you name your video tooth evolution and you are not going to discuss tooth evolution? Are you insane? Why didn't you call your video the O.J. Simpson murder video. How about Ben Franklin discovers electricity? How about Bozo goes to Washington, that would be a current event video.
no, I named it tooth evolution- an introduction. afterall, we might as well start with a background intro. the rest of the videos come afterwards.
of course, for you to speak like this, and to "forget" that this is an introductory video speaks for itself; I do not tolerate what amounts to Libel. Good day.
and yes, you were blocked. I don't tolerate ill founded accusations of lying-especially if you could have seen the rest of the video on my profile. they're not that hard to find
but in case you missed it (the guy this was for didn't have a problem) the vids btw are "rebuttal part a" and "rebuttal part b".
Funny I never saw this vid before now. Good anatomical description, which most evo/papers/arguments are. Your problem is obviously in describing how the notion of teeth, and their formation from NS and RM occurred. You will be stuck. You have probably already found that out. This is the "best" paper on the subject: Evolution and development of teeth
MELANIE McCOLLUM1 AND PAUL T. SHARPE2
The reference is on my blog, as noted in my vid. They have no idea, just like you. Good luck in school.
hehe...check out the comments section: you were talking to my friend, 1 year ago, about this very video, and his opinions. funny...
yes, I'm doing well in school actually, thank you. in fact, very well, as I have been offered a position as an independent researcher.
and yes, I did find the references-you provided them a year ago as well. the result was 2 more vids: you do know that being overly selective is a bad thing, right?.
@stevebee92653 Roger that. Now I recall the discussion and your need for a modem. I probably skipped through your vid, as it was pretty basic for a dentist, but well done. Congrats on your selection. Researching what?
glad you found the comments. and I must say thank you for the compliment: I try to be accurate and basic-it's how I make my A's.
to answer you Q: this is (obviously) the intro, not the full video. I was showing how your own sources don't quite say what you claimed they said regarding tooth evo: why this is I don't really know, but needless to say, I was dissapointed. hence my comment.
@Albukhshi You've been so convinced, there's zero chance that you'd let go. Which makes discussion circular. You are 100% sure evo is the answer. I am 100% sure it isn't. Unstoppable hits immovable. I wouldn't have let go of my evo-belief either. Until one day when I really took a good look at the fossil record. And that began my evo-downfall. A rare event. I think there is a certain power in the notion that you KNOW how all of nature formed. And you can't let go. Anyway, good luck in school.
so you claim to read my mind now? no, I'm not 100% certain. I'm not 100% certain of anything, except that I am here. if you can show a testable, observable mechanism that works better than evolution, I'd gladly let go of evo. but you did not, so I'm left with the current model.
"I think there is a certain power in the notion that you KNOW how all of nature formed. "
I never claimed that I know all answers; my video oft say the opposite.
and btw, what, again, does this have to do with the points in this video, or the other 2? I asked you (politely I hope), to fill out a form explaining how I misunderstood your sources. don't trifle with me.
and again, what do I care that you read an outdated book on fossils and the like? this is not the point of this disscussion, or what my videos are about.
now, had you been more accurate in your description of the papers' content, and not focused on a few lines, I might have conceeded. but God's will is cruel, and final's week is up (oddly enough, we're having this conversation a year after the last one-down to the day).
and yes, I did double check, to make sure that I didn't misunderstand the papers' content. if you wish to show in detail where I misunderstood, feel free to PM a form explaining how. got it from potholer
@Albukhshi Your big problem is the notion of teeth from absolutely nothing. A sterile earth where no cutting/chopping devices existed. You think things could have come together to form teeth, jaws, and the muscles and nerves to operate them, as well as the computer that runs the whole thing.... from nothing. Think of the inventions that have to come about from nothing for just teeth to function. The notion is absurd. I was convinced just like you. And it happened when I was in college.
yeah, that is an absurd notion...no disagreement there. (srsly, I agree 100%)
one small problem though: I never said anything like that. if you watch my videos, I never made any claim that sth magically came out of nothing. I did make the claim however, that the current tooth structure evolved from simpler structures, in turn coming from simpler structure, etc.
and what do I care what you thought in college? and what has this to do with mistakes in citation?
@Albukhshi So you think teeth somehow appeared, THEN evolved into what they are today? Interesting scenario, but of course not a possible one.
You DO care about mistakes in the citation of papers written by people who have no idea how teeth invented themselves and formed? How important is that? Why would you waste time "caring" about that? The mistake is the person who wrote the paper and bullshitted about what they knew. Which is nothing.
Anyway, I hope you did well with your tests. Adios
again, no, I do not think that, and I made that clear.
why "waste" my time on how YOU and I cite? because in science, there is a need for varifiability, accountability, and accuracy. you misquoting or misunderstanding them leeds to more misunderstanding in turn, on your part, or mine. and proving my point, it's clear you misunderstand what they say: had you gotten the papers' gist, you'd realize they didn't bullshit around.
In other words, you have absolutely no idea how teeth were invented and formed. None whatsoever. Nice try. Your vid is exactly like the "peer reviewed" papers that I cite. P. 30 on my blog at evillusion d n if you would like a look. You describe dental anatomy, a little embryology, and tell us they were "selected for". Natural selection didit. Don't feel bad. No person on earth knows the answer. At least you tried. Feel free to put your vid on my site if you like.
first off, thanks for letting me know where to find the papers. once I can use my computer's internet I'll look at them.
second, this is an introduction; of course its shallow, and starts off where the scientists left off. what did you expect, sereno 1990? I can't post the other video until the internet returns to my computer (I'm using my dormmate's).
in fact, I won't return to youtube until my computer has internet access-when, I dunno.
Like Richard Dawkins says; evolution is the only game in town. Every biological structure must have been produced by evolution since no alternative is even possible. Evolution is the only concept that explains all the facts.
Richard Dawkins says? Quoting a guy who has no idea is not a good strategy.
Geo centrism had no possible alternative until heliocentrism came along. Which had no possible alternative until.......Evolution doesn't explain anything including the subject of this vid. If science doesn't know it would be best to admit it instead of forcing garbage down the throats of students.
Richard Dawkins understand evolution a lot more than you, and so does Albukhshi.
Please define what evolution is and then give a generic criticism please. So far you have not provided one single fact and have merely engaged in ad hominim fallacy.
Dawkins' knowledge of evolutionary biology is monumental, and anyone who reads his books ''The Ancestor's Tale'' or ''The Greatest Show on Earth'' can see that.
I shall conclude then that you cannot even define evolution, let alone discover evidence to disprove it. I asked you to provide a generic criticism of evolution, all your videos are on specific subjects that have no bearing whatsoever to the validity of evolution.
I study evolution at a much higher level than you stevebee. Please humour me, show me that you even understand what evolution is. Can you, or can't you? Because from what I have seen you don't even make the high school level of competance in this field of science.
Wow. You study at a really high lever? Then why don't you try thinking about what you are studying? Intelligence and gullibility is sure a strange combo. Why are you so willing to accept without question? If I am so dumb, why is it that I have many questions that you and your :high level" have no hope of answering. And your "high school level" is embarrassing bullshit repeated over and over by other believers that can't answer the rather basic questions in my vids. You are just a copy/paster.
I do think about evolution, that is why I understand it to a far greater extent than you do.
