Junk DNA doesn't refer to DNA that is useless. It refers to DNA that isn't coded for proteins--this includes structural DNA or buffer DNA (such as the TATA box). It does NOT provide evidence for intelligent design.
How does creation account for the pseudogene, psi-GULO? It's a gene that codes for the production of vitamin C in humans, but it doesn't work. Can creation explain that?
Here's some good advice - take a break from making videos, rattling on about subjects you very little about, and spend some time learning about what is actually being discovered in the field you are speaking of.
K. Miller exact quote.. "The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival"
Kenneth Miller just a few short years ago said.....Why would would an intelligent designer spent his time designing a bunch of mindless scribble? Today many neo Darwinist are trying to re-write history by trying to now say.... We knew it wasn't junk all along, and the term "Junk DNA" is just a colloquial term used for non protein coding DNA. While it is true in the past a very few brave souls questioned this paradigm, they were ignored by neo Darwinist scientist who made up the majority.
Dear Equestions, you keep showing a paper about non-coding RNA and talk about junk DNA. What exactly do these things have in common? Do you know what junk DNA is? Do you know what non-coding RNA is? Also, how exactly can we use junk DNA to determine ancestry? Do you have any idea about the scientific background of the things you are talking about?
you keep insisting that the DNA is a literal form of coding, when you can not present any relevant evidence to demonstrate otherwise. For example you have failed to outline how your specific god is responsible for the creation of DNA. The scientists you refer to as evolutionary scientists are not. They are scientists of a specific field in the study of Evolution. For example in this video I think you maybe referring to are geneticists who, have an expertise in the field of genetics.
There can be no NEW genetic information added to an already existing creature. That is like having your car get hit by another car and magically it is cured or made better by it.
All events that cause changes to the genome are destructive to normal gene expression. These Micro
"mutations" ARE DESTRUCTIVE TO GENE FUNCTION AND CAUSE DISEASES OR LOSS OF GENE FUNCTION ONLY.
@srexob715 I block people who are really stupid and post nothing but insults and worthless comments that contain no supporting evidence. You don't know anything about science, obviously. You also don't know anything about arguments. You post your faith and beliefs and I post the truth. That is how I work from absolutely clear irrefutable data.
@GoodScienceForYou This guy couldn't be more dumb. Any time you prove him wrong, he just runs away because he realizes that he is left without any reason to keep believing you are wrong.
Instead of admitting he can't prove you wrong, he tucks his tail and runs away like a true coward does. Then he doesn't like it when we believe the evidence he provides that PROVES he's a coward for god! PATHETIC!
@srexob715 So, far, because you present no evidence for discussion, and you have nothing but "hand waving" and saying over and over how dumb I am, shows you are a incapable of rational thoughts or a coherent argument for your religion.
Now, where is your absolutely irrefutable physical evidence showing that simple life has evolved into complex? It must contain no opinions only evidence from all angles all areas of life to support it.
@GoodScienceForYou MORON! There is no sense in discussing science with someone that is deluded as you are. All you do is run away and act like a coward.
so keep running FOOL! Sucks you can't delete me from here like you do on your website. PATHETIC FOOL!
@GoodScienceForYou People do a little research on this fool. He CANT debate and does nothing but run away from them. He can't run a business. His own brother doesn't support his brainwashed feculence.
@srexob715 Wow buddy you're a real shining star for the enlightened aren't you? Every single one of your comments are little more than ad hominems and fallacies tied together with various verbal diarrhea and vehement frothing of the mouth. Settle down, take a breather. There is plenty of evidence against evolution, just start looking with intent to learn, instead of intent to attack every single person that you can find who disagrees with your religious world view.
@ITTutorCanada You see sister? When you don't want to address anything on topic, because you know your arguments will get squashed, you are only left with the ability to rant and rave about nothing at all. Incoherent posts are not flattering!
@srexob715 Are you speaking of yourself, because everything you just said to me is incoherent. What the hell does "you see sister?" mean? Honestly bro, go sit down and relax I think you got so angry that too much blood rushed to your head and you may have had a mild stroke you're not making any sense whatsoever.
