The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube.  Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this.  Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.

And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes.  Right?  So you can learn from this.  Wink, wink.  Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying.  Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist.  I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it.  The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows.  “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on.  You know the one.

And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message.  I mean, look, its plain as day, right?  He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it?  Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a  name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???

But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second.  If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be?  95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0  ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).

And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.

887 thoughts on “The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

  1. Is phoodoo related to Robert Byers ?
    They both seem to have the same literary skill level.

    But a way cool video. Loved it.

  2. If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be? If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be?

    When you are afraid to propose an alternative I would say it’s fear, not blindness driving you.

    Simply present the alternative explanation!

    skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.

    But you have never presented any knowledge or thought, and there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design for skeptics to design a cancer for, there’s simply no need!

    The fact is that unless and until people like you make a positive case for something alternative explanations will fill the gap, regardless of how ‘bad’ they are in your view.

    To wit: How does life form with a plan? What is the origin of life according to phoodoo?

    Is it merely that ‘it’s too complex for it to have happened on it’s own’? Is that what you have? If so, that’s fine. It makes your screed above laughable, but we all knew that anyway.

  3. graham2:
    Is phoodoo related to Robert Byers ?
    They both seem to have the same literary skill level.

    But a way cool video.Loved it.

    Byers I believe is Eastern European so speaks at least two languages, and I only speak four, so you could be right.

    So what part of the video did you like? The part where he calls a shape comprised of the things designed to make a shape “meaningful”, or did you like the part where he says ribosomes and proteins are randomly jumbling around in solution, and that’s why you get lucky combinations?

  4. I can think of a few questions Steve Mould might like to answer.

    Very many viruses take the form of an icosahedron. Has he tried shaking a ball with twenty triangular pieces inside it?

    He has demonstrated the forming of an empty shell. How does the virus get from a capsid to becoming a nucleocapsid with its necessary contents?

    He says that the proteins are released by the ribosome and then float freely coming together by chance. How does he know that this is what actually happens? Think of twenty triangular pieces accidentally coming together and forming an icosahedron. I would like to see this demonstrated.

    Could we see a video of him performing this manoeuvre a few dozen times with the same outcome?

    He calls ribosomes robots. Robots are intelligently designed machines built to perform some predetermined function. I think ribosomes are better thought of as living beings with an integral intelligence.

  5. CharlieM,

    Well, the pieces have magnets on them so obviously they are going to stick if you shake them enough. That’s just one small part of how incorrectly, and simplistic he tries to make biology appear. I think skeptic atheists have to walk a very fine line talking about cellular biology. If they give away too many actual details, the reality is so complex, that only the most desperate fools are going to believe it is random and unplanned. That’s why they try to simple it down, and ignore all the unexplanable aspects. Some of those aspects can be seen in the linked video by the commentor which gives a much better picture of the real complexity.

    He does have another video about horizontal gene transfer and the sexilus appendage in bacteria, and if you watch that, he also tries to gloss over the details to make another point, but even glimping those details will make you shake your head and say-“Random my ass!” But he doesn’t really want to talk about that.

    I don’t have a youtube account, but I think it would be cool if someone linked to this discussion here, in case he or any of those fans want to discuss it.

  6. phoodoo,

    Viruses have so much directed activity you could call it “randomness of the gaps” 🙂

    I have never commented on youtube so it won’t be me who brings his attention to us here.

  7. CharlieM,

    That video probably exists in the same space as yours demonstrating the link from the organism to its ‘etheric’.

  8. Allan Miller:
    CharlieM,

    That video probably exists in the same space as yours demonstrating the link from the organism to its ‘etheric’.

    No link required. The organism is the etheric. the difference between the organic and the inorganic is “life”. Etheric is just another word for life.

  9. CharlieM: How does he know that this is what actually happens? Think of twenty triangular pieces accidentally coming together and forming an icosahedron. I would like to see this demonstrated.

    Well, he knows this can happen because people do experiments. How about 89 dimers (that’s 178 individual polypeptides) coming together to make a capsid?

  10. CharlieM: No link required. The organism is the etheric.

    What, they’re synonyms? What use is it then?

    the difference between the organic and the inorganic is “life”. Etheric is just another word for life.

