In the journal Bioinformatics, Conley et. al. write:
Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a
1) Your whole argument for ERV is based on the assumption of a common ancestor of man and chimp which you have yet to identify. I would think you would start there.
2) Please explain why the K family of ERVs (HERV-K provirus) is present in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans
3) Also, why are portions of ERVs known as CERV 2 and CERV 1 elements are present in chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla but are absent in human
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
ERVs can have different loci because genes for hemoglobin can have different loci and since we evolved and share a common ancestor with rats, that proves we evolved
lol this circular arguments from evo heads are funnier and funnier :D
In your opinion, is it easier for the layman to understand the ERV similarity evidence for common descent, or chromosome fusion evidence for common descent?
"Galileo's theories were backed up by observable evidence. Your theories are backed by by... NOTHING.
You, cephalopod, are no Galileo.
(With apologies to cephalopods everywhere. Just making a point.)"
You do not know it. However you should be apologizing to me. I am sure that I have a much more broad knowledge base than Galileo. Especially on the topic of evolution. If Galileo were here however, he would agree with me.
@mejc2 "If Galileo were here however, he would agree with me." You know why the catholics accept evolution? History repeats itself. Just as napoleon and hitler both made the mistake of invading russia and suffered from it the church made the mistake of opposing heliocentrism with their holy book, they are still paying for that mistake, if america doesnt get a grip on reality soon they will too.
@mejc2 you're so detached from reality you live in a world of your own :| Just try being a bit less mean to santa clause and the easter bunny, they told me you've been neglecting them. XD well have fun going down the dark ages once again, maybe we will send humanitarian aid... maybe...
Ironically that's what creationism is oh sorry you guys now call yourself ID. You know mej, you really should stick your head out of your anus and try understanding what went wrong in the history of dogma. Maybe you'll discover why people laugh at you when you wear a tin foil cap and claim aliens have brainwashed half of the world.
Aliens? It is the evolutionists that claim aliens sonny. They are always trying to add new twists to the fairy tale. adding new and exciting things that never happened is their mantra. Aliens seeded the planet, parallel universes, abiogenesis, animals changing into completely different animals over ions of time through accidental creation and natural selection. Wild stories all, but you actually try to give them credibility by hijacking science.
@mejc2 " It is the evolutionists that claim aliens"nono i'm not talking about what dawkins said about aliens being the only kind of intelligent design he'd accept, i'm talking about an evil ruler XENU that is trying to take over the world with the help of satan and if you don't wear tin foil caps they will brainwash you with EM waves to make you believe evolution! ahahahah XD dude are you that dumb that you didn't get that sarcasm? It's not a surprise but still so funny ahahahah
@mejc2 "to the fairy tale" Projection much? It's so funny how you claim estabilished science as fairy tale but then try to impose your bronze age myths as science. Like i was saying to you, there was a time when INTELLIGENT DESIGN was being taught in all schools, when everyone was using the most advanced science book around (creationists words) that time is now known with the name of DARK AGES.
@mejc2 the reason why i sarcastically talked about tin foil cap and aliens is because you ARE a conspirationist. You believe the whole world is under the unfluence of a dark evolutionist conspiration aimed to damn the world to hell with the lie of evolution. Even tough you firmly believe such idiocy any sane person will regard you a a clown and rightfully so, so please stop being so serious and make us laugh some more XD
@mejc2 only 15% believe god was not involved but how many believe man evolved and god somehow played a role? I know which polls you're referring to you think i never heard of what you're saying when all creationists can do is repeat debunked arguments over and over? Besides i can use polls too you know... the majority of US doesn't believe in evolution, well about 50% of us also doesn't know that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa. Ur point is?
@mejc2 How many biologists believe man did not evolve? Have you ever heard of the steve project by the NCSE? Loads of people believed the earth was at the centre of the universe... guess why? Because the bible said so, when heliocentrism came about those who were usggesting it (galileo among them) all risked death for heresy. It's no different now, you guys are rejecting evolution because your pathetically weak faith in your fairy tale is endangered by reality.
I don't believe in the fairy tale of evolution because there is no scientific basis for it. Name one animal that for sure arose from a different animal because of mutations.
@mejc2 "Name one animal that for sure arose from a different animal" < what only animals? So life is just animals no plants fungi & bacteria? Of course there are a few hundreds of observed instances of speciation in peer literature over Pubmed but you want me to point it out an animal example would be the historical drosophila species since so many experiments have been done on them and so many different new species arose.
You can't answer even the simple questions. You can't answer because you believe in a fairy tale. It never happened even once but you believe it happened quadrillions of times. It just has never been recorded, observed, tested, or reproduced.
@mejc2 All i see is you dodging the question of wether you believe or not in the fairy tale that the earth is round and that it is going around the sun. Are you feeling that uncomfortable with answering such a stupid question?
FUN FACT: my posts are filled with question marks, your posts have none yet you say i can't answer questions? Well of course i cannot answer questions if you dont ask anything, i'd like you to stop projecting tough ;)
"Name one animal that for sure arose from a different animal because of mutations."
Here is my request, the simple question you cannot answer. Also the lame excuse you used in your post attempting to answer this was about fruit flies. Hardly an animal. Also after all the mutations and all of the generations. Still just fruit flies.
@mejc2 Ok whales evolved for sure from a land dewelling animal called sinonyx, we have 9 types of independent evidence supporting this as well as a great number of intermediate species. Is that good enough ignoramus? :P
@mejc2 "Still just fruit flies." well what were you expecting? a miracle? Do you even know what a branching tree pattern is? Let me guess if i point you to bacteria evolution would you say that "oh its still just a bacteria" too? So let's sum up
1)Do you believe in the fairytale of heliocentrism?
2)Do you think even if bacteria evolve in other bacteria it doesnt prove evolution as it's still just bacteria?
would you mind answering so i can make fun of you?:P
so there is no animal that ever changed into any other animal, however you believe that all animals arose from wild historical accidents that randomly created novel complicated interacting organs , body plans and systems.
No evidence, no "known" mechanism, no way to test it, no way to repeat it, never observed, and YOU consider it fact. OK. my bad I didn't know it was so obvious.
@mejc2 "No evidence, no "known" mechanism, no way to test it, no way to repeat it"
4 lies in one sentence.... amaizing, truly the performance of a creationist :| There is evidence, for the example i provided you there are 9 types of evidence inclusing paleontological vestigial embrional and morphological. There are many known mechanism, gene duplication random mutation genetic drift.
@mejc2 Once again you refuse to answer my questions, I have answered you now would you mind doing the same favour? Well creationists are never good when facing questions they can't find on answersingenesis or conservapedia XD.
@mejc2 Experiment: Go over to a mirror and look back at the reflection of you in the mirror. There is something happening but you cannot see it no matter how closely you look at the mirror. You are growing, even this very moment, but you can't directly observe this, if you however pick up a photo of when you were younger and compare it to what you see in the mirror you'll notice the growth. BTW would an assassin be unable to be proved guilty if no one saw the murder?
@mejc2 Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, modern whales. This evolution from land mammal to sea mammal is supported by paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographic and chronological evidence.
Whale evolution? are you kidding? There is no evidence or mechanism for the Thousands upon thousands of vastly complicated mutations needed to change a four legged dog sized land mammal into a whale as big as your house. These mutations would had to have occurred in like 10 million years. Compare that to horse evolution. In 70 million years it lost two toes. The number and speed of the necessary imaginary mutations makes your claim impossible.
@mejc2 ^ the number of speed of necessary mutations makes the claim impossible? hehe... mutations in eukariotes have been measured indeed and they are 10^-4 to 10^-6 per base pair per generation. Lets assume the wrost 10^-6, do you know what that means? that in 10^6 generations the whole DNA can change. Synonyx is a 50Mn years old animal and whales become fertile in a span of 5 years. I don't need to do the last calculation do I?
@mejc2 Poor creationist you have made the fatal mistake of attempting to use numbers. Not only the poor creationist doesn't understand the concept of natural selection he goes on claiming it's impossible! Oh my even using conservative estimations the whales could have changed their ENTIRE DNA 10 TIMES in the span of time it took them to pass from land to water. Will you answer my questions now? Or asking you to use your brain is impossible? :P
Rapid mutations leads to extinction. Well, that is what our experiments show. However in the fairy tale land of evolutionists, they can make up a story for anything. 70 million years horse loses two toes, 100 million years, sharks don't change, 10 million years dogs change to Whales. That sounds logical. Through what mechanism did these four legged animals acquire all of the thousands upon thousands of new organs and systems? Natural selection does not create it selects.
@mejc2 " Natural selection does not create it selects" <- indeed it's mutations that create new random genes and natural selection will select those that are helpful and quiuckly get rid of those deterrent. If an animal is perfectly integrated in its enviroment it doesn't have any enviromental pressure to change, but if an animal is amphibious and finds more nutrients in water than land then it will be likely to evolve towards water rather than land.
