Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps (4-9)

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: If you see no reply to posters below they know they are on ignore for things like personal insults, name calling & general refusal to actually debate by evading Qs I posed. If you would like to make the same points I will be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story." However I debate only where true debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective and actually...debate.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Hahaha, you accuse them of question dodging while referring to a post of four questions that you blatantly dodged

see; merriam-webster(.)com/dictiona­ry/hypocrisy

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Can you answer the question or can you pretend that you've been personally attacked to try to dodge them?

How many terrestrial organisms were present in the Cambrian?

[LoricaLady]

@ABriefHistoryOfTime If you can find such a person, get someone to ask me your same Qs w/o personal insults and I'll happily answer them. Also tell them to avoid not only ad hominems but the strawman logical fallacy of religion since neither this vid nor I ever said anything about it and since evolution stands or falls on science & logic alone. Finis.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady I've done nothing but ask you questions without personal attacks. I've asked you how it was a strawman and I've asked you were there any terrestrial organisms in the Cambrian. You have done nothing but dodge and then actually commit the same ad homs you accuse me of by implying that I've insulted you without discourse.

Can you answer the questions?

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Further every major phyla is represented in the "Cambrian" period. Supposedly millions & millions of years of evolution have passed and yet no new phyla has "evolved" in all that time. Again, what the fossil record is actually showing is abrupt appearance and stasis.

The critigue of this presentation will continue on vid 5/9 - again, if I do not get Expelled as has happened before on vids supporting evolutionary theory.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady Do you even known what the Cambrian showed?

Do you even known what a phyla is?

How many terrestrial organisms appeared in the Cambrian?

How many that are still alive today?

[LoricaLady]

9:06 "The way of all species is emergence through evolution & extinction." Actually, even if one believes evo theory, that is not borne out by the data. There  The so called Cambrian fossil period is considered to be the first appearance of life (except for some "precambrian" simpled celled life forms which are debatable in just about every way) of life forms. Some of them exist today virtually identifical to what we see in the rocks, for ex. starfish, nautiloids, jelly fish. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. We are told things like "Diamonds are millions of years old." Yet carbon 14 cannot last a fraction of such time and it is found in those jewels. Evolution gives us many theories based on what is untestable, unobservable and unrepeatable to say such & such IS the case. Theoretical assumptions presented as scientific data are not science, but pseudo scienice. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

8:36 "The average duration for a mammalian species in the fossil record./..is 2.6 million years." What is the meaning of the word "is." When used here it is meant to imply a defnite fact. The truth is that is pure speculation. There is no way to date fossils to such a time period as even evolutionists say the DNA will not last past 100,000 years. You cannot really adequately date rocks. There is no geologic column, that is a myth from the 19th century, never found on the planet. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

7:58 Here I believe the discussion goes fully into fantasy. So far the scenario we have been given is not only based on 0 scientific evidence (primal pond, apes to man with gene fusion as "evidence", and talk of humans evolving while uncounted billions thru history show no evo at all) but is also demeaning to us as humans. We are being told, based on 0 evidence, that we are from a primal pond and apes and that we will be replaced by a higher liife form in the future. Based on 0 evidence. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

7:45 "Science has enabled us to...manipulate our own evolution to some extent." What is going on in labs to alter human genomes we may never know. Clones & chimeras are possible. This, however, tho it is being called evolution is the opposite, as is generally the case with evo theory. Does evolution cause changes in those test tubes, or...intelligent design - not to mention the use of hi tech equipment, also intelligently designed? Anything from a lab is the result of i.d., not evo. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

7:20 "That is what I would call differential reproductive success." But I'm sure all of those descendants are 100% human, not even changing their species, so there is no data from that observation, at all, to support evolution in fact the opposite is seen since no evo is occuring. 7:40 Here are several faith based statements, including "Our species is going to continue to evolve." When there is 0 evidence, but something is believed anyway, it is based on faith and not on science. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Sometimes animals vary so much that only those with similar genes can interbreed, thus new species occur. However, again, with over 200 species of bees, every last one of them is still a bee. There are bacteria, algae & other micro-organisms multiplying at staggering rates. Yet the bacteria stay bacteria & the algae stay algae. There is 0 evidence anywhere for any life form climbing up Darwin's Tree of Life. Unsupported theories presented as scientific evidence = psuedo science. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. There is 0 evidence "variation" & "differential reproductive rates" leads to climbs up Darwin's Tree of Life. Mendell worked with those variables & got lots of changes, but bees stayed bees & peas stayed peas. Animals have been bred for millenium with variation & different reproductive rates. Cows stay cows & pigs stay pigs. A thousand generations of fruit fly genes got radition to make them "mutate". Resullt? Many deformed, never more variable than the original...fruit flies. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Another thing. We are always told, usually based on the logical fallacies of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation & Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison, that Fossil A led to Fossil B.  For ex. children are told a hairy beast with rear hooves, Ambulocetus, was a Prewhale. Based on? Some minor similarities in its ear to whales. Does 1 scrap of evidence show ambulocetus' descendants were ever significantly different from it? No. Speculation presented as evidence is pseudo science. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

