cont 2. I think you will find that most mutations are neutral. Natural selection DOES act on deleterious mutations. That is why over 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct but there are bound to be survivors, such as us.
Generally science has many dating methods. It has relative dating which preceded radiometric dating and that alone gave an age of at least 50 mill years (as proposed by the Victorians). There are other methods too. What dating methods do creationists have?.
Cont. On the "guidance" thing i think a better term for natural selection is non random, whereas mutations are totally random. I must qulify that a bit though because although the conditions driving Natural Selection maybe stable over many generations they can also suddenly change (e.g. natural disasters) causing what was previously beneficial to become unbeneficial, hence causin the population to adapt or die out (in which case other organisms can evolve to occupy the niche).
2:50 No, no, no. Darwin never ever knew the "how" beyond Natural Selection. He never knew anything about the genetics. All he knew was the "what" mainly from the fossil record prior to him proposing Natural Selection based upon the Finch Beak and Pigeon studies etc. By having the "what", evolution was fully accepted (replacing creationism) and modern genetics has given us a glimpse of the how, not to mention the fossil sequence (as predicted by him) becoming even more abundant since his day.
Darwin never proved his ideas in his day, and today they're even more ridiculous than they were then. Saying that the fossil record supports Darwinian ideas is a preposterous joke. Nothing could be further from the truth.
@Kanbei85 I think you will find that Darwin's Theory Of Evolution was fully accepted by the scientists (the one's actually working in the labs and the field rather than their armchairs) well before Krick and Watson sparked the genetics revolution. The fossil sequence simultaneously supports evolution while destroying any notion of a global flood. Facts are facts.
@Mithcoriel hey im just basing it off of what i see. such as the guy who uses abusive language to get his "message" across (SwissTopper). plus given all the questions they still have no proof for, the response is "were working on it". sounds like the drive to prove we dont have somthing above us, to maintain their own stature built in their mind (dominance issues).
Complete non-sequitur, especially since medical science has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that all life has a common ancestor. "We are working on it" in lieu of any actual empirical evidence for Darwinism, or even a workable theoretical mechanism, just doesn't cut it.
@Kanbei85 Medical science uses the same criteria for assessing new ideas as evolution, its called the scientific method and it has made incredible strides since getting out of the dark ages of religious doctrine.
The theory of common descent cannot be weighed by the scientific method, because it cannot be viewed as it is occurring, something that even Richard Dawkins has admitted. It is speculative at best. For every Darwinian interpretation of fossils, strata, biological processes, etc. there is a corresponding and much more cogent creationist interpretation. This means that theory itself is not empirically-justified. Rather, it is an interpretation based upon presuppositions.
@Kanbei85 Are you serious? You say the creationist explanations are smarter than the scientific ones?? They've all been utterly debunked! Rock layers: a flood would have made one layer. Fossils: transitions from one animal to the next, and there being too many species for them having lived at the same time..biological processes? Like animals adapting to their environment, anything in genetics, etc.?
That's funny because in between the layers there's a complete lack of evidence of top erosion that would have occurred if they had been separated by millions of years. Your info is completely off on every count. You're brainwashed.
@Kanbei85 Brainwashed is what I call if it gets indoctrinated into you as a kid, and/or you're discouraged of questioning it. Both applies to creationism much more than it ever does to evolution.
The various rock layers include evidence of rain drops, entire petrified beaches and ecosystems. Less dense layers are below dense ones, which wouldn't happen if they're all put down at once. Now I'm no paleontologist, so I didn't look at them myself, but how do you indicate lack of erosion?
False. Both apply to Darwinism much more than they do creationism. You need to look at the creationist literature about the fossil record if you ever want to understand their points. I can't give it to you here.
@Kanbei85 Indoctrination: I had evolution in school when I was 16, old enough to think for myself. All the creationist videos I see have small children being not just taught creationism, but told again and again that they must ignore teachings on evolution. Most creationists on youtube censor their comments and some file DMCAs to silence their critics, you never see that with evolution. And I've heard many creationist points about the fossil record, all debunked. You have anything that's not?