@mejc2 "OH yeah. no they don't" Umm yes they do "Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. "
@mejc2 The only thing you've answered was the question wether you had a diploma and you answered you had several degrees. You know... when you gotta bullshit the bigger the better... for some reason that several degrees not even one required you to have high school level maths and science.
@mejc2 "bacteria adapting to their environment is not evolution."
So even if a bacteria were to change into a completely different type of bacteria that would still not be evolution? Can you answer a simple YES/NO question without beating around the bush or are you THAT SCARED? Mr. I have a bunch of degrees in nothing?
@mejc2 "I don't believe in the fairy tale of evolution." I've asked you if you believe in the fairy tales of heliocentrism or round-earthism. AGAIN you FAIL TO ANSWER YES OR NO. Once again you're so scared of using your brain, it's no wonder you had the bronze face to claim you have several degrees with that much stupidity you didn't even realize what a blatant lie it is. BTW thou shalt not lie ;)
1) Bacteria turning into a completely different type of bacteria? YES [] NO []
2) Do you believe in the fairy tale of heliocentrism or round-earthism? YES [] NO[]
I understand it is too hard for your brain to come up with a single word that is yours, I got it you've been good in repeating over and over the same lines. Can you now use your brain to write down either YES or NO? Mr. I hold a bunch of degrees?
A different type of bacteria? What is that? Is that like a different type of dog? That is no t evolution.
I have no intention of answering ridiculous questions about what scientists used to believe. If you like believing the popular fairy tales of the day supported by most scientists and supported by no evidence, such as flat earth, evolution, and heliocentrism, go right ahead. for the record, I do not .
Ok you have finally answered my questions! Awesome! Altough you could not write yes or no you have given definitive proof of ignorance of the facts so for that i think you. I'll now proceed to explaining you why you fail:
1)"Is that like a different type of dog?" You know The dog is a species of the family Canidae, order Carnivora, class Mammalia of the kingdom of animals which is one of the sic kingdoms in which life is divided. The other 5 are plants, fungi, BACTERIA, etc...
@mejc2 a bacteria turning into another bacteria is the same as saying a plant turning into another plant or an animal turning into another animal. I wanted you to admit your ignorance as to what animals are, i wanted you to admit your ignorance of the basics of biology. Thanks to that i know that even if i were to present you with an animal turning into another animal (which i did) you would simply ignore me (which you did).
There is no example. You attribute the term evolution to simple adaptations we see every day and then extrapolate the inference that all life and it's complexity have arisen from a set of wild historical accidents that are unobserved and haven't left a trail in the fossil record or anywhere else.
Maybe you're not a native english speaker so i'll ask again: since you don't believe the earth is flat what evidence are you basing that assertion on? My point is trying to show you that the evidence you're basing that on is (1) much vaguer than the evidence in favour of evolution to which you're shutting your eyes (2) in contrast with the evidence you're basing your view on evolution about.
WOW! I didn't know they had computers in asylums. Being that you are typing me messages, I must be mistaken. You obviously have no grasp of what the words empirical evidence mean. There is no empirical evidence that evolution, meaning molecules to man, ever happened. There is only inference. There is empirical evidence that the earth is round. Unfortunately you work with stories and not facts. That is probably why you believe the story of evolution and reject the facts that refute it.
@mejc2 "There is empirical evidence that the earth is round" like? If your genious mind didn't get it so far I'm trying to see what his excellency considers evidence of a fact because something with the probability of being wrong smaller than a macroscopi violation of the second law of TD is definitively evidence to me.
@mejc2 "evolution, meaning molecules to man" and so far the only "fact" you've stated is your ignorance of what evolution is.Ignoring something doesn't disprove it you know? You can also ignore heisenberg's indeterminancy principle, that doesn't disprove it. You can ignore 98.000 ERVs in perfectly matching locations over 3B possible locations the chances of which are one in over 10^200.000. If evolution is false then evolutionists could win the lottery without playing. if only you were right :(
@mejc2 pfft... don't you ever get tired of making yourself look like a dumbass? oh sorry you are one. you know the number of protons in the universe is estimated around 10^80 the probability of ervs being there if the species are unrelated is lower than one in 10^200.000. BTW a quadrillion is simply 10^15. Exponential maths are taught in what... 6th grade? :3
The probability of a single protein forming by chance is estimated at one in 10^130. you believe it happened quadrillions of times. Sorry charlie If you want to talk about probability, the math certainly works against your fairy tale.
Besides reaching such improbability is very easy, while randomly making up a protein from separate enzimes is unlikely as 10^130 evolution can easily bypass it trough subsequential trials if there are intermediate proteins which are useful and since you guys make calculations with modern proteins made of hundreds of a.a. there are intermediates and they reduce the odds exponentially. Eg. 2*10^65 for just 1, 3*10^43 for 2, 4*10^32 for 3.Study! Ignoramus!
@mejc2 Why you keep telling me what i believe? XD Would you mind if i started doing the same? Like i could say you believe that it makes perfect sense for nothing to randomly become omnipotent, omniscent, perfect and then go on making stuff?
BTW it's amaizing you came up with a lousy 10^130 (even a quadrillion times that is only 10^145) when there's the commonly known Fred Hoyle fallacy that happily goes to 10^40.000 an hypocrite like you should still use it even if it was already debunked.
That would be omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and eternal. therefore there would be no becoming. I was being nice at 10^130. With the odds so highly stacked against your fairy tale, I am just surprised that you would try to use probability to prove it.
@mejc2 "would try to use probability" It's 6th grade exponential math, too advanced for you genious? "and eternal." Except Mr. perfection for some reason 13.7B years ago after an infinity of time in perfection decided to change and make this universe.
"With the odds so highly stacked"You know, what you proved there is simply that proteins don't randomly poof into existance assuming you did not make mistakes. Well nobody claims that except creationists, ironically, you're digging your own grave.
Let me ask you, what are the chances that an OMNIPOTENT creator made the universe in the very way which would indicate that there is no need for him? I mean what are the chances of a creator putting the earth exactly where it should be to support life without the need of his intervention? Why not put the earth closer than mercury to the sun? or farther than pluto? he is omnipotent no? Why don't you calculate those chances you'll see that you'll need about 4 exponential notations.
@mejc2 "so highly stacked against your fairy tale" Indeed that is why i accept evolution as truth. Just look at the ervs, making the assumption that they can ONLY randomly insert in 2 out of 3 BILLION locations in our genome the chance of them all being in the correct places in all primates if they are not related is 2^[(n.of.ERVs)*(n.of.primates-1)] lets just take human and chimps, 2^(98.000) = 2^4^(24500)=16^24500 >>> 10^24500. Evolution predicted an event incredibly unlikely to happen.
@mejc2 so when you're kind your odds are evolution is as unlikely as one in 10^130, if you knew something about the video you're commenting to you'd know that there are about 98000 ervs in primates that are almost all at the same locations in our genome. If evolution was FALSE, lets see what are the chances of such a thing: (3*10^9 base pairs) ^ [ 98000ervs * 400 primates] > 10^(4,7*10^8). So the chances of intelligent design to be true are one in a number with at least 470000000 zeros.
@mejc2 So when i'm kind i'd say ID is as likely as one in 10 with a few thousand zeros after it, but if i make the correct extimations I'd say its actually as unlikely as one in 10 with a few hundred million zeros after it. To put it simply it's more likely for you and me to number all the atoms of the universe with the exact numbers than for primates to not be related one another. BTW how are your multiple degrees in how to get a degree without passing 6th grade going? XD
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@kyagh 10^130 is for a single 100 amino acid protein. Trillions of proteins created by wild historical accidents is incalculable. Also when you are trying to insult someone's intelligence, Use spell check.
@mejc2 thank you for finally saying how many a.a. you used, seeing as proteins can be so small as made by only 10 amino acids the chances that there are probably dozens of intermediates you ignored thus making the arising of such protein by evolution something almost obivious, too bad you cannot understand what i'm saying since you didn't pass 3rd grade. BTW is spell checking all you can do other than not understanding what i'm saying? XD
@mejc2 " Trillions of proteins created by wild historical accidents is incalculable" indeed for someone who doesn't understand exponential math and hasn't passed 6th grade. I mean seriously, you claim you have multiple degrees? WTF? Did you forget "thou shalt not lie"? lol
@mejc2 Oh btw another thing you forgot coming up with those numbers is a little detail that destroyes your whole reasoning: you forgot that proteins don't form by chance, they form following the laws of chemestry ;).
Oh right? the chemical law that says proteins arise from non living matter by chance and then accidentally turn into all the living things that ever existed on the planet. I forgot that chemical law. it is called the fairy tale of evolution.
