Jonathan Wells says there's "no net evolutionary change"....holy shit. My bio background is a couple decades out of date, but I recognize that statement as unfounded making Wells a moron. And there are a number of mechanisms that drive evolution, the finches are simply a readily well studied example making Berlinski a tool.
The best YouTube videos on such topics you can find in my channel's playlist Creation vs Evolution. Click on "more info" to that playlist, and God bless you.
@2:33 they said the claim was made by nutty journalists. This completely misrepresents that it covers the research team of Peter and Rosemary Grant who live on the islands conducting constant analysis of the beaks and more research has led to the discovery of bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4) and CaM that in various combinations change the beak morphology!
@3:49 Dogs stay dogs? No they don't. Genetic analysis shows the dog genome is also comprised of segments that belong to JACKALS!
@f0xfree YOU LIE!! @2.33 He is clearly talking about journalists who wrote a pulitzer winning book on the finches. (too bad pulitzers have nothing to do with science) And so what about Bmp4? what does it prove about evolution theory? Just that a protein changes beak size thats it.
Humans also have 50% similarity with bananas. Must mean we are half banana or banana is half human?
@2:33 He OMITS that journalists are reporting the findings of the Grants. The Grants have published extensive peer-review on the Finches. They observe them daily because they are dedicated scientists living on the island.
BMP4 is a morphogenetic protein. It is part of the biochemical plasticity that organisms naturally have. It allows for variation that selection can act upon and does act upon.
@f0xfree Because he is trying to make a valid point. Finch beak sizes change in size. It is ridiculous to say that in a million years the finch will evolve to a the galapagos elephant. By talking so about those journalists, he is trying to drive home a very important point. Note the fact that no where does he discount the Grants research.
We are related to bananas? A statement you believe to be true on faith alone because you dont have proof of this. (watch: He is about to employ circular logic
@f0xfree Let me be clear, by citing the work of the Grants, his point would still be valid. That is why I am dismissive of your mentioning Bmp4. It is irrelevant and does not change the fact, that it is ridiculous to make claims that Finches will evolve into some other creature(galapagos elephant) or any other animal just because you discovered bmp4 the chemical responsible for beak sizes.
Please address that issue instead of wasting time on arguments that dont address his core argument
He INSULTS the journalists @2:29 and then he says we NEED MORE evidence than that. He deliberately OMITS the Grants' scientific research which IS evidence for speciation.
The claim being made is that Finches share a common ancestor that is extinct, not they are evolving into elephants.
BMP4 is the biochemistry that ID says can't exist. BMP4 and CAM combination can do anything to reshape structure. Anything.
ID just wants us to all pretend there is no evidence for speciation.
@f0xfree It doesnt matter, the argument still holds firm that its ridiculous to claim Finches evolved from some dinosaur because you found changing beak sizes. (to be honest your argument is tortured and twisting the truth about what is said of the finches. ) It is claimed that the decrease in size was proof of evolution. Not to mention that Evolution is said to be continuous.
Are you saying BPM4 and CAM can turn a finch into an elephant? HOw did you come to your conclusions about it?
Finches on the Galapagos evolved from ancestral finches of a different species and are evidence for 'evolutionary radiation' that occured rather quickly.
Bird evolution is a larger topic. The evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs (theropods) is very good considering we have many intermediary fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. Microrapter is a good example.
BMP4 and CAM are discoveries ID can't and doesn't predict. Evolution does.
@f0xfree You have no evidence of any kind about the evolution of the finches. REpeating things for which you have no proof will not make them right. (though according to an evolutionist, anything is possible given enough time(
YOU LIE YET AGAIN ABOUT BMP4 AND CAM!!! NO SCIENTIST EVER PREDICTED THEM!!! STOP WITH THESE STUPID LIES MAN!!!
Molecular sequencing for the phylogeny of Finches is also in agreement with biogeographical disperal patterns.
The Galapagos only has organisms that could have travelled there. This is the same with all more recent island formations. There are never any organisms found on recent island formations that couldn't have travelled there.
Evolution predicts even more biochemistry for evolutionary plasticity will be found.
There is still no statsic fossil record. It doesn't exist.
@f0xfree Now you are resorting to out right lies. First of all we have proof that the beaks of the galapagos finches are both small and large depending on the droughts. The obvious question here is since you dont know which birds came first (beak length has been disproven as an indication) one would easly conclude that your molecular sequencing claims are total b/s. Matter of I would wager that if any scientist actually did this molecular sequencing, they would not reference the beaks at all.
"Phylogeny of Darwin’s finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences" is the paper by the Grants that this video ignores and ID pretends doesn't exist and still need to be done. The paper establishes the evolutionary relationships between Finches on the island and the type of biogeographical dispersal through adaptive radiation.
Evolutionary reversal patterns within directional evolution are observed in the transitional fossil record that isn't a static fossil record predicted by ID.
@f0xfree YOU also seem to be doing a very poor job of trying to confust the issue at hand. That being the fact that darwin's finch beaks are nothing of what he claims. So please can the arguments about CAM and Bpm4. As i told you before, that has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT THAT CHANGE IN BEAK SIZES OF DARWIN'S FINCHES IS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION PROVEN BY HE FACT THAT THE BEAKS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO GROW BACK!
THAT IS THE POINT. ENOUGH WITH YOUR STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS!
Also the video isn't outdated it is quite NEW, so calling it old makes no difference. (Except showing you are scraping the bottom of a barrel).
Nested Heirarchy is based on commonality, the video shows that while some traits may be common physiologically, some are totally diffferent GENETICALLY, which is the crux of evolution since traits are pased on genetically
@Gilbertus1986 "the crux of evolution since traits are passed on genetically" Bullshit
It only makes my point that nested hierarchy is not just similarities but groups of clades with unique similarities and differences. The marsupial wolf was never considered related to true wolves. Similar homology is present in many life forms but it is the unique groups of similarities and differences (cladistics) that show evolution.
You STILL haven't answered my questions. You have just proven that you are a Hypocrite and a Troll. You'll be eating your words tomorrow when you bother to watch the video.
Commonality doesn't give you the mechanism of evolution, hence you are assuming it happens
@Gilbertus1986 I told you many times NO I am using evidence to make a conclusion here. If you can not give a valid EXPLANATION of why nested hierarchy is caused by life being magically poofed into existence by a creator, the you are only parroting an assertion. Your next post will need to be the explanation for your assertion. Repeating yourself over and over is simply dogma without evidence.
@foxlake02 LOL I find it funny that YOU are allowed to dodge questions, (Which you still haven't answered!!!), yet ensure that I answer yours.. Hypocrite much!!
There is no nested heirarchy, this is what I am trying to show you. It is an ASSUMPTION based on commonality. THe fossil evidence shows that there are no states of transition between forms, WATCH MY VID! It is on the list to the right "Homology Theory - Evidence of Evolution".. It Debunks your Nested heirarchy
@Gilbertus1986 There is no nested hierarchy? Did you really say that??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Even Ken Ham and Kent Hovind will not deny nested hierarchy! You are getting desperate now. First you argue that a creator made the nested hierarchy and then you deny it exists. I'll watch it tomorrow. Good night. Enjoy your ignorance.
@Gilbertus1986 You don't seem to understand the argument. Your outdated video doesn't mention nested hierarchy. If it did it would destroy there pathetic argument. Like I said before, it's not just similarities. Do you think this short bus crowd is the first to discover coevolution? It is well understood but the homology examples are only individual traits and overall body plans. It is nested hierarchy that actually show that those species belong to different clades.
@Gilbertus1986 I'll answer you again. I base my conclusions on observable evidence. Wells is a notorious liar who had his mind up before he even studied biology to become an apologist. That's not science. I think we are done here. Try studying what the real biologists and paleontologists say and why they say it. Not trying to insult but your ignorance is obvious the more you post. You never told me why nested hierarchy is any evidence for magical creation and I'm sure you never will.
Firstly you are saying untruths about Wells since you have no idea of what he is thinking, (Or are you a mind reader now?). I also answered you FOUR times with how your "nested hierarchy" can also be attributed to creation.
Common traits can also be attributed to Common design
Since nested heirarchy is based on common traits.
Go on the site, there is no word limit so you can speak your piece. OR are you scared to have a proper debate on this?
@foxlake02 Furthermore, nested heirarchy is NOT observable evidence, It may seem it, however when you consider that " Associatioms are OUR constructs", hence the evidence is construed in a way that it is no longer empirical.
The video shows that some features that are the same, and where evolutionists "think" they have evolved along the same evolutionary path, are not so and defies the evolutionary model.. They cited the body in fruit flies and wasps are coded for by a totally different gene
@Gilbertus1986 Like I said, it's more than mere associations and they are much more than our constructs. It is physical reality and the mechanism is well understood. You don't even respond to my video but you seem to have a need to rant just to get in the last word. Well knock yourself out but I still advise you to crack open a real biology book. Bye
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 Why should I respond to anything when YOU yourself flee from any and all questions of inquiry I have made. Up until now I have answered all your questions yet you refuse to answer mine. I will answer you when you have answered MY questions rather than using a one-liner to "solve" the question, when in reality it doesn't.. I have many books on Biology, hence why I know evolution is not science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 Yes we can see the similarities, but that doesn't tell you how they came to be. (As I have told you over and over, it doesn't give you the mechanism). Hence you are assuming evolution is the cause, when you have no proof that it was the actual cause.
@Gilbertus1986 Oh and here is a vid for your embryology case... Watch it and learn.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=ictZJln3Vj4&feature=related
Whilst evolutionists may claim all the embryological structures that seem to fit evolution, it ONLY takes one (or perhaps two) to falsify that model. This video does that. So as I said before embryology for evolution is debunked.
@Gilbertus1986 Oh and here is a vid for your embryology case... Watch it and learn.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=ictZJln3Vj4&feature=related
Whilst evolutionists may claim all the embryological structures that seem to fit evolution, it ONLY takes one (or perhaps two) to falsify that model. This video does that. So as I said before embryology for evolution is debunked.
