I love you big brother! I can always count on you to tell the truth... And I owe you a great deal! I dislike Neph very much, I just declared so on my latest video, and have decided to take him on directly to show atheists that I am not biased. That extremism of any sort, is dangerous.. and he is a perfect example!
Does anyone else find it interesting that Nephy calls these scientists who accept evolution liars..then turns around and cherry picks & misuses a SCIENTIFIC paper to support his position. I mean are they liars or not Neph?
About 2 months ago Nephy posted (and then took down) a "poor me" video. In it he said he had been unemployed for 3 years and had been completely livinvg off the Social Security benefits of some woman. The woman was moving out of his home and he was going to be homeless. This guy is a complete mooch. He has admitted this in the comments section of LIttleTrucking Bozo's video "Nephilimfree a message to you"
What is involved in sequencing/mapping the entire genome in this case? Is it an overtly costly exercise?Surely the research team knows of the storm over this mafia lizard,mapping the damn gene would resolve it. We know they extracted total genomic dna,is it a big step to go on and test it?
Oh I forgot. The endochrine system. Yes, these couple of mutations would have to create the cecal valve with all of it;'s supremely complex parts and integrate them somehow not only with the nervous system and digestive system, but also the endochrine system.
It's sheer insanity to believe such a thing. Totally nuts. Bonkers. Stupidity. Insanity, absurdity.
Nephy...have you found a job yet. For those of you who don't know.. About 2 months ago Nepyh posted a "poor me" video in which he revealed that he had been unempoyed for 3 years and had been livng of some woman's social security benefits. The woman was moving out and Nephy was going to be homeless. Nephy took the video down quickly...but Nephy admits all this in comments to Little Trucking Bozo's "A Message to Nephilimfree" video.
Nephy,...stop mooching off other people and get a job.
If I'm misrepresenting the argument, and those aren't the only two pieces of evidence that would prove your point, please tell me, and present it.
So far all I can see is that the mitochondrial DNA is identical, but no evidence beyond that that the Chromosomal DNA (Which codes for the mtDNA) is identical.
If there is another option for this piece of evidence, please present it. I'm honestly curious. You know me Neph. I'm not an atheist.
If mutation could do this, evolution would be taking place at such a pace that humans would have arisen in less than 100,000 yrs after abiogenesis produced the first cell!
Evolution doesn't work in a steady curve like that.
If you want to put it on a curve then you would see that it has its valleys and peaks. Evolution simply works from the environmental pressure. So if there isn't that big a pressure evolution works really slowly. However if suddenly some new things arise (i.e. an eye) then evolution would seem to go really fast. We can see this in the cambrian explosion.
How does the cambrian explosion discredit evolution?
Last time I checked the cambrian explosion was just a speciation period lasting around 6 million years. And it was triggered by the very first light-sensitive patch that later developed into the eye we know today.
@NephilimFree Nephy...you are clearly suffering from what is called the dunning kruger effect. You are uneducated, yet seem to think you know more about science than every career scientist in the world. You are a joke.
Ps...get a job and stop mooching off the benefits of your "friend". Honestly, she pays for your rent, food, clothing, utilities, internet access. You are a truly pathetic little man who must guard his YouTube channel 24/7 and has NOTHING else in his life.
@NephilimFree "The Cambrian Explosion discredits evolution."
Wrong. The Cambrian explosion is a great example of explosive (pun intended) radiation due to rapid changes in biotic and abiotic factors such as increases in dissolved oxygen in the seas, evolutionary arms races between predators and prey, and so on. The Cambrian also shows a variety of transitions in several lineages such as the first trilobites, chordates, and anomalocarids. This is also another example of evidence against creation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What you've encountered here is a fine example of evolutionist hegmony however. The researchers state the cecal valve is a product of evolution, yet provide the genetic evidence that refutes their own claim!
In 38 years a couple of mutations create cecal valves and all of their components and integrate them with the nervous and digestive system? YOU GOTTA BE INSANE TO BELIEVE THAT.
They used the mitochondrial DNA to determine if the two populations were related. And they were. The mitochondrial DNA was basically identical from one population two the other.
However it is not the mitochondrial DNA that would code for the Cecal-valves. That would be the entire Chromosomal DNA. And could you please provide us with the paper that says the Biologists has completely sequenced the entire chromosomal DNA and determined that they were identical?
Poor old Nepy thinks morphology cannot change. By the power of YokeUps intellect does he really think selective breeding will never show morphological changes? Sausage Dogs, Nephy?
Without the information in the genome however, it will never appear. Genes defien features Dan. We've know this for quite some time now, ya know. Your statement sounded a bit like magic. Then you go off with your typical evolutionist - "Tiny changes cause morphological changes over time!" stuff. HUH? Magic? Features without genes? Psesudoscience. AGAIN? More of that evolutionist "It happens because it did!" stuff? More magic over time? Puleeeze Dan. Please!
In the first part, you claimed that changing the DNA in the genes couldn't change the features those genes produce, now you say that the genes define the features. Which is it?
Everyone who's ever studied DNA will, I'm sure, be astonished to learn that DNA is immaterial. I've isolated the stuff in the lab, and it certainly seemed to have substance.
How can changing the controls for morphogenesis NOT change morphogenesis?
I'm quite familiar with your braying about how some magic 'backup copy' is used to replace the 'damaged' DNA. You've never provided any reference for the existence of this 'backup copy' or the replacement mechanism.
Information is immaterial. DNA is not. DNA is material representation of information in the same way the printed words in a nook physically represent the information the author presents.
DNA is information. Information is immaterial. Nature cannot generate information.
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical provess or material phenomenon known that can do this."
- Gitt, Wrerner, director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, Head of the Department of Information Technology.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
DNA Error Correction is why HOX genes don't change (permanently in a species, not an individual) because of mutation. It's also why birth defects aren't permanently passed on in humans.
DNA backup of genes: Google these
DNA Backup Surprises Scientists
DNA backup: inheriting from grandparents
There are many, many more sources. I found these in 1 minute. Something you are unwilling to do, yet you are willing to call a creationist a liar for telling you scientific facts.
If it's so easy to find the references, why have you proven to be unable to provide any?
Oh, and, if you'd read the first item the comes up for either of your search terms, you'd know that this phenomena is seen in a small number of plant species, and doesn't involve any kind of 'backup copy' of the DNA. The information appears to be coming from RNA.
The fact you clearly didn't read what you claim is your source isn't surprising.
The actual DNA error correction mechanism cannot use a DNA backup copy because there isn't one. Even if there was, there could be no way for it to know which of the two was correct, because either one could mutate, and no such mechanism could determine which was the functional copy.
In any case, the REAL mechanism is the very limited proof reading mechanism, which detects most, but not all, base pair mismatches in replication and corrects them. 3 per human gemone replication are missed.
Even the proof reading mechanism cannot do anything at all about mutations that occur to the DNA strands in between replications. There are mechanisms that look for some types of mutational changes, but if all that's happened is one base has been converted into another one, there's no way for many of these changes to be detected, and all that can be done it to either ignore it or randomly change one of the mismatched bases to the one that matches the other. That gives 50/50 odds of reversion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
DNA Error Correction protects HOX genes without exception. Organisms revert to Wild Type within 1 to several generations depending upon the mutation and species, without fail. Mutation is not a mechanism for evolutionary change. 70 yrs of experimentation with mutations have verified with perfectly consistent results that mutations simply cannot cause morphological change to species.
hat's just how it is. That's science, and it defeats the old evo claim that muations cause evolution.
Sop you admit that you cannot find any references that supports your braying that there is some magic mechanism that undoes the observed changes to HOX genes or any other genes in organisms.
Since there is nothing that search turns up the supports your braying that there is some magical DNA backup and restoration mechanism in all life forms that prevents mutations from accumulating, anything from you other than a posting of an actual reference is and admission that there isn't any.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh. I see. Typical. it doesn't exist because that information refutes you? Yea, that's common of evolutionists. Well pal, here are a few of the many that describe exactly what you close your eyes to.
A Backup Role of DNA Polymerase in Ig Gene Hypermutation Only Takes Place in the Complete Absence of DNA Polymerase
Repair of radiation induced DNA double strand breaks by backup NHEJ is enhanced in G2
You mean, NHEJ somehow uses some completely different DNA strand (that nobody studying NHEJ know about) to guide the reconnection of broken strands? Why don't you publish that, then?
The first sentence (quoted out of a paper that I was able to find, but apparently you weren't, despite claiming to have read it) is one you consider to be false because it contradicts your claim BECAUSE THERE'S NO REVERSION TO WILD TYPE IN THE TEST SUBJECTS.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Denialism is stupidity pal. The papers stae DNA backup of genes are used to rplace mutated ones.