@mejc2 Arguments from incredulity are simply moronic expecially coming from someone that claims having multiple degrees. Try instead with learning what is the meaning of the word AMINO-ACID. Then learn about POLIMERIZATION. Moron. It's called the fairy tale of chemestry idiot. Seriously if you have multiple degrees can i test you? tell me a subject you're educated on and i'll see if its true because you sound like someone who didnt drop out of college... but dropped out of high school lol.
Certainly, dirt never came alive by itself, no animal ever changed into a different animal, adaptation is normal, molecules to man evolution is a fairy tale.
1)How did man come to be? What evidence do you have supporting your explaination?
2)Why do we have ERVs planted in oru genome at the same locations as primates? Why are we made of cells? Why do we still have genes for developing tails? Why are some babies born with tails? Why is the retina of our eyes pointed backwards? Why do we have the vagus nerve and the plantaris muscles? Why is our jaw too small for our teeth? Etc...
Notice this, none of the things that you request answers to are any evidence whatsoever that dirt came alive, or that any animal ever changed into a different animal, or support molecules to man evolution.
You asked for the truth. I gave it to you. You then responded with unrelated questions. I have no obligation to answer. Similarity in organisms is in no way evidence that molecules accidentally acquired features to create all of the diversity we see on the planet.
So you admit you're ignorant, you don't know anything about human history why we are here how we did come to be despite your "multiple degrees". You're just a liar.... quite sad. You've finally shown that you have nothing in you you're just denying the ewvidence because of emotional reasons and when faced with the question you're afraid to answer because it will show your utter hypocrisy. You know a simple "i don't know" would have sufficed.
Your fairy tale has been refuted. like all other evolutionists you resort to changing the subject to my beliefs. I reiterate, I know the truth and the truth is that the story of molecules to man evolution is a fairy tale with no empirical evidence to support it.
@mejc2 the only empirical evidence we have estabilished here is that you don't know what evolution is. I've tried explaining you that 1) non-living to living is not evolution is ABIOGENESIS. and 2) once we have living organisms the theory of evolution explains how they adapt to their enviroment and differentiate, hence explaining the diversity of life.
Besides you also don't know 6th grade math despite having "multiple degrees".
@mejc2 The empirical evidence in favour of evolution is irrefutable therefore the only way to negate it is to shut your eyes an ears. I've been trying to understand what you want with evidence, what you take for evidence but every time i've asked you to give an example you always refuse because you do not know yourself and instead resulted to name calling me all sorts of things. You don't want to be wrong, that's what gives away the fact you're just another religious tard, now prove me wrong.
Evidence of molecules to man? The enormity and preposterous nature of that claim is almost too large to tackle. We, with our infinitesimally small brains have noticed similarity and made the wild claim that one organism changed into all organisms . We observe adaptation and claim that it is evidence that an organism is in the process of changing into some new kind of organism. What we know is: there is similarity between organisms and that organisms adapt. the rest is speculation.
@mejc2 Once again you refuse to give an example of what you consider as proof... you know the same DNA parenting tests that are legally accepted in court are used to discern closest relativites among species in biology. You know what I'm getting tired of trying to explain something to someone who is still in 3rd grade so how about we do a scientific experiment shall we? I'll explain in the other post:
Hypothesis: You don't know **** about chemestry even tough you claim to have multiple degrees.
Experiment: If you're so smart as to truthfully calculate probabilities of proteins forming then please balance this RedOx: Fe(2+) + Cr2 O7(2-) ↔ Fe(3+) + Cr(3+) in acid solution.
Prediction: No matter what you will write you won't answer this.
Implications: If prediction is true then your "multiple degrees" have nothing to do with chemestry and you're simply a lying bigoted moron.
@mejc2 "one of which are related to chemistry or biology" they also don't require you to have a diploma since that too was high school stuff not degree stuff and you know if you typed in redox balance in google the very first link is a nice site that does all the work for you, proving that not only you don't have a diploma, but also proving your IQ is pretty low.
^ Is this empirical proof enough of your IGNORANCE? How about you provide some empirical proof of your "education"?
"Prediction: No matter what you will write you won't answer this.
Implications: If prediction is true then...""
Very well played, kyagh!
As you're no doubt aware, usually when someone asserts "I know the truth" [in the context of life's origin], what they're actually saying is that they have a set of beliefs that they value so irrationally they are willing to lie, cheat & steal in order to vindicate said beliefs.
I know but, i still do it the gentle way, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, also if he wants to argue evolution is not true without knowing what happened under pretext of skepticism of evolution that also is acceptable, someone doesn't need to know what happened to doubt an explaination... but after repetitive refusal to provide elements for a constructive debate i decided to just make him come down of his *high throne*.
I agree. I never enter into a discussion on evolution antagonistically or mean spirited, but when someone resorts to flagrant and blatant lying I no longer feel the need to 'play nice'.
Some (most?) people believe creationist bs because they've been innocently duped, and I have plenty of patience with *that*.
But a dead give-away that destroys any claim to that kind of innocence is a statement like, "My IQ places me in the top 1% of humanity".
@mejc2 "I am not a lying bigoted moron, just someone that knows the truth. " But since i just proved you lied about having multiple degrees (unless you bought them on ebay) then it is safe to assume you lied in that sentence too therefore what you wrote was "yes i am a lying bigoted moron, and i do not know the truth".
1. So far you failed to prove you have a diploma let alone a degree.
2. Yet you argue about biology as if your expertise in the field is higher than all the doctorates of the world
3. Yet you were unable to perform a google search? Amaizing... if 99% of humanity is really as dumb as you are then we'd probably be extinct by now.
4. Ironically you're only negating what your religion claims because no scientist claims that and tough having an IQ of 427986792 you can't understand this.
@mejc2 Yeah like i accept without evidence that you have multiple degrees without having a diploma... right XD
Still waiting for you to prove me wrong buddy, so far I'm disappoint.
How hard could it be for someone as smart as you to prove their expertise? I'm not asking for much, you're supposedly so incredibly smart, so why is it that you can't answer stuff a kid who just got a diploma can?
@kyagh - funny that mejc2 now claims to be in the top 1% when he claimed on another video(v=ypYesuV3PoI) to be 'In terms of reading comprehension or general IQ I am in the 97th Percentile'. If he's going to make stuff up at least he could try to be consistent!
You asked for the truth. I gave it to you. You then responded with unrelated questions. I have no obligation to answer. Similarity in organisms is in no way evidence that molecules accidentally acquired features to create all of the diversity we see on the planet.
@mejc2 "Rapid mutations leads to extinction. Well, that is what our experiments show." Care to cite your sources? Well if you mean rapid mutations as in being exposed to a nuclear reactor then indeed yes but since these are natural mutations that happen to all organism it would mean we'd all be dead if that was the case. Besides i used the conservative estimate of 10^-6 had i used 10^-4 whales would have been able to change their whole genome 1000 times ;)
@mejc2 BTW a question... do you believe in the fairy tale that the earth goes around the sun or you do you believe that it is the opposite as stated in the bible? :3 BTW do you believe the earth is flat or do you believe the fairy tale that the earth is round and for some reason the chinese don't fall off? XD
I don't believe the fairy tale that dirt came alive and changed into animals which in turn changed into different animals which in turn changed into humans. There is no scientific evidence to support this but you believe it anyway.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am not defending Gentry's claim. I am simply stating that he cannot get anything published any more. Once he made his views known he was locked out from the peer review process.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Long since falsified models. Call Robert Gentry and see if he can get anything passed peer review today. They won't let him publish anything else because of his young earth views.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL . what ? Did you just fall off the Naive tree? If I knew anything? Grow up first and take a stroll in the real world. Then get back to me.
Their is about as much chance of the peer review process allowing anti evolution information in, as their is of ICR allowing pro evolution information in their journals.
OH the peer review process that ensures integrity. OH that peer review process. OH I thought you meant the good ole boy network that locks out contradictory views. MY BAD.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are like OJ Simpson and his attorneys. They delivered their evidence to the DA's office in with a tractor trailer. You admit that you only read evolutionist works when you told me that the only ancient depictions you were aware of were the Ica Stones.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hold on, Hold on. OK you want to have a real discussion. Put up a short point that you can discuss without pointing me toward 50 evolutionists papers that no one will read. The joke about the papers is that one evolutionist speculates something puts it in a paper that is "peer reviewed" by other evolutionists. and then other evolutionists write papers citing the first paper as evidence and so on and so on until you get a pile of "peer reviewed" papers. I do understand the peer review process.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
OH powerful evidence? You mean you believe it strongly. WOW! if I had a nickle for everything that was believed strongly by knuckleheads like you I would be a millionaire. You see spouting the evolutionist nonsense over and over doesn't make it true.