Do you know what evolution is yet? Five minutes of reading through wikipedia (or your average childrens encyclopaedia) can set you on the correct path- it's shameful that as an adult you are as yet unfamiliar with the foundation of modern biology.
C'mon, I'm still waiting to here what you think evolution is.
Do you know what indoctrination is? You have been indoctrinated to believe the absurd. I hope you are not a teacher, indoctrinating your students. Evolution is not a science. It is a form of mental illness that afflicts many. You want to know what I think evo is? I want to know your answer to the questions I pose. So check out my vid on teeth, and give it a try. You have absolutely no chance of giving any kind of answer. So you will resort to demeaning. Your only defense. as you have proven.
Do you understand the phrase ''tre by definintion''?
One could make an assertion that gamma radiation does not exist, that it is all made up. Except that we have defined gamma rays as being photons with a certain energy, frequency and wavelength. It is true by definition.
In an analogous way, we have defined evolution as the change in allelic frequency over successive generations due to natural selection. Also true by definition.
You assertions about evolution stem from a gross lack of comprehension of what evolution actually is. Evolution cannot be anything but an observed, tested and measured part of observable reality. Nothing in science contradicts the observation of evolution.
Indoctrination and pathological denialism *are* forms of mental illness, but it is you that suffers from them.
I have understood the science of evolution since I was ten, it is shameful that you do not even now.
Gosh at 10 you knew how all of nature formed? You can actually say that and you don't think you are indoctrinated? Groups indoctrinate. I am not indoctrinated, as I attach to no group. My vids are made of my own observations and thinking. Your belief is completely composed of what someone told you who was also indoctrinated. Evolution can't come remotely close to explaining the formation of life or complex bio-systems. You ignore that fact, and believe anyway. Why? You forfeited your skepticism.
You must be studying some sort of new evolution. How did complex bio-systems form? We'll just throw out the "life" question, because you couldn't even make up an answer there.
You can't read stevebee. We've been here before. Evolution is descent with inherant modification, it needn't explain everything that YOU want it to.
You have just reasserted the same straw man from before stating that evolution can't produce complex (?) bio-systems. What an absurd qualifier- am I even supposed to know what that means?
Why can't you accept the scientfic definition of evolution and instead morph it into something that it isn't? It's because creationists (you) are dishonest.
In order for teeth to evolve the entire alimentary canal, digestive system, immune system, salvitory glands, stomach ph, nerve system on much more would have to evolve simutaneously in order to accomodate the changes in diet coming associated with having teeth. What kind of pressure would cause NS to "select" the invention of all the new parts nec?
see the video I just uploaded for jaws and throat.
the stomach is an evolution of the cavity formed by the endoderm, so is he intestine, the alimentary canal-etc.
the immune system's evolution is easily traceable in the immune systems of todays animals, from least to most sofisticated. look it up.
these systems are a response to increased body size, increased layering (2 or 3 laters+coelom/pseudocoelom), and need to coordinate the organisms movement (nervous system).
the nervous system began in a form seen in Cnidarians today: a series of specialized cells spread out over a net or latticelike pattern & no brain. then, when bilateral symmetry evolved, the nerves were concentrated in a beaded lin along the dorsal en of the animal. the one towards the front was closest to the mouth, the eyen, and other, and grew in importance.
all the steps are again, mirrored in modern animals from least to most sofisticated.
fish have a simple intestinal tract, but a crude stomach, and no real colon. most worms have a "tube" (the coelom), with an anus and mouth, but no jaws, brains, eyes, etc.
Cockroaches have 9 beaded nervous swellings, the largest in the head area, while flatworms have many nervous swellings, but no true brain.
so, yes, its been observed, both in the direct dencendants of each stage, and in the fossil record. you're either just too stupid, or too stubborn to accept it.
ealy chordates from the cambrian had a primitive digestive tract (like fish today), but no real colon. many speacies of worms from the same period have no eyes, no real jaws, and barely much of a brain-if they even had any.
many species of that period didn't even posess nervous systems: primitive sponges didn't (modern ones don't), and in many that do (primitive jellyfish/relatives) there is a nervous system, but no brain.
I see. the comment's back. must have been an error. (YT format)
now. cont.
mutations are not totally random, as they are indeed determined by the chemical and genetic lineup in an organisms genecode. what is radom is "when/if". no advantageous mutations=eventual extinction.
and there is no such thing as a ladder of complexity. animals do not evolve to "perfection". there are animals far more complex than man.
its clear you have little understanding of what NS even is.
Yes there is a ladder of complexity considering evo's primary position is that life went from the very simple to the complex in a tree like fashion. So i'll disregard your condescension.
1) Hox genes? Hox gene mutations create monstrosities. Please tell me you've not pinned your faith in darwin to mutations that put arms where legs should be. Where did the hox genes come from?
if its in a tree like pattern, then true. but you initially said it was a ladder.
1-these hox genes ( fruit flies?) were modified from the original. scientists can do that you know.
again, you clearly do not understand how evolution works. and again, let me reiterate: a mutation appears in a select group in a population of millions. this is accompanied by previous/contemporary failed/bad/neutral mutations. only the good ones are selected.
NS is actually horribly inneficient in this regard
lastly, you clearly don't know jack-shit about the scientific method. you said:
"ID or "we dont know yet" are acceptable alternatives to a false theory."
ID involves a supernatural or extranatural element. unless you can test/falsify it, its not science. science can only work with the natural. period. again, you can look it up.
also, by "I dunno/we'll never know", I meant:"don't just give up"
actually, why not make a video iand articulate your aguments? throw me off with your "skepticism".
1) brain evolution is directly associated with the cephalization process-the fossil record, genetics, and comparative anatomy bear it out
2)the digestive system evolved from a modified cavity in the endoderm (coelom)
3)you can always look both up if you want to verify.
4) since he clearly won't listen to me, he should make a video and explain why you think I'm wrong-scientifically. I will personally help him by keeping him from wasting his time here, for a month.
You act like the evolution police. Your video is effin boring and you act like a nerd. Ur another dork who thinks evolution is a fact and anybody who disagrees with you is mentally handicapped. We see the same papers and take the same classes in college as u. Just some of us can smell the bullshit evo sells. U can't. Sorry geek.
I don't "watch" it, I watch"ed" it. It's like a magic show. NS magically selects for bio-machines that didn't exist before. Keep studying, you're gonna get an A in "zombie".
well, my condolenses for not knowing how to avoid this
& NS doesn't select for mutations/changes that didn't exist before; it selects for mutations already present in a population.
Now, my advice for you is simple, if that is the case that it is a magic show: why not try to make a video, explaining in detail, why NS is wrong, and posit a scientific mechanism. I did make a video providing the rules.
I will not do anything to you-I already paroled one person so he can try to do it..
