HAHA PZ is so right and so far that's all this video has been. Ya he totally Pounded ID but fuck him we need ID to kill the God-lie so I still support the idea that every complex thing needs a designer, even the designer...=D
Ripples on the beach gaining size as they climb the beach. Would be more complex then Myers stack of driftwood. But that wouldn't be I. D. A message written on the beach. "come on down to the red house and join the party, free booze". Would be. The genome contain the later. A specified message that decodes into a formula and blue print for construction, maintaining, reproducing and even changing life!
@onceforgivennowfree Is it odd that i consider the Bible's book of Genesis a poorly translated version of the Torah(purely translated from the native hebrew, supports evolution in the name of God) . And that Evolution + Natural Selection is actually evidence FOR intelligent design?
Intelligent deign creation: my example; The shroud of Turin. It can not under any circumstance be re-created by nature or humans. Thus, it was intelligently designed by God. ( i hope i am wording this correctly).
the fact IDers never define complexity, specificity, design in a blindly testable way is enough to refute itself. Myers may have dumbed it down and added comic relief, but the facts are the same. If Myers misrepresented ID, I'd LOVE to see what the real version states.
PZ has no need to refute ID. ID by its own proponents has never showed how to determine design from ad-hoc.
Until ID stops trying to catch small snippets it feels is "evidence against evolution", usually things that the questioner doesn't know that Evolution has already accounted for it (witness Behe and his unmasked lie that blood clotting "has never been answered" when it was but he didn't want to admit it) and actually do science nothing's "there" to refute
Don't you think that the "conspiracy theory" angle is getting a little trite? If the ID crowd had anything, they would have published it in a mainstream journal. What, they try once, then give up!? That's not science; that's wimping out. I have had far more papers turned down, than were published; that's just the way it is in science. You don't see me crying that it's unfair.
You gave one example of "peer reviewed" ID and it was retracted a month later, after it was found out it didn't actually go through peer review. After the guy that did it was quite rightfully fired, you take that as confirmation as some sort of bias against ID and "we're right but they don't want to admit it" mentality.
He would have been fired even if he had slipped a more conventional paper through the back door.
Mr. Myers improperly states that the I.D. position is "complexity equals an intelligent cause". It is easy to refute this "strawman" by providing an example of complexity which occurs without intelligence. He had to do this; because if he tried to argue honestly, he'd have to explain how one highly organized set of specific, communicated information (his lecture) was entirely different from another, even more complex set of information (the DNA in all of his cells), and then he'd look foolish.
@onceforgivennowfree Myers, raps up inteligent design in a nutshell pretty well. Complexity is the only argument it has, you have done the same, you came portraying complexity is evidence of an inteligent design. If you were to understand the biological processes involved in an organisms development and growth then perhaps you would understand.
Simple answer: its not mere "complexity" but *specified* complexity. Depending on what we are dealing with, information is not dealing with mere complexity; it has to do with particular qualification whereby one can recognized that a code came from an intelligent source.
This one is really Easy, onceforgivennowfree. He left off half the formula, specificity. Sorry my answer isn't more witty. I'm sure someone gave a better answer here but my wife and I wanted to participate.
@AtheismandSkepticism I was going to write a long, detailed response to your attack on believers, but one is not really needed. Anyone willing to open their eyes and look at their surroundings can see that nothing didn't create everything, nothing did not give us everything needed for life on Earth.... there are not over 6 billion ACCIDENTS walking the planet..... sorry to disappoint you.
@onceforgivennowfree PZ is using a stawman argument here. Complexity has nothing to do with the inference of design! It is ORDER and FUNCTION that show us if something was designed. Driftwood on the beach is NOT an example of design, complex though it is. Now if the driftwood had been cut, driven into the ground and tied together to form a stockade then it would be LESS chaotic, or complex if you prefer, but could not have come about naturally and any atheist would say the stockade was designed.
@fighterace2688 wait a minute you japanese little yellow small eyed bitch.....my native languages are greek and serbian...beside them i also speak german,italian,spanish and russian....and...3 ancient languages...latin,hebrew and arabic....so....yeah...maybe my english but i dont give a fuck about english we dont need english here...here greek,german and italian are important languages...including french....english is at least here in central and southeastern europe irrelevant....
PZ Myers is an IDIOT! A MORON! haha! I think he forgot the specificity part. He only mentioned Complexity. macroEvolution is NOT scientific. Wake up atheists tards... hahaha!
Oh, and you have empirical evidence to prove this? Have you "studied" evolutionary theory and obtained the scientific credentials needed to validate your claim. Or is the statement just your uninformed opinion.
Why is it that people who have no training in science seem to think that they know more than people who make it their life's work? Is your worldview on such shaky ground that you have to fear evolution? Truly sad.
@CamW30 You have some problems, he's asking you to refute P.Z Myers, he's not trying to prove much just to get his point across to understanding ID and you go on an evolution crusade. Your pride will be your downfall unless you open up your mind and raelly listen to what others are really saying.
@CamW30 If you cant see the difference between mocking and trying to be funny then im concerned. Didn't they teach you anything in school? It's only funny as long as you're laughing with someone, and not AT someone. That's bullying, although dont think im offended. Just frustrated at the lack of knowledge.
I follow the truth, I used to live the lie until I opened my mind up, and stopped being lazy and did some research. Evolution is a fact? lol okay Hey here, God is a fact.
@Stianchez - "I opened my mind up, and stopped being lazy and did some research."
Oh, really. Where did you take your training in research concepts? What are your academic credentials that allow you to be able to comment in any way on evolutionary theory? Or are you just trying to justify an obviously flawed worldview? Perhaps you could give some empirical evidence "FOR" ID? I didn't think so.
"Cam... I will pray for you"
Don't waste your time. I don't do in for fairy tales.
@gerinja its true...macroevolution is far from scientific....the only scientific thing about evolution is....microevolution..i.e variation...and it is used as only proof for whole evolutionary theory-clasims...speculations....etc...
@CamW30 Have you "studied" evolutionary theory and obtained the scientific credentials needed to validate your claim. Or is the statement just your uninformed opinion.
...ummm...i did...i was hardcore evolutionist...like almost every european here....after graduation more than 40 percent of students here leaving darwinism and becomes ,,darwinian sceptics,, like i am now darwinian sceptic...and majority of them embracing ID or creationism and studying it...not only students but also professors
But did you "study" evolutionary theory? Do you have the training to back up your "opinions". There is a vast difference between "reading" about evolutionary theory and "studying" it.
".and majority of them embracing ID or creationism and studying it"
That's funny, I know of no credentialed university that teaches ID, nor creationism. How is it that you were able to "study" these concepts? Where is your empirical evidence?
@CamW30 But did you "study" evolutionary theory? Do you have the training to back up your "opinions". There is a vast difference between "reading" about evolutionary theory and "studying" it.
...wait....wait a minute....may i ask you..is it true that you canadians have competitions for ,,dumbest man in the world,, ,,biggest retard in history,, ...etc...because canadians are ....well...their stupidity is beyond this world....o.O ...i think you newer heard of europe dear friend...europe is place
@giska1000 - "is it true that you canadians have competitions for ,,dumbest man in the world"
Why? Are you thinking of competing?
"europe is place"
Actually, it's a continent.
Still, you seem to avoid my question of your credentials to comment on evolutionary theory. Nor have you given any empirical evidence FOR intelligent design. Do I need to make the question simpler for you?
@CamW30 ...with number ONE level of education on this good earth....now first...you have to speak at least...AT LEAST 3 different languages if you want to be considered averagely educated,and if you want to go to highschool....now i dont even want to talk about NATURAL SCIENCE ...or subjects like history,archaeology,philosophy etc...all these things...YOU MUST STUDY THEM on a highest level if you want to become someone .....because here in europe you dont have hollywood or something similar....
@CamW30 "..with number ONE level of education on this good earth"
It's a shame that you missed out on that education.
...well...at least i newer believed it was darwin that came up with evoutionary theory...LOL...and ,,he was greek,,...LMAOOOO...ehhh candians...canadians..-.-
That is what I have been saying. So, what accredited institution(s) of higher learning did you obtain your degree(s) from, professor?
...check out my channel...i hope you know how to enter someones channel...
@CamW30 ....and check their informations....but hey...you are CANADIAN...lol...so maybe...you dont...XDDDD
Europe doesn't have a film industry? Hmm.... are you sure?
...YOU COMPARING EUROPE AND EUROPEAN film industry with hollywood???WOW...dumb ass canadian....i think you still using maple leaf instead of toalet paper...do you???...idiot...-.-
@CamW30 ...where you can just skip your school,or be an average student and then become multimilionaire ...here only key to success is KNOWLEDGE..and education...:))...oh...and i am from country,and i live in country where theory of evolution originated...its called greece....so how can you ask me if i ever actually ,,studied,, evolution theory.....if you check out my channel,you ll see main subjects i had to ,,study,, and learn to graduate ...:))) ok???
@giska1000 - "i live in country where theory of evolution originated...its called greece"
Darwin was Greek? That's news to me.
"if you check out my channel,you ll see main subjects i had to ,,study,, and learn to graduate"
I'll ask again, what are your degrees? You claim to have studied genetics, yet you do not understand evolutionary theory. Weird; I guess that you weren't paying attention in classes.
I take it that writing in complete sentences isn't a requirement for graduation in Greece.
.....AHAHAHA ahahahaah ahahaha...see CANADIAN...theory of evolution originated around 6th century BCE with the Greek philosopher Anaximander..:)))...Early Christian Church Fathers and Medieval European scholars treated the Genesis creation narrative as allegory and believed that natural organisms were unstable and capricious...well Augustine of Hippo was one of the best known proponents of evolution theory ....;))) i cant believe...you are ....
@giska1000 - ".theory of evolution originated around 6th century BCE with the Greek philosopher Anaximander.."
That's a bit of a stretch, now innit.
"Augustine of Hippo was one of the best known proponents of evolution theory"
I gotta keep reading for comments; the comic value is increasing. Where do you get this stuff. Why would creationists be anti-evolutionists if one of their most valued saints be "he best known proponents of evolution theory"? You've got a lot of learning to do, boy.
@CamW30 ...so ,,educated,, that...you still believe it was actually DARWIN that came up with this theory...O.o...kid...i dont wanna be rude...but i think you still trying to finish kindergarten,am i right???LOL....-.-
...right now i have BSc degree and soon im on my way for Ph.D ....btw may i add that my parents are both professors and members of CERN and LHC project,including majority of my friends,....its real European Scientific elite...my friend :)) thats my background...and yours???
@giska1000 - "right now i have BSc degree and soon im on my way for Ph.D"
In what field, may I ask?
"my parents are both professors and members of CERN and LHC project,including majority of my friends"
So, what does that have to do with YOUR abilities?
My specialty is in figuring out the neurophamacological basis of psychiatric disorders. Currently, I am working on the mechanisms of various depressive disorders by studying the concentration of receptor sub-types in various brain structures.
...we call it Molekularna Biologija...it is component or fusion of microbiology,biochemistry with genetics and biology....i also have Diploma in Physics,astrophysics,history and philosophy......
So, what does that have to do with YOUR abilities?
...are you kidding me??i am surrounded by experts in their fields...from archaeology to biology...so of course it helps me...when you are raised in scientific community,of course you ll always bee in touch with ...
@giska1000 - "..we call it Molekularna Biologija...it is component or fusion of microbiology,biochemistry with genetics and biology....i also have Diploma in Physics,astrophysics,history and philosophy....."
At 22? I call bullshit... again. You haven't lived long enough to have done half of this. And I have stepped in puddles deeper than you. Don't insult my intelligence.
" am surrounded by experts in their fields"
Okay, this has gone far enough. Is it a trait of Serbian-Greeks to be liars?
@CamW30 At 22? I call bullshit... again. You haven't lived long enough to have done half of this. And I have stepped in puddles deeper than you. Don't insult my intelligence.
