The Discovery Institute is a joke ...and all the members are half ass scientists who couldn't make in the real scietific community.So they pawn thenselves off to the idiot creationists in this country who they know will buy into thier BS.They are disgusting people and the only thing they know how to do is LIE.
@evoTARDSareINSANE lol. The best we can come up with? This only illustrates the fail of DI, not proof of evo. The best we got includes, but not limited to, fossil record, multiple dating methods, geographical distribution of fossils, geographical distribution of animals, genetic similarities AND differences in organisms, observed instances of speciation, #2 chromosome in humans, nylonase, morphology of animals. Not individually, mind you, but how all these things are overlappingly concordant.
I wonder what the discovery institute idiots really think about when they're laying awake at night. They must sometimes realize they're monumental stupidity, surely...
FYI: I am not a biologist nor do I claim to be one. I was just making an observation. If over a million years an organism is constantly sacrificing WORKING functions that are needed for reproduction then how can it continue to be the most fit for survival if in fact it is eventually unable to reproduce. Like I said, I know very little about the topic and there is probably an explanation but to the ignorant like myself I see organisms being naturally selected to die.
Nice video but what this video failed to mention is that the mutation that took place to make the bacteria resistant to the antibiotic came at a cost of limiting other working functions. All bacteria that have become resistant to an antibiotic have actually become weaker in their ability to reproduce and acquire the resources necessary for reproduction. So this evolution did not make the bacteria stronger or weaker by natural selection. It just made it different. So how is this relevant?
Being "stronger" and "weaker" is all depending on how you look at it. For a bacteria living in an environment rich in an antibiotic, surviving at all means it is "strong" or evolutionarily fit for those conditions. Changing the conditions (say removing the antibiotic) might make it no longer as fit as other organisms that reproduce faster. Think of arctic animals. They are very evolutionarily fit for cold, but may not reproduce as fast as similar animals in the tropics.
@zamboodoo Exactly, take a look at sickle cell anemia, it gives you a resistance to malaria that allows to survive, without it in an malarie enviroment the disease would kill you. However the genetic "disorder" itself will shortern your life. It's all about fitness
@jcook21782 Evolution is not a process of increasing strength, it is the process of differentiation, or speciation. Differences are all that are hypothesized by theories of evolution.
@jcook21782 Totally incorrect statement. If a bacteria becomes resistant, and that resistance persists in a population, then OBVIOUSLY it is an ADVANTAGE to that organism to keep that resistance genetics.
If the resistance genetic mutation made the bacteria weaker, so that it was less likely to survive then the mutation would die out. This is called NATURAL SELECTION, the engine that drive evolution.
You are showing huge ignorance in the subject of biology jcook
I does not matter if scientists are religious or not. Science does not use the supernatural. Creation is a religous myth, every religion has a story.
Ten trillion trillion trilllion trillion trillion idiots who say the Bible is the tru' word o' Gahd, can't over-rule one observable, repeatable experiment.
The number 10^74 is pure bunk. That is only if one ignores how O-Chem works and takes it that any combination is not only possible but equally as probable.
Hint to the "molecular biologist": They're not.
Just another way of "Lyin' for jebus" from the Disco 'Toot!
So, by using the "logic" of the Discovery Institute, it can be argued that the Discovery Institute doesn't exist. The probability that so many people would willingly remain ignorant of evolution and organizing together to propagate a campaign of ignorance and lies is one in a thousand billion. Therefore, the Discover Institute doesn't exist ! Flawed logic is fun.
Ok, I know the Vatican's Mr Ratzy, and Ray Comfort with Kirk the (rather pretty, actually) wonder boy, but there you lose me. Do I need to know who these others are? Do I want to?
Things are different here. Tony Blair was asked in interviews if the rumour was true that he got down on his knees and prayed with George Dubya, and he vehemently denied it.
It's also pretty hard to sell multi level marketing schemes here.
I'd like to see the definition for 'prohibitively difficult' And its interesting how every argument they use actually supports evolutionary theory. The numbers represented in the documentary are irrelevant. Organisms/enzymes/proteins that can survive do, and the others are lost. I have this to ask of the Creationists, if everything was created at the same time, and did not evolve, how come there are no homo sapiens in the earliest sedimentary layers cavorting with dinosaurs?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM. How fucking hard is that to understand? You don't start from scratch after every step... I hope for their sakes that they're just being deceptive and aren't this retarded. Oh wait, just saw the last part. Yup, they're just lying douchebags.
What are the chances? UNITY you morons! It happened! Saying it couldn't have happened is like saying that since it's highly unlikely that any one person would win the lottery, whoever actually did win must have cheated. It's beyond stupid, it's retarded.
@MrMZaccone "since it's highly unlikely that any one person would win the lottery, whoever actually did win must have cheated."
When the National Lottery first started up in England someone calculated the odds of winning it and declared you were more likely to be hit by a meteorite. This was freely repeated as fact. Some weeks no one wins it and the jackpot rolls over & gets bigger but at least 20 - 30 people have won it every year. How many people got hit by meteorites? 1? 2?
@queenastilon I fail to see your point. My point is that the application of the math cited is flawed and incorrect. It's a case much like the patterns of heads and tails in a series of flipped coins. Each single outcome is just as unlikely as any other.
@MrMZaccone My point was only that some apparently respected individual made a statement of probability concerning winning the state lottery that was obviously incorrect, yet nobody challenged it. Not a big point, really.
Ken Miller does not, as this video implies, have anything to do with the Discovery Institute. He is still a reputable anti-Creationist biologist at Brown who testified AGAINST the theory of Intelligent Design in the 2005 Dover (PA) School Board case several years ago. He is a practicing Catholic, but is certainly not a creationist.
What i love most, is the creationist idea (Which is valid) of "If things were different, then things would be different". But this is not an argument, it's a fact. Lol! =] "If the earth were only 99% closer to the sun <_<"...yeah....but it's not is it? lol ^_^
"Microevolution " is the Stair and "macroevolution " is the staircase. Thanks for inadvertently giving me a good, simple analogy to explain evolution to others, Discovery institute. The cgi was very helpful!
@bdobbsthepipe thank you for pointing out how i could do it, when i listen to them well my brain turns itself somewhat off to try to make out the illogical ranting of lesser evolved brains
This is a case of cognitive dissonance, The Discovery Institute, knows innately they have serious contradictions but dispose of the illogical summations for the propagation of their preferred platform. Truth is not priority to them, only the ignorant propagation of their religious dogma. They will use whatever means possible to undermine TRUE SCIENCE and will twist it to make it appear to back up their ridiculous claims. Just because the want it to be true they are willing to settle for lies.
@bigboy45454545 Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if the they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn morons like u think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life
@5tonyvvvv Oh I see what you're saying. You're saying that chemistry couldn't have changed to biology unless God zapped the first life with a magic wand, or some ludicrous assumption like that. Well that makes sense to the simple minded people looking for easy answers. Answers without evidence. "God did it" if you will. Go away.