Ok, I'll make a video about a therapod dinosaur not magically turning into a humming bird. I could feature a whole blank slide on al the non-existent transitional fossils. Then I could spend 10 minutes on all the phyla that magically appear in the cambrian explosion without any explanation. I'll try to cover up their eyeballs to save you some face. Do yourself a favor and block me b4 I completely make you my evo-wench.
simple: again, it doesn't. the protofeather (a barb made of the same material as scales), would have appeared in a few memebers of a population, having been caused by a mutation in the scale making genes (this was all researched YEARS ago). These animals, when subjected to the seasonal conditions of the mesozoic, fared better than those with scales (better insulation). once it took off from there, there were a series of improvements, for three fuctions: sex, warmth, or aerodynamic stability.
again, you just try to poke holes in the theory of NS, as if that will support an untestable claim that is ID or creationism, without actually trying to come up with genuine evidence.
and again, you insulted me, clearly thinking that that is a valid thing to do-you are clearly doing a poor job of debating me.
and again, you failed address my point: prove to me that a better, testable mechanism exists for natural selection.
and if you want to know how mutations occured? simple: they just did. every person alive today has at least one mutation; most are neutral, and some are bad, bad a certain few (as protofeathers were), were advantageous when an environmental change occured.
remember, this all happens in a population, taking millions of years, and with quite a few deletarious changes to the skin gene.
and again: you clearly don't seem to get NS. no wonder you think its wrong.
and yes, the deleterious mutations would be selected against. if an animal is born with poor insulation as compared to the basal scales, it won't be able to survive in the harsh seasonal climes of the mesozoic. (when feathers occured).
so natural selection is actually inneficient in how many animals it needs, but efficient in how long it takes to effect changes.
Ur xerox lecture/answers r worthless. They simply prove the successful hijacking of your ability to think on ur own. It's all fantasy that u regurgitate like a parrot. Heard it a milllion times b4. The facts show 1st no birds then suddenly birds and feathers.
who told you that? I base my conclusions (and my post) from actual experiments I have seen or read about-that's right, I SAW some of the experiments and tests on bird evo, as well as fossils. I don't just "regurgitate"-that's bad science.
and again: birds didn't just pop up-are you too fucking stupid to get what I was saying? it took a few million years to get to a bird, through a series of inherent mods.
again, you failed to address my argument. put up one, or fuck off.
and btw, you are only yards away from parole. repeating the same baseless assertions without addressing mine or anyone else's points can get you that.
and btw, you asked for a video explaing bird evolution? I made one moths ago. its D.A.O.C 2 part 2. it provides a dumbed down explanation of bird evolution-you know, for people like you?
It's probation. The word your're looking for is probation. Parole would be the grace period you extend by allowing us to come back if we believe the unbelievable. Like you.
I believe you mean "intermittent" mods (that don't exist) I'll fix your grammar, you just keep up the great research tiger!
P.S. Feel free to block me and enjoy the fairytale!
I won't block you-you got close, but I won't-I prefer not to. and yes, I meant inherent mods (mods=modification). so its decent with inherent modification.
and the parole is after the block. that's why the block is called a "parole block", or parole for short.
and I'm not asking anyone to "believe"-just not repeat the same assertions, after I dealt with them.
now, again, address my points about bird evolution. prove to me some other mechanism did it than the current scientific one.
lastly, here's how I find my answers for your/anyone's questions. its a very good secret, and useful to anyone doing science.
what I do to find the "fantasy" answer is something inherently magical, mysterious, and very evil to you ID and creationist people: its called "research". and some of it I actually do/did on the genuine articles (you know, the fossils, samples, embryos, live animals, etc?).
and get this: I don't cherrypick/strawman the data like stevebee did, or you.
Natural selection acts upon variation within a population, no magic neccissary.
The origin of variety is genetic mutation and sex. Any mutation can potentially alter an existing gene to create a novel allele. Once this new allele is disseminated throughout a population it is called an endemic polymorphism, which natural selection can then act upon.
This has been documented both in the lab and in the wild and is reported in textbooks for you to understand it. Your strawman is refuted.
I agree 100%. It is well documented that mutations occur just like that and cause generic variety. The magic leaps in when you say that process can turn a scale to a feather or invent a human brain. Which of course has never been seen in labs nor anything like it.
Name something present in a human brain that is not present in another mammal. We are only talking about changing proportions to go from a non-human animal to a human.
Feathers didn't evolve from scales, they probably evolved from hairs that grew out from between scales. Check out the feathers that make a modern birds eyelashes, that will give you an idea of what protofeathers look like.
There is nothing different. All living organisms are made up of carbon based matter. What's different is the the organization of the matter or more specifically the intelligence that organizes it and causes it to express the signs of life.
Carbon based matter? You don't sound like you understand chemistry or physics very well.
Organisms are made up largely of protein, which is coded by DNA. We know what organises the cells that we are made up of, there is no mystery. Evolution produces all structures observed in living organisms.
Also, the argument you are using can be used to support intelligent falling as aopposed to gravity; it really is that stupid.
Ah ya, carbon based like ALL organic living matter including amino acids. "Organisms r made up largely of protein coded by DNA". Gee really? And how did the DNA get it's structure and function? Evolution? Did evolution precede DNA? The answer is intelligence. The conclusion is inescapable. Intelligence precedes organization.
Hey dummass, remember this? "we aquired language over a period of 50 million years while the Boreoeutherians we diverging from other mammals. thats why carnivorans, cetartiodactyls and primates all have language. Our neotenous nature allows us to bulk out the interconectivity of our brain. its the same reason that chimp babies are smarter than chimp adults. we are essentailly child apes"
All the matter you r made up of has existed since the beginning of time. But it hasn't always been organized into you. Something entered into matter to cause it to become organized and express life. Intelligence. I could ask u to draw a square. The first step would be to imagine the square in your mind then u could cause a square to b expressed thru matter with say a pencil.
lightning, some montmireillanite, high pressure+temperature.
I mean for fucks sake, scientists have already successfully produced Adenine, and have a ery good idea of how Guanine, thymine, Uracil, and cytosene came into form.
but I must correct you: 1) the DNA molecules were not combined 2) they were not put into a mycell (crude fatty acid layer), so are not protected and 3) since they didn't combine them into DNA or RNA, they are not self replicating, so cannot reproduce or evolve.
and what, you see the papers I cite, and start calling me names? "geek", "nerd", and "you can't smell bullshit" isn't an argument. come up with a real argument against what my sources say, or don't comment..it better be a scientific one.
oh, wait, do you even HAVE an argument?
And if I do act like a nerd, its probably because I'm a junior paleontology student. you know, study fossils and how the owners lived?
I see the little feathers that make up the birds eyelashes as being designed with a very specific function: protect the eye. They're not protofeathers. They were designed with a purpose to grow around the eyes and protect.
You need to understand what scientific tautologies are. Eyelash feathers on birds are protofeathers by definition. Get over it.
But there you have answered the question on feather evolution. Eyelashes evolved to protect the eyes of birds, and mutations subsequently caused these feathers to become body wide for insulation. Later they would become sexually selective plumaceous feathers complete with rachis and barbs before being used in flight. All of that is documented in the fossil record.
you put that comment back where it was-you aren't going to get away with the stupid:
1) Hox genes control these. its a long understood fact. again, I told you to look it up.
2) I told you, many fossils, and modern animals, exhibit various phases of the evolution of these parts-and they use the SAME basic genes. again, you are clearly being stubborn or stupid.
3) you want to posit a better mechanism for the appearence of these? ID/idunno won't do.
2) The fossil record is nothing short of a huge ? mark for evo. Massive complexity suddenly appears void of precursory.
3) How do "unpredicatible mutations" account for the invention of nervous systems and endocrine pathways like the hypothalamic-pituitary axis? If there is no blue print prior theres no creation of it. NS must be a remarkable inventor.
4) ID or "we dont know yet" are acceptable alternatives to a false theory.