...your ,,intelligence,,...well...what i observed in this little conversation is...that you are TYPICAL CANADIAN...nuff said...anyway...i hope you ll understand that there is a difference between 2009 and 2011 and after all...you need to check out level of education in europe...because i see that you think these ...
@CamW30 ..are something HUGE and DIVINE...hah...i know...i know...after all...in canada if you only speak 2 languages you are probably one of the GREATEST polyglotes everr...LOL...-.- like i said...you need to come to europe...i challenge you to come in europe...and you ll see that with your level of education...here...you can only be a bus driver...MAYBE...if you know at least 3 different languages too.....
@CamW30 ahah you lectured my ass...answer my questions 1st. who evolved more chimps or humans 2nd. why am i naive for thinking that universe is designed and complex and 3rd. do you actually denying the fact that complexity of universe and it ,,appearance,, of design isnt EMPIRICAL OBSERVABLE evidence??and 4th. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT theory of evolution has ONE single EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE...(macroevolution) ???
@giska1000 - "answer my questions 1st. who evolved more chimps or humans 2nd. why am i naive for thinking that universe is designed and complex and 3rd. do you actually denying the fact that complexity of universe and it ,,appearance,, of design isnt EMPIRICAL OBSERVABLE evidence??and 4th. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT theory of evolution has ONE single EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE...(macroevolution) ???"
No need to answer these questions; you've just confirmed that you have no understanding of science.
@CamW30 No need to answer these questions; you've just confirmed that you have no understanding of science.
...well...if you wont give me an answer...i ll consider this as clear evidence that you are running away ...so please...you...as an smart ass canadian scientist...next einstein....answer me these questions...can you???
@CamW30 ...latest scientific discoveries,scientific theories,debates among scientists,their opinions,theories...etc....i know you are an canadian...so you cannot understand what it means when you have around you really smart people....and one of the best thing is....you cant say to me...ahhh...you dont know theory of evolution...or...maybe you taught evo.theory but you newer actually understood it....etc...:))
@giska1000 - ".you cant say to me...ahhh...you dont know theory of evolution."
Oh yes I can. The stupidity of your question regarding which is more evolved, apes or humans; WTF is that? That tells me that you have absolutely no understanding of evolutionary theory, little boy. You are so sad; your claims make you look absolutely pathetic. Even if you are surrounded by "smart people", it hasn't rubbed off.
@CamW30 Oh yes I can. The stupidity of your question regarding which is more evolved, apes or humans; WTF is that?
..its a question...basic question...i want to see if you are in touch with latest research..so tell me who evolved more...chimps or humans...can you or you cant answer that question??IF YOU CANT then i ll post you here article from LiveScience...hmm???
@giska1000 - "i want to see if you are in touch with latest research"
Well then, don't ask meaningless questions. There is no answer to the question of apes or humans being more evolved. It makes no sense, what does "more evolved" mean? Perhaps try rephrasing the question.
I found the 2007 article to which you refer, All it is saying is that creationists are wrong to say that humans are more specially evolved than chimps; one is not "more evolved" than the other. One can't be "more evolved".
@CamW30 Well then, don't ask meaningless questions. There is no answer to the question of apes or humans being more evolved. It makes no sense, what does "more evolved" mean? Perhaps try rephrasing the question.
...it simply means...MORE EVOLVED...are on greater scal of evolution than another specie...and actually TITLE of that very scientific research is .... EVOLVED MORE THAN ...... SO ONE OF THESE 2 SPECIES EVOLVED MORE THAN ANOTHER...and that research showed that darwinian theory was wrong
@CamW30 ....and its just one of many...SO MANY examples where darwinian theory of evolution was proved to be wrong....because it made wrong predictions....just like it was claimed that chimps are our closest relatives,that we share 99% of DNA with chimps,that there is such thing as ,,beneficial mutations,, ....that neanderthals were dummies....that natural selection is driving force of evolution.....etc...etc....these are one of so many things darwinism claimed...but they are proven false with
@CamW30 Chimps are our closest relatives: the genetics are undeniable.
...wow...you are an professor???really...maybe you would be an professor in 19th century...or even in 1980s...but not in 2011....i can send you article that shows orangutans are our closest relatives...and this ,,closest,, cant be taken as final result...because latest research shows that we actually share 93 % of DNA with chimps,and thats not even final result...because we just scratched into DNA genome....
@giska1000 - ".i can send you article that shows orangutans are our closest relatives"
Oh, please do. I enjoy showing you where you are wrong. Be sure to check the genetics behind this amazing discovery, or again, you will end up looking like an ass.
"because we just scratched into DNA genome...."
I wouldn't use "we" if I were you. Check out some genetics journals before making such obviously ignorant claims. You do realize that with these claims you are just confirming evolutionary theory.
@CamW30 Oh, please do. I enjoy showing you where you are wrong. Be sure to check the genetics behind this amazing discovery, or again, you will end up looking like an ass.
...umm dont worry i will send it to you....
I wouldn't use "we" if I were you. Check out some genetics journals before making such obviously ignorant claims. You do realize that with these claims you are just confirming evolutionary theory.
...i ll use WE because we are humankind...i wont say...because they...or because...
@CamW30 ...he...or something like that....its normal to say WE ...and by WE i think of whole humankind...but you are an canadian i think its useless to explain these things to you....or may i ask you would you say WE became modernized society...we entered into ,,digital era,, ...or you ll say...THEY...became modern society...THEY..or...HE...or SHE became-entered into digital era.....???
and i think you are sooo wrong...if you really think that ,,these claims,, confirming evo. theory...
@CamW30 Beneficial mutations: every heard of nylonase?
AHAHAHA YES...yes...thank God...i knew...it is one and only ,,positive mutation,, you can give...nylonase...but is it really ,,new genetic material,, or alredy existing info in genome??nylonase is CLEAR EXAMPLE of microevolution i.e variation,and the only thing you can prove using nylonase as an example is switching of genetic information in flavobacterium and adapting into certain environment with other sources of nutrients.....
@giska1000 - "nylonase is CLEAR EXAMPLE of microevolution"
WTF, how could a mutation like nylonase be anything other than an example of microevolution?
"i knew...it is one and only ,,positive mutation"
What! Are you losing IQ points, as we comment? Any mutation that allows a species to leave behind more progeny than another organism of that species without that mutation is regarded as a "beneficial mutation". Did you not pay attention in class? This stuff is really simple.
@CamW30 WTF, how could a mutation like nylonase be anything other than an example of microevolution?
...i asked you FOR BENEFICIAL MUTATION that can cause macroevolutionary change or increasing of information in DNA genome that newer existed before....and you gave me CLASSICAL example of microevolution i.e variation via adaptation....flavobacterium switched alredy existing enzimes so that it can digest nylonase...it wasnt anyting new that newer existed in flavobacterium before....btw...where is
@CamW30 ...an example of POSITIVE MUTATION....especially in humans..is there any mutation known to us that can increasi dna information and improve organism without any loss or negative side(effects in organism) of that very same mutation???give an example ..
What! Are you losing IQ points, as we comment? Any mutation that allows a species to leave behind more progeny than another organism of that species without that mutation is regarded as a "beneficial mutation"
@CamW30 I'll need you to provide evidence of that. You always claim to have evidence, but can never come up with any, why do you suppose that is? Oh, yeah, you're just a BS artist.
...well...are you serious now???who,tell me...WHO TAUGHT that neanderthals were dummies and subspecie of modern humans??dont just tell me that creationists,church fathers or IDs taught that...ok...:)))
@CamW30 Neanderthals aren't dummies: science does progress, unlike creationism. I don't think that evolutionary theory predicted this.
...hey..wait a minute...dont mix science with evolution....ok??thats first thing...2nd thing...hey..please...science progress,and thank God for that,and thats one of reasons why darwinian theory of evolution was switched to neo-darwinian theory of evolution and soon will be dismissed as bullshit with another theory....it was theory of evolution that taught....
@giska1000 - ...hey..wait a minute...dont mix science with evolution"
Huh?!
"....it was theory of evolution that taught....neanderthals were dummies"
I'll need you to provide evidence of that. You always claim to have evidence, but can never come up with any, why do you suppose that is? Oh, yeah, you're just a BS artist.
"etc are missing links"
So, you lumped in real fossils with faked fossils (bet you don't know which is which). It was science that discovered the hoaxes, not religion.
@CamW30 So, you lumped in real fossils with faked fossils (bet you don't know which is which). It was science that discovered the hoaxes, not religion.
...really...there is no ,,real fossil,, ...transitional fossil...even Orrorin tugenensis,Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus ramidus are now questioned and soon will be discredited as ,,missing link,, not to mention most controversial fossils right now Lucy,tiktaalik and archaeopteryx....so you are left with NOTHING...:))))
@giska1000 - "not to mention most controversial fossils right now Lucy,tiktaalik and archaeopteryx."
None f these are controversial within the science community, only on creationist websites. Hmm... I wonder where you are getting your information. It is definitely not from PubMed.
@CamW30 None f these are controversial within the science community, only on creationist websites.
....woooow...yes...yes they are....Lucy and archaeopteryx are extremly controversial...Lucy...because 1st. you have only 40 percent of it bones...so scientists have so many different interpretations....and 2nd. some experts believe it was earliest hominid...and some it is just bunch of bones from an ape....btw...ONLY 40 PERCENT OF SKELET...isnt that wonderful how we here in europe have over ...
@giska1000 - "Lucy and archaeopteryx are extremly controversial"
Show me one peer-reviewed article stating this, please.
"some experts believe it was earliest hominid...and some it is just bunch of bones from an ape"
Please name one of those experts. You are getting worse with your statements. You are not checking the scientific data, at all. No matter what you claim. Everything on the last few pages are found ONLY on creationist websites, nowhere else. That makes my bullshit detector ring.
@CamW30 Show me one peer-reviewed article stating this, please.
...you want me to show you ,,peer reviewed,, article concerning this topic???hey...i hope you are not serious on this....because 1st...you have all kinds of articles here in europe concerning Lucy and archaeopteryx controversies,including tiktaalik and ambulocetus...but i think that if you truly want to see if im lying to you,you should come in europe to study them and see opinions of experts in natural museums....
@CamW30 Please name one of those experts. You are getting worse with your statements. You are not checking the scientific data, at all. No matter what you claim. Everything on the last few pages are found ONLY on creationist websites, nowhere else. That makes my bullshit detector ring.
....ok...you are an idiot...so i ll leave you with 2 options 1.you can think i lied or 2. you can actually come with your lazy ass and do research of experts here in europe...canada is not even relevant...
@CamW30 ...200 000 000 fossils...europe is matter of fact..biggest collector of fossils in world...i visited with my professors when we went on excursion and we saw all these fossils...(tiktaalik,archaeopteryx,ambulocetus etc) and we had opportunity to hear different...VARIETY of opinions and interpretations made by scientists and experts paleontologists,and paleoantrophologists...and may i say something about arshaeopteryx....???
@CamW30 Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
...here it is why you cannot use archaeopteryx as ,,missing link,, because it is a bird...a perching bird...and you cannot change that...:)))
Have you actually checked out that controversy? I didn't think so. How many palaeontologists agree with him? Creationists always quote Feduccia's conclusions, but what is his evidence. His is an extremely minority "opinion". Haven't you got anything better than this? So, so sad.
@CamW30 Have you actually checked out that controversy? I didn't think so. How many palaeontologists agree with him?
...hey...hey...canadian..WAIT A MINUTE...you actually saying that Dr.Allan Feduccia has no evidence??i suggest you to ..instead of constantly using argumentum ad populum actually check out who is Allan Feduccia and check out his intercvews,his work ...etc...he is btw worlds leading expert paleornithologist, specializing in the origins and phylogeny of birds.....
@CamW30 None f these are controversial within the science community, only on creationist websites.
...haha..you are full of prejudice...you alredy dismissed creationists and creationism as ,,pseudoscience,, ...well...thats why you are subjective..instead of being open minded...i can post you here list of number of scientists that was and are creationists....and some of them are one of the greatest minds of all time and they literally created and shaped modern science....so you cant say...