Magical Words that are totally worthless in biology:
"Random Mutation" is the most idiotic concept that Evotards have come up with to date. It is their explanation for natural existing traits that are already in the genome, but they are too lazy to go and see if they have appeared before in the history of the creature. This is the "science by exclusion" idea.
There are known to be over 6000 defects in the human genome across the species. And we have just got started on this. I guess that really shows "evolution". NOT!
It only shows genetic degeneration. This is anti-evolution.
This is absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that is totally against any form of evolution.
I asked many people for their absolutely irrefutable evidence for evolution and no one has any. PERIOD. These are PHD's of various sects of this religious cult.
I asked them to show me ALL of the positive mutation in the human genome. They gave me ONLY 4. That really shows evolution! RIGHT! NOT!
There are known to be over 4600 defects in the human genome across the species. And we have just got started on this. I guess that really shows "evolution". NOT!
All you have to do is look at the completed human genome chart to realize that is false. There is nothing in evidence but atrophied gene function (psuedo genes) that indicate lowered complexity, weakened tissue, weakened bones, and genetic diseases cause by real mutations from toxins in the environment.This is the absolute truth.
All you have to do is look at the completed human genome chart to realize that is false. There is nothing in evidence but atrophied gene function (psuedo genes) that indicate lowered complexity, weakened tissue, weakened bones, and genetic diseases cause by real mutations from toxins in the environment.This is the absolute truth.
Evolution: This magical, religious, idea that by magical processes and mystical causes, creatures have gained in features, become more complex, and have new gene functions that were not ever in the genetic make up of the original of the species.
Magical thinking; "I will drive my car into a wall and smash it about 45KMPH. Then I will drive it backwards into the same wall it it will be perfect again." This is the Evotard philosophy.
"Evolutionary Pressure" Is the idea that events in the environment cause creatures to magically obtain information that was not present from the oldest version. In every case the creature that survives does so because it was out of balance with the rest of the creatures that did not survive. It has ONE characteristic that was a special remnant the others did not have.
There has never been a NET number of "helpful" nor "progressive" nor "evolutionary" NET positive sets of mutations that has increased information, increased the ability to survive, nor has it cause any added complexity to any organism. Just look at the human genome and all the defects we have imposed on our selves, by stupidity, compulsion, war, wanting the easy life, making toxins to give our lives less "work". Following normal human tendencies has not been good for our species.
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
The Human Genome Project. The national library of medicine, The CDC, PubMed, NORD, GDF, American Cancer Society, American Diabates Association.
The Human Genome Project has found over 6000, mutations that cause serious diseases. We know they are screwed up because we have samples of the correct coding in some people. Every genetic disease we have results in 100% of humans having genetic disease(s).
All of the religious slogans do not cause any positive mutations.
All of you need to goto the "Neutral Evolution Forum".
It details all the latest scientific findings that only show genetic loss and lack of fitness. The human genome project has shown that there is overwhelming evidence against evolution.
No, dont go. All he does it block people when he realizes he can't defeat your argument. He RUNS from this forum and then blocks you from his. MORE proof that he's a coward and he supplies the evidence. Then he gets mad when we beleive the evidence he supplies. JUST STUPID! WHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAH
@GoodScienceForYou Also do a little research on this moron. He is a crook and a liar. He had a failed spa business at one point in time, but it failed and was even sued, if I remember correctly.
His brother is on youtube also and has nothing good to say about him. WHAT A PATHETIC HUMAN BEING!!!
I never have been a fan of the term "Junk DNA." Then again, my background is geology. not genetics. However, you gave us a classic God of the Gaps argument, so by all means, please tell us how your claim is supposed to be "scientific."
I do know enough that the main controls for regulating the development of an offspring, from zygote to newborn is controlled largely by hox genes. Now we can test for hox genes and how they work.
So where is the science in your claim? I am still waiting.
