@TheScienceFoundation Responding to does not equal refuting. Bad science, no science and insults are not refutations. But once again, if you want to believe it, go ahead. I mean, you already believe in evolution. Clearly you have trouble differentiating between reality and fiction.
@BenWalburn Refuting it does, and that's exactly what was done. I don't have to believe it I actually understand how science works. If you think evolution is anything but the fact that explains biodiversity that is some egregious projection of ignorance on your part regarding the inability to differentiate between reality and fiction.
Creationist ignorance does not affect the validity of evolution in any way.
@TheScienceFoundation Oh please, Ian's science is sound, it just contradicts evolutionary myth. That is not grounds for refuting. Furthermore, the video response only contradicts Ian, not actually providing any science.
You claiming to understand science does not actually mean you understand it, and no, your screen name does not qualify you.
Likewise, asserting "ignorance" does not equal ignorance. More in a minute or so, hopefully.
@BenWalburn I really hope you're kidding, Ian is one of the most scientifically illiterate charlatans on youtube. The fact that he's demonstrably wrong is grounds for refuting. The video response links to another video that explains how information is added, including sources, and why his phone book analogy is specious.
I'm not just claiming it, I actually do.
I'm not just asserting that you're ignorant, you're doing a fair job of demonstrating it for me.
@TheScienceFoundation Your logic follows like this: First, evolution, no matter what is true. Therefore anything contradictory to ToE is false. Creation is different than ToE, therefore creation is false.
The second part of your logic is this: Evolution is science, therefore anything contradictory to evolution is not science. Creation contradicts evolution, therefore is not science.
The problem is that ToE is neither true nor science, in fact, science contradicts ToE (creation not necessary)
@odinata You know nothing about me. Like many other intelligent people, I was an atheist who hated christianity and sought to make christians/christianity look bad. In the process, simply put, I lost. I became a christian, which is a much more intellectually defendable position.
Now, I was going to point out that since your first assertion was false, then your conclusion is also false, but on re-reading your comment I noticed that there's no actual logic to refute.
@odinata There you go again, making assertions that I not only refuted right after you made them, but are making them again. Sandwiching your assertion around my fact does not invalidate my fact.
I do not have opinions about biology, therefore it is impossible for scientific evidence to support it. So thank you for stating the obvious.
@odinata Um no. Creation is science that supports a religion. That does not make it a religion. By that logic, a table that supports a vase is a vase. Isn't logic fun?
@odinata ok? and your point is what? I could have told you that.
But where do you mix rats/mice with brainwashing? Oh wait, do you think that I don't believe rats and mice come from the same ancestor? If you did, you're completely wrong.
@BenWalburn No, that's a horrible strawman. I've followed the data where it's led and that has been overwhelmingly to evolution. Every testable claim made from creationism has been rebutted.
Yes, evolution is science as independently confirmed via every field related to biology. Creationism isn't non-science only because it contradicts evolution, but because it's contradicted by the data.
The problem is you're still confusing ignorance for an argument, it's not.
@TheScienceFoundation Now I know you're just a troll. There is no data pointing to evolution, that's ridiculous. But if you insist, please show me the evidence. Also show me the rebuttals of creationism. That would be a cool trick too.
No, evolution is not confirmed in any field, related to biology or not. But if you insist, you are more than welcome to live in that delusion.
Creation is NOT contradicted by data, "I disagree" is not data.
Ignorance where? I still want you to share that secret
@BenWalburn So you're just trolling and then projecting when called on it huh? All the data points to evolution. This is as good a place as any to start; genome(.)gov/15515096
As for rebuttals of creationism, the most prominent one would be genetic variability which makes it impossible for a bottleneck such as the flood to have occurred.
Yes, creationism is contradicted by the data, it's not just a matter of disagreeing.
Ignorance such as thinking evidence supports creation.
@BenWalburn Wrong, there is absolutely no mechanism to explain similar DNA through a creator while evolution explains it empirically through descent with modification.
The last universal common ancestor would've been unicellular or freshly multi-cellular. The same problems with variability don't arise in asexual reproduction.
I already did, bottlenecks are impossible.
Yes, you are. If you could recognize baseless assertion you wouldn't be a creationist.
@TheScienceFoundation There you go again, making assertions with no facts behind it. Similarity proves common creator, anything in life can prove that.
Lets pretend that's true. What happens when that single-celled organism gives rise to a multi-celled one? Bottleck.
They're impossible? You just told me that my bottleneck was a problem, now you're saying they're impossible?
Another baseless assertion. Provide evidence of your claims, become silent, or admit you're wrong about your assertion.
@BenWalburn There you go again projecting your bare assertions and completely ignoring my refutation of your garbage. 'Same creator' is not a valid argument because there is no mechanism.
Again, even simple colonial organisms are asexual.
They're impossible given the scope of genetic variability we see in modern species.
You really have a problem distinguishing your own baseless assertions from other peoples refutations of your ignorance.
@TheScienceFoundation There's no mechanism? How do you figure that? If I design two cars, they will have a similar design. That is a mechanism. And if you disagree and require a mechanism, then where is the mechanism for adding information?
You're missing the point entirely. At some point, you will have a male/female setup that will be a bottleneck.
How does that make it impossible? take two of any animals and put them in a cage together and you get a bottleneck.
@BenWalburn Horribly erroneous analogy, cars are produced through known mechanism, welding, riveting etc. You're just asserting that life was designed with justification at all. Again, I linked to a video, with numerous sources, explaining how information is added genetically in the reply to this video.
No, you won't because populations evolve not individuals.
Yes and if only the descendants of those two animals were allowed to breed with one another, variability would vanish.
@TheScienceFoundation Again, you're missing the point. Creation IS the known mechanism. "With justification at all"? I'll ignore that gibberish.
Your video was rebutted by this video, so you're going to need a new one.
Populations evolve randomly. One would get the mutation while many won't. eventually there would be a single male/female and there starts the bottleneck. And it just gets worse and more obvious from there.
Thank you for stating the obvious. That is where we are at today
@BenWalburn No, creation is the assertion, just saying 'we were created' is not sufficient evidence.
No, this video was rebutted in my video. You're going to need to realize ignorance doesn't make the refutation of Ian's garbage go away.
Evolution is non-random. Beneficial traits move through the populations at a higher frequency. No, there was never just one male and one female, I already pointed out that entire populations evolve.
@TheScienceFoundation Now do you have anything remotely intelligent or thought provoking? If I wanted to argue with a groundworm, I'd dig one up and not waste my precious time on the internet to argue with one online.
So, if you have nothing interesting to say, I guess I'm done. You are boring, all you do is contradict me and yourself. You make baseless assertions and baseless assertions to back up those assertions. You are the least thought provoking atheist I've ever met.
@BenWalburn I've already destroyed every bit of garbage you've brought up. You're suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger here. Your overconfidence is definitely disproportional to your competence. Your only technique thus far has been to ignore the most basic concepts of genetics, etc. and pretend like they don't exist. Facts don't disappear just because they utterly refute you bronze age mysticism.
If you were capable of thought, you wouldn't argue what you've argued.
@TheScienceFoundation Alright, you have reduced yourself to ad hominem. Insulting is the last resort, so I assume you're out of your half-thoughts and repetitive baseless assertions, so I'm done. Goodnight. I wish you were worth my time.