@Gilbertus1986@Gilbertus1986 WRONG! WRONG! FACTUALLY INCORRECT! It is explained very eloquently by common ancestry. In fact it could not be any other way and all fields of science support that conclusion. You still need to explain why a creator would have to limit himself (herself?) to diversity of life within a nested hierarchy. Still waiting...
Again, nested heirarchy is based on common physiology. Where one side sees common descent, the other sees common design. BOTH ARE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE SAME EVIDENCE! You cannot claim one thing and then rebuke the other, this is what is called hypocrisy.
Promoter elements would NEED to evolve at the same time of the new function, as well as be receptive to the new functions function. This goes against what the literature says about mutation and their RANDOMNESS, as well as mutation rate and mutational fitness (via MULTIPLE mutations that need to occur successively). All you are saying is "poof" and natural selection did it, this is YOUR "magic man".
I have been asking you time and time again from the onset for "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION".
Are you hinting that this mtDNA is not the empirical evidence I have been asking you for? (When moments ago you said it was empirical evidence).
If so then when are you going to show some empirical evidence, or must we ride this merry-go-round, are you willing to admit that the "theory" of evolution is based on assumption.
@Gilbertus1986 Nothing in the theory of evolution is outside the empirical cycle of observation, deduction, testing and evaluation. I think you have a very warped idea of what science really is. That usually comes from a very strong faith bias. Instead of just shooting posts back asking me how I know the examples I site, why not do a little research on your own? I know you think they need to see every creature evolve in front of them but that's not how it works.
@foxlake02 If nothing in the theory is outside the empirical cycle then why have you continually evade my requests to present empirical evidence? (I am asking for ACTUAL empirical evidence, you do know what empirical is do you? No assumptions, no pre-supposing evolution, observable, measurable, repeatable, falsifiable)
I ask you to provide evidence of your claims. Too many evos have the idea that what they say makes it true. Hence I ask, how do you actually KNOW rather than just say it is so.
@Gilbertus1986 Actually you asked how do you KNOW that the Bezoar goats are their ancestors. The nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Only life can be classified objectively in a consistent distribution of similarities and differences, a unique nested hierarchy. It would not happen if all species had been "specially created". Not unless Magic Man wanted to intentionally deceive us.
@foxlake02 "The nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity"
Such a vague definition is common in evo-"science"
I am asking EMPIRICALLY how does nestled heirachy PROVE common decent. Rather than just say it does, SHOW HOW it does.
@Gilbertus1986 I can't be more clear than I have here. The empirical evidence is the nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows along with other mountains of evidence. Deductions are made and tested to form the theory. Theories are not mere facts. They explain facts. This is science. I don't think it's really the process you don't like. It's the results. Sorry if it doesn't match your story book.
@foxlake02 Ha ha ha "mountains of evidence", considering how long it took for you to procure this ONE piece of evidence, for you to have a "mountain" of it seems quite unlikely.
Deductions that are not based on the evidence is NOT science. Science is about looking at the observations / experiments, it is EMPIRICAL. Science is not about explaining something that has no empirical founding, that is what religion is.
@Gilbertus1986 "Deductions that are not based on the evidence is NOT science"
What would you call nested hierarchy if not evidence? Explain comparative homology, atavisms, ERVs, embryology and transitional fossils located in the correct strata to confirm the theory. The mechanism is mutation and natural selection. You are talking in circles now. Let's have your better explanation.
I am talking in circles because you CONTINUE to keep on asserting the same tired debunked, "evidence" as evidence.
Embryology was found to be a FRAUD
Transitional Fossils.... HA there are none. There are jumps between the fossils, with no fossil record of "the millions of years of mutation", between them.
As my link before showed empirically... Natural selection does Jack Sh!t
Comparative homology, same design perhaps. You are STILL ASSUMING evolution from this.
@Gilbertus1986 Embreology has not been debunked. Maybe you are talking about the old creationist stand by ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? There are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record for the honest skeptic. You're just not being honest. NO not same design. Comparative homology shows nested hierarchy. Not the same thing. Read a real biology book. Not really seeing your problem with promoter elements evolving. Examples of how entire systems can evolve have been demonstrated.
@foxlake02 Don't put words in my mouth and use strawmen, (yet again)
Haeckle was found to be a FRAUD, with his embryology "evidence" of evolution
Watch this video.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=pMVBFJCqFXc&feature=related
Yes dude, you say nestled heirachy creationists say common design BOTH fit the evidence, and BOTH are extrapolations. Rather than proven by the "evidence". Saying it isn't so just because you don't like it is dishonest
@Gilbertus1986 Why do you think promoter elements couldn't evolve? I know Haeckel was wrong. He drew caricatures of what he saw. Other scientists found out and called him on it. That's how science works. Embryology is still a valid field of science that supports evolution. Open a biology book. Your link is a dud. Watch this one watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ and weep. Why would magic man be limited to creating life only within a nested hierarchy? Nested hierarchy is explained by common ancestry.
@foxlake02 I didn't say promoter elements couldn't evolve I'm saying that according to the literature there is no selection for them to. Without the function you have no selection for the promoter and without hte proper promoter there is no selection for the new function, (as it isn't very being used to its best potential, hence wouldn't increase fitness)
@Gilbertus1986 but the overwhelming evidence is that natural selection did cause the diversity of life we see today. You are just using another variation of irreducible complexity argument. Read or watch Ken Miller address this issue. Nooooo I just told you nested hierarchy is EXPLAINED by common ancestry. You can assert a designer but you need to show evidence for a relationship. I still ask you why would you assume the designer had to be restricted to diversity within a nested hierarchy?
@foxlake02 No dude, you are ASSUMING common descent from comparative homology. It doesn't give you the mechanism for the common descent, nor does it tell you how it happened (or IF it happened), if you cannot grasp that you are ASSUMING evolution here then there is no more to talk about.
@foxlake02 Actually the overwhelming evidence is AGAINST evolution, read some papers on microbiology and they will all go on to say about the complexity of the cell. I read one about how Ribosomes creation is MUCH more complex than what evos thought. It is crazy to thing that such a system of engineering, came about via random change.
@foxlake02 The link works for me if you delete the spaces and change the DOT into .
If you bothered to watch the video, then you'd see how similarities do not suport evolution.
Please tell how embryology gives empirical evidence for evolution?
Furthermore, I have another question. If bacteria are so good at what they do... Where was the selection pressure for them to "evolve" into multicellular organisms. Furthermore where are the transitional fossils of this transition?
@Gilbertus1986 I just posted a link that goes into detail about that. LOOK! ...and I will try your link again. Precursors of the function or system of functions like the rotary flagellum in bacteria are known to exist as are the individual proteins used in different functions. The individual functions only have to provide a slight advantage to the organism to survive and increase in frequency within a population. I am not familiar with your example but I don't see it as your problem.
@foxlake02 Creating a NEW function isn't as simple as changing a few bases and hey presto... As I questioned you before, (which you continued to dodge), for a NEW function to come about it will also need promoter proteins that are specific to that function. Where did these promoter proteins come from? and how was the function enacted properly without these proteins initially. Keep in mind that the proposed "natural selection" only keeps the best so there is no leniency in having no promoters.
Nestled heirachy STILL assumes evolution. There is no mechanism for evolution in the evidence you have provided as such this mechanism is JUST assumed to work. Rather than be empirically proven.
Basically all you are saying is this...
"Hey these animals are kinda related, they all have DNA, celss ,etc... Ok so they must be related to each other"
You say Common descent, Creationists say Common design. Both come from the same evidence. Both are assumptions.
Very scientific information and approach in this video. Unfortunately, many "scientists" (and misinformed individuals) have married the evolution theory and can't see past their own prideful preconcieved notions to see the forest for the trees. True science doesn't "buy into" a theory but continues to research and explore the evidence.... and for evolultion the case gets weaker by the day.
@susanjenkins777 Did it ever dawn on you that scientists are 'married' to evolution because it has been proven? Forest for the trees?!? You look at gaps and not the fossils.
Gets weaker? DNA markers match Darwin's tree of life, proof.
@gregrutz Okay..... like I said.... we still don't agree.... similarites in design point to a common Designer....... not evolution ..... Wish I had more time to have a friendly debate..
By first excluding God and then interpreting everything as resulting from natural processes, evolutionists are trying to prove that to literally believe in Genesis is wrong. The truth, however, is that God is continuously active in the creation. It is not animals that biologically adapt themselves to environmental circumstances but it is God´s omnipresence that makes those biological changes which adapt animals to their environments.
Damn they're dumb! How do you cure the willfully ignorant! Really ... 200 years!?!?!?!!??! WTF is wrong with their minds?
What about 200 000 000 years and you have the chance of seeing the finches divide into carnivore with fingers instead of claws and machine guns. Oh, I forgot. Earth is 6000 y.o haha!
How stupid on a scale to 10 are you if you have lived half your life in our civilization and not understood that 200 years is a second in the history of evolution? Hellooooooh? anybody hoooome?
@GoodScienceForYou Evolution is a fact of nature. There is no debate. You have no evidence to back up your assertions. Just a bunch of crude ad hominems.
no recorded history or experimental proof exists of evolution to date!! the guy at the end hit the nail on the head "we'd have more flexibility in lab conditions than we actually do" if it was fact it would have be proven by now! there would be no debate!!! thats fact
@ByakuyaK Bull! Speciation has been seen in the lab and there is no debate among professionals in the fields of biology. The only debate is being manufactured by religious fundamentalists.
The people in the video ARE professionals, and they refute evolution. There is no speciation from one species to another, and I ask you to provide EMPIRICAL proof of your claim that there is.
No because William Rice and G.W. Salt demonstrated speciation in the lab in the 1980s with fruit flies. Work at Michigan State University has also been demonstrated with bacteria by biologist Richard Lenski. Also, domestic sheep have speciated from there wild ancestors Ovis orientalis. These are just a few examples. Only creationists hold on to the old argument that speciation has not been observed.