"Conjugation, mitosis, meiosis, DNA replication, mutation, natural, neutral, and sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, etc. "
Most of these have nothing to do with "evolution" from a single cell. The ones that are imagined to have never been shown to produce any part of an organism let alone an entirely new organism. You believe in invisible changes that give an organism such an advantage as to replace current forms of the organism.
Direct Observation? Here is direct observation for you.
Ancient artifacts accurately depict dinosaurs. Evolutionists dismiss this actual empirical evidence that humans an dinosaurs coexisted. Dinosaur bones have soft tissue, empirically demonstrating that they CANNOT be 65 million years old. Evolutionists make up stories, that's what they do, then they cite each others stories as evidence that evolution actually happened. Empirically, there is no known mechanism for ascent from a single cell.
@mejc2 are you talking about the supposed stegosaur? ROFL. By that reasoning med evil representations of dragons are proof dragons existed... you claim to be many things yet as always when someone self proclaims knowledgeable it's the other way around. You are an hypocrite at heart, you will be abandoned by both the people who understand the world and those who seek otherworld experience. No one likes hypocrites.
Don't waste your time with mejc2. Evobiologist has spent months trying to respond to his nonsense in the comments section of one of his videos, it is pointless. He doesn't understand evolution, and will never accept any evidence for it so it's better to just ignore him. He has no interest in a serious discussion and just copies and pastes a series of rote statements when faced with evidence he doesn't like and can't explain.
Indeed. These are folks whose hearing and attention span is tuned only to pay attention and listen to other people who will only back up their baseless assertions with more baseless assertions and thus reinforce their circular reasoning.
ANY and ALL data even remotely contrary to their presuppositions will not make its way into their minds.
Think broken record. They swear that their version of reality is the whole song.
There is no mechanism that accounts for ascent form a lower life form. You have provided NO evidence. Also There is no model there is a story. explaining why an apple falls to the ground requires an apple to fall to the ground at least once. Explaining that all life is the result of an unseen, undefined, process even though all life has built in rejection of such changes, is fantasy. It is not a model it is not an explanation it is a made up story that has never been observed.
Making models? Evolutionists are not making models of evolution. Evolutionists are making up evolution. They make up stories about bones they find. they make up stories about patterns found in DNA. All of the data is real but the stories made up are fantasy. Nothing has ever been observed to change into anything else. Ascent through mutation and natural selection is a fantasy.
It is improbable. However, being that we have no record of anything evolving into anything else, It is illogical to assume that everything evolved from something else because we notice a pattern that we don't fully understand in DNA.
POL.... there is naturally occurring reverse transcrpitase in the human body actually. Telomerase. Therfore just becase there is a reverse transcriptase gene that does not mean that is it of retro viral origin.
So if we find an ERV that does not fit the nested hierarchy. It is likely that it did at one time but now doesn't because we don't see it. So when we find ERV's that don't fit the nested hierarchy it will falsify evolutionism except if it used to exist in the right place but doesn't any more which will be determined by evolutionists that are trying to bolster evolutionism.
No, you don't seem to have it at all, if an ERV were found in all of phylogeny from reptiles to mammals to other primates and not in humans the nested hierarchy would be called into question.
Evolution is easy to falsify, find a dog with a plant cell wall.
It got too complex for you, didn't it? I guess I see why you want to stick with "Magic-Man-Dun-It" then... there is just too much complexity! LOL
If you find ERVs that don't fit the nested hierarchy, then you must find a logical explanation for the observation... "Magic-Man-Dun-It" is not a logical explanation. A mutation in the DNA can misplace/delete an ERV.
So the question is: do ERVs consistently match the nested hierarchy and the answer is YES!
Wait you notice a pattern assign a reason and that means that your reason is right. It just happened by accident? Well then I guess you could include everything in that explanation, which evolutionists do on a constant basis.
They don't understand that when you find a reason, not only must it fit the pattern, but it must be supported by evidence.
So when a creationists guesses that we can include "everything in that explanation", it's clear that the creationist forgot about evidence. But it's not the creationists' fault, they think that just because their explanation is a religion with no evidence, then everything else must be a religion requiring no evidence too.
Evolutionists claim everything as evidence for their belief. If something is simple they claim it obviously evolved. If something is overly complicated they claim it obviously evolved because a designer wouldn't do it that way.
Creationists live in an imaginary world where reality is what they want it to be... their evidence is imagined, facts are fabricated and scientific theories are things you come up with when you're bored on the weekend.
All creationist ideas are TOTAL FAILURES, so with that kind of track record the creationist opinion is worth just about the same as a washed out rock.
When creationists say "evolutionists claim everything as evidence" it's just another example of their FAILURE to grasp reality!
Reality is all that creationists deal in. it is the fairy tale of evolution that is perpetuated by the masses. To accept evolutionism you must be indoctrinated. However there is a large scale indoctrination program in place. Evolutionists claim evolution as a fact with no facts to support the hypothesis.
Creationists are just mad that everybody laughs at their stupid ideas so they throw a fit and say that science is a religion... just because creationists believe in imaginary things, it doesn't mean that everybody else does so too.
If creationists understood a thing about reason, logic and reality then they wouldn't be creationists. Nobody will take creationists seriously as long as they believe the earth is 6 thousand years old and Noah's flood story is real... Creationism FAILS!
Evolutionists have used the fairy tale of evolution for control purposes. It removes any higher power, and allows people to make their own decisions. All you have to do to control them from that point is control the information they see and you can choose which decisions they make.
Take Ida for example evolutionists bombarded the masses through the media with that missing link stuff. Where was the media blitz telling everyone it had no relation to humans? Ah, that's what I thought. FAIRY TALE
In the journal Bioinformatics, Conley et. al. write:
Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a
large scale."
owensphil 4 weeks ago
1) Your whole argument for ERV is based on the assumption of a common ancestor of man and chimp which you have yet to identify. I would think you would start there.
2) Please explain why the K family of ERVs (HERV-K provirus) is present in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans
3) Also, why are portions of ERVs known as CERV 2 and CERV 1 elements are present in chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla but are absent in human
owensphil 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 10 months ago
awesome face =D
MasqueradeOfTruth 1 year ago
LOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLL
ERVs can have different loci because genes for hemoglobin can have different loci and since we evolved and share a common ancestor with rats, that proves we evolved
lol this circular arguments from evo heads are funnier and funnier :D
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
THANKS FOR PRODUCING THIS MAN THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I NEEDED!!!!!!!
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
i love Satan
TheHeroOfSatan 1 year ago
In your opinion, is it easier for the layman to understand the ERV similarity evidence for common descent, or chromosome fusion evidence for common descent?
lhvinny 1 year ago
But this is to complicated for me to research on my own and I don't have time to watch the whole video, therefore evolution is wrong.
Houshalter 1 year ago 2
"Galileo's theories were backed up by observable evidence. Your theories are backed by by... NOTHING.
You, cephalopod, are no Galileo.
(With apologies to cephalopods everywhere. Just making a point.)"
You do not know it. However you should be apologizing to me. I am sure that I have a much more broad knowledge base than Galileo. Especially on the topic of evolution. If Galileo were here however, he would agree with me.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "If Galileo were here however, he would agree with me." You know why the catholics accept evolution? History repeats itself. Just as napoleon and hitler both made the mistake of invading russia and suffered from it the church made the mistake of opposing heliocentrism with their holy book, they are still paying for that mistake, if america doesnt get a grip on reality soon they will too.
kyagh 1 year ago 2
@kyagh
"if america doesnt get a grip on reality soon they will too. "
I agree. America needs to get a grip and realize that evolution never happened.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 you're so detached from reality you live in a world of your own :| Just try being a bit less mean to santa clause and the easter bunny, they told me you've been neglecting them. XD well have fun going down the dark ages once again, maybe we will send humanitarian aid... maybe...
kyagh 1 year ago 2
@kyagh
Actually I am in touch with reality and it is you that are in touch with the whim of the masses. WOW! when has that ever been right.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "whim of the masses"
Ironically that's what creationism is oh sorry you guys now call yourself ID. You know mej, you really should stick your head out of your anus and try understanding what went wrong in the history of dogma. Maybe you'll discover why people laugh at you when you wear a tin foil cap and claim aliens have brainwashed half of the world.