@giska1000 - "you alredy dismissed creationists and creationism as ,,pseudoscience,, ...well...thats why you are subjective"
No, it's not subjective. I rate "creation scientists" as I rate all scientists; by their body of work. Creation scientists never seem to publish in peer reviewed journals, This is because they can't prove their theories.
"they literally created and shaped modern science"
I can't believe that you used that old, misleading statement. And you call yourself open-minded?
@CamW30 No, it's not subjective. I rate "creation scientists" as I rate all scientists; by their body of work. Creation scientists never seem to publish in peer reviewed journals, This is because they can't prove their theories.
...again you are wrong....btw there are peer reviewed articles from wiliam dembski and michael behe,there was even controversy about dembskis peer reviewed article i think because eugenie scott claimed that his peer reviewed article actually wasnt about ID...
@CamW30 I can't believe that you used that old, misleading statement. And you call yourself open-minded?
OMG hey canadian..do you want me to name you scientists creationists that shaped modern sscience....btw...just for a record....father of modern genetics was....monk...he was creationist ...i think you know his name..well...i hope so...:)))
@CamW30 ...it is a bad thing to go and read articles from creationist or ID sites....thats one of biggest mistakes you r making here...and in the end...i always use both secular,ID,creationist and every possible source and comparing them and following evidence where it leads...
@giska1000 - ".i always use both secular,ID,creationist and every possible source and comparing them and following evidence where it leads."
Spoken like a true creationist. You got that right off of the Discovery Institute website. So, sad. So far you have only given creationist propaganda. I really don't think that you know how to read a scientific journal article.
I am done here. You have no understanding of science, let alone evolutionary theory. Just a little boy, trying to act big. So sad
@CamW30 ...where they keep these fossils and studying them....Lucy is one of the worst problems for paleontologists and paleoantropholigists because 60% of its bones missing....i hope you saw Lucy fossil at least ON INTERNET did you???....
@CamW30 Spoken like a true creationist. You got that right off of the Discovery Institute website. So, sad. So far you have only given creationist propaganda. I really don't think that you know how to read a scientific journal article.
....hahahah...funny thing is...when i use articles...when im sending articles concerning evolution vs creationism topic...i NEWER...everr...used any article from Discovery Institute....or Answer in Genesis....:)))...you are ignorant...
@CamW30 I am done here. You have no understanding of science, let alone evolutionary theory. Just a little boy, trying to act big. So sad
...you know what is sad....???you my friend..:)))..because you cannot use anything except these ,,arguments,, like ,,i dont understand evolution,, ...i ,,wannabe scientist,, ...,,im using creationist propaganta,, ....and ,,i dont understand science nor evolution,, ...and when you cant use this ,,srgument,, you go to argumentum ad populum...and THAT is sad...
@CamW30 None f these are controversial within the science community
...btw this is stupid argument man...dont you think??Its like me and you living in soviet union and arguing wether communism is right or wrong...and imagine if i say,well communism is true because its not controversial among russians,or if we were in nazi germany imagine if i say nazism is true ecause nazism isnt controversial among germans...ut its well accepted by majority of them....see...even if these fossils were accepted
@CamW30 ...as ,,missing links,, ..it wouldnt make them true...but anyway..these fossils are not even accepted as mising links by majority of evolutionists..not to mention by majority of scientists...because there is variety of interpretations when it comes to fossils...especially INCOMPLETE FOSSILS...like lucy...only 40 percent of that fossil leaving you with all kinds of different interpretation....
@CamW30 ...neanderthals were dummies...which was proven wrong like dozens of other things....
I don't think that evolutionary theory predicted this.
...no..they actually taught this...just like they taught that piltdown man,java man,peking man,nebraska man,archaeoraptor ....etc are missing links...just like they taught heckels embryology,vestigial organs,,,evolution of horses,, ...and other shamefull things which were proven wrong DECADES after evos. taught it as fact and used it as argument..
@giska1000 - "just like they taught heckels embryology,vestigial organs,,,evolution of horses"
What is with creationists & Haeckel's drawing?. He was caught being lazy by using the same woodcut for 3 diagrams. It was fixed immediately. What's the big deal? Besides, who believes ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, anyway?
As for vestigial organs; what do you nipples do for you? Or do you just like them tweaked by your Greek man lover?
@CamW30 What is with creationists & Haeckel's drawing?. He was caught being lazy by using the same woodcut for 3 diagrams. It was fixed immediately.
...my friend...is this honest from you???how can you claim such things..we both know that haeckels drawing was used at least until 2004 in textbooks....i think its still used because last year i saw it on book for biology of 4th grade in elementary school here....but anyway,even in america it was used at least until 2004....remember kent hovind...
@giska1000 - "we both know that haeckels drawing was used at least until 2004 in textbook"
Better recheck your sources, the disputed diagrams were never used in textbooks. That is a Jon Wells misdirection. He didn't lie, but he didn't explain the whole incident. He just didn't say that the diagrams were not the disputed diagrams. Slimy creationist double-talk.
"...remember kent hovind.."
Speaking of a slimy liar... His doctorate is from a diploma mill, not an accredited institution.
@CamW30 Better recheck your sources, the disputed diagrams were never used in textbooks. That is a Jon Wells misdirection. He didn't lie, but he didn't explain the whole incident. He just didn't say that the diagrams were not the disputed diagrams. Slimy creationist double-talk.
...like i said...creationist,nazist,racist or facist,evolutionist or whatever...one thing is certain....haeckels drawings were used in america at least in early 2000s and kent hovind was one of the most outspoken people
@CamW30 ...that warned ppl about this issue and even showed editions of biology books as proof for his seminars lies on our textbooks....you can check that out...i also know that haeckels drawings were used in our biology books here in europe,even in my book when i was in elementary school and later in highschool....just like evolution of horses and whales vestigial ,,legs,, ...
Speaking of a slimy liar... His doctorate is from a diploma mill, not an accredited institution.
@giska1000 - " also know that haeckels drawings were used in our biology books here in europe"
Pay attention to wording dipshit! Haekel's woodcuts WERE used in textbooks; not the one's that he was called on. Not the woodcut that was used 3 times. There is no controversy!
"...oh really..."
Really. Hovind graduated from Patriot University. Why not Google them.
@CamW30 wait...your only argument against hovind is...he is scum??i mean really...i dont give a fuck about hovind and his personality..i only care about his work on evolution vs creationism...you need to find me just one..JUST ONE video where he lied about evolution or just one video where he lo9st a debate against evolutionist...we both know there is dozens of videos with his debates...:)))
...and once more,i hope you ll at least try to use some arguments and leave out argumentum ad populum...
@tarrin4ever Hovind have his own theories..but when it comes to evolution vs creation...you CANNOT DENY the fact that he destroyed every evolutionist in every debate he had with them....and you know very well that he had so many debates with thousands of them...and thousands of others refused to debate him....be a man...go and watch his videos concerning theory of evolution....and you ll see what im talking about...i dont care about hovind or his theories...i only care about his relation...
@tarrin4ever ...to evolution vs creation controversy......but may i add ...why it is that one idea destroyed Hovinds credibility according to you,but when you have over 95 percent of ideas and predictions of darwinian theory evolution proven wrong over past decades??you still refuse to say credibility of darwinian theory of evolution is destroyed???hmm??
@giska1000 Well, the fact that such an idea leads you to believe he has no understanding of biology, science, physics or geology below that of most high school students. BTW, I don't need that one idea, he's got plenty of stinkers. Water blocking x rays & causing aging, 900 year old chameleons can become dinosaurs, dna's function in reproduction, etc. That's after only 5 more minutes of searching.
95 of darwinian theory proven wrong, I don't think so. I name you liar, do you have examples?
@tarrin4ever Well, the fact that such an idea leads you to believe he has no understanding of biology, science, physics or geology below that of most high school students.
...hahah...first ...no...that idea leads you to think that he is not perfect....einstein had wrong theories too...even einstei got it wrong...but that doesent make you to believe he was an idiot and he had no understanding of science....right???
@tarrin4ever BTW, I don't need that one idea, he's got plenty of stinkers. Water blocking x rays & causing aging, 900 year old chameleons can become dinosaurs, dna's function in reproduction, etc. That's after only 5 more minutes of searching.
...first...he offered his own theories of what possibly could happen in past....im not intertested in that...i am interested in things which he said about evolution and WHAT HE LIED CONCERNING EVOLUTION THEORY??did he used some misinformation...
@tarrin4ever ...maybe he lost some debate??or used false statements from evolutionists??was his seminar about evolution full of false infos??and things like that....we both know he newer lied when it came to evolution theory....now theories about and for creation that he proposed...are...IIKE HE SAID...just his own hypotesis....NOT ONLY AND 100% TRUTH...ok..:)))
95 of darwinian theory proven wrong, I don't think so. I name you liar, do you have examples?
@tarrin4ever for example....these are just some things that shouls destroy credibility of evolution...orce man,piltdown man,java man,peking man,nebraska man,haeckel embryology,archaeoraptor,ardipitechus,orrorin tugenensis,sahelanthropus tchadensis and ardipithecus ramidus,cro magnon,protoavis,protarchaeopteryx,Shuvuuia,pakicetus and ambulocetus,Yixianosaurus....etc...etc...i can continue if you want...all of them used...USED as ,,missing link,, some of them for decades...and LATER desputed.....
@tarrin4ever ..then useless organs...it was taught by evolutionists that we had in our body 80 useless organs ....and after some time...AFTER REAL SCIENCE...discovered that all these organs are useful...ALOT...they still claimed appendix,tonsils and coccyx were useless...and as such...clear ,,proof for evolution,,...(altrough idk how this could be ,,proof,, for evolution ..do you??lol) ...later it was found that appendix,coccyx and tonsils are very useful...my friend......
@tarrin4ever then when they found DNA whole scientiffic community was stunned...because its information....but still they used it as ,,proof,, for evolution...they said we have so called ,,junk,, DNA ...and its clear proof for evolution...IDs and creationists of course said wait,we assure you ,,junk,, dna is useful..but no...evolutionists taught it and used it as an argument....but now..in 2011th year....science progress...and we found that junk dna is EXTREMLY USEFUL....and its just a beginning
@tarrin4ever ...because now scientists believe ,,junk,, dna has even more functions than they found in latest research,and not only that,but junk dna is future of our medicine because we can used it to find cure fo so many genetic disorders and deadly diseases....etc..etc...darwin said in the origin of species that all organisms came from single celled organism....and he explained it...blablalba...NOW...in 21st century science...we found out that there is no such thing as ,,single celled,,....
@tarrin4ever ...organism...darwin tought cell is SIMPLE...now we both know..well...i hope you also know that cell...even simplest cell is more complex than ANYTHING we created as humankind....everything is extremly complex and fine tuned...i hope you know its a fact and thank God for microbiology ...:))) then darwin also tought evolution occures by mutation and natural selection are driving forces of evolution...today..in 21st century science it is well known that mutation...IS NEGATIVE...
@tarrin4ever ...or deadly thing....mutation cant create anything new,except scratch,damage or copy alredy existing information in genome...actually...is there some beneficial mutation??:))))you know there is no such thing...(btw i know you ll use nylonase and i ll answer to you later ;) ) ...than ...darwin tought natural selection is driving force of evolution...do you want me to send you an article where some spepcies ...especially cane toads(speedy toads) disproved this theory??it was ...
@tarrin4ever pure 100% secular article written by evolutionists ...speedy toads challenge darwins theory...:))..then survival of the fittest is disproven by latest research....i ll send you articles about that too...than well known myth that we share 99% of DNA is debunked with latest research...now it fell on just 93% and just like scientissts said its not even final result because we still decoded just few percents of DNA so difference between our dna and dna of chimps is probably much....
@tarrin4ever ..much bigger....and popular myth that chimps are our closest relatives is also disproven by latest research because by latest research orangutans are closer to us than chimps..i ll send you articles for that too...if you want i ll send you these articles because they are latest science..not science from 19th century....there is so many other things in geology and paleontology that is made on wrong asumptions etc...i can write you whole essay about that....if you want of course...