1-that's because the fossil record is not perfect. precambrian precurosors to the forms I described clearly existed, but few fossils have been found
2-I answered your question already.the mutation occurs in a select group in a population, and this proved better than the old. this occurs after 1000's of errors/neutral mutations in said population-it doesn't just sprout out correct the first time round.
3-you clearly misrepresented what I meant. and as I said, its been shown to be true.
actually, to make it easier for you to produce real evidence (in a video), I'll temporarily block you, until such time as you can articulate your argument. I don't want you wasting time on comments that I can cut down piecemeal (as I have done).
you can also reply to my last comments in that video or similar.
I will correct my penultimate comment, and merge the last one to it
again, I aks you: posit a NATURALISTIC, testable model that accounts for the complexity of life, and put it in a video.
until you can do it, I'll block you, so as not to waste time on sommenting. yes, I will unblock you the moment you posit the alternative, scientific model.
Teeth probably arose as a response to toxic build up of phosphate ions in the pre-vertebrate chordates living in the ediacaren/cambrian sea
Nephridia are cells in the kidney that deal with sodium, chlorine and potassium ion regulation, enameloblasts and osteocytes arose in an analagous way but this time to regulate phosphate and calcium ions. Ca+ and PH4- form the (relatively) inert bone substances.
The first hydroxyapatite secreted was probably unstructureless, but like calcite and aragonite in molluscs, it quickly was rendered into a suitable structure by natural selection.
I am unaware as to what evolved first, but it is clear that fish scales and teeth are directly homologous and bones and osteoderms are directly homologous.
Also in the fossil record is a type of bone that is no longer extant, called acellular bone. This may be the precursor to both bone and teeth.
Conodonts are the most basal examples of toothed vertebrates (as lamprey have keratinous teeth). They probably used teeth for filter feeding and crushing microfossil tests.
Cartilaginous fish have teeth covering their entire body, complete with enamel and dentine. Bony fish took this one step further and the teeth evolved into scales (still complete with enamel).
Teeth are one of the most plastic structures in fish, unlike tetrapods which tend to have restricted it somewhat.
In fish, the rostrum, predentry, dentry, premaxilla, maxilla, vomer, spleneal, palatine, gill arches AND gill rakers can all bear teeth. teleosts literally have tens of thousands of teeth!
I know of experiments with switching on genes in birds that has caused teeth to sprout throughout the body of embryonic birds.
Unfortunatly, I am major league tied down with work at the moment. As you can see I havn't made a video in ages, I actually did make a 100 subscriber video (in which I give you a shoutout) but I havn't put it up yet, and I am planning a video about western islamophobia which I think you'll like.
Unfortunatly also I may not have my VP lecture notes from last year, but I will look around for some refs for the info I have posted here.
ah, I see you stood up for me and more importantly, science, while I was gone.
sorry I didn't post the rest last week (I pretty much have it figured out-including where those molar ridge came from), but I was a victim of a false DMCA (just using utorrent can get you in trouble-I was patching RTW), and I couldn't go online (still can't even after the block was lifted-using my dormate's computer).
Oh man, that sucks about the DMCA. Was it Stevebee or was it a Harun Yahya supporter? (if you know). Also, I use utorrent a LOT. can it really get you in trouble? *shivers*.
It was the creative assembly itself-stevebee and HY/cronies are innocent.
as I said, its from patching RTW. they thought I was stealing the game. I managed to prove otherwise (accidentally: the computer inspector found my RTW CD in the computer-I accidently left it there).
and yes, utorrent can get you in trouble-but ONLY if the internet is monitered by the provider (as in US colleges).
I doubt you'd be in trouble for that PARTICULAR law-the DMCA doesn't apply to the UK
you are mostly correct in your findings; let me add an improvement:
the answer, to which came first, tooth or jaw, is that denticles appear before jaws, while proper teeth (with enamel), of the type seen in tetrapods is after jaws appeared. this explains: 1) the elastic teeth you describe in teleosts, and 2) why some jawed fishes (e.g dunkleosteus have no teeth. I suspect that the bony lumps in Dnkleosteus was covered in life by a dentine layer that mimiced horn.
Also, I didn't explain properly, when I said ''plastic'', I meant that evolution has done a lot more for teeth in teleosts than in tetrapods. Apart from some amphibians down in the carboniferous, I don't think tetrapods have had anything more that one single row of teeth whilst teleosts are screaming with them on nearly every bone in the mouth.
Have you checked out fish with two jaws, one down in the throat as well as the rostral area? I think a set of HOX genes might have been duplicated...
Dunkleosteus probably had something covering the bone, it is certainly not beneficial to have living bone tissue exposed on the surface if it is not acellular or enamelised (which dunkleosteus wasn't). Bacteria would have just infiltrated the body through the canaliculae.
Actually, there is one organisms with bone on the outside; the red deer.
yeah, I just realized it-thanks for correcting me on dunkel.
well, we learn sth new every day :D
yes, I checked the double jawed fish. I touched on its evo in my latest vids. the same genes that regulate the front jaws regulate the back ones. (stevebee left that Gem out in his video).
also, double rows of teeth exist in snakes and mosasaurs, as well as the carboniferous amphibians.
you name your video tooth evolution and you are not going to discuss tooth evolution? Are you insane? Why didn't you call your video the O.J. Simpson murder video. How about Ben Franklin discovers electricity? How about Bozo goes to Washington, that would be a current event video.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2
"you name your video tooth evolution"
no, I named it tooth evolution- an introduction. afterall, we might as well start with a background intro. the rest of the videos come afterwards.
of course, for you to speak like this, and to "forget" that this is an introductory video speaks for itself; I do not tolerate what amounts to Libel. Good day.
Albukhshi 7 months ago
@mejc2
and yes, you were blocked. I don't tolerate ill founded accusations of lying-especially if you could have seen the rest of the video on my profile. they're not that hard to find
but in case you missed it (the guy this was for didn't have a problem) the vids btw are "rebuttal part a" and "rebuttal part b".
Albukhshi 7 months ago
Funny I never saw this vid before now. Good anatomical description, which most evo/papers/arguments are. Your problem is obviously in describing how the notion of teeth, and their formation from NS and RM occurred. You will be stuck. You have probably already found that out. This is the "best" paper on the subject: Evolution and development of teeth
MELANIE McCOLLUM1 AND PAUL T. SHARPE2
The reference is on my blog, as noted in my vid. They have no idea, just like you. Good luck in school.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
hehe...check out the comments section: you were talking to my friend, 1 year ago, about this very video, and his opinions. funny...
yes, I'm doing well in school actually, thank you. in fact, very well, as I have been offered a position as an independent researcher.
and yes, I did find the references-you provided them a year ago as well. the result was 2 more vids: you do know that being overly selective is a bad thing, right?.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi
overly selective with the facts in a source that is, but I digress.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Roger that. Now I recall the discussion and your need for a modem. I probably skipped through your vid, as it was pretty basic for a dentist, but well done. Congrats on your selection. Researching what?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
sorry for the late reply:
glad you found the comments. and I must say thank you for the compliment: I try to be accurate and basic-it's how I make my A's.
to answer you Q: this is (obviously) the intro, not the full video. I was showing how your own sources don't quite say what you claimed they said regarding tooth evo: why this is I don't really know, but needless to say, I was dissapointed. hence my comment.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi You've been so convinced, there's zero chance that you'd let go. Which makes discussion circular. You are 100% sure evo is the answer. I am 100% sure it isn't. Unstoppable hits immovable. I wouldn't have let go of my evo-belief either. Until one day when I really took a good look at the fossil record. And that began my evo-downfall. A rare event. I think there is a certain power in the notion that you KNOW how all of nature formed. And you can't let go. Anyway, good luck in school.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
"You are 100% sure evo is the answer"
so you claim to read my mind now? no, I'm not 100% certain. I'm not 100% certain of anything, except that I am here. if you can show a testable, observable mechanism that works better than evolution, I'd gladly let go of evo. but you did not, so I'm left with the current model.