@Gilbertus1986 Sure, empirical evidence is done with direct observation. It is testable and repeatable. In other words, it's the opposite of "creation science". The twin nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows is certainly observed and testable. They do it every day and it fits very nicely with the comparative homology seen in living organisms. Why would you think ancestral life would be any different, Especially when the fossil record supports it so well. Still waiting for your version...
Actually modern Microbiology, puts a strong case against evolution. In terms of complexity and systems in nature that require ALL their parts before confering a benefit. Hence slow changes over time cannot create these systems as there is no benefit to select each part until the system is complete.
I'm still waiting for how "Nested Heirarchy" is evidence for evolution. All you have done is ASSUMED evolution as the mechanism for the similarities.
@foxlake02 However under the other definition of species. Just looking the same is enough to constitute the same species. This definition is used when classifying insects with wolbachea disease, and is the morphology definition.
Under this definition, all your fruit flies are the same species, as I said before your assumptions are unfounded.
@Gilbertus1986 It is empirical evidence because it can be tested and if organisms are found that do not fit cladistics it would disprove evolution. So far no crockoducks or pegasus have been found. So far no bunnies have been found in the Cambrian strata layers nor hominid fossils found with dinosaurs fossils. No matter ho much creationists try to pretend they have. Still waiting for you to present a better theory.
@foxlake02 I don't need to present a better theory. I'd rather not believe in anything, than believe in a backward theory that defies reality just so I can say I have a theory for it.
Seriously, read a book on micro-biology and use some brain power and ask yourself, how in the world can such a thing as a cell come about via evolution. Let alone have multi-cellular organisms and the specialisation of cells that is coded for in DNA.
@Gilbertus1986 You play the same old word games that creationists play but I am to believe it's only the evidence that persuades you. Speciation is the isolation of gene pools long enough so that mating of individuals will no longer produce viable offspring. Modern molecular biology clearly shows the divergence of separate gene pools in many populations with unique character combination from bacteria to apes.
I'm not playing any word games! (You are by suggesting as such). I am asking you for EMPIRICAL evidence that doesn't rest on assumptions or pre-supposes evolution is true.
Some questions regarding micro biology.
How do proteins function when a mutation changes its shape?
What takes over the role of the changed protein if it now has a new function? SInce that role was needed before.
If there is a new function, then how do the promoters specific to that function evolve?
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you empirical evidence. Nothing besides descent with modification explains nested hierarchy, atavisms, ERVs comparative homology and the overwhelming evidence that exists in many other fields of science. Evolution explains what is observed better than any other explanation. No one has disproven it in 150 years. Pretending that species are not species and evidence is not evidence is your problem. Remain ignorant if you want to.
No all you have said is assumption based. Evolution is assumed from these things, not proven. It isn't repeatable! Since evolution is supposed to be a historical event, as such you cannot repeat it. The evidence is "after the fact", and as such cannot be repeated.
All your evidence pre-supposes evolution as the ONLY correct path as such it isn't scientific. Science is about following the FACTS to whatever end.
Seriously the processes in micro-biology are evidence of design!
@Gilbertus1986 I doubt you're as stupid as you post or would you also say you can't convict a murderer if he denies it unless you have an eye witness. Forensic science is used as evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Many cases of adaptation have been observed like with Croatian lizards, Cichlid fish and other animals. A cursory look at the available information would tell you that if you bothered to look. Seeing new limbs evolve in a human life time doesn't happen and you know it.
Law has nothing to do with SCIENTIFIC viability, to suggest what you did proves you know nothing about actual science.
Adaption does happen, I have never doubted this. However what we are debating is evolution, so I ask you to not "move the goal posts", unless this is your debate tactic, (as well as the ad hominem attacks you are so fond of using). Debate the evidence not the person, that is
Since evolution is supposed to be a natural process it should be occuring all the time. Like in all things there are outliers, hence we SHOULD expect to see some organisms with mutations / changes that are the beginings or the ends of a speciation event.... However we don't, we do see variations. But not outside of what is acceptable, ie- no new legs on fish without legs
Can you answer my questions about micro-biology.... Since micro-biology proves evolution (apparantly)
@Gilbertus1986 I've given you Physiological evidence, from the brain, organs etc.. but you're just too stubborn with ur creationism minset. and like you say evolution is assumption it's not, it's been observed over and over again, and species don't evolve unless they have to adapt a new envirnoment. I showed you the example of the Lizard on the island, that changed their diets etc. You said that that was micro-evolution no macro-evolution,..well it's all the same thing basically
You call me stuborn for not bowing down to your inferior logic.
A lizard changing its diet is STILL a lizard you fool! It hasn't changed species! Seriously I've said this before and it just goes through one ear and out the other.
Evolution as defined by Darwin, cannot be observed!
I am STILL waiting for your reply to my rebutal to your inbox message.
@Gilbertus1986 OMG you're a retard lol hhaha yes, it's still a lizard, and evolution doesn't happen overnight goddamn dude,..it takes million of years. idk how many times ill say this, macro evolution is a big change over a longtime, micro-evolution is small changes that species get in short time while adapting to their new environment. and what rebuttal are you talking about? What evidence do you want for macro-evolution?
a) a consistant and readily observable fossil record showing ALL (if not most) of the individual changes in the population, (this should be easy as it is over MILLIONS of years)
b) an actual definable mechanism within a cell that creates NEW genetic information, also providing individual promoter proteins for the new function.
If it takes millions of years, then how can you be so sure that it has occured. Nobody has seen it, just like nobody has seen God or the boogy-man or the cube from transformers. Hence due to this would you agree that to believe in evolution requires a degree of FAITH?
@Gilbertus1986 That amount of change takes millions of years. If it did it would actually disprove evolution. You would actually have to show evidence for a mechanism that limits the amount of change that can occur to say that evolution does not happen. Seems to me you're content distorting information and keeping your head up your ass when someone sites evidence for you to check for yourself. Since that is how you debate, I can't persuade you of anything.
Just because change happens doesn't PROVE evolution, you are just extrapolating from it. HOWEVER when you look at the complexity of changes that must occur in DNA, proteins etc and how intrinsicaly linked the systems of a cell are, then you start to comprehend the mountain evolution has to climb.
Yet again, more ad hominem.... attempts to dodge my questions I see.
I am STILL waiting for your answers to my microbiology questions, as you have not provided any mechanism to solve those problems. If evolution really is observed then you'd know the mechanism that can overcome these problems. If you cannot provide a mechanism, (that occurs in all species), then you must admit that in the realm of microbiology evolution is foundless.
@foxlake02 can YOU show EMPIRICAL evidence for evolution. Evidence that can be re-tested and is observed and doesn't pre-suppose evolution to be true.
The burden of proof rests on Evolutionists, since they claim that their "theory" is scientific. If it is scientific then it will have EMPIRICAL evidence.
Please show us some, rather than ad hominem attacks to others and insulting their intelligence.
"We win" is a silly joke, only a teenager would say something like this.
No speciate is to become a NEW species. Not a re-vamp of the same species.
My "theory" is that we don't have enough EMPIRICAL evidence to say scientifically that evolution occurs. Ideologically you can believe whatever you want, but you NEED EMPIRICAL evidence if you want scientific validity.
All the evidence of evolution is based on assumptions / prosupposes evolution.
@Gilbertus1986 Sorry I had just woke up and was in a rush. Meant "joke". Teens would say "we win" and so would someone confident that the evidence is on his side. ToE is the best theory to explain the facts. You are welcome to show us a better one but please site sources and provide evidence. Speciation has a scientific meaning and it doesn't include "a re-vamp". Now the word "kind"...that has no meaning and creationist will actually refuse to commit to a meaning.
Firstly I'm not a creationist, hence you including "creation science" is a strawman nothing more.
Speciation does have a meaning, as I said before, however that meaning is inconsistant with the examples you provided, where bacteria becomes bacteria and fruit flies stay fruit flies.
Neither can one accurately define the word species, as such your point about "kinds" is moot. I find this ironic when REAL science deals with FACTS, not things that are ambigous and meta-physical.
@Gilbertus1986 I think it's probably more accurate to say you will not admit to being a creationist. Be that as it may, you still need to show a better theory than the well established theory of evolution or your point is moot. The term speciation is well defined although the exact point of speciation can often be hard to define. That's just how life works. Nested hierarchy is a lot more than similarities. You should learn it's definition before trying to dispute it as evidence for evolution.
Nope you are wrong. I am not a creationist, nor do I "only look at creationist material for my education". My University is VERY biased to pro-evolution, I just can see through the facade and see what evolution REALLY is, an ideology.
Nested heirachy is YOUR arguement, tell me how it is more than similarites. Since that is what my Uni has defined it as
Define what a species is, THEN you can accurately define speciation!! I made no assumptions in its definition, (unlike you).
@Gilbertus1986 I don't believe your university says nested hierarchy is just similarities unless it's the same one Kent Hovind went to. I think you need to crack open a biology book. Nested hierarchy are patterns in which species are ordered into a series of increasingly more inclusive clades. I'm not imagining there are different fruit fly species any more than I imagine we are a different species than chimpanzees. It's a fact. Do some research.
Observing similarities doesn't tell you the mechanism that caused it.
Common design can be just as viable. Since it and evolution are based on the same evidence, just different interpretations / assumptions. However Creationists / ID people ADMIT that it takes faith. Whereas evolutionists, blatantly lie when they say evolution is a fact. Assumptions are not facts, they are faithbased.
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is observed in the form of ring species all over the world and in the lab. Fruit flies (Drosophila) is a genus of small flies that includes about 1,5000 species and yes, they have been observed to speciate in the lab. I gave you references, look it up. If you only look at creationist material for your education in biology, you're going to get a very distorted impression of what scientists are really saying and what ToE really says.
In terms of these fruit-fly "species", define what a species is then tell me how all these fruit flies are ALL different species by using that definition. If you cannot do this then you are ASSUMING that they are new species, when you haven't got an accurate definition to start with.