@CamW30 ...i dont give a shit what he was or is...but we can both see how he literally destroyed EVERY SINGLE evolutionist in a debate....if you show me one single debate where hovind lost....i ll quit and admitt you are right...but you know you cant...when it comes to evolution and lies used to support evolution he literally destroyed every single one of them....and you even have debate kent hovind vs 3 evolutionists at the same time...he embarrassed them too...ALONE..
@giska1000 - Okay, now that I know that you & Hovind are butt-buddies, I am stopping this exchange. You are just another non-thinking pseudo-intellectual christian, trying to use anti-science to prop up a faulty worldview. You are not worth the effort to debate.
Have a good life with your European elite society & parties at the LHC. Fuck, you're a loser. Crawl back under your rock & wait for the rapture, goofball.
@CamW30 whats wrong canadian...i can see that you...as an ,,doctor,, and international ,,lecturer,, cannot find arguments to support your belief in darwinian evolution theory???btw i was too soft,i should mention ida...you know ida right??Darwinius masillae...huh??its also one of members of evolution hall of shame...used as ,,missing link,, until 2009th....1983-2009th ...so many years ppl had been decieved into thinking ida was ,,clear proof,, for evolution...:)))...ehhhhh...
@giska1000 Your understanding of Ida is quite lacking. First, it was a missing link, but one farther down the evolutionary line, somewhere around wet nosed lemurs and eventual early primates.
Second, it has not been disproven to be anything other than what it was originally found to be. AronRa has a nice couple of videos clarifying the specimen to avoid the confusion brought on by news media once again misrepresenting/hyping scientific finds.
@tarrin4ever Your understanding of Ida is quite lacking. First, it was a missing link, but one farther down the evolutionary line, somewhere around wet nosed lemurs and eventual early primates.
...xDDD AAHAHAHA,,really??i like when uneducated people...mostly evolutionists...say...YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF .... OR EVOLUTION...OR fossils..etc...is lacking...or..,,you newer understood evolution,, ...lmao...-.- ok...kid...may i remind you that ida is disputed and no one even mentions ida anymore as...
@tarrin4ever ...mising link???..btw it was used as significant transitional form (a "link") between the prosimian and simian ("anthropoid") primate lineages.....
..ida joined to evolutions ,,hall of shame,, club...-.- good sir... AronRa has a nice couple of videos
...ahaha...just as i tought...your only source of ,,knowledge,, and ifnormation is you tube and wikipedia...LOL...so please kid...when you come here to europe and get a real education you can talk about these things....
@tarrin4ever ..btw aronra is nothing more than an typical american wannabe angry hairy ,,scientist,, from you tube...just like thunderfoor,dprjones and co. ...instead of listening what ,,you tube scientists,, say ..you shoould contact experts and REAL SCIENTISTS...but there is few real scientists in america anyway,so you should come here in europe...if you want serious education...:)))
@tarrin4ever good sir,when i said 95% of darwinian theory of evolution is disproven...you said it was bullshit...(lie or whatever) so i just named you some things which darwinian evolution claimed/some of them are still used) but they were disproven due to a modern science....btw i could write at least 50 posts of other things,but i ll just wait till you read these that i alredy wrote and maybe disagree with me on some of them...but it will be only in case if you are not in touch with....
@tarrin4ever ...latest science and scientific research,news ..etc...and may i just add that ,,tree of life,, ...tree ...still used in biology textbooks was disproven long ago...but if you not believe me,i ll send you even video from What is Life convention where geneticist guru Craig Venter(atheist) said that ,,evolutionary tree of life,, is outdated and wrong (piece of crap made up by darwin and his followers...:) btw i added this)
@giska1000 Firstly. All those instances where earlier ideas of biology/evolution weren't accurate wasn't discovered by creationists, but by the same group of people who came up with them in the first place. Scientists make hypothesis and theories based on the best evidence/models they have at the time, and when new discoveries arise they modify their theories.
This is not a case that evolution is wrong because earlier ideas are now incorrect, it's about understanding evolution better.
@tarrin4ever Firstly. All those instances where earlier ideas of biology/evolution weren't accurate wasn't discovered by creationists
...firstly...all these ideas were ideas of evlution from its very beginning till THIS DAY...believe it or not at least 80 percent of them was and still is used in 2000s.....do you want me to name them??and of course ALOT of them in general were ideas ,,born,, in 1970s,80s and 90s.....and SECONDLY...yes creationists didnt even existed then...except bible....
@tarrin4ever ...fundamentalists ....but there were not movements among scientific community like today we have ID movements,Creation movements..etc...etc....
but by the same group of people who came up with them in the first place.
...thats a blatant lie...only E.O Wilson did it with his kin selection..... Scientists make hypothesis and theories based on the best evidence/models they have at the time, and when new discoveries arise they modify their theories.
@tarrin4ever ...so you now have just chromosome 2 fusion and what else...as a proof for evolution??name me the best evidence for evolution you have today...5 of them that are THE BEST evidence for evolution can you???....
This is not a case that evolution is wrong because earlier ideas are now incorrect, it's about understanding evolution better.
...you think...even if everything...95 % things about evolution,including its own pillars natural sellection and random mutation are NOT according...
@tarrin4ever ...to darwinian predictions....made by theory...i mean...hmmm...and hey..i ll even send you latest article about IMAGINATION...i.e visualization of missing links...new method of evolutionists....if you want of course....
Second, a simple search for beneficial mutations pretty much answers your point on mutation.
...you want to tell me that there is beneficial mutation??cmon name me one since YOU actually did research on beneficial mutations....cmon???
@tarrin4ever false fossils were criticised by scientists upon their discovery contradicts any idea that they were used to further the evolutionary theory.
...see you are wrong again...or you just lying....almost ALL these fossils were used for DECADES...and some of them are still WILLINGLY USED as proof for evolution....just like today PROOFS for evolution tiktaalik,ambulocetus,archaeopteryx and Lucy are criticised by scientists but are still used as proof....
@tarrin4ever ...i even gave you here statements of one of the worlds leading scientists,evolutionist Alan Feduccia and his criticizm of archaeopteryx and you refused it...just like so many people refused criticism for so many fake fossils and frauds for decades until finally it was resolved once and for all....see...history repeats again...and btw i dont even know how can you believe that fossils support evolutionary theory,because if i asked you to give me 5 COMPLETE transitional....
@tarrin4ever ...fossils...you cant give me....because every....even tho its just few of them....every ,,transitional,, fossil...IS INCOMPLETE...you have over 200 000 000 COMPLETE fossils of fully formed and distinct species...but you dont even have one single transitional fossil ....all of them are like lucy...INCOMPLETE...and thats little bit weird....
@tarrin4ever You should pay attention to the numerous other genuine fossils that do support evolution.
...like??
it took someone like Stephen Hawkings to challenge Einstein's theory
...umm no...alternative theories always existed and always will...and it only takes time until someone comes and challenge stephen hawkings theory.....and i think you alredy agreed we use best explanations we have at certain time...
@giska1000 Second, a simple search for beneficial mutations pretty much answers your point on mutation.
Third. I used Aronra because he's not only a subject matter expert, he's well spoken and makes a strong case for his understandings. Your ad hominem of him and other people on youtube who happen to be subject matter experts do nothing to change that, your mere disagreeance with their stances doesn't make you their equal in understanding science. Where do your studies lie?
@tarrin4ever I used Aronra because he's not only a subject matter expert, he's well spoken and makes a strong case for his understandings. Your ad hominem of him and other people on youtube who happen to be subject matter experts...
..........wooow...you r using very big words...experts...riiight...why would you say they are experts...but such people as NephilimFree VFX and others are not ,,experts,, ....ahahah..you tube experts...O___o ...
...natural science,but i also have diploma in history and philosophy...they are very important here....
Finally, your use of Piltdown man etc as proof of evolution being false is a poor choice on your part.
...ummm..it was just one of MANY EXAMPLES...i havent even finished yet...if you want i can continue...but lets just say that it is same poor choice against evolution just like your ,,arguments,, against hovind is poor too.....
@giska1000 - "...natural science,but i also have diploma in history and philosophy...they are very important here.."
Ooh, a BSc & a diploma. You must be the most educated boy in Greece. Pathetic!
"...you want to tell me that there is beneficial mutation??cmon name me one"
I thought that I named several a couple of days ago, or is your little mind not able to retain information for more than a day? (Lactase enzyme, or others I didn't mention: Gbeta3-s, Ser447-ter) Need more, retard?
@CamW30 Ooh, a BSc & a diploma. You must be the most educated boy in Greece. Pathetic!
...o____o trust me..idk what you canadians doing downthere since you consider few diplomas,BSc and Doctorate as something AMAZING...and IMPOSSIBLE to achieve...etc...-.- ..
and 1.st..DONT TELL ME that you just used lactaze enzyme as beneficial mutation???
2.nd what is beneficial from Gbeta3-s you say to me..and i ll name you what is BAD side..side effect of this mutation..:))expert lecturer...:)))
@CamW30 3.rd Ser447-ter The Ser447Ter mutation of LPL may be associated with ischemic cerebrovascular diseases
The objectives of this study were to determine the influence LPL mutations Asn291Ser and Ser447Ter on plasma lipid levels, regression and progression of CAD, clinical events rate.........
@CamW30 , and response to fluvastatin therapy in the Lipoprotein and Coronary Atherosclerosis Study (LCAS) population. LCAS is a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to test the influence of fluvastatin on progression or regression of CAD. The Asn291Ser and Ser447Ter genotypes were determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ...
@CamW30 and restriction enzyme digestion. Fasting plasma lipid profiles were measured and quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and 2.5 years following randomization. Fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events during the follow-up period were recorded. A total of 4% (14/363) and 18% (62/352) of the subjects had the Asn291Ser and Ser447Ter mutations, respectively....
This has been flagged as spam show
straw man attacks
MrApologician 6 months ago
ad homenium to the man or insulsts
MrApologician 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would like to see one of these "complex driftwood walls". What a poor argument against intelligent design!
PirateXzibit 8 months ago
Comment removed
PirateXzibit 8 months ago
HAHA PZ is so right and so far that's all this video has been. Ya he totally Pounded ID but fuck him we need ID to kill the God-lie so I still support the idea that every complex thing needs a designer, even the designer...=D
GodKillerAtheist 8 months ago
Why is PZ Myers adressing something that he claims to be false?...
...his lousy objection is the answer, ID critics never adress it properly, therefore, ppl will continue to infer design in nature.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
Myer's "driftwood wall" analogy was weaker than urbanelf's attempt to describe specificity.
neoverse 9 months ago
Refuted? Not fully in that clip - summed up ID? ya, id say he did a pretty good job. Lets see whats next on the agenda...
cbilljones 9 months ago
Ripples on the beach gaining size as they climb the beach. Would be more complex then Myers stack of driftwood. But that wouldn't be I. D. A message written on the beach. "come on down to the red house and join the party, free booze". Would be. The genome contain the later. A specified message that decodes into a formula and blue print for construction, maintaining, reproducing and even changing life!
Howie47 9 months ago
Evolutionist ALWAYS set up a strawman, then nock it down, and claim victory! That's because that is all they got!
Howie47 9 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Is it odd that i consider the Bible's book of Genesis a poorly translated version of the Torah(purely translated from the native hebrew, supports evolution in the name of God) . And that Evolution + Natural Selection is actually evidence FOR intelligent design?
SupremeAmerican 9 months ago
Myers is a reductionistic twit.
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
Intelligent deign creation: my example; The shroud of Turin. It can not under any circumstance be re-created by nature or humans. Thus, it was intelligently designed by God. ( i hope i am wording this correctly).
baysideful 9 months ago
Comment removed
baysideful 9 months ago
Here's another one for you:
/watch?v=TI4DX7XqZx4
sol3a1 9 months ago
the fact IDers never define complexity, specificity, design in a blindly testable way is enough to refute itself. Myers may have dumbed it down and added comic relief, but the facts are the same. If Myers misrepresented ID, I'd LOVE to see what the real version states.
spiritualbully 9 months ago
PZ has no need to refute ID. ID by its own proponents has never showed how to determine design from ad-hoc.