"I think there is a certain power in the notion that you KNOW how all of nature formed. "
I never claimed that I know all answers; my video oft say the opposite.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
and btw, what, again, does this have to do with the points in this video, or the other 2? I asked you (politely I hope), to fill out a form explaining how I misunderstood your sources. don't trifle with me.
and again, what do I care that you read an outdated book on fossils and the like? this is not the point of this disscussion, or what my videos are about.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
now, had you been more accurate in your description of the papers' content, and not focused on a few lines, I might have conceeded. but God's will is cruel, and final's week is up (oddly enough, we're having this conversation a year after the last one-down to the day).
and yes, I did double check, to make sure that I didn't misunderstand the papers' content. if you wish to show in detail where I misunderstood, feel free to PM a form explaining how. got it from potholer
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi Your big problem is the notion of teeth from absolutely nothing. A sterile earth where no cutting/chopping devices existed. You think things could have come together to form teeth, jaws, and the muscles and nerves to operate them, as well as the computer that runs the whole thing.... from nothing. Think of the inventions that have to come about from nothing for just teeth to function. The notion is absurd. I was convinced just like you. And it happened when I was in college.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
yeah, that is an absurd notion...no disagreement there. (srsly, I agree 100%)
one small problem though: I never said anything like that. if you watch my videos, I never made any claim that sth magically came out of nothing. I did make the claim however, that the current tooth structure evolved from simpler structures, in turn coming from simpler structure, etc.
and what do I care what you thought in college? and what has this to do with mistakes in citation?
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi So you think teeth somehow appeared, THEN evolved into what they are today? Interesting scenario, but of course not a possible one.
You DO care about mistakes in the citation of papers written by people who have no idea how teeth invented themselves and formed? How important is that? Why would you waste time "caring" about that? The mistake is the person who wrote the paper and bullshitted about what they knew. Which is nothing.
Anyway, I hope you did well with your tests. Adios
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
again, no, I do not think that, and I made that clear.
why "waste" my time on how YOU and I cite? because in science, there is a need for varifiability, accountability, and accuracy. you misquoting or misunderstanding them leeds to more misunderstanding in turn, on your part, or mine. and proving my point, it's clear you misunderstand what they say: had you gotten the papers' gist, you'd realize they didn't bullshit around.
and Adios to you too.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
In other words, you have absolutely no idea how teeth were invented and formed. None whatsoever. Nice try. Your vid is exactly like the "peer reviewed" papers that I cite. P. 30 on my blog at evillusion d n if you would like a look. You describe dental anatomy, a little embryology, and tell us they were "selected for". Natural selection didit. Don't feel bad. No person on earth knows the answer. At least you tried. Feel free to put your vid on my site if you like.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
???
first off, thanks for letting me know where to find the papers. once I can use my computer's internet I'll look at them.
second, this is an introduction; of course its shallow, and starts off where the scientists left off. what did you expect, sereno 1990? I can't post the other video until the internet returns to my computer (I'm using my dormmate's).
in fact, I won't return to youtube until my computer has internet access-when, I dunno.
at least have courtesy.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Like Richard Dawkins says; evolution is the only game in town. Every biological structure must have been produced by evolution since no alternative is even possible. Evolution is the only concept that explains all the facts.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins says? Quoting a guy who has no idea is not a good strategy.
Geo centrism had no possible alternative until heliocentrism came along. Which had no possible alternative until.......Evolution doesn't explain anything including the subject of this vid. If science doesn't know it would be best to admit it instead of forcing garbage down the throats of students.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
Richard Dawkins understand evolution a lot more than you, and so does Albukhshi.
Please define what evolution is and then give a generic criticism please. So far you have not provided one single fact and have merely engaged in ad hominim fallacy.
Put up or fuck off.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Dawkins is a fantasy promoter and charlatan.
You are a gullible believer, the kind that Dawkins needs so he can make tons of money.
I have provided tons of information on many vids.
Now I shall fuck off.
Bye.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
Dawkins' knowledge of evolutionary biology is monumental, and anyone who reads his books ''The Ancestor's Tale'' or ''The Greatest Show on Earth'' can see that.
I shall conclude then that you cannot even define evolution, let alone discover evidence to disprove it. I asked you to provide a generic criticism of evolution, all your videos are on specific subjects that have no bearing whatsoever to the validity of evolution.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Translation: you didn't watch them, or they are over your head.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
I study evolution at a much higher level than you stevebee. Please humour me, show me that you even understand what evolution is. Can you, or can't you? Because from what I have seen you don't even make the high school level of competance in this field of science.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Wow. You study at a really high lever? Then why don't you try thinking about what you are studying? Intelligence and gullibility is sure a strange combo. Why are you so willing to accept without question? If I am so dumb, why is it that I have many questions that you and your :high level" have no hope of answering. And your "high school level" is embarrassing bullshit repeated over and over by other believers that can't answer the rather basic questions in my vids. You are just a copy/paster.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
I do think about evolution, that is why I understand it to a far greater extent than you do.
Do you know what evolution is yet? Five minutes of reading through wikipedia (or your average childrens encyclopaedia) can set you on the correct path- it's shameful that as an adult you are as yet unfamiliar with the foundation of modern biology.
C'mon, I'm still waiting to here what you think evolution is.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Do you know what indoctrination is? You have been indoctrinated to believe the absurd. I hope you are not a teacher, indoctrinating your students. Evolution is not a science. It is a form of mental illness that afflicts many. You want to know what I think evo is? I want to know your answer to the questions I pose. So check out my vid on teeth, and give it a try. You have absolutely no chance of giving any kind of answer. So you will resort to demeaning. Your only defense. as you have proven.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
Do you understand the phrase ''tre by definintion''?
One could make an assertion that gamma radiation does not exist, that it is all made up. Except that we have defined gamma rays as being photons with a certain energy, frequency and wavelength. It is true by definition.
In an analogous way, we have defined evolution as the change in allelic frequency over successive generations due to natural selection. Also true by definition.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
You assertions about evolution stem from a gross lack of comprehension of what evolution actually is. Evolution cannot be anything but an observed, tested and measured part of observable reality. Nothing in science contradicts the observation of evolution.
Indoctrination and pathological denialism *are* forms of mental illness, but it is you that suffers from them.
I have understood the science of evolution since I was ten, it is shameful that you do not even now.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Gosh at 10 you knew how all of nature formed? You can actually say that and you don't think you are indoctrinated? Groups indoctrinate. I am not indoctrinated, as I attach to no group. My vids are made of my own observations and thinking. Your belief is completely composed of what someone told you who was also indoctrinated. Evolution can't come remotely close to explaining the formation of life or complex bio-systems. You ignore that fact, and believe anyway. Why? You forfeited your skepticism.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
You demonstrate your lack of scientific comprehension again. Why should evolution have to explain the formation of life or complex (?) bio-systems?
