all sects of christianity are fully against evolution. time to drop what was forced upon you and move on into clarity. Everyone educated knows evolution isn't a theory. Its a fact that is illustrated in countless ways. All science medicine and biology rest upon it as a foundation.
Kabane, I commend you for standing up in protest of the myriad of outright lies the YECs post here on YT. It's one thing to be mistaken, but another to intentionally mislead and lie in denial of certain scientific facts.
I'm sure your position on this will bring you a lot of heat from fellow Xians and I respect you for holding the truth as more important.
Being a hard core atheist, I can say it isn't often that I find reasons to make such compliments to a Xian, but you more than deserve it.
If Odds are your criteria then you must certainly not believe in evolution. Try to calculate the odds of an eye forming accidentally through random mutations over twenty independent times, in stereo no less.
hahahah wow you're an idiot...you have no idea how embryology works. Odds are you would form two due to the nature of embrologic formation using factors such as SHH that promote axial development
The odds are 100% since it happened lol we've SEEN the steps. We see animals along the evolutionary pathways that have photosensitive patches, then merely rods cells, cone cells...its complex to you because you don't understand it. to a physician who has studied embryology it makes a lot of sense
LOl holy puberty... I just saw your video of Lucy, and you sounded like 10 years younger. I appreciate the work you do young atheist. Im not of your religon, but i do like to see opposing views. Keep it up. Considering how wrong science has been about most things thoughout history, i wouldnt hang my reputation on others people research. Considering theyre piad with an end reulst in mind. i.e. Prove that evolution exists or prove that it doesnt. It limits our possiblities to discover truth.
Even though you think that Evolution is magic as you stated in this video. You would like to have both your cake and eat it too.
Being that you have quoted odds and rely on them for the evidence for evolutionary sources of ERV's, Odds of events occurring should be sufficient evidence against evolution. The odds of any feature that needs more than one simultaneous genetic mutation actually happening is zero. Therefore, odds for more complicated mutations are than zero. Hence, NO EVOLUTION
How do you explain the genetic mutations that are happening if there is zero chance of it happening?
Minor genetic mutations do happen, give these mutations time to be spread through birth until most of the population contains the minor mutation (and add on all the other minor mutations occurring during the spread of this one mutation), and you have a mutation that has affected a species. Enough of these minor mutations result in your "major mutations."
there are many features that need more than one mutation simultaneously, one of these mutations without the other would not create an advantage and consequently would not be selected for. stopping the chain. In your scenario time is God. Given enough time the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes inevitable. Time is the God in Evolutionism.
There is not case where two or more mutations could not have developed slowly by alternating the mutations until they are both reliant on each other. Irreducible Complexity is an illusion produced by viewing something in its evolved state.
The problem with religion is that it stops seeking the truth by placing god behind the unknown.
Science is an unending struggle to discover the unknown.
Wait, your saying useless mutations appear and prevail until another equally useless mutation comes along and also prevails, and then the two or more mutations combine to create a novel feature in the organism thus creating a new type of organism. This insanely improbable event continues on and on not only in once but in every organism , trillions and trillions of times creating countless failures until something works.
But in two hundred years we've never seen it happen even once.
Wow, you are going to skip to the "you cannot produce evidence" statement without first asking for evidence?
I guess I will also skip the retarded internet arguing steps by saying: I am some kind of professional in the whatever field we are talking about (or someone I personally know is), I will group you into a large collective to hastily generalize you and... oh yeah, you're a Nazi.
I guess I could also make fun of your spelling capitalization, punctuation and grammar.
"there are many features that need more than one mutation simultaneously, one of these mutations without the other would not create an advantage and consequently would not be selected for" - such as?
the rest of your argument is a FAILURE to understand the importance of time in evolutionary theory.
oh it is my business. If I were to go to NASA and argue that going to the moon is an impossible task they'd wipe the floor with me because I know nothing of aerospace engineering.
Somehow every bible baby in the U.S. seems to think they are somehow qualified to argue scientific evidence when they don't even have an education
the fact that you refer to it as "post-secondary" degrees shows you are hiding something...which is your lack of science education.
there's a reason if you travel to any top U.S. medical school you won't see people saying evolution isn't real. Why do you think that is? maybe it has something to do with the fact that after studying anatomy, embryology, and basic biological sciences, as well as genetics, that evolution makes perfect sense....in addition to the fact that we OBSERVE IT.
we study the processes of the eye in animals that have only evolved PARTS of the eye.
maybe you should watch a video on the embryologic development of the eye. You will see how photosensitive cells are formed and simply a pit of endothelium...then those photosensitive cells gain specialization through the use of factors like rhodopsin.
anyone who uses this "the eye is too complex" argument has never studied ecology, has never studied embryology, and is therefore unqualified to even participate in this argument.
put another way, much of the modern evidence for evolution, the TRULY convincing evidence involves cellular/molecular biology and genetics. The reason is evolutionary theory predicted many mechanisms that we didn't have the technology to see. Now we do.
So if I say evolution makes complete sense because we've observed processes evolve such as Nucleotide and Base excision repair, we've seen bacteria evolve through engulfing plasmids and inserting DNA into their genome...
we've seen things methylated DNA sequences in humans that remains inactive and is composed of long sequences of primitive genes from primates...(if you don't know what the difference between methylated DNA and unmethylated DNA is you won't understand why this is significant).
I can say I've literally seen evolution as we've literally watched bacteria evolve drug resistance (bacteria evolve VERY quickly).
And somehow YOU are more qualified to say nope we're wrong? are you insane?
Developing drug resistance is a far cry from observing evolution. The drug resistance comes from a defect in the bacteria which makes it less fit in absence of the drug. No one argues that organisms can undergo changes in response to environmental changes. However, changing into some other type of organism, never ever happens.
ahahahahah wow and which PhD did you earn that provided you with the expertise to draw THIS conclusion? ahahahahah wow this is hilarious!
a defect in bacteria gives them drug resistance AHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAha
and what is your definition of a new type of organism? if I alter a hox gene I will get fins instead of hands....would you say that is a new organism? one that has fins?
what a dope! Hey as long as you're not trying to get into medical school or something, you can keep being delusioned
theres a reason you aren't going to see many creationist physicians out there lol
wow it never ceases to amaze me how stupid some parts of the country actually are....
its like you think you can speculate whatever you want, without any scientific studies to back it up and just refute every scientific claim based on your opinion lol aaah thanks for the laughs you made my day
when you get your B.S. in biological sciences, or your PhD or M.D., then maybe you'd be qualified to judge evidence.
Not once have I even seen a creationist refer to a specific study that they feel is inaccurate. None of you have even read a scientific journal article...you just speak abstractly and say it doesn't make sense to you so it can't be true.
Just because you haven't been educated in a field and therefore don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true
How can evolutionists possibly explain that - while we have over 90 percent of DNA in common with chimps - not even one percent of our ERVs are in the exact same spot in chimp DNA???
How do we explain this with evolution theory: most ERV infections are prior to human ajd chimps diverging.And we share over 90% of dna with chimps. So 90% of all 98,000 ERVs is 88,200 of same ERVs at the exac same spot.
So far we found no more than 16. That's not even 1% of 98,000! Evolution predictions are way, way off!!!
Now I wonder, who of you evolutionists agree on this calculation of Kabane's 50,000,000 times 50,000,000 for his atrsonomically low chances of the same ERV at the same spot?
"who of you evolutionists agree on this calculation of Kabane's 50,000,000 times 50,000,000 for his atrsonomically low chances"
I do, but only b/c his figures are conservative, the odds for the identical placement of numerous long BP sequences all being in identical locations, whilst not being at all related are exceedinly rare, if I recall each ERV potentially has on average about 1 in500,000,000 possible insertion points, but oddly those we share are identical in identical locations.
Let me ask you this: Two ERVs insert themselves. One in a human, one in a chimp. What are the odds of these two ERVs inserting at the exact same spot, assuming that there are 500,000,000 possible (and equally likely) integration sites?
that said, even 2 species sharing the same ERV's in the same locations when 50 M posible insertion locations are possible is highly improbable to say the least.
the odds only get more exteme as one factors in multiple ERV's all sharing idential locations amongst 2 and or more species. again, descent w/ modification explains the astronomical odds and why they're nested in the same pattern as other methods reveal.
It's neither, it's entirely contiengent on the ERV in question.
It's entirely dependent upon which type of ERV we're talking about. The range though is between 50,000,000 & 500,000,000 possible insertion sites depending which ERV, so that would be the low & high.