    It may seem to you like you’re saying a lot, but it comes across as nothing.

  11. DNA_Jock,

    That’s interesting. I can’t open the paper, but I wonder how they defined accidentally, and how they showed that it was purely accidental. Very interesting.

  12. phoodoo: If they give away too many actual details, the reality is so complex, that only the most desperate fools are going to believe it is random and unplanned. That’s why they try to simple it down, and ignore all the unexplanable aspects.

    That you think this is actually happening tells us more about you then you might like.

    List the “unexplanable aspects” and then for each provide your explanation.

    You won’t do it. Because you can’t do it.

  13. DNA_Jock:
    CharlieM: How does he know that this is what actually happens? Think of twenty triangular pieces accidentally coming together and forming an icosahedron. I would like to see this demonstrated.

    DNA_Jock: Well, he knows this can happen because people do experiments. How about 89 dimers (that’s 178 individual polypeptides) coming together to make a capsid?

    From your link

    Whether in vitro or in vivo, the coat proteins and RNA strands of many T=3 viruses are able to pull off a remarkable feat: spontaneous self-assembly into a nontrivial structure with high yield. That this process is difficult to replicate in synthetic systems shows that the physics is still not well understood. We therefore examine our results in the context of general, physical models of virus self-assembly. There is a plethora of such models, which differ dramatically in terms of the role played by the RNA. By comparing our experimental results with the predictions of such models, we aim to determine what physical mechanisms are consistent with our data and what can be done to arrive at an assembly model that quantitatively agrees with experiment.
    We first note that our results caution against the construction of assembly models based primarily on static measurements, such as structural data or equilibrium binding affinities. Such models suggest that assembly follows deterministically from the formation of specific protein–protein contacts or high-affinity protein–RNA interactions. In contrast, the complex assembly pathways and failure modes reported here call for models that capture highly dynamic and collective processes.

    I think this speaks for itself.

  14. Viral capsids can spontaneously self-assemble, just like in Steve Mould’s magnet demo.
    If you disagree, Charlie or phoodoo, you will have to move past the nodding and winking.
    I need a new irony meter.
    Earlier this month, the wife sent me an interesting paper [Nguyen and Tolia npj Vaccines (2021) 6:70] about using proteins that spontaneously self assemble to form nanoparticles (useful for vaccine and antibody development, her new job). Here’s a bunch that have icosahedral symmetry, as requested by Charlie. A lot of these are actually based on regular enzymes, which just self-assemble because they have self-complementarity. Check out ferritin [eight trimers = 24], lumazine synthase, or E2p [both 60mers with a hollow core!]

  15. DNA_Jock: Viral capsids can spontaneously self-assemble, just like in Steve Mould’s magnet demo.

    Spontaneous:

    “performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.”

    Well, how about that.

    What part do you think we disagree with? Maybe the part where you said in response to Charlie saying ” Think of twenty triangular pieces accidentally coming together and forming an icosahedron. I would like to see this demonstrated.”, you responsed by saying “Well, he knows this can happen because people do experiments.”, and then you linked to an experiment which showed no such thing, in fact appears to show exactly the opposite? Is that the part you think we might disagree with?

    Wink, wink, nod nod.

  16. DNA_Jock: If you disagree, Charlie or phoodoo, you will have to move past the nodding and winking.

    Certainly. I am really curious whether virions are assembled by the Watchmaker himself or whether this just requires the etheric life principle.

    Also, I am a bit puzzled how atheism would be proven by the spontaneous self-assembly of biomolecules.

  17. Corneel: Also, I am a bit puzzled how atheism would be proven by the spontaneous self-assembly of biomolecules.

    Are you telling me you really don’t get the coded language being used in this video? If you don’t I am kind of amazed by that. You think the video is just about a magnet analogy. I state in the opening post that what you can learn about Steve Mould from this video is that he is atheist and is preaching atheism. You think I don’t know this for a fact after watching this?

    Anyone who has followed the skeptical movement should be able to spot this in a second. Most of the commentators got it, browse through them and you will see. Why do you think I quoted from the comments? To show others also get what he is trying to imply. Life isn’t guided, see, it can all happen by accident!