You're the weakest sort. I have better things to do than deal with people who would deny their hands exist if they needed to for their religion. Good luck breaking the brainwash job. CYA.
The paper you wouldn't cite, but only quoted a random sentence from, doesn't say that, as you would be aware had you found it. What you have are a couple of papers about a rare genetic condition caused by a MUTATION in the gene for one of the DNA repair enzymes THAT DOES NOT REVERT TO WILD TYPE, and paper about how broken DNA strands are spliced back together AND HOW THE PROCESS OFTEN DELETES SOME OF THE DNA.
As you would know if you had actually read anything on back mutations, what ACTUALLY happens is some mutation occurs that reverses the EFFECT of the original mutation, restoring the original phenotype.
For instance, the famous mice in Arizona, which exist as the original, sandy-colored mice that live in sandy places, and the dark-colored ones that live in recent, dark-colored lava flows, which can have a back-mutation in many different places that produces sandy-colored offspring.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No mutation is observed. The term "back mutation" is hegemonic evenso, as we know the processes of DNA Error Correction occur, so calling it mutation is just another attempt of evolutionists to redefine established scientific terms to suite their assumptions.
The color of mice is not morphological. it is not evidence of evolutionary change.
Man comes in different colors too, but not 1 human has any morphological feature any other does not. Morphgolgy does not change.
We provide reams of scientific evidence and you poo poo it. Then somehow you expect us to run with your explanation that goes like this; God dun it! F**k me man at least we make an effort!
Ha ha, do you think your opinion counts? Like a 900yr old man made a wooden boat capable of supporting millions of animal species from Ant to Zebra? Youve got no qualifications in Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Chemistry etc so guess what mate, your opinion is moot. Nephys rants v PhDs with their lifetime of research and peer reviewed evidence gathered using the scientific method. Now let me thinklol!
@BiodegradeableMan You expect anyone to believe your opinon counts but those of others don't. That's interestring.
Evolutionists depend on assumptions and imagination and abandon science and the Scientific Method because they must to put forth their religion of materialism and humanism. I find it so sad that some evo goon with PhD would to that and have the gaul to cal himself a scientist.
You want ppl to accept your phantasmorgaorical hypothesis over the informed opinions of highly educated academically proven specialists.
Then you admit when it boils down to it you WILL take their expertise over a self proclaimed expert every time!
You are that self proclaimed 'expert' Nephy and without any acedemic qualifications you always will be, simple logic. Sugar I forgot you don't do logic its a God went poof system for you, lol!
Make up your pretended mind: Is there no mutation, or DNA error correction? You cannot have correction of errors that don't happen.
You really have to learn how to read, Nephy. Not only will it help to prevent you making elementary mistakes with dictionaries, it will help eliminate the elementary mistakes you make reading your Bible.
Stating that you are completely unable to physically distinguish between other humans in any way only further demonstrates that you are insane.
Stupid Nephy, you never provided any references to anything. You provided randomly sentences from popular news sites, from articles that report about papers that don't say what you demand them to say.
Well it's funny that if we use your definition on morphology then there is NO morphological difference between a Human or a Dog, or a Bat and a Rhinoceros, or a Mouse and an Elephant.
So wouldn't you agree if a differently shaped bone or a more dense bone would be a morphological change?
Nephy are you conversant with organic selection or phenotypic plasticity (The ability of an organism to change within its lifetime)? Without this process an organisms genotype would be fixed and no evolution could happen. However I must concede that your inability for change presents us with an interesting conundrum.
Gracious me Sir do you really think your ancestor had a pet Sausage Dog and swam with Icthyosaurs? Have you ever considered telling racehorse breeders they are wasting their time, lol!
Dan, you said eating these plants may have some morphological effect. Well ofcourse! It insitiated a response that causd the animal to express the gene that created the cecal valves!
Dan, I just want to know one thing. Are you going to contact the scientists and tell them that thier statement that these populations are genetically identical is erroneous?
If you can't provide evidence that thir statement is incorrect, you have only complaints turned into conjecture. That's all I'm hearing. "I don't like it! It can't be true!" Show us the new gene, show us the DNAS sequencing is erroneous, something for crying out loud! SOMETHING! What ya got besides "I dissagree!"?
In comments on his vid someone asked for evidence that the entire dna had been sequenced. He responded by quoting a small portion of the original paper, stopping *just before* the sentence which indicated only fragments were analyzed.
I tried to point that out twice in comments, but somehow they were never approved. He's not just deluded, he's yet another "liar for God".
I agree with you -- him complaining about "ignorance vs investigation" is the height of hypocracy.
I really interested in the true source of this "blindness". Is Neph actually aware of it? Did he sub-consciously miss the last part?
The reason I want to know is to assess my own pre-suppositions. Do I unconsciously block the truth? I certainly do my level best to be consciously truthful.
I have trouble believing it's subconscious. I don't think he's actually dumb, or incapable of understanding the point that only fragments of the dna was analyzed.
I suspect he's convinced of his ultimate God conclusion, and his calculus drives him to suppress facts in order to convince others that he's right.
He's not seeking truth - he *knows* it and is trying to convince, throught whatever means necessary.
I admire your attempts to see beyond your own biases, and hope to do the same.
I've always imagined a similar picture of the scientists reaching the top of the mountain, only to find the philosophers. Zoom out a bit to see philosophers on top of all the mountain peaks.
And the only way to know which philosophers had it right was because the scientists found the same peak.
By the way, you first called it "mount improbable" in your vid. If you haven't seen Dawkins' "Growing up in the Universe" series, search YouTube for "dawkins mount improbable" (one of the episodes).
It's a bit dated, and aimed at kids, but the notion expressed there as evolution climbing "mount improbable" is a pretty good layman's explanation of evolution and how it achieves local maxima rather than perfection.
Danmill23, do you know if they have compared the DNA of the two, besides the mitochondrial DNA? If so we could settle this once and for all. Unfortunately from what I'm aware of mitochondrial DNA wouldn't show whether the parent population and offspring shared the genes for making cecal valves. Although, since it is known that a certain fraction of the lizards do have cecal valves, it's very possible that the lizards did have the genes for them but didn't need them until their diet changed.
First of all to the best of my research and understanding the DNA has not been sequenced or decoded in any way at all.
I don't full understand mitochondrial DNA if you have a better understanding than me I'd love to hear more.
As for the cecal valves being present in the original P.sicula genome the question is ...
Why and how did the cecal valves come to be expressed in the, assumable random selection of the P.sicula sent to seed the small island? (and why not in the parent pop)
If as the creationist says these genes are in the original genome, is it possible to "breed" up some cecal valves in any lizard species in <30 yrs.
If you think about this ...
All lizards are the same "kind" so according to this logic you should be able to selectively breed iguanas and after maybe 30 generations turn them into fully complete Italian wall lizards.
I'm not sure about how many lizards Noah brought on the arc, but remember it's all about morphology, as far as I'm aware, they all have the same morphology. All dogs have the same morphology, different sizes, but the same structures none the less.
It's my understanding that dogs are especially easy for breeders to manipulate since they have a high amount of small repeated sequences in their genes which are very susceptible to mutations.
That's why we have such a wide variety of different breeds in dogs as opposed to other animals like cats.
Actually, ALL mammals are pretty much equally susceptible to the kind of morphological adjustment that humans have implemented on dogs, and for the same reason: The mammalian system puts the size and shape of pretty much all bones and muscles under separate genetic control. This can produce some unfortunate creatures with problems like mismatching upper and lower jaws, but the Habsburg were a rare case.
Adaptations do not cause change to morphology. They do not introduce new morphological structures or transform extant features into ones with new biomechanical function.
Adaptation has severe limitations, and this is evidence that life cannot breech the family barrier to becoem a new kind of life.
Science has proven it impossible with 70 yrs of mutation experimentation. The evos ran their game. The world is rejecting evolutionism more now than 20 yrs ago, and this trend continues.
Stupid Nephy, you can't support a claim that something doesn't happen by admitting that it does.
You also cannot support a claim that something doesn't happen by claiming that you've managed to cause more people to have brain damage than 20 years ago.
Incidentally, do you have any citations for your claim that more people are rejecting reality now than 20 years ago, or is that just another one of your demands based on personal preference?
Except for the fact that Donexodus2 asked you to provide evidence that the gene's for Cecal Valves had been sequenced in both the parent and daughter populations, and your sad attempt to refute him was done in the last minute of a 5 part series, in which you presented a quote, with no reference, which didn't prove your point anyway.
In fact, the quote you gave proved the opposite.