HAHAHA! PHI... You got refute MONTHS ago, but you ran and hid!
Amazing that you are willing to show your name again after such humiliation. All I can do is laugh. Posters on this video, read back several months, you will see exactly what I talking about!!!!!
Kabane calculated the chance tha an ERV inserted themselves at the same spot in two organisms to be 1 against 2,500,000,000,000,000. You said you agreed with him.
Now even if an ERV could insert itself nexto any of 3 billion base pairs of our DNA. With 98,000 ERV signatures, 1 of every 30,200 spots are occupied by an ERV.
Now estimated that chimps also have about 98,000 ERV insertions, we can expect to find ERVs at the same spot, Because there's three times as many ERVs as the odds against
YES and you believed in evolution all the while you did not have FEAR in God's punishment. The ONLY way you CAN believe is to LOSE your fear in your God!
IF you answer??? You have have just enough brain cells to fit one idea of god wrath. You CAN'T answer, hahahahahaha. You are the stupiest and most retarded person I ever found on youtube. I dare you to answer on this ERV question. You CAN'T!!! Perhaps you should borrow some brains of one of your fellow evolutionists. Not that'd would help you much.
A rational explanation is that the viral sequence became attached to the DNA of a common precursor. It has remained in the DNA, and has been copied in both man and chimp for millions of years. This additional confirming data for relatedness to an animal that already looks to be a close relative anyway, makes a strong case for a brachiating forbear on our family tree.
"A rational explanation is that the viral sequence became attached to the DNA of a common precursor. It has remained in the DNA, and has been copied in both man and chimp for millions of years."
While my question is not hard to understand, you've clearly managed to not understand it.
Again, how do you explain we have over 90 percent of DNA in common with chimps but not even one percent of ERVs are inthe same place???
You are a retard. I can't give you more credit than that.
"Less places to insert, makes it more probable for ERVs to get into the same spot."
But again I stress, we're not just talking about 'ERV's, but more specifically H-ERV's.
"Even if it could insert anywhere, we'd still expect ERVs in the same spot. "
Not if they're insertion locations are random, which they are. They're localized to set of genomic locations, but in themselves their insertion in these sets are random.
"insertions are random in 3,000,000,000 spots or less (NOT MORE!"
No, math fail, as Kabane & I mentioned earlier, ERV's are random in insertion but they're localized in general relative to the genome itself., so it's not 3 B, it's more like 500M possible locations.
"exclude non-HERVs??? "
B/ they're not the ones being refered to. Context & details, they're relevant here.
"how do you explain we have over 90 percent of DNA in common with chimps but not even one percent of ERVs are in the same place???"
ERV insertion is RANDOM, ergo we would expect most to be not highly conserved across species, even those closely related. But, since we can date their relative insertion times we can deduce which are inherited & which are unique to species line of decent.
"We should expect over 90 percent of our ERVs to be in the exact same spot in chimps DNA."
I don't know where you're getting this shared ERV figure, (source?) Kabane doesn't mention it.
ERV's are inserted independently and randomly and at their own time & therefore only w/ descent should we find identical ERV's in identical locations.
"Now estimated that chimps also have about 98,000 ERV insertions, we can expect to find ERVs at the same spot."
whoh, hold he bus, pump the brakes. We're not just talking about 'ERV's', we're more specifically talkign about H-ERV's, re-read the subject. The SAME (H)ERV, in the SAME idential location in the SAME pattern? not so likely chap.
I'm arguing against young-earth creationism. There are plenty of Christians who are not young earth creationists. Theistic evolutionists are fairly common.
@Kabane52 So God is a liar and He didn't create man,also Adam's sin didn't bring death into the world.Jesus ,Paul and the rest must have also been wrong about Adam bringing death into the world .Looks like you can stop pretending to be a Christian now.
Jesus is Lord, its a fact he's alive in heaven and everyone will know that one day. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord!
Having a mutation resulting in increase or decrease in number of distinct chromosomes doesnt happen over many generations. You have one more or less or you have the same. Evidence show that it's not the same species any more (not talking about having the same chromosome twice, which is a known syndrome/disorder) and therefor cannot reproduce.
Why have evolutionists never addressed this problem?
Because they had their evidence and stopped thinking beyond allel mutation and gene frequencies.
also a person with downs syndrome does have an extra chromosome, if it were passed on to the next generation then underwent a series of mutations it would add new information, of course an additional chromosome is not that big of a deal, chimps have more chromosomes than humans, but not as much genetic information(as a whole).
or are you some how implying people with downs syndrome are unable to reproduce at all?
You're not claiming syndromes to be the driving force behind evolution, are you? You should know very well that people with Down don't have a new gnome structure but a damaged one, where it gets information from three chromosomes instead of two.
i was simply demonstrating how additional chromosomes can exist without the organism being able to breed with the main populous. that's what you were talking about wasnt it?
and your still overlooking the fact that evolution occurs in populations.
Why can't you read all the comments before replying? Not having trouble remembering the contents, have you?
There's things that science cannot explain. Well documented too.
Also in evolution. Gnome structure changes, hardly ever being mentioned in evolution theory, never going much in detail. So you'd think it's not important part of the theory. Well, think again!
ERVs also. You evolutionists make one prediction only. The one that fits the data. Why not look beyond it and make more predictions
"So you'd think it's not important part of the theory."
Phi, please stop putting words in my mouth, I never stated any such thing. Have some integrity.
You still haven't managed to demonstrate that new novel genes can't be formed over generations via mutations & natural selection. Try to 1st refute this, THEN move onto the more sophisticated material, I wouldn't want to overwhelm you.
"ERVs also. "
Yeah, what about em? You going to tackle them too, now?
Siigh, sorry but no. The theory makes numerous prediction in many different independent realms of science for what we aught to find if evolution is true. paleontology, embryology, genetics, ecology, many others converge on the same underlying principle model - evolution via descent.
"The one that fits the data. "
No, the model which best fits ALL the independent data is the one which is upheld, as it is, it's evolution.
Since when are ERVs paleontholic, embryologic or ecologic? What more predictions have you evolutions made with regard to ERVs other than it's in the same spot (duh, thats what triggered your interest in the first place)???
'"when are ERVs paleontholic, embryologic or ecologic?"
Huh? This made no sense, no one, (least of which myself) ever stated such things. ERV's are retro elements which 9oddly enough) we find in different species which evolution predicts are related via a common ancestor.
"predictions have you evolutions made with regard to ERVs other than it's in the same spot "
No, evolution theory predicts such ERV's & other patterns in genetics, embryology, morpology & homology & their succession in the fossil record, etc. should exist for the theory to be true. they are.
If said species aren't related (indipendently created), then transposons, ERV's, & other retro elements have no reason to be in the same genomic locations, but they are, & I think you know why.
Phi, I guess you're done attempting to support your alterhantive model, huh?
1 prediction for ERV's would be that their location of insertion should match a pattern already existing impliying descent, typically known as the nested hiearchy. & it does.
Look @ the vid I just favproited,
"a01011399's ERV Challenge: Do ERVs Support Evolution?'
well, stop making these stupid comments, and we'll get to it.
As I said. It's only one prediction with regard to ERVs, while so many predictions can be made, which you evolutionists ignore, because they proof evolution wrong.
They haven't apparently been all that dumb, after all you've still not demonstrated that mutations & natural selection can't produce new genes, & it kept you away for nearly a week while you pondered it. Think some more.
"one prediction with regard to ERVs,"
No, the predictions are made via the evolutionary model, not via ERV's in themselves. ERV"s & ALL the other independent evidence just happen to all coincide with the same model. What are the odds.
Don't change the subject. I'm talking about ERV evidence here. You proof to be ignorant of all what is said before and I'm not gonna fall in a pointless repeating of what already has been said. You should learn to read and remember.
I'm done repeating my explainations to you, until you admit that there's only one prediction of evolutionists with regard to ERVs and until you admit that there's only existing genes mutating into genes of the same kind of function type (eye color gene remains eye color gene, digestion gene remains digestion gene). You can't extrapolate this to formation of new genes necessay for a one cell organism to become multicell animals, with differentiated cells an parts an genes for these body parts
Phi, quick, why do ERV's & other genetic evidence line up in the same nested hierarchy we already know by other independent lines of evidence (morphology, protein redundancy, etc) ?
"Phi, quick, why do ERV's & other genetic evidence line up in the same nested hierarchy we already know by other independent lines of evidence (morphology, protein redundancy, etc) ?"