Even after that it still gives you no clue as to the mechanism
Again. How is all of this EMPIRICAL? (None of what you have said fits the criteria of EMPIRICAL, you just assume it does)
Furthermore, until you define what a species actually is, then no-one can be sure if anything has speciated or not. Hence your ASSUMPTIONS of speciation are unfounded as there is no definitive definition to test to see if something has speciated or not.
I'll ask you, can these "species" of fruit fly breed together, (or their offspring breed together etc). If they can then they are the same species, under the biological definition.
It was not ad hominem. You are arguing the same thing Hovind does. Nested hierarchy isn't just similarities, it's the distribution of similarities and differences. This can only occur with living organisms that reproduce with variation. It is shown to happen by observing the change in frequency of alleles in populations over time until separate populations no longer interbreed. That is not opinion. It's fact.
Lol "the distribution of similarities and differences" is the same as based on similarities. Hence I was correct, and you are arguing for the sake of arguing, ie- trolling.
Yes variation in frequencies of an allele does occur over time HOWEVER that doesn't lead to new species, rather it just occilates changes WITHIN the same species.
NO new genetic data is created in just variations of frequencies of alleles.
Bunnies not in the deeper strata does go against creationism. HOWEVER it doesn't provide the mechanism of how that happens, hence evolution is still assumed in this instance.
Quit with the assumptions, think like a scientist and look at the FACTS not pre-supposed ideas based on your own worldview.
@Gilbertus1986 Anything that evolves from a fruit fly will always be fruit flies no matter how much it diverges from it's hierarchical ancestors. Just as we will always be apes no matter how much we change from our early ancestors or how different we become from our modern relatives. Are you going to say all flies (Diptera) are the same species too? When will you be satisfied that a separate magical creation has occurred? Please provide evidence and site sources.
@foxlake02 nice job with @Gilbertus1986, he's just as ignorant as any creationist. he believes that only micro-evolution no macro-evolution happens. no matter how much u explain it to him that they're basically the samething, he won't listen. He's an ignorance who want to stay ignorant. so i guess ur wasting ur time
@simw7 Lol says the person who cannot support his own arguements and show evidence for his / her claims. I am STILL waiting for a reply to the rebuttal I sent you after you inboxed me.
How is asking for EMPIRICAL evidence ignorant? Most would say, that asking for proof BEFORE believing in something is smart and / or scientific. Or would you prefer to blindly follow something taken on faith and not evidence?
You have proved my point. If fruit flies stay fruit flies, and bacteria stay bacteria, then how can all life originate one species!
Basically you've admitted to just variation, and have said that evolution doesn't occur, there is hope for you yet :)
I don't need to provide evidence for YOUR claims. You are the one believing in evolution, you provide the evidence, (and the definition of species to start with).
@Gilbertus1986 I didn't prove your point, you missed my point. I suspect that it's not unintentional. In cladistics no organism can avoid it's ancestral lineage. It wouldn't matter if a fruit fly evolved to be a six foot tall bipedal carnivore. It would still be a member of a clade that include fruit flies. Are you sure you're not a cretard? You use the same tactics of feigning ignorance and playing word games as they do. You even stared your argument with a classic Hovindism.
@foxlake02 And yet again you finish off with more ad hominem, ( do I detect a pattern here? )
No I just don't believe that assumption-based-social-science should be claimed to be real science.
I'll ask you to show where I have "feigned ignorance" or have played "word games", unless you can show beyond reasonable doubt that I have, (which I haven't!), then what you are saying is lies and more ad hominem.
I never said evolution happens just because change happens. I listed some of the best evidence. You don't acknowledge it though. All you're saying with your "microbiology question" is that it's so complex you don't understand how it could happen. That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. The fact remains, the evidence shows that it happened and is happening. Microbiologists are uncovering the details though. This is what I mean by feigning ignorance. If you want to know, find out!
@foxlake02 Again you have failed to answer my questions. I have asked you for the mechanism. If evolution is a "fact" then there should be an observable, quantifiable, measurable mechanism that solves the questions I have asked.
Instead you have given me smoke and mirrors nothing more, hence I ask you where is the science? Or do we prove theories with smoke and mirrors nowdays?
@Gilbertus1986 The mechanism for evolution is mutations and natural selection. Please don't give me another Hovindism like "it can't make new information". The most well known example is a strain of Flavobacterium that eats nylon. This is due to a gene duplication with a frame shift mutation. Many other genes have been discovered which did evolve the same way. Also point mutations, translocations, inversions, insertions and deletions are some other well known mechanisms.
@Gilbertus1986 "How do you discover if a gene has evolved" Since nylon is a man made substance never seen in nature I think it's a reasonable assumption. Especially when molecular biology can determine that a frame shift had occurred and it is just an example. Many more are known and new ones are being discovered. Your articles are just saying that biologists do not know everything yet and it's complex. WOW! It's complex so I have no choice except to believe that God poofed everything here?
@foxlake02 You admitted its an asumption!! Thanks :D
Yes Nylon is man-made HOWEVER it is very close to other molecules to what the bacteria ALREADY breaks down. (Citrate, I think). However at the end of the day, has it turned into a new species? ie- a fish or a multicelluar orgainsm...NO
I never said "God" stop putting YOUR words in my mouth. Again, BAD FORM!
@Gilbertus1986 The point was, nylonase was created by specific mutations. Molecular biology has shown this to be the case. It is new information. Something creationists say can't happen. Please sire the biologists that define speciation as something turning into something "completely new"...and please define "completely new". Saying it's complicated doesn't explain anything. Back up these claims with peer reviewed evidence and site your sources or you're just pissing in the wind.
Actually being complicated explains alot, (you just fail to see it). Complexity and interspecificity cannot arise from random mutations. These are part of the questions you have continued to dodge around. Systems in nature that are reliant on multiple parts BEFORE ANY benefit is recieved cannot come about via a gradualistic process, (as each step needs to be benefitial as to select for it).
One last chance, answer my questions on Microbiology. Lest you admit you don't know.
@Gilbertus1986 "Complexity and interspecificity cannot arise from random mutations" No shit. It can and does arise from mutations and natural selection. What university did you say you was going to? Here are a few links that refer to peer reviewed science explaining how it can happen. watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4 watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w It's not like real biologists are throwing there hands up and saying they have no answer for that. You just have to do the research.
@foxlake02 The link I gave you was a peer reviewed article detailing how natural selection does Jack shit!
Read the quote I gave, its very clear just from that what the scientists are saying. Didn't you read it? Or do you wish to continue your FAITH in evolution, ignorant of any evidence proving evolution wrong?
The fact is, is that I have asked you to answer my questions about microbiology, (regarding complexity), and you have failed to answer them. As such how can you possibly claim,
"nah uh mutations can cause complexity"
When you haven't answered my questions regarding complexity, or have you put your fingers in your ears regarding my legitimate questions, and trust in your FAITH.
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you two good sources by cdk700 that explain irreducible complexity better than I can and it is information from peer reviewed sources. You fail to respond to any of it and claim I don't respond claiming I said," nah uh mutations can cause complexity". The birth and growth of a child to an adult is complex but you don't look at adults and say God must have poofed them into existence (or do you?).
@foxlake02 You've just posted up a strawman of YOUR own words, with the adult question, hence I will not answer it.
Firstly I have given you my own research, why can't you respond in kind, rather than leaning on others to do your thinking for you..
I was not talking specifially about irreducible complexity, just complexity in general, hence your sources will be unable to answer my questions as they do not deal with the speifi things I am asking for.
Wasted my time!
tangmars 4 months ago
Jonathan Wells says there's "no net evolutionary change"....holy shit. My bio background is a couple decades out of date, but I recognize that statement as unfounded making Wells a moron. And there are a number of mechanisms that drive evolution, the finches are simply a readily well studied example making Berlinski a tool.
robertmike57 8 months ago
LOL
Jonathan Wells and David Berlinski are both intelligent design advocates.
DevaOscura 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The best YouTube videos on such topics you can find in my channel's playlist Creation vs Evolution. Click on "more info" to that playlist, and God bless you.
mikilavush 9 months ago
Alternative view of evolution see book video trailer
dltanner99 1 year ago
@2:33 they said the claim was made by nutty journalists. This completely misrepresents that it covers the research team of Peter and Rosemary Grant who live on the islands conducting constant analysis of the beaks and more research has led to the discovery of bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4) and CaM that in various combinations change the beak morphology!
@3:49 Dogs stay dogs? No they don't. Genetic analysis shows the dog genome is also comprised of segments that belong to JACKALS!
f0xfree 1 year ago 2
@f0xfree YOU LIE!! @2.33 He is clearly talking about journalists who wrote a pulitzer winning book on the finches. (too bad pulitzers have nothing to do with science) And so what about Bmp4? what does it prove about evolution theory? Just that a protein changes beak size thats it.
Humans also have 50% similarity with bananas. Must mean we are half banana or banana is half human?
SIMILARITY IS NOT PROOF OF ANCESTRY!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
@2:33 He OMITS that journalists are reporting the findings of the Grants. The Grants have published extensive peer-review on the Finches. They observe them daily because they are dedicated scientists living on the island.
BMP4 is a morphogenetic protein. It is part of the biochemical plasticity that organisms naturally have. It allows for variation that selection can act upon and does act upon.
We are related to bananas.
No one said similarity means ancestral.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree Because he is trying to make a valid point. Finch beak sizes change in size. It is ridiculous to say that in a million years the finch will evolve to a the galapagos elephant. By talking so about those journalists, he is trying to drive home a very important point. Note the fact that no where does he discount the Grants research.
We are related to bananas? A statement you believe to be true on faith alone because you dont have proof of this. (watch: He is about to employ circular logic
karamarouge 1 year ago
@f0xfree Let me be clear, by citing the work of the Grants, his point would still be valid. That is why I am dismissive of your mentioning Bmp4. It is irrelevant and does not change the fact, that it is ridiculous to make claims that Finches will evolve into some other creature(galapagos elephant) or any other animal just because you discovered bmp4 the chemical responsible for beak sizes.
