Hey everyone, it's time for another
reaction video. So, uh, if you are
someone that pays attention to Discovery
Institute, you may have noticed that
they're really ramping up their, uh,
propaganda campaign this year. They're
putting out a lot of stuff. Um,
Discovery Institute, if you don't know,
is the, uh, Christian Propaganda Mill
out of Seattle that is responsible for
the intelligent design movement, which
is uh, creationism in a tuxedo. It's
pseudocientific uh, propaganda. And uh I
am their uh I am their their most hated
person as I have made it my uh one of my
mission objectives to completely ruin
and humiliate every single member of
that disgusting toxic piece of [\h__\h]
organization. So uh anyway, if you
haven't seen it, I have a playlist
called Exposing Discovery Institute
where I just go down the roster and
expose every single one of these clowns.
I'm going to keep uh doing that. It's
been a little while since I've checked
in with them. I've been kind of doing a
lot of like antivaxers and I started
doing the pseudoarchchaeology stuff. So,
I've been kind of uh you know distracted
by by other targets, but um this year uh
so Steven Meyer is the main dude and
he's been doing tons of um uh
appearances in different places. Uh and
also he just put out a like a a
theatrical feature film. Uh it's a
pseudo documentary and uh has has been
in uh you know played in theaters for
you know a week or so. Um and they're
you know obviously playing it up online.
Oh such an awesome movie and it made so
much money. So many people are going to
see our awesome super truth movie. Um so
there's a lot of stuff I I've kind of
decided that I need to pivot back to
these guys and really nail them on every
single dumb thing that they're doing. Uh
so there's going to be a little bit of
attention devoted to this. So, uh, Meyer
Tour and Lennox did a video that got a
lot of views, so I'm definitely going to
react to that at some point. Um, Meyer
went on is what was on Epoch Times. I
got to do that one. Uh, I got to figure
out a way to download the full uh pseudo
documentary. I should probably do a
reaction to the to the movie itself. Um,
but today we're just so since we have so
much of this to do. I'm just going to
get my feet wet today. Uh, we're going
to look at two videos where Meyer is
talking to this guy. I call him fish
hat. I just know him I know of him as
fish hat because he has this [\h__\h]
podcast where he's an apologist and he
interviews all the other apologists and
uh he usually is wearing a a hat with a
fish on it. So I know of him as fish
hat. His the channel is called Daily
Dose of Wisdom though. Uh, so I've
covered, uh, episodes of him talking to
James Tour and other stuff like that.
So, uh, he's a [\h__\h] He knows
absolutely dick about science and
whenever his apologist heroes go on his
show, he just goes, "Oh, yeah. Yeah,
that sounds smart. You sound like a
smart guy. I trust you blindly." Uh, and
so that's what he's going to do with
Stephen Meyer. These are two fairly
short videos, so that's why I wanted to
do this first, just kind of knock out uh
something uh kind of fun and quick, and
then we will go uh in in other reaction
videos to come very soon. We will cover
the Meer Tour Lennox thing. Uh I'll try
to get the movie right there. There's
We're going to do a bunch more. Uh, I
I'm going to be a gigantic thorn in the
side of Steven Meyer and the rest of
these Discovery Institute piece of [\h__\h]
douchebag frauds because they are
involved in this uh they they are one of
the many arms of the Christian
Nationalist movement that is trying to
take over our government, eradicate uh
the separation of church and state.
They're trying to take over well they
already have uh infiltrated the Supreme
Court. They're infecting every branch of
the government. uh trying to weaponize
the constitution against us. They re
repealed Ro vie Wade. They're trying to
uh make it so that uh tax tax dollars
can fund uh private Christian schools.
Um it's a [\h__\h] mess. It's a gigantic
mess and they are part of that movement.
So they're horrible evil people and I
will do everything in my power to expose
and humiliate them. Especially Steven
Meyer. Uh look at this goon. Look at
this thicknecked goon. So this video is
called Stephen Meyer just destroyed
atheist explanations of DNA. 15 minutes.
So look at that. 15 minutes and uh and
he has overturned the entire field of of
biology and genetics. Right. So uh this
should be good. So uh we're going to do
this one and then we're going to do
another one. I'll tell you the title of
that uh after this one. So this one yeah
this came out four weeks ago. It's got
53 53k views. So, you know, decent
decent little uh uh viewership there.
And Meyer is going to say a bunch of
dumb [\h__\h] about presumably DNA. Uh I am
assuming uh that this is going to be
some Demsky uh specified information
[\h__\h] because what I've seen from uh
little bits of previews, they're leaning
heavily into uh uh crazy crazy
information in the DNA, therefore God.
and just kind of generally look at all
this crazy [\h__\h] in the cell. Therefore,
God. Um, it's that's pretty much it.
That's pretty much all they've ever had
and they have not updated their script
at all from what I can tell. But maybe
he's going to surprise me with something
out of left field. Uh, I would bet my
life savings that he will not. But, um,
let's let's hear Meyer go through the
same old tired [\h__\h] apologist script
as always uh, and take a giant crap on
it. um like I always do. So, let's watch
this now. I watch too much materialistic
content is my problem. So, I'm always
getting the other side. One response
that I'll hear often is the idea that
Sorry, materialistic content. Like, what
are you watching? Influencers that like
want you to buy like nice cars and
clothes and watches and [\h__\h]
Materialistic content. Uh so, people who
aren't constantly talking about God and
souls, right? as though as though
scientists are supposed to be talking
about God and souls all the time while
while describing molecular biology
concepts. [\h__\h] idiot, man. It's just
biology and the the information is being
imposed by the human. Is the genetic
code really a code?
>> It certainly is a code. Uh you can read
it as a code. could even transcribe a
book uh into DNA letters and you could
read it out again. You could could
preserve it in DNA. That's that's how
codelike it is. It really is a
completely codelike code, a digital
code. It's merely quarterary rather than
binary. And of course, it's not put
together by design.
>> So Dave, do you agree that DNA contains
highly specific information
>> of of a living organism? Yeah. Not not
not in general. I love this. They're
using my [\h__\h] clip. So, first of all,
okay, a couple things here. So, they're
they're playing Dawkins, of course, and
uh yeah, and and they're using the
example you said that you can transcribe
something. You can use uh you can use
the symbols that we use when we describe
DNA to encode something. Of course, you
can. You can do that with anything. You
can do it with dots and dashes. That's
what [\h__\h] Morse code is and [\h__\h] uh
you're you're just saying that humans
can make codes with things. uh there
right that doesn't make uh DNA you can
you can call DNA a code that doesn't
mean right all of this is always just
humans can make codes therefore anything
that you could feasibly describe as a
code is made by a mind it's a it's a
non-starter it does that's it's it's not
a valid argument that's a that's a
that's a facious argument uh but then
okay so we've got this clip here so uh
first of all I like how anytime
apologists
source uh footage like this, they their
viewers are so [\h__\h] dumb that they
have to tell them what to think by
putting like goofy music on it. They're
like, "Goofy music. Uh-oh, something
silly is happening. Haha, look at this
silly thing." Because they can't rely on
them to like listen to words and
actually understand what anyone's
saying. So, they're like, "Oh, look at
this uh silly thing." So, if you missed
this, this was uh I went on Myth Vision
and uh took calls from creationists and
this douchebag showed up with this kid
on his knee and started shrieking about
just DNA is a code. DNA is a code. DNA
is a code and uh got real real testy. Um
and of course just was spewing the the
hot gibberish apologist script. Uh so
here, okay, let's see how much of this
clip that uh that fish hat wants to
show. It can be you can have a DNA
strand of any random nucleiobasis but uh
the DNA of a of a living organism has
the code for that organism. Yeah.
>> Okay. So DNA is not just like a chemical
blob. It's store it stores instructions
using symbolic sequences.
>> No it's not it's not a symbolic
sequence. It's a sequence of nucleases.
Right. You just have a actg and yeah
it's not symbolic. Right. we can use the
letters, our own man-made symbols to
represent the nucleotides. Nucleotides
themselves are not symbols. He just
doesn't understand what these words
mean. And so he's like, "Oh, I'm
surprised that you don't comply with the
dumb thing I said
>> in some order. Uh, that doesn't make it,
right? So, let's save some time. You're
going to do a whole like specified
information William Demsky thing, right?
>> Computer code, books, blueprints,
software. Those are all things that
humans created. Humans can create things
that doesn't DNA was made by
>> Do humans have minds? Do humans have
minds?
>> Let's get a finger on the on the mute
and disconnect button here. This guy's
getting real testy.
>> One of the irritating organ [\h__\h] Oh
my god. It's like, how desperate are
you? You got the goofy music. You
selectively edit it so that you take out
like the five minutes where I tried to
explain molecular biology to this
douchebag while he just talked over me
and started shrieking blah blah blah
blah. And then you cut to a woman
running away first of all. Uh so there's
some little misogyny there. Uh Dave is
the woman running away. No, I tried to
explain [\h__\h] to this guy and then he
like he was absolutely uh incapable of
adult conversation. That's what
happened. Um, but sure, goofy music can
cut it that way if you want. Um, yeah,
he was citing examples of of codes that
humans create. Therefore, DNA is made by
a mind. That's a facious argument. I'm
sorry. Uh, you can say uh uh humans make
complex things. Uh, therefore, uh, a god
made everything. Well, complex things
are made in nature, too. You can look at
a snowflake or something and and I did
said this to Kenhovven. Um, right is
complex objects can be made by natural
forces. Therefore, everything was made
by natural forces uh or natural natural
uh processes. That would that would also
be a facious argument. It ends it's
true. It's a true argument that nature
did generate all of these uh structures,
but that particular line of reasoning
would be facious. Um, I I don't know how
to get this through their [\h__\h] heads
that you can't just point at [\h__\h] that
humans do and then say because it's
analogous to this other thing, this must
have been made by a god. It doesn't work
like that. It doesn't [\h__\h] work like
that. And that that [\h__\h] dude and
meer and fish hat and none of these
people ha well me maybe has the capacity
to understand prebiotic chemistry, but
he never will. Actually, I mean, to be
honest, I think he doesn't, but Fish Hat
and that other douchebag, of course they
don't. They don't. They're not going to
understand RNA world. They're not going
to understand replicators and systems
chemistry and autocatalysis and [\h__\h]
like that. So, there's just no way to
get them even remotely on board with
with principles of chemistry that are
going to get you to replicators, at
which point natural selection takes
over. Um, there's just no way to do
that. They're they're they're they're
just absolutely ideologically dead set
on this has to have been made by God
because that's my worldview. That's how
I want it to be. Therefore, I'm going to
uh literalize these analogies and I'm
going to, you know, that's all there is
to it. Right? They don't understand the
chemistry by which nucleic acids can
have come to be through natural
processes. And then so all they have is
this game of well humans write software
and that's kind of like DNA. So DNA came
from a god and it's the Christian god
because I say so that's all these
[\h__\h] have. Okay, let's see what they
do to to Aurin as well.
>> That I get like every day is this stupid
notion that, you know, that uh that
coded information always comes from a
mind and therefore DNA is proof of God
because
DNA is assumed to be a code.
And uh but while we could argue that
there is an analogous interpretation of
that, if we if we were to say that in
because of this analog in our
understanding that we we say that
changes in the construct will produce
different proteins or whatever and then
therefore uh you know that changes that
it codes for different proteins. If we
use that kind of language and call it a
code in that capacity, then DNA would be
the exception to the rule because it um
it obviously does not come from a mind
and there's no way that a mind could do
that
>> for the person who sort of thinks it's
just biology doing biology and we're the
ones.