Cnt. Billions of people are multiplying rapidly, some producing one child some many more. Yet they are all resoluttely staying people, even staying the same species. There is 0 evidence we have ever been anything but people. There are a few paltry fossils, some fragmentary, some proven to be outrageous frauds, which we are told are our ancestor apes. We are supposed to fill in the "missing links" with our imaginations, not data. How do you tell "missing" from never existed links? Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

6:39 We are told 2 things are needed for evo to take place: 1) "Variation in a species."The students are told to Look around & see all the variation. How does that show evo? Looking around we see the exact opposite of evo. All the students, all humans belong to the same species. Every last one of them. None is climbing up Darwin's "Tree of Life.") 2) "Differential reproductive success...some people will leave more children than others." Once again the actual facts belie the theory. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Back to pick & choose & spin theology. In the same passage that says we are made from the dust of the earth, it is made very clear that Adam was created fully formed, no way having been built up from a primal pond & ape ancestry. Scriptures talk about sudden creation of all life forms, fully formed, and that then creation stopped, the opposite of evo. Countless billiions of fossils show abrupt appearance and stasis of life forms, contrary to what evolutionists tell the public. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

4:38 "Showing that something has a natural cause..." But they don't show that. Again, with the primal pond there is no evidence and it flies in the face of a Law of science. Where there is 0 evidence there is 0 science. When evidenceless speculation is presented as if it is science, we get pseudo science. 6:15 What matters is not how they label the chromosomes. What matters is that they have 0 evidence our fusion (or that extra fusion which some people have) came from any apes. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:40 Pick & choose & spin Bible reference. Scriptures do say we were made out of the "dust of the earth." However it does not say life came from the dust, but came only when YHWH breathed life into the man. Here Miller is defending abiogenesis, that life can come from inorganic matter. There is not only 0 evidence for this either by observation or in labs (the "synthetic cell" used a living cell & only altered it) it actually contradicts true science, i.e. the Law of Biogenesis. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" or those who think they are ape descedants with no omnipotent Creator to go to for help to back them up?

I have also seen a YT vid where Miller said "Scientists should be above politics." Before that vid (a long one) was over, he had flashed up graphs showing where the creation/evolution debate was being fought in the country and was giving suggestions to the participants for how to get involved in the fight. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:50 Okay the Dover Court case coming up. 1st, a court room is far and away not the place to be deciding scientific issues. When scientists let a non science trained politically appointed judge tell the populace what is science and what is not - as happened at the end of Dover - then they have abdicated their role over to the state. And the state does have its political agendas. Let's see, who would be more easy to manipulate & control, those who think they are "endowed by..." cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:54 "Corresponds to...what this means...we are descended from the other great apes...." No, it does not. "Corresponds to" means "There is a certain similarity," The same 3 logical fallacies rehashed: "Corresponds to", i.e. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation Fallacy of Single Cause: Since 1 in 1,000 folk have an addition fusion, why should we assume 1 is caused by our "ancestry" & the other is not? Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison, i.e. placement is compared but not gene contents. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

Cnt. Miller is way out of his field by telling us how the Creator would do business. I have seen him in a YT clip, on the Colbert show, saying that as an RC he believes that Yeshua, aka Jesus "created all that is seen and unseen." Yet he also holds workshops called The Collapse of Intelligent Design and fights politically, including in court, to keep any mention of intelligent design out of schools. So...Yeshua created everything seen & unseen, but He's not intelligent? He's stupid? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:35 "We know the exact place." What they don't know is what caused the fusion. As is universal in evolutionary thought, any kind of similarity thru the use of the logical fallacy of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation) is jumped on as evidence for ancestry when really it is not evidence at all, just pure speculation about what is unknown & unknowable. Saying, therefore, "We can see that lineage" is bogus. Chimps & tobacco have 48 chromosomes too. Next comment on a Designer. Cnt

[LoricaLady]

1:03 "If we don't have it, this common ancestry thing might not be true." Again, what about all the other ancestry "evidence" evolutionists have shown us for so long? Another thing, I have heard people saying that evolutionists predicted this fusion. I personally don't believe it. If anyone can cite an article that made that prediction before the fusion was found, plz do so. Did they predict the additional fusioin 1 in 1000 people have also? Do they even try to explain that one? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. That statement is actually a tacit admission that all the other so called evidences for ape to man descent cannot stand the tests. To be cont.