Please address that issue instead of wasting time on arguments that dont address his core argument
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
He INSULTS the journalists @2:29 and then he says we NEED MORE evidence than that. He deliberately OMITS the Grants' scientific research which IS evidence for speciation.
The claim being made is that Finches share a common ancestor that is extinct, not they are evolving into elephants.
BMP4 is the biochemistry that ID says can't exist. BMP4 and CAM combination can do anything to reshape structure. Anything.
ID just wants us to all pretend there is no evidence for speciation.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree It doesnt matter, the argument still holds firm that its ridiculous to claim Finches evolved from some dinosaur because you found changing beak sizes. (to be honest your argument is tortured and twisting the truth about what is said of the finches. ) It is claimed that the decrease in size was proof of evolution. Not to mention that Evolution is said to be continuous.
Are you saying BPM4 and CAM can turn a finch into an elephant? HOw did you come to your conclusions about it?
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
Finches on the Galapagos evolved from ancestral finches of a different species and are evidence for 'evolutionary radiation' that occured rather quickly.
Bird evolution is a larger topic. The evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs (theropods) is very good considering we have many intermediary fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. Microrapter is a good example.
BMP4 and CAM are discoveries ID can't and doesn't predict. Evolution does.
There is NO static fossil record :)
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree You have no evidence of any kind about the evolution of the finches. REpeating things for which you have no proof will not make them right. (though according to an evolutionist, anything is possible given enough time(
YOU LIE YET AGAIN ABOUT BMP4 AND CAM!!! NO SCIENTIST EVER PREDICTED THEM!!! STOP WITH THESE STUPID LIES MAN!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
Molecular sequencing for the phylogeny of Finches is also in agreement with biogeographical disperal patterns.
The Galapagos only has organisms that could have travelled there. This is the same with all more recent island formations. There are never any organisms found on recent island formations that couldn't have travelled there.
Evolution predicts even more biochemistry for evolutionary plasticity will be found.
There is still no statsic fossil record. It doesn't exist.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree Now you are resorting to out right lies. First of all we have proof that the beaks of the galapagos finches are both small and large depending on the droughts. The obvious question here is since you dont know which birds came first (beak length has been disproven as an indication) one would easly conclude that your molecular sequencing claims are total b/s. Matter of I would wager that if any scientist actually did this molecular sequencing, they would not reference the beaks at all.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
"Phylogeny of Darwin’s finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences" is the paper by the Grants that this video ignores and ID pretends doesn't exist and still need to be done. The paper establishes the evolutionary relationships between Finches on the island and the type of biogeographical dispersal through adaptive radiation.
Evolutionary reversal patterns within directional evolution are observed in the transitional fossil record that isn't a static fossil record predicted by ID.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree YOU also seem to be doing a very poor job of trying to confust the issue at hand. That being the fact that darwin's finch beaks are nothing of what he claims. So please can the arguments about CAM and Bpm4. As i told you before, that has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT THAT CHANGE IN BEAK SIZES OF DARWIN'S FINCHES IS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION PROVEN BY HE FACT THAT THE BEAKS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO GROW BACK!
THAT IS THE POINT. ENOUGH WITH YOUR STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS!
karamarouge 1 year ago
Also the video isn't outdated it is quite NEW, so calling it old makes no difference. (Except showing you are scraping the bottom of a barrel).
Nested Heirarchy is based on commonality, the video shows that while some traits may be common physiologically, some are totally diffferent GENETICALLY, which is the crux of evolution since traits are pased on genetically
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "the crux of evolution since traits are passed on genetically" Bullshit
It only makes my point that nested hierarchy is not just similarities but groups of clades with unique similarities and differences. The marsupial wolf was never considered related to true wolves. Similar homology is present in many life forms but it is the unique groups of similarities and differences (cladistics) that show evolution.
foxlake02 1 year ago
Go to the site I linked I have already set up a topic page, and some have already commented confirming my claims.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
You STILL haven't answered my questions. You have just proven that you are a Hypocrite and a Troll. You'll be eating your words tomorrow when you bother to watch the video.
Commonality doesn't give you the mechanism of evolution, hence you are assuming it happens
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Do you admit that you are ASSUMING evolution here, without having the mechanism for evolution defined by the evidence? If not we are done here
(SInce all you are doing is looking at similarites and saying , "they are similar, they MUST have evolved".... Was that empirical?)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I told you many times NO I am using evidence to make a conclusion here. If you can not give a valid EXPLANATION of why nested hierarchy is caused by life being magically poofed into existence by a creator, the you are only parroting an assertion. Your next post will need to be the explanation for your assertion. Repeating yourself over and over is simply dogma without evidence.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 LOL I find it funny that YOU are allowed to dodge questions, (Which you still haven't answered!!!), yet ensure that I answer yours.. Hypocrite much!!
There is no nested heirarchy, this is what I am trying to show you. It is an ASSUMPTION based on commonality. THe fossil evidence shows that there are no states of transition between forms, WATCH MY VID! It is on the list to the right "Homology Theory - Evidence of Evolution".. It Debunks your Nested heirarchy
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 There is no nested hierarchy? Did you really say that??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Even Ken Ham and Kent Hovind will not deny nested hierarchy! You are getting desperate now. First you argue that a creator made the nested hierarchy and then you deny it exists. I'll watch it tomorrow. Good night. Enjoy your ignorance.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 if you wish to debate this further follow the link, I am tired of the youtube word limit
w w wDOTevolutionfairytaleDOTcom/forum/index.php?s=024475038c409b25299d94cce9cfa11e&showtopic=4071&st=0&p=66744&
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 You don't seem to understand the argument. Your outdated video doesn't mention nested hierarchy. If it did it would destroy there pathetic argument. Like I said before, it's not just similarities. Do you think this short bus crowd is the first to discover coevolution? It is well understood but the homology examples are only individual traits and overall body plans. It is nested hierarchy that actually show that those species belong to different clades.
foxlake02 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@foxlake02 I'll ask you again, do you admit you are assuming evolution occurs?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I'll answer you again. I base my conclusions on observable evidence. Wells is a notorious liar who had his mind up before he even studied biology to become an apologist. That's not science. I think we are done here. Try studying what the real biologists and paleontologists say and why they say it. Not trying to insult but your ignorance is obvious the more you post. You never told me why nested hierarchy is any evidence for magical creation and I'm sure you never will.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Now you are just lying.
Firstly you are saying untruths about Wells since you have no idea of what he is thinking, (Or are you a mind reader now?). I also answered you FOUR times with how your "nested hierarchy" can also be attributed to creation.
Common traits can also be attributed to Common design
Since nested heirarchy is based on common traits.
Go on the site, there is no word limit so you can speak your piece. OR are you scared to have a proper debate on this?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Furthermore, nested heirarchy is NOT observable evidence, It may seem it, however when you consider that " Associatioms are OUR constructs", hence the evidence is construed in a way that it is no longer empirical.
The video shows that some features that are the same, and where evolutionists "think" they have evolved along the same evolutionary path, are not so and defies the evolutionary model.. They cited the body in fruit flies and wasps are coded for by a totally different gene
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Like I said, it's more than mere associations and they are much more than our constructs. It is physical reality and the mechanism is well understood. You don't even respond to my video but you seem to have a need to rant just to get in the last word. Well knock yourself out but I still advise you to crack open a real biology book. Bye
foxlake02 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 Why should I respond to anything when YOU yourself flee from any and all questions of inquiry I have made. Up until now I have answered all your questions yet you refuse to answer mine. I will answer you when you have answered MY questions rather than using a one-liner to "solve" the question, when in reality it doesn't.. I have many books on Biology, hence why I know evolution is not science.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 Yes we can see the similarities, but that doesn't tell you how they came to be. (As I have told you over and over, it doesn't give you the mechanism). Hence you are assuming evolution is the cause, when you have no proof that it was the actual cause.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Oh and here is a vid for your embryology case... Watch it and learn.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=ictZJln3Vj4&feature=related
Whilst evolutionists may claim all the embryological structures that seem to fit evolution, it ONLY takes one (or perhaps two) to falsify that model. This video does that. So as I said before embryology for evolution is debunked.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Oh and here is a vid for your embryology case... Watch it and learn.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=ictZJln3Vj4&feature=related
Whilst evolutionists may claim all the embryological structures that seem to fit evolution, it ONLY takes one (or perhaps two) to falsify that model. This video does that. So as I said before embryology for evolution is debunked.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@foxlake02 DO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE ASSUMING EVOLUTION?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Again, you see similarities in structures you say common descent
Creationists see similarities in structures and they say common design.
I cannot explain this any more simply. It is just as logical as common decent
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 @Gilbertus1986 WRONG! WRONG! FACTUALLY INCORRECT! It is explained very eloquently by common ancestry. In fact it could not be any other way and all fields of science support that conclusion. You still need to explain why a creator would have to limit himself (herself?) to diversity of life within a nested hierarchy. Still waiting...
foxlake02 1 year ago
Again, nested heirarchy is based on common physiology. Where one side sees common descent, the other sees common design. BOTH ARE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE SAME EVIDENCE! You cannot claim one thing and then rebuke the other, this is what is called hypocrisy.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Promoter elements would NEED to evolve at the same time of the new function, as well as be receptive to the new functions function. This goes against what the literature says about mutation and their RANDOMNESS, as well as mutation rate and mutational fitness (via MULTIPLE mutations that need to occur successively). All you are saying is "poof" and natural selection did it, this is YOUR "magic man".
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Oh yes it is, now you'll try and equivocate out.
I have been asking you time and time again from the onset for "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION".
Are you hinting that this mtDNA is not the empirical evidence I have been asking you for? (When moments ago you said it was empirical evidence).