2. Questions of where the stomach goes once it's created are also the task of the DNA, not magical intelligence. And asking how a fully functional stomach could have suddenly evolved in an organism which previously had no stomach is a common faulty argument. In actual fact, you start with a primitive stomach that becomes more complex, with the blood supply and everything around it that depends on it evolving at the same time. So it's just another irreducible complexity argument (Claim CB200)
1. Not all junk-DNA has regulatory functions. E.g. humans have broken genes which would code for the production of Vitamin C if it worked. You could have said that Adam and Eve had more functional genes than we did, and some of the junk DNA was destroyed after the fall, but you didn't. And it still wouldn't explain why humans have the genes to make tails, and whales have the genes to make legs (not vestigial features. Genes which, if turned on, create whole legs!) (Also, google "Claim CB130")
@Mithcoriel It's been shown by many sites that Talk.Origins is purely a propaganda site Here is a list of sites refuting Talk.Origins. At least one appears to be an evolutionist site. [creationwiki(.)org/Talk_Origins].
@TChapman500 What exactly is to you a "purely a propaganda site"? A site that is "wrong"? Well duh, of course you'd say that.
Um, you only listed one site.
- I don't care who said it, the tornado analogy is wrong
- Irreducible complexity is a mix of an argument from ignorance (even if the creationists claim otherwise) and "that couldn't have evolved!", followed by the rebuttal "yes it could have", so that wasn't refuted by creationwiki.
- Creationwiki doesn't refute what I said about junk DNA.
@Mithcoriel "What exactly is to you a "purely a propaganda site"? A site that is "wrong"? Well duh, of course you'd say that." Being wrong doesn't constitute the "propaganda" label. A propaganda site is a site that is deliberately misleading its readers. For example: talk.origins uses the "bait-and-switch" tactic to define evolution to be something that even creationists agree with, then appends the definition that is actually being referred to by the term "evolution" as if they are equal.
@Mithcoriel "I don't care who said it, the tornado analogy is wrong" Why is the tornado analogy wrong?
"Irreducible complexity is a mix of an argument from ignorance ... and "that couldn't have evolved!"" First off, 'yes it could have' is NOT a rebuttal. And there has not been a single case where irreducible complexity has been legitimately refuted. Only straw man arguments have been made against it. And it's been proven that evolution cannot produce a single gene in such a system.
@Mithcoriel "Creationwiki doesn't refute what I said about junk DNA." Yes it does. Also look at evolutionnews(.)org and creation(.)com. They have links to peer-reviewed articles about what's being found in 'junk' DNA.
@Mithcoriel By the way, irreducible complexity is tested by knocking out a single gene that is known to control the development or function of the specified system. In many cases, if a single gene is removed (such as in the flagellum), the system will stop functioning. When the experiment is allowed to continue, they find that evolution CANNOT build that final gene to repair that system.
@TheScienceFoundation "Yes, it has. Irreducible complexity was never anything but an argument from incredulity." Example? Which argument refutes the claim that if a well-matched, interacting part is *removed* from the said system, then that system will stop functioning?
HINT: Parts being used in other systems is NOT a refutation. It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all.
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
@odinata Irreducible complexity has not be debunked, because it can't be falsified. There is no evidence against it. There is only denial from Evotards. Denial and saying something over and over is a Evodelusionism slogans. Slogans are not science. But you would not know that.
When you remove the components of anything that is working correctly, then it doesn't work correctly. That is why your brain is malfunctioning now. Too many mutations in the brain area.
@GoodScienceForYou You ran away coward! LOL This is how we know you don't speak the truth and are filled with feculence. You run away once you have been exposed.
@odinata When you realize that nothing complex can make itself, which is so damned obvious, you can give up your religious faith in this Evodelusionism. How stupid do you have to be to believe that fish evolved into humans? Do you ever think about anything.
Evotards believe that if you crash your car into a tree, then crash into another tree it will magically fix itself. That is the basic foundation of your religion.
@odinata As soon as you have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that fish evolved into humans then I will believe you.
You see in real science we only go with what is obvious, irrefutable, and physical. DNA and all the facts on humans show that humans are extremely degraded from a condition of far more fit.
Your family is sick, you are sick, your friends are sick and weak and you think there is evolution? How can anyone be like you?