    When you watch Fox news do you think they are just trying to report the news. Same thing on newsmax? Why do you think others got it?

  18. Corneel,
    I would also caution you about using the term spontaneous to describe it. I showed you the definition of spontaneous.

    You better stick with hapless accidental drifting through liquids. That’s what is implied.

  19. Allan Miller: CharlieM: No link required. The organism is the etheric.

    What, they’re synonyms? What use is it then?

    Not quite synonyms. The organism is also the physical body. In the case of animals it is also the conscious body.

    I am a physical being. I am also a living being, a conscious being, and a self-conscious being.

    CharlieM: the difference between the organic and the inorganic is “life”. Etheric is just another word for life.

    Allan Miller: It may seem to you like you’re saying a lot, but it comes across as nothing.

    Perhaps it takes a bit of meditating on these ideas for them to come to mean something.

  20. DNA_Jock: Viral capsids can spontaneously self-assemble, just like in Steve Mould’s magnet demo.
    If you disagree, Charlie or phoodoo, you will have to move past the nodding and winking.
    I need a new irony meter.
    Earlier this month, the wife sent me an interesting paper [Nguyen and Tolia npj Vaccines (2021) 6:70] about using proteins that spontaneously self assemble to form nanoparticles (useful for vaccine and antibody development, her new job). Here’s a bunch that have icosahedral symmetry, as requested by Charlie. A lot of these are actually based on regular enzymes, which just self-assemble because they have self-complementarity. Check out ferritin [eight trimers = 24], lumazine synthase, or E2p [both 60mers with a hollow core!]

    That’s a nice case of synchronicity. You must have been thinking about self assembling nanoparticles about the time when phoodoo was thinking about publishing this thread. 🙂

    From the article you mentioned above: “Protein-based antigen presentation platforms for nanoparticle vaccines” (VLPs are virus-like-particles)

    VLPs have demonstrated remarkable improvements in improving the humoral immune response when used as a platform for antigens. However, VLPs can be difficult to produce due to low expression yields and the presence of host cell contaminants from expression systems. VLPs assembled in vivo can encapsulate host DNA and other host proteins, potentially due to their nature, which encourages the packaging of genomic information. Removal of such contaminants involves complex purification or in vitro disassembly and reassembly steps. VLPs also suffer from stability issues, possibly due to a lack of viral genome
    .
    Additionally, enveloped VLPs require eukaryotic host expression systems in order to acquire their lipid membrane. VLPs are well established, however, manufacturing complications hinder their adoption as platforms.

    These “self assembling structures” are difficult to produce so I think a more apt term would be “engineered self assembling structures”. They need a great deal of assistance if they are to “self assemble”.

    Because of complications during assembly human engineering can only produce low yields yet the cell manufactures them in high yields.

    Non living crystals are periodic in their growth. Genetic material can be seen as aperiodic crystals as proposed by Schrödinger. Viruses exist as a kind of transitionary form between the living and the non-living. So nucleocapsids consist of capsid coatings which act like non-living periodic crystals and they contain aperiodic crystals.

    It takes the living system to produce the non-living.

  21. CharlieM: These “self assembling structures” are difficult to produce so I think a more apt term would be “engineered self assembling structures”. They need a great deal of assistance if they are to “self assemble”.

    If you had read the paragraph you quoted more carefully, you would not have made this dumb error. The issue is not about getting these particles to self-assemble — they do that just fine, the problem is ensuring that they did not incorporate any contaminants when they do so. If you are going to inject your product into humans, the FDA and EMA are going to insist that your product is free of contaminants, and they are particularly touchy about extraneous DNA, whether from E. coli or hamster. So, the preferred way of purifying your self-assembled VLPs is to disassemble them and reassemble them in vitro. Read the paragraph!
    Of course, they are ‘engineered’, in that people like my wife stick Covid proteins onto the end of the self-assembling proteins to create effective VLP vaccines. They don’t care, they’ll self-assemble anyway.
    Remember, your original complaint was that you couldn’t imagine 20 proteins getting together ‘accidentally’. Happens all the time.

  22. DNA_Jock:
    CharlieM: These “self assembling structures” are difficult to produce so I think a more apt term would be “engineered self assembling structures”. They need a great deal of assistance if they are to “self assemble”.