If so then when are you going to show some empirical evidence, or must we ride this merry-go-round, are you willing to admit that the "theory" of evolution is based on assumption.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Nothing in the theory of evolution is outside the empirical cycle of observation, deduction, testing and evaluation. I think you have a very warped idea of what science really is. That usually comes from a very strong faith bias. Instead of just shooting posts back asking me how I know the examples I site, why not do a little research on your own? I know you think they need to see every creature evolve in front of them but that's not how it works.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 If nothing in the theory is outside the empirical cycle then why have you continually evade my requests to present empirical evidence? (I am asking for ACTUAL empirical evidence, you do know what empirical is do you? No assumptions, no pre-supposing evolution, observable, measurable, repeatable, falsifiable)
I ask you to provide evidence of your claims. Too many evos have the idea that what they say makes it true. Hence I ask, how do you actually KNOW rather than just say it is so.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Actually you asked how do you KNOW that the Bezoar goats are their ancestors. The nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Only life can be classified objectively in a consistent distribution of similarities and differences, a unique nested hierarchy. It would not happen if all species had been "specially created". Not unless Magic Man wanted to intentionally deceive us.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 "The nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity"
Such a vague definition is common in evo-"science"
I am asking EMPIRICALLY how does nestled heirachy PROVE common decent. Rather than just say it does, SHOW HOW it does.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I can't be more clear than I have here. The empirical evidence is the nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows along with other mountains of evidence. Deductions are made and tested to form the theory. Theories are not mere facts. They explain facts. This is science. I don't think it's really the process you don't like. It's the results. Sorry if it doesn't match your story book.
foxlake02 1 year ago 2
@foxlake02 Ha ha ha "mountains of evidence", considering how long it took for you to procure this ONE piece of evidence, for you to have a "mountain" of it seems quite unlikely.
Deductions that are not based on the evidence is NOT science. Science is about looking at the observations / experiments, it is EMPIRICAL. Science is not about explaining something that has no empirical founding, that is what religion is.
Hence evidence of the Evolution Religion.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "Deductions that are not based on the evidence is NOT science"
What would you call nested hierarchy if not evidence? Explain comparative homology, atavisms, ERVs, embryology and transitional fossils located in the correct strata to confirm the theory. The mechanism is mutation and natural selection. You are talking in circles now. Let's have your better explanation.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
I am talking in circles because you CONTINUE to keep on asserting the same tired debunked, "evidence" as evidence.
Embryology was found to be a FRAUD
Transitional Fossils.... HA there are none. There are jumps between the fossils, with no fossil record of "the millions of years of mutation", between them.
As my link before showed empirically... Natural selection does Jack Sh!t
Comparative homology, same design perhaps. You are STILL ASSUMING evolution from this.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Embreology has not been debunked. Maybe you are talking about the old creationist stand by ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? There are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record for the honest skeptic. You're just not being honest. NO not same design. Comparative homology shows nested hierarchy. Not the same thing. Read a real biology book. Not really seeing your problem with promoter elements evolving. Examples of how entire systems can evolve have been demonstrated.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Don't put words in my mouth and use strawmen, (yet again)
Haeckle was found to be a FRAUD, with his embryology "evidence" of evolution
Watch this video.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=pMVBFJCqFXc&feature=related
Yes dude, you say nestled heirachy creationists say common design BOTH fit the evidence, and BOTH are extrapolations. Rather than proven by the "evidence". Saying it isn't so just because you don't like it is dishonest
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Are you going to answer my question about promoters? Or will you dodge it like you did before?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Why do you think promoter elements couldn't evolve? I know Haeckel was wrong. He drew caricatures of what he saw. Other scientists found out and called him on it. That's how science works. Embryology is still a valid field of science that supports evolution. Open a biology book. Your link is a dud. Watch this one watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ and weep. Why would magic man be limited to creating life only within a nested hierarchy? Nested hierarchy is explained by common ancestry.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 I didn't say promoter elements couldn't evolve I'm saying that according to the literature there is no selection for them to. Without the function you have no selection for the promoter and without hte proper promoter there is no selection for the new function, (as it isn't very being used to its best potential, hence wouldn't increase fitness)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 but the overwhelming evidence is that natural selection did cause the diversity of life we see today. You are just using another variation of irreducible complexity argument. Read or watch Ken Miller address this issue. Nooooo I just told you nested hierarchy is EXPLAINED by common ancestry. You can assert a designer but you need to show evidence for a relationship. I still ask you why would you assume the designer had to be restricted to diversity within a nested hierarchy?
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 No dude, you are ASSUMING common descent from comparative homology. It doesn't give you the mechanism for the common descent, nor does it tell you how it happened (or IF it happened), if you cannot grasp that you are ASSUMING evolution here then there is no more to talk about.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Actually the overwhelming evidence is AGAINST evolution, read some papers on microbiology and they will all go on to say about the complexity of the cell. I read one about how Ribosomes creation is MUCH more complex than what evos thought. It is crazy to thing that such a system of engineering, came about via random change.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02 The link works for me if you delete the spaces and change the DOT into .
If you bothered to watch the video, then you'd see how similarities do not suport evolution.
Please tell how embryology gives empirical evidence for evolution?
Furthermore, I have another question. If bacteria are so good at what they do... Where was the selection pressure for them to "evolve" into multicellular organisms. Furthermore where are the transitional fossils of this transition?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I just posted a link that goes into detail about that. LOOK! ...and I will try your link again. Precursors of the function or system of functions like the rotary flagellum in bacteria are known to exist as are the individual proteins used in different functions. The individual functions only have to provide a slight advantage to the organism to survive and increase in frequency within a population. I am not familiar with your example but I don't see it as your problem.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Creating a NEW function isn't as simple as changing a few bases and hey presto... As I questioned you before, (which you continued to dodge), for a NEW function to come about it will also need promoter proteins that are specific to that function. Where did these promoter proteins come from? and how was the function enacted properly without these proteins initially. Keep in mind that the proposed "natural selection" only keeps the best so there is no leniency in having no promoters.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02 That said,
Nestled heirachy STILL assumes evolution. There is no mechanism for evolution in the evidence you have provided as such this mechanism is JUST assumed to work. Rather than be empirically proven.
Basically all you are saying is this...
"Hey these animals are kinda related, they all have DNA, celss ,etc... Ok so they must be related to each other"
You say Common descent, Creationists say Common design. Both come from the same evidence. Both are assumptions.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thumbs up if you beleive in god rather than this
warwolf193 1 year ago
Darwin? Finches? They are 150 years out of date. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
Transformed? LOL say......E V O L V E D
gregrutz 1 year ago
Very scientific information and approach in this video. Unfortunately, many "scientists" (and misinformed individuals) have married the evolution theory and can't see past their own prideful preconcieved notions to see the forest for the trees. True science doesn't "buy into" a theory but continues to research and explore the evidence.... and for evolultion the case gets weaker by the day.
susanjenkins777 1 year ago
@susanjenkins777 Did it ever dawn on you that scientists are 'married' to evolution because it has been proven? Forest for the trees?!? You look at gaps and not the fossils.
Gets weaker? DNA markers match Darwin's tree of life, proof.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz ... hmmmmm..... maybe I should rethink this.... you do sound a little like an ape...
Just kidding. We are obviously not going to agree on this topic.
Have a nice day.
susanjenkins777 1 year ago
@susanjenkins777 Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why humans are still apes.
And all apes are still monkeys.
And all monkeys are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Okay..... like I said.... we still don't agree.... similarites in design point to a common Designer....... not evolution ..... Wish I had more time to have a friendly debate..
:) have a nice life!
susanjenkins777 1 year ago
@susanjenkins777
common design = common designer
different disign = different designer
My next door neighbor is a desinger, maybe she did it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Yes.... you just keep believing in your neighbor..... lol .... I'm trusting in God.
I really can't respond anymore to this.... but thanks for the lively interaction.
:) best wishes
susanjenkins777 1 year ago
@susanjenkins777 allah? holy ghost?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
By first excluding God and then interpreting everything as resulting from natural processes, evolutionists are trying to prove that to literally believe in Genesis is wrong. The truth, however, is that God is continuously active in the creation. It is not animals that biologically adapt themselves to environmental circumstances but it is God´s omnipresence that makes those biological changes which adapt animals to their environments.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush Saying 'God dun it' does not advance science or knowledge.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Why do people laugh at creationists?
bubka 1 year ago
evolution is wrong!
kingknongful 1 year ago
"Look at dogs, no matter how far back we go it's dogs."
If nothing else, anyone should be able to see through that one.
kantastisk 1 year ago
Damn they're dumb! How do you cure the willfully ignorant! Really ... 200 years!?!?!?!!??! WTF is wrong with their minds?
What about 200 000 000 years and you have the chance of seeing the finches divide into carnivore with fingers instead of claws and machine guns. Oh, I forgot. Earth is 6000 y.o haha!
How stupid on a scale to 10 are you if you have lived half your life in our civilization and not understood that 200 years is a second in the history of evolution? Hellooooooh? anybody hoooome?
heyawhaw 2 years ago
i made a darwin vid for school wach it itz so funny
STARBOY43 2 years ago
wtf
JamesCalico 2 years ago
More propaganda by the Christian allaboutscience series.
First try to win you over with things you respect, then inject doubt, and wiggle in creationism.
Creationism is not science, but they're trying to make it seem it is.
Pure and utter propaganda lies.
a1mint 2 years ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou How do you manage to stuff so much misinformation and so many ad hominems into 50 characters or less?
foxlake02 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Evolution is a fact of nature. There is no debate. You have no evidence to back up your assertions. Just a bunch of crude ad hominems.
foxlake02 1 year ago 10
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou All I read was bla bla bla bla but still no evidence. I rest my case.
foxlake02 1 year ago 6
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@foxlake02 "Evolution is a fact of nature." NO, evolution is a fact of complete ****
warwolf193 1 year ago
@foxlake02 muhahahaha fact of nature!!!!!!
no recorded history or experimental proof exists of evolution to date!! the guy at the end hit the nail on the head "we'd have more flexibility in lab conditions than we actually do" if it was fact it would have be proven by now! there would be no debate!!! thats fact
ByakuyaK 1 year ago
@ByakuyaK Bull! Speciation has been seen in the lab and there is no debate among professionals in the fields of biology. The only debate is being manufactured by religious fundamentalists.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Why because YOU say so?