Until ID stops trying to catch small snippets it feels is "evidence against evolution", usually things that the questioner doesn't know that Evolution has already accounted for it (witness Behe and his unmasked lie that blood clotting "has never been answered" when it was but he didn't want to admit it) and actually do science nothing's "there" to refute
Any unequivocal evidence FOR ID?
sol3a1 9 months ago
@AtheismandSkepticism
Check out my video on Inteligent Design & peer review
onceforgivennowfree 10 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree - "Check out my video on Inteligent Design & peer review"
Don't you think that the "conspiracy theory" angle is getting a little trite? If the ID crowd had anything, they would have published it in a mainstream journal. What, they try once, then give up!? That's not science; that's wimping out. I have had far more papers turned down, than were published; that's just the way it is in science. You don't see me crying that it's unfair.
ID, around since 1989; no evidence; sad
CamW30 10 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree
I did, left a comment.
You gave one example of "peer reviewed" ID and it was retracted a month later, after it was found out it didn't actually go through peer review. After the guy that did it was quite rightfully fired, you take that as confirmation as some sort of bias against ID and "we're right but they don't want to admit it" mentality.
He would have been fired even if he had slipped a more conventional paper through the back door.
What do you take me for?
AtheismandSkepticism 10 months ago
Mr. Myers improperly states that the I.D. position is "complexity equals an intelligent cause". It is easy to refute this "strawman" by providing an example of complexity which occurs without intelligence. He had to do this; because if he tried to argue honestly, he'd have to explain how one highly organized set of specific, communicated information (his lecture) was entirely different from another, even more complex set of information (the DNA in all of his cells), and then he'd look foolish.
FreakUni 10 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Myers, raps up inteligent design in a nutshell pretty well. Complexity is the only argument it has, you have done the same, you came portraying complexity is evidence of an inteligent design. If you were to understand the biological processes involved in an organisms development and growth then perhaps you would understand.
emptywithoutbrain 10 months ago
Simple answer: its not mere "complexity" but *specified* complexity. Depending on what we are dealing with, information is not dealing with mere complexity; it has to do with particular qualification whereby one can recognized that a code came from an intelligent source.
theapologeticfront 10 months ago
This one is really Easy, onceforgivennowfree. He left off half the formula, specificity. Sorry my answer isn't more witty. I'm sure someone gave a better answer here but my wife and I wanted to participate.
jreels44 10 months ago
@AtheismandSkepticism I was going to write a long, detailed response to your attack on believers, but one is not really needed. Anyone willing to open their eyes and look at their surroundings can see that nothing didn't create everything, nothing did not give us everything needed for life on Earth.... there are not over 6 billion ACCIDENTS walking the planet..... sorry to disappoint you.
mcap52 10 months ago
@mcap52 And if that was an accurate description of the big bang/ evolution I would probable agree with you.
AtheismandSkepticism 10 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree PZ is using a stawman argument here. Complexity has nothing to do with the inference of design! It is ORDER and FUNCTION that show us if something was designed. Driftwood on the beach is NOT an example of design, complex though it is. Now if the driftwood had been cut, driven into the ground and tied together to form a stockade then it would be LESS chaotic, or complex if you prefer, but could not have come about naturally and any atheist would say the stockade was designed.
Quintapus 10 months ago
Comment removed
Quintapus 10 months ago
@giska1000 if you WERE educated <--fixed. You sound like a classic hillbilly.
fighterace2688 10 months ago
@fighterace2688 wait a minute you japanese little yellow small eyed bitch.....my native languages are greek and serbian...beside them i also speak german,italian,spanish and russian....and...3 ancient languages...latin,hebrew and arabic....so....yeah...maybe my english but i dont give a fuck about english we dont need english here...here greek,german and italian are important languages...including french....english is at least here in central and southeastern europe irrelevant....
giska1000 10 months ago
My answer to P.Z Myers isthat he's to stupid and ignorant to wrap his mind around the argument.
Stianchez 10 months ago
PZ Myers is an IDIOT! A MORON! haha! I think he forgot the specificity part. He only mentioned Complexity. macroEvolution is NOT scientific. Wake up atheists tards... hahaha!
gerinja 10 months ago
@gerinja - "macroEvolution is NOT scientific."
Oh, and you have empirical evidence to prove this? Have you "studied" evolutionary theory and obtained the scientific credentials needed to validate your claim. Or is the statement just your uninformed opinion.
Why is it that people who have no training in science seem to think that they know more than people who make it their life's work? Is your worldview on such shaky ground that you have to fear evolution? Truly sad.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 You have some problems, he's asking you to refute P.Z Myers, he's not trying to prove much just to get his point across to understanding ID and you go on an evolution crusade. Your pride will be your downfall unless you open up your mind and raelly listen to what others are really saying.
Stianchez 10 months ago
@Stianchez - Live the lie, dude. Evolution is a fact. Myers is just trying to be funny. You guys really have a problem with context.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 If you cant see the difference between mocking and trying to be funny then im concerned. Didn't they teach you anything in school? It's only funny as long as you're laughing with someone, and not AT someone. That's bullying, although dont think im offended. Just frustrated at the lack of knowledge.
I follow the truth, I used to live the lie until I opened my mind up, and stopped being lazy and did some research. Evolution is a fact? lol okay Hey here, God is a fact.
Stianchez 10 months ago
@Stianchez where?
fighterace2688 10 months ago
@fighterace2688 right there!
Stianchez 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stianchez - "I opened my mind up, and stopped being lazy and did some research."
Oh, really. Where did you take your training in research concepts? What are your academic credentials that allow you to be able to comment in any way on evolutionary theory? Or are you just trying to justify an obviously flawed worldview? Perhaps you could give some empirical evidence "FOR" ID? I didn't think so.
"Cam... I will pray for you"
Don't waste your time. I don't do in for fairy tales.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 read my first comment before this.
"You guys really have a problem with context"
You just proved the point matt is trying to make - ID for dummies.
"It's complex, thats their only argument". - Myers.
Talk about taking things out of context. Nice strawman.
"You guys really have a problem with context.... problem with context..... problem with context.
Judge not others lest ye be judged
Cam... I will pray for you . sincerely goodluck Jesus be with you!
Stianchez 10 months ago
@CamW30 why did I say that macroevolution is not scientific? well, simply because it does not follow the scientific method... that is all
Would you say that it does?
gerinja 10 months ago
@gerinja its true...macroevolution is far from scientific....the only scientific thing about evolution is....microevolution..i.e variation...and it is used as only proof for whole evolutionary theory-clasims...speculations....etc...
giska1000 10 months ago
@gerinja - "why did I say that macroevolution is not scientific?"
And you have the scientific credentials to back that up? I didn't think so.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Have you "studied" evolutionary theory and obtained the scientific credentials needed to validate your claim. Or is the statement just your uninformed opinion.
...ummm...i did...i was hardcore evolutionist...like almost every european here....after graduation more than 40 percent of students here leaving darwinism and becomes ,,darwinian sceptics,, like i am now darwinian sceptic...and majority of them embracing ID or creationism and studying it...not only students but also professors
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "i was hardcore evolutionis"
But did you "study" evolutionary theory? Do you have the training to back up your "opinions". There is a vast difference between "reading" about evolutionary theory and "studying" it.
".and majority of them embracing ID or creationism and studying it"
That's funny, I know of no credentialed university that teaches ID, nor creationism. How is it that you were able to "study" these concepts? Where is your empirical evidence?
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 But did you "study" evolutionary theory? Do you have the training to back up your "opinions". There is a vast difference between "reading" about evolutionary theory and "studying" it.
...wait....wait a minute....may i ask you..is it true that you canadians have competitions for ,,dumbest man in the world,, ,,biggest retard in history,, ...etc...because canadians are ....well...their stupidity is beyond this world....o.O ...i think you newer heard of europe dear friend...europe is place
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "is it true that you canadians have competitions for ,,dumbest man in the world"
Why? Are you thinking of competing?
"europe is place"
Actually, it's a continent.
Still, you seem to avoid my question of your credentials to comment on evolutionary theory. Nor have you given any empirical evidence FOR intelligent design. Do I need to make the question simpler for you?
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...with number ONE level of education on this good earth....now first...you have to speak at least...AT LEAST 3 different languages if you want to be considered averagely educated,and if you want to go to highschool....now i dont even want to talk about NATURAL SCIENCE ...or subjects like history,archaeology,philosophy etc...all these things...YOU MUST STUDY THEM on a highest level if you want to become someone .....because here in europe you dont have hollywood or something similar....
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "..with number ONE level of education on this good earth"
It's a shame that you missed out on that education.
"..or subjects like history,archaeology,philosophy etc...all these things...YOU MUST STUDY THEM on a highest level"
That is what I have been saying. So, what accredited institution(s) of higher learning did you obtain your degree(s) from, professor?
"in europe you dont have hollywood or something similar...."
Europe doesn't have a film industry? Hmm.... are you sure?
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 "..with number ONE level of education on this good earth"
It's a shame that you missed out on that education.
...well...at least i newer believed it was darwin that came up with evoutionary theory...LOL...and ,,he was greek,,...LMAOOOO...ehhh candians...canadians..-.-
That is what I have been saying. So, what accredited institution(s) of higher learning did you obtain your degree(s) from, professor?
...check out my channel...i hope you know how to enter someones channel...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ....and check their informations....but hey...you are CANADIAN...lol...so maybe...you dont...XDDDD
Europe doesn't have a film industry? Hmm.... are you sure?
...YOU COMPARING EUROPE AND EUROPEAN film industry with hollywood???WOW...dumb ass canadian....i think you still using maple leaf instead of toalet paper...do you???...idiot...-.-
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...where you can just skip your school,or be an average student and then become multimilionaire ...here only key to success is KNOWLEDGE..and education...:))...oh...and i am from country,and i live in country where theory of evolution originated...its called greece....so how can you ask me if i ever actually ,,studied,, evolution theory.....if you check out my channel,you ll see main subjects i had to ,,study,, and learn to graduate ...:))) ok???
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "i live in country where theory of evolution originated...its called greece"
Darwin was Greek? That's news to me.
"if you check out my channel,you ll see main subjects i had to ,,study,, and learn to graduate"
I'll ask again, what are your degrees? You claim to have studied genetics, yet you do not understand evolutionary theory. Weird; I guess that you weren't paying attention in classes.
I take it that writing in complete sentences isn't a requirement for graduation in Greece.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Darwin was Greek? That's news to me.
.....AHAHAHA ahahahaah ahahaha...see CANADIAN...theory of evolution originated around 6th century BCE with the Greek philosopher Anaximander..:)))...Early Christian Church Fathers and Medieval European scholars treated the Genesis creation narrative as allegory and believed that natural organisms were unstable and capricious...well Augustine of Hippo was one of the best known proponents of evolution theory ....;))) i cant believe...you are ....
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - ".theory of evolution originated around 6th century BCE with the Greek philosopher Anaximander.."
That's a bit of a stretch, now innit.
"Augustine of Hippo was one of the best known proponents of evolution theory"
I gotta keep reading for comments; the comic value is increasing. Where do you get this stuff. Why would creationists be anti-evolutionists if one of their most valued saints be "he best known proponents of evolution theory"? You've got a lot of learning to do, boy.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...so ,,educated,, that...you still believe it was actually DARWIN that came up with this theory...O.o...kid...i dont wanna be rude...but i think you still trying to finish kindergarten,am i right???LOL....-.-
...right now i have BSc degree and soon im on my way for Ph.D ....btw may i add that my parents are both professors and members of CERN and LHC project,including majority of my friends,....its real European Scientific elite...my friend :)) thats my background...and yours???
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "right now i have BSc degree and soon im on my way for Ph.D"
In what field, may I ask?
