what about the evolution of everybody who wants to think of themselves as special being called terrorists .. eugenics science out in the open lol AGENDA 21
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. This article will also explain the scientific impossibility of life evolving into existence.
Anyone interested in natural selection or Darwinism should try to read some of the original books written in the 1930s & 1940s on Neo-Darwinism, the synthesis of natural selection and Mendel's genetics. Try to read anything written by R A Fisher, Julian Huxley, J B S Haldane, T. Dobzhansky, G G Simpson Sewall Wright, G L Stebbins and Ernst Mayer.
@Octamed read the first few pages and its just as i thought. its still just a theory, after all the scientists who have gathered all the evidence over 150 years still cant make it a scientific fact then its not worth reading the whole thing
@reallife47 First 'theory' in science means 'an explanation for a set of facts', just like the theory of gravity, not like 'I've got a theory' in everyday language. Evolution is a scientific fact. The specifics of evolution such as how a particular organism is related to something else changes as new evidence is discovered. This doesn't change the whether evolution happens. eg they are STILL doing experiments on how gravity works! But we're pretty sure gravity exists ;) PLEASE keep reading.
@Octamed Mathematicans have agreed 100% that evolution theory is not just a theory it is a fantasy. The likelyhood of life randomly coming together is impossible. Its what the top maths guys say.
@JerezJulio The real maths is from a real mathematician from Cambridge University. Sorry to upset your evolution fantasy. I don't do religion mate, so come back with something intelligent.
Well you did not mention name so I gues I mention them for you.
Let me guess, your top of the line guys are: William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, and mean spirited David Berlinski, the three stooges of creationism Intelligence design who want to prove Creationism by teaching grade school children, and apealling to the popular believe in genesist by the public, but not by submitting papers to the academic of Science for peer reviews by other scientist and prove them wrong?
Let us say, you do have one Long Range Silver who can prove that life does not evolve. He will have to publish his research, so that other scientist can test it and verify his finding.
It is not I, that he has to convince he has to demonstrate it to people like: Dawkins, Myers, Scott, Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer, Kenneth Miller, and the list go on, that they got it all wrong.
They will be the first to admit they are wrong, you can trust me on that.
@JerezJulio You just don't get it? I don't do religion or creation fantasy. Evolution theory is a fanatasy. The earth is older than 6000 years. The names you have listed mean nothing to me, who are they? Academic research papers is now another matter. I've been doing some reading on this and the standard is pretty poor compared to the geniuses of the past. Scientific papers today should not be taken too seriously. Its about bums on seats and money. Knowledge has been sacrificed.
Well what can I said, You are the genius saying science should not be taken seriously. At the same time you also gives credo to Astrology, 6000 years old Earth is as valid as 4 billion year old.
I am going to go on a ledge here and said that, that Cambridge guy you said proved life does not evolve is you.
Else why not tell us his name so we can read his publications.
I start to wonder if you just picked Cambridge because that was where the lecture in the video was.
@JerezJulio I am 100% with astrology. Fred Hoyle was one of the top physicist who has done the numbers. I said the earth is older than 6000 years, therefore dismissing the creationist belief. Yes science and scientist shouldn't be taken seroiusly. There only human, they do make mistakes.
Dude you need to underhand that there is not equivalence between
6000 year old planet and Geology science, Astrology and Astronomy,
Creation of leaving things in their present form and Evolution from primitive forms.
If you think you or you top guy can prove otherwise, then go on summit your paper to the academic of science for scrutiny. you certailly have the right to prove it.
Dude, Fred Hoyle and his steady State theory for the origin of the Universe was wrong.
The man's became a bitter scientist who in his latest days even rejected his own Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis because he was so appalled to the idea that life could be the result of natural Chemical evolution.
The man was so bitter that he even denied the authenticity of Dinosaurs fossils.
Fred Hoyle was a scantiest, but his failures made a bitter man out of him.
@JerezJulio Hey dude back, the only bitter person seems to be you. Did you say steady state theory? Isn't evolution a theory? Summiting a paper? Thats all evolution is, bits of paper promoting a religion. Love astrology, also study astronomy. You seem to be obsessed with creationism. I don't do creation. I don't believe in it, think about it or buy it. If you believe in evolution then get on with it.
I hate to keep beaten you, It is so eassy that it is not even fair, but you keep coming back for more. When you said you do not believe evolution but you do not believe in creationism the third answer is Astrology.
Now we are in Crackpot territory, because the Astrological answer, according to Carl Segan, it was Prometheus who created man and stoled fire from Zeus to give to man...
I think even the Creationist will scorn you if they find out what you believe.
In a way I admire your courage, very few people in the world have the guts to publically admit they believe in Astrology, Intelligence Design / Creationism, and Scientology. I am surprise you aren't also calling for: Parapsychology, Witchcraft, Magic and Mythology to be also elevated to the same level of science.
On the Fred Hoyle Steady State Theory, there is this thing.
Scientific Theories can be Falsified. and Hoyle Theory has being falsified many time in by many independent sources.
The Background Radiation, the General Theory of Relativity, The expansion of the universe, The fact that there fundamental forces of nature unified under extreme conditions, all point to the validity of the Big Bang, and at the same time dismiss Steady State universe.
So if you want to falsify evolution all you have to do is find a fossil of a modern Animal who is several dozen millions of years old.
for example if you find a the reminds of a man that is 30 or 40 millions year old, you will completely debunk evolution. But if you keep calling Genesis, and Zeus all you will get is mocks.
On the Theory of Evolution, in simple turns the theory says that the diversity of life comes about because a serious of small variations combined with natural selection lead spices to becomes unique and stop interbreeding with their ancestors.
As time pass life become more complex because it contains the traits of the ancestor and the new traits descendants.
After 150 years evolution is still shouting from the highest clifftop. Still a theory and not a fact. Never questioned but accepted by modern science. How did we get to this stupidity.
@the0fart0machine You would consider it a fact that when you throw a heavy object in the air under normal conditions, it will fall back down to Earth. We still call it the THEORY of gravity. And what about germ theory?
Really, learn a bit about how things are classified in science before you make such an asinine remark.
@the0fart0machine No, the term is theory of gravity, not scientific theory of gravity. Context would decide what sense it was meant in. Seeing as evolution is a scientific principle, the inferring is quite obvious. Unless you're a dolt.
@the0fart0machine What happened to wishing me a good journey in French?
Alas, I am not an evolutionary biologist, so you would be better advised to talk to one of those instead of a medical student. I do, however, have quite a good understanding of the current model of evolution, though I'm confused what you mean by "scientific method". If you mean THE scientific method, then I can direct you to the evidence, but you will have to comprehend it yourself. I can't do that for you.
@the0fart0machine That site is infamous for its spreading of misinformation about evolution. Really, I'm not overly interested. If they truly had this evidence, they would submit it for peer-review and then publish itself in a scientific journal. They wouldn't be trying to convince you or me. It only bothers me if they are trying to restrict or bother science.
@the0fart0machine well, you have to be blind not to. i mean.. it's kinda sad to see all this people that keep on saying "evolution didn't happened" when in fact they don't even know what evolution is.. and they can't imagine how much evidence there is because they don't want to look at it... scared maybe? i don't know.. but i think it;s enough for fairy tales like "god made us" ... i mean.. we're in the 21st century ffs... should be a century of reason not delusion
@BullRadu When you and your evolution mates explain, prove 100% how life began from nothing to complex cells then I might listen. Until then evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.
@the0fart0machine Berkley has a great site for learning evolution. Google 'evolution 101'. It should give you a good idea about it. Remember most religious people in the world accept evolution.
@Octamed Couldn't give a ship about religious people as you mention, Dawkins says evolution is random and then goes on to say natural selection is not random. Scientists change the script to suit themselves. The theory of evolution should read the scientific theory of evolution. Redefine the name science to includ evolution. A lot of scientists don't worship this evolution con.
@the0fart0machine Did you read through the site? You are misunderstanding some fundamental concepts of evolution I think. Even if you don't believe something, you still need to fully understand it to argue against it
@the0fart0machine It can't explain gravity either, just like it can't explain the origin of life. It doesn't deal with that. Natural selection is one of the main mechanisms of evolution. Please just read about it at the berkley site
@the0fart0machine Well ok, but do you understand it though? The site I suggested is very good at explaining it. It really doesn't matter if it's a con, you can still learn about it and properly learn about the concepts.