    If you had read the paragraph you quoted more carefully, you would not have made this dumb error. The issue is not about getting these particles to self-assemble — they do that just fine, the problem is ensuring that they did not incorporate any contaminants when they do so. If you are going to inject your product into humans, the FDA and EMA are going to insist that your product in free of contaminants, and they are particularly touchy about extraneous DNA, whether from E. coli or hamster. So, the preferred way of purifying your self-assembled VLPs is to disassemble them and reassemble them in vitro. Read the paragraph!
    Of course, they are ‘engineered’, in that people like my wife stick Covid proteins onto the end of the self-assembling proteins to create effective VLP vaccines. They don’t care, they’ll self-assemble anyway.

    The natural assembly process has the same set of problems and probably more so in vivo than in vitro. The cellular environment is a busy place and constructing a nucleocapsid without interference must be a challenge. At least when they do this in vitro they can concentrate on this one task. Within the cell there are a multitude of processes taking place at the same time.

    DNA_Jock: Remember, your original complaint was that you couldn’t imagine 20 proteins getting together ‘accidentally’. Happens all the time.

    Is it an accident that the protein units have the binding affinities that they do? Was it by accident that Steve Mould chose such a restricted space to shake the pieces in?

  23. phoodoo: Are you telling me you really don’t get the coded languagebeing used in this video?If you don’t I am kind of amazed by that. You think the video is just about a magnet analogy. I state in the opening post that what you can learn about Steve Mould from this video is that he is atheist and is preaching atheism. You think I don’t know this for a fact after watching this?

    Always a hoot. Religious True Believers simply cannot grasp a lack of religious belief!! People who don’t believe MUST beleve, nothing else is comprehensible. So somehow they are “preaching” a non-belief. Neat trick.

    So anyone who can demonstrate that something that looks unlikely actually happens anyway, must necessarily be rejecting the notion of a magical Designer and are teaching atheism. God-Commanded and engineered events like, you know, weather and self-assumbly and stuff have over time been replaced by understanding of how these processes work. It seems reality is atheistic.

  24. DNA_Jock,

    You should be careful about what you call dumb-its a bad habit of yours and lacks self-awareness.

    DNA_Jock: Remember, your original complaint was that you couldn’t imagine 20 proteins getting together ‘accidentally’.

    Then why did you subsequently use the word spontaneously? Did you think it was the same meaning? Self-awareness Jock.

  25. phoodoo:
    Then why did you subsequently use the word spontaneously?Did you think it was the same meaning?Self-awareness Jock.

    I think I understand the difference in meaning. “Accidentally” implies intent, that something didn’t work as intended. “Spontaneously” does not imply intent. So if there’s a landslide for example, if it occurred because someone misplaced or otherwise misjudged explosives, that’s an accident. If it occurred because of excessive rainfall, that’s spontaneous.

    But I have a question for you, phoodoo. In your concept of the universe, does anything happen spontaneously? That is, without any intent. Would you say that the excessive rainful happened for the purpose of triggering the landslide?

  26. Flint,

    Then how do you think I know Steve Mould’s religious belief from a so called science video?

    Do you know Tucker Carlson’s morality and political ideology from his news casts? I do. You perhaps don’t have a clue if he is democrat or republican. Sort of a Walter Cronkite figure to you.

  27. Phoodoo seems to be pushing a false dichotomy. I tend to consider people’s motives and integrity in making claims. Who is most plausible here? Steve Mould, Tucker Carlson, phoodoo?

  28. phoodoo: Are you telling me you really don’t get the coded language being used in this video? If you don’t I am kind of amazed by that.

    Prepare to be amazed: I watched the video and spotted zero endorsements of atheism, hidden or otherwise.

    phoodoo: Most of the commentators got it, browse through them and you will see. Why do you think I quoted from the comments? To show others also get what he is trying to imply. Life isn’t guided, see, it can all happen by accident!

    I browsed the first few dozen comments and saw precisely zero mentions of atheism. If you happen to spot commenters coming away with the impression that self-assembly of viral capsids proves atheism, you can let them know I said they are dead wrong.

    phoodoo: I would also caution you about using the term spontaneous to describe it. I showed you the definition of spontaneous.