The best part is that you already admitted this would qualify, yet are incapable of admitting you were wrong.
I did provide the very reference you speak of in my videos. pay better attention.
New morphological structures would require genes. The DNA of the parent and child populations are indistinguishable. There are no new genes in the child population's DNA. The information was lready present. This happens commonly. It is called Gene Expression.
The subject is dead and I'm no longer interested in discussing it.
No, you changed the word from "Identical" to "indistinguishable", and also failed to notice that the DNA used was mitochondrial DNA which does not encode for that part.
If it were whole genome DNA, you would have had a point.
The subject isn't dead. You simply sequester yourself from information which shows you to be wrong. I've personally had convos with you where you did this with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the # of stars in the sky.
The reference you provided did not mean what you said it did. You DIDN"T provide a reference to the paper in your description OR video, and only when a supporter asked you to show it, did you provide a reference in the comments section.
Considering that this was the most damning piece of evidence against you, its extremely suspicious that you waited until the very last minute of a 5 part series to address it.
You know you're being dishonest which is why you refuse to discuss it.
One article in a science mag online states the DNA is IDNETICAL. Evenso, indistinguishable means they were not able to detect a difference. Don't play games with what they said. it only reveals you are dishonest and unworthy of someone's time.
They sequenced the total genomic DNA and mtDNA. BOTH.
Tell the scientists who did the research that thier claim that the parent and child population DNA is not indistinguishable then. See what they tell you. Take it up with them, not me.
Neph, Are you capable of reading what I wrote about it 3 times?
The mtDNA is "Indistinguishable". The Chromosomal DNA is not.
OR it very well COULD BE Nephi, but the point is that you have no room to make the claim that the parent population had cecal valve genes, when the DNA you're citing as evidence for similarity is not the DNA that would code for cecal valves.
Oh come on, don't cop out on me and try to deflect to someone else. YOU were wrong. Be a man and admit you jumped the gun.
Nephilim, I'm not trying to pick a fight with the scientists.
I'm trying to get you to show me the paper, or article which shows that the TOTAL CHROMOSOMAL DNA is identical in both populations, NOT JUST THE mtDNA.
Show me that these lizards have more than just identical mitochondria! Show me that they have identical cecal valve genes! Show me the sequenced chromosomal DNA, or if you can't find it, just admit that you misunderstood, and were eager for yours to be the correct answer.
"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc ˇaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population "
"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc ˇaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population"
Email them and tell these secular scientists they are wrong if you know better than them.
Around 10 guys have INDEPENTANTLY pointed out you error. All you have is you INCORRECT, DESPERATE and IMAGINARY claim of what "indistinguishable" means.
Neph I even showed you how to get out of this with your honor entacted.
I'll state it quickly again.
WE DON"T ACUALLY KNOW IF THE CECAL VALVES WE'RE IN THE PARENT POPULATION BECAUSE GENOME ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE.
But, No you are so stupid, so blind, so shamless, so beligrant, so FUCKEN SADLY DESPERATE that you are willing to sacrifice you honest and honor on a claim you cannot back up.
E-MAIL THEM YOUR SELF NEPH.
Then show us the question you asked and the answer they gave.
E-MAIL THEM YOUR SELF NEPH. BUT YOU WON'T. YOU BIG FAT PETTY COAT WEARING SUSAN. YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU ARE WEAK. YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE DANGER TO YOUR FOOLISH PRIDE. YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU ARE A CREATIONIST. YOU WON'T COS YOU DUG A BIG HOLE AND EVEN RISKING A CHANCE OF YOU BEING FOUND WRONG IS MORE THAN YOU CAN TAKE. YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU BELIEFS AS BASED ON NOTHING BUT PRIDE. YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD. YOU WON'T Impress me Neph.
Dan, who gives a fat stinky poop if you don't like the information presented by the researchers. They state their study of the DNA indicates there is no difference between the populations genetically. Thier method is the accepted one and nobody in academia is attempting to refute their conclusions.
If YOU have issue with the genetic indistinguishability of these populations then YOU need to prove them wrong.
Neph, at least have the common decency to address the points I made of you. You're misrepresenting the evidence, and I've laid out a clear and undeniable case about it.
And apparently I'm not the first.
All I've asked you to do is present 1) Evidence that the entire chromosomal sequence was shown to be identical, or 2) Evidence that the 20% of mtDNA that does NOT code for Mitochondrial proteins somehow codes for the formation of cecal valves.
This is in the neighborhood of 3400 bases of 17,000.
You do realize that when I ask you to present THOSE pieces of evidence that I'm doing your work for you?
I've already thought through the only two examples which would still give you some room to argue about this issue. All you have to do is find evidence for one of those 2, and then you have another point to argue from.
If the regulation of an intestinal tract is stored in less than 3400 base pairs of mtDNA or If all Chromosomes were sequenced and exactly the same, you have an argument.
NEPHI! Read what I wrote in response to that point AGAIN!
Mitochondrial DNA!
Do you know what a mitochondria is? Its a cellular organ which converts food to energy. Basically the stomach of a cell.
This is not the nucleus, which contains the chromosomes which are the recipe (the term you like to use) of everything in that organism.
To use the recipe analogy, you're trying to tell me that my Grand Slam breakfast is identical to your shepards pie because their mashed potatoes are identical.
"To corroborate morphological identifications, a subset of specimens from both islands (Pod Kopis ˇte, n 8; Pod Mrcˇaru, n 7) and a set of reference specimens of P.melisellensis from Lastovo Island (n 7) were subjected to DNA sequence analysis. Total genomic DNA was extracted by using theQIAamp DNAMini Kit "
Neph, this wasn't the quote you put on your video and you know it.
What Donexodus and I want is a specific reference which says that the Chromosomal DNA is identical in both populations. mtDNA does NOT code for cecal valves, therefor it being identical is like saying that you and I have identical thumbs.
If the ENTIRE GENOME was the same, you would have had a point. We want the evidence which says that the ENTIRE GENOME is indistinguishable.
Your problem is with the fact that the scientistrs have determined their DNA to be indistinguishable, not with me, as I am not the one who performed the research.
No, my problem is that you can't tell the difference between the DNA in a symbiotic organelle inside the cell, and the nucleic chromosomal DNA which codes for everything.
Mitochondrial DNA does not code for organs or structure.
Aww come on, ya pussy. Real men respond to legitimate points raised. If you're not going to respond to a legitimate point, then you're a coward, and an extremely poor debater.
Tell me 1) Where the comparison between the chromosomal DNA (NOT the mtDNA) showed them to be genetically identical, OR 2) Where in any kind of genetics it declares that mtDNA codes for organ growth.
@jxvwp They used the same methods to determine that the parent anc child populations are genetically identical that crime labs use to determine 99% matches for individuals. They even say themselves are genetically indistinguishable! Your problem is that you refuse to accept what the researchers themselves have stated. That's pretty numb isn't it. How sad it must be to be someone who reads what they say and denies it's true. That sounds like a mental problem really. A psychosis perhaps? CYA
@NephilimFree Lol this is truly the most amazing thing I've heard you say in a while Neph. You are utterly wrong on the meaning of "that" sentance. And then you say something like this ... Amazing.
@Danmill23 Not again. 0o Dan, just tell me you don't believe the researchers when they stated that they are genetically indistinguishable. Just go for it. Do it.; What's keeping you from it? Obviously you believe they are not genetically indistinguishable like they said they are. Why can't you just come right out and say, "I dissagree with the researchers. i think they are not genetically indistinguishable." What's preventing you Dan? Is it fear of looking like a denialist?
@NephilimFree Hey Neph. On this one you are utterly, utterly, totally 100% wong.
You know I rarely make statements with this level of confidence. You should listen to me when I am this confident. Why am I confident? I have written to the reserchers who published this paper and I asked them this question, that is why I know my interperatation is correct and yours is wrong.
I have asked (and even shouted) at you to write to them and ask yourself, but you won't. I am right! I am right!
"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc ˇaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population"
The above quotation is from their own research report. You don't believe their statement Dan? Can you tell us that you dissagree with them and why?
@NephilimFree Why not show up at the League of Reason call in show Sunday and dazzle them with your scientific knowledge. You have been shown time and time again that the paper is talking about mitochondrial DNA and not chromosonal DNA...and you refuse to accept it and continue to spread lies. Lying for your god must please your god.
Do you know what a mitochondria is? Its a cellular organ which converts food to energy. Basically the stomach of a cell.
This is not the nucleus, which contains the chromosomes which are the recipe (the term you like to use) of everything in that organism.
To use the recipe analogy, you're trying to tell me that my Grand Slam breakfast is identical to your shepards pie because their mashed potatoes are identical.