@BenWalburn That coming from the person that compared me to a groundworm, we can add hypocrisy. Ad hominem would imply you've offered any argumentation that would have been dismissed in order to employ a personal attack. Either way I've done nothing but attempt to help you understand that your inability to comprehend basic genetics is not an actual argument. No signs of bottlenecks means no bottlenecks, I always thought even creationists could grasp that one.
@BenWalburn You might consider discussions like these more worth your time if you would actually realize that you have no idea what you're talking about. Then maybe you could learn something instead of regurgitating the same nonsense you've been fed by people like Ian who are no more scientifically literate than yourself.
PseudoScienceFoundation....Why I didn´t think of that before?...great, that´s exactly what evolution is all about, simply Pseudo-Science, in short a scientific myth tinted with science, no wonder why any anyone who just shows any doubt in this fable is fired with no mercy, and there are the many, I´m really offended when I´m told that my great-great-great-grandpa was one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures, as if I were a stupid, what a world we live in
@realhomosapiens While I'd love to take the credit, I stumbled across the name in one of Ian's videos. After debating PseudoScienceFoundation, I found the nickname to be very accurate, so I started using it.
But it turns out that atheists don't like their myth being called pseudoscience, or myth. Not that I care, of course.
No. They aren't a loss of information. They are a change in information. There are several ways of how genetic code is added to the genome and simply due to a change in information, you cannot say they cannot exist due to this change. In fact, as long as it is beneficial it will be selected for.
Mutations that are beneficial - CCR5 delta 32 gene and the sickle cell mutation along with nylonase and a mutation that helps digest citrus in e-coli. We can then look at animals and see that carnivores and omnivores lack a properly grown cecum and that herbivores contain a working cecum. Why would we still have a cecum? Makes no sense if evolution did not occur.
Uh. I'm a biologist specializing in genetics and cell biology, Mutations cause a change in nucleotides which generate new amino acids. The result of this change causes a new combination of amino acids to form to create a protein. Thus - The mutation, by its very nature, creates new information.
Duplicate information? You mean like A,T,C,G? Of course those nucleotides will still be the same. However, the combination will be different. It's like double binary code.
@curtsphobias LOL You think 'I'M' an idiot? A mutation is signified by an increase in genetic code in a genome. He said that the genetic code never gains new information. Guess what, retard? Mutations add new information. If he believes that no new information arises in the genome then he must believe that mutations never occur.
LOL @ anti-creationists, ad hoc attacks does not make a refutation. prove evolution through proper scientific methods. not assumptions and making the evidence fit to that, you know you do it all the time. actualy keep up with the ad hoc attacks, they are a laugh to read. you guys certainly have more faith than I do to believe in evolution than creation.
This is a bad analogy...a better analogy would be to say, "I got 2 copies of this phonebook, and then since I didn't need the other copy I worked out that I could use it as a step so I can reach the top of my cupboards! Now I can reach more stuff that I couldn't before!" Whats important is that the copied gene is basically redundant since the other gene is still functioning, so mutations can play around with it without consequence. Also the cancer analogy is HORRIBLE surely you understand that!
exactly what they were saying in the previous video - democracy (or majority opinion) does not make right. only right makes right. and while im at it statistically speaking i would be willing to bet more uneducated, unemployed, god-complex liberals surf the web than outstanding creationists. (they have alot of damage control to do irl)
RNA research..lol copying information using activated subunits at just the right temperatures ..which would never be found on a there so called primordial earth...If the really want t o simulate the correct experiment .they need conduct one like what Stanley miller did, and get around the major problem of Chirality..its IMPOSSIBLE to separate amino acids do you have any testable repeatable observable evidence for abiogenesis ?..abiogenesis is a Faith!!
@viper2808 What is that so irrational about evolution? What are you well read on precisely? ... cellular biology? … evolution? … creationism/intelligent design?
I am obviously missing something here, what is it?
On what I know, his arguments are erroneous. Cancer is the perfect example of enzymes failing to recognize DNA mutations and it is very common (13% of all deaths). On this video he doesn't present anything that I can recognize as a valid argument in face of real cellular biology.
@elploky - good point! - if any cancerous cells are found to be positive/contribute constructively towards the survival of living things this idiot is going to look real stupid!
@TREACLE97 You don't really need that, he already looks really stupid (I would say evidently ignorant/confused or simply deceiving) because he misrepresent what is known about biology.
Saying that DNA replication can only produce exact copies makes him look stupid.
Saying that mutations (that he says could not happen) would be recognized and fixed always makes him look stupid.
If an 'a' was added to Johnson in the second book, you are not losing information, as the first book still contains Johnson. Using this phonebook analogy, It may not seem as though you are adding useful information with this extra letter, however in the context of DNA, and random mutations new information could be added quite easily without any kind of intelligent design. Just a note, a great majority of mutations in DNA are not useful, and are not passed on to future generations.
1. Difference between DNA and the phonebook: The phonebook documents the phone numbers, addresses, etc. DNA encodes for the proteins that are produced. If you want to make the analogy fit, that extra A should cause mr Johanson to move into mr Johnson's house. The town has now changed (evolved?).
2. The fact that those repair mechanisms don't work 100% is illustrated by cancer, a disease caused by some of the mutations those mechanisms should've fixed.
@LegendarySkyKing Quote from the vid: "With the repair repair system in place, evolution can't happen [because mutations get repaired]"
My point was that even with the repair system, mutations that don't get fixed still occur (...and that is how cancer develops...) and therefore his point wasn't valid. Do you not read my arguments before replying to them?
Sidenote: Also, cancer does not help people evolve, because mostly it occurs in somatic cells and therefore doesn't get passed on.
@LegendarySkyKing The point is people have been around more than cancer has, yet people have not gained immunities for it, and neither aids, thats the true statement, not yours, this debunks evolution in itself. Maybe u should question your advanced science why it hasn't found the cure, if it is so well developed.lol Did u not read what u posted?
This video is so stupid I couldn't even make it past the 2 minute mark.
"...and if the phonebook puts an A in there by mistake..."
..and if your tDNA finds an "A" (instead of C or G), it will then seek out a different base (T) , and all the others will be different down the line, resulting in a different protien. Hence, new information.
Chuck- Assuming such permanent mutations happen, and we know they do, that means you get neutral, near-neutral and detrimental mutations. Those are going to pile up way faster than beneficial ones. Logic, therefore, would tell us that we are not evolving, but degrading. There's another video on exactly this.
The majority of mutations are nuetral. After that, there are slightly more detrimental than advantageous. Combine the nuetral and advantageous- you do not statistically get a "degrading".
Wrong. Look, living things evolve. Mutation is only one way it happens. The bases are paired in triplets, which pairs up with a specific amino acid. If there's a "loss" in a base, it borrows from the next set of base triplets, and gets a DIFFERENT amino acid- which changes the others, forming a DIFFERENT protien.
Genetics had the potential to falsify evolution outright, it did just the opposite, with every mapping of every gene it became more and more identical to every other tree from every other field of biology
Guess what species were most similar to genetically? The same species that we're most similar to anatomically.
Now you might use the 'same genes same designer' argument, but without a testable mechanism or potential falsification, this is a complete non-answer.