"Debunked" in this day and age, often simply means "lied about, but we're going to believe the lie." I've -actually- debunked many "debunkings". This isn't about truth with you people any more. It's about replicating your diseased world view at any cost.
@MorpheusOmikron Yelling "your worldview is diseased!" - "No yours!" - "No yours!" isn't gonna get us anywhere. So instead of just yelling slogans at me, how about you actually bring forth an argument?
If the rebuttals I have heard have themselves been debunked, then great! Show me where? I'm very eager to learn. I'm specifically talking about all the points on Talkorigin's "Index to creationist claims" (google), videos by Potholer54, Extantdodo, Aronra, Thunderf00t, etc.
@MorpheusOmikron Ah. So you're just gonna randomly claim you're right, and don't even plan on bringing any arguments to actually prove it? Sure, why not...
I already know I'm right, and I no longer have the intention of proving it to others. The only meaningful, life-changing truths in this universe have to be experienced. You cannot be told them, it is a waste of time to try. Philosophy, Theology, Science, they all fail in this regard to do anything but make preconceived notions clearer, regardless of veracity. And if that is not the prime meaning of these fields, that is how we've used them thus far, an excuse to delude ourselves.-c
So you may continue "logical debate" with everyone here in, what I believe to be an attempt to justify your own position to yourself (ultimately), but I have no reason to join you in that, as all it "gains" me, even if I unfolded every truth in this universe to you, is a "swine who stomps on pearls", and my peace lost.
@MorpheusOmikron Ugh, I hate people who are so deluded they just assume anyone disagreeing with them is "justifying it to themself". Sure, I'll just continue sitting here and attempting to justify to myself the silly notion that the earth is round. You go and keep your peace in the assumption that it's banana-shaped, and ignore all that silly "logic", cause you know it's flat.
You know for a fact that we were not debating the roundness of the earth. That you compare your beliefs about God to the obviousness of the roundness of the earth is your own view, and your own opinion. It is "that clear" to -you-. So comparing it to the "roundness of the earth" to -me-, or to anyone who disagrees is arrogance at it's finest.
"You have the assumption It's banana shaped" - More strawmen. These are beginning to add up to nothing but ad hominems..
"Ignore all that silly "logic" " - Logic does not dictate God's non-existence or His existence in terms of proof. It does however offer evidence that there is a massive deal of carefully balanced, life-enabling laws in this universe, which bear the marks of design. And design suggests a designer. As for final, empirical proof, Logic cannot help you here whether you're a theist or an atheist, and you know this.
"You know it's flat" - I thought it was banana shaped? Peace.
@truth2350 If it's purely swearing, I could understand you. But logic explanations with some swearing mixed in...it's just a cheap excuse if you then ignore it for swearing's sake.
Evolution isn't for proving there is no god. Millions of scientists believe in God AND evolution, so they're obviously not doing it for dominance issues.
And yes, some things haven't been explained yet (most of it has though.). But that doesn't mean you can say "we can't explain it, God just did it by magic".
Magic as you put it is merely a word which indicates a process at work that we don't understand. Therefore God did indeed do it by magic. The fact that you claim most things have already been explained is a laughable reminder of just how naive you are.
@Kanbei85 I'm naive just for disagreeing with you? I take it then the fact that you have so many unanswered questions proves you are right, rather than, say, you didn't do enough research? (Argument from Ignorance)
Also it's not an argument from authority. I'm doing my part to share the arguments that Dr. Sanford has published; his arguments are to be weighed on their own scientific merits.
If the "scientific population" were a purely unbiased and fair judge of ideas, then that might be a reasonable question to ask, but even then it would be shaky to base your views on majority opinion. Even an unbiased majority could be wrong, but we are far from having that; your self-imposed ignorance of Dr. Sanford's actual points is plenty of evidence of that.
They stand up to scientific scrutiny. Sanford "could" be wrong, but you've yet to give me any reason to believe that he *is* wrong, except merely to lamely appeal to majority opinion (a bandwagon argument, for the millionth time).
@Kanbei85 Hardly, I've showed you, with evidence and arguments countless ways that Sanford is wrong, and all you do is stubbornly and blindly quote him like scripture.
I've recently bought myself a Kindle, if you really want me to read his book send me a copy.