Why do you think? Similar species have similar immune and defense systems. It can be easily explained without theory of evolution.
Can't you read? Assuming 500 million equally likely spots for a particular ERV... what are the odds then when one integrates in human and one in chimps.
Is it that hard to answer? You are really stupid, aren't you?
Highly improbable? Give me the exact odds, or leave the debate to the real scientists, mate.
"You're not claiming syndromes to be the driving force behind evolution, are you?"
No, not at all. I mentioned transposons, as it (& others) provides a means by which a copy of a former gene can be manipulated later, thus providing NEW genetic information to be expressed.
It's not contingent on it affecting functioning genes, so your 'syndrome' issue is fallacious & falls hard. Your once again conflating the facts to suit your 'evolution can't work' rhetoric.
What arrogance. All the countless fruits of science, (one of which you're using right now) all the knowledge, & all the science theories explaining reality in terms of itself & you pretend as its flawed? Hilarious. Your stupid hurts.
Now agentorange, you are funny telling me to loop up on the scientific method. Your knowledge and understanding of it is way below mine.
I'll be using the Baysian method here.
And not to show another model to be fit, so people will doubt what to believe if there's two fitting models. And everybody gets lost in an endless battle of which model fits better.
No, I'll use my time to show any evolution model to be unfit.
A black male and white female were arrested and convicted for murder without any evidence. The statistical expert who was put to the stand, said that there's less than 1 of thousand couples of mixed races. The killers were seen and described to be such mixed couple. Hypothesis that they were innocent was rejected by the data, because the outcome (they being found and being a mixed couple) is less likely than 0.1%. The judge found them guilty based on this statement.
"A black male and white female were arrested and convicted for murder without any evidence."
Well, then they wouldn't be convicted, now would they as they have NO evidence incriminating them. Duh.
If there is no evidence linking them, they're innocent (& presumed as such) until evidence dictates otherwise & until a court of law finds them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
The Baysian model allows for more than two hypothesis and can combine observations from different data. And it treates all hypothesis fairly. Not having one to be the nul-hypothesis to be rejected by chosen probability and the other to be the alternative.
This classic method has many flaws when blindly applying it to different situations. I'm not gonna use a method that has flaws!
I will give you a real life example of it being flawed amd having severe consequences.
This is for statistical analysis, what does it have to do with empirical & consistent evidence for a theory/model? Sounds like a big red herring to me.
"The Baysian model allows for more than two hypothesis and can combine observations from different data. "
So the fuck what, so does the scientific method. It will incorporate all different types of hypothesis' which are contingent on their amount of evidence & how consistent they are w/ each other & at making accurate predictions.
Propose a better model than evolution & its facts, good luck.
I'm not responding to private messages. Because here, everybody can respond.
An lets not test two theories at once. We will test the evolution theory here. And I will proof it to be wrong based on scientific observation.
It's not my purpose to follow your method of hypothesis testing. As if it were the only good/valid method to do science. Purpose here is to find out truth from wrong by means of science. And I prefer the Baysian model for hypothesis testing (over the classic model).
Well, it's just going to take longer to prove you wrong, that's all.
"An lets not test two theories at once."
Well we can't really test the 'creation hypothesis' as 1) you haven't listed any predictions for it, so ok..
A note, just b/c we show one model to be wrong, it doesn't therefore follow another which is supported by no or less data (yours) is therefore correct. I hope you see the logic there.
"are you ready to test the predictions that evolution makes and do some real science? "
ERV's & Human chomosome 2 fusion are such predictions we would come to expect given our knowlede. Go ahead, explain them using your 'created indipendently' hypothesis. And yes, it must be falsifaible, so no supernatualism is allowed.
Now I show you the right predictions, and you chicken out, saying model B is not naturalistic. Why were you making predictions for model B then. Tell me!!
You are deceiving people!
Now, are you gonna consider model B or not? I don't even care. I show you your model A is impossible, and you decide what you believe.
"you chicken out, saying model B is not naturalistic. "
No numb nuts, ONY naturalisic explanations are used in science, look up the scientific method first. It's not my fault your 'B mdel' isn't naturalistic, come up with one to explain the data.
"Why were you making predictions for model B then.'
Bc you asked for it as an alternative, so, to determine how valid it is we test it via predictions. Duh State some predictions for it.
"without these genes, humans wouldn't survive or even exist."
define 'these genes', some are after all redundant (those transposons & retro elements), don't directly code for anything & can be edited or removed with no ill effect on organism development.
B/c I want your (naturalistic science) explanation for why these patterns exist. If were not at all related, there is less reason to expect such similarity in sequences over all & in particular like ERV's.
Go ahead, tell us 'god made em that way' but you've abandoned science when you go that route.
I'm telling you, I'll use science to disproof evolution. And ERVs will disproof evolution.
We'll make reasonable predictions (only predictions that are mathematically possibel) based on evolution theory and ERVs will not fit any of those predictions.
You say the reason they have identical code is because they are related. I say the have identical code because they have similar body structure and appearance and function. That's a fact. Everybody can see that. No need to be proofed through predictions and tests. Yours is a theory. How can you do science and test theories while not seeing the obvious facts?
It's one of them. There are also translocations though & others. Read up on them, THEN come back. If you're going to formulate a real objection you need to first research the data so as not to appear ignorant of the facts & predictions.
"if things were created, then you predict dna code of humans and apes to be very different."
Hypothetically, they could be, why not? But there isn't much data supporting independent creations of entire species, let a lone a testable method to falsify them.
The sequences need not be in specific genomic locations to be expressed, their relative order matters more.
With evolution we have a method, NS, & it's predictions to boot.
Apes and human have more similar body structure and appearance and function (more than human and mice) so we expect to find more identical code in DNA and that's exactly what we find.
So, please show me the evidence that makes this explanation unfit. I challenge you and I dare you!
I agree Phi, you're having trouble w/ just 1 as it is. Baby steps.
'You better understand your error now,"
whoaah, what arrogance a threat on youtube, how precious!
"you're not worth discussing more complicated science."
Friend we haven't even started, you've not shown that a novel gene can't form under mutation & can't spread though a population. I explained this to you in the message, it should be very clear.
"claiming that there is no other reasonable explanation for similar dna code, is simply poor logic."
An equally reasonable naturalistic explanation as opposed to evolution? I highly doubt it. We have model A which explains a lot of facts consistently which is a lot better than model B which you don't even have or explained how it works or the predictions it makes.
"Your theory is the only possible theory. That's why you error. "
No, it's that the evolutionary model is the one which explains the most empirical facts in a consistent manner while producing predictions. you haven't even listed another reasonable explanation for all the facts, let alone its predictions.
Alright, the evolution model goes pretty far explaining things pretty well. But it's against all odds, so science should trash it and discard it. Then what will you believe?
"A non-naturalistic theory can be tested with scientific data."
Really? Explain, provide examples. Show, for instance how we could falsify one supernatural hypothesis (pixies) over another supernatural hypothesis (fairies). Details on how too, not 'he/she/it did it' rubbish. Science is about detailed naturalistic cause & effect explanations.
So there's no ancestrial inefficient gene of any gene found, which indicates genes were always efficient (the original, non mutated ones) and not evolved.
Your evidence for evolution turns out to be evidence against evolution. There's only one rational conclusion: evolution is dead!
Next piece of evolution "evidence" please. Any requests? 'Cause it's time to do some real science!
You can respond in messages and explain evolution to me, but you have poor logic.
There's identical dna code in humans and ape because they have similar body appearance and stucture and function. Same as in software and other created (non-living) stuff.
Yes, being alive and having gene flow and such, could create a possibility of evolution, but it does not take away the reasonable possibility that code was created identical to serve the same purpose.
"identical dna code in humans & ape because they have similar body appearance and stucture and function"
Ok, what's the alternative natural explaination of these patterns, & all the other species get that way. Naturalistic (ne line with scientific method) answers only.
"You can break a glass bottle, and use it to cut things. "
so? a glass isn't a biological system, they're not at all analogous, they have entirely different properties which act on them. I explained this too.
"The nylon bacteria is a weakened bacteria"
Not. the fitness to a niche is relative, & in this instance the fitness of the bacterium which could digest nylon over those which couldn't is no doubt improved. I even listed books for you to refer to how the fitness level is raised.
"a digesting gene will always be a digesting gene."