The people in the video ARE professionals, and they refute evolution. There is no speciation from one species to another, and I ask you to provide EMPIRICAL proof of your claim that there is.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "Why because you say so?"
No because William Rice and G.W. Salt demonstrated speciation in the lab in the 1980s with fruit flies. Work at Michigan State University has also been demonstrated with bacteria by biologist Richard Lenski. Also, domestic sheep have speciated from there wild ancestors Ovis orientalis. These are just a few examples. Only creationists hold on to the old argument that speciation has not been observed.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 How is "nested heirarchy" EMPIRICAL evidence of evolution.
Lol do you actually know what EMPIRICAL means?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Sure, empirical evidence is done with direct observation. It is testable and repeatable. In other words, it's the opposite of "creation science". The twin nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows is certainly observed and testable. They do it every day and it fits very nicely with the comparative homology seen in living organisms. Why would you think ancestral life would be any different, Especially when the fossil record supports it so well. Still waiting for your version...
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Actually modern Microbiology, puts a strong case against evolution. In terms of complexity and systems in nature that require ALL their parts before confering a benefit. Hence slow changes over time cannot create these systems as there is no benefit to select each part until the system is complete.
I'm still waiting for how "Nested Heirarchy" is evidence for evolution. All you have done is ASSUMED evolution as the mechanism for the similarities.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02 However under the other definition of species. Just looking the same is enough to constitute the same species. This definition is used when classifying insects with wolbachea disease, and is the morphology definition.
Under this definition, all your fruit flies are the same species, as I said before your assumptions are unfounded.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 It is empirical evidence because it can be tested and if organisms are found that do not fit cladistics it would disprove evolution. So far no crockoducks or pegasus have been found. So far no bunnies have been found in the Cambrian strata layers nor hominid fossils found with dinosaurs fossils. No matter ho much creationists try to pretend they have. Still waiting for you to present a better theory.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 I don't need to present a better theory. I'd rather not believe in anything, than believe in a backward theory that defies reality just so I can say I have a theory for it.
Seriously, read a book on micro-biology and use some brain power and ask yourself, how in the world can such a thing as a cell come about via evolution. Let alone have multi-cellular organisms and the specialisation of cells that is coded for in DNA.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 You play the same old word games that creationists play but I am to believe it's only the evidence that persuades you. Speciation is the isolation of gene pools long enough so that mating of individuals will no longer produce viable offspring. Modern molecular biology clearly shows the divergence of separate gene pools in many populations with unique character combination from bacteria to apes.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
I'm not playing any word games! (You are by suggesting as such). I am asking you for EMPIRICAL evidence that doesn't rest on assumptions or pre-supposes evolution is true.
Some questions regarding micro biology.
How do proteins function when a mutation changes its shape?
What takes over the role of the changed protein if it now has a new function? SInce that role was needed before.
If there is a new function, then how do the promoters specific to that function evolve?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you empirical evidence. Nothing besides descent with modification explains nested hierarchy, atavisms, ERVs comparative homology and the overwhelming evidence that exists in many other fields of science. Evolution explains what is observed better than any other explanation. No one has disproven it in 150 years. Pretending that species are not species and evidence is not evidence is your problem. Remain ignorant if you want to.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
No all you have said is assumption based. Evolution is assumed from these things, not proven. It isn't repeatable! Since evolution is supposed to be a historical event, as such you cannot repeat it. The evidence is "after the fact", and as such cannot be repeated.
All your evidence pre-supposes evolution as the ONLY correct path as such it isn't scientific. Science is about following the FACTS to whatever end.
Seriously the processes in micro-biology are evidence of design!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I doubt you're as stupid as you post or would you also say you can't convict a murderer if he denies it unless you have an eye witness. Forensic science is used as evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Many cases of adaptation have been observed like with Croatian lizards, Cichlid fish and other animals. A cursory look at the available information would tell you that if you bothered to look. Seeing new limbs evolve in a human life time doesn't happen and you know it.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Law has nothing to do with SCIENTIFIC viability, to suggest what you did proves you know nothing about actual science.
Adaption does happen, I have never doubted this. However what we are debating is evolution, so I ask you to not "move the goal posts", unless this is your debate tactic, (as well as the ad hominem attacks you are so fond of using). Debate the evidence not the person, that is
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Since evolution is supposed to be a natural process it should be occuring all the time. Like in all things there are outliers, hence we SHOULD expect to see some organisms with mutations / changes that are the beginings or the ends of a speciation event.... However we don't, we do see variations. But not outside of what is acceptable, ie- no new legs on fish without legs
Can you answer my questions about micro-biology.... Since micro-biology proves evolution (apparantly)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I've given you Physiological evidence, from the brain, organs etc.. but you're just too stubborn with ur creationism minset. and like you say evolution is assumption it's not, it's been observed over and over again, and species don't evolve unless they have to adapt a new envirnoment. I showed you the example of the Lizard on the island, that changed their diets etc. You said that that was micro-evolution no macro-evolution,..well it's all the same thing basically
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7
You call me stuborn for not bowing down to your inferior logic.
A lizard changing its diet is STILL a lizard you fool! It hasn't changed species! Seriously I've said this before and it just goes through one ear and out the other.
Evolution as defined by Darwin, cannot be observed!
I am STILL waiting for your reply to my rebutal to your inbox message.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 OMG you're a retard lol hhaha yes, it's still a lizard, and evolution doesn't happen overnight goddamn dude,..it takes million of years. idk how many times ill say this, macro evolution is a big change over a longtime, micro-evolution is small changes that species get in short time while adapting to their new environment. and what rebuttal are you talking about? What evidence do you want for macro-evolution?
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 I sent a reply to your message, it seems it was too complicated for you to understand.
So I ask you, why did you say lizards changing their diets are evidence for evolution when they remain Lizards?
Nobody is doubting change over time, what I remain skeptical of is if small changes can be extrapolated to be large changes.
I ask you this, can you breed me a pig as big as a house? No? Thats because there are limitations to the amount of change that can occur.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
The evidence I'd like for macro evolution.
a) a consistant and readily observable fossil record showing ALL (if not most) of the individual changes in the population, (this should be easy as it is over MILLIONS of years)
b) an actual definable mechanism within a cell that creates NEW genetic information, also providing individual promoter proteins for the new function.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
If it takes millions of years, then how can you be so sure that it has occured. Nobody has seen it, just like nobody has seen God or the boogy-man or the cube from transformers. Hence due to this would you agree that to believe in evolution requires a degree of FAITH?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
No they aren't "basically the same thing", macro involves the creation of NEW genetic DATA.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 That amount of change takes millions of years. If it did it would actually disprove evolution. You would actually have to show evidence for a mechanism that limits the amount of change that can occur to say that evolution does not happen. Seems to me you're content distorting information and keeping your head up your ass when someone sites evidence for you to check for yourself. Since that is how you debate, I can't persuade you of anything.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Just because change happens doesn't PROVE evolution, you are just extrapolating from it. HOWEVER when you look at the complexity of changes that must occur in DNA, proteins etc and how intrinsicaly linked the systems of a cell are, then you start to comprehend the mountain evolution has to climb.
Yet again, more ad hominem.... attempts to dodge my questions I see.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02
I am STILL waiting for your answers to my microbiology questions, as you have not provided any mechanism to solve those problems. If evolution really is observed then you'd know the mechanism that can overcome these problems. If you cannot provide a mechanism, (that occurs in all species), then you must admit that in the realm of microbiology evolution is foundless.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02 can YOU show EMPIRICAL evidence for evolution. Evidence that can be re-tested and is observed and doesn't pre-suppose evolution to be true.
The burden of proof rests on Evolutionists, since they claim that their "theory" is scientific. If it is scientific then it will have EMPIRICAL evidence.
Please show us some, rather than ad hominem attacks to others and insulting their intelligence.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "If it is scientific then it will have EMPERICAL evidence"
Nested Hierarchy
We win!
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 You use a silly joke to avoid the question, is that how you debate?
Where is the EMPIRICAL evidence?
Bacteria stays bacteria
Fruit flies stay fruit flies
Have they turned into a new species?
Better yet, please define species, (no scientist definitivly can so how can you claim one turning into another when there is no precise definition? )
Watch this video again 3.45 onwards especially!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"You use a silly koke"
No I use science. Are you claiming nested hierarchy doesn't exist?
"Bacteria stay bacteria"
But they have been shown to speciate
"Fruit Flies stay fruit flies"
But they have been shown to speciate.
Get that giant chip off your shoulder and tell us what your theory is.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Firstly I said joke, not koke.
"We win" is a silly joke, only a teenager would say something like this.
No speciate is to become a NEW species. Not a re-vamp of the same species.
My "theory" is that we don't have enough EMPIRICAL evidence to say scientifically that evolution occurs. Ideologically you can believe whatever you want, but you NEED EMPIRICAL evidence if you want scientific validity.
All the evidence of evolution is based on assumptions / prosupposes evolution.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Sorry I had just woke up and was in a rush. Meant "joke". Teens would say "we win" and so would someone confident that the evidence is on his side. ToE is the best theory to explain the facts. You are welcome to show us a better one but please site sources and provide evidence. Speciation has a scientific meaning and it doesn't include "a re-vamp". Now the word "kind"...that has no meaning and creationist will actually refuse to commit to a meaning.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Firstly I'm not a creationist, hence you including "creation science" is a strawman nothing more.
Speciation does have a meaning, as I said before, however that meaning is inconsistant with the examples you provided, where bacteria becomes bacteria and fruit flies stay fruit flies.