I've responded to everything you've said, which isn't much in the final analysis. You quoted Kimura's speculative quip at the end of his paper, apparently believing that dismisses Sanford's entire thesis (it doesn't). I'm not sure what you're asking me to do with the Kindle, as I've never used one. Are you asking me to purchase the book for you? Of course I won't do that, I'm sure you can afford it on your own.
@ncwdane Oh absolutely, that's why my videos include real world examples, not just the ramblings of a deluded professor who no one takes seriously. (Well, at least no body with a back ground in science that is.)
@SwissTopper Dr Sanford,an leading geneticist from Cornell University,the man who invented over 30 patents,and inventor of Gene-Gun is infallible?Well i hope you was just kidding ...
Kanbei85 great video.... i only have one objection concerning your claims that there are some beneficial mutations...but the actual reality is,there are no such mutations,in darwinian sense...there is few mutations,very rare mutations that happens in highly selected environment,under specific conditions,that can increase survival rate of an organism...but just as they help to an organism,organism also has to pay the price ....but keep in mind that these rare ,,beneficial mutations,, are ...
...adaptations at its best ...So only examples of these mutations are antibiotic resistant bacteria and nylonase...and we can see in both of these examples that bacteria lost information,and became ,,invalid,, because it is not able to live in original environment due to loss of original information,so this bacteria depends on artificial environment led by intelligence because without environment full of antibiotics which are its only food now...bacteria will die out...same goes for nylonase ...
..Nylonase,or flavobacterium is classic case of ,,beneficiaql mutation,, fraud and misconstruction from darwinists ..nylonase actually lost 3 enzymes,and because of this mutation i.e insertion(deletion-duplication) flavobacterium got ,,holes,, within it,but duplication of EXACT SAME infos within flavobacterium in place where original informations were lost,we got a new function in flavobacterium and its digesting nylon ...this is classic example of loss of DNA complexity........
....and increasing of genetic entropy ...And price was definitely paid for this ,,beneficial mutation,, even in physical,laymen sense..you dont even need rocket science to observe that this flavobacterium with ,,beneficial mutation,, now depends on artificial environment,because without nylon it cannot survive,and it surely cannot go back to its original environment,because of loss of 3 enzymes,and original information that it suffered...same goes with pseudomonas,HIV immunity,in which ....
.....CCR-5 gene mutated(and hence is damaged) and now cells fail to produce protein called chemokine and due to this LOSS of information,and scratching of healthy genes(damage) receptor 5 is now lost,nonexistent in human body,so HIV does not have to infiltrate in something,and hence it cannot enter in lymfocites...thia is just like someone cut your hands off,and now,when police comes,they wont be able to handcuff you...so thats ,,beneficial,, riight?Well,according to desperate evolutionsits it
....is,since they just want to find something to catch on,and say..look..this is good mutation,even if the facts says that there IS NO GOOD mutation...only fatal,deadly,damaging,and potentialy damaging mutations ...there si no mutation(which is ERROR in copying process of DNA Genome) which is good or beneficial...there are only few,very rare mutations that can,under specific conditions,under highly selected specific environments,increase rate survival of certain organism,but they are all results
...of insertion-loss and duplication,duplication,loss,recombination,scratching of healthy genes and thats it...nothing new in genome,everything just vary within itself....and concerning these fallacies and straw man and ad hominem attacks that this guy used against you,well when he mentioned n.selection,he obviously forgot that n.selection does not even count,n.selection is nothing but healthy lives,weak dies ...there is no some entity which selects or eliminates...it just happens trough ...
....process of mutation...the one who is weak will die sooner than the one who is less weak...we are all weak genetically....and we definitely devolving (this is something what Science Daily and physorg said,not me lol) so n.selection is nothing but an poor excuse from evolutionists,but the real truth is ,,accidental mutation,, is unguided process,and organisms depends on it ...there is no intelligence involved,or anything like it..nothing..just pure random ...chances...trilions of them..
