Added: 2 years ago
From: owchywawa
Views: 490
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (35)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @owchywawa at 6:03 How can the error correction system fix this. The enzymes use the unmutated good genes from the other parent. Since this people are inbreeding there's no good gene to make the replacement. The inbreeding caused the deletion of the good genes. If they were to mate with another person outside of their family, the feet of those children would be normal.

  • Anyone who denies the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection denies a cornerstone of modern science.

  • 2:35 "While I will not discount the possibility...etc...there is not sufficient reason to believe there is anything like what neph claims." According to the WLC quotes in your 'atheism defined' video, what you've said to Neph here is merely a description of your psychological state. So why should your percieved lack of evidence for Neph's claims persuade him or anyone else?  WLC says you "need to have some evidence or arguments for your position."

  • @drumrnva Atheism defined video? I don't think I have a video named that.

    "So why should your percieved lack of evidence for Neph's claims persuade him or anyone else?"

    Persuade them of what?

    "WLC says you "need to have some evidence or arguments for your position.""

    This is true.

  • @owchywawa Maybe I have my wires crossed. Sorry.

  • You have a firm grasp on these things. Why is it you don't accept evolution? Just curious.

  • @Tyrtamus I accept it for the most part, but there are still a few things I'm not so sure about. For example, I'm not sure if natural selection is strong enough to keep fitness levels from plummeting. Right now I'm in the process of setting up an evolution simulation on an 8 core 64.2 GB ram computer (I love the power :D) I'm renting to see if I can resolve these issues..

  • @owchywawa Fitness levels? Well by definition the most well adapted species tend to survive, and fitness would seem to be an important factor in that. But yeah it sounds fun to play with. :) Let me know how it turns out!

  • Well, mutations tend to be harmful and natural selection cannot select against all of them. Basically, if the amount of harmful mutations fixed in the population is greater than the amount of beneficial, the theory of evolution has a real dilemma on it's hands. From what I have seen so far, this seems to be the case, but I still have some other variables I need to look into.

  • @owchywawa Why not just buy (of build) a few 4 core systems and spread your app out?

  • @CupidDanger I looked into it, but I couldn't do it for some reason. I don't remember why. Anyway, I don't really have much time to mess around with that any more. Maybe some day I will do that.

  • owchy,

    Great video. I hope you follow up to his reply soon.

  • @hugesinker I'm done with nephilimfree

  • why?  You're on the cusp of total pwnage! He just went on an arrogant insulting rant and didn't even touch on your best stuff. He doesn't even know that evolution is punctuated by isolation. You've got a chance to set him straight because you've actually got his attention. You rock bro.

  • Nephilimfree didn't say anything worth responding to. I could respond, but not without repeating myself and just pointing out obvious logical errors. Nephilimfree will never wakeup to the fact that he is wrong because he doesn't want to, so there is no point in trying, but the average viewer should be able to recognize who is right without me pointing obvious logical errors and that's the only reason I responded.

  • I understand, but would still encourage you to do it anyway if you have the time-- just for all the users that he's blocked for offering corrections and asking for sources.

    @1:23 I laughed..

  • @owchywawa

    Bad move, Sporty.

  • Just wanted to list 2 things that break Mendel genetics:

    1. Maternal Inhertiance--The mother provides the phenotype. Not on X chromosome.

    2. Maternal Effect--The offspring takes the phenotype of the mother.

    I guess this proves creation so suck it? jk

  • Wow! You pounded NephilimFree in this exchange, though very politely, I must say.

    You stuck with using NephilimFree's words and with verifiable facts. THIS is how it should be done!

    But yes, as other comments suggest, it's a waste of time debating with NephilimFree. He will always be certain that he was "educating" you.

    And if you don't "learn," you will be blocked.

    Oh well... At least it gives the rest of us a change to learn something new! That tribal foot thing, I hadn't heard before.

  • There is a part in Neph's new rebuttal where he claims that all geneticists know that DNA error correction make evolution impossible, but they deny it.

    I just want you to know, my mom, who has studied genetics for 25 years and had 9 years of education before that, laughed her ass off at him for that part. NO geneticist thinks that... except Nephilimfree. I wonder how many hours that man has spent in a lab.

  • Yeah, I saw your comments about Drosophila living for several generations. I should have said in my first video that I wasn't sure if were stable enough to mate. Guess I wouldn't have made that mistake if I knew a geneticist :P One of these days I'll earn a degree in genetics myself, but I'm still a relative newb for now :P

  • From this video I can tell you're well on your way. It's tough field and schooling for it really weeds out those who are seriously interested vs. those who are in it for the money. My mom went to Boston College and then on to Dartmouth for her Ph.D. In her second year at BC her genetics class shrunk by 2/3 from the year before. I can drop you her e-mail if you have any questions about genetics. She has all the time in the world to respond (she occupies her time with YT Judy Judy videos lol).

  • Cool, I love judge judy! :P

  • She received a 3 year grant from the government for a research project she finished this last summer, so she's got 2.5 years to fiddle around.

  • Dude, you owned him. The man is literally insane. You can show him EXACTLY where he's wrong, but he'll just repeat the same old thing over and over and over and over again. He STILL uses the concentric circles argument for geocentricity after AndromedasWake destroyed it. I very much appreciate the time you took making this. I know how annoying the the wild goose hunts for Neph's sources can be. I've had to shoot down his DNA recombination crap. Waste of 3 hours of my life =/

  • Honestly, spending time talking with Nephilimfree is a waste of your time.

    The man believes the sun revolves around the earth, and aliens are evil angels probing humans for satan. Most of his arguments on evolution and genetics are not even his own, he's just searching out apologist websites and copy-pasting their claims.

    You're a bright guy. And I commend you on pursuing an education. Even though we hold different spiritual beliefs, I think your quest for knowledge is a force for good.

  • Those ostrich people are fucking cool!

  • 7:40...biology fail.

    I find your last link something to think about. I've heard Spetner and non-random mutations. But wouldn't a great deal of evidence of evolution and phylogeny in general (about shared mutations) then not fall under common mechanism instead of common descent?

  • Well, Spetner thinks the mutations are non-random because "if only 6 of these 47 mutations were essential for the evolution, the probability of achieving it in 30 years is about 3 x 10^-35." (link in the description) I haven't really look much into it myself, but I don't believe in non-random mutations at present. He is involved in cancer research etc though., so I do have to respect his opinion.

  • But I don't know if it would help evolution because I would assume it would have limits. Like it would probably be something more like nephilimfree's repair from a backup gene I would guess.

  • Here, maybe a quote from his book will help: "Although there are defensive positions the religious believer could have taken against the NDT, the theory does deny creation. The NREH, on the other hand, is agnostic and poses no contradiction to creation."

    So it seems Spetner would accept phylogeny in general and thinks God is some how involved with the gain of information.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more