@5tonyvvvv I know what your answer is for how chemicals became life. "God did it", right Sport? You're not looking for how the evidence might fit the actual process. You're looking to fit "God did it" without evidence, in a supernatural process . Even worse, this God is your Christian God of the bible, despite the thousands of Gods which people believe in. God did it all for you. Your view is arrogant and dishonest and without evidence.
@lvl70shampally DErp..Never ..thats why miller never made life.or even one single usable amino acid..learn homochirality..he never made building blocks,he made a Toxic combination which life cant use..nothing was assembled learn dummy
@lvl70shampally Wrong..they were Toxic !!!! thats why miller could not use them..they could not be assembled.. right and left together are Toxic to life,,see people dont know real chemistry
@5tonyvvvv You really do not know anything about either experiment do you? The first test yielded about 5 amino acids itself, the second experiment yielded about 22. hell an asteroid from space that landed in Australia was found to have about 90 amino acids, 19 that could be found on earth. Do some fucking research before you run your mouth about who knows chemistry or not.
@lvl70shampally Another stubborn asshole they can not be used asshole!!!!!.they are toxic to life..those amino acids can never be assembled into life u fuckin moron..the ones found in space answer nothing!!..they could even be from earth..it still does not answer the question..Miller failed to generate life.and hit a brick wall..no one can assemble one single usable amino acid to assemble anything!!!!!!! RNA or DNA or one single protein!!
@5tonyvvvv Birth control pills are made in the lab so they have 50/50 left and right hand molecules, so woman take a 'double dose' because half of it just passes through the body and is not recognized by it.
DNA has been made in the lab, put in a blank cell and it reproduced.
@gregrutz No God of the gaps here sir..this is real science..from step one..it really should be simple for scientists.to explain this..My chemistry professor believes in God..not just random time and chance..
So he is an uneducated moron right,thats all i keep hearing from people..i believe in God,iam a successful person man,,it seems all the smart people in world must be atheist..ok right..LOL
@gregrutz haha your a goon and your making up stats... pick up a book and read. most scientist do not believe in religion and some i would even say most do not believe in the existance of a mystical being who cannot be proven what so ever... scientist need reasons to believe something unlike you who is just told to believe for no reason what so ever and if you believe because of the bible.... then you have never read the bible.... or any holy book for that matter... have a nice day
anyway.Miller's experiment lacked CHIRALITY!!!!!!..in fact this is now being shown in Textbooks for 2011..when i get them, i will scan them..finally after 60 years the truth is being told on why miller failed..and no usable building blocks were made!!!!!
stubbornly,science believes in some chemistry unknown to life
Please tell me your theory of how this happened by chance....???..but known its an assumption not testable science..
@5tonyvvvv Yes it did. When you make a molecule that is right and left handed in the lab you get half and half, 50/50 chance. Life makes molecules but uses enzymes and only makes left handed molecules.
In the Miler experiment 50 percent were usable building blocks.
Evolution is not by chance, Darwin wrote 'Origin of species by natural selection, not by chance.
@lvl70shampally Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..and if u think simple chemicals could some how form life, u dont know real chemistry..u would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
@lvl70shampally U dont know what Homochirality is!!!!!!!!..this is why miller failed..and no life could ever happen by time or chance from chemicals EVER!!!!!
@5tonyvvvv Is that really the best you could come up with? Those amino acids are not toxic fucktard, in fact they are found IN the human body. In that one experiment they found amino acids that are found in the human body and organic compounds needed for life to start. And how is homochirality the stake through the heart of evolution? Just fucking stop you're making yourself look retarded.
@lvl70shampally U dont understand Homochirality and how it works u dumb fuck..they cant assemble when together right and left..they are Toxic!! u dont understand how the body assembles them!!!! thats what u dont get u fuckin moron..u are one of these assholes that thinks Miller made life or building blocks of life..he did not even come close!!!!!
@5tonyvvvv Everything you just said here was more than likely pulled out of your ass because its is horribly apparent you have no idea what the fuck your talking about.
@lvl70shampally the only troll here is u moron,u dont know chemistry like most people and atheist..u still dont understand homochirality..u dumb fuck!!!!!!!
@lvl70shampally Miller made a Toxic combination which life cant use!!!!..thats why no life was generated u fuckin asshole!!!!!...no cell was assemble because of Homochirality..Learn u fuckin moron!!!!!
The Center for Science and Culture funds this shit. Its Wedge Document five year goals didn't work out so well it came up with, "To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory". Every year the theory of evolution gets more accepted and well established while ID theory exposes itself as apologetics for creationists.
Sorry, can someone clarify for me? The person at the end explaining mutation of insects and bacteria (Ken Miller) was the star witness in Dover for the plaintiffs and the author of "Only a Theory". He is definitely not part of the Discovery Institute.
It's sad how little morals these "faith based institutions" have. They have to resort to contradicting themselves whenever it's a convenient way to push their idiotic agenda.
Their "the chances of evolution are so slim that it would have been impossible, therefore God did it" argument is just pathetic.
It would be like me arguing this:
"The chances of Lee Harvey Oswald killing JFK are very slim and there are a lot of flaws in the theory, therefore the more logical conclusion is that little green aliens from Mars killed JFK".
Yes fundies over look the evidence and what it shows int he effort to pretend their invisable magic man just happened to be there and exist claiming he doesnt need a creator. LOL
@ActivistOne472 your problem is that you dont get that there are only 2 ways to go with the origion of life, by accident or not by accident and when you roll out 1 of the theorys all thats laft is the other one so that one must be true
@eye31 "your problem is [.....] 2 ways to go with the origion of life [if one is disroven] the other one [..is..] true"
YOUR problem is you've fallen for deliberate misinformation so confuse evolution with abiogenisis & think creationism is a theory
Any idea must find supporting evidence before you can even call it hypothesis let alone theory. Evolution is fact, the *Theory* of Evolution explains it with piles of evidence & is as true as a theory CAN be. Creationism is barely a hypothesis
@queenastilon piles of evidence you say , well if im not mistakeing i know that evolution says that the origion of life started from one cell wich was created rendomly from matter, but after breakthroughs in the mikro department scientists found that cell can only be created by other cells (the cell paradoxe) because of the process that happens beetwin the ribosome and the DNA (look it up if you are not familiar with it) so your "theory" cant even explain the begining of how its all started
@eye31 The theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life. That's an entirely different theory known as abiogenesis. Your unfamiliarity with such elementary concepts is indicative of a willful lack of self-education on the subject and all too typical.
@eye31 "well if im not mistakeing" Gosh, what are the odds? "i know..." I seriously doubt it. "...that evolution says that the origion of life started from one cell wich was created rendomly" Yup: same mistake yet again. It does not say that.
"so your "theory" cant even explain the begining of how its all started" (head meets desk)
Once again.
The Theory of Evolution says nothing whatsoever about abiogenesis. Can't you people write that down somewhere?
After all, it can't be much fun knowing you're in a tiny minority crackpot group and you have to deny just about all of science to defend your ridiculous ideas.
@queenastilon ah but if you are in that group you think you are right and the others wrong and it is kind of like this "romantic" us vs the world kin of a deal i guess
@bjam89 Well, damn, that poses a problem. I'm always attracted to the underdog, to hopeless causes. It's just that their cause - the movers and shakers behind it - is so evil.
In England we've felt a little smug that US creationists can't get a foothold here. But now we've suddenly noticed the growing number of Muslim creationist teens sitting in science classes with folded arms, smugly shaking their heads at the teacher because they've been indoctrinated since before they could talk.
@queenastilon well just be glad that we are still the underdog in the grand scheme of things, you got emperor palatine in the Vatican doing his stuff but you know he lost the force so he need bullet proof cars, you got the super hero banana-man and his trusted siekick nods'n'has-no-thoughts-of-his-own-lad, th3e howin.duo, the missing link who tries to hde the fact by foricng on you bible glasses and who can forget big ass earphone man the doctor who has studied the interwebs
Ok, I know the Vatican's Mr Ratzy, and Ray Comfort with Kirk the (rather pretty, actually) wonder boy, but there you lose me. Do I need to know who these others are? Do I want to?
Things are different here. Tony Blair was asked in interviews if the rumour was true that he got down on his knees and prayed with George Dubya, and he vehemently denied it.
It's also really hard to sell multi level marketing schemes here.
Wow, these guys got it completely wrong. The explanation of change having to rely on a new gene arising or hoping to develop a functional enzyme through pure chance alone shows they truly missed the point. That's not how it works. You can have one base pair in your entire genome (3x10^9) change and have it develop a profound phenotypic change (ie sickle cell anemia). Or that change can have no effect at all. And yes, we can predict and evaluate the difference.
anywhere you look these "protiens" have more than stumbled along these "functioning chemeicals" even if us as humas werent here everything els would be!
Creationists and their large numbers for improbability?..................It's meaningless, but it sound good to the uneducated who want to believe in nonsense, to back claims for an unproven Creator.........Sweet!
can someone tell pestmanpat that macro evolution is just micro evolution on a large time scale. If you agree that we have observed micro evolution, then that means we have observed macro evolution, just because it is hard for our small minds to comprehend doesn't mean it's any less true. Oh they are called fossils dude.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the best hypothesis to explain plenty of things.
Far better then believing every life form appeared instantly. (Not even this would be scientific, since no one observed this type of phenomena nor tested it!)
I dont think things happened instantly.Even young earth creationists believe things were created on different days not all at once.But i think modern science has good evidence to show that things have taken longer than 6 literal days.How long im not sure but mabey somewhere between evolutionists dates and creationists dates.Having said all that i must agree with you that from a purly scientific point of view the genesis account is not testble predictable or observable either.
pestmanpat - "I dont think things happened instantly.Even young earth creationists believe things... i think modern science has good evidence... things have taken longer than 6 literal days.How long im not sure. ... mabey somewhere between evolutionists dates and creationists dates. ...i must agree with you that from a purly scientific point of view the genesis account is not testble predictable or observable either."
So you just appeal to incredulity & present false dichotomies.
Also if we can all admit that dramatic morphological change is only a hypothesis what theory are we left with.
Well we are left with observable small change or micro evolution as some would call it.
Micro evolution fits both models evolution
and intelligent design so the debate should start there.
It fits ID becaue it allows for small changes in the population to survive changes in the enviroment.This actually works to preserve the original design in the long term.
There is simply no evidence to take the leap from small change leaving morphology unchanged to dramatic morphological change.For example a chiwawa and a great dane there is a huge difference in size and even some in appearance but they are anatomicly the same. They are both dogs.We know these kinds of changes are possible weve seen it but we have never seen an arm designed for walking on dry land evolve into a wing with feathers or a flipper for swimming thats the difference.
When I was little I always wondered how a rat could evolve to a bat. Then I saw gliding squirrels...
Leaping from a branch to the other eventually (through selection) prized the squirrel that had a membrane between it's arms and legs.
If you really want to show me something "impossible" check out a japonese crab's back (it looks like a samurai's face. No BS!!!). That's unexplainable!
The sugar glider s membrane has no supporting structure for sustained flight,no feathers with intricate zip lock
mechanism,no sonar ect. in any case there are creatures today such as seals that resemble dogs or cats in some ways.the platipus seems to be a combination of amphibian,bird and land creatures with fur..Trouble is no one has ever observed the transition.And these examples better explain a common designer who used different combinations in different animals.
''The sugar glider s membrane has no supporting structure for sustained flight,no feathers with intricate zip lock''
And thats proof AGAINST evolution?
Why would god leave something''half-done'' then?Makes no sence. And no, the platypus has nothing to do with birds. Its a primitive mammal. Noone has ever seen evolution?What do you call bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics?Or bacteria that have evolved to eat nylon?
"adaptation is not evolution" = wrong, evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. the populations of bacteria are adapting by way of altered allele frequencies, therefore they are evolving. try not to confuse evolution with speciation, the process by which one species becomes another. and we have seen bacteria become entirely new species under selective pressures, i.e. the nylon eating bacteria 105km mentioned
@pestmanpat Platypus has no nipples, sweat glands evolved sweat glands to glands that made milk. Milk and sweat are basically water and salts. Nipples would evolve later. Another example of them being proto-mammals is that Platypus is also the only poisonous mammel with a poison claw on their hind leg, left over form reptile ancestry. for bacteria look into MRSA a new species on bacteria evolved from Staf. or strep cant remember. So that would be evolution.
Sure they can.You see i believe evolution or gradual change can happen within a species to the point where cross breeding can not take place.this is what some refer to as macro evolution.This is not proof of dramatic morphological change. Show me an example of bacteria evolving into say an insect or a sponge.
pestmanpat (1 day ago) - "Sure they can.You see i believe evolution or gradual change can happen ..."
Well, that's being receptive to the evidence. Good. I must ask then, " Where do you draw the line? How is such an arbitrary line held against encroachment?"
The number of days since the Earth solidified numbers over 1.5 Trillion. That is a staggeringly long time for things to occurr.
If you can watch for 10:16 - see youtube/users/aronra/ - find " 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism "
Natural selection preserves the most complete gene pool in the long term.mutation leads to a loss of information and the offspring become less viable than the original.They may do well for some time but eventually they die out.
Dramatic morphological change could not have happened over trillions of years since life is said to be only millions of years old.
Natural selection preserves... Dramatic morphological change could not have happened over trillions of years since life is said to be only millions of years old."
You answer as if you read what I wrote, but if you had actually read and understood me, you would have seen that what I ACTUALLY stated that there has been 1.5 Trillion DAYS passed since the Earth coalesced from the primordial Solar Nebula.
pestmanpat (1 week ago) - "Natural selection... mutation leads to a loss of information and the offspring become less viable... They may do well for some time but eventually they die out." [ CITATION? ]
Are you conceding that NATURAL SELECTION is the mechanism at work?