"my parents are both professors and members of CERN and LHC project,including majority of my friends"
So, what does that have to do with YOUR abilities?
My specialty is in figuring out the neurophamacological basis of psychiatric disorders. Currently, I am working on the mechanisms of various depressive disorders by studying the concentration of receptor sub-types in various brain structures.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 In what field, may I ask?
...we call it Molekularna Biologija...it is component or fusion of microbiology,biochemistry with genetics and biology....i also have Diploma in Physics,astrophysics,history and philosophy......
So, what does that have to do with YOUR abilities?
...are you kidding me??i am surrounded by experts in their fields...from archaeology to biology...so of course it helps me...when you are raised in scientific community,of course you ll always bee in touch with ...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "..we call it Molekularna Biologija...it is component or fusion of microbiology,biochemistry with genetics and biology....i also have Diploma in Physics,astrophysics,history and philosophy....."
At 22? I call bullshit... again. You haven't lived long enough to have done half of this. And I have stepped in puddles deeper than you. Don't insult my intelligence.
" am surrounded by experts in their fields"
Okay, this has gone far enough. Is it a trait of Serbian-Greeks to be liars?
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 At 22? I call bullshit... again. You haven't lived long enough to have done half of this. And I have stepped in puddles deeper than you. Don't insult my intelligence.
...your ,,intelligence,,...well...what i observed in this little conversation is...that you are TYPICAL CANADIAN...nuff said...anyway...i hope you ll understand that there is a difference between 2009 and 2011 and after all...you need to check out level of education in europe...because i see that you think these ...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ..are something HUGE and DIVINE...hah...i know...i know...after all...in canada if you only speak 2 languages you are probably one of the GREATEST polyglotes everr...LOL...-.- like i said...you need to come to europe...i challenge you to come in europe...and you ll see that with your level of education...here...you can only be a bus driver...MAYBE...if you know at least 3 different languages too.....
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "i challenge you to come in europe"
[sigh] I've lectured in Europe (Milan & London). I don't need to learn more languages, translation software is very good.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 ahah you lectured my ass...answer my questions 1st. who evolved more chimps or humans 2nd. why am i naive for thinking that universe is designed and complex and 3rd. do you actually denying the fact that complexity of universe and it ,,appearance,, of design isnt EMPIRICAL OBSERVABLE evidence??and 4th. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT theory of evolution has ONE single EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE...(macroevolution) ???
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "answer my questions 1st. who evolved more chimps or humans 2nd. why am i naive for thinking that universe is designed and complex and 3rd. do you actually denying the fact that complexity of universe and it ,,appearance,, of design isnt EMPIRICAL OBSERVABLE evidence??and 4th. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT theory of evolution has ONE single EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE...(macroevolution) ???"
No need to answer these questions; you've just confirmed that you have no understanding of science.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 No need to answer these questions; you've just confirmed that you have no understanding of science.
...well...if you wont give me an answer...i ll consider this as clear evidence that you are running away ...so please...you...as an smart ass canadian scientist...next einstein....answer me these questions...can you???
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...latest scientific discoveries,scientific theories,debates among scientists,their opinions,theories...etc....i know you are an canadian...so you cannot understand what it means when you have around you really smart people....and one of the best thing is....you cant say to me...ahhh...you dont know theory of evolution...or...maybe you taught evo.theory but you newer actually understood it....etc...:))
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - ".you cant say to me...ahhh...you dont know theory of evolution."
Oh yes I can. The stupidity of your question regarding which is more evolved, apes or humans; WTF is that? That tells me that you have absolutely no understanding of evolutionary theory, little boy. You are so sad; your claims make you look absolutely pathetic. Even if you are surrounded by "smart people", it hasn't rubbed off.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Oh yes I can. The stupidity of your question regarding which is more evolved, apes or humans; WTF is that?
..its a question...basic question...i want to see if you are in touch with latest research..so tell me who evolved more...chimps or humans...can you or you cant answer that question??IF YOU CANT then i ll post you here article from LiveScience...hmm???
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "i want to see if you are in touch with latest research"
Well then, don't ask meaningless questions. There is no answer to the question of apes or humans being more evolved. It makes no sense, what does "more evolved" mean? Perhaps try rephrasing the question.
I found the 2007 article to which you refer, All it is saying is that creationists are wrong to say that humans are more specially evolved than chimps; one is not "more evolved" than the other. One can't be "more evolved".
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Well then, don't ask meaningless questions. There is no answer to the question of apes or humans being more evolved. It makes no sense, what does "more evolved" mean? Perhaps try rephrasing the question.
...it simply means...MORE EVOLVED...are on greater scal of evolution than another specie...and actually TITLE of that very scientific research is .... EVOLVED MORE THAN ...... SO ONE OF THESE 2 SPECIES EVOLVED MORE THAN ANOTHER...and that research showed that darwinian theory was wrong
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "and that research showed that darwinian theory was wrong"
More evidence that you don't understand science. You are digging yourself an awfully deep hole.
More to follow...
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 ....and its just one of many...SO MANY examples where darwinian theory of evolution was proved to be wrong....because it made wrong predictions....just like it was claimed that chimps are our closest relatives,that we share 99% of DNA with chimps,that there is such thing as ,,beneficial mutations,, ....that neanderthals were dummies....that natural selection is driving force of evolution.....etc...etc....these are one of so many things darwinism claimed...but they are proven false with
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "SO MANY examples where darwinian theory of evolution was proved to be wrong....because it made wrong predictions..."
Chimps are our closest relatives: the genetics are undeniable.
Beneficial mutations: every heard of nylonase?
Neanderthals aren't dummies: science does progress, unlike creationism. I don't think that evolutionary theory predicted this.
Natural selection: is the main driving force behind evolution, but not the only one (nothing new).
Are you truly this ignorant?
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Chimps are our closest relatives: the genetics are undeniable.
...wow...you are an professor???really...maybe you would be an professor in 19th century...or even in 1980s...but not in 2011....i can send you article that shows orangutans are our closest relatives...and this ,,closest,, cant be taken as final result...because latest research shows that we actually share 93 % of DNA with chimps,and thats not even final result...because we just scratched into DNA genome....
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - ".i can send you article that shows orangutans are our closest relatives"
Oh, please do. I enjoy showing you where you are wrong. Be sure to check the genetics behind this amazing discovery, or again, you will end up looking like an ass.
"because we just scratched into DNA genome...."
I wouldn't use "we" if I were you. Check out some genetics journals before making such obviously ignorant claims. You do realize that with these claims you are just confirming evolutionary theory.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Oh, please do. I enjoy showing you where you are wrong. Be sure to check the genetics behind this amazing discovery, or again, you will end up looking like an ass.
...umm dont worry i will send it to you....
I wouldn't use "we" if I were you. Check out some genetics journals before making such obviously ignorant claims. You do realize that with these claims you are just confirming evolutionary theory.
...i ll use WE because we are humankind...i wont say...because they...or because...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...he...or something like that....its normal to say WE ...and by WE i think of whole humankind...but you are an canadian i think its useless to explain these things to you....or may i ask you would you say WE became modernized society...we entered into ,,digital era,, ...or you ll say...THEY...became modern society...THEY..or...HE...or SHE became-entered into digital era.....???
and i think you are sooo wrong...if you really think that ,,these claims,, confirming evo. theory...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 Beneficial mutations: every heard of nylonase?
AHAHAHA YES...yes...thank God...i knew...it is one and only ,,positive mutation,, you can give...nylonase...but is it really ,,new genetic material,, or alredy existing info in genome??nylonase is CLEAR EXAMPLE of microevolution i.e variation,and the only thing you can prove using nylonase as an example is switching of genetic information in flavobacterium and adapting into certain environment with other sources of nutrients.....
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "nylonase is CLEAR EXAMPLE of microevolution"
WTF, how could a mutation like nylonase be anything other than an example of microevolution?
"i knew...it is one and only ,,positive mutation"
What! Are you losing IQ points, as we comment? Any mutation that allows a species to leave behind more progeny than another organism of that species without that mutation is regarded as a "beneficial mutation". Did you not pay attention in class? This stuff is really simple.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 WTF, how could a mutation like nylonase be anything other than an example of microevolution?
...i asked you FOR BENEFICIAL MUTATION that can cause macroevolutionary change or increasing of information in DNA genome that newer existed before....and you gave me CLASSICAL example of microevolution i.e variation via adaptation....flavobacterium switched alredy existing enzimes so that it can digest nylonase...it wasnt anyting new that newer existed in flavobacterium before....btw...where is
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...an example of POSITIVE MUTATION....especially in humans..is there any mutation known to us that can increasi dna information and improve organism without any loss or negative side(effects in organism) of that very same mutation???give an example ..
What! Are you losing IQ points, as we comment? Any mutation that allows a species to leave behind more progeny than another organism of that species without that mutation is regarded as a "beneficial mutation"
name me such mutation???
giska1000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@giska1000 - "...an example of POSITIVE MUTATION....especially in humans."
You mean like the lactase enzyme?
Perhaps the plasmingen activator inhibitor gene plymorphism.
The LPL Ser447-Stop mutation.
C825T polymorphism in the gene encoding for the Gbeta3 subunit of heterotrimeric G proteins.
I could go on for days.
CamW30 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CamW30 I'll need you to provide evidence of that. You always claim to have evidence, but can never come up with any, why do you suppose that is? Oh, yeah, you're just a BS artist.
...well...are you serious now???who,tell me...WHO TAUGHT that neanderthals were dummies and subspecie of modern humans??dont just tell me that creationists,church fathers or IDs taught that...ok...:)))
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 Neanderthals aren't dummies: science does progress, unlike creationism. I don't think that evolutionary theory predicted this.
...hey..wait a minute...dont mix science with evolution....ok??thats first thing...2nd thing...hey..please...science progress,and thank God for that,and thats one of reasons why darwinian theory of evolution was switched to neo-darwinian theory of evolution and soon will be dismissed as bullshit with another theory....it was theory of evolution that taught....
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - ...hey..wait a minute...dont mix science with evolution"
Huh?!
"....it was theory of evolution that taught....neanderthals were dummies"
I'll need you to provide evidence of that. You always claim to have evidence, but can never come up with any, why do you suppose that is? Oh, yeah, you're just a BS artist.
"etc are missing links"
So, you lumped in real fossils with faked fossils (bet you don't know which is which). It was science that discovered the hoaxes, not religion.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 So, you lumped in real fossils with faked fossils (bet you don't know which is which). It was science that discovered the hoaxes, not religion.
...really...there is no ,,real fossil,, ...transitional fossil...even Orrorin tugenensis,Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus ramidus are now questioned and soon will be discredited as ,,missing link,, not to mention most controversial fossils right now Lucy,tiktaalik and archaeopteryx....so you are left with NOTHING...:))))
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "not to mention most controversial fossils right now Lucy,tiktaalik and archaeopteryx."
None f these are controversial within the science community, only on creationist websites. Hmm... I wonder where you are getting your information. It is definitely not from PubMed.
Give up, you lose!
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 None f these are controversial within the science community, only on creationist websites.
....woooow...yes...yes they are....Lucy and archaeopteryx are extremly controversial...Lucy...because 1st. you have only 40 percent of it bones...so scientists have so many different interpretations....and 2nd. some experts believe it was earliest hominid...and some it is just bunch of bones from an ape....btw...ONLY 40 PERCENT OF SKELET...isnt that wonderful how we here in europe have over ...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "Lucy and archaeopteryx are extremly controversial"
Show me one peer-reviewed article stating this, please.
"some experts believe it was earliest hominid...and some it is just bunch of bones from an ape"
Please name one of those experts. You are getting worse with your statements. You are not checking the scientific data, at all. No matter what you claim. Everything on the last few pages are found ONLY on creationist websites, nowhere else. That makes my bullshit detector ring.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Show me one peer-reviewed article stating this, please.