Neither can one accurately define the word species, as such your point about "kinds" is moot. I find this ironic when REAL science deals with FACTS, not things that are ambigous and meta-physical.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I think it's probably more accurate to say you will not admit to being a creationist. Be that as it may, you still need to show a better theory than the well established theory of evolution or your point is moot. The term speciation is well defined although the exact point of speciation can often be hard to define. That's just how life works. Nested hierarchy is a lot more than similarities. You should learn it's definition before trying to dispute it as evidence for evolution.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Nope you are wrong. I am not a creationist, nor do I "only look at creationist material for my education". My University is VERY biased to pro-evolution, I just can see through the facade and see what evolution REALLY is, an ideology.
Nested heirachy is YOUR arguement, tell me how it is more than similarites. Since that is what my Uni has defined it as
Define what a species is, THEN you can accurately define speciation!! I made no assumptions in its definition, (unlike you).
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I don't believe your university says nested hierarchy is just similarities unless it's the same one Kent Hovind went to. I think you need to crack open a biology book. Nested hierarchy are patterns in which species are ordered into a series of increasingly more inclusive clades. I'm not imagining there are different fruit fly species any more than I imagine we are a different species than chimpanzees. It's a fact. Do some research.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Ad hominem much?
You are entitled to believe in whatever you want, however you are wrong on all three accounts.
The more "inclusive" a clade is, is due to the similarities of homology and DNA. What other factors do they use, If not these similarities?
You didn't specifiy what else apart from similarities is used, as such my point stands.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Observing similarities doesn't tell you the mechanism that caused it.
Common design can be just as viable. Since it and evolution are based on the same evidence, just different interpretations / assumptions. However Creationists / ID people ADMIT that it takes faith. Whereas evolutionists, blatantly lie when they say evolution is a fact. Assumptions are not facts, they are faithbased.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is observed in the form of ring species all over the world and in the lab. Fruit flies (Drosophila) is a genus of small flies that includes about 1,5000 species and yes, they have been observed to speciate in the lab. I gave you references, look it up. If you only look at creationist material for your education in biology, you're going to get a very distorted impression of what scientists are really saying and what ToE really says.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
In terms of these fruit-fly "species", define what a species is then tell me how all these fruit flies are ALL different species by using that definition. If you cannot do this then you are ASSUMING that they are new species, when you haven't got an accurate definition to start with.
Even after that it still gives you no clue as to the mechanism
Again. How is all of this EMPIRICAL? (None of what you have said fits the criteria of EMPIRICAL, you just assume it does)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Furthermore, until you define what a species actually is, then no-one can be sure if anything has speciated or not. Hence your ASSUMPTIONS of speciation are unfounded as there is no definitive definition to test to see if something has speciated or not.
I'll ask you, can these "species" of fruit fly breed together, (or their offspring breed together etc). If they can then they are the same species, under the biological definition.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
It was not ad hominem. You are arguing the same thing Hovind does. Nested hierarchy isn't just similarities, it's the distribution of similarities and differences. This can only occur with living organisms that reproduce with variation. It is shown to happen by observing the change in frequency of alleles in populations over time until separate populations no longer interbreed. That is not opinion. It's fact.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Yes it was.
Lol "the distribution of similarities and differences" is the same as based on similarities. Hence I was correct, and you are arguing for the sake of arguing, ie- trolling.
Yes variation in frequencies of an allele does occur over time HOWEVER that doesn't lead to new species, rather it just occilates changes WITHIN the same species.
NO new genetic data is created in just variations of frequencies of alleles.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Yes it was.
Bunnies not in the deeper strata does go against creationism. HOWEVER it doesn't provide the mechanism of how that happens, hence evolution is still assumed in this instance.
Quit with the assumptions, think like a scientist and look at the FACTS not pre-supposed ideas based on your own worldview.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Anything that evolves from a fruit fly will always be fruit flies no matter how much it diverges from it's hierarchical ancestors. Just as we will always be apes no matter how much we change from our early ancestors or how different we become from our modern relatives. Are you going to say all flies (Diptera) are the same species too? When will you be satisfied that a separate magical creation has occurred? Please provide evidence and site sources.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 nice job with @Gilbertus1986, he's just as ignorant as any creationist. he believes that only micro-evolution no macro-evolution happens. no matter how much u explain it to him that they're basically the samething, he won't listen. He's an ignorance who want to stay ignorant. so i guess ur wasting ur time
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Lol says the person who cannot support his own arguements and show evidence for his / her claims. I am STILL waiting for a reply to the rebuttal I sent you after you inboxed me.
How is asking for EMPIRICAL evidence ignorant? Most would say, that asking for proof BEFORE believing in something is smart and / or scientific. Or would you prefer to blindly follow something taken on faith and not evidence?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Lol Thanks!!!
You have proved my point. If fruit flies stay fruit flies, and bacteria stay bacteria, then how can all life originate one species!
Basically you've admitted to just variation, and have said that evolution doesn't occur, there is hope for you yet :)
I don't need to provide evidence for YOUR claims. You are the one believing in evolution, you provide the evidence, (and the definition of species to start with).
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I didn't prove your point, you missed my point. I suspect that it's not unintentional. In cladistics no organism can avoid it's ancestral lineage. It wouldn't matter if a fruit fly evolved to be a six foot tall bipedal carnivore. It would still be a member of a clade that include fruit flies. Are you sure you're not a cretard? You use the same tactics of feigning ignorance and playing word games as they do. You even stared your argument with a classic Hovindism.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 And yet again you finish off with more ad hominem, ( do I detect a pattern here? )
No I just don't believe that assumption-based-social-science should be claimed to be real science.
I'll ask you to show where I have "feigned ignorance" or have played "word games", unless you can show beyond reasonable doubt that I have, (which I haven't!), then what you are saying is lies and more ad hominem.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
I never said evolution happens just because change happens. I listed some of the best evidence. You don't acknowledge it though. All you're saying with your "microbiology question" is that it's so complex you don't understand how it could happen. That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. The fact remains, the evidence shows that it happened and is happening. Microbiologists are uncovering the details though. This is what I mean by feigning ignorance. If you want to know, find out!
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 Again you have failed to answer my questions. I have asked you for the mechanism. If evolution is a "fact" then there should be an observable, quantifiable, measurable mechanism that solves the questions I have asked.
Instead you have given me smoke and mirrors nothing more, hence I ask you where is the science? Or do we prove theories with smoke and mirrors nowdays?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 The mechanism for evolution is mutations and natural selection. Please don't give me another Hovindism like "it can't make new information". The most well known example is a strain of Flavobacterium that eats nylon. This is due to a gene duplication with a frame shift mutation. Many other genes have been discovered which did evolve the same way. Also point mutations, translocations, inversions, insertions and deletions are some other well known mechanisms.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
How do you "discover" if a gene has "evolved" or if it wasn't a pre-set mechanism of the DNA or protein functions?
Consider these article on the COMPLEXITY of micro-biology, and how DNA is just the stepping stone to the complexity of protein interactions.
w w wDOTsciencedailyDOTcom/releases/2008/05/080514124110.htm
w w wDOTsciencedailyDOTcom/releases/2008/05/080512172904.htm
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "How do you discover if a gene has evolved" Since nylon is a man made substance never seen in nature I think it's a reasonable assumption. Especially when molecular biology can determine that a frame shift had occurred and it is just an example. Many more are known and new ones are being discovered. Your articles are just saying that biologists do not know everything yet and it's complex. WOW! It's complex so I have no choice except to believe that God poofed everything here?
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 You admitted its an asumption!! Thanks :D
Yes Nylon is man-made HOWEVER it is very close to other molecules to what the bacteria ALREADY breaks down. (Citrate, I think). However at the end of the day, has it turned into a new species? ie- a fish or a multicelluar orgainsm...NO
I never said "God" stop putting YOUR words in my mouth. Again, BAD FORM!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 The point was, nylonase was created by specific mutations. Molecular biology has shown this to be the case. It is new information. Something creationists say can't happen. Please sire the biologists that define speciation as something turning into something "completely new"...and please define "completely new". Saying it's complicated doesn't explain anything. Back up these claims with peer reviewed evidence and site your sources or you're just pissing in the wind.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02
Actually being complicated explains alot, (you just fail to see it). Complexity and interspecificity cannot arise from random mutations. These are part of the questions you have continued to dodge around. Systems in nature that are reliant on multiple parts BEFORE ANY benefit is recieved cannot come about via a gradualistic process, (as each step needs to be benefitial as to select for it).
One last chance, answer my questions on Microbiology. Lest you admit you don't know.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "Complexity and interspecificity cannot arise from random mutations" No shit. It can and does arise from mutations and natural selection. What university did you say you was going to? Here are a few links that refer to peer reviewed science explaining how it can happen. watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4 watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w It's not like real biologists are throwing there hands up and saying they have no answer for that. You just have to do the research.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 The link I gave you was a peer reviewed article detailing how natural selection does Jack shit!
Read the quote I gave, its very clear just from that what the scientists are saying. Didn't you read it? Or do you wish to continue your FAITH in evolution, ignorant of any evidence proving evolution wrong?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@foxlake02
The fact is, is that I have asked you to answer my questions about microbiology, (regarding complexity), and you have failed to answer them. As such how can you possibly claim,
"nah uh mutations can cause complexity"
When you haven't answered my questions regarding complexity, or have you put your fingers in your ears regarding my legitimate questions, and trust in your FAITH.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you two good sources by cdk700 that explain irreducible complexity better than I can and it is information from peer reviewed sources. You fail to respond to any of it and claim I don't respond claiming I said," nah uh mutations can cause complexity". The birth and growth of a child to an adult is complex but you don't look at adults and say God must have poofed them into existence (or do you?).
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 You've just posted up a strawman of YOUR own words, with the adult question, hence I will not answer it.
Firstly I have given you my own research, why can't you respond in kind, rather than leaning on others to do your thinking for you..
I was not talking specifially about irreducible complexity, just complexity in general, hence your sources will be unable to answer my questions as they do not deal with the speifi things I am asking for.
ie- promoter specifiity to a function
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago