Arnold Mendez & Creationism vs. Evolution - General Discussion Part 1

[masala505]

Unbelievable silly! There nothing else to say...silly, silly, silly!

[deepraine]

Good vid, but I take issue with your use of the word "complexity". There isn't anything inherently more complex in humans than there is in dinosaurs. There are also organisms such as internal parasites that have lost a lot of functions and could be considered less complex then their ancestors that could live on their own.

Natural selection just doesn't drive towards increasing complexity.

[joshTheGoods]

Apologies, I didn't see your comment in the correct place (wasn't viewing all comments), so I was confused as to who you were talking to thus the perceived failure to make your point. However, I'm not sure how my comment could be perceived as belief OR science based? I simply did not understand :P

[joshTheGoods]

Are you attempting to make a point? If so, you've failed miserably. Please, try again, and be clear this time.

[Nades129]

this thing really bothers me.. im forced to learn in biology along with psychology just to keep ignorant asses from destroying the very thing that destroyed the dark ages

[Chuichupachichi]

During most of the time since Darwin the supposed missing links that were presented were few. For the most part they were one at a time, Piltdown was believed for years until debunked. Then others followed, like Nebraska, or Pig Tooth Man. Again, he remained as valid for years until debunked. There were more that followed. "Lucy and the Guy Who Ground Her" are also frauds. Therefor, after so many years of one at a time, false missing links, now you guys expect us to believe that suddenly there's

[Havokreator]

Nebraska man was proven to be a fake, but Lucy is NOT a fraud. There are hundreds of missing links and transitional fossils, the only problem is that creationists have this messed up version of what they should look like ( Good example being Kirk Cameron and his "crocoduck") You creationist keep on moving the goalposts until the type of transitional fossils you demand are not even compatible with the theory of evolution. And also, your vid on transitional fossils is a joke.

[Chuichupachichi]

countless examples of valid missing links. Its more intelligent to realize that the only thing that's changed is the evolutionists plan of attack strategy. Like a "mob mentality", it seems that each of all the false links is unscrutinizingly unidentified in a sea of lies. Good strategy, since the other one continued to blow up in apes faces. Of course, now we should believe the insane who for most of 150 years continued to repeatedly attempt what repeatedly didn't work. Not to mention, that

[Chuichupachichi]

simply to claim a genealogical heritage that includes Amoebian forbearers is qualification enough for a new wardrobe consisting of "I hug me - cuz I luv me" jackets and a lengthy stay at the Club Med-icated Rubber Room Resort. Especially after the 20th century's Darwin fanatic, materialist, atheist, Marxist Psychos. You equate whale evolution's supported validity with that of ape-like creature, missing links. Ha Ha, I agree, check out my video "Evolution's Transitionals Don't Exist"

[Chuichupachichi]

"genome research", another laugh! Molecular Biology has in fact, been evoists worst nightmare come true. However, as was stated by Mr Mendez, "evo is unfalsifiable". Mostly because even when the science atrociously annihilates evo, still the atheistically predetermining, "conspiratorial" expulser, majority, scientific community simply, casually & pathetically shamelessly reinterpret the data to suddenly & miraculously support evo. Whats the use in realizing your idealism if you have to be a self

[Chuichupachichi]

deceiving, reinterpreting idiot in order to do it. One might as well begin with the ideal of being an idiot if ones idealism leads one to those ends anyway.

4+4=8 has revealed your startling misunderstanding. Mr. Mendez wasn't referring to the "simplicity" of the equation or the "complexity of the atomic model". But rather, to "empiricism". 4+4=8 is quite empirical don't you think? "Einstein's relativity" didn't oppose or debunk Newtonian Physics, it simply added to the knowledge of gravity

[biophys22]

Uh, carbon dating is not used to date dinosaur fossils buddy. We have other isotopes for that since carbon 14 has a relatively short half life. Furthermore, if dinosaurs id not go extinct before humans then please, please tell me when they did. I'm begging for an answer to that question.

[zzytrewq]

Arnold Mendez is clearly an idiot. All sciences support evolutionary theory. There is simply no skewing of data. He is just another loony creationist at best.

[mejc2]

Genetic mutations that increase information in the organisms DNA as to create a new organ, system, body plan, etc. are predicted and never have been observed. Also, the fossil record does not support the billions upon billions of gradations, both successful and unsuccessful, needed to transform from one type of organism to another.

[joshTheGoods]

Interesting point mejc2 - I do, however, take issue with your lack of research on the topic.

We have observed new morphological traits arising (one popular case being that of P. Sicula).

You also raise the common issue of transitional fossils which has been covered ad nauseam here on YouTube. Please see DonExodus' excellent series on transitional fossils and report back?

Please be clear, do you reject outright all of evolution or just "macro evolution?"

[mejc2]

If you define evolution as change over time then it is a fact and is observable. However, molecules to man is a fairy tale and is not supported by observation or evidence.

P. Sicula did not acquire new information in it's DNA to form the cecal valves. The information was already present just not activated. All Organism's ability to adapt to surroundings is amazing for sure.

And the suggestions of Don Exodus on transitional fossils is ad nauseam drivel.

Too few , Too questionable.

[joshTheGoods]

Evolution in this context is change in allele frequency over time, and you are correct in pointing out that it is observable and as near to fact as anything in science. I cannot see how one would accept such a postulation and then deny the obvious results.

WRT P. sicula - can you define "new information?" It seems to me that if a set of genes is a few mutations off of creating a new morphological trait and then acquires those mutations that represents "new information."

[joshTheGoods]

WRT not enough transitional fossils - How many fossils do you require? It seems that the immense number of fossils found to support the evolution of the whale for example is more than adequate. We have several examples of solid cases for speciation over time that when taken together constitute overwhelming evidence for what you might term as "macro" evolution. It is unrealistic to assume that we will find 10's of thousands of fossils per organism; so again, how much evidence do you require?

[mejc2]

if the genes are present and not active, that is one thing, but if the genes don't exist and are created through mutation that is completely something different. In the case of the wall lizards, they are genetically identical.

[joshTheGoods]

New genes can come about through several different known and observed mutations - example: gene duplication.

In the case of P. sicula, you've misread the study. The authors of the paper stated that the markers checked between the new population and other wall lizards were the same, NOT that the entire genome was the same. It takes large sums of time and money to do an entire genome, and as of yet neither the funds nor the impetus to spend them are available.

[joshTheGoods]

The point of checking genetic markers was to ensure that the new population exhibiting a new morphological trait were indeed P. sicula, and not a different species of lizard that had avoided observation. There are dozens of mutations present in each and every organism on the planet (this has been observed). It would be quite spectacular to find any two organisms with appreciable genetic material that were entirely the same. No two people, nor lizard, is likely to be exactly the same genetically.

[mejc2]

the point being that all organisms have abilities to adapt to there environment. this has been observed time and time again and is not disputed. there still remains no evidence of any organism changing into any other organism.

[joshTheGoods]

I've finally gotten you to state your position clearly then: the old macro vs. micro evolution argument. Maybe you have a funny definition of species? The common definition of species revolves around whether two populations can produce viable offspring that are no sterile. If you accept this definition then speciation has been observed on many occasions in both the plant and animal worlds. We've even observed speciation in a lab setting with fruit flies! Take a day or two to examine the evidence

[joshTheGoods]

I will place links for sites covering speciation in the more info section of this video in order to get you started. One can simply google "observed speciation" as I have and get loads of great results. I can understand that you might be skeptical of some of the sources presented via internet (YOU need to PERSONALLY see it to believe it) but one only needs to look carefully to find examples reported by different independent researchers at different times en masse. Conspiracy?

[mejc2]

I am aware of the changes that can be caused by adaptation. and by genetic engineering. However, to take these minor changes and make the bold jump to all living things had one ancestor that mutated into everything we see is not justified nor supported by the empirical evidence. I personally know a researcher that genetically altered six mice embryos so that they grew to three pounds each. I reiterate, the billions of mutations both successful and failed would have left more empirical evidence

[joshTheGoods]

I am still a bit confused by statements claiming that there should be "more empirical evidence." Is there a certain threshold of evidence that you will believe in? Please be specific. I wonder if your geneticist friend would mind discussing the genetic evidence for a common ancestor with you if you asked? Personally, I find the fact that all known life on the planet is based on the same template protein structure to be quite a compelling piece of evidence in support of a common ancestor.

[joshTheGoods]

Do you deny the efficacy of genetic evidence in the realm of forensics? My layman's understanding of such methodology leads me to believe that if one accepts the marker based genetic identification of people that one must also accept what those markers indicate in terms of a common ancestor. You yourself alluded to marker based species identification in discussing P. sicula. If you accept THAT evidence why do you deny the implications the same evidence posits with regard to common ancestry?

[mejc2]

We can only speak scientifically of what we can observe. Although, we can infer that there is a common ancestor, we have no evidence. our evidence is of descent not of ascent. Quite contrary to evolution, what we observe supports devolution. Also, you are correct my geneticist friend does accept common ancestry, however only in theory not empirically.

[joshTheGoods]

We can observe evidence, and in that case of fossils that observation is repeatable. We make inferences all of the time that you readily accept in fields like atomic theory, and quantum physics. Do you deny the practical results of atomic theory - the computer you sit at now because you cannot observe electrons flowing? Please be careful with how you use the word theory within the scientific perspective. The title Theory is a high honor, one that comes only after vigorous scrutiny. See: gravity.

[mejc2]

I understand what a theory is scientifically and it is a misnomer in the case of evolution. the flow of electrons can be tested and the use of my computer is pretty good evidence that the theory is valid. fossils can just as easily be interpreted as evidence that evolutionist's claims of molecules to man, never happened. The counter argument is actually stronger than the argument for the evolutionist's hypothesis. Evolutionists should be careful how they throw around the term theory.

[zzytrewq]

Go read a decent book on paleontology or go to a really decent museum.

Your statement "there still remains no evidence of any organism changing into any other organism." is proof you haven't done your homework or taken your blinkers off.

[mejc2]

It's blinders not blinkers. I've read great books that objectively report on the observations made. They lead me to understand that the hypothesis that all life had a common ancestor that changed slowly into everything living, is flat out wrong. It is I that have done my homework and you, I'm sad to say have merely followed the pack. I hope they don't jump off a bridge, for your sake.

[zzytrewq]

"I've read great books that objectively report on the observations made."

No you have not!!!

You have read books written by creationists. Give up arguing now, you have no facts to back you up if you use creationist arguments.

Sheesh!

[mejc2]

Oh, so I see If someone interprets the empirical evidence to show that Evolutionism is wrong, they haven't written a great book.

you're indoctrinated.

[zzytrewq]

The empirical evidence doesn't show evolution to be wrong. The information presented by creationist literature parading as evidence is laughable. Go and read Origin of the Species if you have the courage of your convictions. Better still find evidence that the book is flawed. Like most who never take this challenge they misquote the book in a pathetic attempt to discredit it. All have failed in the last 150 years.

You are brainwashed.

[mejc2]

Poor child, Darwin's book isn't even thought of as accurate by evolutionists. They have since moved on because it is scientifically known that the main mechanism that he depends upon (natural selection) is inadequate to account for the diversity we see. Darwin's hypothesis of Gradualism has also been abandoned for punctuated equilibrium.

who's brainwashed now?

[cre8ive00]

Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution

[cre8ive00]

Punctuated equilibrium is mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity - as postulated by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould (1972) in the book "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism"

[mejc2]

Good comments.

Now all we have to do is nail down specific definitions for things like Evolution, Kinds, Species, etc and we will be in like flynn.

[zzytrewq]

You obviously haven't read Origin of the Species, as I suspected. The narrow focus of the book was about natural selection and the book clearly provides evidence for that process. Later refinements and debates about gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are not the concern of that book. I did suggest that book specifically and it still has not been challenged successfully by creationists for what subject matter it covers.

You don't have the courage of your misguided convictions.

[mejc2]

"natural selection and the book clearly provides evidence for that process."

No one denies that natural selection takes place. it is the suggestion that it is the source of all diversity which Darwin erroneously hypothesized.

[joshTheGoods]

Would you kindly summarize the objective evidence you're familiar with that leads you to believe that common descent is a bunk theory? If your evidence is solid, it will be observable by anyone. I've already stated that the fact that we all share the same DNA is compelling evidence for common descent - how do you interpret the evidence I've presented? Do you posit that it doesn't seem like solid evidence or that there is a better explanation than the one I believe to be true?

[zzytrewq]

He believes the bible literally and has read the evidence in a creationist book of "facts".

What more proof does he need?

[mejc2]

similar DNA means similar DNA. You infer common ascent (which has never been observed) , others infer common designer,(Which cannot be proven). However, we can examine other evidence and test hypotheses that are needed for Evolutionism. did dinosaurs disappear before man got here? Archaeology, Art, and Ancient writings say no.

is the earth 4.5 b.y.o.? Carbon 14 in diamonds, missing geological layers, astronomical evidences say no.

Evolutionists invent stories to refute the evidence, guesses

[joshTheGoods]

Similar DNA is underselling reality. Again, if you deny such evidence you must also deny paternity tests and DNA evidence used in the courts.

We have examined other evidence, and it all agree with evolution. A wall painting of something doesn't mean that it existed outside of the painter's imagination. If I paint the FSM onto my bedroom wall it is still a fictional character (in your eyes ;p). The same goes for ancient literature.

How old do you think the Earth is if not 4.5 billion years?

[TheThomaswastaken]

Good video, I have a feeling that as you continue with this series you will have to debunk the same bad arguments over and over.

[Usingabrain]

You can really support evolution theory simply with dog history. If evolution is a crackpot theory, then how are humans able to selectively breed dogs to CREATE or EVOLVE new breeds? Also the computers that the faithful are using to attempt to debunk evolution EVOLVED from slow clunky machines, into the computers we use today. Evolution is just another word for change. If change always continues, then the view god made a perfect world just for us is not supported. cont...

[Usingabrain]

Everything changes no matter what. It is logical that the creature with the best traits for surviving in their enviornment will get to pass on those attributes so their young have the best chance to survive. Why is that simple logical observation so feared by the faithful. It doesn't support the bible as the infallible word of god. We all know man is fallible, and the bible is written by man. If the bible isn't true, then is god true. We dont't know for sure, but the bible is now suspect to many

[Ujikaweapon1]

Excellent work. I look forward to watching more of your videos.

[LogicalSanity]

love your videos. keep em up :D

[Textra1]

Nice work dude. I'm not sure I'd have the stamina or attention span to take on someone like Mendez. For someone with a Masters degree he sure makes some extremely fallacious and disingenuous statements. I mean, not falsifiable? J.B.S. Haldane said it best when asked what would convince him that evolution was false. "Fossil Rabbits in the Precambrian."

[jdf088]

great job Josh, i look forward to viewing more of your refutation of Mr. Mendez's claims that evolution is not science.

[justbekindtooall]

wery well done. be well