Even if what you say is MOSTLY correct, you fail to account for non-coding DNA, which mutation may work on to create functional genes. Only mutation AND ERRORS that enabled functionality would be effected by selection.
pestmanpat (4 months ago) - "...seals that resemble dogs or cats... platipus seems to be a combination of amphibian,bird and land creatures with fur."
Microbiology and DNA evidence can now definitively determine relatedness.
"... Trouble is no one has ever observed the transition."
False, but not important. Unseen murderers ARE caught, regardless.
"... these examples better explain a common designer who used different combinations in different animals."
I saw that too. It could be coincidence. Out of all those thousends of crab species I think its easily possible 1 would resemble a human face. And it doesent look that much like a face, actualy, but I guess our minds are always looking for patterns. I read in Dawkins book, that there is a hypothesis that it could be due to a sort of unintentional artificial breeding. If a fisherman were to catch a crab, that looked like a face, theres a chance he would throw it back and over the millenia...
If the proteins are not in the right order, you still get a protein, why did they lie and say there isn't? These people are not qualified to make a video on evolution, let alone about proteins, then.
Thank you for posting your vlog and clearing this up.
Wait... they're talking about how everything has to be just perfect to make functional proteins, but isn't there a lot of "junk DNA" that either produces no protein, or produces useless protein?
Typical of these guys - they pose a false alternative. If the amino acids are in the right order, you get a protein, but if they do not, "no protein will form". This is obviously false. A different protein will form. (Usually non-functioning or with impaired function, but occasionally with better function.) Not even God himself can make a chain of amino acids, any chain, not be a protein.
Until D.I. learns that publishing results of biased testing and downright false information in faux science journals before submitting their findings to genuine peer review, DI will never be taken seriously.
Although I'm sure the folks at DI have some apologetic answer to account for the discrepancy in that video, there will always be some schmo who accepts it blindly as gospel.<
Keep fighting the good fight qdragon. I love your videos. :)
jisaid08 1 month ago
Nonsense. The first part is about when there was no life, the second one is when there is life.. Purely fallacious and deceptive video.
Antilli 2 months ago
there is no 'self-pwnage' dumbass
OldaurGold 3 months ago
The Discovery Institute is a joke ...and all the members are half ass scientists who couldn't make in the real scietific community.So they pawn thenselves off to the idiot creationists in this country who they know will buy into thier BS.They are disgusting people and the only thing they know how to do is LIE.
copycoonie 3 months ago
Uh oh... bullshit artists got covered in their own bullshit!
evilgenius2003 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why would ANYONE pay any attention to Meyer talking about Biology?
He's no Biologist.
odinata 5 months ago
More evoTARD straw mans.....
People have to leave their brain at the door when viewing nonsensical videos such as this
The evolution RELIGION takes another hit.
If this is the best you can come up with, I am not worried.
evoTARDSareINSANE 6 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE How is evolution a religion?
Akira625 6 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE lol. The best we can come up with? This only illustrates the fail of DI, not proof of evo. The best we got includes, but not limited to, fossil record, multiple dating methods, geographical distribution of fossils, geographical distribution of animals, genetic similarities AND differences in organisms, observed instances of speciation, #2 chromosome in humans, nylonase, morphology of animals. Not individually, mind you, but how all these things are overlappingly concordant.
Ripley747 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evoTARDSareINSANE seems like you are butthurt sir.
Aldelirium 4 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE The best you can come up with is lies and multiple accounts, fraud.
lethalsub 2 months ago
Comment removed
deathman1021 6 months ago
I wonder what the discovery institute idiots really think about when they're laying awake at night. They must sometimes realize they're monumental stupidity, surely...
kusalaviro 6 months ago
@kusalaviro They think they have an all powerful figure on their side so i wouldnt count on that.
to paraphrase Bertrand Russel when he talked about supposed deathbed recants of atheism
they think it is moral to lie for their god in order to fool those not wise enough to think for themselves.
so likely they would have no issue at all lying about what they "find"
deathman1021 6 months ago
lol 666 likes! DONT ANYONE RUIN IT...i mean it!
SecretAgent194 8 months ago
FYI: I am not a biologist nor do I claim to be one. I was just making an observation. If over a million years an organism is constantly sacrificing WORKING functions that are needed for reproduction then how can it continue to be the most fit for survival if in fact it is eventually unable to reproduce. Like I said, I know very little about the topic and there is probably an explanation but to the ignorant like myself I see organisms being naturally selected to die.
jcook21782 8 months ago
@jcook21782 Who said it's sacrificing anything?
kusalaviro 6 months ago
Left hand: Proteins is too complex for the evilooshins to produce!
...
Right hand: Proteins is formed by microw evilooshin!
Hyuk, gone done a summaray of that dere vidya.
oilotnoM 9 months ago
who was the idiot at the end lol
f8tty 9 months ago
Nice video but what this video failed to mention is that the mutation that took place to make the bacteria resistant to the antibiotic came at a cost of limiting other working functions. All bacteria that have become resistant to an antibiotic have actually become weaker in their ability to reproduce and acquire the resources necessary for reproduction. So this evolution did not make the bacteria stronger or weaker by natural selection. It just made it different. So how is this relevant?
jcook21782 10 months ago
@jcook21782 actually i have a video that addresses that
/watch?v=lhBi7RJp_gI
if you're interested
qdragon1337 10 months ago
@jcook21782
Being "stronger" and "weaker" is all depending on how you look at it. For a bacteria living in an environment rich in an antibiotic, surviving at all means it is "strong" or evolutionarily fit for those conditions. Changing the conditions (say removing the antibiotic) might make it no longer as fit as other organisms that reproduce faster. Think of arctic animals. They are very evolutionarily fit for cold, but may not reproduce as fast as similar animals in the tropics.
zamboodoo 10 months ago
@zamboodoo Exactly, take a look at sickle cell anemia, it gives you a resistance to malaria that allows to survive, without it in an malarie enviroment the disease would kill you. However the genetic "disorder" itself will shortern your life. It's all about fitness
Appclypse 10 months ago
@jcook21782 Evolution is not a process of increasing strength, it is the process of differentiation, or speciation. Differences are all that are hypothesized by theories of evolution.
labrat1807 9 months ago
@jcook21782 Totally incorrect statement. If a bacteria becomes resistant, and that resistance persists in a population, then OBVIOUSLY it is an ADVANTAGE to that organism to keep that resistance genetics.
If the resistance genetic mutation made the bacteria weaker, so that it was less likely to survive then the mutation would die out. This is called NATURAL SELECTION, the engine that drive evolution.
You are showing huge ignorance in the subject of biology jcook
Futureplanet 8 months ago
I does not matter if scientists are religious or not. Science does not use the supernatural. Creation is a religous myth, every religion has a story.
gregrutz 10 months ago
They don't understand biology, but I like their background music.
dhaddox 11 months ago
The self-pwnage is in the association of Ken Miller with the Discovery Institute.
lisahayes3 11 months ago
Ten trillion trillion trilllion trillion trillion idiots who say the Bible is the tru' word o' Gahd, can't over-rule one observable, repeatable experiment.