Maybe, but as mentioned already this gene CAN be copied (transposons, read about them already ) & inserted elsewhere in the genome & encode for new phenotypes. Goolge Polyploidy, you need to read, bad.
"It won't help in forming a 100,000 (or bigger) base pair gene."
I just debunked that above. TRANSPOSONS. GOOGLE IT.
Are you serious? Come on get the facts, my friend.
1. Transposons bring damage gnomes
2. Transposons move genes around. Are you seriously claiming this to be the mechanism in forming bigger genes?Larger chromosomes, yes. But it's ridiculous to think that a big gene consists of insertions of (mutated or not parts of) other genes. This is not what we see in our data. You have to do more to debunk this. This only disproofs evolution more.
Only if they insert themselves into currently fuctioning gene sequence, which would occur in meioic lines preventing embyonic development in the first place. That is, if it kills the embryo it wouldn't likely get passed on anyway.
all sects of christianity are fully against evolution. time to drop what was forced upon you and move on into clarity. Everyone educated knows evolution isn't a theory. Its a fact that is illustrated in countless ways. All science medicine and biology rest upon it as a foundation.
DavidWicked 1 year ago
Kabane, I commend you for standing up in protest of the myriad of outright lies the YECs post here on YT. It's one thing to be mistaken, but another to intentionally mislead and lie in denial of certain scientific facts.
I'm sure your position on this will bring you a lot of heat from fellow Xians and I respect you for holding the truth as more important.
Being a hard core atheist, I can say it isn't often that I find reasons to make such compliments to a Xian, but you more than deserve it.
Cootabux 1 year ago
If Odds are your criteria then you must certainly not believe in evolution. Try to calculate the odds of an eye forming accidentally through random mutations over twenty independent times, in stereo no less.
mejc2 2 years ago
hahahah wow you're an idiot...you have no idea how embryology works. Odds are you would form two due to the nature of embrologic formation using factors such as SHH that promote axial development
The odds are 100% since it happened lol we've SEEN the steps. We see animals along the evolutionary pathways that have photosensitive patches, then merely rods cells, cone cells...its complex to you because you don't understand it. to a physician who has studied embryology it makes a lot of sense
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Jesusfreek534 2 years ago
Evolution supports racism!
Mrcharliebobo 2 years ago
LOl holy puberty... I just saw your video of Lucy, and you sounded like 10 years younger. I appreciate the work you do young atheist. Im not of your religon, but i do like to see opposing views. Keep it up. Considering how wrong science has been about most things thoughout history, i wouldnt hang my reputation on others people research. Considering theyre piad with an end reulst in mind. i.e. Prove that evolution exists or prove that it doesnt. It limits our possiblities to discover truth.
Symbolc0729 2 years ago
I'm not an atheist haha...I'm an Orthodox Christian.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Even though you think that Evolution is magic as you stated in this video. You would like to have both your cake and eat it too.
Being that you have quoted odds and rely on them for the evidence for evolutionary sources of ERV's, Odds of events occurring should be sufficient evidence against evolution. The odds of any feature that needs more than one simultaneous genetic mutation actually happening is zero. Therefore, odds for more complicated mutations are than zero. Hence, NO EVOLUTION
mejc2 2 years ago
How do you explain the genetic mutations that are happening if there is zero chance of it happening?
Minor genetic mutations do happen, give these mutations time to be spread through birth until most of the population contains the minor mutation (and add on all the other minor mutations occurring during the spread of this one mutation), and you have a mutation that has affected a species. Enough of these minor mutations result in your "major mutations."
DavinCreed 2 years ago
there are many features that need more than one mutation simultaneously, one of these mutations without the other would not create an advantage and consequently would not be selected for. stopping the chain. In your scenario time is God. Given enough time the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes inevitable. Time is the God in Evolutionism.
mejc2 2 years ago
There is no god in evolution.
There is not case where two or more mutations could not have developed slowly by alternating the mutations until they are both reliant on each other. Irreducible Complexity is an illusion produced by viewing something in its evolved state.
The problem with religion is that it stops seeking the truth by placing god behind the unknown.
Science is an unending struggle to discover the unknown.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
Wait, your saying useless mutations appear and prevail until another equally useless mutation comes along and also prevails, and then the two or more mutations combine to create a novel feature in the organism thus creating a new type of organism. This insanely improbable event continues on and on not only in once but in every organism , trillions and trillions of times creating countless failures until something works.
But in two hundred years we've never seen it happen even once.
mejc2 2 years ago
Yes, there are billions of useless mutations. We have seen it several times in the last 150 years since Darwin proposed evolution.
The only failure for a mutation is when it reduces the survivability of an organism. If its useless then it is not a failure.
A mutation does not have to be a huge mutation, several small mutations over time become a big mutation.
Obviously your ignorance of the subject is getting in the way of any kind of useful debate and right now I don't feel like teaching you.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
LOL. you cannot produce evidence, only wishful thinking. I am not the ignorant one. You have been fully indoctrinated. OH well, sucks to be you.
mejc2 2 years ago
Wow, you are going to skip to the "you cannot produce evidence" statement without first asking for evidence?
I guess I will also skip the retarded internet arguing steps by saying: I am some kind of professional in the whatever field we are talking about (or someone I personally know is), I will group you into a large collective to hastily generalize you and... oh yeah, you're a Nazi.
I guess I could also make fun of your spelling capitalization, punctuation and grammar.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
OK then I guess molecules bumped into each other and created every living thing we see on the planet by accident. OK Thanx
mejc2 2 years ago
You are free to guess whatever you choose to guess.
You're welcome.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
cool
mejc2 2 years ago
"there are many features that need more than one mutation simultaneously, one of these mutations without the other would not create an advantage and consequently would not be selected for" - such as?
the rest of your argument is a FAILURE to understand the importance of time in evolutionary theory.
types10000 2 years ago
A mouth
mejc2 2 years ago
how the hell does a mouth require successive mutations to form?
types10000 2 years ago
Lips, teeth, tooth reproduction system, tongue, throat, muscles, taste buds, stomach, gums, saliva glands, vocal chords, nerves, etc. etc. etc.
mejc2 2 years ago
tell me why they require successive mutations and why
types10000 2 years ago
if your going to say they need successive mutations to be produced, i want you to tell me why and why you think they need to be 'created' for each
types10000 2 years ago
@mejc2 I would like to know you highest level of education and what degree you've acquired that makes you an expert to question evidence?
Because you seem to not understand anything you're talking about and it's making me wonder if you've even finished your GED...
arguments against evolution seem to stem from an angry bible-thumping UN-EDUCATED (key word) minority.
There's a reason those with any sort of intellectual capacity worthy of higher education understand and accept evolution
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
Not that it is any business of yours, but I have multiple post secondary degrees.
mejc2 2 years ago
oh it is my business. If I were to go to NASA and argue that going to the moon is an impossible task they'd wipe the floor with me because I know nothing of aerospace engineering.
Somehow every bible baby in the U.S. seems to think they are somehow qualified to argue scientific evidence when they don't even have an education
the fact that you refer to it as "post-secondary" degrees shows you are hiding something...which is your lack of science education.
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
there's a reason if you travel to any top U.S. medical school you won't see people saying evolution isn't real. Why do you think that is? maybe it has something to do with the fact that after studying anatomy, embryology, and basic biological sciences, as well as genetics, that evolution makes perfect sense....in addition to the fact that we OBSERVE IT.
we study the processes of the eye in animals that have only evolved PARTS of the eye.
to you the eye is some grand mystery...
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
maybe you should watch a video on the embryologic development of the eye. You will see how photosensitive cells are formed and simply a pit of endothelium...then those photosensitive cells gain specialization through the use of factors like rhodopsin.
anyone who uses this "the eye is too complex" argument has never studied ecology, has never studied embryology, and is therefore unqualified to even participate in this argument.
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
put another way, much of the modern evidence for evolution, the TRULY convincing evidence involves cellular/molecular biology and genetics. The reason is evolutionary theory predicted many mechanisms that we didn't have the technology to see. Now we do.
So if I say evolution makes complete sense because we've observed processes evolve such as Nucleotide and Base excision repair, we've seen bacteria evolve through engulfing plasmids and inserting DNA into their genome...
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
we've seen things methylated DNA sequences in humans that remains inactive and is composed of long sequences of primitive genes from primates...(if you don't know what the difference between methylated DNA and unmethylated DNA is you won't understand why this is significant).
I can say I've literally seen evolution as we've literally watched bacteria evolve drug resistance (bacteria evolve VERY quickly).
