Jordan Peterson shows DNA Video

Now this is interesting and I have not seen it posted before ? Jordan P has been in the news in basic Philosophical discussions usually Men,s roles and Women. This video was thrown up in my feed and it is short a under 10 minutes but it just shows how complicated as chemical beings that we are ?
Amazing to me anyway.. Peace.

Nice video. I saw parts of that in a free class on genetics I took here....www.futurelearn.com...

They have a free genetics class starting now, I signed up then found I had already taken it. Bummer, maybe I will retake it again, it is free anyway. I may have missed something the first time.

Is their a cliff note to what they're saying ? Can't watch video right now ... Will have to wait to later when home .

Is their a cliff note to what they're saying ? Can't watch video right now ... Will have to wait to later when home .

Is their a cliff note to what they're saying ? Can't watch video right now ... Will have to wait to later when home .

Astonishing. Our bodies are molecular oceans filled with nano machines continuously replacing and repairing cells and DNA. The mysteries of life are just too damn cool.

a reply to: skywatcher44

This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?

Really?

originally posted by: Meldionne1
Is their a cliff note to what they're saying ? Can't watch video right now ... Will have to wait to later when home .

It is a TEDx talkgiven in Sydney where they showed CGI video of the some of the molecular machinery that replicates DNA.

As a video on its own, it is fairly mind blowing but when you study further into this, it only becomes more and more amazing.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: skywatcher44

This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?

Really?

Jordan Peterson is deceptive, first of all. He's romanticizing it and using tons of buzz words just like Stephen Meyer does. Nothing in that video shows that DNA could not have been the result of billions of years of incremental changes, where the original molecule was not anywhere near as complex as modern DNA. It's a complete straw man and it's illogical to appeal to complexity. So if you are saying god is a more likely explanation than natural processes, then god would HAVE TO BE much more complex than DNA itself. Therefor by those standards god must need a creator as well.

a reply to: chr0naut

Here is the Tedx from Sydney 2011. 14.26m

a reply to: Barcs

Life is a big question that can even have answers like its a holographic ...No romance required

a reply to: Barcs

So your saying complex things need a creator, we agree
Well done you

We just have to understand what is considered as complex in your definition
Is a watch complex or not?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: skywatcher44

This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?

Really?

Jordan Peterson is deceptive, first of all. He's romanticizing it and using tons of buzz words just like Stephen Meyer does. Nothing in that video shows that DNA could not have been the result of billions of years of incremental changes, where the original molecule was not anywhere near as complex as modern DNA. It's a complete straw man and it's illogical to appeal to complexity. So if you are saying god is a more likely explanation than natural processes, then god would HAVE TO BE much more complex than DNA itself. Therefor by those standards god must need a creator as well.

No, you need all those things to happen together to get life.

It makes no sense to have DNA replication mechanisms without, at least, DNA precursors. It also makes no sense to have 'generations' of DNA precursors without a replication mechanism.

Which is higly improbable.

And God is not limited by temporality. That is a fairly basic part of the paradigm, God exists without beginning or end.

But chemistry and matter is temporal.

originally posted by: skywatcher44
a reply to: chr0naut

Here is the Tedx from Sydney 2011. 14.26m

Cheers!

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, you need all those things to happen together to get life.

Specifically, what? When you speculate about odds for abiogenesis and RNA world, it completely ignores the incremental idea and instead compares it to the straw man of spontaneous generation, where the modern DNA molecule just suddenly comes together in one big event, which is not what abiogenesis is.

It makes no sense to have DNA replication mechanisms without, at least, DNA precursors. It also makes no sense to have 'generations' of DNA precursors without a replication mechanism. Which is higly improbable.

DNA precursors? Like RNA and proto-RNA? I'm sorry but it takes a huge assumption to believe that there aren't earlier versions of DNA. For all we know the very first organisms didn't have a genetic code anything like ours, if it was even a code at all.

And God is not limited by temporality. That is a fairly basic part of the paradigm, God exists without beginning or end.

But chemistry and matter is temporal.

This is special pleading and doesn't answer where the creator came from. You don't know that the universe is temporal, nor do you know that god is not. It doesn't provide a viable explanation. You don't know that matter/energy is temporal. You assume such because of our limited understanding of the origins of those things.

a reply to: Barcs

our limited understanding

so with your limited understanding you want to tell us that you can understand the nature of the creator who created the things that until now we fail to fully understand ?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, you need all those things to happen together to get life.

Specifically, what? When you speculate about odds for abiogenesis and RNA world, it completely ignores the incremental idea and instead compares it to the straw man of spontaneous generation, where the modern DNA molecule just suddenly comes together in one big event, which is not what abiogenesis is.

Good example (supportive of my case)!