The mitochondria has separate DNA from the nucleus.
Please present 1) Evidence that the entire chromosomal sequence was shown to be identical, or 2) Evidence that the 20% of mtDNA that does NOT code for Mitochondrial proteins somehow codes for the formation of cecal valves.
This is in the neighborhood of 3400 bases of 17,000.
We're not the one's disagreeing with the scientists.
You're the one putting words into their mouthes.
And every time someone puts you against the wall with this, all you can say is "CYA".
I have just concluded that you have mixed up two different things and jumped the gun. And yes it may be the same method the Crime labs use but it is still only the mitochondrial DNA that has been determined to be indistinguishable. And again the mitochondrial DNA have nothing to do with cecal-valves.
@jxvwp lol. Good on you. I have argued this with Neph 100 times. Others have as well. The most amazing thing in the world (to me) is Nephs ability to think he is right in the face of overwhelming evidence he is wrong. And after that he'll say this... "How sad it must be to be someone who reads what they say and denies it's true. That sounds like a mental problem really. A psychosis perhaps?" lol utterly amazing.
Apparently Mitochondrial DNA, is just tested to determine ancestry, kind of like when they do paternity tests. If I'm correct they only tested 37 million base pairs. In my personal opinion the parent population did have the genes for the cecal valves, but you have to remember what their diet was. If I remember the diet for the parent population was mainly bugs, and the offspring had to change their diet to plants, it could be the other way around but you get my point.
And the cecal valves help in digestion of such things, makes the digestion process slower and produces more acid etc. which the parent population would not need. I think the guys who conducted this experiment should have looked to see if the parent population had the genes for cecal valves, that's very important. Because if they did have the genes it's not evolution, but if they didn't I suppose it would be since it would be a new structure. The results would be important for both sides.
I feel the main reason the full DNA sequencing was not done on both populations was because of the time and expense of such and undertaking.
Assuming the valves were in the original populations genome, another interesting question is what is the mechanism to make them express themselves at the right time?
Thanks for the Mit DNA tip.
Also it would be an interesting experiment to see if you can breed a tiger from a starting pair of lions. (or some other kind)
I understand your point about "the other way round".
Another pint on same morphology. In my study I came across another type of Italian wall lizard (name is now forgotten) that could flatten it's ribs to fit in small cracks AND (if memory serves) could also leap of the "wall", flatten it's ribs and glide! If my memory is correct about the very close family relationship, in creationists eye P sicula should also be able to be to do this trick, with the right breeding.
I suppose you could. I would say adaptation caused the genes to be re expressed, I think this sort of thing has been observed before, but they actually documented the genes in both populations. Research Phenotpye and I think you'll understand how this could have happened. Phenotype is the EXPRESSION of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. Actually the article talks about this as well, somewhat hinting at what I said.
Even if you could breed something that looked and acted like a tiger from a stock that consisted of lions, it wouldn't actually BE a tiger, because it would be a clade within the lion clade, and tigers are in a sister clade of lions.
Watching neph is like watching a small child assemble a simple jigsaw puzzle. The child looks at you for praise and support with that smug I'm clever expression. With the childs limited intellect, specialist acumen and detexerity he does indeed deserve praise. On the basis of this logic maybe we should pat old Nephy on the head and say, good boy one day you'll grow up to be a scientist.
Of course the information is present in the genome. A change of this calibre is effected by switch genes, not by adding THAT much "information" in one go. What Nephy fails to understand is that the switching on or off of certain genes is a change in information, and it constitutes a very real evolutionary change. It's a REAL, MACROSCOPICAL and OBSERVABLE phenotypical change in a population. If that isn't "evolution" in the strictest sense of the word then, yeah. Fine. (more...)
Then, indeed, evolution does not exist. I guess we will then have to invent a NEW word to describe the fact that life is clearly exhibiting a measure of descent with modification. Because no matter how one minces one's words, the facts of life are not going to change to suit one's philosophical sensitivities. Sorry Nephy.
I love you big brother! I can always count on you to tell the truth... And I owe you a great deal! I dislike Neph very much, I just declared so on my latest video, and have decided to take him on directly to show atheists that I am not biased. That extremism of any sort, is dangerous.. and he is a perfect example!
InventorGorilla 1 year ago
Does anyone else find it interesting that Nephy calls these scientists who accept evolution liars..then turns around and cherry picks & misuses a SCIENTIFIC paper to support his position. I mean are they liars or not Neph?
MrJmm999 1 year ago
Nephilim has left some plainly immature and condescending comments on this video.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The video Nephilimfree desperately wants no-one to see:
watch?v=R9WGOOkE7nY
He admits he is entirely freeloading, for years, off his mentally-impaired roommate' s disability benefits!
Now we know why he has so much time to pontificate on YouTube!
Copy / mirror / favorite before it's DMCA'd!
themsfightinwoids 1 year ago
@themsfightinwoids
Somebody called this: watch?v=R9WGOOkE7nY spam??
achtungcircus 1 year ago
About 2 months ago Nephy posted (and then took down) a "poor me" video. In it he said he had been unemployed for 3 years and had been completely livinvg off the Social Security benefits of some woman. The woman was moving out of his home and he was going to be homeless. This guy is a complete mooch. He has admitted this in the comments section of LIttleTrucking Bozo's video "Nephilimfree a message to you"
MrJmm999 1 year ago
Genuine question to whoever can answer,
What is involved in sequencing/mapping the entire genome in this case? Is it an overtly costly exercise?Surely the research team knows of the storm over this mafia lizard,mapping the damn gene would resolve it. We know they extracted total genomic dna,is it a big step to go on and test it?
Copsweet 2 years ago
Neph, go get help.
WinterWezo 2 years ago
Oh I forgot. The endochrine system. Yes, these couple of mutations would have to create the cecal valve with all of it;'s supremely complex parts and integrate them somehow not only with the nervous system and digestive system, but also the endochrine system.
It's sheer insanity to believe such a thing. Totally nuts. Bonkers. Stupidity. Insanity, absurdity.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
So respond to the fucking argument, and quit dodging.
I'm really trying to be on the level with you neph. I'm trying to have a legitimate discussion with you, and you're being extremely disingenuous.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 4
Nephy...have you found a job yet. For those of you who don't know.. About 2 months ago Nepyh posted a "poor me" video in which he revealed that he had been unempoyed for 3 years and had been livng of some woman's social security benefits. The woman was moving out and Nephy was going to be homeless. Nephy took the video down quickly...but Nephy admits all this in comments to Little Trucking Bozo's "A Message to Nephilimfree" video.
Nephy,...stop mooching off other people and get a job.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Nephy...you found a job yet???? Seriously, you need to stop living in sin and mooching of the ladies social security check.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
Evolutionism is STUPID.
CYA
NephilimFree 2 years ago
If I'm misrepresenting the argument, and those aren't the only two pieces of evidence that would prove your point, please tell me, and present it.
So far all I can see is that the mitochondrial DNA is identical, but no evidence beyond that that the Chromosomal DNA (Which codes for the mtDNA) is identical.
If there is another option for this piece of evidence, please present it. I'm honestly curious. You know me Neph. I'm not an atheist.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"Evolutionism is STUPID.
CYA "
That's right you little Mississippi Piggy... run away.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 5
Is God not smart enough to make matter, that over several processes can form into DNA and lead to evolutin of all species?
Is taking Genesis and most of the OT as an allegory "STUPID?"
MinervaInTheBrain 2 years ago
Now use your brain and think.
If mutation could do this, evolution would be taking place at such a pace that humans would have arisen in less than 100,000 yrs after abiogenesis produced the first cell!
NephilimFree 2 years ago
@NephilimFree
Evolution doesn't work in a steady curve like that.
If you want to put it on a curve then you would see that it has its valleys and peaks. Evolution simply works from the environmental pressure. So if there isn't that big a pressure evolution works really slowly. However if suddenly some new things arise (i.e. an eye) then evolution would seem to go really fast. We can see this in the cambrian explosion.
jxvwp 1 year ago
@jxvwp The Cambrian Explosion discredits evolution. 0o Great Scotts! Evolutionists can't even think straight when it comes to science! Amzing.
CYA
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
How does the cambrian explosion discredit evolution?
Last time I checked the cambrian explosion was just a speciation period lasting around 6 million years. And it was triggered by the very first light-sensitive patch that later developed into the eye we know today.
jxvwp 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Nephy...you are clearly suffering from what is called the dunning kruger effect. You are uneducated, yet seem to think you know more about science than every career scientist in the world. You are a joke.