>> Yeah. this objection in in a number of
ways is that well the idea of
information is just a metaphor or we're
imputing the presence of information and
we're anthropomorphizing
but but actually there's a very specific
mathematical definition of the kind of
information that's present inside living
systems. It's Shannon information plus
specificity required for function. And
so when you break down what's actually
going on
>> Yeah. So he's just he's okay. So this is
Demsky's [\h__\h] script. Um, and so
they use these terms from information
theory to make it seem like it's super
intellectual, but they're just
bastardizing uh legitimate terms. So
Shannon information just refers to how
unlikely something is, right? How
unlikely uh in this case a sequence of
nucleotides, right? You can do simple
examples like um uh the sun will rise
tomorrow versus it snowed in the Sahara.
the latter contains more Shannon
information because it's less likely
event. But so if you're trying to put
that upon uh nucleic acids, right,
you're talking about how unlikely a
particular uh uh sequence of of of bases
is uh in uh in in DNA or in RNA. Um so
uh all of this falls apart, right? it
you're uh number one the the intent with
Meer and Demsky is to pretend that all
of this [\h__\h] is random but it's not uh
evolution is not random there are random
components mutations are random and then
natural selection is non-random right
natural selection uh selects those
sequences that uh that confer some kind
of advantage whether whether it's a
living organism or a molecule or or a a
replicator or a set of replicators
Right? If there's a mutation that causes
more efficient self-replication even
prior to the existence of a living
organism, right? Natural selection is
acting upon that. All that means is that
uh those proliferate in a statistically
significant way. That's all it is. It's
these are blind processes. But natural
selection is not random. So that's part
one. Part one is that uh the implication
that all of this is random does not
work. It's not all random. Natural
selection uh natural selection is not
random. Then, um, so Demsky does this
[\h__\h] I'm I'm wrapping up a Demsky
video, by the way. That's why I I wanted
to I knew they were going to do uh
specified information [\h__\h] So, I
decided I'm just going to go ahead and
do my Demsky debunk. Uh, so that'll come
out uh pretty soon. I'm almost almost
done with it. Um, and so what Demsky
does is he takes these things uh Shannon
information, which I just uh described,
and Kaggorov information, which is how
much can a sequence be uh be abbreviated
be abbreviated. So a a a a a could be
abbreviated as uh 8 a's. So that has
less kaggorov information because it can
be abbreviated in that sense. Um and
then something that's uh that is just
eight different characters can't be
abbreviated at all. So it is has more
kgar information. So Demsky does this
[\h__\h] where he just so they this is
what they do. Those are real terms,
right? But then what Demsky does with
them is not science. It's not legitimate
math or science or information theory or
anything. He just blindly asserts
specified information is Shannon minus
Kaggorov. He just pulls that out of his
ass. And lots of uh lots of researchers
have pointed out a lot of uh errors
here. Number one, what I just said that
these are not all random processes. So,
it simply cannot be applied to the
biological world. You just can't. Uh,
number two, Dempsky did a bunch of [\h__\h]
math where he uh took the log of
something where it already had the log
taken. Um, and so he just he didn't do
the math right. Uh, there's a bunch of
[\h__\h] Um, so stay tuned for the Demsky
debunk, but uh, yeah. So they do the
Shannon information, all this tour did
this [\h__\h] in the in the debate as well
because he his fourth talking point was
specified information, right? He
obviously got coached by Demsky. Uh, and
James is an idiot. So, he doesn't
understand that that's not science, that
it's just some [\h__\h] that Demsky
pulled out of his ass. Um, and uh, so
yeah, let's see. Let's see what he says.
>> The what's going on meets the the the
definition of specified information or
as Leslie Orle, one of the early uh, or
pioneers in origin of life research
termed it, specified complexity. People
a lot of times will say, "Well,
specified complexity, that's an
intelligent design terminology that they
invented." No, it came out of origin of
life research.
>> Yeah. And then Demsky co-opted specified
complexity and made up specified
information, which is not real. That's
not a thing. It is Christian propaganda.
Um, and so yeah, you can talk about
specified complexity. So it's true that
the sequence of nucleotides in a gene is
different from a random string of
nucleotides. Nobody's disputing that.
And you can use terminology like code.
You totally can do that. I don't have a
problem with saying that that the
sequence of nucleotides in a gene codes
for a particular amino acid sequence.
That will be a protein. That's
absolutely true. Um but there's no uh
specified information. It's a nebulous
term. It's it's vague. It's not properly
defined. Uh it uh it is simply Christian
propaganda just like irreducible
complexity, all the other [\h__\h] that we
have uh debunked to high heaven. um it
is simply a sequence of nucleotides a
sequence of nucleotides. It is a
particular sequence of nucleotides that
codes for a a particular protein uh in
the context of transcription and
translation. But that's all it is. So
this is why prebiotic chemistry has
become such a focal point for them
because they know that all of this [\h__\h]
falls apart if you can explain how these
functional sequences came to be by
natural processes which origin of of
origin of life research does. Right? We
don't have every single piece uh you
know uh understood but we certainly have
demonstrated empirically very very
thoroughly how these biop-olymers can
have come about and how they can evolve
by natural selection. This is not up for
for for discussion. For at least 20
years, right? For basically the entire
21st century, we have been doing
research in systems chemistry where we
are showing how uh our how ribosymes,
how sets of molecules can uh can evolve
by natural selection. We have shown
this. It's it's it's it's
not up for discussion. So they number
one pretend all of that research doesn't
exist and number two just sick James
Tour on the whole prebiotic chemistry
thing to just go that's impossible
molecules don't move towards life this
is all dumb and none of this works they
all molecules all fall apart blah blah
blah blah blah because they have to they
have to do that that hit job on
prebiotic chemistry so that they can say
see you've got these super duper special
genes in the DNA and there's no way they
could have gotten there without the god
without a god going I want that sequence
of nucleotides there's all too many
crazy possible combinations only these
super special ones are here so so god
did it right so th that's they they've
had to like heavily sedate tour for
several years now to to maintain his uh
presence in their organization and
actually parade him out and like make
him say things in front of a camera
without getting all agitated and [\h__\h]
but they need him because he's the one
that uh that they that they put forward
to uh what they want their their viewers
to believe is that he's demolishing the
entire concept of prebiotic chemistry
and that abiogenesis is is physically
possible. He fails miserably as you all
know. I have humiliated uh every single
every attempt out of his dumb face to uh
discredit an entire field of science he
doesn't understand. It's all [\h__\h]
lies and propaganda. Uh but they they
need him. They need him desperately. So
they're they're continuing to try to
utilize him uh as much as they can. Yep.
Oracle was contrasting crystals that
have a repetitive and highly ordered
pattern NAC
redundancy where this you get the same
pattern over and over again with uh with
random polymers that perform no
function. and they've just a series of
say amino acids that can do nothing with
polymers
biomacroolelecules that have the
property of specificity of arrangement
in order to produce a function.
>> Yeah. And those that's those are totally
valid terms, valid comparison, valid
distinction, right? It's true. A random
sequence of of nucleotides
uh will not necessarily yield a
functional protein. Only these
particular sequences will. The problem
is that they will deny that these
sequences can come about by natural
processes. And all of the science is
pointing at pointing that they
absolutely can, right? There's so much
research that is showing that random
sequences are uh are a source of of uh
of function, right? uh some percentage
uh will will perform function and nature
has all these opportunities to produce
these biop-olymers many many many
different sequences and then the ones
that perform function can be uh selected
for natural selection will uh take those
and uh do do [\h__\h] with them. So uh
that's the part that they just pretend
doesn't exist
>> and um and that's what we call specified
complexity and in our uniform and
repeated exper which is what what's
present in DNA what's present in in
proteins and in our uniform and repeated
experience which is the basis of all
scientific reasoning uh reasoning
whenever you see specified complexity or
specified information would be another
way to refer to it. It's it's not
another way to refer to it. Those are
different terms. One is real the other
is [\h__\h] that you made up. sorry
>> always the product of a mind and so
there's a very precise definition of uh
from from the information sciences of
the type of phenomenon that's present in
DNA and in RNA in proteins and that
phenomenon can be called uh a specified
complex sequence and when we have
specified complexity present in any
system where we've known the origin it's
always been the product of intelligence
so
>> where we've known the origin. When we
make [\h__\h] with our minds, it was made by
a mind. Therefore, anything that we
assert is like that must also have been
made by a mind. Do you see the trickery
here? Do you see the little caveats? Um,
that's it, right? Humans can make codes.
Therefore, anything that resembles a
code was made by a mind. It is a facious
argument. This is the central argument
of all of their [\h__\h] And it does
not work. It falls apart. That's all
there is to it. This is not something
that's being imputed. This is something
that's present in in in the molecule.
And the whole when when the whole of
molecular biology is built on teological
language, unavoidable teological
language, we've got we have code, we
have we have text, we have code, we have
translation, we have transcription, um
we have information processing systems.
This is the way molecular biologists
have to talk to describe what's going
on. And we're also discovering known
computer design patterns in the
information processing system of the
cell. You have automated error
correction. You can watch it happening.
We have spellch check in the computer.
It's not spell check though. See this is
all they can do, right? He's okay. So
you there are enzymes that uh that that
that recognize and repair mutations in
the genome. Yeah. That doesn't mean it
is spellch check, right? It's a diff
they're analogous, right? Do you know
what an analogy is, Meyer? Okay, so it's
like this other thing. You can draw
comparisons to it, but you have an
enzyme, right? If an enzyme evolves,
right? If you have oxo G, right? Guan
guanine can be oxidized to become oxo G.
And then there's a glycos that can be a
problem because it'll code for instead
of C, it'll code for I forget A or T, I
don't remember. It'll uh it just
changes, right? If if you if you oxidize
it then that changes the base pairing
rule right so you you might get the
wrong base and that could be
deletarious. So if an enzyme happens to
evolve in this case I I think it's a
glycosilase enzyme that will go go it
will it makes um I think a kink in the
backbone or it does something that's
that's recognizable to the active site
of an enzyme. This is all by chance,
right? happens to fit into the active
site of a particular enzyme that evolved
by chance and it will snip it out and
then another enzyme will replace you
know put the a pulymerase I think I got
to I got to look up the mechanism again
I forget exactly but I think it snips
out either either the base or the whole
nucleotide I don't recall and uh and
then another polymerase enzyme I think
it's just the base I think it kicks off
the base and then polymerase enzyme will
will put the new well actually okay you
have to I I don't remember off the top
of my head the exact mechanism but what
we're saying is that the enzyme happens
to do that and it confers a survival
advantage because it's helping maintain
the fidelity of the genome and so it
that will be that's valuable to whatever
organism and this is happening way
before I mean uh I don't I don't
remember if that I'm not sure if that
evolved in when life was exclusively
unicellular or if it was already
multisellular uh I'd have to look that
up but uh there are there are multiple
enzymes like that each have a very
particular
unique function. They will recognize one
thing, right? Like a thymine dimer from
uh from UV light or whatever it is.
There are enzymes that recognize these
particular mutations and uh and and fix
them. And they don't get them every
time, right? They they help a lot, but
they we don't catch uh these enzymes
don't catch every single uh mutation.
And so that's why cancer is a thing,
right? There's mutations happening all
the time. It's just a matter of time
until you get the a mutation in a
protoonco gene and then you get uh then
you get cancer. So um yeah uh not really
saying much here. It's just a lot of the
old look at the words we use, right? We
can use these words to describe DNA.
Therefore, it has to have been made by a
mind. It's there's no there's no logical
foundation to this argument. There's
nothing. It's just it only works on
people that desperately want it to be
true like fish hat.
>> Well, we've got automated error
correction in in molecular biology.
You've got um you have hierarchical
filing of of information. There's a high
there's hierarchical organization of the
information in the in the genome and and
beyond the genome. Um and and so the
these these when when we had a computer
>> what what hierarchy what is he even
talking about talking about histone
modification or or is he going to talk
about the the tourists interact or
something like that like he's just
inserting this verbiage arbitrarily to
make nature sound like a computer
program. He wants it to sound like a
computer program so that everyone
listening will go well computer programs
are made by humans. So nature was made
by all this the molecule stuff was made
by a god mind. Um it's very sleazy very
deliberate deception
>> computer programmer from Microsoft one
of their elite architect level
programmers several years ago write
10,000 lines of code so that we could
depict the gene expression system the
protein uh the system of protein
synthesis. One day he came into my
office and threw a book down on my table
called Design Patterns, a manual for
software engineers. And he said, "I get
an eerie feeling that someone figured
this out before us." And I said, "What
do you mean?" And he explained that a
design pattern is a known strategy for
storing or processing digital
information and there are multiple known
computer design patterns at work inside
the cell that he he was learning about
as he was learning how the information
in DNA is expressed in proteins. So
information in living systems is not
merely a metaphor.
>> Cool story, bro. Yeah, take that.
Biologists computer guy said that DNA is
like computer program. Uh therefore, God
made DNA. Um that's all you can do, man.
You can't you cannot you there's they
have zero ability to approach the the
these principles of molecular biology in
good faith. They can't do it. You know,
>> it's not an a concept that we're
imputing onto what's going on in
biology. By any reasonable understanding
of uh key definitions of types of
information, there is a very important
type of information present in in the
cell. Uh and that is specified
information or functional information or
specified complexity where each of these
terms means roughly the same thing.
>> No, they don't. They do not at all mean
the same thing. You just said three
different things and are blindly
asserting that they're the same because
you want to co-opt the the academic
pedigree of a legitimate term specified
complexity and pretend that your
propaganda is science. Right? This is
this is uh you're you're laundering the
the credibility of of of Oral and uh and
pretending that Demsky is is running
right alongside him. Oh, he's taking
this idea and doing No, absolutely not.
a highly improbable sequence which is in
which the the parts of the sequence are
nevertheless specifically arranged as a
condition of performing an independent
function and and that is exactly what's
going on in inside the DNA and the
protein uh the DNA protein system.