Good rebuttal dimension. What is even more dissappointing is that after all explanations and incorrect hypothesis Darwin at his end converted himself to christianity. Many say this was refuted by his children. However if his children truly understood his position in the matter then why is he buried in Westminster. Im sure that his children would have upheld the correct claims of there father, but how are we so sure?
Dear goodness! This aggressive-religious atheism of late is as boring and lousy as any visit by the witnesses of Jehovah is! Some pseudo-scientific quack preaching no religion as religion, based on a blind belief in the vulgar perception of modern science! Claiming the objectivity of things and even the human reasons in a way no scientist or philosopher would ever do; but I wonder if this is as lousy as it seems to be, why do they do it? The girls? The rubber? The machismo?
A genetic book of the dead. Sounds intriguing .smells like a holy book. Contained within is the database (scripture) of information encoded in language of the giver of life (DNA). Translated by scientist (saviors) to provide guidance (dogma) that hold the wisdom (parables) of the survival story from past lives and environments (tribulations). May I suggest the title, The Preservation of Favored Races in The Struggle for life. The bridge we need is one to separate science from the state.
Random mutation. Take the sentence "random mutation makes perfect sense". As an experiment mutate it by randomly replacing or adding to the original words other letters of the alphabet. Still make sense??
you obviously haven't heard anything this man has said ever. You've never read anything about evolution have you? If we were to begin by random mutation to start off, then as more and more letters go in place(passing good genes through generations), then we can move on to another letter. Even by using a computer, it probably would take forever to get that sentence exactly, but evolution isn't about churning out the perfect being. It's just mutations based on the environment that helps us survive
yes and newton found the gravitational equations, he didn't prove them them. He's still the genius. Einstein is the same. The only proof needed for theory is experiment, that's how physics works. SOmeone finds the theories(something experimentalists cannot do) another shows why it's so.
And no, energy is not the fourth state of matter. The bose einstein condensate is the fourth state of matter. Energy is not matter. A joule is one Newton-meter. not one kg.
I mentioned einstein because he found the concept that energy and light do have mass. They are not mass. Exactly what you brought up. Matter has never stopped being what it always was.
Digital Darwinism is yet another extension of a flawed concept. Kinda like going from a Catholic to a Baptist. The idea that the universe is based on MATTER, as far as SCIENCE, died and was buried 100 years ago. It is pretty much understood that the universe is based on ENERGY.The former supports a materialistic (matter)view based on survival of the fittest.The later supports a connected view, survival by cooperation. Look around...do you see extinction or growth?I see the 6th mass extinction.
Matter is a type of energy according to Einsteinian theory. Thus is we study matter, we are still studying a type of energy. Despite this, I don't see how perception of the universe as energy really emphasizes cooperation to a greater degree than viewing it as matter.
Nothing about evolutionary selection prevents cooperation. In fact, cooperation can greatly help a single gene propagate throughout a population. The fittest do survive (not necessarily the strongest or most selfish).
Understand that changes to DNA are NOT necessarily random,rather "willed" by the cell. Demonstrated experimentally in 1988 John Cairns Origin of the Mutation.This understanding carried through Biocentric Universe Theory Robert Lanza. New biology Bruce Lipton explain current genetic understanding Epigenetic control. watch?v=4iCcnDuY6-4
THAT WAS A WORD ERROR IN MY WRITING. I meant to say the cells must cooperate to survive. Sorry for confusion, hopefuly it makes more sense. It seems to me that nature culls the weak, could care less about the fittest. The end result would be the same, but the focus would be different. imo
also, you completely destroy all of physics with your ignorance. Energy is matter and matter can be energy. I.e. e=mc^2. Einstein never destroyed the idea of matter, infact he added to it. I'm a physicist and I've never heard any researcher say that the universe isn't based on matter.
It is a curiosity to me that when someone tries to claim an "ultimate authority", the bring up Einstein.Considering that the first solution to Einsteins field equations were performed by Karl Schwarzschild, why wouldn't you claim "according to Schwarzchild" instead. After all it was he, not Einstein that offered the proof. At any rate it is true that energy is the 4th state of matter. As far as Lipton, my opinion is different.
My point, for the 3RD TIME, is that Darwinism is based on the notion that life begins as a simplistic primitive form that evolves into complexity. There is not a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NOTION. Rather the contrary. Now to argue anything else, which does not speak to THAT POINT, is irrelevant. You can name call all you want, but it will not change the fact that the basis for this theory is in error.
@anolmec You say, that "there is not a shred of evidence" to support evolution. I'm going to list a whole load of scientific fields, perhaps you could point out which ones you think haven't provided evidence for evolution. Genetics Cellular biology Anatomy Geology Paleontology Environmental systems Tectonics Taxonomy You can't carry on arguing that theory of evolution is false if you don't provide a single specific problem with it. It is absurd!
What I said was there was not a single thread of evidence to support the notion that life begins in a simplistic primitive form and evolves into complexity. What I said was science is finding the contrary to be true. Read it and re-read it until you understand what I wrote, you know, be relevant to the topic and all that.
And I said, specifically what part of science contradicts evolution?
Which field? What holes?
For crying out loud, just name one single bit of evidence which is contradictory to the theory of evolution. You keep stating that are is some. Please I am all ears.
Kinda like the jews in germany or the indians on the american plains?? Witches in Salem?? Do you propose perhaps a trial by ordeal followed by purification or a simple reservation?
Did you actually just sugggest that I want to put you into some kind of camp? HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Wow, that is one of the oddest responses ever. You really do have no idea what a proper education is, do you? That's so sad for someone with access to the internet...
That is not at all what you claimed before, and actually, there is.
Then again, that depends on what you specficially are looking for. Are you looking for, say, the very "beginning of human life", when the sperm cell joins with the egg cell to create the single zygote? Or, perhaps, you seek the very beginning of life on Earth, the abiogenesis which produced the earliest replicating molecules, which then coalesced into primitive cells?
You can deny it all you want, it does not change reality.
The 2 words "primitive cells" is where the problem is.....the simplest conceivable life form is anything but primitive or simple if it is to carry out any of life functions. In other words there is no such thing as a simple primitive life form.
The earliest evidence of life is just under 3.5 billion years ago, with the earliest multicellular organisms emerging just over 1.5 billion years ago. Compare this with the Cambrian explosion which happened around 500 million years ago. The most primitive life-forms around today are evolutionary heavy weights, they have been competing (and evolving) against each other for billions of years. (cont.)
There is no reason to think that the very earliest forms of life would be around today, they would have either been outcompeted or forced to evolve to keep up.
However, if you want an example of extremely primitive self replicating organic molecules look no further than viruses, the they are a fraction the size of a microbe and consist of a small amount of RNA wrapped in a coat of protein. Most do nothing other than replicate.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are saying is that there is no evidence of "very earliest life forms",,,,,,,which is basically the same position a religious would take.
Your take on virus is a discussion all to itself...if you define life as the ability to self replicate, then that would exclude a virus. A virus is kinda half alive and half dead at the same time.....maybe thats a perspective to consider
No, I am not saying that there is no evidence for the very earliest life-forms, I am saying that in light of evolution it could not be reasonably assumed that there would still be some around today.
"A virus is kinda half alive and half dead at the same time", exactly. It is somewhere in-between what we could call "life" and inanimate, and is exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see if you proposed that life came originally came from the inanimate. Think of it as a "transitional form".
We seem to be straying from the topic into the origin of life. Where the exact mechanism for origin of life is uncertain and heavily contested I freely admit, the theory of decent with modification, through mutation and natural selection is not.
In fact numerous studies into microorganisms and simple celled organisms in the lab have documented specific examples of evolution, and have even isolated the exact genes which have changed. Would you like me to provide you with some examples?
A simple celled organism? Exculding a bowl of jello, what would that be? My bet is any "simple celled organism" you present will wind up being very complex unto itself. At any rate throw it out here an we can see how simple it is.
That was a typo, I meant to write "single". I have already explained that micro organisms have had billions of years to evolve and compete, they are as well (if not better) adapted to their environments as mammals etc.
Examples of evolution:
(1) Strains of bacteria such as MRSA which are resistant to antibiotics. From 1983-1990, all 92 E.coli strains tested were easily killed by the antibiotics. But from 1991 to 1993, 11 of 40 tested strains (28 percent) were resistant to all 5 drugs. (cont)
(2) One of the more famous example of bacterial evolution is the case of nylonase, a bacteria which was found inhabiting a polluted lake next to a nylon factory. It has the ability to breakdown and consume nylon, a man made product which has only been around since 1935.