[LoricaLady]

This is a continuatioin of a critical analysis begun at 1/9, following from 3/9 (2/9 is not available.) As detailed in 3/9, 3 logical fallacies underlie the whole genome sequence supposed proof of our descent from apes, and the truth is there is no more evidence for why our fusion is there than for why about 1 in 1000 people (and quite a few animals) have an additional fusion. 0: 10 "If we can't find it" i.e. the fusion "then the hypothesis of common ancestry might be wrong." Cont.

[jphainline]

I would agree... he is very evasive... he's also a douchebag

[shayneby]

ken miller is an ignorant Fool. Very evasive. He has never told us how the flagellum developed by Darwinian means to what it is today. All he does is explain mousetraps. What a Strawman. I have been waiting for years for Miller to come up with his explanaion of how the flagellum evolved to what it is today and what its function was before now or a less complex flagellum and its function. No answer. Just a series of cop outs.

not GREAT about that.

Michael Behe is a better scientist.

[DesertFox111]

You are the ignorant fool. Keep watching the whole lecture. He explains it very well.

[shuffenhauser]

First off, why does he owe you an explanation for the bacterial flagellum? Thats a very arrogant and presumptive statement. Secondly, michael Behe's irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is just a bold assertion, it hold no merit. And Millers example of the mousetrap was to make a point, things can still have a functioning purpose without the entire end product. Is 25% of an eye better than 5% of an eye? of course it is.

[shayneby]

Ha. I can see where you are going with your assertions.

"Is 25% of an eye better than 5% of an eye? of course it is".

That's begging the question,

An eye is a complete entity. Remove 5% of an eye's functionality, then it is no longer an effective eye. The eye's main purpose is to see. You may as well remove it, if you can't see. The eye never was anything else in the past. Except we invoke metaphysics. Let's not use that similar example to justify Miller's grand claim. Its laughable

[shuffenhauser]

What eyes are you taking about? Human eyes, walrus eyes, octopus eyes? Not all eyes have the same "functionality," for example, the eyes of an octopus are far better at seeing than our eyes, they have virtually no blind spots. So, they're "functionality" is better than ours, it has more capability. So, the purpose of an eye is to see, you're right, but you're wrong about removing a percentage of the eye, it would still be functional, but not to the same degree that a better eye would be.

[shayneby]

What really was the purpose of you saying that 25% of an eye is better than 5%.?

Every eye is meant to see. without which is it useless. Just like boasting" I know i am blind but i can still shed tears. LOL

So you think the octopus' eye is better than ours? You tend to forget that these creatures live in water. We don't. Try to look inside a bucket of water and see how clear you vision is.

Talking about the octopus' eye, watch this link.

" watch?v=hN0bj-NUnUI "

Merry Christmas.

[shuffenhauser]

I don't "think" it is better than ours, I know it is better. No blind spot is better than any blind spot. Their eyes are well adapted for their surroundings, as are ours. But any architect who "designed" the human eye would have been fired. Why would a designer place the retina backwards in the eye? Which causes the nerves in the eye to reach the photoreceptor cells located behind the eyes wiring. It's just bad design.

[shayneby]

Even after evidence is presented to you, you still refuse to accept.

[Salmo77]

Why dont they show this in every single class???

This is an AWESOME lecture, fantastic and Ken Miller is a GREAT guy...smart and nice!

Evolution is simply fantastic!

[Salmo77]

Human being wont evolve as other species are or have been or will, simply because natural selection does not have the same power on us as it USED to have, because of advances in medecine, science etc...

That is A BIG difference between our evolution and other animals. We will evolve but I doubt we will in the big way..

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Since natural selection will not play a part by killing off certain traces. It means humans will be more varied.

The thing with humans is the mixing of genes, how much this is done. This offcourse is done alot more these days than even hundred of years ago. This has an averaging out effect and maybe in few million years all humans will be alot more standard then they are now.

[camino1ca]

There is still an effect from sexual selection although because there is no major isolation, it would probably not result in the same thing it could if we were geographically separated. On a whole people are probably mixing more as it is so easy to travel to different country's' immigration and so on.

[shayneby]

That's the biggest cop out. Humans have always been humans and will never change to anything else.

That's the deception with evolution. They lie to us we will never change using lame excuses but everything else changes. They've succeeded in putting you in that frame of mind. What a shame.

[Salmo77]

Shayneby, get a brain. Alternatively just shoot yourself for the sake of all mankind. bye.

[learnermind]

I don't understand how he said religion is so deceptive and yet he believes in god

[neowondertwilight]

He never said that the religion was deceptive, he said that he didn't believe in god that was deceptive, meaning that he doesn't think that perfect creator would fool us in this very cheap and lowly manner by inserting all the fossils into the ground and making it look like they are millions of years old :)

[ndjarnag]

with so much rhetoric and extremism, I appreciate Miller's thoughtfulness and his open mind.

[Salmo77]

I agree with what you said.