That's an interesting point you're
making at the at the end there as well
about how often in science people are
kind of in their own area of of
expertise and specialty. And I know more
recently you guys have been focusing on
getting like the engineers together with
the biologist and getting people to look
at this from both of those modalities to
kind of unpack everything that's going
on. Yeah. DI the DI is overflowing with
legitimate experts. So many biologists,
so many legitimate, actively publishing
biologists are working at Discovery
Institute. Oh, wait, no, I forgot.
[\h__\h] zero. Zero. Zero legitimate
biologists. Actually, zero legitimate
scientists of of any kind. Uh Meyer's
not one none of these guys are are
actual active uh publishing scientists.
The only one is Tour. He's not formally
on the payroll, but he gets his lab
funded by the DI. Uh so he's uh he's
he's locked in there. Uh he needs that
funding. Um no, there's there's uh
there's none. They they are uh frauds in
suits trying their best to resemble true
academics. Not a single one among them.
I I think that's such an important
understanding as well that when like a
computer engineer or a software engineer
specialist looks at this, they're
they're like you just gave a great
example of they're seeing it jumping off
the page to them. They're seeing things
that biologists don't see,
>> right?
>> Because they understand the
informationational dynamics uh of any
information. They understand the
dynamics of any information processing
system. they understand the uh the kind
of engineering constraints that need to
be applied first to uh produce
information and then to process it in a
way that will achieve a functional
endpoint.
You see what he just said to produce
information. So they will deny this up
and down but they are trying to
brainwash the viewer into imagining
information as this nebulous ethereal
substance that is in that is injected
into the DNA by by a higher power.
Nothing is producing information. You
have a sequence of nucleotides. That's
it. right? There there's not it's not
the case that the sequence of
nucleotides in a gene needs some extra
juice or something to code for the amino
acids in the protein. It's just codons,
right? It's just cat A TG blah blah blah
and then you get the mRNA transcript on
based on base pairing rules and then
again based on base pairing rules you
get the uh you get the tRNAs one at a
time to make the protein. Um there's no
there's nothing is producing
information. Uh and the engineers that
he's talking about first of all I I
can't imagine they have any legitimate
scholars in that field either. They
don't have any biologists. They don't
have any engineers. But why would an
engineer be aware of the biological
processes by which those sequences came
to be? Right? Meyer needs everyone
watching to believe that it's supposed
to be completely random. It's not
completely random. natural selection is
a thing. And he's talking about uh DNA
in extent life, right? He's obviously in
all of his propaganda, he's showing
modern cells, cells that are alive today
that contain genomes that are the
product of billions of years of
evolution, multiple billions of years of
evolution. So, you're skipping all of
that biological history and going,
"Well, how did this uh how did this
genome get like this?" Those stupid
atheists want you to believe that
nucleotides floated together one at a
time by chance to make this genome. No,
nobody's [\h__\h] saying that. It took
billions of years. And we're starting
all the way back with RNA world. So,
when you're talking about DNA at all in
the first place, you're ignoring all of
that. We're talking about RNA world.
Life predates DNA. Life came before DNA.
DNA came after. Um, so all of this I
mean it's just like they need for they
need for you to believe that science
suggests it's random, but it's not. Uh,
his viewers just don't stand a shot in
hell at understanding uh scientific
principles surrounding prebiotic
chemistry so he can get away with it.
And that's where tour comes in to
convince everyone. No, no, no. There's
nothing to see here. There's no no
prebiotic chemistry can happen at all.
Molecules don't move towards life blah
blah blah blah blah. Trust me, I'm a
chemist. So don't look at this. Don't
learn anything about this field of
science. Take it from me. Boy,
>> and biology is all about function. You
this is you can't get away from
teological language in biology because
everything every part of a living system
is doing something for something else.
it's doing something in service of the
survival of the organism ultimately and
and often multiple penultimate sort of
lower level goals that are in service of
that higher level goal of survival. So
um it's it's impossible to understand
biology without understanding the
functional logic of a biological system.
And that has all to do with the storage
and processing uh and expression of
information both genetic information and
we're now finding information at higher
levels and stored in other types of
systems. Carbohydrates for example have
uh pro arguably more information stored
in them than do nucleic acids. the the
famous DNA and pro DNA and RNA mole.
>> What the [\h__\h] are you talking about?
What are you talking about? Car where do
carbohydrates code for for are we doing
transcription translation on
carbohydrates? That doesn't mean
anything. Carbohydrates are energy
storage. Uh we we do metabolism with
carbohydrates. Um but the other thing
it's just like why are why is anyone so
surprised that billions of years of
evolution produced extent organisms with
efficient genomes? And I mean, honestly,
they're not that I mean, they're they're
fairly efficient, but there's still
enormous amounts of junk DNA, right?
That's the other that's the other uh
myth that they pedal is that, oh, we've
figured out that there's no junk DNA.
Yeah, there is. There's a [\h__\h] ton of
junk DNA. At least 80% of the genome is
completely non-functional. So, they that
is a fact. And they have to counter that
fact with propaganda that says, "No, no,
no. Look, they figured out all these
other function." Yeah, they figured out
uh that that there's like promoters and
[\h__\h] like that, but that that's only a
few more percent, right? You've got 1 to
2% uh protein coding and then about 10%
um you know, that that serve auxiliary
function uh you know, promoters and
things like that. Um but uh mostly junk
and but uh but yeah, so you have genes
that code for proteins that perform a
function efficiently because they've had
billions of years of evolution to get
there, right? You don't know what that
gene looked like uh you know 500 million
years ago or a billion years ago. Uh it
may it may have coded for a protein that
was less efficient but over time it
becomes more efficient because of
natural selection. Natural selection is
non-random. So all of this [\h__\h]
about the math does not work because it
that kind of math would apply to things
like poker hands and flips of a coin
that are truly random. Right? There's no
if if you if you wanted to look at a 100
flips of a coin and how long would it
take to get uh a particular sequence of
the flips of a coin um you could do it
with all randomness, but that's not an
analog of the biological world then,
right? You would have to do something
like if you have a hundred spots, uh
whenever you flip one and it gets the
right answer, it gets cemented in and
then you keep going. So, so the first
time you go, uh, you know, let's say 50
of them, uh, get stuck in their position
because that was the that was the
desired outcome of that flip or whatever
it is. And then the next time half of
the next ones get so instead of 10 to
the 88 million gazillion whatever it
takes like uh you know 30 or 50 I don't
know however many tries to get all of
them in the right sequence because
there's that component of non-randomness
where when an outcome is beneficial to
the desired result in this case uh
whether it's a sequence of of
nucleotides that yields a functional
protein or the the the set of 100 coin
flips that we wanted. Um, that when you
get something that works that way, it it
stays because there's a there's an
impetus there's a biological impetus for
a good sequence of nucleotides that
yield a functional protein that is
rewarded statistically because it
enhances replication. It hap enhances
survivability. That's the part that they
never ever address. They won't do it
>> molecules. So, uh, the what you have in
biology is wheels within wheels of
integrated functional complexity that is
dependent on information. Um, and your
little video just completely ignores
that. And
>> hey, I didn't make it. I Oh, yeah. The
the the smart people talking about what
you lie about totally ignores the
[\h__\h] that you just said where you
are the one ignoring everything that I
just said. wheels and wheels of
complexity. Uh, it's all so crazy
complex because God and those stupid
atheists are ignoring that dumb the the
dumb [\h__\h] I made up about wheels upon
wheels of complexity. You are the one
[\h__\h] who is ignoring biological
principles. You will never approach this
in good faith. You can't do it. I'm I'm
just the messenger.
>> Yeah, I'm not I'm not blaming you,
Brandon, but I triggering me this
morning. I was in a good mood until we
started talking.
>> Yes, Meyer. I will continue to trigger
your dumb [\h__\h] face. I will be all over
you. I'm going to be a thorn in your
side for the rest of the year. Every
piece of [\h__\h] propaganda you put
out, I'm going to take a big steamy dump
all over it and get five times the view
count. Okay, buddy. So, be prepared to
get triggered quite a lot.
>> No, exactly. It's very it's interesting
to see first of all how easily people
will uh will accept something like that.
Um and secondly um how weak the
arguments are on the other side when you
when you get into the science.
>> Talk about projection, dude. How easily
people just accept things. Not like our
viewers. Our viewers are critical
thinkers. They're totally not just
going, "Oh, they said a science word and
he has a tie on, so it must be true."
Mhm. Uh not like not like those stupid
evolutionists, right, who who actually
[\h__\h] understand molecular biology and
talk about it honestly and refer to the
primary scientific literature that
proves you wrong. the [\h__\h]
projection, dude.
>> You know, and often, you know, people
that uh have a a faith perspective or if
you accept, heaven forbid, the theory of
intelligent design, this is my my
Wikipedia page claims that I'm a
pseudocientist. And so, well, fair
enough. Call me.
>> Yeah, fair enough. It intelligent design
is not a theory. It is pseudocience. It
is [\h__\h] masquerading as science. You
pretend you're pretending that religion
is science by dressing dressing it up
with scientific terminology. It is
pseudocience. Your Wikipedia page
accurately describes you as a
pseudocience peddler. Uh and hopefully
it says grifting fraud. Uh fraud for
money, right? Very well, very well
funded by wealthy Christian nationalists
who intend to uh erode the separation of
church and state. You're a piece of
[\h__\h] Meyer. You're a garbage person.
And it doesn't matter how much you
present yourself as a calm uh uh mindful
thoughtful scholar. You're a garbage
piece of [\h__\h] human. And I will continue
to show everyone exactly what you are.
>> Be what you will. But there is no
science in a video like what you just
showed. And the scientific problems with
that are legion. And our team knows them
very well. And it's one of the reasons
that we think intelligent design is
actually part of the story because we
know from again our uniform and repeated
experience that whenever we see
information and we trace it back to its
source, we always come to a mind, not a
material process. Whether it's digital
code in a software or a paragraph in a
book or the information we're
transmitting right now.
>> Look at a book. The book didn't write
itself. Humans write books. Therefore,
anything that is remotely uh analogous
to a book uh which DNA is not by the way
must have come from a mind. I mean, give
me a [\h__\h] break. Like the you DNA is
not like the English language. There's
not this whole uh universe of syntax and
semantics uh and and and it's I'm sorry,
DNA is not like the English language.
It's not an honest comparison. Humans,
humans write books, therefore DNA is
made by a god is a dog [\h__\h] argument and
only the dumbest people alive are going
to fall for that. I'm sorry.
>> Or information in a radio signal or u a
hieroglyphic inscription. Information is
a hallmark of mind and you cannot build
life without it. And that's that is I
think clue one that life was was
designed by a master programmer. So,
you've just given me a perfect
transitional point. I before I make it,
I want to just say that as a compliment,
as as amazing as you are at articulating
all of this with words, there's
something about seeing the animation in
the documentary that is powerful in a
different way. It's just like if that's
all true, if everything that that
animation is depicting is true, which I
know that it is.
>> Yeah. So he obviously what he's probably
talking about the new uh the new movie,
right? And obviously the movie is just
like look at all this crazy [\h__\h] in the
cell. Look at all this crazy [\h__\h] in a
modern ukareotic animal cell. How did
that just float together by ch? It
[\h__\h] didn't. It's the product of
billions of years of evolution and this
is all they have. [\h__\h] fish hat
watched the movie and went, "Oh, wow.
Nature's crazy. I don't understand that.
Therefore, God, well, get an education.
I don't know what to tell you, man. Uh
because we can very easily explain,
right? You're you're looking at uh
you're looking at the something that is
the product of billions of years of
evolution and saying, "How did that flow
together and come to be?" If that's what
you're honestly thinking, then you're
just admitting that you are not
approaching this in good faith, right?
You you you're too dumb to even know
what you're leaving out of the equation,
right? You don't like this guy like ask
ask fish hat to tell you the difference
between a ukareotic cell and a
proaryotic cell. He couldn't do that.
And then ask him to tell to explain the
difference between a modern proarotic
cell and a and an ancient one or a
modern proarotic cell and what could
have been a protoell. He's not going to
be able to do that. Right? So there's no
basis to even have this conversation
with a person like that. Fish Hat
doesn't get it and he doesn't want to
get it. Meyer gets it but he's lying
about it. right? Or I mean the degree to
which Meyer understands molecular
biology, I I'm not sure. Uh he knows
certainly more than the average person,
but nowhere near what what what a
molecular biologist knows that could
actually uh very readily explain a lot
of these processes. But uh it doesn't
matter, right? It's his job to pretend
that that doesn't exist. So
>> it's just bas basic molecular biology,
you know?