And somehow YOU are more qualified to say nope we're wrong? are you insane?
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
@TheLostGuitarist
Developing drug resistance is a far cry from observing evolution. The drug resistance comes from a defect in the bacteria which makes it less fit in absence of the drug. No one argues that organisms can undergo changes in response to environmental changes. However, changing into some other type of organism, never ever happens.
mejc2 2 years ago
ahahahahah wow and which PhD did you earn that provided you with the expertise to draw THIS conclusion? ahahahahah wow this is hilarious!
a defect in bacteria gives them drug resistance AHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAha
and what is your definition of a new type of organism? if I alter a hox gene I will get fins instead of hands....would you say that is a new organism? one that has fins?
what a dope! Hey as long as you're not trying to get into medical school or something, you can keep being delusioned
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
WOW! ignorance is astounding. Not only don't you know what you are talking about but you laugh at the truth while you believe a fairy tale.
mejc2 2 years ago
theres a reason you aren't going to see many creationist physicians out there lol
wow it never ceases to amaze me how stupid some parts of the country actually are....
its like you think you can speculate whatever you want, without any scientific studies to back it up and just refute every scientific claim based on your opinion lol aaah thanks for the laughs you made my day
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
when you get your B.S. in biological sciences, or your PhD or M.D., then maybe you'd be qualified to judge evidence.
Not once have I even seen a creationist refer to a specific study that they feel is inaccurate. None of you have even read a scientific journal article...you just speak abstractly and say it doesn't make sense to you so it can't be true.
Just because you haven't been educated in a field and therefore don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true
TheLostGuitarist 2 years ago
Agentorange, you are hopeless. You can clearly not keep up with the math behind ERVs. So give it up. I'm not gonna teach you on this.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Question is:
How can evolutionists possibly explain that - while we have over 90 percent of DNA in common with chimps - not even one percent of our ERVs are in the exact same spot in chimp DNA???
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Comment removed
phicomingatya 2 years ago
How do we explain this with evolution theory: most ERV infections are prior to human ajd chimps diverging.And we share over 90% of dna with chimps. So 90% of all 98,000 ERVs is 88,200 of same ERVs at the exac same spot.
So far we found no more than 16. That's not even 1% of 98,000! Evolution predictions are way, way off!!!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Now I wonder, who of you evolutionists agree on this calculation of Kabane's 50,000,000 times 50,000,000 for his atrsonomically low chances of the same ERV at the same spot?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"who of you evolutionists agree on this calculation of Kabane's 50,000,000 times 50,000,000 for his atrsonomically low chances"
I do, but only b/c his figures are conservative, the odds for the identical placement of numerous long BP sequences all being in identical locations, whilst not being at all related are exceedinly rare, if I recall each ERV potentially has on average about 1 in500,000,000 possible insertion points, but oddly those we share are identical in identical locations.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Agentorange,
Let me ask you this: Two ERVs insert themselves. One in a human, one in a chimp. What are the odds of these two ERVs inserting at the exact same spot, assuming that there are 500,000,000 possible (and equally likely) integration sites?
Is it 1 against 500,000,000?
Or is it 1 against 250,000,000,000,000,000?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
that said, even 2 species sharing the same ERV's in the same locations when 50 M posible insertion locations are possible is highly improbable to say the least.
the odds only get more exteme as one factors in multiple ERV's all sharing idential locations amongst 2 and or more species. again, descent w/ modification explains the astronomical odds and why they're nested in the same pattern as other methods reveal.
agentorange20 2 years ago
"Is it 1 against 500,000,000?
Or is it 1 against 250,000,000,000,000,000?"
It's neither, it's entirely contiengent on the ERV in question.
It's entirely dependent upon which type of ERV we're talking about. The range though is between 50,000,000 & 500,000,000 possible insertion sites depending which ERV, so that would be the low & high.
agentorange20 2 years ago
I got facts that ishow ERV data is irrefutable evidene against the theory of evolution.
Stick around, and we'll rock the world!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
HAHAHA! PHI... You got refute MONTHS ago, but you ran and hid!
Amazing that you are willing to show your name again after such humiliation. All I can do is laugh. Posters on this video, read back several months, you will see exactly what I talking about!!!!!
drpsholder 2 years ago
Hahaha, you? All you talk about is God. That's totally irrelevant to how scientific facts disprove evolution.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
HAHA! When you get proven wrong, you will TWIST the topic to point to what I talk about, when I am really pointing out HOW you got refuted.
But what is stopping you from believing me? FEAR in your God! HAHA
drpsholder 2 years ago
What point have you ever made that does not include "fear" of god??? So far, you've come up with nothing scienific.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"Give me the exact odds, or leave the debate to the real scientists, mate."
1 in 500,000,000.
Can you give me evidence on how you show ERV's prove evolution wrong like you stated?
agentorange20 2 years ago
Kabane calculated the chance tha an ERV inserted themselves at the same spot in two organisms to be 1 against 2,500,000,000,000,000. You said you agreed with him.
Now even if an ERV could insert itself nexto any of 3 billion base pairs of our DNA. With 98,000 ERV signatures, 1 of every 30,200 spots are occupied by an ERV.
Now estimated that chimps also have about 98,000 ERV insertions, we can expect to find ERVs at the same spot, Because there's three times as many ERVs as the odds against
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"how scientific facts disprove evolution. "
yeah, one of these days you will explain how it discredits it, right?
"I got facts that ishow ERV data is irrefutable evidene against the theory of evolution."
sure you do, any day now....
agentorange20 2 years ago
And MY talk shows WHY you are having such a hard time believing agentorange!
No matter which facts support evolution, you simply CAN'T believe them! Punishment awaits you if you do!
drpsholder 2 years ago
You know, I rather be punished than having to listen to any more of your crap.
I can believe anything I want to. Because I used to believe evolution to be possible. So much for your theory, that i CAN'T.
Eat some dust, mate. How do you explain we have over 90 percent of DNA in common with chimps but not even one percent of ERVs are inthe same place???
It should be so, if our common ancestor was infected with ERVs. This proofs we got no common ancestor with tge chimpanzee.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
YES and you believed in evolution all the while you did not have FEAR in God's punishment. The ONLY way you CAN believe is to LOSE your fear in your God!
So, much for discrediting my theory, huh??
drpsholder 2 years ago
I see you failed to answer my question on ERVs. That's no surprise, because you lack the brain cells to think with logic. GET IT??????
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Even IF I did answer, COULD you believe me without getting punished.
YOU SEE! No matter if I answer or not, FEAR will not allow you to believe!
drpsholder 2 years ago
IF you answer??? You have have just enough brain cells to fit one idea of god wrath. You CAN'T answer, hahahahahaha. You are the stupiest and most retarded person I ever found on youtube. I dare you to answer on this ERV question. You CAN'T!!! Perhaps you should borrow some brains of one of your fellow evolutionists. Not that'd would help you much.
Come on, doctor crap. Your turn! Hahahahaha.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
A rational explanation is that the viral sequence became attached to the DNA of a common precursor. It has remained in the DNA, and has been copied in both man and chimp for millions of years. This additional confirming data for relatedness to an animal that already looks to be a close relative anyway, makes a strong case for a brachiating forbear on our family tree.
drpsholder 2 years ago
"A rational explanation is that the viral sequence became attached to the DNA of a common precursor. It has remained in the DNA, and has been copied in both man and chimp for millions of years."
While my question is not hard to understand, you've clearly managed to not understand it.
Again, how do you explain we have over 90 percent of DNA in common with chimps but not even one percent of ERVs are inthe same place???
You are a retard. I can't give you more credit than that.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"You said you agreed with him."
I said I agreed w/ the conservative estimate, which is lower than Kabanes, so yes, in effect I agree.
"if an ERV could insert itself nexto any of 3 billion base pairs of our DNA."
They can't, get w/ the facts.
"With 98,000 ERV signatures, 1 of every 30,200 spots are occupied by an ERV."
These are wrong figures, but yeah *Potentially*, but not absolutely, it's not given. There's a difference.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agentorange:
"if an ERV could insert itself nexto any of 3 billion base pairs of our DNA."
They can't, get w/ the facts.
I've given you the most favorable estimate, you moron!
Less places to insert, makes it more probable for ERVs to get into the same spot.
Even if it could insert anywhere, we'd still expect ERVs in the same spot.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"Less places to insert, makes it more probable for ERVs to get into the same spot."