(3) The ability of a lab engineered strain of E.coli (which developed after around 40,000 generation) which is able to make use of citrate, thereby giving it a distinct advantage over the original strain.
(4) An experiment with nematodes which involved putting a single population in one area, and a food source in another with obstacles between the two, then collecting the group which successfully made it across and making them do the same again, found that with each successive generation a greater number successfully made the migration, thus supporting the premise of "survival of the fittest"
(6) Ring speciation, where a population of organisms finds themselves on the edge of a large impassable obstacle (such as an inland sea or a desert), the population will begin to make the migration around the edge of said obstacle, both clockwise and counterclockwise.When the two groups finally meet at the other-side, they have become significantly different and in some cases are unable to interbreed. All of the changes can be observed an traced back to the original population.
Andersson, D.I., and B.R. Levin. 1999. The biological cost of antibiotic resistance. Current Opinion in Microbiology 2:489493.
Maisnier-Patin, S., O.G. Berg, L. Liljas, and D.I. Andersson. 2002. Compensatory adaptation to the deleterious effects of antibiotic resistance in Salmonella typhimurium. Molecular Microbiology 46:355366.
Look, being resistant to antibiotics is such a massive advantage over being killed by antibiotics that any number of negatives this evolution requires pales into insignificance.
"Although the data available from recent laboratory studies suggest that most, but not all, resistance-determining mutations and accessory elements engender some fitness cost, these costs are likely to be rectified by subsequent evolution." - Andersson DI, Levin BR. 1999
hmmm...key word "likely".Thats NOT the point.Darwin postulated common ancestor with modification. You are pointing out a genetic difference that predisposes one bacterium to survive while another dies..so much for common ancestor. Additionally the theory requires a mutation to provide a gain in function. You are presenting an example of inititial complexity mutating to simplicity or loss of function........basically you need another argument.
Well I guess we will find out in a few decades. I don't need another argument, because (1) "studies suggest that most, BUT NOT ALL, resistance-determining mutations and accessory elements engender some fitness cost". (2) I listed two other examples in which the evolutionary changes are not at all detrimental to the organisms and actually let them outcompete the original strains.
Besides the fitness cost, it is significant to point out that the resistant organisms lost entire systems, such as transport systems, that BEEN OBSERVED to never be recovered. To address your point 2, that is true only in a closed system, not the open system under discussion..
It doesn't matter if the transport systems have never been recovered. The point is that regardless of any negative aspects of the mutation the new antibiotic resistant strains are able to adequately function and have a greater chance of survival over non antibiotic resistant strains. It is a clear example of evolution, through the process of mutation and natural selection.
"Only in a closed system", not that it matters either way, but Nylonase was found inhabiting lakes and streams.
I find it odd that you seem to accept that evolution can happen in a "closed system" but not in an open system. It is the very act of subjecting bacteria to a specific setting which results in the evolutionary process. Whether that new setting is a petri dish or 50 miles down stream from where the microbe initially evolved, it makes no difference. New strains and indeed new species will inevitably arise to capitalize on the new environment.
Enlighten me. For me to take the proverbial red pill you'll need to break your silence and tell me your theory. What's the secret that has been alluding science for the past 150 years?
I can only hope that you take at least some of what we have been discussing away with you.
You hope I take "some" of what? Darwinism is based on life evolving from simplicity evolving into complexity...you still have NOT shown an example of this simplicity. Rather, you incredibly provide an example of survival of the unfit along with a virus labeled a transitional form, sit back and light a cigar. It may come as a shock to you that science by reductionism died a century ago, hence the quantum. Science is aware and advances, it is your religion thats stuck.
A clear example of a mutation which provides a gain function is the case of nylonase.
"You are pointing out a genetic difference that predisposes one bacterium to survive while another dies..so much for common ancestor"
What are you on a about "so much for common ancestor"? Both strains have a common ancestor, if that is what you are asking. If we call the common ancestor strain "A", and the resistant strain "C", then the non-resistant strain is "B". B and C have the common ancestor A.
Lets suppose a bacteria that infected 100% of population , 100% terminal for those with 46 chromosomes (normal),. However those with 47 chromosomes (downs syndrome) are not affected. Now then, how does that scenario IN ANY WAY SUPPORT DARWINISM. Your example supports reverse evolution. The bacteria that survive the antibiotic are observed to have LOST SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION.
There is no such thing as "reverse evolution", there is only progression, whereby an organisms becomes better adapted to its environment. Your argument is absurd. You are comparing a bacteria with a inherited genetic disease. But, even if this line of argument was unflawed, if having 47 chromosomes means that you are not killed, then yes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to have 47 chromosomes regardless of the other problems this may cause.
Say the function of life is to reproduce, which is very easily-met by the compounds produced in the myriad experiments to recreate conditions for abiogenesis.
As I can no longer trust myself to speak accurately, out of a lack of experience with this area, I ask you to study the "protobiont" - a mass of organic molecules surrounded by a sort of wall, one composed of some of the fundamental materials which compose modern cell walls.
And, although I do not know, it does not mean nobody knows.
Near as i can tell a protobiont exist as a hypothetical explanation propsed in attempt to bridge the gap from non living to living........basically a proposed conjured link.
It's proposed to be a contributor, but it definitely exists.
These are not the sorts of questions to be answered by my sort, as I myself am only only a youth studying them. You surely have access to a university, so I suggest speaking to a professor of biochemistry, someone who specifically would have a ear out for the latest info generated by research of this topic.
Study, is all I can say. If a doctor of biochemistry is to do his duty properly, he will likely answer your questions, kindly.
Your protobiont seems to be the best possible solution of a precursor to a simple cell. However in order to get from a "mud-like precursor" to a funtioning living cell would require an environment that could only be extapolated or hypothisized as to the open system that existed for the transition... I dont think the feeble human mind is capable of such an experiment. We'll watch and see.
Darwin's principle, based on HIS observation using a tinker toy microscope, was that life resolved to simplicity. That a living entity could be reduced to a single cell. That cell was merely a blob of protoplasm. From that principle he built his theory. He was dead WRONG. Now then, you can add on whatever you want to his theory, but his principle remains dead wrong. "My theory" is of no consequence. You can choose to carry the cross of Darwinism. Know that you join the ranks of religion.
I don't think I've yet-seen a more hideous misinterpretation and disregard for every bit of writing even relevant in your statement.
Darwin, to my knowledge, did no real work with a microscope, anyway. The most famous of his statements come from observation of the physical similarities of animals.
Those observations have, since then, be confirmed.
And, bear in mind, what you call "Darwinism" is modern Science, and if we (eroneously) call Science a religion, then it is indeed worth joining.
Nothing is being "misinterpreted". In 1859, while this theory was being conjured, the understanding that a cell was blob of protoplasm was the extent of scientific knowledge at that time.
"understanding that a cell was blob of protoplasm was the extent of scientific knowledge at that time."
I am afraid you are wrong again, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, in 1674 (just under 200 years earlier) described several components of cells, including the nucleus and other organneles.
Firstly, cell theory was proposed by Robert Hooke in 1665 based on his observations, more than 200 years before Darwin's Beagle voyage. Secondly, Darwin's theory was based on observations of higher organisms, such as the famous finches.
You say the evolution is "dead wrong" and "full of holes" but fail to explain a single example of how it is wrong. You know that "your theory" is based on nothing but faith and feel that you must hide it from discussion.
Even if Darwin had gone to the grave believing that inside each cell could be found 24 disabled albino midget monkeys, it makes no difference to the modern facts of evolution. He could've put on his mother's best dress every Thursday at 8:42am then skipped around swearing in dutch and throwing bricks at the elderly, it doesn't matter - why creationists think that trying to discredit Darwin, or Dawkins, would mean the collapse of evolution theory, is bizarre. Now, about those 'holes'?
Darwins 19th century theory was his observation that a single cell, the basis of life, is a glob of protoplasm. Not hard to explain at all. Since then, science has learned that a single cell does not resolve into simplicity. Rather, as you go from the whole being to the tissue to the cell, life becomes much more complex, and Darwinism OFFERS NOTHING in this regard. Darwin's starting concept is IN ERROR.......Now then, what hymns do you want to include in your religious hymnal's.
Have you any factual references, rather than mere assertion, to offer in support of your assertion? Additionally, why have you indicated a possession without declaring an article of possession?