...and thats how we supposedly ,,changed,, from non living materials,into worms,and then humans ...lol.....by trilions and trilions of random chances and accidents....xDD
And the best thing is this blunder i heard,and i hear it all the time from evolutionists that evolution is ,,just change over time,, looool...yeah...right....i wouldnt be so bold to say that worms ,,just changed,, into elephants....but....darwinists can do whatever they want,and still call it ,,science,, on a regular basis...
@matrixlone Im good man,im busy,as always working in the lab ...plus bionics and biomimetics taking me us extra time here so i cannot even come to you tube and relax little bit like i used to ...:/
Funny? He wasn't funny, I'd say cocky and totally inane. Hey good job Kanbei for not stooping to his turd level.
FirebrandNIRE 1 month ago
Anotherr creepy failure from that creepy guy....
odinata 4 months ago
cont 2. I think you will find that most mutations are neutral. Natural selection DOES act on deleterious mutations. That is why over 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct but there are bound to be survivors, such as us.
Generally science has many dating methods. It has relative dating which preceded radiometric dating and that alone gave an age of at least 50 mill years (as proposed by the Victorians). There are other methods too. What dating methods do creationists have?.
pilgrimpater 4 months ago
Cont. On the "guidance" thing i think a better term for natural selection is non random, whereas mutations are totally random. I must qulify that a bit though because although the conditions driving Natural Selection maybe stable over many generations they can also suddenly change (e.g. natural disasters) causing what was previously beneficial to become unbeneficial, hence causin the population to adapt or die out (in which case other organisms can evolve to occupy the niche).
pilgrimpater 4 months ago
2:50 No, no, no. Darwin never ever knew the "how" beyond Natural Selection. He never knew anything about the genetics. All he knew was the "what" mainly from the fossil record prior to him proposing Natural Selection based upon the Finch Beak and Pigeon studies etc. By having the "what", evolution was fully accepted (replacing creationism) and modern genetics has given us a glimpse of the how, not to mention the fossil sequence (as predicted by him) becoming even more abundant since his day.
pilgrimpater 4 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Darwin never proved his ideas in his day, and today they're even more ridiculous than they were then. Saying that the fossil record supports Darwinian ideas is a preposterous joke. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 I think you will find that Darwin's Theory Of Evolution was fully accepted by the scientists (the one's actually working in the labs and the field rather than their armchairs) well before Krick and Watson sparked the genetics revolution. The fossil sequence simultaneously supports evolution while destroying any notion of a global flood. Facts are facts.
pilgrimpater 4 months ago
Long time, "Bulldog".....
Hope you're good.
justchemicali 4 months ago
@justchemicali
Thanks, I am. You too.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
lol, I just tried the beta audio transcription, and it's hilarious! Obviously it still needs a LOT of work....
Kanbei85 4 months ago
i wouldnt waste your time with atheist, they doubt god out of dominance issues.
truth2350 4 months ago 2
@truth2350 You don't sound like you know a lot about atheists. You might wanna double-check that claim.
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
@Mithcoriel hey im just basing it off of what i see. such as the guy who uses abusive language to get his "message" across (SwissTopper). plus given all the questions they still have no proof for, the response is "were working on it". sounds like the drive to prove we dont have somthing above us, to maintain their own stature built in their mind (dominance issues).
truth2350 4 months ago
@truth2350 Modern science has more than double you life expectancy in the last 100 years. Yes, despite what you think, we are working on it.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
Complete non-sequitur, especially since medical science has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that all life has a common ancestor. "We are working on it" in lieu of any actual empirical evidence for Darwinism, or even a workable theoretical mechanism, just doesn't cut it.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 Medical science uses the same criteria for assessing new ideas as evolution, its called the scientific method and it has made incredible strides since getting out of the dark ages of religious doctrine.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
The theory of common descent cannot be weighed by the scientific method, because it cannot be viewed as it is occurring, something that even Richard Dawkins has admitted. It is speculative at best. For every Darwinian interpretation of fossils, strata, biological processes, etc. there is a corresponding and much more cogent creationist interpretation. This means that theory itself is not empirically-justified. Rather, it is an interpretation based upon presuppositions.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 I'll agree with that, except for the last part, as its based on plenty of evidence.