>> That's what I'm saying. But I but as a
as a person who hasn't taken those
courses and really seen it all like to
like look at it and see the mechanisms
and see the little guy walking along the
string and like all these things it just
it's it's every [\h__\h] time the dining
right. So there's a there's a protein
that kind of looks like feet walking and
they're like oh my god there's no way
that that could be anything other than a
little guy with a mind going I want to
walk along the tubule therefore god.
Like it's just so [\h__\h] disingenuous.
And then these ass hats have the balls
to whine about people very accurately
and repeatedly calling them out for a
god of the gaps argument, right? All
they're doing is going, "Look how crazy
that is. How did that get there? I don't
know. Must be God." It is. There is no
more uh quintessential God of the gaps
approach than that. Than just going,
"Look at how crazy that is. Must be
God." Right? You could say that about
anything we've never understood, right?
Anything about about stellar formation,
planetary formation, geological
features, mountains, volcanoes, etc. We
know now how that [\h__\h] forms, right? We
used to not and we would go, "Oh, all
that [\h__\h] is gods, multiple different
gods." Um, and then we figured out what
it is. So, you not understanding
something, therefore God, is not a valid
argument, and it never will be. I'm
sorry.
It it strikes you in a way beyond what
even a verbal description does. Right.
>> And so so again, nothing against
>> No, that's why we wanted to bring it to
life. Pictures worth a thousand words
and a moving picture that's accurate to
what we know scientifically worth many
orders of magnitude more.
And uh yeah, what you're describing is
the kines walking motor protein with
step by step toes vesicles of material
along uh along uh fibers in the in the
cell and that function essentially like
railroad tracks. So there's a there's a
a whole automated factory of of
materials being moved from one place to
another to where they're needed. Uh
that's just one of many molecular
machines. We depict the the the ATP
synthes which is the turbine that's
responsible for producing the energy
rich ATP molecules that make all
metabolic processes possible. We depict
the fleeller motor or the little rotary
engine that Michael behe has made
famous. Of course you how are you going
to not show the fleell a as though
Michael behe made the bacterial fleellum
famous. the [\h__\h] kind of sentence is
that uh Beehey made uh the the [\h__\h]
argument uh that the flegellum means God
exists famous. He coined the irreducible
complexity [\h__\h] that has been so
thoroughly debunked it's not even funny.
Um uh but yeah, it's uh it's just look
at how crazy this [\h__\h] is there for God.
That's all it is. And you can say, "Oh,
it's like a railroad blah blah blah."
No, it's not like a [\h__\h] railroad. um
how about you teach your viewers the
actual mechanisms by which these
proteins operate right why can't you go
well this is exactly what's happening on
the molecular level it's not a little
guy thinking right this is what's
happening uh and and this is because
this gene codes for that protein and it
serves a function so it's selected for
they'll never approach this in good
faith they won't they I mean obviously
they won't it's a propaganda
organization but you know
>> um and that's just that's just one then
we get into the the the digital
information processing system and we
show the the information processing
system or one of them there are two
major information processing systems in
the cell one for the replication of
information called DNA replication and
one for the expression of information in
the form of proteins and we show that
that that system in a step-by-step way
in a kind of living living color it's
pretty awesome so uh with with narration
from one of our top scientists Douglas
Axe, who did his PhD at Caltech and had
a long-term research appointment at
Cambridge University. So,
>> one of our top scientists who is not a
scientist, Douglas Axe, the [\h__\h]
poser.
Uh, yeah, not a scientist. He had a he
had a long-term research position at
Cambridge. Long-term research, man. He
must have published a lot of papers. He
must have published a lot of zero papers
in his long-term research position. It's
so pathetic. They're just like, "Look at
all our super awesome scientists that we
have." See, we're not just propagandists
uh posing as scientists. We have awesome
scientists that do literally no research
and publish zero papers. Axe had one
fake paper um that if you watch my Axe
video, I tear uh tear apart. Um they're
ju it's just poser after poser after
poser that are just like hey I got a PhD
so that I could lie more convincingly
never contributed to any field of
science whatsoever but you have to think
that I'm credible because I wear a suit
and I talk uh confidently and you have
no idea what the [\h__\h] I'm saying but
just trust me. Uh it's so pathetic. One
of our top scientists. Great job Myer.
Awesome. really some really top
scientists in the in the film and uh but
but you're right the aesthetic and
visual dimension of this brings this to
life.
>> Yeah. No, it was also great to see in
the documentary the different voices
that you brought in. It wasn't all, you
know, theist even like I I love to see
that agreement within the scientific
community around some of the core uh
facts that were being described. And
then, you know, I like how you guys
handled it, too, where it's like, let
the implications of this kind of just
rest on you. Just ponder this. You know,
at times you didn't push it like in a
over the top way, but it's just like,
man, there's I mean, so one thing I
wanted to go to here, I got to be
sensitive on our time, Dr. Meyer,
because I I could literally talk to you
for hours. So, I got I got to keep the
ball roll. Yeah, that's a tactic, by the
way, right? They they they learned their
lesson. They used to push creation
science and overtly dis uh refer to the
Christian God. And then they realized
that uh right there was uh Edwards via
Gillard uh decision prevented them from
uh that in their quest to to infiltrate
the public school uh system. And so they
realized, hey, this is going to be more
effective if we don't overtly mention
the Christian God. Everyone, all of our
target audience is thinking Christian
God, right? If you're like, "Ooh, this
must have come from a designer." But
what kind of designer could it have
been? I don't know. I don't know what
kind of designer of the [\h__\h]
Christian God. And then if you talk
about talk to them individually, right?
Demsky says it all the time, right? It
this only makes sense in the context of
Christ or whatever. Um, so they they on
the side obviously encourage, "Yeah,
we're talking about the Christian God,
guys." Obviously, um they just they
realize that their propaganda is more
effective if they don't seem like
they're proilitizing, but they are,
right? It's religious propaganda. The
ball rolling, but I want to I want to
stay on this point, too. So, let me let
me go. This is what I was going to
transition into is you brought up your
Wikipedia page and sort of the
pseudocientific accusation and obviously
all that that really is. We we talked
about this on our last podcast is just a
pre-commitment to methodological
naturalism, right? I want people to
>> No, it's educated people sniffing out
your [\h__\h] pseudocience and debunking
it. Recognizing that you make facious
arguments and color them with scientific
terminology to make it seem like
science. That's what it is. This [\h__\h]
methodological natural science is
science doesn't say gods and souls. Why
is science so mean and not saying gods
and soul? Because that's not what
[\h__\h] science is. Science does not
resort to supernatural explanations
ever. Okay? You have to get past this
fish hat. You have to learn what science
is and [\h__\h] deal with it. Okay? It's
it's the study of the natural world.
That's what it is. Really understand how
silly that is to say like if you could
just help walk someone through that. If
you if you're seeing all kinds of
evidence pointing in a particular
direction, but you've decided at the
front, we're going to call that that
evidence. We're going to call that a god
of the gaps if it points us there. We're
just going to say no matter what, it's a
gap because we said so. It's a gap. It's
not a gap because you it it's a gap
because you're pretending it's a gap,
right? There's no preconceived uh notion
here, right? We're looking for
explanations and and you guys are going
look at the crazy thing. We don't know
how the DNA how the little guy going I
don't know must be gone. It's a [\h__\h]
god of the gaps. I don't know what
you're not seeing about it. Right? You
are the one with the preconceived
ideological commitment that God must
have exist that God must exist and have
created everything. That is what you are
bringing to the table. Stop projecting
because we set the parameters on the
outset. So now anything that points
there we're calling a god of the gaps
rather than wait a second there's just
all kinds of of evidence pointing in the
direction of intelligent design if you
except no there's not there's literally
none it's religious propaganda. Sorry
just don't start with
like the the the firmly held belief that
there is no god. We we we know that's
true. We know nobody [\h__\h] says that
there are scientists who believe in God.
Stop with this [\h__\h] straw man. Right.
There's a difference between theism and
creationism. Creationism, the idea that
God went flippity flabby flu. Oh, I made
the DNA and now we got the life and we
blah blah blah is to is categorically
different from there is a deity of some
kind that created the universe and it
unfolded accorded according to uh
natural uh scientific principles. Um I
don't believe in in that one either. Um
but people who do and there are
scientists who do they are not engaging
in pseudocience right that's they have a
they they have they have a religious
belief that does not infringe on science
right creationism infringes on science
not theism necessarily. Um so you're
just trying to rile up uh people of
faith by going all the scientists are
mean atheists. Well, they're [\h__\h]
not. There are religious scientists.
Okay, you're just lying. Know that
there's no God. So therefore, we call it
a God of the gaps argument any time that
something points us in that direction.
Like, how can you just help?
>> Yeah, let's Yeah, let's break it down.
And we'll start with that big hairy term
that you threw out there, methodological
naturalism and methodological
materialism. The Darwinian mechanism of
mutation and selection which has long
been posed as a kind of designer
substitute mechanism cannot build those
systems then perhaps they look designed
because they really were designed. But
there's an even deeper consideration
that points to intelligent design in
biology.
One of the most brilliant theories of
modern science was formulated by an
American J. D Watson
and an Englishman FHC Crick.
>> As soon as we met, we found that
although we had very different
backgrounds, we had a lot of things in
common.
>> Wow. Looks good, right guys? That looks
like a good uh good little popcorn
flick. Um, yeah. So, uh, the Darwinian
mechanism of of of, uh, mutation and
selection can't make all this [\h__\h]
because I say so, therefore, God. Uh,
well, because I say so is not a [\h__\h]
argument, Meyer. I'm sorry. Uh, and as
I've proven in so many videos on all of
you douchebags, you will never honestly
represent what those processes are. You
pretend that all mutations are point
mutations. You ignore any kind of macro
mutation. Uh gene duplication and
neofunctionalization, denovo genes,
entire chromosome duplication and then
neofunctionalization of any uh coding
region on that chromosome. Um there are
incredible uh there are ways for
incredible change to occur very rapidly
even over a singular generation. Uh and
you just pretend that it's not there.
You just pretend it doesn't exist. I've
called you guys out for this [\h__\h] so
many times. I've done it in half of the
videos on you guys because you say this
crap all the time. You just blindly
assert uh faciously assert that mutation
and selection cannot produce sufficient
uh biological diversity and you're just
lying like lying piece of [\h__\h] liars
because that's what you are. Okay, let's
go. Man, that was so much longer for a
15minute video. Now we've got a 20
minute one. Uh I'll try to get it a
little uh faster this time, but uh Okay,
so this one is we're with Fish Hat
again, and it's Steven Meyer reacts to
viral science lies. Brilliant takedown.
Trust me, guys. This is a brilliant
takedown. There's science lies that went
viral. Let's expose the lies. We're not
the ones lying. We're exposing the lies.
Okay, let's check it out.
>> This cartoon tells a wonderful story.
It's not plausible scientifically at mo
at almost every point along the way.
This short video is u
it's I think to chemists it would be
offensive to talk about blobs. You need
specificity in chemistry to build
anything.
>> Yeah, this is Veritassium. 20 plus
million subs, 7.7 million views. a very,
I would say, good and to many convincing
presentation of kind of the
materialistic story of how life began
here on planet Earth. Anytime that you
have a question, comment, concern,
anything, just like holler and I'll and
I'll pause it right away.
>> Sure.
>> Where we are now, there is nothing.
Well, not really nothing, but nothing
interesting. There are only simple
things like these blobs. This one might
be a carbon dioxide molecule or it might
be cyanide. We don't know for sure what
they are, but we Oh, come on, Derek. CO2
is linear. HCN is hydrogen cyanide.
Sorry, I'm not I'm not going to nitpick
Derek too much. Just that that from
coming from chemistry standpoint, I had
to point that out. Do know that these
compounds are very simple. So, for now,
they'll just be blobs floating around
our void. In fact, much of what we'll
encounter along our journey here are
just hypotheses. A lot of Earth's early
history is still a mystery, so keep that
in mind. Now, every so often, our blobs
get a surplus of energy, maybe from a
ray of UV light or a nearby hot source.
This is the first major upgrade to our
void, excess energy, as it allows our
blobs to interact with each other. Most
>> Yeah. So, this is something that I've
said in in a lot of my debunks,
especially for the James Tour stuff, is
that th this is an aspect of prebiotic
chemistry that the propagandists will
never talk about. They will always try
to imply that the laws of thermodynamics
prevent the self assembly of ordered
structures and sh. It's actually the
complete opposite. Uh the second law of
thermodynamics specifically prompts the
self assembly of ordered structures as a
way of dissipating those free energy
gradients that are coming in. So
sunlight specifically whatever whichever
wavelength we're talking about um I mean
UV yeah UV and and but and but you know
other wavelengths as well. Um so when
you have a a gradient of free energy um
that energy uh that is continuous right
with the earth is an open system. It's
not a closed system. We're receiving
energy from off of earth uh namely the
sun um sets of molecules will
self-organize so as to dissipate the
free energy gradient and export disorder
to the universe. Right? Second law of
thermodynamics says that uh for any
spontaneous process the entropy of the
universe increases. Right? So
propagandists will try to misrepresent
that law and pretend that it says that
that no order can arise spontaneously
whatsoever. That's [\h__\h] insane. Uh
when water freezes to get ice or a
snowflake or something like that, uh
that's order happening spontaneously.
that happens spontaneously because when
that order forms it is the uh it is
forming uh some kind of uh pattern that
that makes the system go down in energy
and that energy is tra is is uh released
to the surroundings. So the so the the
the overall uh dispersal of energy
increases. So the entropy of the
universe increases. So when order forms
locally that's actually entropically
favorable. All right. the energy is
released and the entropy of the universe
uh increases. So um I talk a lot about
work from iigen and some other stuff in
the 70s that that shows how how uh how
uh abiogenesis in particular um is is
prompted by thermodynamics. Right? So
anytime you hear an apologist talk about
abiogenesis violates the thermodynamics
blah blah no they have no [\h__\h] idea
what they're talking about. It is the
precise opposite of the truth. the laws
of ther thermodynamics prompt the
formation of ordered structures and in
particular life so as to uh dissipate
the the free energy gradients that are
streaming in So, so that's a that's a
good point, right? Dererick is saying
you have all these molecules, but you
have a source of energy that's coming
in. You could have heat, uh you can have
uh light, right? These are that's that's
happening. Most of the time, this
interaction leads to nothing. But
sometimes these blobs can combine into
more complicated compounds.
Here's a simple simulated example where
we only have four red blobs. Right now,
they are all individual particles. But
each time step we move forward, let's
say there's a 10% chance that all four
combine into one red mega blob. Now,
imagine this mega blob isn't very
stable. For every time step it's alive,
it has a 95% chance of falling apart
back into the four smaller blobs. If we
add more of these red blobs into the
mix, you'll notice that they rarely ever
come together. On average, a mega blob
only exists around 10% of the time. But
if we were to reduce the chances of the
mega blobs dissolving to only 1%, the
void would suddenly be filled with them.
This fact hints at an important law. So
yeah, it's obviously very very overly
reductive because it is for a general
audience. So you're you're not getting
there's no specificity of what molecules
he could be talking about. I mean that's
on purpose, right? Nobody the the lay
person is not going to understand what
these specific molecules are. what what
he's saying is that you can have
chemical reactions uh occur. Uh so you
can have synthesis and you can have
decompositions, right? But it depends
what you're forming, right? Something
can be very stable or can be very
unstable. If if you have chemical
reactions that are proceeding in the
direction of enhancing stability, then
you're more likely to retain order as it
forms. I mean, not order, but just
you're getting more complex molecules,
right? Chemistry has to happen on the
way to aiogenesis, right? Nobody is
denying that we're starting from small
molecules, right? We're starting from
ammonia uh methane uh uh you know
formaldahhide or uh you know uh uh you
know carbon dioxide we're small
molecules with two three four five atoms
uh that is at the we're at the very
beginning stages and and these molecules
are obviously highly abundant um can be
seen you know all they're just we can
take them for granted that they're there
that's not a problem.
law that governs our void. The law of
stability.
Unstable blobs fall apart and vanish.
Stable ones endure.
>> One
thing.
>> Now watch what happens if we speed this
up dramatically. Maybe a couple of years
per second, maybe even a couple million.
>> You can see our blobs keep getting
random jolts of energy. So they combine
with others to form more complex
compounds.
Most attempts fail and fall apart, but
every so often, by pure chance, you get
a compound that is more stable than the
blobs it's made of. Sad.
>> This doesn't happen because the blobs
want to build more complex structures.
It's just because these new
configurations happen to be more
favorable in the environment. And now,
when these complicated compounds become
abundant enough, they too get a chance
to combine, making our void increasingly
complex.
And one day, by accident, this causes an
extremely unique shape to form, one with
a special property. See, the blobs it's
made of just happen to attract similar
blobs from the surrounding environment.
This red blob always attracts green
blobs, and this purple blob always
attracts yellow ones. And piece by
piece, all these blobs attract their
opposite.
>> Yeah. I mean, I there was a little
disclaimer that said this process is
simplified or simplification. Yeah.
This is very overly reductive, right? I
mean, we don't see a backbone. This is
RNA presumably, right? Um, and so just
what we're what's being explained is
just that uh by chance the the concept
of base pairing arose, right? And it's
just look all of these all this vast
potentiality of of of uh of of compounds
that can be made and this idea of
complimentarity, right? you have
millions and millions of years and and
uh don't forget that chemical reactions
happen on the order of picos seconds. So
a second to humans uh versus a second to
molecules, a second to molecules on the
molecular world is a trillion times
longer. So we're talking about an
unthinkably long span of time uh that
nature has to play and uh and and figure
out uh some interesting combinations.
And don't forget, by the way, that there
are uh hundreds of billions of stars in
the Milky Way galaxy and hundreds of
billions of galaxies. So there are um
virtually limitless opportunities for
interesting chemistry to arise. Um and
so the nobody should look at uh these uh
these um eventualities in prebiotic
chemistry, right? Something interesting
happening like base pairing arising and
go that's so crazy. What are the odds? I
mean what are the odds? One in a
billion, one in a trillion, one in a
quadrillion, one in a quintilion,
doesn't matter. You have more than that
many opportunities in the universe uh
for such events to occur where we have
when you have even when you're dealing
with infinite decimal odds, if you're if
you're lining that up with astronomical
opportunity, then it becomes a certainty
that such interesting things will occur.
So uh so base pairing, right? That's an
important uh thing because we're going
to be talking about replication. If in
order for replication to occur, there
has to be a template and then something
that you know the what that template is
producing. So base pairing is obviously
necessary to to have evolved. So let's
go from there until their counterparts
suddenly snap into position next to the
original shape. Now this shape goes on
to do the same thing. Its green blobs
attract red ones and yellow ones attract
the purple until another shape yet again
snaps into position. This new shape
looks exactly like the original. What
just happened fully spontaneously is
replication. One shape became two. This
marks the birth of the first replicator.
We don't know exactly what this
replicator looked like. It might have
been a single standalone molecule or a
group of molecules that worked together
to replicate. There's a lot of debate on
this today. So instead, let's represent
the replicator as a character. How about
>> Yeah. I mean, it's almost certainly RNA,
right? Because when you look at the
properties of RNA um in terms of both
replication and other catalytic
activity, right?
RNA that can influence uh polyeptide
synthesis. Uh just RNA ends up being so
versatile that it's hard to imagine the
first replicator being anything other
than RNA. I don't you know what I mean?
I maybe there's more debate about this
in origin of life research than I than
I'm aware of. But I I don't know. I I
would be it's hard for me to imagine uh
anything other than RNA being the first
replicator. But uh but the the lay
person audience does not know what RNA
is really in any sophisticated way. So,
make it a character. You know, that's
that's fine. Let's do that.
>> This one here. Perfect. Keep in mind,
it's still just a lifeless molecule, one
without any intent or purpose.
Now, you might think that the chances
for the replicator to form were
extremely unlikely. But in our void,
where we have hundreds of millions of
years to play with, what might seem
impossible to us becomes virtually
inevitable. And the thing is, the
replicator only has to arise once. Once
it's here, it can take the simpler
compounds available in the environment
to copy itself at a much faster pace.
And so it does that until it entirely
fills our void. At least that's what
you'd expect. But there is a I love fish
hat going like you going to jump in.
This is this is making a little too much
sense. It's start my skin starting to
burn. The knowledge is seeping in. I
What am I going to do? You got to you
got to jump in and and tell me how this
is [\h__\h] Please, before I start
understanding how prebiotic chemistry
could have worked. Come on, Meyer. Help
me. He's a little He's He's suspiciously
quiet. I wish I thought he would have
jumped in by now. Flaw in the process.
See, during the replicator's conquest of
the void, one of its copies makes a
mistake.
Perhaps a stray ray of UV light hits it
during the replication process, or the
replicator uses a building block it
wasn't supposed to. As a result, what
we're left with is a new shape which is
slightly different from its parent.
>> Right? So there are multiple mechanisms
by which mutation can occur. Uh so there
is replicative error. Um and so we
understand that very well in the context
of DNA replication. Uh but with RNA
replica actually RNA replication uh has
even lower fidelity right you have much
higher opportunity for mutation because
you don't have the uh a double stranded
situation. Um and then beyond that you
can like UV light can uh can strike a
particular atom in one of the bases and
uh and cause the compl the the the rules
of complimentarity for that base to
change such that it will uh interact
electrostatically with a different base
more efficiently and thus code for for a
different base. So um yeah so so uh
mutation uh mutation u puts the variety
in in the in the pool here right so we
have a strand that is replicating but uh
but without perfect fidelity so you have
variety now and then that is where
natural selection first came into play.
So natural selection uh started
happening before life existed. Right?
This is something that people have to
understand is that you have natural
selection operating on sets of
molecules. Um and this has been
demonstrated empirically very thoroughly
many by many different uh research teams
that uh that are that ribosymes will
evolve by natural selection. you get uh
you have uh there's uh resources that
are required for for replication and
then uh certain uh sequences will will
uh prol proliferate more because they
can better utilize the resources for
towards self-replication. So it's all
totally mindless, right? It's just
statistical dynamics. It's blind
statistical dynamics. If a particular
sequence um uh uh replicates more
efficiently or more rapidly, you'll get
more of that thing. That's all there is
to it. We're not even at life yet. And
we're and we're showing natural
selection. That's what uh people have to
understand. Especially uh especially you
fish hat, pay attention. And so its
properties might be slightly different
too.
This error might be harmful. For
example, it might make the copy less
stable. It could be beneficial, making
the copy better at replicating. Or it
could be neutral, not changing the
replicator in any meaningful way. This
marks the final milestone in our void,
mutation. Many species of replicators
now occupy the void. And what they do is
they replicate themselves.
>> Might be a good place to stop, Brandon.
That's
>> perfect.
>> Quite a quite a story that's being told.
Um, one of the first things that jumps
out.
>> Quite a story. Too much science. Uh, I
don't know how much more this is going
to play. So, it it's a pretty good
video. Um, a a little bit too
anthropomorphized for my taste. Um, but
this is for a general audience. I I make
content for a general audience, but I
don't shy away from the more technical
explanations. Obviously, when I get into
when I explain systems chemistry, I get
into the weeds and and really talk about
systems chemistry. Most people don't
want to watch that. They'd rather watch
this. Uh, so you know, Derek is making a
video that is going to reach more people
and it did. It got, you know, millions
and millions of views. So, um, and and
it I think it's good. I think it's like
if if a video like that helps millions
of people understand, wow, mutation and
selection predates life. How crazy is
that, right? So, I bet a few million
people learned that for the first time
watching this video. So, that's good.
That's a good uh thing to to to help
people understand. Um, okay. So this so
all systems chemistry is is probably the
main area that the DI and tour all these
ass hats just flat out are like no not a
thing right in our debate I kept trying
to talk about replicators and and my and
and tour is just like no they never did
it it's no that's not real and it's just
like all right what do you even do with
this [\h__\h] like I'm showing you papers
where they achieve 20fold uh
amplification and you're just going
nuh-uh Nuh-uh. That's not real. I don't
want it. No. Um, that's all they've got.
So, Meyer's going to do that. So, Tour
does that. So, Meer's going to do that.
Uh, they they teach each other how to be
disingenuous pieces of [\h__\h] Uh, Demsky
teaches to how to be a disingenuous
piece of [\h__\h] about specified
information. So, I'm sure that Tor
taught Meer how to be a disingenuous
piece of [\h__\h] in denying the entire
field of systems chemistry. So, let's
check that out. out to me is that the
affirmation that all this is taking
place in a in some kind of pond
prebiotic ocean. We hear that all the
time. Turns out that the u
the the
polymers the long information bearing
biomolecules such as proteins and DNA
will not polymerize in water. Okay. So
we have heard
>> really you sure about that Meyer?
because I've made a [\h__\h] ton of content
showing that yes they [\h__\h] can. Uh
this is all you ass hats have is nuh-uh.
Um Tor says, "Oh, it's uh it's
endrogonic uh amino acid polymerization
is endrogonic." That's true. That's why
you have chemical activators. And I
showed paper after paper after paper of
prebiotically plausible chemical
activators that will do it. And that's
not all. There's other mechanisms such
as wet dry cycling which has been
demonstrated in analog prebiotic
conditions. Dave Demer's team, they go
in, they put the monitors, they let some
of the the a few cycles of wet dry
cycling uh occur, right? There's they're
dry out and then they get wet again, dry
out, and they get wet again because you
have these natural cycles. You have day,
night, you have warm, cold um and uh and
and they polymerize. They collect uh uh
fairly long oligr uh from this process.
So you have you do not have a [\h__\h]
leg to stand on, Meyer. You lying piece
of [\h__\h] when you say that they will not
polymerize in water. Yes, they [\h__\h]
do. You're lying. I'm sorry.
>> I've heard this uh over and over and
over again all the way back to Darwin.
The idea that that life began in a warm
little pond or we hear about the
prebiotic soup and um
>> yes, you'll listen to tour whine and cry
all day long about how much he hates
soup. Sorry, these uh that all of this
has been validated. So, I mean, the the
hotring model is very uh convincing. I
hardressed I would say that that's kind
of where I would lean is a hotring
model, but it doesn't have to be a
hotring. Uh hotring is just very useful
uh because of the heat and the but like
a mineral tidal pool uh also um uh
offers wet dry cycling. Um hydrothermal
vent is another model. I don't I I don't
know how where that stands as much
anymore. Um but uh you know these are
all competing ideas but uh yeah the idea
I mean a a smaller pond uh makes more
sense in terms of um chemical reactions.
You know things finding each other in a
in a pool of water as opposed to the
[\h__\h] ocean, right? That's a little uh
I mean it's much much harder. So uh
yeah, my my money is on some kind of a
hotring or tidal pool or something for
these uh first sets of of of replicators
uh to arise. And they have a lot of
mechanisms available to them, right? I I
talked about a bunch of different uh
prebiotically plausible chemical
activators. Those are in solution,
right? also have catalytic mineral
surfaces where uh where components can
come down and chemistry is catalyzed
upon the mineral surface and then go and
then you have more incoming. Um so
there's lots of mechanisms for this
chemistry to occur. Meyer is both is
both too dumb to understand them and is
lying about them not existing. So I'm
sorry
>> as professor Jim Tur has pointed out in
a number of his uh articles and videos
uh polymerization of the subunits of
those large molecules is unfavorable in
an aquous environment. It's it's run
energetically it's going the wrong way.
So yeah it's endergonic. That's why you
have chemical activators and that's why
you have wet dry cycling where they dry
out and then get wet again. Uh yeah,
sorry I'm not going to do this like five
ten times, but uh yeah,
>> that that's just part of the mythology
that just gets repeated over and over
and over again. Um the idea also that
you can zap things with energy and get
what you need. Um this goes back to the
Miller Yuri experiment in 1952, 1953.
And what Miller and Yuri did was they
didn't
>> it doesn't go back to Miller Yuri,
right? They're not that's not the they
they'll never shut the [\h__\h] up about
[\h__\h] up about Miller Yuri because they
want to brainwash people into thinking
that all of origin of life research is
contained in this one experiment 70
years ago. It's so [\h__\h] disingenuous.
Like do you know how like just
pretending that all of this science
since then just doesn't exist? Um, and
I'm sorry, all of the mythology. You're
talking about mountains of empirical
science that is all of this research
published in peer-reviewed journals.
You're just pretending it doesn't exist.
I mean, wet dry cycling, god damn it.
They put the monomers in the hotring,
wait a little bit, and then they collect
the oligmer. There is, you don't even
have this [\h__\h] excuse of, oh, well,
they were in a lab and they did lab
stuff with the human mind lab stuff. You
don't even have that [\h__\h] It's in a
[\h__\h] hot spring and they get
polymerization. So, you're just
pretending it doesn't exist. I'm sorry.
>> Indeed, uh using a spark discharge
chamber tried to simulate lightning
striking simple gases like hydrogen
cyanide or hydrogen and uh uh in the
early atmosphere. And what they got was
they got two or three of the protein
forming amino acids but they got those
protein forming amino
>> no they got all of the proteinogenic
amino acids and more. Uh you are lying
again right in the 50s they detected
three or four uh later analysis of the
of the residue um on the on the
containers that they saved revealed that
there was like 26 different amino acids
in there. So they made I I believe all
of the proteinogenic uh amino acids uh
right the ones in proteins today plus
other ones. Um so you just you're
addicted to lying meer. Anyone can
Google this [\h__\h] and see that you're
[\h__\h] lying. amino acids in a vessel
with lots and lots of other uh chemical
uh uh
uh subunits and those uh other chemicals
are subject to what are called
interfering cross reactions. So right
away the amino acids would react with
those those other things that were
produced in the
>> Yeah. Nobody gives a [\h__\h] right? The
Miller Yuri was 70 years ago and all it
is used for when we point at it is go oh
simple molecules from simple molecules
you can get amino acids and other
interesting compounds right it's it's to
go from here to here that's it nobody is
pretending that oh in that vessel we're
going to get a cell now nobody's [\h__\h]
saying that it's just like hey very
simple uh very simple compounds and and
energy in input yields
biologically relevant monomers. That's
it. Um they will ne they will never talk
about like 21st century chemistry in
this field. They'll all just go Miller
Yuri Miller Yuri. Shut the [\h__\h] up about
Miller Yuri, right? It's like it's like
whining about Darwin when talking about
modern evolutionary biology. Has nothing
to [\h__\h] do with it. No modern
evolutionary biologists are Darwinists.
That was way a long time ago. Darwin
would have no [\h__\h] idea what's going
on in evolutionary biology. He didn't
know that DNA existed. He didn't He knew
[\h__\h] all about what we're doing now in
evolutionary biology. It's like
referring to to quantum physicists as
Newtonists. That's how dumb it would be
uh to be doing what you're doing by by
fixating on ancient science and
pretending that it is accurately
descriptive of the forefront of the
field. every time with you guys
>> experiment creating a
sludge called melanoidin which is the
curse of the prebiotic chemist. Um it's
not just getting the the subunits that's
sufficient you have to get them to to
polymerize and that's a problem in an
aquous environment.
>> No it's not
>> even in a hydrothermal vent. Um, but
it's also it's also a problematic
um to keep it's also a big problem to
keep those amino acid subunits from
interacting with other chemicals that
are in in the in the uh collection
vessel
>> like what what other be specific what
what are amino acids reacting with uh uh
you know uh rapidly such that they can't
polymerize. You want to you want to tell
me that?
So this this little cartoon video just
uh washes over a huge number of
problems. Also the early earth's
atmosphere was not um reducing as those
experiments presupposed and so it was
energetically unfavorable to the
formation of the amino acid subunits. So
you've got multiple problems. You got
the all the the simul
>> no. Uh so there are plenty of models
that work in both reducing and oxidizing
atmosphere. And you're pretending that
we need some kind of specific
atmospheric conditions to get amino
acids. [\h__\h] Amino acids form in
the vacuum of space. You idiot. We can
do spectroscopic analysis and see amino
acids floating around in space. They
don't even need an atmosphere at all. So
you're just lying. ulations that have
lent plausibility to the story that the
the the video is is telling um were done
under unrealistic conditions that did
not match those on the early Earth. The
products of those sim of those uh
simulations would be immediately subject
to interfering cross reactions. They
would furthermore not polymerize into
longchain like molecules. And the big
problem of all is that there's no
mention in this video of the problem of
information that both the proteins and
the constituent parts of the DNA. The uh
individual subunits have to be arranged
in very specific ways.
>> He didn't say anything about proteins or
DNA. Meyer, you disingenuous sack of
[\h__\h] Uh first of all, again, life
predates DNA. He Derek was talking about
abiogenesis. Why the [\h__\h] would he be
talking about DNA? Right? very clearly
that was RNA. And you're again whining
about information. Where was the
information? Where was the special magic
sauce? Where was God going like this?
Oh, here's the information now. I put
the information on the on the on the
RNA. So now it can be a thing. It's not
it. He showed the [\h__\h] he showed four
monomers, explained how how base pairing
came about, and then one is a template
for the other and then the template for
the other, right? That's it. That's the
information. the information is the
sequence of of monomers. That's it
>> in order for them to perform any kind of
function. And when they get to the whole
question of replication, they again
allied that whole problem because what
we've discovered is first of all that u
the molecule that people are proposing
as the primitive replicator that would
get natural selection and random
mutation going is an RNA molecule. And
we've been scientists have been unable
to produce an RNA that will copy more
than about 10% of itself. Maybe as much
as 20, but it only nope. Flat out
[\h__\h] lie. Lying piece of [\h__\h] Liar
tells dumb lie. And this is the exact
lie that James said in our debate. So I
don't know if they told if you told
James that or if James told you that,
but both of you are just [\h__\h] lying.
uh I nailed him with this in the debate
and he just went la
uh since the beginning of the of the
21st century. Um and so Joyce is kind of
the the the godfather of of most of
this. So he he achieved the first fully
self-replicating ribosymes. Now
admittedly at first this was through a a
liase mechanism. So not a polymerase
mechanism, a true like nucleotide at a
time thing. Um but uh but that so uh so
first of all you're you're just lying
this 10% [\h__\h] Uh I showed papers that
where there's again 20fold
amplification. So there there's no way
to get that much amplification of a
sequence if on the first round it is not
fully self-replicating. Um all of dozens
hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
papers uh with self-replicating fully
self-replicating uh ribosymes. And
furthermore
uh after the ligo the liase uh mechanism
we started figuring out with polymerase
uh mechanism as well. So uh James
Atwwaterat is one of the guys I
interviewed in uh I think it was when I
was doing the you know uh the you know
um what is it fact-checking tours uh
[\h__\h] uh performance. So I talked to
a bunch of people a a couple uh of them
in systems chemistry to talk about the
mechanisms by which these ribosymes are
are replicating. So we we have uh we
have replication by polymerase uh
mechanism as well. So and you can go
look this [\h__\h] up right it's very easy
to google this and and and look at
autocatalysis and uh self-replicating
ribosymes by liase versus polymerase
mechanism and how much progress has been
made. So, um, he's just lying. He's just
pretending that this whole, uh, sub
field isn't real. That's all it is. And
it's very complex chemistry, so he's
going to get away with it. Fish Hat
doesn't know what the [\h__\h] he's talking
about. Fish Hat is not going to go to
Google Scholar and look up uh,
self-replicating ribosomes by polymerase
activity. Uh, he he doesn't know what
any of those words mean, and his brain
would melt if he tried to read one of
those papers. He's never going to do it.
So, Meyer just says it doesn't work.
doesn't happen. And he's like, "Oh,
okay." And all the viewers are like,
"Oh, okay." Um, and that's that's where
we're at. That's where it is. Is just
lies from a liar and a credulous
viewership that just says must be true
cuz man with the tie. That's it.
>> A small percentage of the RNA molecule
have they been able to get that will
copy a section of itself in a very small
section um between 10 and 20 max. But
moreover, even that limited degree of
self-replication is dependent upon very
precisely arranged bases, the the
so-called
on DNA, the the nucleotide basis and the
basis on the RNA. Um, they have to be
arranged very specifically and they get
arranged in order to produce the the the
the primitive replicators uh the
primitive partial replicators that we
can do in the lab. The the experimentter
has to do the arranging. that has to
specify the sequence. So what's
>> Yeah, in order to do research, you have
to have something to do research with.
And so we say we're going to try these
sequences. So what? Nature doesn't have
to do that [\h__\h] Nature can just make
billions upon trillions upon
quadrillions of sequences and then some
of them will do something. That's it.
Right? There are many many
opportunities, right? You you there is
some percentage of sequences that will
be functional and nature tries a bunch
and gets some. It's not that hard to
understand
>> being simulated in an experiment like
that. Well, the need for intelligence to
generate information to generate even
limited self-replication
capability. So the these u this this
cartoon tells a wonderful story but it's
it's um it's not plausible
scientifically at mo at almost every
point along the way and this is why
origin of life research as a scientific
discipline has reached a state of
impass. There is no accepted theory of
the origin of life leading
>> it's it's at an impass. They're all just
[\h__\h] their pants and twiddling their
thumbs and going oh me oh my. What will
we do? Those guys at Discovery
Institute, sure were right. We're all
dumb and and they they sure have been
and have been showing us how dumb we are
for trying to do science. Give me a
[\h__\h] break, dude. It's like there
there's no impact yet there's no like
everyone agreeing that this is the exact
sequence of events. Of course, they're
all examining different things. And
look, to be honest, the the reality is
probably a synthesis of multiple models,
right? There's some aspect of RNA world
that has to be true, right? It's almost
certainly the case that RNA was the
first replicator. And so all of this
[\h__\h] that we're figuring out about
autocatalysis and self-replicating
ribosymes, that has to be a factor in a
biogenesis. Then you've got metabolism
first people and they're figuring out
where like this, you know, the sources
of energy uh for for all these processes
could have come from. There has to be a
synergy there, right? You can have you
can have short ribosymes that are
catalyzing deptides and tripeptides and
tetropeptides which are in turn cataly
right even very short uh oligopeptides
can have catalytic uh activity. So you
there's a synergy here. You've got
you've got uh RNA that's making some
something and this is making something
else and so you have some source of
energy and then you have replicators and
right so we don't know. Yeah. No, no one
is walking around saying we've got it
all figured out. Absolutely not. But we
have so many pieces uh very firmly
empirically substantiated, right? We
have ribosymes that self-replicate. How
is that not [\h__\h] incredible? I if if
like fish hat's brain needs to explode,
right? He Meyer cannot allow fish hat to
realize that we have demonstrated fully
self-replicating ribosymes in the lab.
He can't know that or he'll start to go,
well, wait a minute. If if if RNA can
self-replicate, then I'm I'm starting to
piece together that there's a way that
this should could have happened, right?
demonstrating sets of molecules
replicating and evolving by natural
selection kind of [\h__\h] sounds
applicable to life forming. No. Well,
we're there. We we understand that. You
know, there's there's a lot to go, but
um that's it. All they can do is lie.
No, they've only they only do 10% blah
blah. [\h__\h] bald-faced lie. Bald-faced
lie.
>> Leading scientists even in the field
acknowledged that. And even Richard
Dawkins has acknowledged that. So it's
>> Dawkins is not an origin of life
researcher. And honestly, he does not
understand the field. I've listened to
him try to talk about it. He doesn't
[\h__\h] know what he's talking about.
Sorry.
>> It's it's u it's it's quite uh almost
shocking that you would have a video
like this get 7.7 million views or
whatever it is and then have people make
these credulous comments. Um one one
other one other thing I noticed. You
mean like your idiot credulous viewers
that you make a bunch of [\h__\h] lying
the whole time and they're all like this
is so amazing. These are the best
smartest guys ever. Praise Jibus. Praise
Jibus. I love my Jibus. Tell me all the
lies that help me. Praise Jibus because
science isn't real. You're f it's just
projection all day with these
[\h__\h]
>> Lapped out at me is this appeal to time
as if that's that helps. Jim Tour, James
T, organic synthesis chemist,
nanotechnologist,
endowed chair at Rice Universe.
>> Let me interrupt you. All molecules fall
apart so fast because I say so. I'm
James Tour. Molecules fall apart. You
can't even get RNA or proteins because
they fall apart. Uh, no, they [\h__\h]
don't. Uh, and uh, I'm sure he's going
to talk about uh, Tour's fake paper that
I obliterated in in another video. So,
let's let him pretend that that's
matters and then I'll make fun of him.
university has published over a thousand
peer-reviewed papers in organic
synthetic chemistry um uh emphasizes
time and time again that molecules do
not move towards life. They s the the
natural reactions between these these
simple these simple chemicals or these
simple molecular
>> well apparently they [\h__\h] did because
life is here right molecules don't move
towards life. uh viruses exist. Viruses
are not alive and yet the particular
configuration of molecules within a
virus does move towards life, right? It
it enters cells and and uh and uh
demands uh the replicative machinery uh
be geared towards generating more
viruses. So that's an example of
molecules uh moving towards life. You
cannot sit there and say molecules don't
move towards life and just deny all of
the principles of systems chemistry that
show how yes they absolutely [\h__\h] can
right uh and and just this you know
molecules don't know about life. I've
said this as well in all the tour stuff.
Atoms don't give a [\h__\h] about molecules.
They form though, don't they? Atoms
aren't like, "Oh, I really want to make
molecules." No, they just do because of
naturalistic principles just because of
the electromagnetic force guides uh bond
formation. And then similarly now we're
you know talking about electrostatic
interactions that dictate base pairing.
These are all just naturalistic
principles. This just the [\h__\h] rules
of the molecular world is what beggets
th this uh uh hierarchical right? You
have emergent properties. There are
molecules exhibit emergent properties
that you would not get from looking at
individual atoms. And then the same goes
for for biomolelecules. And then the
same goes for an individual cell. And
then the same goes for a multisellular
uh organism, right? You have emergent
properties every step of the way. And uh
yeah, so just blindly asserting
molecules don't move towards life. They
don't [\h__\h] have to move towards
anything as though they're sentient.
It's just [\h__\h] happens, right? Chemistry
happens because of the rules of the
molecular world. That's it.
>> Substances uh
do not move in a life- friendly
direction. The extent to which they move
a little bit in a life- friendly
direction is only a product of the
intelligent intervention of the of the
prebiotic simulation experimentter of
the
>> no move a little bit. That would be like
monomers polymerizing to make
biop-olymers. Uh or biop-olymers forming
autocatalyic sets. Uh both of which are
things that we can very easily observe
and which you deny. So you're just wrong
in lying.
>> The intelligent agent. So what's being
simulated in that case? Again, the need
for intelligence to move chemistry in a
life- friendly direction. But he has a
recent paper that's even more damning to
this idea about time being the hero of
the plot. as a famous quote from George
Wald u prebiotic uh a scientist who was
interested in prebiotic chemistry back
in the 1950s he said that time is the
hero of the plot well it's not turns out
that that the processes of chemical
decay happen at much faster rates than
the processes of chemical assembly
and so if you let things run they're
>> no so yeah so he's talking about tours
dump
Um, so I made a whole video on this, but
just to give you the gist of it, James
is so [\h__\h] dumb that he takes like
uh, you know, like a polyeptide of like
a 100 amino acids or whatever, and he
just pretends that it's this long
straight chain and says, "Well, here's
the kinetics associated with wi with
with uh with one uh, peptide bond uh,
dissociating uh, from interacting with
water." And then I'm just going to
multiply that by the number of uh,
subunits. And there you go. That's how
unstable the the polyeptide is. There's
so many ways that this is wrong. It's
ridiculous. Um, number one, uh, proteins
[\h__\h] fold. They fold and then all of
the all of the, uh, all of the residues
that are on the interior are protected
from water. So, uh, proteins aren't like
a long string, right? They're blobs.
They fold into and they, uh, are
protected from degradation that way. Uh
so that's part one. Uh there are
proteins that are stable in boiling
water. So that's uh that should give you
an idea of how wrong this is that that
proteins are just falling apart. They're
not [\h__\h] falling apart all the time.
They're in your cells and they're not
falling apart. Uh so what's the problem
here exactly? Um and then secondly in in
the context of uh of prebiotic
chemistry, right? not in a cell but in
prebiotic chemistry when you can have uh
all uh when you have polymerization
taking place on on catalytic mineral
surfaces those surfaces are also
stabilizing the resulting polymer. So
there's multiple angles here to disprove
this they fall apart so fast it's so
crazy I mean it just doesn't [\h__\h]
happen. It doesn't happen in biological
systems which should cue cue you into
the fact that it doesn't happen outside
of them either. And then there are
multiple ways uh in which the the the
logic that Tor implied in that piece of
[\h__\h] fake paper that was published in a
piece of [\h__\h] fake journal uh
demonstrate that he just doesn't know
what the [\h__\h] he's talking about. Right.
Proteins fold there. It's not just here
you go water could attack any peptide
bond and it'll fall apart like so fast.
Um so citing tour I mean obviously you
know of course he's going to site tour.
that they pay him to make up [\h__\h]
for them uh to solve this problem. Um
they do not want their viewers to
understand how prebiotic chemistry could
possibly work. Uh so yeah, we're we're
going to be making fun of James quite a
bit in in some because uh James is in
that one video and then he's in the
movie I believe too. Uh I think he's
credited as being in the movie. So
hopefully I can get a copy of that movie
somehow without spend without paying any
money. Um yeah, we'll see how that goes.
are going to decay faster than than
anything will get built. And so time
actually works against you. It anything
that might arise that is is life
relevant as a a kind of building block
is going to be subject to decay much
faster than it is going to be subject to
assembly. So
>> uh this is Dr. Tur and I have a paper
coming out with a volume with the
Cambridge University Press early next
year. Um, but so many
>> I love how he's like Cambridge
University Press a as though that is
affiliated with Cambridge University.
Uh, yeah. Yeah, we we we wrote some
[\h__\h] We're self-publishing some
[\h__\h] Uh, as though we are
professors at Cambridge publishing this
incredible research. Uh, you're idiot
frauds. Uh, publishing lies for
non-scientists to read and uh and and
and be brainwashed by. So many things
have been written about about this. My
book signature in the cell has a
comprehensive critique of these
prebiotic simulation experiments. Also,
the other thing that jumped out at me
was this appeal to chance. The
information content of modest length
proteins is so immense that if every
event in the history of the universe
from the big bang 13.8 8 billion years
ago till now had been devoted to
searching for one of the possible amino
acid combinations. Um that all of those
random events would have searched but a
tiny fraction of the total combinatorial
space associated with a single uh modest
length protein of about a 150 amino
acids long.
>> Yeah. So, a couple things. Uh, any
protein has tremendous variability.
Almost every single residue could be
most of the different amino acids,
proteinogenic amino acids. There are
there are uh usually a handful of uh of
of or even only one or two highly
conserved residues in the active site of
say an enzyme. Then if you look at a
structural protein, that's not even a
thing. Structural proteins don't have
active sites. But like a receptor or an
enzyme, yeah, there's a couple highly
conserved residues in there. The rest
tremendous variability. Uh this is what
these ass hats will never talk about.
They pretend that a protein is that
specific amino acid sequence only. Uh
which is a lie because you have things
like polymerase enzymes in different
organisms that have different sequences
and they perform polymerase function.
Um, and then just obviously, you know,
almost any, you know, you change uh one
amino acid all the way over here,
nowhere near the active site to 10 of
the different amino acids, it's not
going to change the shape or the
function one bit. Um, so that's part
one, tremendous variability they pretend
uh isn't there. Uh, number two, uh,
nature is just going for uh some
function and then it can refine over
time. Um and then he's just absolutely
flatout lying about the percentage of
possible sequences in the combinatorial
space that uh that will have function
and plenty of research has been done on
this as uh upwards of at least one in a
million uh sequences will have function.
uh Shastak did did one uh fixating
specifically on at on on ATP binding I
believe it was uh binding ATP and showed
that 1 in 10 to the 11 I think it was uh
would bind ATP that's a specific
function so he's throwing around these
numbers like 1 in 10 to the 77 to the
gazillion to the bajillion uh no you're
just [\h__\h] lying you're pulling
numbers out of your [\h__\h] when actual
empirical science has been done to show
out of these libraries ies of billions
and trillions of proteins how random
sequences how many functional sequences
will arise. So it's your word versus
actual science that has been done you
lose. I do the math on this and
signature in the cell chance even
without the James Tour consideration of
the the fact that things are degrading
faster than they're building. Even if
you just assume a very favorable
environment where amino acids get to
shuffle the blobs that he was talking
about,
>> they're they're going to explore a tiny
fraction of the total possible number of
combinations there are. It's like,
>> yeah, so what? There's many many many
possibilities. Nature makes a [\h__\h] ton
of them and gets some stuff. It's it
really is that simple, man. Like yes,
you can talk about for a a sequence of
100 amino acids, how many possibilities
there are. But again, there's to get a
particular function, there's
astronomical numbers of sequences that
will achieve that function, not just
one. Right? You are misleading the
viewer every time when you pretend that
that protein can have that sequence
only. It's d demonstrabably false uh in
so many different ways. I already
explained. I'm not going to do it again.
It's like a great big bike lock with
only one combination. And
>> it is not like a bike lock with only one
combination. It's like a bike lock with
a [\h__\h] ton of combinations that will all
open the lock. Okay.
>> Um 10 the ratio actually breaks down.
It's about one over 10^ the 77th power
um possibilities for every one that will
will perform a biological function. So
you're just s it's like having a huge
bike clock only one combination and
you're turning turning turning turning
turning dials. Even 13.8 billion years
is not enough time to have a realistic
chance of finding the the one or very
few combinations that will perform
biological functions among all the ways
there are of arranging amino acids. So
this this this short video is uh
it's I think to chemists it would be
offensive to talk about blobs. You need
specificity in chemistry to build
anything.
>> Yeah.
>> And
>> it's not offensive. It's overly
reductive. Uh but it doesn't offend me.
Uh Derek makes videos for a supremely
general audience and they're highly
stylized and and well produced and uh
and and people people not everybody is
equipped to learn about uh about systems
chemistry and RNA world hypothesis and
[\h__\h] like that. I I want to encourage
people to go deeper and and get into the
specifics, but most people are not going
to do it. And so more people watch
Dererick's content than mine and that's
fine. I I I like doing what I do. Also,
I don't have the budget to make [\h__\h]
like that. Honestly, if I did, I would
make [\h__\h] like that, too. But um uh
yeah, it's just it's just a big old cope
fest over here from Meyer. I'm sorry.