@GoodScienceForYou have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that fish evolved into humans "
And again............proof is not needed in order for beliefs to occur. And I am very sorry that I am having to teach someone that calls themself a genius on very simple logic. Its just amazing! LOL
@GoodScienceForYou If I told you that a purple car drove past my house 5 minutes ago, there is no evidence that I could present to you, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to believe me.
You would or would not believe me based on LOGIC, not evidence. If what I said/claimed was illogical, then evidence would be required in order for you to believe. But if what I say is logical, then no evidence is necessary to believe the logical. DUMB ASS!
@srexob715 The only thing that counts is absolute evidence. Most of the people of the Evodelusionism faith have no idea what that means, because their minds are full of illogical slogans from religious ideas. The fact is humans are terribly genetically degraded. They have no signs of any form of evolution towards more fitness. but only a direction towards extinction along with all the millions of creatures humans have cause the extinction of. Humans have a horrible record of destroying life.
@srexob715 You already lost. There is no use in discussing the reality of true science with foolish people who believe in 17th century mythological garbage.
@GoodScienceForYou There is no use in discussing the reality of true science with foolish people like you who believe in 17th century man made fantasyland creatures.
@Mithcoriel ...Plus, DNA is built using proteins and enzymes. Proteins and enzymes are built from the instructions in DNA. The ATP-motor supplies the energy required to carry out those functions. It is also constructed using proteins, which as already mentioned, proteins are build from the instructions in DNA. Oh, and RNA is used as "ram" in the process and destroyed after use.
ATP-Motor, DNA, RNA, Enzymes, and Proteins do not create any functions if even one component is missing.
@TChapman500 (is this the second part of a longer message? Cause I only see this one.)
Anyway, sounds like Claim CB015 to me. And generally, concerning irreducible complexity: imagine a bridge where if you remove one brick, the whole thing crashes. How was it built? It may once have had a supporting structure underneath it, which was removed once the bridge was complete. Likewise, complexity evolves. Don't you think biologists who study this would have noticed if DNA couldn't evolve?
@Mithcoriel "sounds like Claim CB015 to me." Talk.Origins is a propaganda machine. And it's "refutation" has been refuted.
"concerning irreducible complexity: imagine a bridge" Straw man. Bridge components do not interact. Irreducible complexity is about parts that interact with each other. To refute the claim that something is irreducibly complex, you have to prove that the system can be built one part at a time with each part having a function...
@srexob715 I've already provided the evidence. It's up to you to provide evidence that refutes irreducible complexity, which so far, no one has done. Just dodging the question of whether or not a system will continue to function if a specified part is removed.
@Mithcoriel ..And that system must use interacting parts. A system that is irreducibly complex cannot be built in a step-by-step process and have function at each step. All the steps must be completed before any function will occur. So what if many parts are used by other systems. Remove those parts completely, and all systems that use them will stop functioning. Remove those parts from a single system, only that system will stop functioning.
@TChapman500 All the steps must be completed before any function will occur."
Nope, because what's left after you remove a part from a mousetrap can still have various other functions. Which proves it doesn't have to function as a mousetrap with missing parts. SORRY!
@srexob715 "Nope, because what's left after you remove a part from a mousetrap can still have various other functions." But will the mousetrap itself still function? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You completely dodged the question of whether or not the system (that the part is removed from) will function if a part is removed. Changing the function of a part is irrelevant.
@TChapman500 But will the mousetrap itself still function? That's exactly what I'm talking about"
And it doesn't have to, because the remaining parts of the mousetrap can THEN function as a tie clip. This NEW function shows that just because something is lost or a part is removed does not render that organ useless.
@srexob715 "And it doesn't have to, because the remaining parts of the mousetrap can THEN function as a tie clip." But the mousetrap no longer functions. That's exactly what we're talking about. You are creating a straw man.
@TChapman500 If I follow your guys' discussion, you're saying that it doesn't function the same if something is removed from it, and then he says, yes, but it functions in another way, and then you say, well that's a straw man, because I said it needed to be exactly the same.