The evidence for creationism however is remarkably non-existent.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 Are you serious? You say the creationist explanations are smarter than the scientific ones?? They've all been utterly debunked! Rock layers: a flood would have made one layer. Fossils: transitions from one animal to the next, and there being too many species for them having lived at the same time..biological processes? Like animals adapting to their environment, anything in genetics, etc.?
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
@Mithcoriel
That's funny because in between the layers there's a complete lack of evidence of top erosion that would have occurred if they had been separated by millions of years. Your info is completely off on every count. You're brainwashed.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 Brainwashed is what I call if it gets indoctrinated into you as a kid, and/or you're discouraged of questioning it. Both applies to creationism much more than it ever does to evolution.
The various rock layers include evidence of rain drops, entire petrified beaches and ecosystems. Less dense layers are below dense ones, which wouldn't happen if they're all put down at once. Now I'm no paleontologist, so I didn't look at them myself, but how do you indicate lack of erosion?
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
@Mithcoriel
False. Both apply to Darwinism much more than they do creationism. You need to look at the creationist literature about the fossil record if you ever want to understand their points. I can't give it to you here.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 Indoctrination: I had evolution in school when I was 16, old enough to think for myself. All the creationist videos I see have small children being not just taught creationism, but told again and again that they must ignore teachings on evolution. Most creationists on youtube censor their comments and some file DMCAs to silence their critics, you never see that with evolution. And I've heard many creationist points about the fossil record, all debunked. You have anything that's not?
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
@Mithcoriel
"Debunked" in this day and age, often simply means "lied about, but we're going to believe the lie." I've -actually- debunked many "debunkings". This isn't about truth with you people any more. It's about replicating your diseased world view at any cost.
MorpheusOmikron 4 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron Yelling "your worldview is diseased!" - "No yours!" - "No yours!" isn't gonna get us anywhere. So instead of just yelling slogans at me, how about you actually bring forth an argument?
If the rebuttals I have heard have themselves been debunked, then great! Show me where? I'm very eager to learn. I'm specifically talking about all the points on Talkorigin's "Index to creationist claims" (google), videos by Potholer54, Extantdodo, Aronra, Thunderf00t, etc.
I'm waiting.
Mithcoriel 3 months ago
@Mithcoriel
Why wait for something I never offered?
MorpheusOmikron 3 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron Ah. So you're just gonna randomly claim you're right, and don't even plan on bringing any arguments to actually prove it? Sure, why not...
Mithcoriel 3 months ago
@Mithcoriel
I already know I'm right, and I no longer have the intention of proving it to others. The only meaningful, life-changing truths in this universe have to be experienced. You cannot be told them, it is a waste of time to try. Philosophy, Theology, Science, they all fail in this regard to do anything but make preconceived notions clearer, regardless of veracity. And if that is not the prime meaning of these fields, that is how we've used them thus far, an excuse to delude ourselves.-c
MorpheusOmikron 3 months ago
@Mithcoriel
-c
So you may continue "logical debate" with everyone here in, what I believe to be an attempt to justify your own position to yourself (ultimately), but I have no reason to join you in that, as all it "gains" me, even if I unfolded every truth in this universe to you, is a "swine who stomps on pearls", and my peace lost.
Go your way, and may you find peace.
MorpheusOmikron 3 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron Ugh, I hate people who are so deluded they just assume anyone disagreeing with them is "justifying it to themself". Sure, I'll just continue sitting here and attempting to justify to myself the silly notion that the earth is round. You go and keep your peace in the assumption that it's banana-shaped, and ignore all that silly "logic", cause you know it's flat.
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel
You know for a fact that we were not debating the roundness of the earth. That you compare your beliefs about God to the obviousness of the roundness of the earth is your own view, and your own opinion. It is "that clear" to -you-. So comparing it to the "roundness of the earth" to -me-, or to anyone who disagrees is arrogance at it's finest.
"You have the assumption It's banana shaped" - More strawmen. These are beginning to add up to nothing but ad hominems..
(c)
MorpheusOmikron 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel
(c)
"Ignore all that silly "logic" " - Logic does not dictate God's non-existence or His existence in terms of proof. It does however offer evidence that there is a massive deal of carefully balanced, life-enabling laws in this universe, which bear the marks of design. And design suggests a designer. As for final, empirical proof, Logic cannot help you here whether you're a theist or an atheist, and you know this.