    You better stick with hapless accidental drifting through liquids. That’s what is implied.

    When I typed “spontaneous self assembly” into PubMed I got 2,379 hits, whereas “hapless accidental drifting” produced none.

    Jock was just using standard terminology. I am pretty sure it is used this way by researchers of all denominations.

  29. phoodoo:
    Flint,

    Then how do you think I know Steve Mould’s religious belief from a so called science video?

    I don’t think you do. This IS a science video. You see everthing and everyone through religious lenses. Mould doesn’t. Aha, he must be an atheist. Not that there’s anything remotely religious about his video, but that’s the point, right? If there’s no ratification of YOUR faith there, he must be an atheist.

    Do you know Tucker Carlson’s morality and political ideology from his news casts?I do. You perhaps don’t have a clue if he is democrat or republican.Sort of a Walter Cronkite figure to you.

    Carlson does not do news casts, and Fox is very careful to label his stuff opinion. If I had to guess Carlson’s religion, it would be money. He makes $40 million a year preaching lies to the gullible, while he himself is vaccinated and works for Fox, which mandates vaccines for all employees (none of whom mention this).

    Anyway, you didn’t answer my question: is there anything in your world that is NOT some indication of the validity of your faith, anything neutral?

  30. Corneel: When I typed “spontaneous self assembly” into PubMed I got 2,379 hits, whereas “hapless accidental drifting” produced none.

    Exactly.

    Thank you.

  31. Flint,

    Well, I guess one of us is right, and one of us is wrong, and there is no real way to know. Perhaps I am just seeing things that aren’t there, maybe my suspicions about Mould are just in my head. I guess one can’t really know what one’s beliefs are from a little science video. Its not propaganda or spin, its just a little science video. The only way to really know would be to..

    Wait, I have an idea. Let’s do some investigation!

    Well, what do you KNOW! I mean this is ether the craziest coincedence, or perhaps, , well, you decide Flint

    Turns out Mould is part of a yearly comedy special called “Nine Lessons and Carols For Godless People” along with such other luminaries as Richard Dawkins and put on each year by Atheist Robin Ince. Ok, but still, its one little show, who knows.

    But, but, hm, Mould is also part of The Pod Delusion Podcast, which you might have guessed from the title is an atheist, skeptical podcast. Well, maybe they just serve a nice brunch there.

    But then Mould is also featured on Skeptikeren. That’s a forum about…well, who knows, names are deceptive. But what hint might be its lists of other links of interest and support:

    James Randi Educational Foundation
    Mythbusters
    Skepsis.no
    The Skeptic’s Dictionary
    The Straight Dope
    What’s The Harm?
    Snopes -Urban Legends
    Quackwatch
    SkepticReport
    Museum of Hoaxes

    But still, …

    Of course he also is part of a skeptical comedy troup, which he actually runs (with Skeptic performer Helen Arney) called Festival of the Spoken Nerd.

    But listen, you didn’t need to know all of this. I didn’t need to know all of this, to know his views. All you have to do is know a few things about the “skeptical movement” (that thing Alan Fox claims he never heard of , hahaha). And open your eyes and pay attention. When people tell you things, don’t just assumne they are reporting. Be a skeptic…I mean a real skeptic, not the Skeptic kind of skeptic (you know, the phony kind, which has a name).

    I am right again, sorry.

  32. phoodoo: Be a skeptic…I mean a real skeptic, not the Skeptic kind of skeptic (you know, the phony kind, which has a name).

    I am right again, sorry.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/22/43-countries-criticize-china-at-un-for-repression-of-uyghurs

    More than 40 mainly Western countries have criticised China at the United Nations over the reported torture and repression of the mostly Muslim Uighurs and other religious and ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, keeping a spotlight on a region where foreign governments and researchers say one million people or more have been confined in camps.

    The 43 countries that signed the statement criticising China on Thursday expressed particular concern at “credible-based reports” of the existence of “re-education camps” in Xinjiang.

    yet:

    phoodoo: All Uighurs aren’t in jail for crying out loud. The people who are jailed are suspected of conspiring to do terrorist harm.