I am not confused by any of your assertions. I am simply inquiring as to whether you are able to provide any statements other than unsubstantiated claims as a means of supporting your position. As an example, are you able to reference any demonstrable facts that are congruent with the validity of your position? Are you able to explain what is meant by the phrase "religious hymnal's", even though you have declared no article of possession?
@Dimensiom You are familiar, no doubt, with the altenberg 16 and the extended evolutionary synthesis. IF these terms are new to you then your answer to hymnals lies in the question "i am unaware of the extended theory becuase...". goog mazur newman and watch the vid. For myself I consider government sponsored research, darwinism as one example, with skepticism and suspicion..
@anolmec I am familiar with the basic concepts of extended evolutionary synthesis. However, you have provided no explanation regarding how this concept relates to any statement that you have issued previously.
@anolmec What a pile of rubbish nonsense. So what is YOUR THEORY on how life came to exist? What is YOUR THEORY on all the hominids existing prior to homo sapiens (= transitional fossils)?
I'm sure you are intelligent enough to not believe that some Adam came out of sand (unorganic) and Eve out of a rib before dinosaurs came to exist, right?
So PLEASE provide an alternative theory to evolution that is equally consistent with all the findings in nature.
How do you seriously claim that the whole human body is less complex than one cell? There are approximately 10 trillion cells in the human body on average. There are ten times that many bacteria cells living within each person. That is roughly 11trillion cells. My guess is that the human body is, I don't know, 11 trillion times more complex than one cell. I'm just sayin' ;)
Darwin didn't need genetics..and he didn't even need the fossil record (there were very few fossils in his time). That's the beauty of his theory. He got it right.and the evidence has continued to pile up to prove it after his death.
That's the beauty of the Theory. By sheer observation and measurement he knew evolution to be true and put forward Natural Selection as a major driver. One of his concerns was that the age of the earth (at the time believed as being only circa 20 million years old) was insufficient to explain his theory. All that we have discovered since his death totally vindicates his theory.
Kepler had no knowledge of gravity, yet his Laws are still used today...
Darwin's theory was more basic than the current refined theories of genetic selection, but was broadly correct. It didn't matter what the reproductive agents were - he only theorised that evolution by means of natural selection came about due to organisms competing to survive and reproduce. You don't need to know genetics, just observe; mate only the biggest dogs and their offspring will get bigger down the generations.
It´s a fact that human´s brain has evolved by understanding the changes in the way humans understand the world:the natural phenomena,the planets,stars,...it´s clearly evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The ever increasing amount of faith required to believe in Darwin grows daily. Science is turning Darwin's 2000 year old theory that he borrowed (stole) from the Greeks into mere religion, and you have to be a zealot, or simple minded , to believe it.
As far as "the evidence" supporting Darwinism, the holes in the theory keep getting larger. Equating Darwinism to religion, or a belief system, is a result of the enormous amount of faith it takes in either be to be even plausible.
Just for fun, let's predict the that anolmec will 1) tell us that there are no transitional fossils, and that 2) there should be millions and millions of them. 3) Suggest that evolution has never been observed, then when pressed will 4) agree that micro-evolution happens just not macro-evolution. Also included will probably be 5) the mixing up of abiogenesis as part of evolution. But let's hope he/she surprises us with a new argument.
jUSTANOTHER.....Glad to accommodate.....How about I argue that NEO Darwinism FILLS THE NEED the LIKES OF YOU HAVE FOR RELIGION...........after all you consider Darwin views to be infallible and without question. YOU HAVE A HOLY BOOK, written by god himself, which you accept without question. You even have a modern day apostle named Dawkin. How about I argue that you sound like every other RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
ev·o·lu·tion
noun
Biology. Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, andgenetic drift.
@anolmec "you consider Darwin views to be infallible and without question."
Wrong, in point of fact everything in science, including Evolution, is encouraged to be questioned. The Theory of Evolution has been under closer scrutiny than any you could provide, and it has been so since Darwin wrote his book 150 years ago. In all that time it has not once failed a test, and yet Scientists continue to put it to the test today.
Name one religion that allows such scrutiny of its doctrine.
Good. Video. Thanks for vids.
Spasatcom 2 weeks ago
thank you for the informative post and keep up the good work!
karlasechler 2 months ago
what about the evolution of everybody who wants to think of themselves as special being called terrorists .. eugenics science out in the open lol AGENDA 21
discipleryan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. This article will also explain the scientific impossibility of life evolving into existence.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 nobody at ICR has a degree , you yourself evolved from a single cell to an animal in 9mths inside your mothers womb
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@ivylsp conservation of energy don't fuck with thermodynamics
laserindie 6 months ago
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
Free energy has been here for a while ,But the coverup is very strong,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
ivylsp 1 year ago
Anyone interested in natural selection or Darwinism should try to read some of the original books written in the 1930s & 1940s on Neo-Darwinism, the synthesis of natural selection and Mendel's genetics. Try to read anything written by R A Fisher, Julian Huxley, J B S Haldane, T. Dobzhansky, G G Simpson Sewall Wright, G L Stebbins and Ernst Mayer.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
The Crocoduck tie beat is awesome.
where is Ray Confort and Kirk Cameron.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@reallife47 Evolution doesn't work like that. Google 'evolution 101' and read through the berkley link.
Octamed 1 year ago
@Octamed read the first few pages and its just as i thought. its still just a theory, after all the scientists who have gathered all the evidence over 150 years still cant make it a scientific fact then its not worth reading the whole thing
reallife47 1 year ago
@reallife47 First 'theory' in science means 'an explanation for a set of facts', just like the theory of gravity, not like 'I've got a theory' in everyday language. Evolution is a scientific fact. The specifics of evolution such as how a particular organism is related to something else changes as new evidence is discovered. This doesn't change the whether evolution happens. eg they are STILL doing experiments on how gravity works! But we're pretty sure gravity exists ;) PLEASE keep reading.
Octamed 1 year ago
@Octamed Mathematicans have agreed 100% that evolution theory is not just a theory it is a fantasy. The likelyhood of life randomly coming together is impossible. Its what the top maths guys say.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
where did you get that from? The only Crackpot who says that is William Densky.
Maybe it is better if you post in Ray Comfort or the Discovery Institute Channel.
There you can discuss the legitimacy of Crocoducks, Bananas nightmare, and big and small dogs that fix in cars.
Leave real Science and Math to real experts with real credentials from accredited universities. not from Bible colleges like Densky
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio The real maths is from a real mathematician from Cambridge University. Sorry to upset your evolution fantasy. I don't do religion mate, so come back with something intelligent.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
Well you did not mention name so I gues I mention them for you.
Let me guess, your top of the line guys are: William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, and mean spirited David Berlinski, the three stooges of creationism Intelligence design who want to prove Creationism by teaching grade school children, and apealling to the popular believe in genesist by the public, but not by submitting papers to the academic of Science for peer reviews by other scientist and prove them wrong?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
Let us say, you do have one Long Range Silver who can prove that life does not evolve. He will have to publish his research, so that other scientist can test it and verify his finding.
It is not I, that he has to convince he has to demonstrate it to people like: Dawkins, Myers, Scott, Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer, Kenneth Miller, and the list go on, that they got it all wrong.
They will be the first to admit they are wrong, you can trust me on that.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio You just don't get it? I don't do religion or creation fantasy. Evolution theory is a fanatasy. The earth is older than 6000 years. The names you have listed mean nothing to me, who are they? Academic research papers is now another matter. I've been doing some reading on this and the standard is pretty poor compared to the geniuses of the past. Scientific papers today should not be taken too seriously. Its about bums on seats and money. Knowledge has been sacrificed.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
Well what can I said, You are the genius saying science should not be taken seriously. At the same time you also gives credo to Astrology, 6000 years old Earth is as valid as 4 billion year old.
I am going to go on a ledge here and said that, that Cambridge guy you said proved life does not evolve is you.
Else why not tell us his name so we can read his publications.
I start to wonder if you just picked Cambridge because that was where the lecture in the video was.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio I am 100% with astrology. Fred Hoyle was one of the top physicist who has done the numbers. I said the earth is older than 6000 years, therefore dismissing the creationist belief. Yes science and scientist shouldn't be taken seroiusly. There only human, they do make mistakes.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
Dude you need to underhand that there is not equivalence between
6000 year old planet and Geology science, Astrology and Astronomy,
Creation of leaving things in their present form and Evolution from primitive forms.
If you think you or you top guy can prove otherwise, then go on summit your paper to the academic of science for scrutiny. you certailly have the right to prove it.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
Dude, Fred Hoyle and his steady State theory for the origin of the Universe was wrong.