Ps...get a job and stop mooching off the benefits of your "friend". Honestly, she pays for your rent, food, clothing, utilities, internet access. You are a truly pathetic little man who must guard his YouTube channel 24/7 and has NOTHING else in his life.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
@NephilimFree "The Cambrian Explosion discredits evolution."
Wrong. The Cambrian explosion is a great example of explosive (pun intended) radiation due to rapid changes in biotic and abiotic factors such as increases in dissolved oxygen in the seas, evolutionary arms races between predators and prey, and so on. The Cambrian also shows a variety of transitions in several lineages such as the first trilobites, chordates, and anomalocarids. This is also another example of evidence against creation.
whitefox998 1 year ago
@NephilimFree I wonder, how many times punctuated equilibrium has been explained to you?
Zephanus 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What you've encountered here is a fine example of evolutionist hegmony however. The researchers state the cecal valve is a product of evolution, yet provide the genetic evidence that refutes their own claim!
In 38 years a couple of mutations create cecal valves and all of their components and integrate them with the nervous and digestive system? YOU GOTTA BE INSANE TO BELIEVE THAT.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"The researchers state the cecal valve is a product of evolution, yet provide the genetic evidence that refutes their own claim!"
Nope, not once did they do that.
They never sequenced your alleged gene, and certainly not the entire genome. Not once do they state that. Liar.
anglicantian 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
They used the mitochondrial DNA to determine if the two populations were related. And they were. The mitochondrial DNA was basically identical from one population two the other.
However it is not the mitochondrial DNA that would code for the Cecal-valves. That would be the entire Chromosomal DNA. And could you please provide us with the paper that says the Biologists has completely sequenced the entire chromosomal DNA and determined that they were identical?
jxvwp 1 year ago
Dude, did you comment on my video? I have no idea what you're talkin' about. How about you write me so that it is intelligible.
happykuffaar 2 years ago
If we are talking about the same thing, I believe I wrote "All wrong".
If you're having trouble with that statement I don't know how I can help you.
BTW why are we talking about this here and not on the thread to your video where I made the comment.
This also seems "all wrong"?
Danmill23 2 years ago
@Danmill23 Is this how to reply?
happykuffaar 2 years ago
Seems to be a reply to me.
As replyish as it gets!
Danmill23 2 years ago
Poor old Nepy thinks morphology cannot change. By the power of YokeUps intellect does he really think selective breeding will never show morphological changes? Sausage Dogs, Nephy?
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Without the information in the genome however, it will never appear. Genes defien features Dan. We've know this for quite some time now, ya know. Your statement sounded a bit like magic. Then you go off with your typical evolutionist - "Tiny changes cause morphological changes over time!" stuff. HUH? Magic? Features without genes? Psesudoscience. AGAIN? More of that evolutionist "It happens because it did!" stuff? More magic over time? Puleeeze Dan. Please!
NephilimFree 2 years ago
In the first part, you claimed that changing the DNA in the genes couldn't change the features those genes produce, now you say that the genes define the features. Which is it?
evensgrey 2 years ago
It's both, but you have a hard time comprehending this simple fact.
DNA is information (immaterial) which defines all of the structures of an organism.
Dmamage (mutation) to HOX genes will not cause morphological change.
Look up DNA Error Correction and the term Wild Type.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Everyone who's ever studied DNA will, I'm sure, be astonished to learn that DNA is immaterial. I've isolated the stuff in the lab, and it certainly seemed to have substance.
How can changing the controls for morphogenesis NOT change morphogenesis?
I'm quite familiar with your braying about how some magic 'backup copy' is used to replace the 'damaged' DNA. You've never provided any reference for the existence of this 'backup copy' or the replacement mechanism.
evensgrey 2 years ago 2
Information is immaterial. DNA is not. DNA is material representation of information in the same way the printed words in a nook physically represent the information the author presents.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
So you knew were wrong when you stated that DNA is information above. I'm not surprised, you seem to only post things you know are wrong.
evensgrey 2 years ago
DNA is information. Information is immaterial. Nature cannot generate information.
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical provess or material phenomenon known that can do this."
- Gitt, Wrerner, director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, Head of the Department of Information Technology.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
So, you mined a quote from someone who wouldn't plausibly be an authority on the subject at hand.
evensgrey 2 years ago
You're either ignorant or stupid. Gitt is one of the world's leading experts on information theory.
0o
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Neph you forget the third option. You might be wrong.
Danmill23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I might be a pizza too. But there's still no third option.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
So you admit that you already knew that Gitt couldn't be an authority on biology.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you deny he is an expert on information theory?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
What drugs have caused you to hallucinate that information theory is a field of biology?
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DNA Error Correction is why HOX genes don't change (permanently in a species, not an individual) because of mutation. It's also why birth defects aren't permanently passed on in humans.
DNA backup of genes: Google these
DNA Backup Surprises Scientists
DNA backup: inheriting from grandparents
There are many, many more sources. I found these in 1 minute. Something you are unwilling to do, yet you are willing to call a creationist a liar for telling you scientific facts.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
If it's so easy to find the references, why have you proven to be unable to provide any?
Oh, and, if you'd read the first item the comes up for either of your search terms, you'd know that this phenomena is seen in a small number of plant species, and doesn't involve any kind of 'backup copy' of the DNA. The information appears to be coming from RNA.
The fact you clearly didn't read what you claim is your source isn't surprising.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Seriously. You think DNA Error Correction does not exist?
Wow. You really do live in a denialist bubble. lol
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The actual DNA error correction mechanism cannot use a DNA backup copy because there isn't one. Even if there was, there could be no way for it to know which of the two was correct, because either one could mutate, and no such mechanism could determine which was the functional copy.
In any case, the REAL mechanism is the very limited proof reading mechanism, which detects most, but not all, base pair mismatches in replication and corrects them. 3 per human gemone replication are missed.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Even the proof reading mechanism cannot do anything at all about mutations that occur to the DNA strands in between replications. There are mechanisms that look for some types of mutational changes, but if all that's happened is one base has been converted into another one, there's no way for many of these changes to be detected, and all that can be done it to either ignore it or randomly change one of the mismatched bases to the one that matches the other. That gives 50/50 odds of reversion.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DNA Error Correction protects HOX genes without exception. Organisms revert to Wild Type within 1 to several generations depending upon the mutation and species, without fail. Mutation is not a mechanism for evolutionary change. 70 yrs of experimentation with mutations have verified with perfectly consistent results that mutations simply cannot cause morphological change to species.
hat's just how it is. That's science, and it defeats the old evo claim that muations cause evolution.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Sop you admit that you cannot find any references that supports your braying that there is some magic mechanism that undoes the observed changes to HOX genes or any other genes in organisms.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Google these:
DNA Error Correction+Wild Type
Then shut up forever. You ain't worth listening to. You deny science and that's worthless. Shew! Go away kid. Get a doll or something.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Since there is nothing that search turns up the supports your braying that there is some magical DNA backup and restoration mechanism in all life forms that prevents mutations from accumulating, anything from you other than a posting of an actual reference is and admission that there isn't any.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh. I see. Typical. it doesn't exist because that information refutes you? Yea, that's common of evolutionists. Well pal, here are a few of the many that describe exactly what you close your eyes to.
A Backup Role of DNA Polymerase in Ig Gene Hypermutation Only Takes Place in the Complete Absence of DNA Polymerase
Repair of radiation induced DNA double strand breaks by backup NHEJ is enhanced in G2
Chromosomes and Genes (MERCK)
NephilimFree 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A Backup DNA Repair Pathway Moves to the Forefront
Contribution of DNA polymerase to immunoglobulin gene hypermutation in the mouse
The Human DNA Ligase III Gene Encodes Nuclear and Mitochondrial Proteins
Repair of DNA by Brca2 gene prevents medulloblastoma
Want 100 more? Find them yourself. You'll have to take your hands away from your eyes and stop creaming, "No no no! It can't be real!" first.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
You mean, NHEJ somehow uses some completely different DNA strand (that nobody studying NHEJ know about) to guide the reconnection of broken strands? Why don't you publish that, then?
The first sentence (quoted out of a paper that I was able to find, but apparently you weren't, despite claiming to have read it) is one you consider to be false because it contradicts your claim BECAUSE THERE'S NO REVERSION TO WILD TYPE IN THE TEST SUBJECTS.
So far, no citations to the papers from you.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Denialism is stupidity pal. The papers stae DNA backup of genes are used to rplace mutated ones.