Anyway, if you want someone to respond directly to what you're saying, let me say this:
Because whether it can still function as originally intended is irrelevant when loss of a part can lead to new functions. You either don't want to understand or can't understand.
@TChapman500 So a mousetrap that loses a part can function as a tie clip? This CHANGE in function shows that removing parts can lead to new function, right or wrong? LMAO!
@TChapman500 You're the one who's confused. The argument is: "Why did natural selection make half a mouse trap? What would be the advantage?" and the answer is: "It didn't. It was first selected for as a tie clip. Those animals with 'tie clips' survived better. Then some started mutating into 'mouse traps' and were even better off, etc."
Also, think of a bridge that has a support structure while being built. And once it's finished, the support is removed. NOW, it breaks if you remove a part.
Back when I took genetics (20 years ago) I don't remember "junk DNA" being mentioned. We were taught about various functions of non-coding DNA, including gene regulation. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function. Your characterization of genetics seems to be based on creationists' straw man arguments and not actual science.
Btw, you show an article about non-coding RNA, which is completely different from non-coding DNA. In fact Non-coding RNA is coded for in DNA.
@yugyfoog Argument from authority is supposed to impress us?
"Your characterization of genetics seems to be based on creationists' straw man arguments and not actual science." There are many creationists that ARE scientists.
"However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function." That is based on primitive technology. It is now being discovered that almost none of the DNA is functionless. The DNA that is truly functionless is removed by the organism.
I've looked for every way possible to kill evolution, it cannot be killed because it is simply a description of reality. You can only kill reality with lies and delusion.
@BlowDevilUp "I've looked for every way possible to kill evolution, it cannot be killed because it is simply a description of reality." Wrong! Evolution is a fantasy claiming to be reality. It is supported only by lies and misrepresentation.
@srexob715 "This is your perception and your perception is wrong." Nope, that is reality. Evolution has no grounds in science. It doesn't even have grounds in logic.
The idea that random mutations/selection produced the diversity of life is wrong, it's dead wrong. And that is precisely what he is talking about when he says evolution has no grounds in science. Now, if you are intelligent, you will be able to understand what that actually means. Don't blindly defend your world view here like all the other morons before you, instead go back to the science and make an argument, or smart people will ignore you.
Then show me, but I wonder why you COULDN"T and had to resort to only being able to SAY its wrong. Don't have any evidence, huh? Ahhhh, so no wonder you didn't present it, which only leaves you with being able to SAY its wrong. SAD, very sad, but its still funny! LOL
No you're wrong. Your understanding of biology and the theory of evolution does not match reality as closely as what a scientific description provides. You should have gotten a real education. Too bad for you Science wins you lose. Loser. Go back to school.
@BlowDevilUp "Your understanding of biology and the theory of evolution does not match reality" I understand evolution and biology pretty well. Biology argues against evolution.
"as closely as what a scientific description provides." Evolution is not science, it's religion. Even some evolutionists admit that [creation(.)com/15-questions].
"Too bad for you Science wins you lose." Evolution is not science. Science confirms creation. As it happens, YOU are the one who has lost.
@TChapman500 What exactly are you referring to? Is it the current science as to why these animals evolved that you think is fantasy, or the idea that they evolved at all?
Here's a good video showing your perfect intelligent designer at work. Why would such an all-loving god do this. I'm trying to think a little deeper here like you recommend and I just can't figure out why such overwhelming intelligence would screw up like what is seen in this video: watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY Common sense tells me an all-loving god would not allow these defects to occur.
DNA doesn't know or have to know anything, it's a biochemical medium. We're not ignoring anything, most DNA is functionless, transcription alone does not denote function.
Most of, if not all of the genome is transcribed into RNA. DNA is a chemical template. No one knows exactly how and where the information is stored because the process is not equivalent to binary code. There is a basic "machine code" (codon vocabulary), but the source code is unseen. Thanks for the selfishness, your willful ignorance only impedes scientific progress, apparently so you can feel good about being an atheist.
@circusOFprecision The code is the base pairs, the amino acids and so forth because these are the distinguishing characteristics of heredity.