  33. phoodoo:
    Flint,

    Well, I guess one of us is right, and one of us is wrong, and there is no real way to know.Perhaps I am just seeing things that aren’t there, maybe my suspicionsabout Mould are just in my head.

    But what if some priest or other religious person should happen to do the same demonstration? Would that change the nature of it? Do you think the purpose of it was to illustrate some scientific principle, or was the purpose to attack or denigrate your religious faith?

    In any case, I should think you of all people should know the definition of ad hominem — rejecting something not because of the content, but because of who said it. Mould is an atheist, therefore his science is wrong? Really?

    OK, OK, we all get the wink and nod. We all know that Mould’s demonstration had nothing to do with spontaneous self-assembly, and was presented for the sole (and evil) purpose of undermining your religion. OF COURSE that’s what he was doing. In your world, everything that doesn’t ratifiy your faith is a transparent attempt to attack your faith.

    If you were ever to study math, would you start by investigating the personal religious faith of your geometry teacher?

  34. Flint: I don’t think you do. This IS a science video. You see everthing and everyone through religious lenses. Mould doesn’t. Aha, he must be an atheist. Not that there’s anything remotely religious about his video, but that’s the point, right? If there’s no ratification of YOUR faith there, he must be an atheist.

    I know this looks like “War on Christmas”-level paranoia, but I think it helps to try to understand the background here. Many Christians have a poor understanding of theology. So, whilst most people can recognize that God of the Gaps is appallingly bad theology, many Christians have taken GotG onboard without even realizing it. Same thing goes for Pascal’s Wager. So, in phoodoo’s GotG world, any naturalistic explanation for something he thinks is God’s domain, or any expansion of our understanding of the world we inhabit, is a direct attack on his God, and MUST therefore be religiously motivated. So saying that proteins can self-assemble is an attack on phoodoo’s God. By the same token, in 1750, phoodoo would have objected to the suggestion that lightning was a natural electrical phenomenon. In addition to the GotG heresy he is rocking, I enjoy the idea that he reckons his God is needed to assemble every HIV virion and every cholera toxin molecule. That is one busy and vindictive Creator!

  35. DNA_Jock: So, in phoodoo’s GotG world, any naturalistic explanation for something he thinks is God’s domain, or any expansion of our understanding of the world we inhabit, is a direct attack on his God, and MUST therefore be religiously motivated.

    But to be fair, just as phoodoo sees his god wherever he looks, I cannot see any gods lurking in anything. As far as gods go, when I look at any part of my world, I’m with LaPlace – I have no need of that hypothesis. There’s no shortage of gaps in my understanding of everything, but I have nothing to fill them. Even my best understandings are generally tentative and hostage to tomorrow’s discoveries. And even tomorrow, my understanding might only improve, never be complete. In a way I envy phoodoo his faith. Imagine the peace of mind, having no doubts. I just wish it could come across a bit less condescending.

  36. Flint,

    Oh my goodness, what an appallingly bad analysis. I explained to you that I am completely right that this is just more skeptikal propoganda. And you said, “I don’t see, that, what makes you think that, who knows what Mould beliefs are, yadda, yadda. ” That’s the take of all the numbskull skeptics-as if its not possible to see the spin. But how did I know? Coincedence?

    It doesn’t affect me, it affects the telling of truth. The truth is irrelvant to this spin-doctors. That is why I also referred to another video that explains what ACTUALLY is happening, and its so much more than just accidents sloshing in a jar. But that’s not the narrative Mould wants to tell. He wants to pretend that oh, see, its so easy, jut have some liquid and BINGO, “something meaningful from randomness!” What’s the meaningful part he showed? What’s the random part he showed? Nothing! So how is that supposed to threaten my world view?

    I am laughing at the idiocy of the skeptic-and its funny to me that you and Jock and Alan and Corneel think oh why does it threaten your God. You must be the ones who feel threaten because your side has to make up fake stories and try to pass them as real.

    There is an interesting piece by a guy named Tom Nicholas talking about another YOUtube channel, Veritasium, talking about the wonders of promise of self-driving cars. Aren’t they gonna be great, look at how good Waymo cars drive, they are amazing, I can’t wait, the technology is stupendous…And the channel is called Veritasium, which means truth, so isn’t this awesome, the truth about Waymo cars. And the vidoe just so happens to be sponsored by, Waymo cars! Another amazing coincedence! And is there anything wrong with the technology-NO!! Terrific!!