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
Aliens? It is the evolutionists that claim aliens sonny. They are always trying to add new twists to the fairy tale. adding new and exciting things that never happened is their mantra. Aliens seeded the planet, parallel universes, abiogenesis, animals changing into completely different animals over ions of time through accidental creation and natural selection. Wild stories all, but you actually try to give them credibility by hijacking science.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 " It is the evolutionists that claim aliens"nono i'm not talking about what dawkins said about aliens being the only kind of intelligent design he'd accept, i'm talking about an evil ruler XENU that is trying to take over the world with the help of satan and if you don't wear tin foil caps they will brainwash you with EM waves to make you believe evolution! ahahahah XD dude are you that dumb that you didn't get that sarcasm? It's not a surprise but still so funny ahahahah
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 "to the fairy tale" Projection much? It's so funny how you claim estabilished science as fairy tale but then try to impose your bronze age myths as science. Like i was saying to you, there was a time when INTELLIGENT DESIGN was being taught in all schools, when everyone was using the most advanced science book around (creationists words) that time is now known with the name of DARK AGES.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 the reason why i sarcastically talked about tin foil cap and aliens is because you ARE a conspirationist. You believe the whole world is under the unfluence of a dark evolutionist conspiration aimed to damn the world to hell with the lie of evolution. Even tough you firmly believe such idiocy any sane person will regard you a a clown and rightfully so, so please stop being so serious and make us laugh some more XD
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
By serious person you mean evolutionist. The majority of people in the U.S. do not believe that man evolved.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
OH yea! only 15% believe that man evolved and God was not involved.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 only 15% believe god was not involved but how many believe man evolved and god somehow played a role? I know which polls you're referring to you think i never heard of what you're saying when all creationists can do is repeat debunked arguments over and over? Besides i can use polls too you know... the majority of US doesn't believe in evolution, well about 50% of us also doesn't know that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa. Ur point is?
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 How many biologists believe man did not evolve? Have you ever heard of the steve project by the NCSE? Loads of people believed the earth was at the centre of the universe... guess why? Because the bible said so, when heliocentrism came about those who were usggesting it (galileo among them) all risked death for heresy. It's no different now, you guys are rejecting evolution because your pathetically weak faith in your fairy tale is endangered by reality.
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
I don't believe in the fairy tale of evolution because there is no scientific basis for it. Name one animal that for sure arose from a different animal because of mutations.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Name one animal that for sure arose from a different animal" < what only animals? So life is just animals no plants fungi & bacteria? Of course there are a few hundreds of observed instances of speciation in peer literature over Pubmed but you want me to point it out an animal example would be the historical drosophila species since so many experiments have been done on them and so many different new species arose.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Oh one animal that for sure arose from another animal.... i have a better example: Homo sapiens sapiens for sure arose from a primate. ;)
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
They are included with primates.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "they are included in primates" So what you're asking for is a crockoduck? XD just asking... did you even check the other thing?
"i don't believe" Why did you dodge the question? Feeling uncomfortable answering it?
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
You can't answer even the simple questions. You can't answer because you believe in a fairy tale. It never happened even once but you believe it happened quadrillions of times. It just has never been recorded, observed, tested, or reproduced.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 All i see is you dodging the question of wether you believe or not in the fairy tale that the earth is round and that it is going around the sun. Are you feeling that uncomfortable with answering such a stupid question?
FUN FACT: my posts are filled with question marks, your posts have none yet you say i can't answer questions? Well of course i cannot answer questions if you dont ask anything, i'd like you to stop projecting tough ;)
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
"Name one animal that for sure arose from a different animal because of mutations."
Here is my request, the simple question you cannot answer. Also the lame excuse you used in your post attempting to answer this was about fruit flies. Hardly an animal. Also after all the mutations and all of the generations. Still just fruit flies.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Ok whales evolved for sure from a land dewelling animal called sinonyx, we have 9 types of independent evidence supporting this as well as a great number of intermediate species. Is that good enough ignoramus? :P
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh Oh fun fact you can also see it in the video XD
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Still just fruit flies." well what were you expecting? a miracle? Do you even know what a branching tree pattern is? Let me guess if i point you to bacteria evolution would you say that "oh its still just a bacteria" too? So let's sum up
1)Do you believe in the fairytale of heliocentrism?
2)Do you think even if bacteria evolve in other bacteria it doesnt prove evolution as it's still just bacteria?
would you mind answering so i can make fun of you?:P
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
so there is no animal that ever changed into any other animal, however you believe that all animals arose from wild historical accidents that randomly created novel complicated interacting organs , body plans and systems.
No evidence, no "known" mechanism, no way to test it, no way to repeat it, never observed, and YOU consider it fact. OK. my bad I didn't know it was so obvious.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "No evidence, no "known" mechanism, no way to test it, no way to repeat it"
4 lies in one sentence.... amaizing, truly the performance of a creationist :| There is evidence, for the example i provided you there are 9 types of evidence inclusing paleontological vestigial embrional and morphological. There are many known mechanism, gene duplication random mutation genetic drift.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Once again you refuse to answer my questions, I have answered you now would you mind doing the same favour? Well creationists are never good when facing questions they can't find on answersingenesis or conservapedia XD.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Experiment: Go over to a mirror and look back at the reflection of you in the mirror. There is something happening but you cannot see it no matter how closely you look at the mirror. You are growing, even this very moment, but you can't directly observe this, if you however pick up a photo of when you were younger and compare it to what you see in the mirror you'll notice the growth. BTW would an assassin be unable to be proved guilty if no one saw the murder?
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, modern whales. This evolution from land mammal to sea mammal is supported by paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographic and chronological evidence.
^I'd hardly call that nothing.
kyagh 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
Whale evolution? are you kidding? There is no evidence or mechanism for the Thousands upon thousands of vastly complicated mutations needed to change a four legged dog sized land mammal into a whale as big as your house. These mutations would had to have occurred in like 10 million years. Compare that to horse evolution. In 70 million years it lost two toes. The number and speed of the necessary imaginary mutations makes your claim impossible.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 ^ the number of speed of necessary mutations makes the claim impossible? hehe... mutations in eukariotes have been measured indeed and they are 10^-4 to 10^-6 per base pair per generation. Lets assume the wrost 10^-6, do you know what that means? that in 10^6 generations the whole DNA can change. Synonyx is a 50Mn years old animal and whales become fertile in a span of 5 years. I don't need to do the last calculation do I?
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Poor creationist you have made the fatal mistake of attempting to use numbers. Not only the poor creationist doesn't understand the concept of natural selection he goes on claiming it's impossible! Oh my even using conservative estimations the whales could have changed their ENTIRE DNA 10 TIMES in the span of time it took them to pass from land to water. Will you answer my questions now? Or asking you to use your brain is impossible? :P
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
Rapid mutations leads to extinction. Well, that is what our experiments show. However in the fairy tale land of evolutionists, they can make up a story for anything. 70 million years horse loses two toes, 100 million years, sharks don't change, 10 million years dogs change to Whales. That sounds logical. Through what mechanism did these four legged animals acquire all of the thousands upon thousands of new organs and systems? Natural selection does not create it selects.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 " Natural selection does not create it selects" <- indeed it's mutations that create new random genes and natural selection will select those that are helpful and quiuckly get rid of those deterrent. If an animal is perfectly integrated in its enviroment it doesn't have any enviromental pressure to change, but if an animal is amphibious and finds more nutrients in water than land then it will be likely to evolve towards water rather than land.
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
"indeed it's mutations that create new random genes"
OH yeah. no they don't.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "OH yeah. no they don't" Umm yes they do "Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. "
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 I can't help but keep asking questions that you keep ignoring one after the other but i'll still ask.
1)Do you believe in the fairytale of round earth / heliocentrism?
2)Do you think that no matter how much a bacteria evolves as long as they remain bacteria it's not proof of evolution?
3)Do you even have a diploma? You have made it clear you don't have a degree but now i'm starting to think you don't even have a diploma...
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
bacteria adapting to their environment is not evolution.
I have multiple degrees.
I don't believe in the fairy tale of evolution.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 The only thing you've answered was the question wether you had a diploma and you answered you had several degrees. You know... when you gotta bullshit the bigger the better... for some reason that several degrees not even one required you to have high school level maths and science.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 "bacteria adapting to their environment is not evolution."
So even if a bacteria were to change into a completely different type of bacteria that would still not be evolution? Can you answer a simple YES/NO question without beating around the bush or are you THAT SCARED? Mr. I have a bunch of degrees in nothing?
kyagh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 "I don't believe in the fairy tale of evolution." I've asked you if you believe in the fairy tales of heliocentrism or round-earthism. AGAIN you FAIL TO ANSWER YES OR NO. Once again you're so scared of using your brain, it's no wonder you had the bronze face to claim you have several degrees with that much stupidity you didn't even realize what a blatant lie it is. BTW thou shalt not lie ;)
kyagh 1 year ago 3
@mejc2 so...
1) Bacteria turning into a completely different type of bacteria? YES [] NO []
2) Do you believe in the fairy tale of heliocentrism or round-earthism? YES [] NO[]
I understand it is too hard for your brain to come up with a single word that is yours, I got it you've been good in repeating over and over the same lines. Can you now use your brain to write down either YES or NO? Mr. I hold a bunch of degrees?
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
A different type of bacteria? What is that? Is that like a different type of dog? That is no t evolution.