...you want me to show you ,,peer reviewed,, article concerning this topic???hey...i hope you are not serious on this....because 1st...you have all kinds of articles here in europe concerning Lucy and archaeopteryx controversies,including tiktaalik and ambulocetus...but i think that if you truly want to see if im lying to you,you should come in europe to study them and see opinions of experts in natural museums....
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 Please name one of those experts. You are getting worse with your statements. You are not checking the scientific data, at all. No matter what you claim. Everything on the last few pages are found ONLY on creationist websites, nowhere else. That makes my bullshit detector ring.
....ok...you are an idiot...so i ll leave you with 2 options 1.you can think i lied or 2. you can actually come with your lazy ass and do research of experts here in europe...canada is not even relevant...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...200 000 000 fossils...europe is matter of fact..biggest collector of fossils in world...i visited with my professors when we went on excursion and we saw all these fossils...(tiktaalik,archaeopteryx,ambulocetus etc) and we had opportunity to hear different...VARIETY of opinions and interpretations made by scientists and experts paleontologists,and paleoantrophologists...and may i say something about arshaeopteryx....???
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
...here it is why you cannot use archaeopteryx as ,,missing link,, because it is a bird...a perching bird...and you cannot change that...:)))
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "Dr. Alan Feduccia"
Have you actually checked out that controversy? I didn't think so. How many palaeontologists agree with him? Creationists always quote Feduccia's conclusions, but what is his evidence. His is an extremely minority "opinion". Haven't you got anything better than this? So, so sad.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Have you actually checked out that controversy? I didn't think so. How many palaeontologists agree with him?
...hey...hey...canadian..WAIT A MINUTE...you actually saying that Dr.Allan Feduccia has no evidence??i suggest you to ..instead of constantly using argumentum ad populum actually check out who is Allan Feduccia and check out his intercvews,his work ...etc...he is btw worlds leading expert paleornithologist, specializing in the origins and phylogeny of birds.....
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 None f these are controversial within the science community, only on creationist websites.
...haha..you are full of prejudice...you alredy dismissed creationists and creationism as ,,pseudoscience,, ...well...thats why you are subjective..instead of being open minded...i can post you here list of number of scientists that was and are creationists....and some of them are one of the greatest minds of all time and they literally created and shaped modern science....so you cant say...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "you alredy dismissed creationists and creationism as ,,pseudoscience,, ...well...thats why you are subjective"
No, it's not subjective. I rate "creation scientists" as I rate all scientists; by their body of work. Creation scientists never seem to publish in peer reviewed journals, This is because they can't prove their theories.
"they literally created and shaped modern science"
I can't believe that you used that old, misleading statement. And you call yourself open-minded?
CamW30 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CamW30 No, it's not subjective. I rate "creation scientists" as I rate all scientists; by their body of work. Creation scientists never seem to publish in peer reviewed journals, This is because they can't prove their theories.
...again you are wrong....btw there are peer reviewed articles from wiliam dembski and michael behe,there was even controversy about dembskis peer reviewed article i think because eugenie scott claimed that his peer reviewed article actually wasnt about ID...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 I can't believe that you used that old, misleading statement. And you call yourself open-minded?
OMG hey canadian..do you want me to name you scientists creationists that shaped modern sscience....btw...just for a record....father of modern genetics was....monk...he was creationist ...i think you know his name..well...i hope so...:)))
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...it is a bad thing to go and read articles from creationist or ID sites....thats one of biggest mistakes you r making here...and in the end...i always use both secular,ID,creationist and every possible source and comparing them and following evidence where it leads...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - ".i always use both secular,ID,creationist and every possible source and comparing them and following evidence where it leads."
Spoken like a true creationist. You got that right off of the Discovery Institute website. So, sad. So far you have only given creationist propaganda. I really don't think that you know how to read a scientific journal article.
I am done here. You have no understanding of science, let alone evolutionary theory. Just a little boy, trying to act big. So sad
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...where they keep these fossils and studying them....Lucy is one of the worst problems for paleontologists and paleoantropholigists because 60% of its bones missing....i hope you saw Lucy fossil at least ON INTERNET did you???....
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 Spoken like a true creationist. You got that right off of the Discovery Institute website. So, sad. So far you have only given creationist propaganda. I really don't think that you know how to read a scientific journal article.
....hahahah...funny thing is...when i use articles...when im sending articles concerning evolution vs creationism topic...i NEWER...everr...used any article from Discovery Institute....or Answer in Genesis....:)))...you are ignorant...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 I am done here. You have no understanding of science, let alone evolutionary theory. Just a little boy, trying to act big. So sad
...you know what is sad....???you my friend..:)))..because you cannot use anything except these ,,arguments,, like ,,i dont understand evolution,, ...i ,,wannabe scientist,, ...,,im using creationist propaganta,, ....and ,,i dont understand science nor evolution,, ...and when you cant use this ,,srgument,, you go to argumentum ad populum...and THAT is sad...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 None f these are controversial within the science community
...btw this is stupid argument man...dont you think??Its like me and you living in soviet union and arguing wether communism is right or wrong...and imagine if i say,well communism is true because its not controversial among russians,or if we were in nazi germany imagine if i say nazism is true ecause nazism isnt controversial among germans...ut its well accepted by majority of them....see...even if these fossils were accepted
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...as ,,missing links,, ..it wouldnt make them true...but anyway..these fossils are not even accepted as mising links by majority of evolutionists..not to mention by majority of scientists...because there is variety of interpretations when it comes to fossils...especially INCOMPLETE FOSSILS...like lucy...only 40 percent of that fossil leaving you with all kinds of different interpretation....
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...neanderthals were dummies...which was proven wrong like dozens of other things....
I don't think that evolutionary theory predicted this.
...no..they actually taught this...just like they taught that piltdown man,java man,peking man,nebraska man,archaeoraptor ....etc are missing links...just like they taught heckels embryology,vestigial organs,,,evolution of horses,, ...and other shamefull things which were proven wrong DECADES after evos. taught it as fact and used it as argument..
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "just like they taught heckels embryology,vestigial organs,,,evolution of horses"
What is with creationists & Haeckel's drawing?. He was caught being lazy by using the same woodcut for 3 diagrams. It was fixed immediately. What's the big deal? Besides, who believes ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, anyway?
As for vestigial organs; what do you nipples do for you? Or do you just like them tweaked by your Greek man lover?
As for horse evolution... need I bother?
You really are dumb
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 What is with creationists & Haeckel's drawing?. He was caught being lazy by using the same woodcut for 3 diagrams. It was fixed immediately.
...my friend...is this honest from you???how can you claim such things..we both know that haeckels drawing was used at least until 2004 in textbooks....i think its still used because last year i saw it on book for biology of 4th grade in elementary school here....but anyway,even in america it was used at least until 2004....remember kent hovind...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "we both know that haeckels drawing was used at least until 2004 in textbook"
Better recheck your sources, the disputed diagrams were never used in textbooks. That is a Jon Wells misdirection. He didn't lie, but he didn't explain the whole incident. He just didn't say that the diagrams were not the disputed diagrams. Slimy creationist double-talk.
"...remember kent hovind.."
Speaking of a slimy liar... His doctorate is from a diploma mill, not an accredited institution.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Better recheck your sources, the disputed diagrams were never used in textbooks. That is a Jon Wells misdirection. He didn't lie, but he didn't explain the whole incident. He just didn't say that the diagrams were not the disputed diagrams. Slimy creationist double-talk.
...like i said...creationist,nazist,racist or facist,evolutionist or whatever...one thing is certain....haeckels drawings were used in america at least in early 2000s and kent hovind was one of the most outspoken people
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...that warned ppl about this issue and even showed editions of biology books as proof for his seminars lies on our textbooks....you can check that out...i also know that haeckels drawings were used in our biology books here in europe,even in my book when i was in elementary school and later in highschool....just like evolution of horses and whales vestigial ,,legs,, ...
Speaking of a slimy liar... His doctorate is from a diploma mill, not an accredited institution.
...oh really...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - " also know that haeckels drawings were used in our biology books here in europe"
Pay attention to wording dipshit! Haekel's woodcuts WERE used in textbooks; not the one's that he was called on. Not the woodcut that was used 3 times. There is no controversy!
"...oh really..."
Really. Hovind graduated from Patriot University. Why not Google them.
Why not watch Hovind back-peddle on his "degree".
watch?v=xSWlHzqB6C8
Listen close to what he is saying. He's scum.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 wait...your only argument against hovind is...he is scum??i mean really...i dont give a fuck about hovind and his personality..i only care about his work on evolution vs creationism...you need to find me just one..JUST ONE video where he lied about evolution or just one video where he lo9st a debate against evolutionist...we both know there is dozens of videos with his debates...:)))
...and once more,i hope you ll at least try to use some arguments and leave out argumentum ad populum...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 Ice Canopy
That idea alone destroys any of Hovind's credibility. Err, if he actually had any to begin with.
tarrin4ever 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever Hovind have his own theories..but when it comes to evolution vs creation...you CANNOT DENY the fact that he destroyed every evolutionist in every debate he had with them....and you know very well that he had so many debates with thousands of them...and thousands of others refused to debate him....be a man...go and watch his videos concerning theory of evolution....and you ll see what im talking about...i dont care about hovind or his theories...i only care about his relation...
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...to evolution vs creation controversy......but may i add ...why it is that one idea destroyed Hovinds credibility according to you,but when you have over 95 percent of ideas and predictions of darwinian theory evolution proven wrong over past decades??you still refuse to say credibility of darwinian theory of evolution is destroyed???hmm??
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 Well, the fact that such an idea leads you to believe he has no understanding of biology, science, physics or geology below that of most high school students. BTW, I don't need that one idea, he's got plenty of stinkers. Water blocking x rays & causing aging, 900 year old chameleons can become dinosaurs, dna's function in reproduction, etc. That's after only 5 more minutes of searching.
95 of darwinian theory proven wrong, I don't think so. I name you liar, do you have examples?
tarrin4ever 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever Well, the fact that such an idea leads you to believe he has no understanding of biology, science, physics or geology below that of most high school students.
...hahah...first ...no...that idea leads you to think that he is not perfect....einstein had wrong theories too...even einstei got it wrong...but that doesent make you to believe he was an idiot and he had no understanding of science....right???
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever BTW, I don't need that one idea, he's got plenty of stinkers. Water blocking x rays & causing aging, 900 year old chameleons can become dinosaurs, dna's function in reproduction, etc. That's after only 5 more minutes of searching.
...first...he offered his own theories of what possibly could happen in past....im not intertested in that...i am interested in things which he said about evolution and WHAT HE LIED CONCERNING EVOLUTION THEORY??did he used some misinformation...
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...maybe he lost some debate??or used false statements from evolutionists??was his seminar about evolution full of false infos??and things like that....we both know he newer lied when it came to evolution theory....now theories about and for creation that he proposed...are...IIKE HE SAID...just his own hypotesis....NOT ONLY AND 100% TRUTH...ok..:)))
95 of darwinian theory proven wrong, I don't think so. I name you liar, do you have examples?
....:)))...look.....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever for example....these are just some things that shouls destroy credibility of evolution...orce man,piltdown man,java man,peking man,nebraska man,haeckel embryology,archaeoraptor,ardipitechus,orrorin tugenensis,sahelanthropus tchadensis and ardipithecus ramidus,cro magnon,protoavis,protarchaeopteryx,Shuvuuia,pakicetus and ambulocetus,Yixianosaurus....etc...etc...i can continue if you want...all of them used...USED as ,,missing link,, some of them for decades...and LATER desputed.....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ..then useless organs...it was taught by evolutionists that we had in our body 80 useless organs ....and after some time...AFTER REAL SCIENCE...discovered that all these organs are useful...ALOT...they still claimed appendix,tonsils and coccyx were useless...and as such...clear ,,proof for evolution,,...(altrough idk how this could be ,,proof,, for evolution ..do you??lol) ...later it was found that appendix,coccyx and tonsils are very useful...my friend......