But again I stress, we're not just talking about 'ERV's, but more specifically H-ERV's.
"Even if it could insert anywhere, we'd still expect ERVs in the same spot. "
Not if they're insertion locations are random, which they are. They're localized to set of genomic locations, but in themselves their insertion in these sets are random.
agentorange20 2 years ago
"Not if they're insertion locations are random"
Come on, I know you are stupid, but please try to keep up.
Let's assume these facts:
- insertions are random
- insertions are random in 3,000,000,000 spots or less (NOT MORE!)
Anyways, if you wanna talk about human ERVs, that's fine with me, but would you bother also tell me why you want to exclude non-HERVs???
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"insertions are random in 3,000,000,000 spots or less (NOT MORE!"
No, math fail, as Kabane & I mentioned earlier, ERV's are random in insertion but they're localized in general relative to the genome itself., so it's not 3 B, it's more like 500M possible locations.
"exclude non-HERVs??? "
B/ they're not the ones being refered to. Context & details, they're relevant here.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Now, let's say I do answer and my answer goes against your 'religious' theory.
You THINK if you believe me, then your God will punish you for a DISbelief in him!
drpsholder 2 years ago
"how do you explain we have over 90 percent of DNA in common with chimps but not even one percent of ERVs are in the same place???"
ERV insertion is RANDOM, ergo we would expect most to be not highly conserved across species, even those closely related. But, since we can date their relative insertion times we can deduce which are inherited & which are unique to species line of decent.
agentorange20 2 years ago
You don't understand shit, do you?
We should expect over 90 percent of our ERVs to be in the exact same spot in chimps DNA. That is if evolution theory holds.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"We should expect over 90 percent of our ERVs to be in the exact same spot in chimps DNA."
I don't know where you're getting this shared ERV figure, (source?) Kabane doesn't mention it.
ERV's are inserted independently and randomly and at their own time & therefore only w/ descent should we find identical ERV's in identical locations.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Then try to believe that God does not exist. Try to believe your holy book is not from a God.
Why CAN'T you! Because your God promises to punish you for DISbelief.
If I proved unicorns exist, you COULD believe me since your God is NOT going to punish you for this belief.
But DISbelief in your God warrants punishment from HIM! GET IT?????
drpsholder 2 years ago
Many people accept evolution and also believe in God. They call themselves theistic evolutionists.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
RIGHT! And do they have FEAR that God will punish them for believing in evolution. NOPE, so no wonder they can!
drpsholder 2 years ago
"Now estimated that chimps also have about 98,000 ERV insertions, we can expect to find ERVs at the same spot."
whoh, hold he bus, pump the brakes. We're not just talking about 'ERV's', we're more specifically talkign about H-ERV's, re-read the subject. The SAME (H)ERV, in the SAME idential location in the SAME pattern? not so likely chap.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Small face.
angryoldfatman 2 years ago
LOL, magical evolution. Fail, try again.
Wwallace67 2 years ago
I thought you were religious? Why argue against religion?
p1tchbl4ck 2 years ago
I'm arguing against young-earth creationism. There are plenty of Christians who are not young earth creationists. Theistic evolutionists are fairly common.
Kabane52 2 years ago
@Kabane52 So God is a liar and He didn't create man,also Adam's sin didn't bring death into the world.Jesus ,Paul and the rest must have also been wrong about Adam bringing death into the world .Looks like you can stop pretending to be a Christian now.
CBALLEN 9 months ago
Wonderful job Kabane!
PozitronTV 2 years ago
hahaha, what's with the advertisement video at the end of your video? That was funny.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 3 years ago
Jesus is Lord, its a fact he's alive in heaven and everyone will know that one day. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord!
jordanwendle 3 years ago
Having a mutation resulting in increase or decrease in number of distinct chromosomes doesnt happen over many generations. You have one more or less or you have the same. Evidence show that it's not the same species any more (not talking about having the same chromosome twice, which is a known syndrome/disorder) and therefor cannot reproduce.
Why have evolutionists never addressed this problem?
Because they had their evidence and stopped thinking beyond allel mutation and gene frequencies.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
but evolution occurs in populations does it not?
also a person with downs syndrome does have an extra chromosome, if it were passed on to the next generation then underwent a series of mutations it would add new information, of course an additional chromosome is not that big of a deal, chimps have more chromosomes than humans, but not as much genetic information(as a whole).
or are you some how implying people with downs syndrome are unable to reproduce at all?
types10001 3 years ago
You're not claiming syndromes to be the driving force behind evolution, are you? You should know very well that people with Down don't have a new gnome structure but a damaged one, where it gets information from three chromosomes instead of two.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
i was simply demonstrating how additional chromosomes can exist without the organism being able to breed with the main populous. that's what you were talking about wasnt it?
and your still overlooking the fact that evolution occurs in populations.
types10001 3 years ago
Tell me something new.
Can you at all do better than pointing out disordered individuals?
And let me teach you this: only gene frequencies increase or decrease in populations. Gnome alterations are of a different kind.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
Phi, for further dialog I said PRIVATE MESSAGE ME, what part of that is beyond your comprehension?
agentorange20 3 years ago
Why can't you read all the comments before replying? Not having trouble remembering the contents, have you?
There's things that science cannot explain. Well documented too.
Also in evolution. Gnome structure changes, hardly ever being mentioned in evolution theory, never going much in detail. So you'd think it's not important part of the theory. Well, think again!
ERVs also. You evolutionists make one prediction only. The one that fits the data. Why not look beyond it and make more predictions
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"Why can't you read all the comments before replying?"
Oh I did, but you still have given any alternative model other than evolution. Still waiting for that...
"There's things that science cannot explain. Well documented too."
Just more things for science to figure out. ;) duh.
"Gnome structure changes, hardly ever being mentioned in evolution theory, never going much in detail. "
Oh, I explain this in my vids, it's in many textbooks, of course this requires actually reading them.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"So you'd think it's not important part of the theory."
Phi, please stop putting words in my mouth, I never stated any such thing. Have some integrity.
You still haven't managed to demonstrate that new novel genes can't be formed over generations via mutations & natural selection. Try to 1st refute this, THEN move onto the more sophisticated material, I wouldn't want to overwhelm you.
"ERVs also. "
Yeah, what about em? You going to tackle them too, now?
agentorange20 3 years ago
"You evolutionists make one prediction only."
Siigh, sorry but no. The theory makes numerous prediction in many different independent realms of science for what we aught to find if evolution is true. paleontology, embryology, genetics, ecology, many others converge on the same underlying principle model - evolution via descent.
"The one that fits the data. "
No, the model which best fits ALL the independent data is the one which is upheld, as it is, it's evolution.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Since when are ERVs paleontholic, embryologic or ecologic? What more predictions have you evolutions made with regard to ERVs other than it's in the same spot (duh, thats what triggered your interest in the first place)???
phicomingatya 3 years ago
'"when are ERVs paleontholic, embryologic or ecologic?"
Huh? This made no sense, no one, (least of which myself) ever stated such things. ERV's are retro elements which 9oddly enough) we find in different species which evolution predicts are related via a common ancestor.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"predictions have you evolutions made with regard to ERVs other than it's in the same spot "
No, evolution theory predicts such ERV's & other patterns in genetics, embryology, morpology & homology & their succession in the fossil record, etc. should exist for the theory to be true. they are.
If said species aren't related (indipendently created), then transposons, ERV's, & other retro elements have no reason to be in the same genomic locations, but they are, & I think you know why.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Tell me then, how many predictions do evolutionists make with regard to ERVs???
phicomingatya 3 years ago
Phi, I guess you're done attempting to support your alterhantive model, huh?
1 prediction for ERV's would be that their location of insertion should match a pattern already existing impliying descent, typically known as the nested hiearchy. & it does.
Look @ the vid I just favproited,
"a01011399's ERV Challenge: Do ERVs Support Evolution?'
agentorange20 3 years ago
well, stop making these stupid comments, and we'll get to it.
As I said. It's only one prediction with regard to ERVs, while so many predictions can be made, which you evolutionists ignore, because they proof evolution wrong.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"stop making these stupid comments"
They haven't apparently been all that dumb, after all you've still not demonstrated that mutations & natural selection can't produce new genes, & it kept you away for nearly a week while you pondered it. Think some more.