You're the weakest sort. I have better things to do than deal with people who would deny their hands exist if they needed to for their religion. Good luck breaking the brainwash job. CYA.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The paper you wouldn't cite, but only quoted a random sentence from, doesn't say that, as you would be aware had you found it. What you have are a couple of papers about a rare genetic condition caused by a MUTATION in the gene for one of the DNA repair enzymes THAT DOES NOT REVERT TO WILD TYPE, and paper about how broken DNA strands are spliced back together AND HOW THE PROCESS OFTEN DELETES SOME OF THE DNA.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Back mutation is a change in a nucleotide pair of a point-mutated DNA sequence that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.
It's called mutation, but it is part of DNA Error Correction (pssst - which also does not exist! I promise!).
NephilimFree 2 years ago
As you would know if you had actually read anything on back mutations, what ACTUALLY happens is some mutation occurs that reverses the EFFECT of the original mutation, restoring the original phenotype.
For instance, the famous mice in Arizona, which exist as the original, sandy-colored mice that live in sandy places, and the dark-colored ones that live in recent, dark-colored lava flows, which can have a back-mutation in many different places that produces sandy-colored offspring.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No mutation is observed. The term "back mutation" is hegemonic evenso, as we know the processes of DNA Error Correction occur, so calling it mutation is just another attempt of evolutionists to redefine established scientific terms to suite their assumptions.
The color of mice is not morphological. it is not evidence of evolutionary change.
Man comes in different colors too, but not 1 human has any morphological feature any other does not. Morphgolgy does not change.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
We provide reams of scientific evidence and you poo poo it. Then somehow you expect us to run with your explanation that goes like this; God dun it! F**k me man at least we make an effort!
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
All I hear is complaint. That's worth nothing to anyone.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Ha ha, do you think your opinion counts? Like a 900yr old man made a wooden boat capable of supporting millions of animal species from Ant to Zebra? Youve got no qualifications in Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Chemistry etc so guess what mate, your opinion is moot. Nephys rants v PhDs with their lifetime of research and peer reviewed evidence gathered using the scientific method. Now let me thinklol!
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
@BiodegradeableMan You expect anyone to believe your opinon counts but those of others don't. That's interestring.
Evolutionists depend on assumptions and imagination and abandon science and the Scientific Method because they must to put forth their religion of materialism and humanism. I find it so sad that some evo goon with PhD would to that and have the gaul to cal himself a scientist.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Lets keep it simple for you Nephy, ready?
So your Mother gates cancer, who do you turn to?
a) An unqualified YT'er claiming to know more about medicine than leading Physicians
b) a Leading Physician 'qualified' to treat the malady.
Take your time.........
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
@BiodegradeableMan
I would turn to someone who is not a doctor? Why?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Jeesh Nephy!
You want ppl to accept your phantasmorgaorical hypothesis over the informed opinions of highly educated academically proven specialists.
Then you admit when it boils down to it you WILL take their expertise over a self proclaimed expert every time!
You are that self proclaimed 'expert' Nephy and without any acedemic qualifications you always will be, simple logic. Sugar I forgot you don't do logic its a God went poof system for you, lol!
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Need it simple, here goes.
Your daughter needs her fifth abortion. Who do you take her to?
Choose one of the answers below.
1) A bitter little man with a set of knitting needles and a personality disorder
2) A qualified, proven medical professional specializing in abortions
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BiodegradeableMan
I would turn to someone who is not a doctor? Why?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Make up your pretended mind: Is there no mutation, or DNA error correction? You cannot have correction of errors that don't happen.
You really have to learn how to read, Nephy. Not only will it help to prevent you making elementary mistakes with dictionaries, it will help eliminate the elementary mistakes you make reading your Bible.
Stating that you are completely unable to physically distinguish between other humans in any way only further demonstrates that you are insane.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Silly kid, you have been given the scientific evidence! You've been provided the proof that processes you claimed did not exist do indeed!
You're empty. Pick up your book of complaints and hands over yhour eyes thinking and take a ride down fantasy road.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Stupid Nephy, you never provided any references to anything. You provided randomly sentences from popular news sites, from articles that report about papers that don't say what you demand them to say.
evensgrey 2 years ago
@NephilimFree
Well it's funny that if we use your definition on morphology then there is NO morphological difference between a Human or a Dog, or a Bat and a Rhinoceros, or a Mouse and an Elephant.
So wouldn't you agree if a differently shaped bone or a more dense bone would be a morphological change?
jxvwp 1 year ago
Nephy are you conversant with organic selection or phenotypic plasticity (The ability of an organism to change within its lifetime)? Without this process an organisms genotype would be fixed and no evolution could happen. However I must concede that your inability for change presents us with an interesting conundrum.
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Morphology does not and cannot change. Variety does not introduce new morphological features.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Gracious me Sir do you really think your ancestor had a pet Sausage Dog and swam with Icthyosaurs? Have you ever considered telling racehorse breeders they are wasting their time, lol!
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
@NephilimFree
No.
DNA is a double helical molecule. It is the structure of this molecule the defines all of the processes going on in every single life-form.
The terms "information", "translation", and "reading" are only used as metaphors to make it easier for us to comprehend the processes.
jxvwp 1 year ago
Dan, you said eating these plants may have some morphological effect. Well ofcourse! It insitiated a response that causd the animal to express the gene that created the cecal valves!
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Dan, I just want to know one thing. Are you going to contact the scientists and tell them that thier statement that these populations are genetically identical is erroneous?
If you can't provide evidence that thir statement is incorrect, you have only complaints turned into conjecture. That's all I'm hearing. "I don't like it! It can't be true!" Show us the new gene, show us the DNAS sequencing is erroneous, something for crying out loud! SOMETHING! What ya got besides "I dissagree!"?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
In comments on his vid someone asked for evidence that the entire dna had been sequenced. He responded by quoting a small portion of the original paper, stopping *just before* the sentence which indicated only fragments were analyzed.
I tried to point that out twice in comments, but somehow they were never approved. He's not just deluded, he's yet another "liar for God".
I agree with you -- him complaining about "ignorance vs investigation" is the height of hypocracy.
kbi42 2 years ago
lol ... *made me smile*
I really interested in the true source of this "blindness". Is Neph actually aware of it? Did he sub-consciously miss the last part?
The reason I want to know is to assess my own pre-suppositions. Do I unconsciously block the truth? I certainly do my level best to be consciously truthful.
It's got to be an ongoing self assessment.
Thanks kb.
Danmill23 2 years ago
I have trouble believing it's subconscious. I don't think he's actually dumb, or incapable of understanding the point that only fragments of the dna was analyzed.
I suspect he's convinced of his ultimate God conclusion, and his calculus drives him to suppress facts in order to convince others that he's right.
He's not seeking truth - he *knows* it and is trying to convince, throught whatever means necessary.
I admire your attempts to see beyond your own biases, and hope to do the same.
kbi42 2 years ago
Re: Mount Knowledge
I've always imagined a similar picture of the scientists reaching the top of the mountain, only to find the philosophers. Zoom out a bit to see philosophers on top of all the mountain peaks.
And the only way to know which philosophers had it right was because the scientists found the same peak.
kbi42 2 years ago
The right answer is not enough. You must be able to demonstrate the answer is right.
Thanks Kb.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Agreed.
By the way, you first called it "mount improbable" in your vid. If you haven't seen Dawkins' "Growing up in the Universe" series, search YouTube for "dawkins mount improbable" (one of the episodes).
It's a bit dated, and aimed at kids, but the notion expressed there as evolution climbing "mount improbable" is a pretty good layman's explanation of evolution and how it achieves local maxima rather than perfection.
Thanks for your thoughful vids.
kbi42 2 years ago
Danmill23, do you know if they have compared the DNA of the two, besides the mitochondrial DNA? If so we could settle this once and for all. Unfortunately from what I'm aware of mitochondrial DNA wouldn't show whether the parent population and offspring shared the genes for making cecal valves. Although, since it is known that a certain fraction of the lizards do have cecal valves, it's very possible that the lizards did have the genes for them but didn't need them until their diet changed.
micah1116 2 years ago
Hey Micah,
First of all to the best of my research and understanding the DNA has not been sequenced or decoded in any way at all.
I don't full understand mitochondrial DNA if you have a better understanding than me I'd love to hear more.
As for the cecal valves being present in the original P.sicula genome the question is ...
Why and how did the cecal valves come to be expressed in the, assumable random selection of the P.sicula sent to seed the small island? (and why not in the parent pop)
Danmill23 2 years ago
Further,
If as the creationist says these genes are in the original genome, is it possible to "breed" up some cecal valves in any lizard species in <30 yrs.
If you think about this ...
All lizards are the same "kind" so according to this logic you should be able to selectively breed iguanas and after maybe 30 generations turn them into fully complete Italian wall lizards.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Remember the creationist say this very thing happened after coming off the ark.