"You know it's flat" - I thought it was banana shaped? Peace.
MorpheusOmikron 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel
You can continue to justify your beliefs to yourself, but I'm done now. I will not serve as a vent for your never-ending need to spite God.
Goodbye, and may you find peace.
MorpheusOmikron 2 months ago
@truth2350 If it's purely swearing, I could understand you. But logic explanations with some swearing mixed in...it's just a cheap excuse if you then ignore it for swearing's sake.
Evolution isn't for proving there is no god. Millions of scientists believe in God AND evolution, so they're obviously not doing it for dominance issues.
And yes, some things haven't been explained yet (most of it has though.). But that doesn't mean you can say "we can't explain it, God just did it by magic".
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
@Mithcoriel
Magic as you put it is merely a word which indicates a process at work that we don't understand. Therefore God did indeed do it by magic. The fact that you claim most things have already been explained is a laughable reminder of just how naive you are.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 I'm naive just for disagreeing with you? I take it then the fact that you have so many unanswered questions proves you are right, rather than, say, you didn't do enough research? (Argument from Ignorance)
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
@truth2350 I doubt god out of lack of evidence.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
Ima share this thanks great vid!
matrixlone 4 months ago
Is Dr Sanford infallible?
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
Of course not! After all, he was a Darwinist for most of his life.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 Then why do you continually use him as an argument from authority?
Anyway, i'm off to Central America for a few weeks, will look into making a response when I get back.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
Have fun!
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
Also it's not an argument from authority. I'm doing my part to share the arguments that Dr. Sanford has published; his arguments are to be weighed on their own scientific merits.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 And how has his arguments been received from the rest of the scientific population?
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
If the "scientific population" were a purely unbiased and fair judge of ideas, then that might be a reasonable question to ask, but even then it would be shaky to base your views on majority opinion. Even an unbiased majority could be wrong, but we are far from having that; your self-imposed ignorance of Dr. Sanford's actual points is plenty of evidence of that.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 So his ideas do not stand up to scientifc scrutiny? Much like a distinguished professor who claims the world is flat.
You claim that the majority could be wrong, will you also concede that Sanford could be wrong?
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
They stand up to scientific scrutiny. Sanford "could" be wrong, but you've yet to give me any reason to believe that he *is* wrong, except merely to lamely appeal to majority opinion (a bandwagon argument, for the millionth time).
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 Hardly, I've showed you, with evidence and arguments countless ways that Sanford is wrong, and all you do is stubbornly and blindly quote him like scripture.
I've recently bought myself a Kindle, if you really want me to read his book send me a copy.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
I've responded to everything you've said, which isn't much in the final analysis. You quoted Kimura's speculative quip at the end of his paper, apparently believing that dismisses Sanford's entire thesis (it doesn't). I'm not sure what you're asking me to do with the Kindle, as I've never used one. Are you asking me to purchase the book for you? Of course I won't do that, I'm sure you can afford it on your own.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@SwissTopper How can you show him Kanbei is wrong when he is right ? :-/
ncwdane 4 months ago
@ncwdane Merely stating something or someone is right doesn't make it so. These days we tend to use evidence.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
My thoughts exactly.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@SwissTopper If Me or God says somethings Right, it is Right !!!!
Now, on your behalf, I will admit that just cause you say something is so, doesnt mean it is ;-)
ncwdane 4 months ago
@ncwdane Oh absolutely, that's why my videos include real world examples, not just the ramblings of a deluded professor who no one takes seriously. (Well, at least no body with a back ground in science that is.)
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
"Ramblings of a deluded professor".. more like the ramblings of a deluded YouTuber.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 You're not really one for originality are you?
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
The dude is actually quite humble, ol' boy.
Search YouTube for, "Genetic Entropy 2/2"..... ;-)
justchemicali 4 months ago
@justchemicali Thanks, will do.