"one prediction with regard to ERVs,"
No, the predictions are made via the evolutionary model, not via ERV's in themselves. ERV"s & ALL the other independent evidence just happen to all coincide with the same model. What are the odds.
agentorange20 3 years ago
B. Mclintock predicted in the 1950s that "jumping genes", now called ERVs would be involved in developmental regulation and they are.
evolutionisus 3 years ago
Don't change the subject. I'm talking about ERV evidence here. You proof to be ignorant of all what is said before and I'm not gonna fall in a pointless repeating of what already has been said. You should learn to read and remember.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"Don't change the subject."
I haven't, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the new genes can be formed. Waiting...
"I'm talking about ERV evidence here. "
I think you're not ready for it, but go ahead, explain why they express the same pattern of descent.
agentorange20 3 years ago
I'm done repeating my explainations to you, until you admit that there's only one prediction of evolutionists with regard to ERVs and until you admit that there's only existing genes mutating into genes of the same kind of function type (eye color gene remains eye color gene, digestion gene remains digestion gene). You can't extrapolate this to formation of new genes necessay for a one cell organism to become multicell animals, with differentiated cells an parts an genes for these body parts
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"until you admit that there's only one prediction of evolutionists with regard to ERVs"
No, I showed you, there exists many predictions on what ERV's should indicate with regards to the current model. Not one, many.
"you admit that there's only existing genes mutating into genes of the same kind of function type'
The existing genes are brought into being by the same process of replication, mutation, drift, selection. Duh.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Come on PHI! Stop running, come back and admit that you were wrong and accept your punishment from God like a man! HAHAHAHA
drpsholder 3 years ago
There are several ways for new genes to form. Can you tell me what those ways are? Think duplication and?????
evolutionisus 3 years ago
Phi, quick, why do ERV's & other genetic evidence line up in the same nested hierarchy we already know by other independent lines of evidence (morphology, protein redundancy, etc) ?
agentorange20 3 years ago
"Phi, quick, why do ERV's & other genetic evidence line up in the same nested hierarchy we already know by other independent lines of evidence (morphology, protein redundancy, etc) ?"
Why do you think? Similar species have similar immune and defense systems. It can be easily explained without theory of evolution.
Any more questions?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Phi, holly shit, it took you this long to finally come up with a response?
agentorange20 2 years ago
I've been responding on other videos.
Can't you read? Assuming 500 million equally likely spots for a particular ERV... what are the odds then when one integrates in human and one in chimps.
Is it that hard to answer? You are really stupid, aren't you?
Highly improbable? Give me the exact odds, or leave the debate to the real scientists, mate.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"Assuming 500 million equally likely spots for a particular ERV... what are the odds then when one integrates in human and one in chimps."
1 in 500 million = 1:500,000,000.
"Is it that hard to answer? You are really stupid, aren't you?"
I gave you the answer is plain matth, & w/ the upper and lower limit range depending on ERV.
"Highly improbable?"
Correct, unless you consider odds of 1:500,000,000 not highly improbable
agentorange20 2 years ago
Phi-Where did you go?? HEHEHE
drpsholder 3 years ago
"You're not claiming syndromes to be the driving force behind evolution, are you?"
No, not at all. I mentioned transposons, as it (& others) provides a means by which a copy of a former gene can be manipulated later, thus providing NEW genetic information to be expressed.
It's not contingent on it affecting functioning genes, so your 'syndrome' issue is fallacious & falls hard. Your once again conflating the facts to suit your 'evolution can't work' rhetoric.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"I''m not gonna use a method that has flaws!"
What arrogance. All the countless fruits of science, (one of which you're using right now) all the knowledge, & all the science theories explaining reality in terms of itself & you pretend as its flawed? Hilarious. Your stupid hurts.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"a mutation resulting in increase or decrease in number of distinct chromosomes doesnt happen over many generations."
& your evidence for this is.....?
A speciation even isn't contingent on an increase of decrease in chromosome #'s, sorry, try again.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Now agentorange, you are funny telling me to loop up on the scientific method. Your knowledge and understanding of it is way below mine.
I'll be using the Baysian method here.
And not to show another model to be fit, so people will doubt what to believe if there's two fitting models. And everybody gets lost in an endless battle of which model fits better.
No, I'll use my time to show any evolution model to be unfit.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
why do you think it is incorrect?
endogenous retrovirus', transitional forms, the arrangement of the fossil record. what more proof is needed.
types10001 3 years ago
That was just one of the many problems I got with evolution.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"The statistical expert who was put to the stand, said that there's less than 1 of thousand couples of mixed races. "
Well, if they're mixed, then they're wouldn't be white or black, but something in between, at least generally.
"The killers were seen and described to be such mixed couple"
So? More BS red herrings A Black male & white female or vice versa can produce an entirely on appearance black or white kid, happens all the time.
agentorange20 3 years ago
A black male and white female were arrested and convicted for murder without any evidence. The statistical expert who was put to the stand, said that there's less than 1 of thousand couples of mixed races. The killers were seen and described to be such mixed couple. Hypothesis that they were innocent was rejected by the data, because the outcome (they being found and being a mixed couple) is less likely than 0.1%. The judge found them guilty based on this statement.
What is the flaw in this?
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"A black male and white female were arrested and convicted for murder without any evidence."
Well, then they wouldn't be convicted, now would they as they have NO evidence incriminating them. Duh.
If there is no evidence linking them, they're innocent (& presumed as such) until evidence dictates otherwise & until a court of law finds them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
agentorange20 3 years ago
The Baysian model allows for more than two hypothesis and can combine observations from different data. And it treates all hypothesis fairly. Not having one to be the nul-hypothesis to be rejected by chosen probability and the other to be the alternative.
This classic method has many flaws when blindly applying it to different situations. I'm not gonna use a method that has flaws!
I will give you a real life example of it being flawed amd having severe consequences.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"Baysian mode"
This is for statistical analysis, what does it have to do with empirical & consistent evidence for a theory/model? Sounds like a big red herring to me.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"The Baysian model allows for more than two hypothesis and can combine observations from different data. "
So the fuck what, so does the scientific method. It will incorporate all different types of hypothesis' which are contingent on their amount of evidence & how consistent they are w/ each other & at making accurate predictions.
Propose a better model than evolution & its facts, good luck.
agentorange20 3 years ago
I'm not responding to private messages. Because here, everybody can respond.
An lets not test two theories at once. We will test the evolution theory here. And I will proof it to be wrong based on scientific observation.
It's not my purpose to follow your method of hypothesis testing. As if it were the only good/valid method to do science. Purpose here is to find out truth from wrong by means of science. And I prefer the Baysian model for hypothesis testing (over the classic model).
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"I'm not responding to private messages."
Well, it's just going to take longer to prove you wrong, that's all.
"An lets not test two theories at once."
Well we can't really test the 'creation hypothesis' as 1) you haven't listed any predictions for it, so ok..
A note, just b/c we show one model to be wrong, it doesn't therefore follow another which is supported by no or less data (yours) is therefore correct. I hope you see the logic there.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Now are you ready to test the predictions that evolution makes and do some real science?
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"are you ready to test the predictions that evolution makes and do some real science? "
ERV's & Human chomosome 2 fusion are such predictions we would come to expect given our knowlede. Go ahead, explain them using your 'created indipendently' hypothesis. And yes, it must be falsifaible, so no supernatualism is allowed.
agentorange20 3 years ago
It's like saying:
New York Giants is playing against an Ohio team, and I predict the New York Giants to win.
But they lost. So that proofs the New Yorks Giants didn't play at all, 'cause the outcome didn't fit my prediction.
You have to ask yourself. Even if your prediction was a good one. There's other possibilities you have to consider.
Let's face it. Even if evolution is true. You should proof it the right way, not in a deceitful way. I think we can agree on that.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
Now I show you the right predictions, and you chicken out, saying model B is not naturalistic. Why were you making predictions for model B then. Tell me!!
You are deceiving people!
Now, are you gonna consider model B or not? I don't even care. I show you your model A is impossible, and you decide what you believe.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"you chicken out, saying model B is not naturalistic. "
No numb nuts, ONY naturalisic explanations are used in science, look up the scientific method first. It's not my fault your 'B mdel' isn't naturalistic, come up with one to explain the data.
"Why were you making predictions for model B then.'
Bc you asked for it as an alternative, so, to determine how valid it is we test it via predictions. Duh State some predictions for it.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"human gnome wih dna sequence code of billions of amino acids did not evolve from non-human"
You wrote:
Hmmm, if not, then why is it highly identical to other species genomes? Why do we have a fair % of protein redundancy w/ extant apes?
Tell me, why do you ask me these questions?