USERNAMEfieldempty 11 months ago
Was that second video actually from Discovery Institute? Why would Ken Miller agree to be in one of those?
xorthan 11 months ago
The Creation Institute is Kook Central rite?
scarletharlot69 1 year ago
Excellent vid, qdragon!
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
The number 10^74 is pure bunk. That is only if one ignores how O-Chem works and takes it that any combination is not only possible but equally as probable.
Hint to the "molecular biologist": They're not.
Just another way of "Lyin' for jebus" from the Disco 'Toot!
sol3a1 1 year ago
it's not mount improbable ....it's mount impossible!!
lunabirdie 1 year ago
The Di don't care about detail. The only thing on their agenda is their agenda.
DogOfTheSpag 1 year ago
Eureka! God done it duuuuur hur hur.
Chibithy 1 year ago
So, by using the "logic" of the Discovery Institute, it can be argued that the Discovery Institute doesn't exist. The probability that so many people would willingly remain ignorant of evolution and organizing together to propagate a campaign of ignorance and lies is one in a thousand billion. Therefore, the Discover Institute doesn't exist ! Flawed logic is fun.
tcsam9202 1 year ago
We're the underdog? Who's we?
Ok, I know the Vatican's Mr Ratzy, and Ray Comfort with Kirk the (rather pretty, actually) wonder boy, but there you lose me. Do I need to know who these others are? Do I want to?
Things are different here. Tony Blair was asked in interviews if the rumour was true that he got down on his knees and prayed with George Dubya, and he vehemently denied it.
It's also pretty hard to sell multi level marketing schemes here.
queenastilon 1 year ago
I'd like to see the definition for 'prohibitively difficult' And its interesting how every argument they use actually supports evolutionary theory. The numbers represented in the documentary are irrelevant. Organisms/enzymes/proteins that can survive do, and the others are lost. I have this to ask of the Creationists, if everything was created at the same time, and did not evolve, how come there are no homo sapiens in the earliest sedimentary layers cavorting with dinosaurs?
finitekosmos 1 year ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM. How fucking hard is that to understand? You don't start from scratch after every step... I hope for their sakes that they're just being deceptive and aren't this retarded. Oh wait, just saw the last part. Yup, they're just lying douchebags.
spiralout1123211 1 year ago
creationists need to understand the concepts of exaptation and historical contingency. But ignorance does not lead to much understanding
phishUMup 1 year ago
My brain is full of fuck.
BrendanIsCool 1 year ago
Why would they put Ken Miller in this video, when he's a great advocate for evolutionism?
SeppukuDoll 1 year ago
@SeppukuDoll cut and paste make lesser smart people think he is saying evolution is to hard ergo fake
bjam89 1 year ago
10^64 atoms in the galaxy? That's it? What the fuck?
brt5470 1 year ago
What are the chances? UNITY you morons! It happened! Saying it couldn't have happened is like saying that since it's highly unlikely that any one person would win the lottery, whoever actually did win must have cheated. It's beyond stupid, it's retarded.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "since it's highly unlikely that any one person would win the lottery, whoever actually did win must have cheated."
When the National Lottery first started up in England someone calculated the odds of winning it and declared you were more likely to be hit by a meteorite. This was freely repeated as fact. Some weeks no one wins it and the jackpot rolls over & gets bigger but at least 20 - 30 people have won it every year. How many people got hit by meteorites? 1? 2?
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon I fail to see your point. My point is that the application of the math cited is flawed and incorrect. It's a case much like the patterns of heads and tails in a series of flipped coins. Each single outcome is just as unlikely as any other.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone My point was only that some apparently respected individual made a statement of probability concerning winning the state lottery that was obviously incorrect, yet nobody challenged it. Not a big point, really.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon OH! ... well, ok.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Ken Miller does not, as this video implies, have anything to do with the Discovery Institute. He is still a reputable anti-Creationist biologist at Brown who testified AGAINST the theory of Intelligent Design in the 2005 Dover (PA) School Board case several years ago. He is a practicing Catholic, but is certainly not a creationist.
LoGos7891 1 year ago
HAHAHA, awesome!
Keeban3 1 year ago
What i love most, is the creationist idea (Which is valid) of "If things were different, then things would be different". But this is not an argument, it's a fact. Lol! =] "If the earth were only 99% closer to the sun <_<"...yeah....but it's not is it? lol ^_^
MrOmniblast 1 year ago
thought ken miller was against DI. He's still a bible thumper, but at least recognizes evolution.
mistereveready 1 year ago
"Microevolution " is the Stair and "macroevolution " is the staircase. Thanks for inadvertently giving me a good, simple analogy to explain evolution to others, Discovery institute. The cgi was very helpful!
bdobbsthepipe 1 year ago
@bdobbsthepipe thank you for pointing out how i could do it, when i listen to them well my brain turns itself somewhat off to try to make out the illogical ranting of lesser evolved brains
bjam89 1 year ago
Discovery Institute: "It's impossible for new proteins to evolve from natural selection!....... Except when we say that it's clearly possible!"
What a shower of morons,
elsparx 1 year ago
I love fake science
planeshaperman 1 year ago
Discovery institute is Deceptive Institute...
caseyrainer 1 year ago
That's some hilarious pwnage right there =D
levi799 2 years ago 5
This is a case of cognitive dissonance, The Discovery Institute, knows innately they have serious contradictions but dispose of the illogical summations for the propagation of their preferred platform. Truth is not priority to them, only the ignorant propagation of their religious dogma. They will use whatever means possible to undermine TRUE SCIENCE and will twist it to make it appear to back up their ridiculous claims. Just because the want it to be true they are willing to settle for lies.
combatives 2 years ago 11
Nice video.
The numbers these Creationists Retards come with just kills me!..............Ten to the power of bullshit..........Bitch!
Shit happens! Shit makes other shit happen...........And here you are...........bitch!
Suck it!
bigboy45454545 2 years ago 22
@bigboy45454545 Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if the they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn morons like u think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Oh I see what you're saying. You're saying that chemistry couldn't have changed to biology unless God zapped the first life with a magic wand, or some ludicrous assumption like that. Well that makes sense to the simple minded people looking for easy answers. Answers without evidence. "God did it" if you will. Go away.
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
@bigboy45454545 how did simple chemicals become life asshole?????..what is your answer???
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv I know what your answer is for how chemicals became life. "God did it", right Sport? You're not looking for how the evidence might fit the actual process. You're looking to fit "God did it" without evidence, in a supernatural process . Even worse, this God is your Christian God of the bible, despite the thousands of Gods which people believe in. God did it all for you. Your view is arrogant and dishonest and without evidence.
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv abiogenesis
Pinage 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Chemicals tend to react with each other, Derp
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally DErp..Never ..thats why miller never made life.or even one single usable amino acid..learn homochirality..he never made building blocks,he made a Toxic combination which life cant use..nothing was assembled learn dummy
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv herr derr you know they redid that experiment with more accurate conditions and manage to make more than 10 different amino acids right?