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper Dr Sanford,an leading geneticist from Cornell University,the man who invented over 30 patents,and inventor of Gene-Gun is infallible?Well i hope you was just kidding ...
giska1000 4 months ago
Kanbei85 great video.... i only have one objection concerning your claims that there are some beneficial mutations...but the actual reality is,there are no such mutations,in darwinian sense...there is few mutations,very rare mutations that happens in highly selected environment,under specific conditions,that can increase survival rate of an organism...but just as they help to an organism,organism also has to pay the price ....but keep in mind that these rare ,,beneficial mutations,, are ...
giska1000 4 months ago
...adaptations at its best ...So only examples of these mutations are antibiotic resistant bacteria and nylonase...and we can see in both of these examples that bacteria lost information,and became ,,invalid,, because it is not able to live in original environment due to loss of original information,so this bacteria depends on artificial environment led by intelligence because without environment full of antibiotics which are its only food now...bacteria will die out...same goes for nylonase ...
giska1000 4 months ago
..Nylonase,or flavobacterium is classic case of ,,beneficiaql mutation,, fraud and misconstruction from darwinists ..nylonase actually lost 3 enzymes,and because of this mutation i.e insertion(deletion-duplication) flavobacterium got ,,holes,, within it,but duplication of EXACT SAME infos within flavobacterium in place where original informations were lost,we got a new function in flavobacterium and its digesting nylon ...this is classic example of loss of DNA complexity........
giska1000 4 months ago
....and increasing of genetic entropy ...And price was definitely paid for this ,,beneficial mutation,, even in physical,laymen sense..you dont even need rocket science to observe that this flavobacterium with ,,beneficial mutation,, now depends on artificial environment,because without nylon it cannot survive,and it surely cannot go back to its original environment,because of loss of 3 enzymes,and original information that it suffered...same goes with pseudomonas,HIV immunity,in which ....
giska1000 4 months ago
.....CCR-5 gene mutated(and hence is damaged) and now cells fail to produce protein called chemokine and due to this LOSS of information,and scratching of healthy genes(damage) receptor 5 is now lost,nonexistent in human body,so HIV does not have to infiltrate in something,and hence it cannot enter in lymfocites...thia is just like someone cut your hands off,and now,when police comes,they wont be able to handcuff you...so thats ,,beneficial,, riight?Well,according to desperate evolutionsits it
giska1000 4 months ago
....is,since they just want to find something to catch on,and say..look..this is good mutation,even if the facts says that there IS NO GOOD mutation...only fatal,deadly,damaging,and potentialy damaging mutations ...there si no mutation(which is ERROR in copying process of DNA Genome) which is good or beneficial...there are only few,very rare mutations that can,under specific conditions,under highly selected specific environments,increase rate survival of certain organism,but they are all results
giska1000 4 months ago
...of insertion-loss and duplication,duplication,loss,recombination,scratching of healthy genes and thats it...nothing new in genome,everything just vary within itself....and concerning these fallacies and straw man and ad hominem attacks that this guy used against you,well when he mentioned n.selection,he obviously forgot that n.selection does not even count,n.selection is nothing but healthy lives,weak dies ...there is no some entity which selects or eliminates...it just happens trough ...
giska1000 4 months ago
....process of mutation...the one who is weak will die sooner than the one who is less weak...we are all weak genetically....and we definitely devolving (this is something what Science Daily and physorg said,not me lol) so n.selection is nothing but an poor excuse from evolutionists,but the real truth is ,,accidental mutation,, is unguided process,and organisms depends on it ...there is no intelligence involved,or anything like it..nothing..just pure random ...chances...trilions of them..
giska1000 4 months ago
...and thats how we supposedly ,,changed,, from non living materials,into worms,and then humans ...lol.....by trilions and trilions of random chances and accidents....xDD
And the best thing is this blunder i heard,and i hear it all the time from evolutionists that evolution is ,,just change over time,, looool...yeah...right....i wouldnt be so bold to say that worms ,,just changed,, into elephants....but....darwinists can do whatever they want,and still call it ,,science,, on a regular basis...
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Giska! how are you my friend?
matrixlone 4 months ago
@matrixlone Im good man,im busy,as always working in the lab ...plus bionics and biomimetics taking me us extra time here so i cannot even come to you tube and relax little bit like i used to ...:/
giska1000 4 months ago