As I stated, evolution is simply descent with inherant modification due to genetic drift which leads to an increase in biodiversity.
Am I indoctrinated into the religions of statistics and plate tectonics as well, or do I simply understand them like I do evolution?
TheProf1988 2 years ago
You must be studying some sort of new evolution. How did complex bio-systems form? We'll just throw out the "life" question, because you couldn't even make up an answer there.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
no stevebee, I study what evolution has ALWAYS BEEN. the onhly version of evolution you know is the idiotic creationists straw man version.
Humble yourself and admit that you do not understand evolution. Read a god damn biology textbook for christ sake
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Then you must know how complex bio-systems formed? You want to hide that answer from me? You skipped that minor detail.
You are wet behind the ears. Newly indoctrinated and very cocky even though you are a knownothing. Bye
stevebee92653 2 years ago
You can't read stevebee. We've been here before. Evolution is descent with inherant modification, it needn't explain everything that YOU want it to.
You have just reasserted the same straw man from before stating that evolution can't produce complex (?) bio-systems. What an absurd qualifier- am I even supposed to know what that means?
Why can't you accept the scientfic definition of evolution and instead morph it into something that it isn't? It's because creationists (you) are dishonest.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
dude, you accidently replied to me.
the rest of the video (well, 2) is being uploaded.
and man, its going to be subtly hilarious; I decided to forgo the life history themed rebuttal in favor of a direct one.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
the remainder of my video was posted a few minutes ago. it rebuts every last major claim you made. it also has a summed up the evolution of teeth.
I didn't waste my time while I was unable to access online.
enjoy-I was right-you are full of it.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
In order for teeth to evolve the entire alimentary canal, digestive system, immune system, salvitory glands, stomach ph, nerve system on much more would have to evolve simutaneously in order to accomodate the changes in diet coming associated with having teeth. What kind of pressure would cause NS to "select" the invention of all the new parts nec?
9pt9 2 years ago
see the video I just uploaded for jaws and throat.
the stomach is an evolution of the cavity formed by the endoderm, so is he intestine, the alimentary canal-etc.
the immune system's evolution is easily traceable in the immune systems of todays animals, from least to most sofisticated. look it up.
these systems are a response to increased body size, increased layering (2 or 3 laters+coelom/pseudocoelom), and need to coordinate the organisms movement (nervous system).
Albukhshi 2 years ago
con't:
the nervous system began in a form seen in Cnidarians today: a series of specialized cells spread out over a net or latticelike pattern & no brain. then, when bilateral symmetry evolved, the nerves were concentrated in a beaded lin along the dorsal en of the animal. the one towards the front was closest to the mouth, the eyen, and other, and grew in importance.
all the steps are again, mirrored in modern animals from least to most sofisticated.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
All of that would have to be Simulaneously selected for randomly. None of that is testable and has never been observed. I don't buy it.
9pt9 2 years ago
no, it wouldn't.
fish have a simple intestinal tract, but a crude stomach, and no real colon. most worms have a "tube" (the coelom), with an anus and mouth, but no jaws, brains, eyes, etc.
Cockroaches have 9 beaded nervous swellings, the largest in the head area, while flatworms have many nervous swellings, but no true brain.
so, yes, its been observed, both in the direct dencendants of each stage, and in the fossil record. you're either just too stupid, or too stubborn to accept it.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Comment removed
9pt9 2 years ago
fossil examples?
ealy chordates from the cambrian had a primitive digestive tract (like fish today), but no real colon. many speacies of worms from the same period have no eyes, no real jaws, and barely much of a brain-if they even had any.
many species of that period didn't even posess nervous systems: primitive sponges didn't (modern ones don't), and in many that do (primitive jellyfish/relatives) there is a nervous system, but no brain.
and of course there is the genetic evidence...
Albukhshi 2 years ago
@Albukhshi
That was a neat fossil & biology lesson but far from an answer as to how they mutate up the ladder of complexity. RM&NS? Don't think so.
9pt9 2 years ago
I see. the comment's back. must have been an error. (YT format)
now. cont.
mutations are not totally random, as they are indeed determined by the chemical and genetic lineup in an organisms genecode. what is radom is "when/if". no advantageous mutations=eventual extinction.
and there is no such thing as a ladder of complexity. animals do not evolve to "perfection". there are animals far more complex than man.
its clear you have little understanding of what NS even is.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Yes there is a ladder of complexity considering evo's primary position is that life went from the very simple to the complex in a tree like fashion. So i'll disregard your condescension.
1) Hox genes? Hox gene mutations create monstrosities. Please tell me you've not pinned your faith in darwin to mutations that put arms where legs should be. Where did the hox genes come from?
cont..
9pt9 2 years ago
if its in a tree like pattern, then true. but you initially said it was a ladder.
1-these hox genes ( fruit flies?) were modified from the original. scientists can do that you know.
again, you clearly do not understand how evolution works. and again, let me reiterate: a mutation appears in a select group in a population of millions. this is accompanied by previous/contemporary failed/bad/neutral mutations. only the good ones are selected.
NS is actually horribly inneficient in this regard
Albukhshi 2 years ago
lastly, you clearly don't know jack-shit about the scientific method. you said:
"ID or "we dont know yet" are acceptable alternatives to a false theory."
ID involves a supernatural or extranatural element. unless you can test/falsify it, its not science. science can only work with the natural. period. again, you can look it up.
also, by "I dunno/we'll never know", I meant:"don't just give up"
actually, why not make a video iand articulate your aguments? throw me off with your "skepticism".
Albukhshi 2 years ago
I like how you can't answer 9pt9 lol. Fail.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
I did answer him.
apparently you are no better.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
& let me summ it up:
1) brain evolution is directly associated with the cephalization process-the fossil record, genetics, and comparative anatomy bear it out
2)the digestive system evolved from a modified cavity in the endoderm (coelom)
3)you can always look both up if you want to verify.
4) since he clearly won't listen to me, he should make a video and explain why you think I'm wrong-scientifically. I will personally help him by keeping him from wasting his time here, for a month.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
notice, I repeated my self TWICE before telling him to make the video. you can check the comments for yourself.
so you, for clearly not reading, shall recieve 1 warning. now go-I have no time for you. I have finals this week..
Albukhshi 2 years ago
You act like the evolution police. Your video is effin boring and you act like a nerd. Ur another dork who thinks evolution is a fact and anybody who disagrees with you is mentally handicapped. We see the same papers and take the same classes in college as u. Just some of us can smell the bullshit evo sells. U can't. Sorry geek.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
no, I don't act like "police".
and if its boring to you, why watch?
and no, I don't think everybody who doesn't accept evolution is a retard-only the top ones. most are simply misguided.
and you sure you see the same papers? they all agree about NS being right.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
I don't "watch" it, I watch"ed" it. It's like a magic show. NS magically selects for bio-machines that didn't exist before. Keep studying, you're gonna get an A in "zombie".
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
well, my condolenses for not knowing how to avoid this
& NS doesn't select for mutations/changes that didn't exist before; it selects for mutations already present in a population.
Now, my advice for you is simple, if that is the case that it is a magic show: why not try to make a video, explaining in detail, why NS is wrong, and posit a scientific mechanism. I did make a video providing the rules.
I will not do anything to you-I already paroled one person so he can try to do it..