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally Wrong..they were Toxic !!!! thats why miller could not use them..they could not be assembled.. right and left together are Toxic to life,,see people dont know real chemistry
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv You really do not know anything about either experiment do you? The first test yielded about 5 amino acids itself, the second experiment yielded about 22. hell an asteroid from space that landed in Australia was found to have about 90 amino acids, 19 that could be found on earth. Do some fucking research before you run your mouth about who knows chemistry or not.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally Another stubborn asshole they can not be used asshole!!!!!.they are toxic to life..those amino acids can never be assembled into life u fuckin moron..the ones found in space answer nothing!!..they could even be from earth..it still does not answer the question..Miller failed to generate life.and hit a brick wall..no one can assemble one single usable amino acid to assemble anything!!!!!!! RNA or DNA or one single protein!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Birth control pills are made in the lab so they have 50/50 left and right hand molecules, so woman take a 'double dose' because half of it just passes through the body and is not recognized by it.
DNA has been made in the lab, put in a blank cell and it reproduced.
Try and keep up with science.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz no one has ever assembled DNA u moron
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv How do you know, you have never even read a science book. IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No God of the gaps here sir..this is real science..from step one..it really should be simple for scientists.to explain this..My chemistry professor believes in God..not just random time and chance..
So he is an uneducated moron right,thats all i keep hearing from people..i believe in God,iam a successful person man,,it seems all the smart people in world must be atheist..ok right..LOL
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Most biologist accept God, I accept God, what is your point?
''not just random time and chance'' LOL now time is random too HA.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Considering that vast majority of people who work in scientific fields hold no belief in god so your post was just bunch of bs...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei 60% of scientists accept God, 99.98% of them accept evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz you might want to take a closer look at those figures, over 90% dont hold any religious beliefs...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei And does that somehow affect the fact that evolution has been proven?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz haha your a goon and your making up stats... pick up a book and read. most scientist do not believe in religion and some i would even say most do not believe in the existance of a mystical being who cannot be proven what so ever... scientist need reasons to believe something unlike you who is just told to believe for no reason what so ever and if you believe because of the bible.... then you have never read the bible.... or any holy book for that matter... have a nice day
p6a9u1l42 10 months ago
@p6a9u1l42 I don't believe in the bible. Evolution is a fact. Have a nice day
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz my appologies i must have mis read your post
p6a9u1l42 10 months ago
anyway.Miller's experiment lacked CHIRALITY!!!!!!..in fact this is now being shown in Textbooks for 2011..when i get them, i will scan them..finally after 60 years the truth is being told on why miller failed..and no usable building blocks were made!!!!!
stubbornly,science believes in some chemistry unknown to life
Please tell me your theory of how this happened by chance....???..but known its an assumption not testable science..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Yes it did. When you make a molecule that is right and left handed in the lab you get half and half, 50/50 chance. Life makes molecules but uses enzymes and only makes left handed molecules.
In the Miler experiment 50 percent were usable building blocks.
Evolution is not by chance, Darwin wrote 'Origin of species by natural selection, not by chance.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..and if u think simple chemicals could some how form life, u dont know real chemistry..u would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally U dont know what Homochirality is!!!!!!!!..this is why miller failed..and no life could ever happen by time or chance from chemicals EVER!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Is that really the best you could come up with? Those amino acids are not toxic fucktard, in fact they are found IN the human body. In that one experiment they found amino acids that are found in the human body and organic compounds needed for life to start. And how is homochirality the stake through the heart of evolution? Just fucking stop you're making yourself look retarded.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally U dont understand Homochirality and how it works u dumb fuck..they cant assemble when together right and left..they are Toxic!! u dont understand how the body assembles them!!!! thats what u dont get u fuckin moron..u are one of these assholes that thinks Miller made life or building blocks of life..he did not even come close!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Everything you just said here was more than likely pulled out of your ass because its is horribly apparent you have no idea what the fuck your talking about.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally the only troll here is u moron,u dont know chemistry like most people and atheist..u still dont understand homochirality..u dumb fuck!!!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally Miller made a Toxic combination which life cant use!!!!..thats why no life was generated u fuckin asshole!!!!!...no cell was assemble because of Homochirality..Learn u fuckin moron!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Cells are made of homochiralic molecules... rofl i get it now, your fucking troll, lol I'm done here.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Life makes left hand molecules, so what, it could have used right hand molecules.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigboy45454545 if u stubborn fucks would learn homochirality..u would see your lie could never happen
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
who funds this shit?
DILLIGAFFUM 2 years ago 4
The Center for Science and Culture funds this shit. Its Wedge Document five year goals didn't work out so well it came up with, "To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory". Every year the theory of evolution gets more accepted and well established while ID theory exposes itself as apologetics for creationists.
foxlake02 1 year ago 4
Sorry, can someone clarify for me? The person at the end explaining mutation of insects and bacteria (Ken Miller) was the star witness in Dover for the plaintiffs and the author of "Only a Theory". He is definitely not part of the Discovery Institute.
carrots001 2 years ago
That's what I was thinking too.
DNAunion 2 years ago
They always add that spooky music in for added effect so that they can hook the little kids.
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
Fuck; that last line cracked me up!
Nicely done. Once again the Disco Institute fail at, well, everything they do.
MojoPin07 2 years ago 2
oh so typical. but they don't care as long they sheep think they are hearing the truth. it's not like they actually listen.
yogurtking 2 years ago 2
It's sad how little morals these "faith based institutions" have. They have to resort to contradicting themselves whenever it's a convenient way to push their idiotic agenda.
ActivistOne472 2 years ago 2
Well you gotta do something drastic when trying to argue facts that completely undermine your core ideas.
Cromulus420 2 years ago 4
Trillion and Trillions by CHANCE, one of the creationists favorite arguments that make them dumb.
gamereviewdestroyer 2 years ago
Their "the chances of evolution are so slim that it would have been impossible, therefore God did it" argument is just pathetic.
It would be like me arguing this:
"The chances of Lee Harvey Oswald killing JFK are very slim and there are a lot of flaws in the theory, therefore the more logical conclusion is that little green aliens from Mars killed JFK".
ActivistOne472 2 years ago 33
@ActivistOne472
"aliens from Mars killed JFK"
Yes fundies over look the evidence and what it shows int he effort to pretend their invisable magic man just happened to be there and exist claiming he doesnt need a creator. LOL
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
@ActivistOne472 your problem is that you dont get that there are only 2 ways to go with the origion of life, by accident or not by accident and when you roll out 1 of the theorys all thats laft is the other one so that one must be true
eye31 1 year ago
@eye31 "your problem is [.....] 2 ways to go with the origion of life [if one is disroven] the other one [..is..] true"
YOUR problem is you've fallen for deliberate misinformation so confuse evolution with abiogenisis & think creationism is a theory
Any idea must find supporting evidence before you can even call it hypothesis let alone theory. Evolution is fact, the *Theory* of Evolution explains it with piles of evidence & is as true as a theory CAN be. Creationism is barely a hypothesis
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon piles of evidence you say , well if im not mistakeing i know that evolution says that the origion of life started from one cell wich was created rendomly from matter, but after breakthroughs in the mikro department scientists found that cell can only be created by other cells (the cell paradoxe) because of the process that happens beetwin the ribosome and the DNA (look it up if you are not familiar with it) so your "theory" cant even explain the begining of how its all started
eye31 1 year ago
@eye31 The theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life. That's an entirely different theory known as abiogenesis. Your unfamiliarity with such elementary concepts is indicative of a willful lack of self-education on the subject and all too typical.
suumr 1 year ago
@eye31 "well if im not mistakeing" Gosh, what are the odds? "i know..." I seriously doubt it. "...that evolution says that the origion of life started from one cell wich was created rendomly" Yup: same mistake yet again. It does not say that.