The man's became a bitter scientist who in his latest days even rejected his own Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis because he was so appalled to the idea that life could be the result of natural Chemical evolution.
The man was so bitter that he even denied the authenticity of Dinosaurs fossils.
Fred Hoyle was a scantiest, but his failures made a bitter man out of him.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio Hey dude back, the only bitter person seems to be you. Did you say steady state theory? Isn't evolution a theory? Summiting a paper? Thats all evolution is, bits of paper promoting a religion. Love astrology, also study astronomy. You seem to be obsessed with creationism. I don't do creation. I don't believe in it, think about it or buy it. If you believe in evolution then get on with it.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
I hate to keep beaten you, It is so eassy that it is not even fair, but you keep coming back for more. When you said you do not believe evolution but you do not believe in creationism the third answer is Astrology.
Now we are in Crackpot territory, because the Astrological answer, according to Carl Segan, it was Prometheus who created man and stoled fire from Zeus to give to man...
I think even the Creationist will scorn you if they find out what you believe.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
In a way I admire your courage, very few people in the world have the guts to publically admit they believe in Astrology, Intelligence Design / Creationism, and Scientology. I am surprise you aren't also calling for: Parapsychology, Witchcraft, Magic and Mythology to be also elevated to the same level of science.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
On the Fred Hoyle Steady State Theory, there is this thing.
Scientific Theories can be Falsified. and Hoyle Theory has being falsified many time in by many independent sources.
The Background Radiation, the General Theory of Relativity, The expansion of the universe, The fact that there fundamental forces of nature unified under extreme conditions, all point to the validity of the Big Bang, and at the same time dismiss Steady State universe.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
So if you want to falsify evolution all you have to do is find a fossil of a modern Animal who is several dozen millions of years old.
for example if you find a the reminds of a man that is 30 or 40 millions year old, you will completely debunk evolution. But if you keep calling Genesis, and Zeus all you will get is mocks.
JerezJulio 1 year ago 2
@the0fart0machine
On the Theory of Evolution, in simple turns the theory says that the diversity of life comes about because a serious of small variations combined with natural selection lead spices to becomes unique and stop interbreeding with their ancestors.
As time pass life become more complex because it contains the traits of the ancestor and the new traits descendants.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
After 150 years evolution is still shouting from the highest clifftop. Still a theory and not a fact. Never questioned but accepted by modern science. How did we get to this stupidity.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine You would consider it a fact that when you throw a heavy object in the air under normal conditions, it will fall back down to Earth. We still call it the THEORY of gravity. And what about germ theory?
Really, learn a bit about how things are classified in science before you make such an asinine remark.
m0ufin 1 year ago
@m0ufin It should be called Scientific Theory. I think you need correcting?
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine No, the term is theory of gravity, not scientific theory of gravity. Context would decide what sense it was meant in. Seeing as evolution is a scientific principle, the inferring is quite obvious. Unless you're a dolt.
m0ufin 1 year ago
@m0ufin How many times have you throwed your toy out of the pram? Your like a little girl.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine It's okay, I understand. When faced with facts, most illogical people do revert to gender- and age-based ad hominem.
m0ufin 1 year ago
@m0ufin Bon Voyage
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@m0ufin The theory of evolution has not been validated by the scientific method. Any comment?
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine What happened to wishing me a good journey in French?
Alas, I am not an evolutionary biologist, so you would be better advised to talk to one of those instead of a medical student. I do, however, have quite a good understanding of the current model of evolution, though I'm confused what you mean by "scientific method". If you mean THE scientific method, then I can direct you to the evidence, but you will have to comprehend it yourself. I can't do that for you.
m0ufin 1 year ago
@m0ufin Just reading more info about evolution on the website science against evolution and thought that you might be interested?
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine That site is infamous for its spreading of misinformation about evolution. Really, I'm not overly interested. If they truly had this evidence, they would submit it for peer-review and then publish itself in a scientific journal. They wouldn't be trying to convince you or me. It only bothers me if they are trying to restrict or bother science.
m0ufin 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine you are kinda stupid. there is so much evidence for evolution that you can't say that species apeared in any other way ;)
BullRadu 1 year ago
@BullRadu If you believe in evolution, that is your problem.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine well, you have to be blind not to. i mean.. it's kinda sad to see all this people that keep on saying "evolution didn't happened" when in fact they don't even know what evolution is.. and they can't imagine how much evidence there is because they don't want to look at it... scared maybe? i don't know.. but i think it;s enough for fairy tales like "god made us" ... i mean.. we're in the 21st century ffs... should be a century of reason not delusion
BullRadu 1 year ago
@BullRadu When you and your evolution mates explain, prove 100% how life began from nothing to complex cells then I might listen. Until then evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine Berkley has a great site for learning evolution. Google 'evolution 101'. It should give you a good idea about it. Remember most religious people in the world accept evolution.
Octamed 1 year ago
@Octamed Couldn't give a ship about religious people as you mention, Dawkins says evolution is random and then goes on to say natural selection is not random. Scientists change the script to suit themselves. The theory of evolution should read the scientific theory of evolution. Redefine the name science to includ evolution. A lot of scientists don't worship this evolution con.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine Did you read through the site? You are misunderstanding some fundamental concepts of evolution I think. Even if you don't believe something, you still need to fully understand it to argue against it
Octamed 1 year ago
@Octamed Evolution is bad science. It cannot explain the origin of life. Its only claim to fame is natural selection.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine It can't explain gravity either, just like it can't explain the origin of life. It doesn't deal with that. Natural selection is one of the main mechanisms of evolution. Please just read about it at the berkley site
Octamed 1 year ago
@Octamed If you believe in the evolution con then just get on with it. I've got better things to do than listen to this crap.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine Well ok, but do you understand it though? The site I suggested is very good at explaining it. It really doesn't matter if it's a con, you can still learn about it and properly learn about the concepts.
Octamed 1 year ago
Can a protein form by chance?
ReplyToDawkins 1 year ago
Good rebuttal dimension. What is even more dissappointing is that after all explanations and incorrect hypothesis Darwin at his end converted himself to christianity. Many say this was refuted by his children. However if his children truly understood his position in the matter then why is he buried in Westminster. Im sure that his children would have upheld the correct claims of there father, but how are we so sure?
jtwet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear goodness! This aggressive-religious atheism of late is as boring and lousy as any visit by the witnesses of Jehovah is! Some pseudo-scientific quack preaching no religion as religion, based on a blind belief in the vulgar perception of modern science! Claiming the objectivity of things and even the human reasons in a way no scientist or philosopher would ever do; but I wonder if this is as lousy as it seems to be, why do they do it? The girls? The rubber? The machismo?
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
A genetic book of the dead. Sounds intriguing .smells like a holy book. Contained within is the database (scripture) of information encoded in language of the giver of life (DNA). Translated by scientist (saviors) to provide guidance (dogma) that hold the wisdom (parables) of the survival story from past lives and environments (tribulations). May I suggest the title, The Preservation of Favored Races in The Struggle for life. The bridge we need is one to separate science from the state.
anolmec 1 year ago
Comment removed
anolmec 1 year ago
I love his Crocoduck tie! :-D
Mankepanke 1 year ago 26
@Mankepanke PZ Myers had one when I saw him the other week.
madhillick 1 year ago
A little dry, but it does describe the process elegantly!
TimothyRiches 1 year ago
Comment removed
anolmec 1 year ago
Random mutation. Take the sentence "random mutation makes perfect sense". As an experiment mutate it by randomly replacing or adding to the original words other letters of the alphabet. Still make sense??
anolmec 1 year ago
you obviously haven't heard anything this man has said ever. You've never read anything about evolution have you? If we were to begin by random mutation to start off, then as more and more letters go in place(passing good genes through generations), then we can move on to another letter. Even by using a computer, it probably would take forever to get that sentence exactly, but evolution isn't about churning out the perfect being. It's just mutations based on the environment that helps us survive
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
yes and newton found the gravitational equations, he didn't prove them them. He's still the genius. Einstein is the same. The only proof needed for theory is experiment, that's how physics works. SOmeone finds the theories(something experimentalists cannot do) another shows why it's so.
And no, energy is not the fourth state of matter. The bose einstein condensate is the fourth state of matter. Energy is not matter. A joule is one Newton-meter. not one kg.