I have no intention of answering ridiculous questions about what scientists used to believe. If you like believing the popular fairy tales of the day supported by most scientists and supported by no evidence, such as flat earth, evolution, and heliocentrism, go right ahead. for the record, I do not .
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
Ok you have finally answered my questions! Awesome! Altough you could not write yes or no you have given definitive proof of ignorance of the facts so for that i think you. I'll now proceed to explaining you why you fail:
1)"Is that like a different type of dog?" You know The dog is a species of the family Canidae, order Carnivora, class Mammalia of the kingdom of animals which is one of the sic kingdoms in which life is divided. The other 5 are plants, fungi, BACTERIA, etc...
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 a bacteria turning into another bacteria is the same as saying a plant turning into another plant or an animal turning into another animal. I wanted you to admit your ignorance as to what animals are, i wanted you to admit your ignorance of the basics of biology. Thanks to that i know that even if i were to present you with an animal turning into another animal (which i did) you would simply ignore me (which you did).
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
There is no example. You attribute the term evolution to simple adaptations we see every day and then extrapolate the inference that all life and it's complexity have arisen from a set of wild historical accidents that are unobserved and haven't left a trail in the fossil record or anywhere else.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "haven't left a trail in the fossil record or anywhere else."
scroll up ^.^
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 So you believe the earth is a spherical object. YES! why do you believe that?
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
why do you believe that?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
Maybe you're not a native english speaker so i'll ask again: since you don't believe the earth is flat what evidence are you basing that assertion on? My point is trying to show you that the evidence you're basing that on is (1) much vaguer than the evidence in favour of evolution to which you're shutting your eyes (2) in contrast with the evidence you're basing your view on evolution about.
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
WOW! I didn't know they had computers in asylums. Being that you are typing me messages, I must be mistaken. You obviously have no grasp of what the words empirical evidence mean. There is no empirical evidence that evolution, meaning molecules to man, ever happened. There is only inference. There is empirical evidence that the earth is round. Unfortunately you work with stories and not facts. That is probably why you believe the story of evolution and reject the facts that refute it.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "There is empirical evidence that the earth is round" like? If your genious mind didn't get it so far I'm trying to see what his excellency considers evidence of a fact because something with the probability of being wrong smaller than a macroscopi violation of the second law of TD is definitively evidence to me.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 "evolution, meaning molecules to man" and so far the only "fact" you've stated is your ignorance of what evolution is.Ignoring something doesn't disprove it you know? You can also ignore heisenberg's indeterminancy principle, that doesn't disprove it. You can ignore 98.000 ERVs in perfectly matching locations over 3B possible locations the chances of which are one in over 10^200.000. If evolution is false then evolutionists could win the lottery without playing. if only you were right :(
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
I am right and notice how you keep relating to other things that can be measured or observed, or tested?
Odds? quadrillions of historical accidents creating everything we see randomly and you want to talk about odds? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 pfft... don't you ever get tired of making yourself look like a dumbass? oh sorry you are one. you know the number of protons in the universe is estimated around 10^80 the probability of ervs being there if the species are unrelated is lower than one in 10^200.000. BTW a quadrillion is simply 10^15. Exponential maths are taught in what... 6th grade? :3
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
The probability of a single protein forming by chance is estimated at one in 10^130. you believe it happened quadrillions of times. Sorry charlie If you want to talk about probability, the math certainly works against your fairy tale.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "single protein forming by chance"
Besides reaching such improbability is very easy, while randomly making up a protein from separate enzimes is unlikely as 10^130 evolution can easily bypass it trough subsequential trials if there are intermediate proteins which are useful and since you guys make calculations with modern proteins made of hundreds of a.a. there are intermediates and they reduce the odds exponentially. Eg. 2*10^65 for just 1, 3*10^43 for 2, 4*10^32 for 3.Study! Ignoramus!
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Why you keep telling me what i believe? XD Would you mind if i started doing the same? Like i could say you believe that it makes perfect sense for nothing to randomly become omnipotent, omniscent, perfect and then go on making stuff?
BTW it's amaizing you came up with a lousy 10^130 (even a quadrillion times that is only 10^145) when there's the commonly known Fred Hoyle fallacy that happily goes to 10^40.000 an hypocrite like you should still use it even if it was already debunked.
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
That would be omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and eternal. therefore there would be no becoming. I was being nice at 10^130. With the odds so highly stacked against your fairy tale, I am just surprised that you would try to use probability to prove it.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "would try to use probability" It's 6th grade exponential math, too advanced for you genious? "and eternal." Except Mr. perfection for some reason 13.7B years ago after an infinity of time in perfection decided to change and make this universe.
"With the odds so highly stacked"You know, what you proved there is simply that proteins don't randomly poof into existance assuming you did not make mistakes. Well nobody claims that except creationists, ironically, you're digging your own grave.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2
Let me ask you, what are the chances that an OMNIPOTENT creator made the universe in the very way which would indicate that there is no need for him? I mean what are the chances of a creator putting the earth exactly where it should be to support life without the need of his intervention? Why not put the earth closer than mercury to the sun? or farther than pluto? he is omnipotent no? Why don't you calculate those chances you'll see that you'll need about 4 exponential notations.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 "so highly stacked against your fairy tale" Indeed that is why i accept evolution as truth. Just look at the ervs, making the assumption that they can ONLY randomly insert in 2 out of 3 BILLION locations in our genome the chance of them all being in the correct places in all primates if they are not related is 2^[(n.of.ERVs)*(n.of.primates-1)] lets just take human and chimps, 2^(98.000) = 2^4^(24500)=16^24500 >>> 10^24500. Evolution predicted an event incredibly unlikely to happen.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 so when you're kind your odds are evolution is as unlikely as one in 10^130, if you knew something about the video you're commenting to you'd know that there are about 98000 ervs in primates that are almost all at the same locations in our genome. If evolution was FALSE, lets see what are the chances of such a thing: (3*10^9 base pairs) ^ [ 98000ervs * 400 primates] > 10^(4,7*10^8). So the chances of intelligent design to be true are one in a number with at least 470000000 zeros.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 So when i'm kind i'd say ID is as likely as one in 10 with a few thousand zeros after it, but if i make the correct extimations I'd say its actually as unlikely as one in 10 with a few hundred million zeros after it. To put it simply it's more likely for you and me to number all the atoms of the universe with the exact numbers than for primates to not be related one another. BTW how are your multiple degrees in how to get a degree without passing 6th grade going? XD
Lol
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh 10^130 is for a single 100 amino acid protein. Trillions of proteins created by wild historical accidents is incalculable. Also when you are trying to insult someone's intelligence, Use spell check.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 thank you for finally saying how many a.a. you used, seeing as proteins can be so small as made by only 10 amino acids the chances that there are probably dozens of intermediates you ignored thus making the arising of such protein by evolution something almost obivious, too bad you cannot understand what i'm saying since you didn't pass 3rd grade. BTW is spell checking all you can do other than not understanding what i'm saying? XD
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 " Trillions of proteins created by wild historical accidents is incalculable" indeed for someone who doesn't understand exponential math and hasn't passed 6th grade. I mean seriously, you claim you have multiple degrees? WTF? Did you forget "thou shalt not lie"? lol
kyagh 1 year ago 4
@mejc2 Oh btw another thing you forgot coming up with those numbers is a little detail that destroyes your whole reasoning: you forgot that proteins don't form by chance, they form following the laws of chemestry ;).
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
Oh right? the chemical law that says proteins arise from non living matter by chance and then accidentally turn into all the living things that ever existed on the planet. I forgot that chemical law. it is called the fairy tale of evolution.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Arguments from incredulity are simply moronic expecially coming from someone that claims having multiple degrees. Try instead with learning what is the meaning of the word AMINO-ACID. Then learn about POLIMERIZATION. Moron. It's called the fairy tale of chemestry idiot. Seriously if you have multiple degrees can i test you? tell me a subject you're educated on and i'll see if its true because you sound like someone who didnt drop out of college... but dropped out of high school lol.
kyagh 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
A never observed never substantiated totally imagined story. Evolution. I know the truth.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 " I know the truth." care to share it so we can laugh? :3
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
Certainly, dirt never came alive by itself, no animal ever changed into a different animal, adaptation is normal, molecules to man evolution is a fairy tale.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
Then could you please answer this?
1)How did man come to be? What evidence do you have supporting your explaination?
2)Why do we have ERVs planted in oru genome at the same locations as primates? Why are we made of cells? Why do we still have genes for developing tails? Why are some babies born with tails? Why is the retina of our eyes pointed backwards? Why do we have the vagus nerve and the plantaris muscles? Why is our jaw too small for our teeth? Etc...
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
Notice this, none of the things that you request answers to are any evidence whatsoever that dirt came alive, or that any animal ever changed into a different animal, or support molecules to man evolution.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Notice this you answered not even one question...