You seem to think to know the answer and you seem to think all other answers are nonsense.
This is how you conduct your science. Your theory is the only possible theory. That's why you error.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"without these genes, humans wouldn't survive or even exist."
define 'these genes', some are after all redundant (those transposons & retro elements), don't directly code for anything & can be edited or removed with no ill effect on organism development.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"why do you ask me these questions?"
B/c I want your (naturalistic science) explanation for why these patterns exist. If were not at all related, there is less reason to expect such similarity in sequences over all & in particular like ERV's.
Go ahead, tell us 'god made em that way' but you've abandoned science when you go that route.
agentorange20 3 years ago
I'm telling you, I'll use science to disproof evolution. And ERVs will disproof evolution.
We'll make reasonable predictions (only predictions that are mathematically possibel) based on evolution theory and ERVs will not fit any of those predictions.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
You say the reason they have identical code is because they are related. I say the have identical code because they have similar body structure and appearance and function. That's a fact. Everybody can see that. No need to be proofed through predictions and tests. Yours is a theory. How can you do science and test theories while not seeing the obvious facts?
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"Transposons move genes around."
It's one of them. There are also translocations though & others. Read up on them, THEN come back. If you're going to formulate a real objection you need to first research the data so as not to appear ignorant of the facts & predictions.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"if things were created, then you predict dna code of humans and apes to be very different."
Hypothetically, they could be, why not? But there isn't much data supporting independent creations of entire species, let a lone a testable method to falsify them.
The sequences need not be in specific genomic locations to be expressed, their relative order matters more.
With evolution we have a method, NS, & it's predictions to boot.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Comment removed
phicomingatya 3 years ago
I'm not saying it couldn't be. But is it the best prediction? Is it the only possible prediction even?
Disproofing one of the possible predictions of a model does not disproof the model. That's basic logic.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
Phi, please communite via private message, this 500 comment limit isn't ideal.
agentorange20 3 years ago
'But is it the best prediction? Is it the only possible prediction even?"
No, there are countless others. Some are evidence like human chromosome 2, transitional fossils, atavisms, speciation, etc. etc.
"Disproofing one of the possible predictions of a model does not disproof the model. "
You haven't even listed ONE of the predictions for you model, so it doesn't matter as you have no alternative.
agentorange20 3 years ago
So claiming that there is no other reasonable explanation for similar dna code, is simply poor logic. Because there is.
I'm not gonna discuss four subjects at once. You better understand your error now, or you're not worth discussing more complicated science.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
So claiming that there is no other reasonable explanation for similar dna code"
Claiming there is without ample evidence helps your theory fall short.
We don't claim there is NO other reasonable explanation, but that reasonable explanation does not fit the evidence we find and test.
Anything becomes reasonable once you say God did it.
A virgin birth becomes reasonable once you say God did it. BUT DID HE???
drpsholder 3 years ago
Alright, what evidence does it not fit?
Apes and human have more similar body structure and appearance and function (more than human and mice) so we expect to find more identical code in DNA and that's exactly what we find.
So, please show me the evidence that makes this explanation unfit. I challenge you and I dare you!
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"I'm not gonna discuss four subjects at once. "
I agree Phi, you're having trouble w/ just 1 as it is. Baby steps.
'You better understand your error now,"
whoaah, what arrogance a threat on youtube, how precious!
"you're not worth discussing more complicated science."
Friend we haven't even started, you've not shown that a novel gene can't form under mutation & can't spread though a population. I explained this to you in the message, it should be very clear.
agentorange20 3 years ago
So claiming that there is no other reasonable explanation for similar dna code, is simply poor logic. "
We don't claim there is NO other reasonable explanation, but that reasonable explanation does not fit the evidence we find and test.
drpsholder 3 years ago
"claiming that there is no other reasonable explanation for similar dna code, is simply poor logic."
An equally reasonable naturalistic explanation as opposed to evolution? I highly doubt it. We have model A which explains a lot of facts consistently which is a lot better than model B which you don't even have or explained how it works or the predictions it makes.
agentorange20 3 years ago
This is another of your evolutionists misunderstandings.
A non-naturalistic theory can be tested with scientific data.
Seems to me you've been making wrong predictions for model B all the time to disproof it.
Saying, if things were created, then you predict dna code of humans and apes to be very different.
Tell me, what scientific method did you use to derrive this prediction??? What a deceitful way to disproof a theory!!!
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"Your theory is the only possible theory. That's why you error. "
No, it's that the evolutionary model is the one which explains the most empirical facts in a consistent manner while producing predictions. you haven't even listed another reasonable explanation for all the facts, let alone its predictions.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Alright, the evolution model goes pretty far explaining things pretty well. But it's against all odds, so science should trash it and discard it. Then what will you believe?
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"A non-naturalistic theory can be tested with scientific data."
Really? Explain, provide examples. Show, for instance how we could falsify one supernatural hypothesis (pixies) over another supernatural hypothesis (fairies). Details on how too, not 'he/she/it did it' rubbish. Science is about detailed naturalistic cause & effect explanations.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"Saying, if things were created, then you predict dna code of humans and apes to be very different."
Hypothetically, they could be, especially if they're not at all related. This is why it's called a HYPOTHESIS.
"what scientific method did you use to derrive this predictio?"
I was using the 'created indipendently' as an alterior hypothesis, one you seem to be endorsing so as to show why it doesn't fit all the evidence.
agentorange20 3 years ago
So there's no ancestrial inefficient gene of any gene found, which indicates genes were always efficient (the original, non mutated ones) and not evolved.
Your evidence for evolution turns out to be evidence against evolution. There's only one rational conclusion: evolution is dead!
Next piece of evolution "evidence" please. Any requests? 'Cause it's time to do some real science!
phicomingatya 3 years ago
Next piece of evolution "evidence" please. Any requests? 'Cause it's time to do some real science! "
He has showed you, but your God will punish you if you believe; so you CAN'T!
So I'm mistaken here. It's not one gene on different chromosomes, I guess."
KEEP talking to him, your guesses are something else. LOL
drpsholder 3 years ago
drpsholder, he's learning it's ok, I've responded to him in messages as this is getting tedious and this comment board isn't ideal.
agentorange20 3 years ago
You can respond in messages and explain evolution to me, but you have poor logic.
There's identical dna code in humans and ape because they have similar body appearance and stucture and function. Same as in software and other created (non-living) stuff.
Yes, being alive and having gene flow and such, could create a possibility of evolution, but it does not take away the reasonable possibility that code was created identical to serve the same purpose.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"identical dna code in humans & ape because they have similar body appearance and stucture and function"
Ok, what's the alternative natural explaination of these patterns, & all the other species get that way. Naturalistic (ne line with scientific method) answers only.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Like I said. You can break a glass bottle, and use it to cut things. The nylon bacteria is a weakened bacteria.
And a digesting gene will always be a digesting gene.
It won't help in forming a 100,000 (or bigger) base pair gene. And without these genes, humans wouldn't survive or even exist.
Now give me your theory on how these genes evolved with evidence that the odds are better than 1 against trillions of decillions.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"You can break a glass bottle, and use it to cut things. "
so? a glass isn't a biological system, they're not at all analogous, they have entirely different properties which act on them. I explained this too.
"The nylon bacteria is a weakened bacteria"
Not. the fitness to a niche is relative, & in this instance the fitness of the bacterium which could digest nylon over those which couldn't is no doubt improved. I even listed books for you to refer to how the fitness level is raised.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"a digesting gene will always be a digesting gene."
Maybe, but as mentioned already this gene CAN be copied (transposons, read about them already ) & inserted elsewhere in the genome & encode for new phenotypes. Goolge Polyploidy, you need to read, bad.
"It won't help in forming a 100,000 (or bigger) base pair gene."
I just debunked that above. TRANSPOSONS. GOOGLE IT.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Are you serious? Come on get the facts, my friend.
1. Transposons bring damage gnomes
2. Transposons move genes around. Are you seriously claiming this to be the mechanism in forming bigger genes?Larger chromosomes, yes. But it's ridiculous to think that a big gene consists of insertions of (mutated or not parts of) other genes. This is not what we see in our data. You have to do more to debunk this. This only disproofs evolution more.
phicomingatya 3 years ago
"Transposons bring damage gnomes"
Only if they insert themselves into currently fuctioning gene sequence, which would occur in meioic lines preventing embyonic development in the first place. That is, if it kills the embryo it wouldn't likely get passed on anyway.
agentorange20 3 years ago