Danmill23 2 years ago
I'm not sure about how many lizards Noah brought on the arc, but remember it's all about morphology, as far as I'm aware, they all have the same morphology. All dogs have the same morphology, different sizes, but the same structures none the less.
micah1116 2 years ago
Also remember we've gone from geat dane to a chiwawa(excuse my spelling) in a relatively short time.
micah1116 2 years ago
It's my understanding that dogs are especially easy for breeders to manipulate since they have a high amount of small repeated sequences in their genes which are very susceptible to mutations.
That's why we have such a wide variety of different breeds in dogs as opposed to other animals like cats.
Itslvle 2 years ago
Actually, ALL mammals are pretty much equally susceptible to the kind of morphological adjustment that humans have implemented on dogs, and for the same reason: The mammalian system puts the size and shape of pretty much all bones and muscles under separate genetic control. This can produce some unfortunate creatures with problems like mismatching upper and lower jaws, but the Habsburg were a rare case.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Adaptations do not cause change to morphology. They do not introduce new morphological structures or transform extant features into ones with new biomechanical function.
Adaptation has severe limitations, and this is evidence that life cannot breech the family barrier to becoem a new kind of life.
Science has proven it impossible with 70 yrs of mutation experimentation. The evos ran their game. The world is rejecting evolutionism more now than 20 yrs ago, and this trend continues.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Stupid Nephy, you can't support a claim that something doesn't happen by admitting that it does.
You also cannot support a claim that something doesn't happen by claiming that you've managed to cause more people to have brain damage than 20 years ago.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Incidentally, do you have any citations for your claim that more people are rejecting reality now than 20 years ago, or is that just another one of your demands based on personal preference?
evensgrey 2 years ago
Except for the fact that Donexodus2 asked you to provide evidence that the gene's for Cecal Valves had been sequenced in both the parent and daughter populations, and your sad attempt to refute him was done in the last minute of a 5 part series, in which you presented a quote, with no reference, which didn't prove your point anyway.
In fact, the quote you gave proved the opposite.
The best part is that you already admitted this would qualify, yet are incapable of admitting you were wrong.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I did provide the very reference you speak of in my videos. pay better attention.
New morphological structures would require genes. The DNA of the parent and child populations are indistinguishable. There are no new genes in the child population's DNA. The information was lready present. This happens commonly. It is called Gene Expression.
The subject is dead and I'm no longer interested in discussing it.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No, you didn't, and I made a video about it.
No, you changed the word from "Identical" to "indistinguishable", and also failed to notice that the DNA used was mitochondrial DNA which does not encode for that part.
If it were whole genome DNA, you would have had a point.
The subject isn't dead. You simply sequester yourself from information which shows you to be wrong. I've personally had convos with you where you did this with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the # of stars in the sky.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
The reference you provided did not mean what you said it did. You DIDN"T provide a reference to the paper in your description OR video, and only when a supporter asked you to show it, did you provide a reference in the comments section.
Considering that this was the most damning piece of evidence against you, its extremely suspicious that you waited until the very last minute of a 5 part series to address it.
You know you're being dishonest which is why you refuse to discuss it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
It wasn't the DNA that was Identical (NOT indistinguishable), it was mtDNA.
Learn the difference.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
One article in a science mag online states the DNA is IDNETICAL. Evenso, indistinguishable means they were not able to detect a difference. Don't play games with what they said. it only reveals you are dishonest and unworthy of someone's time.
They sequenced the total genomic DNA and mtDNA. BOTH.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Yes, they sequenced both, but you're missing what I said again. The mtDNA was identical, the total genomes were NOT.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Tell the scientists who did the research that thier claim that the parent and child population DNA is not indistinguishable then. See what they tell you. Take it up with them, not me.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Neph, Are you capable of reading what I wrote about it 3 times?
The mtDNA is "Indistinguishable". The Chromosomal DNA is not.
OR it very well COULD BE Nephi, but the point is that you have no room to make the claim that the parent population had cecal valve genes, when the DNA you're citing as evidence for similarity is not the DNA that would code for cecal valves.
Oh come on, don't cop out on me and try to deflect to someone else. YOU were wrong. Be a man and admit you jumped the gun.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Nephilim, I'm not trying to pick a fight with the scientists.
I'm trying to get you to show me the paper, or article which shows that the TOTAL CHROMOSOMAL DNA is identical in both populations, NOT JUST THE mtDNA.
Show me that these lizards have more than just identical mitochondria! Show me that they have identical cecal valve genes! Show me the sequenced chromosomal DNA, or if you can't find it, just admit that you misunderstood, and were eager for yours to be the correct answer.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"Don't play games with what they said. it only reveals you are dishonest and unworthy of someone's time."
If I have an identical twin, we have different but similar features. My clone, however, is indistinguishable from me.
Its merely a semantical argument, but the fact that it piqued your interest so much shows that you know my assertion of your motivations is correct.
Next.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I didn't say that they didn't sequence both kinds, I said you were using the wrong one.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Pardon me, not Whole Genome, but Chromosomal Genome DNA, as opposed to mtDNA.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc ˇaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population "
NephilimFree 2 years ago
YES " MITOCHONDRIAL DNA ANALYSES indicate." there skippy.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
They state:
"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc ˇaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population"
Email them and tell these secular scientists they are wrong if you know better than them.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
NEPHILIM FREE
I E-MAILED THEM I SHOWED YOU THE E-MAIL
DON Ex E-MAILED THEM AS WELL.
They RESPONDED AND THEY REFUTED YOUR CLAIMS.
YOU E-MAIL THEN IF YOU DARE NEPH...
YOU E-MAIL THEM.
YOU E-MAIL THEM.
Around 10 guys have INDEPENTANTLY pointed out you error. All you have is you INCORRECT, DESPERATE and IMAGINARY claim of what "indistinguishable" means.
YOU are wrong.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Neph I even showed you how to get out of this with your honor entacted.
I'll state it quickly again.
WE DON"T ACUALLY KNOW IF THE CECAL VALVES WE'RE IN THE PARENT POPULATION BECAUSE GENOME ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE.
But, No you are so stupid, so blind, so shamless, so beligrant, so FUCKEN SADLY DESPERATE that you are willing to sacrifice you honest and honor on a claim you cannot back up.
E-MAIL THEM YOUR SELF NEPH.
Then show us the question you asked and the answer they gave.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Danmill23 2 years ago
E-MAIL THEM YOUR SELF NEPH.
Then show us the question you asked and the answer they gave.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Dan, who gives a fat stinky poop if you don't like the information presented by the researchers. They state their study of the DNA indicates there is no difference between the populations genetically. Thier method is the accepted one and nobody in academia is attempting to refute their conclusions.
If YOU have issue with the genetic indistinguishability of these populations then YOU need to prove them wrong.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Neph, at least have the common decency to address the points I made of you. You're misrepresenting the evidence, and I've laid out a clear and undeniable case about it.
And apparently I'm not the first.
All I've asked you to do is present 1) Evidence that the entire chromosomal sequence was shown to be identical, or 2) Evidence that the 20% of mtDNA that does NOT code for Mitochondrial proteins somehow codes for the formation of cecal valves.
This is in the neighborhood of 3400 bases of 17,000.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
You do realize that when I ask you to present THOSE pieces of evidence that I'm doing your work for you?
I've already thought through the only two examples which would still give you some room to argue about this issue. All you have to do is find evidence for one of those 2, and then you have another point to argue from.
If the regulation of an intestinal tract is stored in less than 3400 base pairs of mtDNA or If all Chromosomes were sequenced and exactly the same, you have an argument.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
NEPHI! Read what I wrote in response to that point AGAIN!
Mitochondrial DNA!
Do you know what a mitochondria is? Its a cellular organ which converts food to energy. Basically the stomach of a cell.
This is not the nucleus, which contains the chromosomes which are the recipe (the term you like to use) of everything in that organism.
To use the recipe analogy, you're trying to tell me that my Grand Slam breakfast is identical to your shepards pie because their mashed potatoes are identical.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"To corroborate morphological identifications, a subset of specimens from both islands (Pod Kopis ˇte, n 8; Pod Mrcˇaru, n 7) and a set of reference specimens of P.melisellensis from Lastovo Island (n 7) were subjected to DNA sequence analysis. Total genomic DNA was extracted by using theQIAamp DNAMini Kit "
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Neph, this wasn't the quote you put on your video and you know it.
What Donexodus and I want is a specific reference which says that the Chromosomal DNA is identical in both populations. mtDNA does NOT code for cecal valves, therefor it being identical is like saying that you and I have identical thumbs.