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
I mentioned einstein because he found the concept that energy and light do have mass. They are not mass. Exactly what you brought up. Matter has never stopped being what it always was.
I'm a physicist, you're not as I can tell.
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"And no, energy is not the fourth state of matter. The bose einstein condensate is the fourth state of matter. Energy is not matter."
" Energy is matter and matter can be energy. "
The above words in quotes YOU typed. Is this an example of random mutation???
anolmec 1 year ago
In this way of thinking about selection so it will be always in my mind to end just reflections of something.
And that in turn say that you are wrong in background ..
It is surprising that such intelligent people can not see this. This tricky with evolutionary time is very relative (and ash whatever!)
Ah I wound testeron and likly products do they have special selections with guardian in way of speak sequence ..
(Just thinking)
StefanAxelWels 1 year ago
Digital Darwinism is yet another extension of a flawed concept. Kinda like going from a Catholic to a Baptist. The idea that the universe is based on MATTER, as far as SCIENCE, died and was buried 100 years ago. It is pretty much understood that the universe is based on ENERGY.The former supports a materialistic (matter)view based on survival of the fittest.The later supports a connected view, survival by cooperation. Look around...do you see extinction or growth?I see the 6th mass extinction.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec
Matter is a type of energy according to Einsteinian theory. Thus is we study matter, we are still studying a type of energy. Despite this, I don't see how perception of the universe as energy really emphasizes cooperation to a greater degree than viewing it as matter.
Nothing about evolutionary selection prevents cooperation. In fact, cooperation can greatly help a single gene propagate throughout a population. The fittest do survive (not necessarily the strongest or most selfish).
CookyCorvid 1 year ago 10
I am not arguing evolution, rather Darwins perception of it.The fittest must cooperate or they will NOT survive. An example would be cancer.
anolmec 1 year ago
Could you elaborate on your cancer example?
carlandj 1 year ago
Understand that changes to DNA are NOT necessarily random,rather "willed" by the cell. Demonstrated experimentally in 1988 John Cairns Origin of the Mutation.This understanding carried through Biocentric Universe Theory Robert Lanza. New biology Bruce Lipton explain current genetic understanding Epigenetic control. watch?v=4iCcnDuY6-4
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec
The fittest are not required to cooperate in order to survive. Look at the number of solitary species which do not cooperate with others.
Sometimes evolution is a brutal and competitive.
I'm afraid that I don't understand your cancer example.
CookyCorvid 1 year ago
THAT WAS A WORD ERROR IN MY WRITING. I meant to say the cells must cooperate to survive. Sorry for confusion, hopefuly it makes more sense. It seems to me that nature culls the weak, could care less about the fittest. The end result would be the same, but the focus would be different. imo
anolmec 1 year ago
also, you completely destroy all of physics with your ignorance. Energy is matter and matter can be energy. I.e. e=mc^2. Einstein never destroyed the idea of matter, infact he added to it. I'm a physicist and I've never heard any researcher say that the universe isn't based on matter.
By the way, bruce lipton is a quack.
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
It is a curiosity to me that when someone tries to claim an "ultimate authority", the bring up Einstein.Considering that the first solution to Einsteins field equations were performed by Karl Schwarzschild, why wouldn't you claim "according to Schwarzchild" instead. After all it was he, not Einstein that offered the proof. At any rate it is true that energy is the 4th state of matter. As far as Lipton, my opinion is different.
anolmec 1 year ago
We do haw same sun as frogs haw to. Perhaps wen frogs or lizards start mirror them self in the water the become to be more human...
StefanAxelWels 1 year ago
This has nothing to do with digital Darwinism.
Zulban 1 year ago
Nice Crockoduck tie. Heheheh.
Swede1066 1 year ago 2
My point, for the 3RD TIME, is that Darwinism is based on the notion that life begins as a simplistic primitive form that evolves into complexity. There is not a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NOTION. Rather the contrary. Now to argue anything else, which does not speak to THAT POINT, is irrelevant. You can name call all you want, but it will not change the fact that the basis for this theory is in error.
anolmec 1 year ago
ransomdave 1 year ago
What I said was there was not a single thread of evidence to support the notion that life begins in a simplistic primitive form and evolves into complexity. What I said was science is finding the contrary to be true. Read it and re-read it until you understand what I wrote, you know, be relevant to the topic and all that.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec
And I said, specifically what part of science contradicts evolution?
Which field? What holes?
For crying out loud, just name one single bit of evidence which is contradictory to the theory of evolution. You keep stating that are is some. Please I am all ears.
ransomdave 1 year ago
I do not think you are a sinner that neads to be saved. I think you are someone in need of a proper education, nothing more, nothing less.
hoboboxerjoe 1 year ago
Kinda like the jews in germany or the indians on the american plains?? Witches in Salem?? Do you propose perhaps a trial by ordeal followed by purification or a simple reservation?
anolmec 1 year ago
Did you actually just sugggest that I want to put you into some kind of camp? HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Wow, that is one of the oddest responses ever. You really do have no idea what a proper education is, do you? That's so sad for someone with access to the internet...
hoboboxerjoe 1 year ago
That is not at all what you claimed before, and actually, there is.
Then again, that depends on what you specficially are looking for. Are you looking for, say, the very "beginning of human life", when the sperm cell joins with the egg cell to create the single zygote? Or, perhaps, you seek the very beginning of life on Earth, the abiogenesis which produced the earliest replicating molecules, which then coalesced into primitive cells?
You can deny it all you want, it does not change reality.
ElitestPirate 1 year ago
The 2 words "primitive cells" is where the problem is.....the simplest conceivable life form is anything but primitive or simple if it is to carry out any of life functions. In other words there is no such thing as a simple primitive life form.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec
The earliest evidence of life is just under 3.5 billion years ago, with the earliest multicellular organisms emerging just over 1.5 billion years ago. Compare this with the Cambrian explosion which happened around 500 million years ago. The most primitive life-forms around today are evolutionary heavy weights, they have been competing (and evolving) against each other for billions of years. (cont.)
ransomdave 1 year ago
There is no reason to think that the very earliest forms of life would be around today, they would have either been outcompeted or forced to evolve to keep up.
However, if you want an example of extremely primitive self replicating organic molecules look no further than viruses, the they are a fraction the size of a microbe and consist of a small amount of RNA wrapped in a coat of protein. Most do nothing other than replicate.
ransomdave 1 year ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are saying is that there is no evidence of "very earliest life forms",,,,,,,which is basically the same position a religious would take.
Your take on virus is a discussion all to itself...if you define life as the ability to self replicate, then that would exclude a virus. A virus is kinda half alive and half dead at the same time.....maybe thats a perspective to consider
anolmec 1 year ago
No, I am not saying that there is no evidence for the very earliest life-forms, I am saying that in light of evolution it could not be reasonably assumed that there would still be some around today.
"A virus is kinda half alive and half dead at the same time", exactly. It is somewhere in-between what we could call "life" and inanimate, and is exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see if you proposed that life came originally came from the inanimate. Think of it as a "transitional form".
ransomdave 1 year ago
a transitional form that destroys the cell...and this supports darwinism how??
anolmec 1 year ago
We seem to be straying from the topic into the origin of life. Where the exact mechanism for origin of life is uncertain and heavily contested I freely admit, the theory of decent with modification, through mutation and natural selection is not.
In fact numerous studies into microorganisms and simple celled organisms in the lab have documented specific examples of evolution, and have even isolated the exact genes which have changed. Would you like me to provide you with some examples?
ransomdave 1 year ago
A simple celled organism? Exculding a bowl of jello, what would that be? My bet is any "simple celled organism" you present will wind up being very complex unto itself. At any rate throw it out here an we can see how simple it is.
anolmec 1 year ago
That was a typo, I meant to write "single". I have already explained that micro organisms have had billions of years to evolve and compete, they are as well (if not better) adapted to their environments as mammals etc.
Examples of evolution:
(1) Strains of bacteria such as MRSA which are resistant to antibiotics. From 1983-1990, all 92 E.coli strains tested were easily killed by the antibiotics. But from 1991 to 1993, 11 of 40 tested strains (28 percent) were resistant to all 5 drugs. (cont)
ransomdave 1 year ago
(2) One of the more famous example of bacterial evolution is the case of nylonase, a bacteria which was found inhabiting a polluted lake next to a nylon factory. It has the ability to breakdown and consume nylon, a man made product which has only been around since 1935.