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever then when they found DNA whole scientiffic community was stunned...because its information....but still they used it as ,,proof,, for evolution...they said we have so called ,,junk,, DNA ...and its clear proof for evolution...IDs and creationists of course said wait,we assure you ,,junk,, dna is useful..but no...evolutionists taught it and used it as an argument....but now..in 2011th year....science progress...and we found that junk dna is EXTREMLY USEFUL....and its just a beginning
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...because now scientists believe ,,junk,, dna has even more functions than they found in latest research,and not only that,but junk dna is future of our medicine because we can used it to find cure fo so many genetic disorders and deadly diseases....etc..etc...darwin said in the origin of species that all organisms came from single celled organism....and he explained it...blablalba...NOW...in 21st century science...we found out that there is no such thing as ,,single celled,,....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...organism...darwin tought cell is SIMPLE...now we both know..well...i hope you also know that cell...even simplest cell is more complex than ANYTHING we created as humankind....everything is extremly complex and fine tuned...i hope you know its a fact and thank God for microbiology ...:))) then darwin also tought evolution occures by mutation and natural selection are driving forces of evolution...today..in 21st century science it is well known that mutation...IS NEGATIVE...
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...or deadly thing....mutation cant create anything new,except scratch,damage or copy alredy existing information in genome...actually...is there some beneficial mutation??:))))you know there is no such thing...(btw i know you ll use nylonase and i ll answer to you later ;) ) ...than ...darwin tought natural selection is driving force of evolution...do you want me to send you an article where some spepcies ...especially cane toads(speedy toads) disproved this theory??it was ...
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever pure 100% secular article written by evolutionists ...speedy toads challenge darwins theory...:))..then survival of the fittest is disproven by latest research....i ll send you articles about that too...than well known myth that we share 99% of DNA is debunked with latest research...now it fell on just 93% and just like scientissts said its not even final result because we still decoded just few percents of DNA so difference between our dna and dna of chimps is probably much....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ..much bigger....and popular myth that chimps are our closest relatives is also disproven by latest research because by latest research orangutans are closer to us than chimps..i ll send you articles for that too...if you want i ll send you these articles because they are latest science..not science from 19th century....there is so many other things in geology and paleontology that is made on wrong asumptions etc...i can write you whole essay about that....if you want of course...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 ...i dont give a shit what he was or is...but we can both see how he literally destroyed EVERY SINGLE evolutionist in a debate....if you show me one single debate where hovind lost....i ll quit and admitt you are right...but you know you cant...when it comes to evolution and lies used to support evolution he literally destroyed every single one of them....and you even have debate kent hovind vs 3 evolutionists at the same time...he embarrassed them too...ALONE..
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - Okay, now that I know that you & Hovind are butt-buddies, I am stopping this exchange. You are just another non-thinking pseudo-intellectual christian, trying to use anti-science to prop up a faulty worldview. You are not worth the effort to debate.
Have a good life with your European elite society & parties at the LHC. Fuck, you're a loser. Crawl back under your rock & wait for the rapture, goofball.
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 whats wrong canadian...i can see that you...as an ,,doctor,, and international ,,lecturer,, cannot find arguments to support your belief in darwinian evolution theory???btw i was too soft,i should mention ida...you know ida right??Darwinius masillae...huh??its also one of members of evolution hall of shame...used as ,,missing link,, until 2009th....1983-2009th ...so many years ppl had been decieved into thinking ida was ,,clear proof,, for evolution...:)))...ehhhhh...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 Your understanding of Ida is quite lacking. First, it was a missing link, but one farther down the evolutionary line, somewhere around wet nosed lemurs and eventual early primates.
Second, it has not been disproven to be anything other than what it was originally found to be. AronRa has a nice couple of videos clarifying the specimen to avoid the confusion brought on by news media once again misrepresenting/hyping scientific finds.
tarrin4ever 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever Your understanding of Ida is quite lacking. First, it was a missing link, but one farther down the evolutionary line, somewhere around wet nosed lemurs and eventual early primates.
...xDDD AAHAHAHA,,really??i like when uneducated people...mostly evolutionists...say...YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF .... OR EVOLUTION...OR fossils..etc...is lacking...or..,,you newer understood evolution,, ...lmao...-.- ok...kid...may i remind you that ida is disputed and no one even mentions ida anymore as...
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...mising link???..btw it was used as significant transitional form (a "link") between the prosimian and simian ("anthropoid") primate lineages.....
..ida joined to evolutions ,,hall of shame,, club...-.- good sir... AronRa has a nice couple of videos
...ahaha...just as i tought...your only source of ,,knowledge,, and ifnormation is you tube and wikipedia...LOL...so please kid...when you come here to europe and get a real education you can talk about these things....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ..btw aronra is nothing more than an typical american wannabe angry hairy ,,scientist,, from you tube...just like thunderfoor,dprjones and co. ...instead of listening what ,,you tube scientists,, say ..you shoould contact experts and REAL SCIENTISTS...but there is few real scientists in america anyway,so you should come here in europe...if you want serious education...:)))
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 You left me.... 14 posts to respond to?
You might want to work on your brevity mate, I'll respond to some of these later.
tarrin4ever 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever good sir,when i said 95% of darwinian theory of evolution is disproven...you said it was bullshit...(lie or whatever) so i just named you some things which darwinian evolution claimed/some of them are still used) but they were disproven due to a modern science....btw i could write at least 50 posts of other things,but i ll just wait till you read these that i alredy wrote and maybe disagree with me on some of them...but it will be only in case if you are not in touch with....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...latest science and scientific research,news ..etc...and may i just add that ,,tree of life,, ...tree ...still used in biology textbooks was disproven long ago...but if you not believe me,i ll send you even video from What is Life convention where geneticist guru Craig Venter(atheist) said that ,,evolutionary tree of life,, is outdated and wrong (piece of crap made up by darwin and his followers...:) btw i added this)
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 Firstly. All those instances where earlier ideas of biology/evolution weren't accurate wasn't discovered by creationists, but by the same group of people who came up with them in the first place. Scientists make hypothesis and theories based on the best evidence/models they have at the time, and when new discoveries arise they modify their theories.
This is not a case that evolution is wrong because earlier ideas are now incorrect, it's about understanding evolution better.
tarrin4ever 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever Firstly. All those instances where earlier ideas of biology/evolution weren't accurate wasn't discovered by creationists
...firstly...all these ideas were ideas of evlution from its very beginning till THIS DAY...believe it or not at least 80 percent of them was and still is used in 2000s.....do you want me to name them??and of course ALOT of them in general were ideas ,,born,, in 1970s,80s and 90s.....and SECONDLY...yes creationists didnt even existed then...except bible....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...fundamentalists ....but there were not movements among scientific community like today we have ID movements,Creation movements..etc...etc....
but by the same group of people who came up with them in the first place.
...thats a blatant lie...only E.O Wilson did it with his kin selection..... Scientists make hypothesis and theories based on the best evidence/models they have at the time, and when new discoveries arise they modify their theories.
...correct....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...so you now have just chromosome 2 fusion and what else...as a proof for evolution??name me the best evidence for evolution you have today...5 of them that are THE BEST evidence for evolution can you???....
This is not a case that evolution is wrong because earlier ideas are now incorrect, it's about understanding evolution better.
...you think...even if everything...95 % things about evolution,including its own pillars natural sellection and random mutation are NOT according...
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...to darwinian predictions....made by theory...i mean...hmmm...and hey..i ll even send you latest article about IMAGINATION...i.e visualization of missing links...new method of evolutionists....if you want of course....
Second, a simple search for beneficial mutations pretty much answers your point on mutation.
...you want to tell me that there is beneficial mutation??cmon name me one since YOU actually did research on beneficial mutations....cmon???
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever false fossils were criticised by scientists upon their discovery contradicts any idea that they were used to further the evolutionary theory.
...see you are wrong again...or you just lying....almost ALL these fossils were used for DECADES...and some of them are still WILLINGLY USED as proof for evolution....just like today PROOFS for evolution tiktaalik,ambulocetus,archaeopteryx and Lucy are criticised by scientists but are still used as proof....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...i even gave you here statements of one of the worlds leading scientists,evolutionist Alan Feduccia and his criticizm of archaeopteryx and you refused it...just like so many people refused criticism for so many fake fossils and frauds for decades until finally it was resolved once and for all....see...history repeats again...and btw i dont even know how can you believe that fossils support evolutionary theory,because if i asked you to give me 5 COMPLETE transitional....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever ...fossils...you cant give me....because every....even tho its just few of them....every ,,transitional,, fossil...IS INCOMPLETE...you have over 200 000 000 COMPLETE fossils of fully formed and distinct species...but you dont even have one single transitional fossil ....all of them are like lucy...INCOMPLETE...and thats little bit weird....
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever You should pay attention to the numerous other genuine fossils that do support evolution.
...like??
it took someone like Stephen Hawkings to challenge Einstein's theory
...umm no...alternative theories always existed and always will...and it only takes time until someone comes and challenge stephen hawkings theory.....and i think you alredy agreed we use best explanations we have at certain time...
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 Second, a simple search for beneficial mutations pretty much answers your point on mutation.
Third. I used Aronra because he's not only a subject matter expert, he's well spoken and makes a strong case for his understandings. Your ad hominem of him and other people on youtube who happen to be subject matter experts do nothing to change that, your mere disagreeance with their stances doesn't make you their equal in understanding science. Where do your studies lie?
tarrin4ever 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever I used Aronra because he's not only a subject matter expert, he's well spoken and makes a strong case for his understandings. Your ad hominem of him and other people on youtube who happen to be subject matter experts...
..........wooow...you r using very big words...experts...riiight...why would you say they are experts...but such people as NephilimFree VFX and others are not ,,experts,, ....ahahah..you tube experts...O___o ...
giska1000 10 months ago
@tarrin4ever Where do your studies lie?
...natural science,but i also have diploma in history and philosophy...they are very important here....
Finally, your use of Piltdown man etc as proof of evolution being false is a poor choice on your part.
...ummm..it was just one of MANY EXAMPLES...i havent even finished yet...if you want i can continue...but lets just say that it is same poor choice against evolution just like your ,,arguments,, against hovind is poor too.....
giska1000 10 months ago
@giska1000 - "...natural science,but i also have diploma in history and philosophy...they are very important here.."
Ooh, a BSc & a diploma. You must be the most educated boy in Greece. Pathetic!
"...you want to tell me that there is beneficial mutation??cmon name me one"
I thought that I named several a couple of days ago, or is your little mind not able to retain information for more than a day? (Lactase enzyme, or others I didn't mention: Gbeta3-s, Ser447-ter) Need more, retard?
CamW30 10 months ago
@CamW30 Ooh, a BSc & a diploma. You must be the most educated boy in Greece. Pathetic!
...o____o trust me..idk what you canadians doing downthere since you consider few diplomas,BSc and Doctorate as something AMAZING...and IMPOSSIBLE to achieve...etc...-.- ..
and 1.st..DONT TELL ME that you just used lactaze enzyme as beneficial mutation???
2.nd what is beneficial from Gbeta3-s you say to me..and i ll name you what is BAD side..side effect of this mutation..:))expert lecturer...:)))
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 3.rd Ser447-ter The Ser447Ter mutation of LPL may be associated with ischemic cerebrovascular diseases
The objectives of this study were to determine the influence LPL mutations Asn291Ser and Ser447Ter on plasma lipid levels, regression and progression of CAD, clinical events rate.........
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 , and response to fluvastatin therapy in the Lipoprotein and Coronary Atherosclerosis Study (LCAS) population. LCAS is a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to test the influence of fluvastatin on progression or regression of CAD. The Asn291Ser and Ser447Ter genotypes were determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ...
giska1000 10 months ago
@CamW30 and restriction enzyme digestion. Fasting plasma lipid profiles were measured and quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and 2.5 years following randomization. Fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events during the follow-up period were recorded. A total of 4% (14/363) and 18% (62/352) of the subjects had the Asn291Ser and Ser447Ter mutations, respectively....
giska1000 10 months ago