If the ENTIRE GENOME was the same, you would have had a point. We want the evidence which says that the ENTIRE GENOME is indistinguishable.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Your problem is with the fact that the scientistrs have determined their DNA to be indistinguishable, not with me, as I am not the one who performed the research.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No, my problem is that you can't tell the difference between the DNA in a symbiotic organelle inside the cell, and the nucleic chromosomal DNA which codes for everything.
Mitochondrial DNA does not code for organs or structure.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
You should watch my first video about you. I raise a slightly different point about the quote on your video.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Aww come on, ya pussy. Real men respond to legitimate points raised. If you're not going to respond to a legitimate point, then you're a coward, and an extremely poor debater.
Tell me 1) Where the comparison between the chromosomal DNA (NOT the mtDNA) showed them to be genetically identical, OR 2) Where in any kind of genetics it declares that mtDNA codes for organ growth.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
@NephilimFree
Sorry Neph.
But the problem is yours.
So far you have mixed up the fact that they sequenced the entire chromosomal DNA and the fact that it was the mitochondrial DNA that was identical.
jxvwp 1 year ago
@jxvwp They used the same methods to determine that the parent anc child populations are genetically identical that crime labs use to determine 99% matches for individuals. They even say themselves are genetically indistinguishable! Your problem is that you refuse to accept what the researchers themselves have stated. That's pretty numb isn't it. How sad it must be to be someone who reads what they say and denies it's true. That sounds like a mental problem really. A psychosis perhaps? CYA
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Lol this is truly the most amazing thing I've heard you say in a while Neph. You are utterly wrong on the meaning of "that" sentance. And then you say something like this ... Amazing.
Danmill23 1 year ago
@Danmill23 Not again. 0o Dan, just tell me you don't believe the researchers when they stated that they are genetically indistinguishable. Just go for it. Do it.; What's keeping you from it? Obviously you believe they are not genetically indistinguishable like they said they are. Why can't you just come right out and say, "I dissagree with the researchers. i think they are not genetically indistinguishable." What's preventing you Dan? Is it fear of looking like a denialist?
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Hey Neph. On this one you are utterly, utterly, totally 100% wong.
You know I rarely make statements with this level of confidence. You should listen to me when I am this confident. Why am I confident? I have written to the reserchers who published this paper and I asked them this question, that is why I know my interperatation is correct and yours is wrong.
I have asked (and even shouted) at you to write to them and ask yourself, but you won't. I am right! I am right!
Danmill23 1 year ago 3
@Danmill23
You're australian!
TruthfulChristian2 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 Hey Dude. Yes I'm Australian too!
Danmill23 1 year ago
@Danmill23
"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc ˇaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population"
The above quotation is from their own research report. You don't believe their statement Dan? Can you tell us that you dissagree with them and why?
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Why not show up at the League of Reason call in show Sunday and dazzle them with your scientific knowledge. You have been shown time and time again that the paper is talking about mitochondrial DNA and not chromosonal DNA...and you refuse to accept it and continue to spread lies. Lying for your god must please your god.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
Do you know what a mitochondria is? Its a cellular organ which converts food to energy. Basically the stomach of a cell.
This is not the nucleus, which contains the chromosomes which are the recipe (the term you like to use) of everything in that organism.
To use the recipe analogy, you're trying to tell me that my Grand Slam breakfast is identical to your shepards pie because their mashed potatoes are identical.
The mitochondria has separate DNA from the nucleus.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NephilimFree
Please present 1) Evidence that the entire chromosomal sequence was shown to be identical, or 2) Evidence that the 20% of mtDNA that does NOT code for Mitochondrial proteins somehow codes for the formation of cecal valves.
This is in the neighborhood of 3400 bases of 17,000.
We're not the one's disagreeing with the scientists.
You're the one putting words into their mouthes.
And every time someone puts you against the wall with this, all you can say is "CYA".
Such dishonesty.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
I haven't denied anything.
I have just concluded that you have mixed up two different things and jumped the gun. And yes it may be the same method the Crime labs use but it is still only the mitochondrial DNA that has been determined to be indistinguishable. And again the mitochondrial DNA have nothing to do with cecal-valves.
jxvwp 1 year ago
@jxvwp lol. Good on you. I have argued this with Neph 100 times. Others have as well. The most amazing thing in the world (to me) is Nephs ability to think he is right in the face of overwhelming evidence he is wrong. And after that he'll say this... "How sad it must be to be someone who reads what they say and denies it's true. That sounds like a mental problem really. A psychosis perhaps?" lol utterly amazing.
Danmill23 1 year ago
@Danmill23 Look up Dunning Kruger effect and tell me that isn't Nephy.
1)Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2)Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3)Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
Actually, there's another problem with getting large variations in the form of cats like we have in dogs: Cats won't put up with it.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Apparently Mitochondrial DNA, is just tested to determine ancestry, kind of like when they do paternity tests. If I'm correct they only tested 37 million base pairs. In my personal opinion the parent population did have the genes for the cecal valves, but you have to remember what their diet was. If I remember the diet for the parent population was mainly bugs, and the offspring had to change their diet to plants, it could be the other way around but you get my point.
micah1116 2 years ago
And the cecal valves help in digestion of such things, makes the digestion process slower and produces more acid etc. which the parent population would not need. I think the guys who conducted this experiment should have looked to see if the parent population had the genes for cecal valves, that's very important. Because if they did have the genes it's not evolution, but if they didn't I suppose it would be since it would be a new structure. The results would be important for both sides.
micah1116 2 years ago
Interesting.
I feel the main reason the full DNA sequencing was not done on both populations was because of the time and expense of such and undertaking.
Assuming the valves were in the original populations genome, another interesting question is what is the mechanism to make them express themselves at the right time?
Thanks for the Mit DNA tip.
Also it would be an interesting experiment to see if you can breed a tiger from a starting pair of lions. (or some other kind)
Danmill23 2 years ago
I understand your point about "the other way round".
Another pint on same morphology. In my study I came across another type of Italian wall lizard (name is now forgotten) that could flatten it's ribs to fit in small cracks AND (if memory serves) could also leap of the "wall", flatten it's ribs and glide! If my memory is correct about the very close family relationship, in creationists eye P sicula should also be able to be to do this trick, with the right breeding.
???
???
Danmill23 2 years ago
I suppose you could. I would say adaptation caused the genes to be re expressed, I think this sort of thing has been observed before, but they actually documented the genes in both populations. Research Phenotpye and I think you'll understand how this could have happened. Phenotype is the EXPRESSION of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. Actually the article talks about this as well, somewhat hinting at what I said.
micah1116 2 years ago
It's interesting because that hint also hints of lamarckian evolution.
Got you PM but I must sleep now. Hook up later.
Danmill23 2 years ago
No problem, I guess I forgot that earth is round! LOL!
Note: Creationists don't think the earth is flat:)
micah1116 2 years ago
Even if you could breed something that looked and acted like a tiger from a stock that consisted of lions, it wouldn't actually BE a tiger, because it would be a clade within the lion clade, and tigers are in a sister clade of lions.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Nice to see you making videos again Dan! Do you ever feel like you're picking on the slowest kid in class when responding to Nephy?
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Excellent Dan. And the ending was superb.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Thanks a lot DJ.
Danmill23 2 years ago
So glad you've decided to make videos again. You're pretty much my YouTube hero! Please keep making more vids!
h8uall66 2 years ago
Shit thanks man. You're not so bad yourself you know!
Danmill23 2 years ago
Are the Italian wall lizards genetically identical to lounge lizards?
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
No but lounge lizards are vegetarian ... they eat ... couch potatoes.
*hangs head in shame*
Danmill23 2 years ago
Watching neph is like watching a small child assemble a simple jigsaw puzzle. The child looks at you for praise and support with that smug I'm clever expression. With the childs limited intellect, specialist acumen and detexerity he does indeed deserve praise. On the basis of this logic maybe we should pat old Nephy on the head and say, good boy one day you'll grow up to be a scientist.
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
I fully agree.
Danmill23 2 years ago
five stars
DavidRandallCurtis 2 years ago
Of course the information is present in the genome. A change of this calibre is effected by switch genes, not by adding THAT much "information" in one go. What Nephy fails to understand is that the switching on or off of certain genes is a change in information, and it constitutes a very real evolutionary change. It's a REAL, MACROSCOPICAL and OBSERVABLE phenotypical change in a population. If that isn't "evolution" in the strictest sense of the word then, yeah. Fine. (more...)
rozeboosje 2 years ago 2
Then, indeed, evolution does not exist. I guess we will then have to invent a NEW word to describe the fact that life is clearly exhibiting a measure of descent with modification. Because no matter how one minces one's words, the facts of life are not going to change to suit one's philosophical sensitivities. Sorry Nephy.
rozeboosje 2 years ago