(3) The ability of a lab engineered strain of E.coli (which developed after around 40,000 generation) which is able to make use of citrate, thereby giving it a distinct advantage over the original strain.
(cont)
ransomdave 1 year ago
(4) An experiment with nematodes which involved putting a single population in one area, and a food source in another with obstacles between the two, then collecting the group which successfully made it across and making them do the same again, found that with each successive generation a greater number successfully made the migration, thus supporting the premise of "survival of the fittest"
(cont)
ransomdave 1 year ago
(6) Ring speciation, where a population of organisms finds themselves on the edge of a large impassable obstacle (such as an inland sea or a desert), the population will begin to make the migration around the edge of said obstacle, both clockwise and counterclockwise.When the two groups finally meet at the other-side, they have become significantly different and in some cases are unable to interbreed. All of the changes can be observed an traced back to the original population.
Evolution = fact
ransomdave 1 year ago
what happened to that simple cell you were going to come up with??
anolmec 1 year ago
Actually read my comments...
ransomdave 1 year ago
trivia
anolmec 1 year ago
"trivia"
Nice argument... Why bother to argue rationally if you can just without thinking dismiss it entirely with a single word?
ransomdave 1 year ago
why....because you are attempting to change the subject and drag me into a different one, and a pointless one at that.
anolmec 1 year ago
Andersson, D.I., and B.R. Levin. 1999. The biological cost of antibiotic resistance. Current Opinion in Microbiology 2:489493.
Maisnier-Patin, S., O.G. Berg, L. Liljas, and D.I. Andersson. 2002. Compensatory adaptation to the deleterious effects of antibiotic resistance in Salmonella typhimurium. Molecular Microbiology 46:355366.
anolmec 1 year ago
Look, being resistant to antibiotics is such a massive advantage over being killed by antibiotics that any number of negatives this evolution requires pales into insignificance.
"Although the data available from recent laboratory studies suggest that most, but not all, resistance-determining mutations and accessory elements engender some fitness cost, these costs are likely to be rectified by subsequent evolution." - Andersson DI, Levin BR. 1999
ransomdave 1 year ago
hmmm...key word "likely".Thats NOT the point.Darwin postulated common ancestor with modification. You are pointing out a genetic difference that predisposes one bacterium to survive while another dies..so much for common ancestor. Additionally the theory requires a mutation to provide a gain in function. You are presenting an example of inititial complexity mutating to simplicity or loss of function........basically you need another argument.
anolmec 1 year ago
Well I guess we will find out in a few decades. I don't need another argument, because (1) "studies suggest that most, BUT NOT ALL, resistance-determining mutations and accessory elements engender some fitness cost". (2) I listed two other examples in which the evolutionary changes are not at all detrimental to the organisms and actually let them outcompete the original strains.
ransomdave 1 year ago
Besides the fitness cost, it is significant to point out that the resistant organisms lost entire systems, such as transport systems, that BEEN OBSERVED to never be recovered. To address your point 2, that is true only in a closed system, not the open system under discussion..
anolmec 1 year ago
It doesn't matter if the transport systems have never been recovered. The point is that regardless of any negative aspects of the mutation the new antibiotic resistant strains are able to adequately function and have a greater chance of survival over non antibiotic resistant strains. It is a clear example of evolution, through the process of mutation and natural selection.
"Only in a closed system", not that it matters either way, but Nylonase was found inhabiting lakes and streams.
ransomdave 1 year ago
I find it odd that you seem to accept that evolution can happen in a "closed system" but not in an open system. It is the very act of subjecting bacteria to a specific setting which results in the evolutionary process. Whether that new setting is a petri dish or 50 miles down stream from where the microbe initially evolved, it makes no difference. New strains and indeed new species will inevitably arise to capitalize on the new environment.
ransomdave 1 year ago
Take the red pill and get back to me, ok.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec
Enlighten me. For me to take the proverbial red pill you'll need to break your silence and tell me your theory. What's the secret that has been alluding science for the past 150 years?
I can only hope that you take at least some of what we have been discussing away with you.
ransomdave 1 year ago
You hope I take "some" of what? Darwinism is based on life evolving from simplicity evolving into complexity...you still have NOT shown an example of this simplicity. Rather, you incredibly provide an example of survival of the unfit along with a virus labeled a transitional form, sit back and light a cigar. It may come as a shock to you that science by reductionism died a century ago, hence the quantum. Science is aware and advances, it is your religion thats stuck.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec You'd know something about taking pills, that's for sure
seonf 1 year ago
Comment removed
ransomdave 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A clear example of a mutation which provides a gain function is the case of nylonase.
"You are pointing out a genetic difference that predisposes one bacterium to survive while another dies..so much for common ancestor"
What are you on a about "so much for common ancestor"? Both strains have a common ancestor, if that is what you are asking. If we call the common ancestor strain "A", and the resistant strain "C", then the non-resistant strain is "B". B and C have the common ancestor A.
ransomdave 1 year ago
@anolmec
It's called antagonistic pleiotopy. Look it up.
CookyCorvid 1 year ago
here's another word.......context
anolmec 1 year ago
Lets suppose a bacteria that infected 100% of population , 100% terminal for those with 46 chromosomes (normal),. However those with 47 chromosomes (downs syndrome) are not affected. Now then, how does that scenario IN ANY WAY SUPPORT DARWINISM. Your example supports reverse evolution. The bacteria that survive the antibiotic are observed to have LOST SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION.
anolmec 1 year ago
There is no such thing as "reverse evolution", there is only progression, whereby an organisms becomes better adapted to its environment. Your argument is absurd. You are comparing a bacteria with a inherited genetic disease. But, even if this line of argument was unflawed, if having 47 chromosomes means that you are not killed, then yes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to have 47 chromosomes regardless of the other problems this may cause.
ransomdave 1 year ago
@anolmec
"if you define life as the ability to self replicate"
This definition of life would also exclude any sterile hybrid from being considered alive.
CookyCorvid 1 year ago
good point cookycorvid... mules would be undead horsedonkeys....
liquidminds 1 year ago
addition: not to forget that sterilization-facilities would have to be charged with murder, for taking people their aliveness...
liquidminds 1 year ago
Say the function of life is to reproduce, which is very easily-met by the compounds produced in the myriad experiments to recreate conditions for abiogenesis.
As I can no longer trust myself to speak accurately, out of a lack of experience with this area, I ask you to study the "protobiont" - a mass of organic molecules surrounded by a sort of wall, one composed of some of the fundamental materials which compose modern cell walls.
And, although I do not know, it does not mean nobody knows.
ElitestPirate 1 year ago
Near as i can tell a protobiont exist as a hypothetical explanation propsed in attempt to bridge the gap from non living to living........basically a proposed conjured link.
anolmec 1 year ago
It's proposed to be a contributor, but it definitely exists.
These are not the sorts of questions to be answered by my sort, as I myself am only only a youth studying them. You surely have access to a university, so I suggest speaking to a professor of biochemistry, someone who specifically would have a ear out for the latest info generated by research of this topic.
Study, is all I can say. If a doctor of biochemistry is to do his duty properly, he will likely answer your questions, kindly.
ElitestPirate 1 year ago
Your protobiont seems to be the best possible solution of a precursor to a simple cell. However in order to get from a "mud-like precursor" to a funtioning living cell would require an environment that could only be extapolated or hypothisized as to the open system that existed for the transition... I dont think the feeble human mind is capable of such an experiment. We'll watch and see.
anolmec 1 year ago
so what explanation do you propose?
brownbigb 1 year ago
Darwin's principle, based on HIS observation using a tinker toy microscope, was that life resolved to simplicity. That a living entity could be reduced to a single cell. That cell was merely a blob of protoplasm. From that principle he built his theory. He was dead WRONG. Now then, you can add on whatever you want to his theory, but his principle remains dead wrong. "My theory" is of no consequence. You can choose to carry the cross of Darwinism. Know that you join the ranks of religion.
anolmec 1 year ago
I don't think I've yet-seen a more hideous misinterpretation and disregard for every bit of writing even relevant in your statement.
Darwin, to my knowledge, did no real work with a microscope, anyway. The most famous of his statements come from observation of the physical similarities of animals.
Those observations have, since then, be confirmed.
And, bear in mind, what you call "Darwinism" is modern Science, and if we (eroneously) call Science a religion, then it is indeed worth joining.
ElitestPirate 1 year ago 3
Nothing is being "misinterpreted". In 1859, while this theory was being conjured, the understanding that a cell was blob of protoplasm was the extent of scientific knowledge at that time.
anolmec 1 year ago
"understanding that a cell was blob of protoplasm was the extent of scientific knowledge at that time."