"so your "theory" cant even explain the begining of how its all started" (head meets desk)
Once again.
The Theory of Evolution says nothing whatsoever about abiogenesis. Can't you people write that down somewhere?
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon dude you are wrong Creationism by these people is not even a coherent idea
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 Well, I know, but I was being kind.
After all, it can't be much fun knowing you're in a tiny minority crackpot group and you have to deny just about all of science to defend your ridiculous ideas.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon ah but if you are in that group you think you are right and the others wrong and it is kind of like this "romantic" us vs the world kin of a deal i guess
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 Well, damn, that poses a problem. I'm always attracted to the underdog, to hopeless causes. It's just that their cause - the movers and shakers behind it - is so evil.
In England we've felt a little smug that US creationists can't get a foothold here. But now we've suddenly noticed the growing number of Muslim creationist teens sitting in science classes with folded arms, smugly shaking their heads at the teacher because they've been indoctrinated since before they could talk.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon well just be glad that we are still the underdog in the grand scheme of things, you got emperor palatine in the Vatican doing his stuff but you know he lost the force so he need bullet proof cars, you got the super hero banana-man and his trusted siekick nods'n'has-no-thoughts-of-his-own-lad, th3e howin.duo, the missing link who tries to hde the fact by foricng on you bible glasses and who can forget big ass earphone man the doctor who has studied the interwebs
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 We're the underdog? Who's we?
Ok, I know the Vatican's Mr Ratzy, and Ray Comfort with Kirk the (rather pretty, actually) wonder boy, but there you lose me. Do I need to know who these others are? Do I want to?
Things are different here. Tony Blair was asked in interviews if the rumour was true that he got down on his knees and prayed with George Dubya, and he vehemently denied it.
It's also really hard to sell multi level marketing schemes here.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon Sorry, that got posted twice because YT told me "Error, try again".
queenastilon 1 year ago
@ActivistOne472 Uh, you mean to tell me you didn't know that green aliens from Mars killed JFK?
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
@ActivistOne472
There's no way aliens could've done it.
Clearly God killed JFK.
Cyllid 1 year ago
@ActivistOne472 Learn homochirality..it did not happen by time or chance,,impossible most people dont know why miller failed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@ActivistOne472 if u stubborn fucks would learn homochirality..u would see your lie could never happen
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv It did happen, you are a little late dumb shit.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Wow, these guys got it completely wrong. The explanation of change having to rely on a new gene arising or hoping to develop a functional enzyme through pure chance alone shows they truly missed the point. That's not how it works. You can have one base pair in your entire genome (3x10^9) change and have it develop a profound phenotypic change (ie sickle cell anemia). Or that change can have no effect at all. And yes, we can predict and evaluate the difference.
cipher314 2 years ago 3
anywhere you look these "protiens" have more than stumbled along these "functioning chemeicals" even if us as humas werent here everything els would be!
smashbeans 2 years ago
Creationists and their large numbers for improbability?..................It's meaningless, but it sound good to the uneducated who want to believe in nonsense, to back claims for an unproven Creator.........Sweet!
bigboy45454545 2 years ago
Only idiots argue any difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
Evolution has and is occuring - that's a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of how evolution is taking place.
There is no debate on this unless you have your mind set on a fantasy/delusion. But then, you're just a fuckin idiot.
GimbleTheWizard 2 years ago
can someone tell pestmanpat that macro evolution is just micro evolution on a large time scale. If you agree that we have observed micro evolution, then that means we have observed macro evolution, just because it is hard for our small minds to comprehend doesn't mean it's any less true. Oh they are called fossils dude.
UncomfortableSilence 2 years ago
Really ! ill just cut and paste a comment i just made to 7omnia7
DRAMATIC MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE takes so dam long we could never hope to observe it as we can small change.
Therefore it does not fit the definition of a scientific theory because it is not testable ,predictable or observable.
Now i accept your explanation as a hypothesis and its not a bad one at that but thats all it is.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Then let it be a hypothesis.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the best hypothesis to explain plenty of things.
Far better then believing every life form appeared instantly. (Not even this would be scientific, since no one observed this type of phenomena nor tested it!)
7omnia7 2 years ago
I dont think things happened instantly.Even young earth creationists believe things were created on different days not all at once.But i think modern science has good evidence to show that things have taken longer than 6 literal days.How long im not sure but mabey somewhere between evolutionists dates and creationists dates.Having said all that i must agree with you that from a purly scientific point of view the genesis account is not testble predictable or observable either.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
pestmanpat - "I dont think things happened instantly.Even young earth creationists believe things... i think modern science has good evidence... things have taken longer than 6 literal days.How long im not sure. ... mabey somewhere between evolutionists dates and creationists dates. ...i must agree with you that from a purly scientific point of view the genesis account is not testble predictable or observable either."
So you just appeal to incredulity & present false dichotomies.
psycotria 2 years ago
Also if we can all admit that dramatic morphological change is only a hypothesis what theory are we left with.
Well we are left with observable small change or micro evolution as some would call it.
Micro evolution fits both models evolution
and intelligent design so the debate should start there.
It fits ID becaue it allows for small changes in the population to survive changes in the enviroment.This actually works to preserve the original design in the long term.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
"microevolution"+"microevolution"+"microevolution"+"microevolution"+"microevolution"+"microevolution"+"microevolution"+"microevolution"="macroevolution"
Doesn't it sound fair enough?
7omnia7 2 years ago
There is simply no evidence to take the leap from small change leaving morphology unchanged to dramatic morphological change.For example a chiwawa and a great dane there is a huge difference in size and even some in appearance but they are anatomicly the same. They are both dogs.We know these kinds of changes are possible weve seen it but we have never seen an arm designed for walking on dry land evolve into a wing with feathers or a flipper for swimming thats the difference.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
When I was little I always wondered how a rat could evolve to a bat. Then I saw gliding squirrels...
Leaping from a branch to the other eventually (through selection) prized the squirrel that had a membrane between it's arms and legs.
If you really want to show me something "impossible" check out a japonese crab's back (it looks like a samurai's face. No BS!!!). That's unexplainable!