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
You asked for the truth. I gave it to you. You then responded with unrelated questions. I have no obligation to answer. Similarity in organisms is in no way evidence that molecules accidentally acquired features to create all of the diversity we see on the planet.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "I have no obligation to answer."
So you admit you're ignorant, you don't know anything about human history why we are here how we did come to be despite your "multiple degrees". You're just a liar.... quite sad. You've finally shown that you have nothing in you you're just denying the ewvidence because of emotional reasons and when faced with the question you're afraid to answer because it will show your utter hypocrisy. You know a simple "i don't know" would have sufficed.
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
Your fairy tale has been refuted. like all other evolutionists you resort to changing the subject to my beliefs. I reiterate, I know the truth and the truth is that the story of molecules to man evolution is a fairy tale with no empirical evidence to support it.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 the only empirical evidence we have estabilished here is that you don't know what evolution is. I've tried explaining you that 1) non-living to living is not evolution is ABIOGENESIS. and 2) once we have living organisms the theory of evolution explains how they adapt to their enviroment and differentiate, hence explaining the diversity of life.
Besides you also don't know 6th grade math despite having "multiple degrees".
kyagh 1 year ago 2
@mejc2 The empirical evidence in favour of evolution is irrefutable therefore the only way to negate it is to shut your eyes an ears. I've been trying to understand what you want with evidence, what you take for evidence but every time i've asked you to give an example you always refuse because you do not know yourself and instead resulted to name calling me all sorts of things. You don't want to be wrong, that's what gives away the fact you're just another religious tard, now prove me wrong.
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
Evidence of molecules to man? The enormity and preposterous nature of that claim is almost too large to tackle. We, with our infinitesimally small brains have noticed similarity and made the wild claim that one organism changed into all organisms . We observe adaptation and claim that it is evidence that an organism is in the process of changing into some new kind of organism. What we know is: there is similarity between organisms and that organisms adapt. the rest is speculation.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Once again you refuse to give an example of what you consider as proof... you know the same DNA parenting tests that are legally accepted in court are used to discern closest relativites among species in biology. You know what I'm getting tired of trying to explain something to someone who is still in 3rd grade so how about we do a scientific experiment shall we? I'll explain in the other post:
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Experiment:
Hypothesis: You don't know **** about chemestry even tough you claim to have multiple degrees.
Experiment: If you're so smart as to truthfully calculate probabilities of proteins forming then please balance this RedOx: Fe(2+) + Cr2 O7(2-) ↔ Fe(3+) + Cr(3+) in acid solution.
Prediction: No matter what you will write you won't answer this.
Implications: If prediction is true then your "multiple degrees" have nothing to do with chemestry and you're simply a lying bigoted moron.
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
I have multiple degrees, none of which are related to chemistry or biology and I am not a lying bigoted moron, just someone that knows the truth.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "one of which are related to chemistry or biology" they also don't require you to have a diploma since that too was high school stuff not degree stuff and you know if you typed in redox balance in google the very first link is a nice site that does all the work for you, proving that not only you don't have a diploma, but also proving your IQ is pretty low.
^ Is this empirical proof enough of your IGNORANCE? How about you provide some empirical proof of your "education"?
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
"Prediction: No matter what you will write you won't answer this.
Implications: If prediction is true then...""
Very well played, kyagh!
As you're no doubt aware, usually when someone asserts "I know the truth" [in the context of life's origin], what they're actually saying is that they have a set of beliefs that they value so irrationally they are willing to lie, cheat & steal in order to vindicate said beliefs.
Well played ;-)
SpeakerForrTheDead 1 year ago
@SpeakerForrTheDead
I know but, i still do it the gentle way, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, also if he wants to argue evolution is not true without knowing what happened under pretext of skepticism of evolution that also is acceptable, someone doesn't need to know what happened to doubt an explaination... but after repetitive refusal to provide elements for a constructive debate i decided to just make him come down of his *high throne*.
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
"but, i still do it the gentle way..."
I agree. I never enter into a discussion on evolution antagonistically or mean spirited, but when someone resorts to flagrant and blatant lying I no longer feel the need to 'play nice'.
Some (most?) people believe creationist bs because they've been innocently duped, and I have plenty of patience with *that*.
But a dead give-away that destroys any claim to that kind of innocence is a statement like, "My IQ places me in the top 1% of humanity".
SpeakerForrTheDead 1 year ago 4
@mejc2 "I am not a lying bigoted moron, just someone that knows the truth. " But since i just proved you lied about having multiple degrees (unless you bought them on ebay) then it is safe to assume you lied in that sentence too therefore what you wrote was "yes i am a lying bigoted moron, and i do not know the truth".
Still waiting for you to prove me wrong...
kyagh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
Let's see if I can help you understand. I'll go slow for you.
1. I have multiple degrees
2. None of my degrees are in chemistry or biology
3. My IQ places me in the top 1% of humanity.
4. Dirt never came alive and accidentally changed into everything.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
1. So far you failed to prove you have a diploma let alone a degree.
2. Yet you argue about biology as if your expertise in the field is higher than all the doctorates of the world
3. Yet you were unable to perform a google search? Amaizing... if 99% of humanity is really as dumb as you are then we'd probably be extinct by now.
4. Ironically you're only negating what your religion claims because no scientist claims that and tough having an IQ of 427986792 you can't understand this.
kyagh 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kyagh
I tried to make it simple for you. However, you cannot understand. Consider yourself completely indoctrinated. You accept without evidence.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Yeah like i accept without evidence that you have multiple degrees without having a diploma... right XD
Still waiting for you to prove me wrong buddy, so far I'm disappoint.
How hard could it be for someone as smart as you to prove their expertise? I'm not asking for much, you're supposedly so incredibly smart, so why is it that you can't answer stuff a kid who just got a diploma can?
kyagh 1 year ago 7
@kyagh - funny that mejc2 now claims to be in the top 1% when he claimed on another video(v=ypYesuV3PoI) to be 'In terms of reading comprehension or general IQ I am in the 97th Percentile'. If he's going to make stuff up at least he could try to be consistent!
KrokrX 1 year ago 7
@mejc2
"My IQ places me (sic) in the top 1% of humanity".
I am curious, little creobot toy, what, exactly, is your intelligence quotient score?
ChickenHawk110 1 year ago
@ChickenHawk110
I50's
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
and you couldn't perform a google search? Are you sure you're not forgetting a minus in there? :3
kyagh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kyagh
You asked for the truth. I gave it to you. You then responded with unrelated questions. I have no obligation to answer. Similarity in organisms is in no way evidence that molecules accidentally acquired features to create all of the diversity we see on the planet.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "10 million years dogs change to Whales" it's 50Mn years btw, get at least the basic facts right ;)
"Through what mechanism " What you should ask you instead is trough what mechanism whales develop tiny legs that they no longer use? ;)
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
So there is no KNOWN mechanism.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "So there is no KNOWN mechanism." Just because you dropped out of school doesn't mean the rest of the world is at your level...
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Rapid mutations leads to extinction. Well, that is what our experiments show." Care to cite your sources? Well if you mean rapid mutations as in being exposed to a nuclear reactor then indeed yes but since these are natural mutations that happen to all organism it would mean we'd all be dead if that was the case. Besides i used the conservative estimate of 10^-6 had i used 10^-4 whales would have been able to change their whole genome 1000 times ;)
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 BTW a question... do you believe in the fairy tale that the earth goes around the sun or you do you believe that it is the opposite as stated in the bible? :3 BTW do you believe the earth is flat or do you believe the fairy tale that the earth is round and for some reason the chinese don't fall off? XD
kyagh 1 year ago
@kyagh
I don't believe the fairy tale that dirt came alive and changed into animals which in turn changed into different animals which in turn changed into humans. There is no scientific evidence to support this but you believe it anyway.
mejc2 1 year ago
Nice video.5 Stars *****
JustinBringit 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He said it. I am just telling you what he said.
mejc2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
peer reviewers snub you for style? what happened to integrity and a quest for the truth?
mejc2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am not defending Gentry's claim. I am simply stating that he cannot get anything published any more. Once he made his views known he was locked out from the peer review process.
mejc2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gentry has answered that challenge and would be glad to respond to you if you questioned him on it.
mejc2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Long since falsified models. Call Robert Gentry and see if he can get anything passed peer review today. They won't let him publish anything else because of his young earth views.
mejc2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL . what ? Did you just fall off the Naive tree? If I knew anything? Grow up first and take a stroll in the real world. Then get back to me.