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Ok, I'll make a video about a therapod dinosaur not magically turning into a humming bird. I could feature a whole blank slide on al the non-existent transitional fossils. Then I could spend 10 minutes on all the phyla that magically appear in the cambrian explosion without any explanation. I'll try to cover up their eyeballs to save you some face. Do yourself a favor and block me b4 I completely make you my evo-wench.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
How the eff can NS select for a feather b4 feathers exist? You should make a video about that Mr Jr. Paleontologist. The nobel prize awaits.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
simple: again, it doesn't. the protofeather (a barb made of the same material as scales), would have appeared in a few memebers of a population, having been caused by a mutation in the scale making genes (this was all researched YEARS ago). These animals, when subjected to the seasonal conditions of the mesozoic, fared better than those with scales (better insulation). once it took off from there, there were a series of improvements, for three fuctions: sex, warmth, or aerodynamic stability.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
again, you just try to poke holes in the theory of NS, as if that will support an untestable claim that is ID or creationism, without actually trying to come up with genuine evidence.
and again, you insulted me, clearly thinking that that is a valid thing to do-you are clearly doing a poor job of debating me.
and again, you failed address my point: prove to me that a better, testable mechanism exists for natural selection.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
and if you want to know how mutations occured? simple: they just did. every person alive today has at least one mutation; most are neutral, and some are bad, bad a certain few (as protofeathers were), were advantageous when an environmental change occured.
remember, this all happens in a population, taking millions of years, and with quite a few deletarious changes to the skin gene.
and again: you clearly don't seem to get NS. no wonder you think its wrong.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
and yes, the deleterious mutations would be selected against. if an animal is born with poor insulation as compared to the basal scales, it won't be able to survive in the harsh seasonal climes of the mesozoic. (when feathers occured).
so natural selection is actually inneficient in how many animals it needs, but efficient in how long it takes to effect changes.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Ur xerox lecture/answers r worthless. They simply prove the successful hijacking of your ability to think on ur own. It's all fantasy that u regurgitate like a parrot. Heard it a milllion times b4. The facts show 1st no birds then suddenly birds and feathers.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
xerox lecture?
who told you that? I base my conclusions (and my post) from actual experiments I have seen or read about-that's right, I SAW some of the experiments and tests on bird evo, as well as fossils. I don't just "regurgitate"-that's bad science.
and again: birds didn't just pop up-are you too fucking stupid to get what I was saying? it took a few million years to get to a bird, through a series of inherent mods.
again, you failed to address my argument. put up one, or fuck off.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
and btw, you are only yards away from parole. repeating the same baseless assertions without addressing mine or anyone else's points can get you that.
and btw, you asked for a video explaing bird evolution? I made one moths ago. its D.A.O.C 2 part 2. it provides a dumbed down explanation of bird evolution-you know, for people like you?
Albukhshi 2 years ago
It's probation. The word your're looking for is probation. Parole would be the grace period you extend by allowing us to come back if we believe the unbelievable. Like you.
I believe you mean "intermittent" mods (that don't exist) I'll fix your grammar, you just keep up the great research tiger!
P.S. Feel free to block me and enjoy the fairytale!
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
I won't block you-you got close, but I won't-I prefer not to. and yes, I meant inherent mods (mods=modification). so its decent with inherent modification.
and the parole is after the block. that's why the block is called a "parole block", or parole for short.
and I'm not asking anyone to "believe"-just not repeat the same assertions, after I dealt with them.
now, again, address my points about bird evolution. prove to me some other mechanism did it than the current scientific one.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
lastly, here's how I find my answers for your/anyone's questions. its a very good secret, and useful to anyone doing science.
what I do to find the "fantasy" answer is something inherently magical, mysterious, and very evil to you ID and creationist people: its called "research". and some of it I actually do/did on the genuine articles (you know, the fossils, samples, embryos, live animals, etc?).
and get this: I don't cherrypick/strawman the data like stevebee did, or you.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Natural selection acts upon variation within a population, no magic neccissary.
The origin of variety is genetic mutation and sex. Any mutation can potentially alter an existing gene to create a novel allele. Once this new allele is disseminated throughout a population it is called an endemic polymorphism, which natural selection can then act upon.
This has been documented both in the lab and in the wild and is reported in textbooks for you to understand it. Your strawman is refuted.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
I agree 100%. It is well documented that mutations occur just like that and cause generic variety. The magic leaps in when you say that process can turn a scale to a feather or invent a human brain. Which of course has never been seen in labs nor anything like it.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
@Jacktoast21
Name something present in a human brain that is not present in another mammal. We are only talking about changing proportions to go from a non-human animal to a human.
Feathers didn't evolve from scales, they probably evolved from hairs that grew out from between scales. Check out the feathers that make a modern birds eyelashes, that will give you an idea of what protofeathers look like.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
There is nothing different. All living organisms are made up of carbon based matter. What's different is the the organization of the matter or more specifically the intelligence that organizes it and causes it to express the signs of life.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
@Jacktoast21
Carbon based matter? You don't sound like you understand chemistry or physics very well.
Organisms are made up largely of protein, which is coded by DNA. We know what organises the cells that we are made up of, there is no mystery. Evolution produces all structures observed in living organisms.
Also, the argument you are using can be used to support intelligent falling as aopposed to gravity; it really is that stupid.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Ah ya, carbon based like ALL organic living matter including amino acids. "Organisms r made up largely of protein coded by DNA". Gee really? And how did the DNA get it's structure and function? Evolution? Did evolution precede DNA? The answer is intelligence. The conclusion is inescapable. Intelligence precedes organization.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
@TheProf1988
Hey dummass, remember this? "we aquired language over a period of 50 million years while the Boreoeutherians we diverging from other mammals. thats why carnivorans, cetartiodactyls and primates all have language. Our neotenous nature allows us to bulk out the interconectivity of our brain. its the same reason that chimp babies are smarter than chimp adults. we are essentailly child apes"
Tell us about stupid.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Max, it's the dumb & dumber over here.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
All the matter you r made up of has existed since the beginning of time. But it hasn't always been organized into you. Something entered into matter to cause it to become organized and express life. Intelligence. I could ask u to draw a square. The first step would be to imagine the square in your mind then u could cause a square to b expressed thru matter with say a pencil.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
yeah true:
lightning, some montmireillanite, high pressure+temperature.
I mean for fucks sake, scientists have already successfully produced Adenine, and have a ery good idea of how Guanine, thymine, Uracil, and cytosene came into form.
those btw make up DNA.
notice: no intelligence.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Ok buddy. Let me know when those amino acids (created by scientists intellignce) turn in DNA and start evolving. Don't hold your breath.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
*facepalm*
that was so stupid its not even worth a response.
but I must correct you: 1) the DNA molecules were not combined 2) they were not put into a mycell (crude fatty acid layer), so are not protected and 3) since they didn't combine them into DNA or RNA, they are not self replicating, so cannot reproduce or evolve.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
"face palm"
translation: I don't have an answer and I feel pwnd.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
did you read the rest?
I know I did explain why the lab samples dont evolve.
anyways, I have finals this week. I'll be freezing my channel.
I will get back to you later.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
no intelligence when these DNA/RNA building blocks were made in the wild.
its hard to make them today naturally-the atmosphere is too different.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
cont.
and what, you see the papers I cite, and start calling me names? "geek", "nerd", and "you can't smell bullshit" isn't an argument. come up with a real argument against what my sources say, or don't comment..it better be a scientific one.
oh, wait, do you even HAVE an argument?