Ignorance is no longer an excuse, seeing as how a 2 second search at pubmed dawt gov, the largest most well known English peer review archive on the net, returns ~50,000 results on a search for morphological changes/evolution, the only explanation for your claim is intellectual dishonesty.
There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species. 70 yrs of mutation experimentation has produced 100% consistant results: no change to morphology at all. TThe individual can be deformed, but the deformity dissapears in the offpring in 1 to several generations without fail - for 70 YEARS.
Evolutionism is not science, nor scientific. It disregards the Scientific Method to posit claims.
There is not one example known of a genetic mutation"
Did you even read what I wrote, I was responding to your copy and paste, do you understand that? You've said the same "Geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson" quote multiple times both on this channel and others. Ever time someone responds to you you go off on another tangent like you just did. Tell me, why are you copying the same thing over and over again without actually responding to anything we are saying?
There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species. 70 yrs of mutation experimentation has produced 100% consistant results: no change to morphology at all. TThe individual can be deformed, but the deformity dissapears in the offpring in 1 to several generations without fail - for 70 YEARS
"There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species."
You personally lying about science is irrelevant, science has found what you're claiming doesn't exist, thousands of times over.
If you actually searched the peer reviewed literature for what you may claim hasn't been found/is impossible, you'll save us a lot of time and yourself a lot of embarrassment.
"There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species."
True, there's not one, there are thousands.
> pubmed(.)gov
search for > morphological evolution
But really until you give an example of what you would accept as a morphological change, you're not saying 'there is no evidence' you're saying 'There is no evidence I will accept'
By the same standards used to declare humans are 90+% genetically similar to apes, we are also 50% similar genetically to a banana. But we are morphologically ZERO like a banana. Thus, the claim that genetic similarity is evidence of ancestry between man and pae is perposteous.
Check your sources again, roughly 50% of our genes serve the same function as roughly 50% of the bananas genes, they aren't the same genes, they only serve approximate function.
We aren't morphologically like a banana at all. Your claim that genetics provides evidence of ancestry is patently false.
Furthermore, and ultimately, DNA is empirical proof of both design and Special Creation because it is a representation of informaton which is not bound to it's medium, immaterial, and must exist prior to the medium which conveys it.
Genetics has disproven evolution and proven creation.
"The 50 per cent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren't necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences."
Posting a link does not tell me that you know of evidence. If you cannot explain your claim, you have no knowledge of interest to me.
If half of our genes were evidence of evolution to man from ape-like creatures, then half in babanas should be too. Evolutionists point to similarities in morphology as evidence man and ape are related. The babana makes that house of cards fall.
I just did, there are several ways to compare genes, between chimps and humans it's done by specific amino acids coded for, for the claim that we share half our genes with bananas it was done by just basic general function.
Your lacking understanding of this does not constitute any problem whatsoever for concordance between comparative anatomy and genetics.
Buddy, I just provided you with proof that DNA verifies both design and Special Creation. You're blowing in the woind. And I have no more time for you. There are other denialists that need educating. Be well. CYA.
I predict that you will neither ever attempt to define immaterial information OR admit that you can't.
You need to realize, you can't define it because your position is based on pure and willful ignorance. Absolutely everything you're arguing for are useless pseudo-scientific non-answers, no better or useful than saying 'well we don't know everything right now, so let's just say pure magic from space'
There is no such thing as immaterial information, information is a property of energy (and by extension matter)
Information as used in information theory is defined as 'that which distinguishes one from another'
so basically, distinguishing characteristics.
Genetics has confirmed evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and unless and until anyone can produce both a testable mechanism for creation and a means to falsify it, creationism isn't even considerable for scientific discussion.
"There is no such thing as immaterial information, information is a property of energy (and by extension matter)"
False. Information is not bound to it's medium! Is that difficult to grasp? I'll help.
A book contains information but is not the information itself. it is a rperesentation of it to cwonvey it. The information orginated in and exists in the moind of the autghor. If you destrpoy the book, the information is not destroyed, only it's carrier.
The numbers, letters, and punctuations are the information themselves.
Quick example, what's the difference between this '.' and this'!' ?
How can you tell? The line itself is information distinguishing the exclamation point from the period.
You have yet to even attempt to define 'immaterial information' you just keep making the claim that 'information is not bound to it's medium' without supporting it at all.
DNA is a prepresentation of digital genetic information. It is not the information itself. So you see, information is not material. The immaterial information cannot be created by matter, nor can matter itself be information.
Now, because the information exists prior to the medium which conveys it, this is empirical proof that information is design. Because the carrier is created to represent it, this is empirical evidence of creation.
Presumably 'information' may only be created by an intelligence? For example if a human designs something from pre-existing materials this is 'adding information' to the materials? How about if something is reproduced, does this increase the amount of 'information' or not? If an object contains 'information' then doesn't its copy?
Yes, if you have a "Mr. Johnson" in one phone book and a "Mr. Johanson" in another, the two phone books contain more information than would two identical ones that contain "Mr. Johnson".
The TRUTH VALUE of any of those entries is irrelevant.
If a phone book is 2 megabytes, then two identical phone books can be paraphrased as "phone book x 2". Therefore, two phone books can ALSO be stored as just over 2 megabytes.
But if you start changing entries one of the phone books, you can't do that anymore. You have to store the entire book twice. That makes two phone books 4 megabytes.
I think it is hilarious because the more that is revealed about DNA repair the less likely evolution occured via mutation and natural selection and the more problematic Haldane's dilemma becomes.
"Really now? Which part of genetic record DOESN'T point to evolution?"
All of it DOESN'T. It cannot form naturally, it cannot assemble naturally, it falls apart in water, it oxidises in air and UV destroys it. You think it came about naturally but ALL OF SCIENCE shows it cannot.
You're making the common creationist mistake of conflating the origin of life to evolution , they aren't the same thing. By genetic record I mean the traceable history of genomes in relation to one another.
"It cannot form naturally" to make that absolute claim you have to have observed every single chemical reaction that ever occurred
It doesn't fall apart in water, you seem to have just made that up, in fact the purine bases and amino acids are produced by hydrolysis (hydro means water). There was little to no oxygen in the atmosphere 3.8ba and particulate matter in water filters UV light.
That's why it is so important to point out all the baloney regarding evolutionism. Hopefully after watching videos pointing out the marked problems with evolutionism, maybe some won't be so willfully ignorant of the various problems with evolutionism.
What do you think cancer is? Where do you think tumors come from? Where do you think birth defects come from? Its from errors in DNA cause they don't always get fixed.
You are welcome to make a better video on there then. Actually these are well thought out, and really go after the huge problems dealing with evolutionism.
Also, the repair of the DNA you speak of certainly doesn't prevent significant mutations from occurring as this has been observed in nature. Just recently we've discovered the nylon-eating bacteria which couldn't have existed before nylon was invented and is shown to have developed this trait by duplication and frame shift mutation. And that's just one. Further, consider that Adam and Eve could have only had four alleles per gene max. Now there may be over 600 alleles for a particular gene.