You don't seem to realize that there's only one of us trying to inject a god of the gaps, a completely worthless non-answer that would never tell us anything of any use no matter how loudly it was chanted and by how many, into whatever holes are left in our knowledge of genetics, that's you.
Right, but that is the machine code, not the source code. Yes, I am drawing an analogy between cells and computers because I think it works to get one's point across about the information problem. But a caveat to this is that cells are way more complex than computers.
@circusOFprecision No, it's a horrible analogy because computers don't replicate with variation, nor are they comprised of parts that biochemically interact with one another. The only problem regarding information here is your understanding of it.
The holes left? Are you kidding me? The more we look, the more we discover, the more complex it becomes. I don't share your sentiment at all. If only I could give you a compressed argument that you could grasp that would convince you to at least take it seriously. It doesn't even seem that we are truly arguing about the same thing here at all.
@circusOFprecision Yes, the more we look the more we discover, and absolutely nothing found has supported an external intelligence in any way. You can make a post hoc rationalization, but this is not in any way even remotely the same as formulating a useful hypothesis, testable mechanisms and falsifiable predictions.
You're right though, I'm arguing the facts, you keep making empty assertion.
From this observation (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I can infer that consciousness, or mental processes are NOT the product of brains, but the product of algorithms, memory storage and retrieval in "chaotic" systems. Consciousness is the key, because I believe it is God's tool for creating. Very hard to explain, but I think the philosophy behind these issues also needs a great deal of attention. The Darwinian mode if thinking is way too shallow, to the point of being harmful.
@circusOFprecision As usual, nothing but projection. There is no train of thought more shallow and absent of any explanatory power as the non-answer of 'god did it'
It's indistinguishable from from the invocation of pure intangible magic to 'explain' any given phenomenon.
@TheScienceFoundation Intelligent design doesn't appeal to God as the intelligent agent. Pure logic does (remember the infinite regress of designers problem I told you about?). Intelligent design itself only appeals to an intelligent source. That *IS* science in the EXACT same way that SETI is doing science by looking for signs of intelligence. I mean, if SETI somehow finds signs of intelligence, are you going to say "derr ... it dun done itself"? I highly doubt that.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost No, special pleading does, and don't kid yourself about intelligent design not being creationism rewrapped in a monkey suit. You're having to presuppose the problem of an infinite regress of designers to assert any given designer as the unmoved cause when nothing supports a designer in the first place. No, if SETI found signals produced by intelligence, they could determine it so through artificiality, not complexity IE strings of algorithms.
There is no infinite regress problem, that would only apply if you assume the designer is a physical being like an alien race. That is why Dawkins should be the one rewrapped in a monkey suit.
@circusOFprecision You're inventing a problem of infinite regress to try to shoehorn in your god as the uncaused cause, it's a strawman and special pleading.
Strawman? Than why did you bring it up? If you mention it, you own it. I said there was no infinite regress problem. Special pleading? To use the word random or natural is special pleading, unhelpful and creates a tautology that is meaningless. But to say that intelligence is the source of the universe, whether you like it or not, is to follow the evidence. Understanding doesn't stop there. But with randomness, indeed it does. You don't have a clue.
@circusOFprecision Because you used one, no one is claiming an infinite regression. As I said, you invented it to try to arbitrarily insert your god at the beginning. I'm guessing you're not aware of what special pleading means, it means that you're trying to baselessly exempt a claim from standards held elsewhere. No, to say that intelligence is the source of the universe is completely bare assertion supported by nothing.
No, I infer that there is an intelligence behind the physical world in which we have our being. No infinite regress required. God isn't a gap stop or a starting point, rather the explanation for intelligence and order in nature. Very subtle, very powerful differences in how you conceive of this argument. And I can assure you that you don't understand it because you are unwilling to accept it for the simple fact that you don't want to accept it.
@circusOFprecision No, you create a 'solution' to a problem that never existed. Yes, god is a stop gap argument, and no, it offers no explanatory value. If you think it does, list a single demonstrable empirical difference between 'god made the universe' and 'invisible magic just did it that way'
I reject it because it's demonstrably wrong and outright fabrication.
