer to all this besides what is in part a philosophical implication that most people don't want to hear.

Channel: Science & Technology
Uploaded: November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am
Author: GOPpersona

Length: 05:01
Rating: 3.67
Views: 7043

Tags: biology  cell  Design  genetics  information  Intelligent  

Video Url:


Embed Code:

Video Comments

pixelsword (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'm a programmer, and I already know that the almighty exists. I'm also a Christian. If life was random, then show me a computer that was randomly assembled by nature, since that process is simpler than bacteria. You don't even have to make a computer grow or reproduce. You can't. Even the simplest of machines need intelligent design.
Noahgoy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
From my perspective, it is insane to think that all of this complexity happened on a random basis. I could be wrong of course, but I dont think so.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Be honest, for God's sake (or Dawkins sake).It isn't going to bite you.Either the science of detecting intelligence exists, or it doesn't. And since it already DOES (SETI, archaeology, cryptology, etc) then you my friend, are S.O.L. when it comes to biology.You can try to load the dice when the implications are theologically distasteful to you, but this is blatant bullshit.Darwinisms days are NUMBERED.thats the understatement of the century.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
funny how things are "irrelevant" when they conflict with your views.So the scientists who search for signs of ET life at SETI are just engaging in an "irrelevant" pursuit, is that it?They forgot to call you, right?Funny how detecting design, and INTELLIGENCE, when it has no metaphysical implications whatsoever doesn't raise an eyebrow from you.Of course, when the implication could mean God, it automatically becomes "irrelevant" to the discussion at hand.Loading the dice, aye?
justtryingtothink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Do you understand the question, or are you just avoiding it? I want to know how, specifically, you determine what is or is not the cause of intelligence. As far as I can tell, you have no reference for what intelligence is but a HUMAN reference. You seem to not understand that the phrase "molecular machine" is a metaphor, and you are resorting to hypotheticals. So far, we have not found ruins on Mars, so your point is irrelevant. Can you answer my question by sticking to the facts?
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
'who did it' isn't a question science can answer.its a bit like asking, "what caused the big bang, if matter and energy themselves couldn't bring themselves into existence?"When faced with such a question, science MUST stay mute.Here is where philosophy and theology take over.Just because ID has metaphysical implications, it doesn't mean its not scientific. R. Dawkins believes Darwinism has metaphysical implications (atheism). Darwinism still falls within science's borders.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
No, we can conclude that something/s with a HIGH level of intelligence (at least on par with humans), created the ruins. Experience (past evidence) combined with current evidence is what warrants the conclusion. No "Creationism" or "God of the Gaps" bullshit here. Just design inferences and the knowledge of what intelligence DOES. Which is, incidentally, what I.D. is all about.Molecular machines show intelligence. VERY VERY HIGH intelligence.But its only a matter of degree.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
we KNOW that chimps, dolphins, and other creatures have a high level of intelligence. Granted, they don't make engines, but we KNOW what intelligences DO. That's how we measure their levels. Intelligence is a phenomenon ALREADY studied within science.Besides, if we found the ruins of a civilization on mars, must we conclude that humans did it merely because, up to this point, humans have been the only causes of buildings, etc?
justtryingtothink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I guess I didn't state my question clearly enough. Cells run LIKE clocks, turbines, zippers, engines, etc. (all human inventions). Name one thing that we KNOW to be the cause of intelligence that was not made by humans (the key work here being KNOW). Your "theory" is trying to prove that cells are intelligently designed, but we do not KNOW that yet. You can not use your theory to prove your theory. So, do you have a response?
justtryingtothink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yeah, and I am an artist. Have you ever painted a sunset? Do you have any idea how difficult that is? and a real sunset is infinitely more beautiful; therefore, sunsets must be the work of an infinitely talented artist. We could come to this conclusion (which I actually agree with, metaphorically), but this is not a scientific argument.

Kykladen | Mykonos | Paros | Santorin | Naxos | Andros | Tinos © 2010 All Rights Reserved.

Poker Strategy | Gesund Abnehmen | Global Warming | Gratisblog | Science to get Rich | Modellauto | Auto Atlas | Sunless Tanning | 50Plus | Web Video | 1 Euro Shop | Casino Poker News | Pop Video Online | Best New Country