Things just don't blob together. Also,
this idea that things will find their
compliments, you know, their opposites.
Well, that that that implies that that
uh um everything is highly ordered in
biological chemistry.
>> No, it doesn't have to be highly
ordered. They're in whatever pool
whatever pool all of those monomers are
in. They just they're like it happens in
a cell too. What's the problem? Uh they
it's it's an electrostatic interaction,
right? Yes, it's true. Everything's
floating around in a cell too, right?
when you're doing DNA replication or
transcription or anything like that, you
have all the monitor monomers floating
around, you do have to wait until the
molecule enters the the the enzyme or
and gets annealed, right? You have to or
whatever, you know, whatever process is
going on, you have to wait for the
collision to occur. In order for a
chemical reaction to occur, the a
collision must occur, right? So whether
it's gas or or or in a in a solution,
they're all floating around crazy, but
they're going super fast. molecules go
so fast. Chemical reactions go so fast.
Um, so you can have trillions and
quadrillions and quintilions of
molecules all react in a second. It'd be
a highly, you know, exothermic uh
situation, but it definitely can happen.
Um, so I don't know what the [\h__\h] you're
talking about. When you have a
complimentary base pairing going on, if
it's floats and lands over here, it'll
anal because it's going to make those
three hydrogen hydrogen bonds. And uh
that's very energetically favorable for
it to remain in that configuration, go
to a lower energy and release that
energy to the surroundings. That's
entropically favorable
>> in biochemistry in the sense of like a
crystal of salt that Na attracts Cl. Um
it is true that along the DNA molecule
there's a complimentary strand and A's
attached to G to to T's and C's to G's
but along the the message bearing axis
there is there are no chemical forces
that determine the sequential
arrangement and instead they're highly
irregular but quite specified to
function. They're not simply attracting
or opposite. It's not Na plus Cl. It's
not simply a complimentarity of pairing
but rather
>> well yes it is the base pairing is just
complimentary base pairing what you said
about the initial strand uh yeah that's
that is uh that is a particular sequence
that is arrived at by evolutionary
processes over billions of years. Uh so
you're either lying about base pairing
or you're just denying the time you know
evolutionary time to get the initial
template anyway
>> rather a specificity of arrangement that
is information bearing that's absolutely
necessary to life and again that that
requirement of life is also completely
elided in this in this video. So, um,
the problems with it scientifically are
legion. But it is a nice story, is it
not? And it makes you feel like, well,
maybe it could have happened that way.
>> Kind of like your nice story that God
went zip, zap, zoop. Oh my god, I got
DNA. And oh, let's see. Zip zap zoop and
I got a trilobyte now. And oh, but I
don't like that. So, now I got a
dinosaur. Uh, that's a [\h__\h] story is
what that is. Um, this is science. And
uh you can pick on Derek's overly
reductive video if you want, but you
can't hide from the entire field of
origin of life research that
demonstrates all of these principles
conclusively.
>> U and that's that's really where uh we
sort of engage this in our new film, The
Story of Everything. We contrast two
stories. The story that says that that
the universe and everything in it,
planetary system and especially life are
all the products of undirected unguided
purely materialistic processes.
>> How are you going to spin the planetary
systems? One uh we we can we can see
protostarss and protolanetary discs
forming with [\h__\h] telescopes. We can
see planetary systems forming naturally
with our eyeballs. How are you going to
spin that one into? Well, you need a god
to go. Okay, get this stuff over here.
Okay. All right, good. We got it. Um,
where do you see that? Do you see any
god hands in the universe pushing
planets and stars together? I don't.
>> And that's the story we just saw. The
new film we have, the story of
everything, contrasts that story with
the story we think is the real story,
which is that at crucial points and in
in a way all the way along the way,
there is evidence of design that that
there is behind the the material
universe, there's evidence of a mind at
work.
>> Yeah. Because you believe in an impotent
dumb [\h__\h] god that went, "Okay, I have a
universe. H well, there's these atoms.
What should I do?" Cool. Well, they're
not making molecules, so I'm going to go
zap. And oh, I got molecules now. That's
not cool enough. Maybe I'll make them
make cooler molecules. Zap. Oh, now I
got these long ones. But now I want a
something better of cell. Zap. Oh, and
now I got a cell. And just every [\h__\h]
step along the way, this idiot god who
couldn't construct a universe with with
uh with parameters set for life to
evolve by by natural uh principles has
to has to step in and like I don't this
there's nothing cool enough. I'm going
to make it better. I'm going to make a
cooler thing with my zappy god magic. Um
that's the dumb god that you believe in.
Theists believe in a in in a much better
god, a much more defensible god. I don't
believe in that one either. But uh but I
could I could wrap my head around
believing in in that God who just went
universe boom and then the rest unfolded
according to uh what we understand
scientifically. Um you believe in a
loser god Meyer which makes sense
because you're a [\h__\h] loser. So uh
that works out.
I'm so glad I played that clip for you
and got all of that because as a lay
person, all that I all that I knew was
it feels like they're just going forward
with like the Miller Guri experiments
like they just kept going and then they
got life in the lab just the way that
they told the story. Um the idea of the
globs like you mentioned just seems
utterly uh simplistic in terms of the of
how things actually are. And then there
was a lot of just so happens and just so
happens and just so happens in the mix
as well. But I'm so happy that you just
said everything that you did because um
I was so worried because science was
happening and and and it was hurting me
that science was coming into contact
with my dumb face. But then you said all
the dumb lies that reminded me how smart
and special I am for not believing
science and instead going, "Yeah, duh.
God went zip zap and and uh I I'm back
to I'm I'm back to my my old credulous
self. Uh, thank you, Stephen. Thank you
for for brainwashing me in real time and
and uh discouraging me from gathering
real knowledge. Really appreciate it.
Watching that animation and then
watching some of the beautiful intricate
animations inside of the story of
everything. It's a really stark contrast
in terms of Yeah, it's a stark contrast
because Derek's video was about a
biogenesis.
Uh, and honestly, not even. It was about
pre entirely prebiotic chemistry and you
the propaganda movie you're talking
about shows animations of the interior
of modern ukareotic cells. How the [\h__\h]
are those not going to be different? You
[\h__\h] of the level of detail and
specificity that that your documentary
film goes into that actually describes
uh the reality of what is at play versus
kind of this don't look too closely but
you can kind of imagine it. In fact,
let's even turn this little guy into a
character. let's anthropomorphize him.
So now he, you can kind of imagine he
has a will of his own and he kind of
just wants to survive and you know what
I'm saying? There was just enough of
that. He specifically said that's not
what it is. He specifically gave the
caveat. It's not a a but it's just for
the and that's what you [\h__\h] do
anyway. pretend that that you like
you're whining about the anthrop
anthropomorphization
of molecules when [\h__\h] meer is always
like look at the thing walking along the
tubule. It's like a little guy. Right.
Right. How could it be like a little guy
without a god? Right. You're you're
whining about the exact [\h__\h] thing
that Meyer does, you idiot. Like
storytelling
>> no impulse in chemicals to want to
survive, you know? And right
>> that's also a kind of weird
philosophical fallacy. Um the the the
striking thing to me is there's
absolutely no mention of information and
Watson and Crick and especially after
the Cricquence hypothesis in 1957 which
was subsequently confirmed by what we
now call the molecular biological
revolution and the idea that that DNA is
not not only has a beautiful double
helix structure but it contains
four chemical subunits
uh in alternating and irregular
sequences that are functioning like
alphabetic characters in a written
language or digital characters in a
section of machine code. Which is to
say, they collectively contain
instructions or information for building
the proteins and protein machines that
cells need to stay alive.
>> Yeah, evolution's pretty cool, huh?
>> Proteins will not assemble in a
prebiotic soup at all. First of all,
they're not going to polymerize.
>> Uh, first of all, no, you're wrong. You
can very easily get polyeptides in a
prebi prebiotic soup. That has been
demonstrated conclusively countless
ways.
>> But secondly, they're not going to
assemble with the right sequence of
amino acids so that they will fold
properly to perform the specific jobs
that are needed to keep cells alive. And
there there are are manifold such uh
jobs and therefore separate types of
proteins in cells. Yeah. So, you're
you're not going to get the specific
proteins that are coded for by genes in
a modern cell in a prebiotic context.
[\h__\h] obviously. Uh that doesn't
matter. That's why we're talking about
these systems of cooperating molecules.
So, that's where we do get a little bit.
We're not sure, right? We definitely
have RNA and we definitely have
polyeptides. The precise way in which
they interacted, I don't think we're
sure. I I mean others know more than me
about this uh experts in the field but
I'm not I don't I don't think anybody is
suggesting obviously that we know
exactly right we had these RNA strands
that are there's several
self-replicating here in conjunction
with these proteins right I don't know
exactly how it happened um but you're
just lying about the the the possibil
about uh the potentiality for all for
all these molecules to come about um and
and then poisoning the well by comparing
what they should have done prebiotically
to what they're doing in modern ukarotic
cells. It's it's completely idiotic.
>> Um hundreds and even the in the most
minimally uh minimally complex simplest
sorts of cells. So u yeah
>> the most minimally complex modern cells
you disingenuous [\h__\h] Uh yeah. So again
they always do this right. Look at the
simplest bacterium. That's the simplest
any cell could be. No, it [\h__\h] isn't.
No, it [\h__\h] isn't. It's the simplest
cell alive. Now, that a big difference.
>> Ju just the the lack of specificity
here. And we end up in the in the
documentary showing some of the
miniature machines that are built by the
code. And
>> so cool.
>> And and so you need that code to build
those machines. You can't build them
without it. And so if you just if you
don't talk about about uh DNA and RNA in
the in the story and the information
they contain, you're not going to get
replicators without information. And you
don't get information without mind.
That's that's that's the problem that
this
>> No, the problem is that you blindly
assert that with zero evidence. Uh you
can get uh random sequences of
nucleotides. Some of them perform a
function and then you get natural
selection. the the [\h__\h] machines that
you show in your piece of [\h__\h] uh
propaganda documentary are the products
of billions of years of evolution. You
leave that out every time
>> is overlooked here. Information points
to an intelligent cause. Think of think
of an analogy to what's going on in the
cell is a 3D printer. And most most
young people are familiar with these
devices where you have code and you you
you want to build a three-dimensional
structure and you write the code for
doing that. And that's what's going on
inside cell. You have you have digital
information directing the construction
of essentially mechanical parts uh for
for for protein-based machinery.
>> No, gene expression is not like a 3D
printer. That's a very dumb analogy. So,
um, and you're you're not you're not
going to the the primitive replicator
thing, especially even if it starts with
an RNA molecule, you're only going to
get an RNA molecule. There's no
explanation in that for how you get to
to the what's called the translation
system where you have digital
information directing the production of
proteins. That's that's a jump that's
that's rarely even addressed in these
RNA replicator scenarios.
>> No, it's addressed. We we can describe
we we can describe ribosymes that have
right there ribosymes can have many
different functions right so you can
have self-replication but you can also
have ribosymes that that catalyze uh uh
I I I don't know exactly I mean there
has to be some of it but um uh
polyeptide uh production uh it's
cooperative networks of molecules um so
you can't trust me to give you an
accurate assessment of of what the what
the research in the field uh is is
doing. But yeah,
>> so this is very very simplistic
Darwinian thinking. Uh and so many
things wrong with it. You're you're
you're just triggering me. That's all
you're doing.
>> That's so funny.
>> That is it. And we're done. Okay.
Uh yes, Meyer, you are triggered. Uh you
get triggered anytime you are reminded
uh what a disgusting, lying,
disingenuous, propaganda pedalling piece
of [\h__\h] you are. And I'm going to
trigger the hell out of you for quite
some time. Uh all the [\h__\h] that
you've been putting out and are
continuing to put out this year. Uh get
ready. Uh once again, I'm going to take
a big old steamy dump all over all of it
and uh there's nothing you can do about
it. Uh, and uh, it seems like it seems
like you morons have have uh, stopped
attempting your desperate damage control
hit pieces after you figured out how
much that [\h__\h] backfires because it just
gives me more ammunition to make fun of
you even more. Uh, and you've kept quiet
about me for a little while hoping that
I would uh, move on and and hit other
stuff. And I did. Uh but now uh you've
been mouththing off a lot and you're
going to have to uh deal with the with
the repercussions here because I'm going
to absolutely ruin all of your
propaganda.
So look forward to that. That went so
much longer than I thought. I was like,
"Wow, we've got a we've got a a 15minute
video and a 20-minute video." And I just
end up uh saying all this stuff. But
anyway, like I said, we've got a lot
more of uh Discovery Institute debunking
coming up. Meer tour Lennox, that one,
his crappy movie. So, uh all of that
coming up soon. Uh thanks for watching.
I'll see you next time.