I am afraid you are wrong again, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, in 1674 (just under 200 years earlier) described several components of cells, including the nucleus and other organneles.
ransomdave 1 year ago
maybe Darwin should have considered the Dutchmans work.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec
You still haven't named a single "hole"... this is becoming a joke.
ransomdave 1 year ago
Again, even if that were true, which it most definitely is not, it has nothing at all to do with Charles Darwin's observations.
You either do not understand this, or you refuse to.
ElitestPirate 1 year ago
Firstly, cell theory was proposed by Robert Hooke in 1665 based on his observations, more than 200 years before Darwin's Beagle voyage. Secondly, Darwin's theory was based on observations of higher organisms, such as the famous finches.
You say the evolution is "dead wrong" and "full of holes" but fail to explain a single example of how it is wrong. You know that "your theory" is based on nothing but faith and feel that you must hide it from discussion.
ransomdave 1 year ago
@anolmec
Even if Darwin had gone to the grave believing that inside each cell could be found 24 disabled albino midget monkeys, it makes no difference to the modern facts of evolution. He could've put on his mother's best dress every Thursday at 8:42am then skipped around swearing in dutch and throwing bricks at the elderly, it doesn't matter - why creationists think that trying to discredit Darwin, or Dawkins, would mean the collapse of evolution theory, is bizarre. Now, about those 'holes'?
JustAnotherPassenger 1 year ago 2
Darwins 19th century theory was his observation that a single cell, the basis of life, is a glob of protoplasm. Not hard to explain at all. Since then, science has learned that a single cell does not resolve into simplicity. Rather, as you go from the whole being to the tissue to the cell, life becomes much more complex, and Darwinism OFFERS NOTHING in this regard. Darwin's starting concept is IN ERROR.......Now then, what hymns do you want to include in your religious hymnal's.
anolmec 1 year ago
Have you any factual references, rather than mere assertion, to offer in support of your assertion? Additionally, why have you indicated a possession without declaring an article of possession?
Dimensiom 1 year ago
Which "mere assertion" is confusing you, and what in your mind qualifies as a "factual reference". To answer your 3rd question, no comment.
anolmec 1 year ago
I am not confused by any of your assertions. I am simply inquiring as to whether you are able to provide any statements other than unsubstantiated claims as a means of supporting your position. As an example, are you able to reference any demonstrable facts that are congruent with the validity of your position? Are you able to explain what is meant by the phrase "religious hymnal's", even though you have declared no article of possession?
Dimensiom 1 year ago
@Dimensiom You are familiar, no doubt, with the altenberg 16 and the extended evolutionary synthesis. IF these terms are new to you then your answer to hymnals lies in the question "i am unaware of the extended theory becuase...". goog mazur newman and watch the vid. For myself I consider government sponsored research, darwinism as one example, with skepticism and suspicion..
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec I am familiar with the basic concepts of extended evolutionary synthesis. However, you have provided no explanation regarding how this concept relates to any statement that you have issued previously.
Dimensiom 1 year ago
@anolmec Idiot.
Hoosiersboy12345 1 year ago
@anolmec What a pile of rubbish nonsense. So what is YOUR THEORY on how life came to exist? What is YOUR THEORY on all the hominids existing prior to homo sapiens (= transitional fossils)?
I'm sure you are intelligent enough to not believe that some Adam came out of sand (unorganic) and Eve out of a rib before dinosaurs came to exist, right?
So PLEASE provide an alternative theory to evolution that is equally consistent with all the findings in nature.
You have NOTHING, right?
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago 2
How do you seriously claim that the whole human body is less complex than one cell? There are approximately 10 trillion cells in the human body on average. There are ten times that many bacteria cells living within each person. That is roughly 11trillion cells. My guess is that the human body is, I don't know, 11 trillion times more complex than one cell. I'm just sayin' ;)
carlandj 1 year ago
That is one of the most ridiculous explanations I've ever heard of evolution. Wow, anolmec, you really, really, need to re-check your shit.
hoboboxerjoe 1 year ago
Nice tie.
GordonWolters 1 year ago
Why did people ever buy into Darwins theory. Im not saying its wrong. Its just that he had no knowledge of Genetics.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter
Darwin didn't need genetics..and he didn't even need the fossil record (there were very few fossils in his time). That's the beauty of his theory. He got it right.and the evidence has continued to pile up to prove it after his death.
bdwilson1000 1 year ago 3
@Houshalter
That's the beauty of the Theory. By sheer observation and measurement he knew evolution to be true and put forward Natural Selection as a major driver. One of his concerns was that the age of the earth (at the time believed as being only circa 20 million years old) was insufficient to explain his theory. All that we have discovered since his death totally vindicates his theory.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago 3
@Houshalter
Because the evidence supports it, and it seems to describe reality extraordinary well.
thisisnotanick 1 year ago
Kepler had no knowledge of gravity, yet his Laws are still used today...
Darwin's theory was more basic than the current refined theories of genetic selection, but was broadly correct. It didn't matter what the reproductive agents were - he only theorised that evolution by means of natural selection came about due to organisms competing to survive and reproduce. You don't need to know genetics, just observe; mate only the biggest dogs and their offspring will get bigger down the generations.
Teloculos 1 year ago
What about Lamarckian evolution? I thought it was the accepted theory of the time.
Houshalter 1 year ago
It came earlier, but it was discredited well before Origin.
raverant2007 1 year ago
It´s a fact that human´s brain has evolved by understanding the changes in the way humans understand the world:the natural phenomena,the planets,stars,...it´s clearly evolution.
MITHWORLD1 1 year ago
All this and a crockaduck tie too! Who could ask for more? 5 stars
39Hool 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The ever increasing amount of faith required to believe in Darwin grows daily. Science is turning Darwin's 2000 year old theory that he borrowed (stole) from the Greeks into mere religion, and you have to be a zealot, or simple minded , to believe it.
anolmec 1 year ago
rofl
Superminyme 1 year ago
@anolmec
Exactly, Evolution is an old greek teaching, reborn into darwinism since the 1900's.
sn00pking 1 year ago
Actually, the only thing increasing is evidence supporting the theory.
In fact, the Theory of Evolution does not even come close to being a religion.
Religion deals with "beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", and is not backed up by any evidence.
Evolution deals with the origin of species, and is backed up by evidence.
How are the two even remotely similar? Please explain.
thisisnotanick 1 year ago 2
As far as "the evidence" supporting Darwinism, the holes in the theory keep getting larger. Equating Darwinism to religion, or a belief system, is a result of the enormous amount of faith it takes in either be to be even plausible.
anolmec 1 year ago
Please explain.
What holes exactly are you talking about, and how are they getting bigger?
thisisnotanick 1 year ago
@thisisnotanick
"What holes exactly are you talking about"
Just for fun, let's predict the that anolmec will 1) tell us that there are no transitional fossils, and that 2) there should be millions and millions of them. 3) Suggest that evolution has never been observed, then when pressed will 4) agree that micro-evolution happens just not macro-evolution. Also included will probably be 5) the mixing up of abiogenesis as part of evolution. But let's hope he/she surprises us with a new argument.
JustAnotherPassenger 1 year ago 2
@JustAnotherPassenger
Im not sure I agree predictions are fun :)
thisisnotanick 1 year ago
Take note, everyone. Observe this example of win.
enigmas00 1 year ago
jUSTANOTHER.....Glad to accommodate.....How about I argue that NEO Darwinism FILLS THE NEED the LIKES OF YOU HAVE FOR RELIGION...........after all you consider Darwin views to be infallible and without question. YOU HAVE A HOLY BOOK, written by god himself, which you accept without question. You even have a modern day apostle named Dawkin. How about I argue that you sound like every other RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED.
anolmec 1 year ago
re·li·gion
noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
ev·o·lu·tion
noun
Biology. Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, andgenetic drift.
ransomdave 1 year ago
@anolmec "you consider Darwin views to be infallible and without question."
Wrong, in point of fact everything in science, including Evolution, is encouraged to be questioned. The Theory of Evolution has been under closer scrutiny than any you could provide, and it has been so since Darwin wrote his book 150 years ago. In all that time it has not once failed a test, and yet Scientists continue to put it to the test today.
Name one religion that allows such scrutiny of its doctrine.
chaossource 1 year ago 4
So you are saying "your belief" has been "scientifically prove