Chemical abiogenesis is a theory. I would say that it is evidenced in the existence of the chemical nature of all life, but still I hold it as a theory (this is reasonable because I have alternate theories as well). However, it is entirely un-evidenced by objective observation.

Should I regard chemical abiogenesis as theoretically valid, or discard the notion because it is un-evidenced by objective observation? (hint, you suggested discarding a different theory, on precisely that basis).

But let's consider the selection forces on chemicals in a solution that promote a higher complexity in preference to the simpler and more likely results as described by thermodynamics? The facts in this specific case:

- Molecules like DNA & RNA (as proto-DNA would be) oxidise and break down rapidly in an unprotected environment, and even in the best environment, require constant maintenance (metabolism and replication) to continue to exist.

- If chemical abiogenesis was probable enough to cause more than a single proto-DNA molecue at a time, in sequence and in physical proximity so that developmental/selection forces apply, why has the probability almost completely vanished (such that biologists seriously suggest a single phylogenetic tree of life)? Surely modern environs have everything needed in spades? Why isn't it happening all the time?

- If, on the other hand, chemical abiogenesis has an extremely low probability of occurring (like a few shots per planet low), then the only way for more than a single proto-DNA molecue to arise at a time, in sequence and in physical proximity, is through a replication mechanism that was there, right from the first instance. Nothing else suffices as an explanation of a population of molecules of a chemical of rare occurrance that will break down over time.

It makes no sense to have DNA replication mechanisms without, at least, DNA precursors. It also makes no sense to have 'generations' of DNA precursors without a replication mechanism. Which is higly improbable.

DNA precursors? Like RNA and proto-RNA? I'm sorry but it takes a huge assumption to believe that there aren't earlier versions of DNA.

There you go again, I never said that there were no possible precursors to DNA. I clearly posed a scenario whare those precursors existed.

I said that the precursors of DNA and their replication mechanisms had to arise together. It's clearly a case of "you can't get there from here", a thought which you are so obviously trying to avoid!

You have done this 'misquotation trick' over and over again in nearly every topic thread to which you have contributed, not just with me. We can all see through it and it clouds the data of actual debate with the noise that you generate and that avoids the topic.

Please address what people say and don't obfuscate!

For all we know the very first organisms didn't have a genetic code anything like ours, if it was even a code at all.

This is special pleading and doesn't answer where the creator came from. You don't know that the universe is temporal, nor do you know that god is not. It doesn't provide a viable explanation. You don't know that matter/energy is temporal. You assume such because of our limited understanding of the origins of those things.

I do not believe that it is special pleading. I can apply exactly the same logic, reasoning and sequence of though to other things.

I believe that you think that atemporal things and absolutes don't actually exist (probably because you have not even given it much thought because they are beyond the remit of your type of 'science').

Consider:

Mathematical truths exist. They don't become untruths dependent upon time. They are atemporal.

Mathematical truths exist regardless of the observer. They do not actually require an observer to remain true. They are absolutes.

Mathematical truths are also: repeatable, objectively observable, popularly considered factual, self-evidential, 'scientific', consistent and also conformant to reasoning and philosophical processes.

Of course, the only evidence for the truth of mathematics is mathematics itself. Therefore it is circular reasoning and is unevidenced by other means.

By your line of 'reasoning', mathematical truths don't exist.

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Barcs

our limited understanding

so with your limited understanding you want to tell us that you can understand the nature of the creator who created the things that until now we fail to fully understand ?

No, I am admitting I don't know the answer to something that we don't actually know. I'm not the one claiming to know any nature of god. That is the theists who started the whole "eternal god that exists outside of the universe" concept. I am arguing against claims related to that. I fully admit I don't know, but in all honesty neither does anybody.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Barcs

our limited understanding

so with your limited understanding you want to tell us that you can understand the nature of the creator who created the things that until now we fail to fully understand ?

No, I am admitting I don't know the answer to something that we don't actually know. I'm not the one claiming to know any nature of god. That is the theists who started the whole "eternal god that exists outside of the universe" concept. I am arguing against claims related to that. I fully admit I don't know, but in all honesty neither does anybody.

Thesists don't belive that God exists only outside of time and space, that is what the word omnipresent means.

God exists within the entirety of all of space and time as well as external to them.

This means that the repetition of references to the "sky fairy" or "magic daddy in the sky" only reveals how much you guys don't get it.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

-Charles Darwin

This same logic would apply to the micro-molecular level. It is inconceivable that this meticulous biochemical machinery could have culminated through piece-by-piece mutation. The clockwork motion of these biomolecules resembles a purposeful, sentient process.

It saddens me that humans are so hellbent on trying to prove that we are meaningless, because the evidence of how meaningful we are is everywhere.