Their is about as much chance of the peer review process allowing anti evolution information in, as their is of ICR allowing pro evolution information in their journals.
mejc2 2 years ago
OH the peer review process that ensures integrity. OH that peer review process. OH I thought you meant the good ole boy network that locks out contradictory views. MY BAD.
mejc2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are like OJ Simpson and his attorneys. They delivered their evidence to the DA's office in with a tractor trailer. You admit that you only read evolutionist works when you told me that the only ancient depictions you were aware of were the Ica Stones.
mejc2 2 years ago
@mejc2 Don't you get tired of all the thumbs down? They are trying to tell you that you are wrong.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
Did Galileo get tired of all the thumbs down? When you're right perseverance comes easy.
mejc2 2 years ago
Galileo's theories were backed up by observable evidence. Your theories are backed by by... NOTHING.
You, cephalopod, are no Galileo.
(With apologies to cephalopods everywhere. Just making a point.)
MethodicalMadness 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hold on, Hold on. OK you want to have a real discussion. Put up a short point that you can discuss without pointing me toward 50 evolutionists papers that no one will read. The joke about the papers is that one evolutionist speculates something puts it in a paper that is "peer reviewed" by other evolutionists. and then other evolutionists write papers citing the first paper as evidence and so on and so on until you get a pile of "peer reviewed" papers. I do understand the peer review process.
mejc2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OH powerful evidence? You mean you believe it strongly. WOW! if I had a nickle for everything that was believed strongly by knuckleheads like you I would be a millionaire. You see spouting the evolutionist nonsense over and over doesn't make it true.
mejc2 2 years ago
"Conjugation, mitosis, meiosis, DNA replication, mutation, natural, neutral, and sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, etc. "
Most of these have nothing to do with "evolution" from a single cell. The ones that are imagined to have never been shown to produce any part of an organism let alone an entirely new organism. You believe in invisible changes that give an organism such an advantage as to replace current forms of the organism.
mejc2 2 years ago
Direct Observation? Here is direct observation for you.
Ancient artifacts accurately depict dinosaurs. Evolutionists dismiss this actual empirical evidence that humans an dinosaurs coexisted. Dinosaur bones have soft tissue, empirically demonstrating that they CANNOT be 65 million years old. Evolutionists make up stories, that's what they do, then they cite each others stories as evidence that evolution actually happened. Empirically, there is no known mechanism for ascent from a single cell.
mejc2 2 years ago
@mejc2 are you talking about the supposed stegosaur? ROFL. By that reasoning med evil representations of dragons are proof dragons existed... you claim to be many things yet as always when someone self proclaims knowledgeable it's the other way around. You are an hypocrite at heart, you will be abandoned by both the people who understand the world and those who seek otherworld experience. No one likes hypocrites.
kyagh 1 year ago
Don't waste your time with mejc2. Evobiologist has spent months trying to respond to his nonsense in the comments section of one of his videos, it is pointless. He doesn't understand evolution, and will never accept any evidence for it so it's better to just ignore him. He has no interest in a serious discussion and just copies and pastes a series of rote statements when faced with evidence he doesn't like and can't explain.
TheStraightFacts 2 years ago 3
Indeed. These are folks whose hearing and attention span is tuned only to pay attention and listen to other people who will only back up their baseless assertions with more baseless assertions and thus reinforce their circular reasoning.
ANY and ALL data even remotely contrary to their presuppositions will not make its way into their minds.
Think broken record. They swear that their version of reality is the whole song.
MethodicalMadness 2 years ago
@MolecularBioVids
Plopping down a list of evolutionists that say evolutionism is true isn't exactly evidence. In case you didn't know.
You actually posted a book by Charles Darwin as evidence for ascent from lower life forms.
LOL what a joke.
mejc2 2 years ago
@MolecularBioVids
There is no mechanism that accounts for ascent form a lower life form. You have provided NO evidence. Also There is no model there is a story. explaining why an apple falls to the ground requires an apple to fall to the ground at least once. Explaining that all life is the result of an unseen, undefined, process even though all life has built in rejection of such changes, is fantasy. It is not a model it is not an explanation it is a made up story that has never been observed.
mejc2 2 years ago
Hi, I've sent you a message. My question was too long.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
@MolecularBioVids
Making models? Evolutionists are not making models of evolution. Evolutionists are making up evolution. They make up stories about bones they find. they make up stories about patterns found in DNA. All of the data is real but the stories made up are fantasy. Nothing has ever been observed to change into anything else. Ascent through mutation and natural selection is a fantasy.
mejc2 2 years ago
It is improbable. However, being that we have no record of anything evolving into anything else, It is illogical to assume that everything evolved from something else because we notice a pattern that we don't fully understand in DNA.
mejc2 2 years ago
What are we to make of ERVs that violate the nested hierarchy, eg. are shared by chimps and gorillas but not humans?
Balabaw2 2 years ago
I disagree. Evolution is the most logical, falsifiable theory to describe the variety of life.
epanek 2 years ago
wow man, this guy is awesome and criminally undersubscribed.
CreationistCrap 2 years ago 2
Excellent presentation. Thanks for posting!
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Stupid creationist
btw good vid
added
Adventfred 2 years ago
POL.... there is naturally occurring reverse transcrpitase in the human body actually. Telomerase. Therfore just becase there is a reverse transcriptase gene that does not mean that is it of retro viral origin.
perfacetus 2 years ago
As far as I know, Telomerase is of retro viral origin.
ERV (Abbie Smith) told us so in a comment at pharyngula.
kereng5 2 years ago
Yeah, but that is just circular logic.
Reverse transcriptase can come from a virus, telomerase is a resverse transcriptase therefore it must have come from a virus. .
It is like saying all cod are fish and so all fish are cod.
It may just be that some ERV's aren't from viruses at all but rather they have always been programmed into us as part of our function.
perfacetus 2 years ago
Question, why did he compare a mouse hemoglobin to human hemoglobin? He should of compared apes and human hemoglobin.
retsnom92 2 years ago
Just rediscovered this video. Still nice. Thanks.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
So if we find an ERV that does not fit the nested hierarchy. It is likely that it did at one time but now doesn't because we don't see it. So when we find ERV's that don't fit the nested hierarchy it will falsify evolutionism except if it used to exist in the right place but doesn't any more which will be determined by evolutionists that are trying to bolster evolutionism.
Got it. thanx
mejc2 2 years ago
No, you don't seem to have it at all, if an ERV were found in all of phylogeny from reptiles to mammals to other primates and not in humans the nested hierarchy would be called into question.
Evolution is easy to falsify, find a dog with a plant cell wall.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
It got too complex for you, didn't it? I guess I see why you want to stick with "Magic-Man-Dun-It" then... there is just too much complexity! LOL
If you find ERVs that don't fit the nested hierarchy, then you must find a logical explanation for the observation... "Magic-Man-Dun-It" is not a logical explanation. A mutation in the DNA can misplace/delete an ERV.
So the question is: do ERVs consistently match the nested hierarchy and the answer is YES!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Wait you notice a pattern assign a reason and that means that your reason is right. It just happened by accident? Well then I guess you could include everything in that explanation, which evolutionists do on a constant basis.
It just happened for no reason. To quote Dawkins.
mejc2 2 years ago
One thing creationists never get is "evidence"!
They don't understand that when you find a reason, not only must it fit the pattern, but it must be supported by evidence.
So when a creationists guesses that we can include "everything in that explanation", it's clear that the creationist forgot about evidence. But it's not the creationists' fault, they think that just because their explanation is a religion with no evidence, then everything else must be a religion requiring no evidence too.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Evolutionists claim everything as evidence for their belief. If something is simple they claim it obviously evolved. If something is overly complicated they claim it obviously evolved because a designer wouldn't do it that way.
Every thing fits the fairy tale.
mejc2 2 years ago
Creationists live in an imaginary world where reality is what they want it to be... their evidence is imagined, facts are fabricated and scientific theories are things you come up with when you're bored on the weekend.
All creationist ideas are TOTAL FAILURES, so with that kind of track record the creationist opinion is worth just about the same as a washed out rock.
When creationists say "evolutionists claim everything as evidence" it's just another example of their FAILURE to grasp reality!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Reality is all that creationists deal in. it is the fairy tale of evolution that is perpetuated by the masses. To accept evolutionism you must be indoctrinated. However there is a large scale indoctrination program in place. Evolutionists claim evolution as a fact with no facts to support the hypothesis.
mejc2 2 years ago
Creationists are just mad that everybody laughs at their stupid ideas so they throw a fit and say that science is a religion... just because creationists believe in imaginary things, it doesn't mean that everybody else does so too.
If creationists understood a thing about reason, logic and reality then they wouldn't be creationists. Nobody will take creationists seriously as long as they believe the earth is 6 thousand years old and Noah's flood story is real... Creationism FAILS!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Evolutionists have used the fairy tale of evolution for control purposes. It removes any higher power, and allows people to make their own decisions. All you have to do to control them from that point is control the information they see and you can choose which decisions they make.
Take Ida for example evolutionists bombarded the masses through the media with that missing link stuff. Where was the media blitz telling everyone it had no relation to humans? Ah, that's what I thought. FAIRY TALE
mejc2 2 years ago