The phonebook is a false analogy. DNA doesn't work like a phone book. It's more like language. For instance, you have the word "straw." That word is copied twice (which happens in everyone many times over). Now, suppose the letters - which are analogous to the amino acids - in the copy are reversed (also happens all the time). Now you have "straw" and then "warts." Granted you don't have many words that works with, but it's not a problem in DNA as many combinations produce proteins.
@ewbernauer I don't think he realizes that he is an idiot, in which lies the problem. If he had any intorest in the truth or faith in his beliefs he would invite any PhD Biologist to come on, in person, by phone or via the internet to discuss he ideas. Note that he has ideas and not theories. He wont as he is the "founder of Canada's first creation museum" and his livelihood is built on lies.
An extra copy of the same gene is not only free to mutate, but its also free to serve a new purpose. DNA bases can be transferred between genes. If your two phone books exchanged information, then you'd have phone books different from the ones you started with.
It's an interesting argument, but biologically speaking doesn't quite add up. The 'robots' don't quite work that way... as an example, it's generally accepted that every person born has several mutations that make them different from their parents.
If your 'robots' correct all changes, then where do these mutations come from? Or do you think that no mutations occur?
The truth is that DNA repair systems are not guaranteed to produce exact copies. Mutations are then passed on... some beneficial.
Your comparison is incorrect.... incorrect information in a phone book is nothing like incorrect genetic information, and the "robots" that maintain the DNA are not infallible (and if God had designed them to prevent evolution, then they would be) hence why children can be born, and survive with, genetic mutations and suffer through their lives, and occasionally (Search for info on "Das Uberboy) it is beneficial. And to clarify, I believe in a higher power, but I don't try to swallow religion->
Great. So now that Obama IS born in USA - that mean evolution is also true
Aleksamson 2 weeks ago
LOL! Great video! The common sense of an 8-year-old is enough to debunk the insanity of evolution...
issue357 3 weeks ago
Please be more careful with your choice of jokes.
Yebacgugla 2 months ago
Wazooloo you've done it again, excellent Rant "....I hear housing is cheap near Chernobyl" ..........haha, love it.
ozredneck22 2 months ago
@ozredneck22 Not really, as I pointed out to curstphobia this rant is refuted in the video replies
TheScienceFoundation 4 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Not at all, but you can imagine all you want
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn Not just in imagination, in reality. This video has been refuted in full in the video reply.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Responding to does not equal refuting. Bad science, no science and insults are not refutations. But once again, if you want to believe it, go ahead. I mean, you already believe in evolution. Clearly you have trouble differentiating between reality and fiction.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn Refuting it does, and that's exactly what was done. I don't have to believe it I actually understand how science works. If you think evolution is anything but the fact that explains biodiversity that is some egregious projection of ignorance on your part regarding the inability to differentiate between reality and fiction.
Creationist ignorance does not affect the validity of evolution in any way.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Oh please, Ian's science is sound, it just contradicts evolutionary myth. That is not grounds for refuting. Furthermore, the video response only contradicts Ian, not actually providing any science.
You claiming to understand science does not actually mean you understand it, and no, your screen name does not qualify you.
Likewise, asserting "ignorance" does not equal ignorance. More in a minute or so, hopefully.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn I really hope you're kidding, Ian is one of the most scientifically illiterate charlatans on youtube. The fact that he's demonstrably wrong is grounds for refuting. The video response links to another video that explains how information is added, including sources, and why his phone book analogy is specious.
I'm not just claiming it, I actually do.
I'm not just asserting that you're ignorant, you're doing a fair job of demonstrating it for me.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Your logic follows like this: First, evolution, no matter what is true. Therefore anything contradictory to ToE is false. Creation is different than ToE, therefore creation is false.
The second part of your logic is this: Evolution is science, therefore anything contradictory to evolution is not science. Creation contradicts evolution, therefore is not science.
The problem is that ToE is neither true nor science, in fact, science contradicts ToE (creation not necessary)
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn
Your logic follows like this.
"My opinion about what the Bible says is true no matter what is true.
I will only accept science that confirms my religious opinions."
Sorry bud, the ToE is the foundation of modern Biology.
It is a fact.
odinata 2 weeks ago
@odinata You know nothing about me. Like many other intelligent people, I was an atheist who hated christianity and sought to make christians/christianity look bad. In the process, simply put, I lost. I became a christian, which is a much more intellectually defendable position.
Now, I was going to point out that since your first assertion was false, then your conclusion is also false, but on re-reading your comment I noticed that there's no actual logic to refute.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn
I know that you reject science in favor of your own personal religious opinions.
There is no scientific evidence that supports your opinions about Biology.
Sorry bud. =(
odinata 2 weeks ago
@odinata There you go again, making assertions that I not only refuted right after you made them, but are making them again. Sandwiching your assertion around my fact does not invalidate my fact.
I do not have opinions about biology, therefore it is impossible for scientific evidence to support it. So thank you for stating the obvious.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@odinata But thank you for admitting that Creation is science.
Also, saying "it is a fact" is called a mantra, which is a form of brainwashing.
Also again, ToE is neither the foundation of modern biology nor useful to science in any way.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn
Creationism isn't science.
Its a religion.
Strike umpteen...
odinata 2 weeks ago
@odinata Um no. Creation is science that supports a religion. That does not make it a religion. By that logic, a table that supports a vase is a vase. Isn't logic fun?
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn
There is no brainwashing involved in the FACT that mice and rats are related.
odinata 2 weeks ago
@odinata ok? and your point is what? I could have told you that.
But where do you mix rats/mice with brainwashing? Oh wait, do you think that I don't believe rats and mice come from the same ancestor? If you did, you're completely wrong.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn No, that's a horrible strawman. I've followed the data where it's led and that has been overwhelmingly to evolution. Every testable claim made from creationism has been rebutted.
Yes, evolution is science as independently confirmed via every field related to biology. Creationism isn't non-science only because it contradicts evolution, but because it's contradicted by the data.
The problem is you're still confusing ignorance for an argument, it's not.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Now I know you're just a troll. There is no data pointing to evolution, that's ridiculous. But if you insist, please show me the evidence. Also show me the rebuttals of creationism. That would be a cool trick too.
No, evolution is not confirmed in any field, related to biology or not. But if you insist, you are more than welcome to live in that delusion.
Creation is NOT contradicted by data, "I disagree" is not data.
Ignorance where? I still want you to share that secret
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn
You seem to think that everything that does not conform to your personal religious opinions is automatically wrong.
There is no evidence to support your religious opinions.
Your ignorance about the science known as Biology is not going to change the science of Biology, or the facts it reveals.
Stop the tolling.
odinata 2 weeks ago
@odinata Again, false. I dealt with this a few comments back. Do you believe that repeating yourself makes yourself correct?
Yes there is evidence, you would know that if you would actually watch these videos.
Saying I'm ignorant does not make me ignorant. And saying random things does not support your claim that I'm ignorant.
I wish I was tolling. Maybe that would deter you from posting thrice-defeated arguments against me.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn So you're just trolling and then projecting when called on it huh? All the data points to evolution. This is as good a place as any to start; genome(.)gov/15515096
As for rebuttals of creationism, the most prominent one would be genetic variability which makes it impossible for a bottleneck such as the flood to have occurred.
Yes, creationism is contradicted by the data, it's not just a matter of disagreeing.