7omnia7 2 years ago
The sugar glider s membrane has no supporting structure for sustained flight,no feathers with intricate zip lock
mechanism,no sonar ect. in any case there are creatures today such as seals that resemble dogs or cats in some ways.the platipus seems to be a combination of amphibian,bird and land creatures with fur..Trouble is no one has ever observed the transition.And these examples better explain a common designer who used different combinations in different animals.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
What about "useless" features?
We have "withdrawing" "fingers" on our feet. Monkeys need them to hang on trees but we don't need them.
Think about the fact that, through generations, this feature is disappearing...
7omnia7 2 years ago
@pestmanpat
''The sugar glider s membrane has no supporting structure for sustained flight,no feathers with intricate zip lock''
And thats proof AGAINST evolution?
Why would god leave something''half-done'' then?Makes no sence. And no, the platypus has nothing to do with birds. Its a primitive mammal. Noone has ever seen evolution?What do you call bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics?Or bacteria that have evolved to eat nylon?
105km 2 years ago
RE : Why would god leave something''half-done
Not half done ! done differently
you think bats wings are poorly designed ?
Platypus is a primitive mammal ? are you serious? How is it primitive ?
re; bacteria
adaptation is not evolution
they are still bacteria right ?
pestmanpat 2 years ago
@pestmanpat
go and read biology book, then maybe we could argue. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
105km 2 years ago 4
"adaptation is not evolution" = wrong, evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. the populations of bacteria are adapting by way of altered allele frequencies, therefore they are evolving. try not to confuse evolution with speciation, the process by which one species becomes another. and we have seen bacteria become entirely new species under selective pressures, i.e. the nylon eating bacteria 105km mentioned
Dorin351 2 years ago 3
@pestmanpat Platypus has no nipples, sweat glands evolved sweat glands to glands that made milk. Milk and sweat are basically water and salts. Nipples would evolve later. Another example of them being proto-mammals is that Platypus is also the only poisonous mammel with a poison claw on their hind leg, left over form reptile ancestry. for bacteria look into MRSA a new species on bacteria evolved from Staf. or strep cant remember. So that would be evolution.
hank1972 2 years ago
pestmanpat (2 months ago) - "re; bacteria
adaptation is not evolution
they are still bacteria right ?"
Wrong.
A species of bacteria can Evolve into a new species and still be a bacteria.
psycotria 2 years ago
Sure they can.You see i believe evolution or gradual change can happen within a species to the point where cross breeding can not take place.this is what some refer to as macro evolution.This is not proof of dramatic morphological change. Show me an example of bacteria evolving into say an insect or a sponge.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
pestmanpat (1 day ago) - "Sure they can.You see i believe evolution or gradual change can happen ..."
Well, that's being receptive to the evidence. Good. I must ask then, " Where do you draw the line? How is such an arbitrary line held against encroachment?"
The number of days since the Earth solidified numbers over 1.5 Trillion. That is a staggeringly long time for things to occurr.
If you can watch for 10:16 - see youtube/users/aronra/ - find " 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism "
psycotria 2 years ago
Natural selection preserves the most complete gene pool in the long term.mutation leads to a loss of information and the offspring become less viable than the original.They may do well for some time but eventually they die out.
Dramatic morphological change could not have happened over trillions of years since life is said to be only millions of years old.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
"pestmanpat (1 week ago)
Natural selection preserves... Dramatic morphological change could not have happened over trillions of years since life is said to be only millions of years old."
You answer as if you read what I wrote, but if you had actually read and understood me, you would have seen that what I ACTUALLY stated that there has been 1.5 Trillion DAYS passed since the Earth coalesced from the primordial Solar Nebula.
psycotria 2 years ago
pestmanpat (1 week ago) - "Natural selection... mutation leads to a loss of information and the offspring become less viable... They may do well for some time but eventually they die out." [ CITATION? ]
Are you conceding that NATURAL SELECTION is the mechanism at work?
Even if what you say is MOSTLY correct, you fail to account for non-coding DNA, which mutation may work on to create functional genes. Only mutation AND ERRORS that enabled functionality would be effected by selection.
psycotria 2 years ago
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJJAJA
EntinludeX 2 years ago
pestmanpat (4 months ago) - "...seals that resemble dogs or cats... platipus seems to be a combination of amphibian,bird and land creatures with fur."
Microbiology and DNA evidence can now definitively determine relatedness.
"... Trouble is no one has ever observed the transition."
False, but not important. Unseen murderers ARE caught, regardless.
"... these examples better explain a common designer who used different combinations in different animals."
False dichotomy. Why combine at all?
psycotria 2 years ago 3
I saw that too. It could be coincidence. Out of all those thousends of crab species I think its easily possible 1 would resemble a human face. And it doesent look that much like a face, actualy, but I guess our minds are always looking for patterns. I read in Dawkins book, that there is a hypothesis that it could be due to a sort of unintentional artificial breeding. If a fisherman were to catch a crab, that looked like a face, theres a chance he would throw it back and over the millenia...
105km 2 years ago
@7omnia7
Personaly, I think its just a coincidence
105km 2 years ago
@105km
I was just showing how silly it is to talk about microevolution (that ID guys like so much).
Plus, the total lack of a definition for "microevolution"...
I'm just having fun with these people, and to have fun with them, you've got to communicate at their level!
7omnia7 2 years ago
Sorry man!
I read your original comment on my email cause youtube didn't show it.
About the crab with a samurai face on it's back, yes, it might just be a pattern we find with our human logic of correlation.
I was just giving creationists something interesting to attack evolution with, since they always come up with the same damn borring examples.
I just wanted to spice things up.
7omnia7 2 years ago
@7omnia7
oh I get your point. Yeah, I like making fun of creationists too. Arguing with them make sme feel so much smarter xD
105km 2 years ago
@pestmanpat
look at the galapagos cormorant. And stop thinking with your ass
105km 2 years ago
If the proteins are not in the right order, you still get a protein, why did they lie and say there isn't? These people are not qualified to make a video on evolution, let alone about proteins, then.
Thank you for posting your vlog and clearing this up.
truvelocity 2 years ago
Wait... they're talking about how everything has to be just perfect to make functional proteins, but isn't there a lot of "junk DNA" that either produces no protein, or produces useless protein?
Maybe because these mutations didn't go so well?
Sorabjian 2 years ago
Well spotted my mate.
hurtslicken 2 years ago
Typical of these guys - they pose a false alternative. If the amino acids are in the right order, you get a protein, but if they do not, "no protein will form". This is obviously false. A different protein will form. (Usually non-functioning or with impaired function, but occasionally with better function.) Not even God himself can make a chain of amino acids, any chain, not be a protein.
Good on you, qdragon! Reason rocks and so do you.
ToadHead 2 years ago
Good catch, Q-dragon. I'll give you your props for this one.
GlorifiedTruth 2 years ago
Until D.I. learns that publishing results of biased testing and downright false information in faux science journals before submitting their findings to genuine peer review, DI will never be taken seriously.
Although I'm sure the folks at DI have some apologetic answer to account for the discrepancy in that video, there will always be some schmo who accepts it blindly as gospel.<