And if I do act like a nerd, its probably because I'm a junior paleontology student. you know, study fossils and how the owners lived?
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Can you define evolution for me please? I just want to check that you understand what it means.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
I see the little feathers that make up the birds eyelashes as being designed with a very specific function: protect the eye. They're not protofeathers. They were designed with a purpose to grow around the eyes and protect.
Jacktoast21 2 years ago
You need to understand what scientific tautologies are. Eyelash feathers on birds are protofeathers by definition. Get over it.
But there you have answered the question on feather evolution. Eyelashes evolved to protect the eyes of birds, and mutations subsequently caused these feathers to become body wide for insulation. Later they would become sexually selective plumaceous feathers complete with rachis and barbs before being used in flight. All of that is documented in the fossil record.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
you put that comment back where it was-you aren't going to get away with the stupid:
1) Hox genes control these. its a long understood fact. again, I told you to look it up.
2) I told you, many fossils, and modern animals, exhibit various phases of the evolution of these parts-and they use the SAME basic genes. again, you are clearly being stubborn or stupid.
3) you want to posit a better mechanism for the appearence of these? ID/idunno won't do.
4)mutations are unpredictable, not random.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
2) The fossil record is nothing short of a huge ? mark for evo. Massive complexity suddenly appears void of precursory.
3) How do "unpredicatible mutations" account for the invention of nervous systems and endocrine pathways like the hypothalamic-pituitary axis? If there is no blue print prior theres no creation of it. NS must be a remarkable inventor.
4) ID or "we dont know yet" are acceptable alternatives to a false theory.
Lose the snottiness and get some skepticism.
9pt9 2 years ago
1-that's because the fossil record is not perfect. precambrian precurosors to the forms I described clearly existed, but few fossils have been found
2-I answered your question already.the mutation occurs in a select group in a population, and this proved better than the old. this occurs after 1000's of errors/neutral mutations in said population-it doesn't just sprout out correct the first time round.
3-you clearly misrepresented what I meant. and as I said, its been shown to be true.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
actually, to make it easier for you to produce real evidence (in a video), I'll temporarily block you, until such time as you can articulate your argument. I don't want you wasting time on comments that I can cut down piecemeal (as I have done).
you can also reply to my last comments in that video or similar.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
I will correct my penultimate comment, and merge the last one to it
again, I aks you: posit a NATURALISTIC, testable model that accounts for the complexity of life, and put it in a video.
until you can do it, I'll block you, so as not to waste time on sommenting. yes, I will unblock you the moment you posit the alternative, scientific model.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Teeth probably arose as a response to toxic build up of phosphate ions in the pre-vertebrate chordates living in the ediacaren/cambrian sea
Nephridia are cells in the kidney that deal with sodium, chlorine and potassium ion regulation, enameloblasts and osteocytes arose in an analagous way but this time to regulate phosphate and calcium ions. Ca+ and PH4- form the (relatively) inert bone substances.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
The first hydroxyapatite secreted was probably unstructureless, but like calcite and aragonite in molluscs, it quickly was rendered into a suitable structure by natural selection.
I am unaware as to what evolved first, but it is clear that fish scales and teeth are directly homologous and bones and osteoderms are directly homologous.
Also in the fossil record is a type of bone that is no longer extant, called acellular bone. This may be the precursor to both bone and teeth.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Conodonts are the most basal examples of toothed vertebrates (as lamprey have keratinous teeth). They probably used teeth for filter feeding and crushing microfossil tests.
Cartilaginous fish have teeth covering their entire body, complete with enamel and dentine. Bony fish took this one step further and the teeth evolved into scales (still complete with enamel).
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Teeth are one of the most plastic structures in fish, unlike tetrapods which tend to have restricted it somewhat.
In fish, the rostrum, predentry, dentry, premaxilla, maxilla, vomer, spleneal, palatine, gill arches AND gill rakers can all bear teeth. teleosts literally have tens of thousands of teeth!
I know of experiments with switching on genes in birds that has caused teeth to sprout throughout the body of embryonic birds.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Unfortunatly, I am major league tied down with work at the moment. As you can see I havn't made a video in ages, I actually did make a 100 subscriber video (in which I give you a shoutout) but I havn't put it up yet, and I am planning a video about western islamophobia which I think you'll like.
Unfortunatly also I may not have my VP lecture notes from last year, but I will look around for some refs for the info I have posted here.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
ah, I see you stood up for me and more importantly, science, while I was gone.
sorry I didn't post the rest last week (I pretty much have it figured out-including where those molar ridge came from), but I was a victim of a false DMCA (just using utorrent can get you in trouble-I was patching RTW), and I couldn't go online (still can't even after the block was lifted-using my dormate's computer).
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Oh man, that sucks about the DMCA. Was it Stevebee or was it a Harun Yahya supporter? (if you know). Also, I use utorrent a LOT. can it really get you in trouble? *shivers*.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
It was the creative assembly itself-stevebee and HY/cronies are innocent.
as I said, its from patching RTW. they thought I was stealing the game. I managed to prove otherwise (accidentally: the computer inspector found my RTW CD in the computer-I accidently left it there).
and yes, utorrent can get you in trouble-but ONLY if the internet is monitered by the provider (as in US colleges).
I doubt you'd be in trouble for that PARTICULAR law-the DMCA doesn't apply to the UK
I'd be careful anyhow
Albukhshi 2 years ago
now to the science!
you are mostly correct in your findings; let me add an improvement:
the answer, to which came first, tooth or jaw, is that denticles appear before jaws, while proper teeth (with enamel), of the type seen in tetrapods is after jaws appeared. this explains: 1) the elastic teeth you describe in teleosts, and 2) why some jawed fishes (e.g dunkleosteus have no teeth. I suspect that the bony lumps in Dnkleosteus was covered in life by a dentine layer that mimiced horn.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Also, I didn't explain properly, when I said ''plastic'', I meant that evolution has done a lot more for teeth in teleosts than in tetrapods. Apart from some amphibians down in the carboniferous, I don't think tetrapods have had anything more that one single row of teeth whilst teleosts are screaming with them on nearly every bone in the mouth.
Have you checked out fish with two jaws, one down in the throat as well as the rostral area? I think a set of HOX genes might have been duplicated...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Dunkleosteus probably had something covering the bone, it is certainly not beneficial to have living bone tissue exposed on the surface if it is not acellular or enamelised (which dunkleosteus wasn't). Bacteria would have just infiltrated the body through the canaliculae.
Actually, there is one organisms with bone on the outside; the red deer.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
yeah, I just realized it-thanks for correcting me on dunkel.
well, we learn sth new every day :D
yes, I checked the double jawed fish. I touched on its evo in my latest vids. the same genes that regulate the front jaws regulate the back ones. (stevebee left that Gem out in his video).
also, double rows of teeth exist in snakes and mosasaurs, as well as the carboniferous amphibians.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Snakes and mosasaurs? Hmmm, that supports the idea that mososaurs and snakes form a monophyletic clade (which is the sister group to varanid lizards)
TheProf1988 2 years ago
exactly. that's the modern idea anyhow.
they should have pictures of Tylosaur palates-I saw them in Texas.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
WOOOT
MrSpaznout 2 years ago
thanks
and the second half is on tuesday or wednesday.
it depends on whether stevebee presents his sources.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
part 2 and 3 are up
enjoy.
Albukhshi 2 years ago