Ignorance such as thinking evidence supports creation.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation similar DNA proves common creator.
As for your rebuttal, you believe EVERYTHING came from the same organism. That's a freakishly small bottleneck. Much worse than mine.
Ok, show me your contradicting data.
I'm not the ignorant one. At least I can recognize baseless assertion, something you are still failing to do.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn Wrong, there is absolutely no mechanism to explain similar DNA through a creator while evolution explains it empirically through descent with modification.
The last universal common ancestor would've been unicellular or freshly multi-cellular. The same problems with variability don't arise in asexual reproduction.
I already did, bottlenecks are impossible.
Yes, you are. If you could recognize baseless assertion you wouldn't be a creationist.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation There you go again, making assertions with no facts behind it. Similarity proves common creator, anything in life can prove that.
Lets pretend that's true. What happens when that single-celled organism gives rise to a multi-celled one? Bottleck.
They're impossible? You just told me that my bottleneck was a problem, now you're saying they're impossible?
Another baseless assertion. Provide evidence of your claims, become silent, or admit you're wrong about your assertion.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn There you go again projecting your bare assertions and completely ignoring my refutation of your garbage. 'Same creator' is not a valid argument because there is no mechanism.
Again, even simple colonial organisms are asexual.
They're impossible given the scope of genetic variability we see in modern species.
You really have a problem distinguishing your own baseless assertions from other peoples refutations of your ignorance.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation There's no mechanism? How do you figure that? If I design two cars, they will have a similar design. That is a mechanism. And if you disagree and require a mechanism, then where is the mechanism for adding information?
You're missing the point entirely. At some point, you will have a male/female setup that will be a bottleneck.
How does that make it impossible? take two of any animals and put them in a cage together and you get a bottleneck.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn Horribly erroneous analogy, cars are produced through known mechanism, welding, riveting etc. You're just asserting that life was designed with justification at all. Again, I linked to a video, with numerous sources, explaining how information is added genetically in the reply to this video.
No, you won't because populations evolve not individuals.
Yes and if only the descendants of those two animals were allowed to breed with one another, variability would vanish.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Again, you're missing the point. Creation IS the known mechanism. "With justification at all"? I'll ignore that gibberish.
Your video was rebutted by this video, so you're going to need a new one.
Populations evolve randomly. One would get the mutation while many won't. eventually there would be a single male/female and there starts the bottleneck. And it just gets worse and more obvious from there.
Thank you for stating the obvious. That is where we are at today
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn No, creation is the assertion, just saying 'we were created' is not sufficient evidence.
No, this video was rebutted in my video. You're going to need to realize ignorance doesn't make the refutation of Ian's garbage go away.
Evolution is non-random. Beneficial traits move through the populations at a higher frequency. No, there was never just one male and one female, I already pointed out that entire populations evolve.
No, we're not. Our variability is fine.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Now do you have anything remotely intelligent or thought provoking? If I wanted to argue with a groundworm, I'd dig one up and not waste my precious time on the internet to argue with one online.
So, if you have nothing interesting to say, I guess I'm done. You are boring, all you do is contradict me and yourself. You make baseless assertions and baseless assertions to back up those assertions. You are the least thought provoking atheist I've ever met.
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn I've already destroyed every bit of garbage you've brought up. You're suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger here. Your overconfidence is definitely disproportional to your competence. Your only technique thus far has been to ignore the most basic concepts of genetics, etc. and pretend like they don't exist. Facts don't disappear just because they utterly refute you bronze age mysticism.
If you were capable of thought, you wouldn't argue what you've argued.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Alright, you have reduced yourself to ad hominem. Insulting is the last resort, so I assume you're out of your half-thoughts and repetitive baseless assertions, so I'm done. Goodnight. I wish you were worth my time.
Goodnight, PsuedoScienceFoundation
BenWalburn 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn That coming from the person that compared me to a groundworm, we can add hypocrisy. Ad hominem would imply you've offered any argumentation that would have been dismissed in order to employ a personal attack. Either way I've done nothing but attempt to help you understand that your inability to comprehend basic genetics is not an actual argument. No signs of bottlenecks means no bottlenecks, I always thought even creationists could grasp that one.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn You might consider discussions like these more worth your time if you would actually realize that you have no idea what you're talking about. Then maybe you could learn something instead of regurgitating the same nonsense you've been fed by people like Ian who are no more scientifically literate than yourself.
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@BenWalburn
PseudoScienceFoundation....Why I didn´t think of that before?...great, that´s exactly what evolution is all about, simply Pseudo-Science, in short a scientific myth tinted with science, no wonder why any anyone who just shows any doubt in this fable is fired with no mercy, and there are the many, I´m really offended when I´m told that my great-great-great-grandpa was one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures, as if I were a stupid, what a world we live in
realhomosapiens 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens While I'd love to take the credit, I stumbled across the name in one of Ian's videos. After debating PseudoScienceFoundation, I found the nickname to be very accurate, so I started using it.
But it turns out that atheists don't like their myth being called pseudoscience, or myth. Not that I care, of course.
BenWalburn 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens
Why doesn't science agree with you?
odinata 2 days ago
@BenWalburn
Why hasn't science discovered any of this "Creation data", and why can't hide nor hair of it be found outside religiously partisan sources.
Aren't facts facts?
odinata 2 weeks ago
@curtsphobias The 'guy in the video' was never correct. See the response video for the refutation of his non-sense.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@curtsphobias Wrong, nylonase is a definitive gain. It was the result of a mutation on a duplicate gene.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@curtsphobias
No. They aren't a loss of information. They are a change in information. There are several ways of how genetic code is added to the genome and simply due to a change in information, you cannot say they cannot exist due to this change. In fact, as long as it is beneficial it will be selected for.
verzen 3 months ago
Mutations that are beneficial - CCR5 delta 32 gene and the sickle cell mutation along with nylonase and a mutation that helps digest citrus in e-coli. We can then look at animals and see that carnivores and omnivores lack a properly grown cecum and that herbivores contain a working cecum. Why would we still have a cecum? Makes no sense if evolution did not occur.
verzen 3 months ago
@curtsphobias
Uh. I'm a biologist specializing in genetics and cell biology, Mutations cause a change in nucleotides which generate new amino acids. The result of this change causes a new combination of amino acids to form to create a protein. Thus - The mutation, by its very nature, creates new information.
Duplicate information? You mean like A,T,C,G? Of course those nucleotides will still be the same. However, the combination will be different. It's like double binary code.
verzen 3 months ago
@curtsphobias LOL You think 'I'M' an idiot? A mutation is signified by an increase in genetic code in a genome. He said that the genetic code never gains new information. Guess what, retard? Mutations add new information. If he believes that no new information arises in the genome then he must believe that mutations never occur.
verzen 3 months ago
This guy is an idiot. He just said mutations dont ever occur. We witness mutations occurring all the time.
verzen 3 months ago
LOL @ anti-creationists, ad hoc attacks does not make a refutation. prove evolution through proper scientific methods. not assumptions and making the evidence fit to that, you know you do it all the time. actualy keep up with the ad hoc attacks, they are a laugh to read. you guys certainly have more faith than I do to believe in evolution than creation.
MrAussiedigger 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAussiedigger
"prove evolution through proper scientific methods"
That is PRECISELY what Biology is.