    So you haven’t explained how I knew Mould’s beliefs from a science video. Coincedence? I am clairivoyant?

    Wink, wink, nod nod brothers. There is your comedy troupe.

  37. phoodoo,
    This complete inability of theists and atheists to understand each other’s need or lack of need for faith-based explanations is perhaps fundamental. But it doesn’t need to be dealt with except by “live and let live”. Why so obsessed, phoodoo? How does someone not holding any religious belief affect you? Not at all, I suggest.

  38. In the video phoodoo posted Mould tries to show there is a gaping chasm between the stochasticity at the molecular level and the regularity at the level of the organism. Has he failed to notice the deliberate regularity at the molecular level? Complex organisms such as ourselves can be said to self-assemble, and we use stochasticity to do so. But that is just a very small part of the process. It is, on the whole, directed activity that brings about our mature form.

    His example taken from capsid self assembly which purports to show order from chaos or regularity from stochasticity simply does not work as he intends it to work. He shows a set of magnetic pieces self assembling. What he does not show is the directed activity that went into the planning and manufacture of these pieces and setting up the conditions prior to them being made to move around randomly.

    It’s amazing how complex and intricate these viral self-assembling structures can be.

    Here is an example of that complexity: The “T” numbers of some capsids are enormous. From that link:

    The triangulation number of the giant mimivirus capsid, which has not been unequivocally determined yet, is estimated to be in the 972–1200 range
    …the Flavobacterium-infecting, lipid containing phage FLiP, has a double jelly roll architecture but a circular ssDNA instead of a dsDNA genome., demonstrating the use of similar architectural solutions irrespective of genome nature…

    It was observed that two genes previously thought to be fundamental lineage traits can be absent: the protein-primed replication polymerase, and the packaging ATPase

    The first quoted paragraph hints that it is the protein structure and not the genomic sequence that is conserved among many viruses. They use different genes to solve a similar problem. And the second paragraph also underscores the problem of gene centred thinking.

    I will need to find out more about the self-assembly of capsids in viruses such as the giant mimivirus.

    In order to self-assemble organisms are experts at recruiting what they need from their environment. Some recruits are willing helpers, some indifferent, and some are extremely reluctant.

  39. Thank you, phoodoo for that excellent illustration of winking and nodding — all the way until the very end, where Casey Luskin blew his cover, LOL.
    Veritasium’s narrative seemed completely straight up in comparison, but I am sure you felt it was packed full of atheist winking and nodding — that’s your GotG showing.
    Check out why women are stripey, it’s very cool, even if it doesn’t mention Adam’s rib. 🙂

  40. I see that NOT professing belief in imaginary gods, and instead presenting something based on reality, has somehow become “skeptical propaganda.” And so we see poor phoodoo reduced to the standard lie of calling everyone else liars, while he has the TRUTH, which apparently consists of unmasking the nonbelief of straightforward nonbelievers.

    Hey phoodoo, nobody is winking and nodding. Your god is FAKE. It’s not our fault that you can’t admit it.

  41. Flint,

    Your theory doesn’t explain how I knew Mould was an atheist just by seeing one video nether.

    So I can either see through the propaganda pretty well, or just another coincidence.

    Seems like the absence of lucky accidents is making the atheists nervous. They have to keep making things up.

  42. DNA_Jock: Thank you, phoodoo for that excellent illustration of winking and nodding — all the way until the very end, where Casey Luskin blew his cover, LOL.

    Well, what in the world do you mean Spin Doc Jock? I think it is just a science video, and now you are making it seem like the person who presents the science video matters. Why do you color every thing you see with your fear about God, it’s just a science video.

    Is the science wrong?

  43. Wow, great video, cool magnet model, and great youtube channel. Thanks for bringing that to our attention phoodoo. I can see why ignoramuses would hate it.

    I’ll make sure to share this with everyone who doesn’t know or understand what is meant by concepts like dynamic self-assembly, self-organization, and the emergence of structure from random movement coupled with localized attraction.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.