Creationism is assumptions based on religious opinions, and ZERO facts....
It takes no faith to see that foxes are related to wolves.
odinata 5 months ago
@MrAussiedigger Actually we have an understanding of biology, try watching the reply to this video. Ian's ignorance is refuted in full.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
One word: NYLONASE
warren52nz 6 months ago
This video has been thoroughly debunked here
/watch?v=gu1g2rpyIOU
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
He shows that he has completly missunderstood evolution.
evolution doesnt happen within an organism, it happens when an organism makes a copy of itself(has children)
I bet this guys children arent exact copies of him, which means that its possible to have changes occur when an organism has children.
Ofc bacterias only make copies, but eventually one copy is a little difeerent and that copy will make copies of itself which has that difeerence.
And the best copies survive and so on
unfad1ng 7 months ago
This is a bad analogy...a better analogy would be to say, "I got 2 copies of this phonebook, and then since I didn't need the other copy I worked out that I could use it as a step so I can reach the top of my cupboards! Now I can reach more stuff that I couldn't before!" Whats important is that the copied gene is basically redundant since the other gene is still functioning, so mutations can play around with it without consequence. Also the cancer analogy is HORRIBLE surely you understand that!
Veloesque 9 months ago
does iron-rust needs a creator as well??
its also irreducably complex
TheRelitard 10 months ago
@hahajoeiscool
hes talking about dna and rna smart ass
@weslanator44
exactly what they were saying in the previous video - democracy (or majority opinion) does not make right. only right makes right. and while im at it statistically speaking i would be willing to bet more uneducated, unemployed, god-complex liberals surf the web than outstanding creationists. (they have alot of damage control to do irl)
7kyro 10 months ago
There's a reason you only have a few thousand views. You're full of shit.
Weslanator44 11 months ago
Phone books are not bacteria. I don't see what you are getting at.
hahajoeiscool 1 year ago
RNA research..lol copying information using activated subunits at just the right temperatures ..which would never be found on a there so called primordial earth...If the really want t o simulate the correct experiment .they need conduct one like what Stanley miller did, and get around the major problem of Chirality..its IMPOSSIBLE to separate amino acids do you have any testable repeatable observable evidence for abiogenesis ?..abiogenesis is a Faith!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Wow being a creationist wasn't craztarded enough for you you have to be a birther too?
Tyjohnable 1 year ago
nice claws:D
Eaglewing17 1 year ago
There is nothing perfect at the cellular level. Neither replication nor enzymes, to find an error it must first look for one. Enzymes are specific.
The phonebook analogy is just too much to consider it anything but a ridiculous joke. Simply retarded, XD a good laugh though.
elploky 1 year ago
This video is amazing!!!!! Finally somone who shows just how irrational evolution really is.
viper2808 1 year ago
@viper2808 First read about what he is talking about. You are getting ahead of yourself.
elploky 1 year ago
@elploky Howdi! thanks for the comment. I am very well read on what I am talking about also. Have a great day!
viper2808 1 year ago
@viper2808 What is that so irrational about evolution? What are you well read on precisely? ... cellular biology? … evolution? … creationism/intelligent design?
I am obviously missing something here, what is it?
On what I know, his arguments are erroneous. Cancer is the perfect example of enzymes failing to recognize DNA mutations and it is very common (13% of all deaths). On this video he doesn't present anything that I can recognize as a valid argument in face of real cellular biology.
elploky 1 year ago 2
@elploky - good point! - if any cancerous cells are found to be positive/contribute constructively towards the survival of living things this idiot is going to look real stupid!
TREACLE97 10 months ago
@TREACLE97 You don't really need that, he already looks really stupid (I would say evidently ignorant/confused or simply deceiving) because he misrepresent what is known about biology.
Saying that DNA replication can only produce exact copies makes him look stupid.
Saying that mutations (that he says could not happen) would be recognized and fixed always makes him look stupid.
elploky 10 months ago 2
wow evolution is just taking everything JESUS did and giving it a name. Bam since we can see it and hear it its our God Evolution. PLEAAZ
Kr0n1k4Lyfe 1 year ago
Wo. mutation is one path to increasing data in the genes. Natural selection takes care of the detrimental mutations and keeps the usefull one.
What do you think from 0 to 10 is the likelyhood of that?
I say 9.99. You?
chiropra1 1 year ago
This video is beyond stupidity mister Wazooloo. When I thought I had seen it all, you come around.
simmsallabim 1 year ago
Hey, did you know that the name Cherynobl is ukrainian for wormwood? ( Revelation
8:11 )
DYLAN102001 1 year ago
@DYLAN102001 Doesnt surprise me after all the other prophesies that came true!!
paraglidermx 1 year ago
Wow, you don't even begin to understand what your talking about.
raltaki 1 year ago
i'd have to say the illustration on this video is amazing
Gods0n1 1 year ago
Love the rants thx for uploading
cybor32 1 year ago
If an 'a' was added to Johnson in the second book, you are not losing information, as the first book still contains Johnson. Using this phonebook analogy, It may not seem as though you are adding useful information with this extra letter, however in the context of DNA, and random mutations new information could be added quite easily without any kind of intelligent design. Just a note, a great majority of mutations in DNA are not useful, and are not passed on to future generations.
Whammy154 1 year ago
1. Difference between DNA and the phonebook: The phonebook documents the phone numbers, addresses, etc. DNA encodes for the proteins that are produced. If you want to make the analogy fit, that extra A should cause mr Johanson to move into mr Johnson's house. The town has now changed (evolved?).
2. The fact that those repair mechanisms don't work 100% is illustrated by cancer, a disease caused by some of the mutations those mechanisms should've fixed.
CFTim 1 year ago
@CFTim So cancer doesn't kill millions of people, it just helps them evolve. Do you not read your arguments before posting them?
LegendarySkyKing 1 year ago
@LegendarySkyKing Quote from the vid: "With the repair repair system in place, evolution can't happen [because mutations get repaired]"
My point was that even with the repair system, mutations that don't get fixed still occur (...and that is how cancer develops...) and therefore his point wasn't valid. Do you not read my arguments before replying to them?
Sidenote: Also, cancer does not help people evolve, because mostly it occurs in somatic cells and therefore doesn't get passed on.
CFTim 1 year ago
@LegendarySkyKing The point is people have been around more than cancer has, yet people have not gained immunities for it, and neither aids, thats the true statement, not yours, this debunks evolution in itself. Maybe u should question your advanced science why it hasn't found the cure, if it is so well developed.lol Did u not read what u posted?
Dudex58 1 year ago
I so LOVE the great humor that get mixed into the videos! Help make the subject easier to take in when it has sugar on it!
JesusMustReign 2 years ago
That was hilariously informative!
RefinersFire298 2 years ago
Pretty impressive special effects at the end.
But, why do you feel the need to mess with Mr. Johnson like that? :P
theTRUTHgroup 2 years ago
Probably because a strawman was the best he could do.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
This video is so stupid I couldn't even make it past the 2 minute mark.
"...and if the phonebook puts an A in there by mistake..."
..and if your tDNA finds an "A" (instead of C or G), it will then seek out a different base (T) , and all the others will be different down the line, resulting in a different protien. Hence, new information.
chuckfaststrat 2 years ago
Chuck- Assuming such permanent mutations happen, and we know they do, that means you get neutral, near-neutral and detrimental mutations. Those are going to pile up way faster than beneficial ones. Logic, therefore, would tell us that we are not evolving, but degrading. There's another video on exactly this.
Orenotter 2 years ago
@ Orenotter
The majority of mutations are nuetral. After that, there are slightly more detrimental than advantageous. Combine the nuetral and advantageous- you do not statistically get a "degrading".
chuckfaststrat 2 years ago
You couldnt make it past 2 minutes becuase it annoys you that he is right, and no you cant just ignore the LOSS that happend when the error occured.
StianDaMan 2 years ago
@ StainDaMan
Wrong. Look, living things evolve. Mutation is only one way it happens. The bases are paired in triplets, which pairs up with a specific amino acid. If there's a "loss" in a base, it borrows from the next set of base triplets, and gets a DIFFERENT amino acid- which changes the others, forming a DIFFERENT protien.
chuckfaststrat 2 years ago
So Ian, do you have that example of what you would accept as evidence for an increase in genetic information?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated:
"My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."
He's not alone. This is the case with every genetic mutation experiment ever conducted in an attempt to cause life to change morphologically.
Genetics alone has destroyed evolutionism. The 150 yr old Darwinian fantasy has been slaughtered by modern science.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Kenneth Miller, Professor of Cell Biology at Brown stated
"The scientific argument advanced for intelligent design at the Dover trial, those arguments collapsed, scientifically and intellectually. "
and
"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."
Genetics has spectacularly confirmed evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Genetics had the potential to falsify evolution outright, it did just the opposite, with every mapping of every gene it became more and more identical to every other tree from every other field of biology
Guess what species were most similar to genetically? The same species that we're most similar to anatomically.
Now you might use the 'same genes same designer' argument, but without a testable mechanism or potential falsification, this is a complete non-answer.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated:
"My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."
He's not alone. This is the case with every genetic mutation experiment ever conducted in an attempt to cause life to change morphologically.
Genetics alone has destroyed evolutionism. The 150 yr old Darwinian fantasy has been slaughtered by modern science.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Repeating fallacy doesn't make it any less fallacious.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
That's exactly the point he's making here.
Orenotter 2 years ago
He did it well, what with repeating himself.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Ignorance is no longer an excuse, seeing as how a 2 second search at pubmed dawt gov, the largest most well known English peer review archive on the net, returns ~50,000 results on a search for morphological changes/evolution, the only explanation for your claim is intellectual dishonesty.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You repeated this same exact statement 3 days ago and I and many others have told you why you are wrong. What is wrong with you?
popular92704 2 years ago
@popular92704
There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species. 70 yrs of mutation experimentation has produced 100% consistant results: no change to morphology at all. TThe individual can be deformed, but the deformity dissapears in the offpring in 1 to several generations without fail - for 70 YEARS.
Evolutionism is not science, nor scientific. It disregards the Scientific Method to posit claims.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
There is not one example known of a genetic mutation"
Did you even read what I wrote, I was responding to your copy and paste, do you understand that? You've said the same "Geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson" quote multiple times both on this channel and others. Ever time someone responds to you you go off on another tangent like you just did. Tell me, why are you copying the same thing over and over again without actually responding to anything we are saying?
popular92704 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@popular92704
My response is the same, and science supports it:
There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species. 70 yrs of mutation experimentation has produced 100% consistant results: no change to morphology at all. TThe individual can be deformed, but the deformity dissapears in the offpring in 1 to several generations without fail - for 70 YEARS
NephilimFree 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species."
You personally lying about science is irrelevant, science has found what you're claiming doesn't exist, thousands of times over.
If you actually searched the peer reviewed literature for what you may claim hasn't been found/is impossible, you'll save us a lot of time and yourself a lot of embarrassment.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is not one example known of a genetic mutation that has caused change to the morphology of any species."
True, there's not one, there are thousands.
> pubmed(.)gov
search for > morphological evolution
But really until you give an example of what you would accept as a morphological change, you're not saying 'there is no evidence' you're saying 'There is no evidence I will accept'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I'm waiting on your testable creation mechanism, and for you to explain the human-chimp genome project without common descent.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation
By the same standards used to declare humans are 90+% genetically similar to apes, we are also 50% similar genetically to a banana. But we are morphologically ZERO like a banana. Thus, the claim that genetic similarity is evidence of ancestry between man and pae is perposteous.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Check your sources again, roughly 50% of our genes serve the same function as roughly 50% of the bananas genes, they aren't the same genes, they only serve approximate function.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation
We aren't morphologically like a banana at all. Your claim that genetics provides evidence of ancestry is patently false.
Furthermore, and ultimately, DNA is empirical proof of both design and Special Creation because it is a representation of informaton which is not bound to it's medium, immaterial, and must exist prior to the medium which conveys it.
Genetics has disproven evolution and proven creation.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"Your claim that genetics provides evidence of ancestry is patently false."
newscientist(.)com/article/mg17523584.000-people-arent-bananas(.)html
"The 50 per cent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren't necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences."
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Posting a link does not tell me that you know of evidence. If you cannot explain your claim, you have no knowledge of interest to me.
If half of our genes were evidence of evolution to man from ape-like creatures, then half in babanas should be too. Evolutionists point to similarities in morphology as evidence man and ape are related. The babana makes that house of cards fall.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I just did, there are several ways to compare genes, between chimps and humans it's done by specific amino acids coded for, for the claim that we share half our genes with bananas it was done by just basic general function.
Your lacking understanding of this does not constitute any problem whatsoever for concordance between comparative anatomy and genetics.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Buddy, I just provided you with proof that DNA verifies both design and Special Creation. You're blowing in the woind. And I have no more time for you. There are other denialists that need educating. Be well. CYA.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No, you gave a few arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, the sad thing is you really do believe you made some sort of point.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I predict that you will neither ever attempt to define immaterial information OR admit that you can't.
You need to realize, you can't define it because your position is based on pure and willful ignorance. Absolutely everything you're arguing for are useless pseudo-scientific non-answers, no better or useful than saying 'well we don't know everything right now, so let's just say pure magic from space'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
There is no such thing as immaterial information, information is a property of energy (and by extension matter)
Information as used in information theory is defined as 'that which distinguishes one from another'
so basically, distinguishing characteristics.
Genetics has confirmed evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and unless and until anyone can produce both a testable mechanism for creation and a means to falsify it, creationism isn't even considerable for scientific discussion.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
"There is no such thing as immaterial information, information is a property of energy (and by extension matter)"
False. Information is not bound to it's medium! Is that difficult to grasp? I'll help.
A book contains information but is not the information itself. it is a rperesentation of it to cwonvey it. The information orginated in and exists in the moind of the autghor. If you destrpoy the book, the information is not destroyed, only it's carrier.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The numbers, letters, and punctuations are the information themselves.
Quick example, what's the difference between this '.' and this'!' ?
How can you tell? The line itself is information distinguishing the exclamation point from the period.
You have yet to even attempt to define 'immaterial information' you just keep making the claim that 'information is not bound to it's medium' without supporting it at all.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation
DNA is a prepresentation of digital genetic information. It is not the information itself. So you see, information is not material. The immaterial information cannot be created by matter, nor can matter itself be information.
Now, because the information exists prior to the medium which conveys it, this is empirical proof that information is design. Because the carrier is created to represent it, this is empirical evidence of creation.
DNA is proof of both.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No, DNA is the information itself.
A search for 'immaterial information' on pubmed returns absolutely nothing, perhaps you could usefully define 'immaterial information'
Information cannot exist prior to energy/matter
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Presumably 'information' may only be created by an intelligence? For example if a human designs something from pre-existing materials this is 'adding information' to the materials? How about if something is reproduced, does this increase the amount of 'information' or not? If an object contains 'information' then doesn't its copy?
herbiepop 2 years ago
This is ridiculous.
Yes, if you have a "Mr. Johnson" in one phone book and a "Mr. Johanson" in another, the two phone books contain more information than would two identical ones that contain "Mr. Johnson".
The TRUTH VALUE of any of those entries is irrelevant.
Bueller007 2 years ago
@Bueller007
the second copy would have lost the information about Mr. Johnson
DUDE whats wrong with you.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
No. The truth value is irrelevant.
What is the "truth value" in a gene?
Bueller007 2 years ago
@Bueller007
Its code .
JAMRAND 2 years ago
So? Look up Kolmogorov information.
If a phone book is 2 megabytes, then two identical phone books can be paraphrased as "phone book x 2". Therefore, two phone books can ALSO be stored as just over 2 megabytes.
But if you start changing entries one of the phone books, you can't do that anymore. You have to store the entire book twice. That makes two phone books 4 megabytes.
That's MORE information.
Bueller007 2 years ago 2
Don't worry JAMRAND. I don't expect you to respond to this post.
I know full-well that creationists are as ignorant of information theory as they are of biology.
Bueller007 2 years ago
It's genetic code, genetic code is defined as the basis for heredity
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Which was retained in the first copy
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@SyphonSniper
I think it is hilarious because the more that is revealed about DNA repair the less likely evolution occured via mutation and natural selection and the more problematic Haldane's dilemma becomes.
ozredneck22 2 years ago
Really now? Which part of genetic record DOESN'T point to evolution?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
"Really now? Which part of genetic record DOESN'T point to evolution?"
All of it DOESN'T. It cannot form naturally, it cannot assemble naturally, it falls apart in water, it oxidises in air and UV destroys it. You think it came about naturally but ALL OF SCIENCE shows it cannot.
ozredneck22 2 years ago
You're making the common creationist mistake of conflating the origin of life to evolution , they aren't the same thing. By genetic record I mean the traceable history of genomes in relation to one another.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"It cannot form naturally" to make that absolute claim you have to have observed every single chemical reaction that ever occurred
It doesn't fall apart in water, you seem to have just made that up, in fact the purine bases and amino acids are produced by hydrolysis (hydro means water). There was little to no oxygen in the atmosphere 3.8ba and particulate matter in water filters UV light.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
People let your unsupported claims slide because you're just a creationist.
I'm not going to, I want you to either present a single piece of evidence from the genetic record or admit that you can't.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Wow that was hilarious, keep it up wazooloo, keep em coming
ozredneck22 2 years ago
It's so frustrating to deal with willful ignorance.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 3
That's why it is so important to point out all the baloney regarding evolutionism. Hopefully after watching videos pointing out the marked problems with evolutionism, maybe some won't be so willfully ignorant of the various problems with evolutionism.
Haekel68 2 years ago
You not understanding evolution is not the same thing as there being problems with it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
What do you think cancer is? Where do you think tumors come from? Where do you think birth defects come from? Its from errors in DNA cause they don't always get fixed.
THAYimagine 2 years ago
Lame comparisons, faulty logic and humorless humor. Bleh...
Albtraumen 2 years ago
You are welcome to make a better video on there then. Actually these are well thought out, and really go after the huge problems dealing with evolutionism.
Haekel68 2 years ago
@Haekel68 Not well thought out at all. Besides, there are no problems with evolutionism.
Remove the video, problem solved!
Albtraumen 2 years ago
No, these videos are not well thought out, and I've corrected them all in the comments myself.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Also, the repair of the DNA you speak of certainly doesn't prevent significant mutations from occurring as this has been observed in nature. Just recently we've discovered the nylon-eating bacteria which couldn't have existed before nylon was invented and is shown to have developed this trait by duplication and frame shift mutation. And that's just one. Further, consider that Adam and Eve could have only had four alleles per gene max. Now there may be over 600 alleles for a particular gene.
bicokun 2 years ago
The phonebook is a false analogy. DNA doesn't work like a phone book. It's more like language. For instance, you have the word "straw." That word is copied twice (which happens in everyone many times over). Now, suppose the letters - which are analogous to the amino acids - in the copy are reversed (also happens all the time). Now you have "straw" and then "warts." Granted you don't have many words that works with, but it's not a problem in DNA as many combinations produce proteins.
bicokun 2 years ago 2
Who the fuck does this idot think he is?
ewbernauer 2 years ago
@ewbernauer I don't think he realizes that he is an idiot, in which lies the problem. If he had any intorest in the truth or faith in his beliefs he would invite any PhD Biologist to come on, in person, by phone or via the internet to discuss he ideas. Note that he has ideas and not theories. He wont as he is the "founder of Canada's first creation museum" and his livelihood is built on lies.
Loathomar 2 years ago
Is this Glenn Beck's bottom player?
nemirn 2 years ago
well, power bottom
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
One more nail in the coffin of "information cannot be added"
/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
Spoken like an amateur.
An extra copy of the same gene is not only free to mutate, but its also free to serve a new purpose. DNA bases can be transferred between genes. If your two phone books exchanged information, then you'd have phone books different from the ones you started with.
dudev 2 years ago
@mikesinner69 huh??? Are you assuming I am a creationist...?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
I bang my head against a wall. How can you be so fucking dense to not see the clear difference between the examples you're using?
PHONE BOOKS? Sigh.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
It's an interesting argument, but biologically speaking doesn't quite add up. The 'robots' don't quite work that way... as an example, it's generally accepted that every person born has several mutations that make them different from their parents.
If your 'robots' correct all changes, then where do these mutations come from? Or do you think that no mutations occur?
The truth is that DNA repair systems are not guaranteed to produce exact copies. Mutations are then passed on... some beneficial.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
God truly is working through you.
godworkshere 2 years ago
Then god doesn't even know highschool biology
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 3
Your comparison is incorrect.... incorrect information in a phone book is nothing like incorrect genetic information, and the "robots" that maintain the DNA are not infallible (and if God had designed them to prevent evolution, then they would be) hence why children can be born, and survive with, genetic mutations and suffer through their lives, and occasionally (Search for info on "Das Uberboy) it is beneficial. And to clarify, I believe in a higher power, but I don't try to swallow religion->
MrTear3 2 years ago
mainly because it is a poison pill, and has been designed and corrupted by men and women for centuries, to say the least.
MrTear3 2 years ago
I can't believe I just read an intelligent post by a bible believer. Maybe there is hope after all..
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Well I personally don't believe in the bible, but I do know those do follow and believe it, but still share my viewpoints.
MrTear3 2 years ago