Your problem is that you can't see the problem. Until you do, your crap world view is blocking you from a deeper understanding of reality. You don't know why you are here. And if you say something about nature and evolution "DOING" something "MIRACULOUS" and you are just a by product, you've said nothing except hint at the fact that you are in denial by attributing attributes of mind to nature.
@circusOFprecision My 'problem' is that I see the egregious error in your reasoning, there is no claimed infinite regression without your useless god so there is no need for you to try to inject your useless god into any uncaused position. There's nothing miraculous about evolution, it's the result of actual testable predictable phenomena.
All you have to do is show me a system that produces information by randomness and unguided forces. Show it to me without any sort of intervention what so ever, and I will shut up forever. But you don't know the source of biological information, you don't know the depths of genetic expression, you don't know why all the constants are ideal for life, so don't you dare use life as the only example, give me a simpler one, they should be ample.
The logic is rock solid. Every system we know of that produces information and is goal oriented as life is, ALWAYS without fail has an intelligence behind it. It doesn't mean that on some level evolution can't take place. It just means that to explain the thing itself (i.e. LIFE) intelligence is required because of the information and purpose driven aspects. If nature was in the business of doing this, show me more examples, they should be everywhere
@circusOFprecision Your logic has failed every step of the way. Ignorance of what information actually is constitutes neither a positive argument for design nor an argument against naturalistic processes. Information is anything that makes distinction possible, anything that produces a characteristic that makes distinction possible has produced information.
Your definition of information is too vague to be of any use anywhere in science. Seriously, what is a characteristic? Or a distinction?
Try this definition:
Symbolically represented message that is conveyed (communicated) with a particular meaning for a specific purpose. That's information. You are still talking about the characteristics of informational capacity.
@circusOFprecision Too vague? Heh, that's the definition used in information theory. ;
A theory that deals statistically with information, with the measurement of its content in terms of its distinguishing essential characteristics or by the number of alternatives from which it makes a choice possible.
Biological information goes beyond Shannon information, so why do you keep giving me definitions I already know?
Information carrying capacity doesn't get you to DNA and on to living things, not without intelligence. And stop dodging my request. Show me a system that produces meaningful information through random processes and unguided forces.
@circusOFprecision No it doesn't. If you knew anything about biology or information theory you would know that the definition used in information theory applies directly to the components of DNA.
'not without intelligence'
This is the god of the gaps I've been referring to the entire time
I answered your question and you dodged my request initially, for an empirical difference between 'god did it' and 'untestable invisible magic just made it that way'
You can apply information theory to DNA (assuming that it is a medium) all day long. I'm not talking about that, and you know that which is what pisses me off. I'm talking about the codon language and the instructions that go back and forth between the constituents of the cell, the messages that produce proteins and regulate gene expression and so on. That is the information, get off the capacity and deal with it, it's real.
@circusOFprecision I know what you think you're talking about, it's just the small matter of you being utterly wrong and completely self misinformed regarding information. No, that's the gene expression, the information are the component base pairs.
Try actually learning anything about information theory
LOL!!! After people watch the videos they will know that you really pwnd me and tlhat's why I blocked your science blah blah account MONTHS BEFORE my first video. LOL!!!
btw, dunce, ppl have been sending me messages telling me how much you pwnd me! don't worry, the word is spreading!
at least, according to you, i'm ignorant whereas you are just a dunce.
@TheScienceFoundation You are making almost exclusively non-arguments. The few arguments you do make are refuted immediately and you make non-arguments trying to overturn the refutation. You are blatantly ignoring the overwhelming *scientific evidence* that the universe, and life in it, is intelligently designed.
@TChapman500 No, I'm using actual data to refute the garbage spewed by the creationists here. You've never refuted anything I've said, you can't even grasp the concept of genetic variability and a bottlenecks effect on it.
There is no ignoring it, because it doesn't exist.
"you can't even grasp the concept of genetic variability and a bottlenecks effect on it." I fully understand how genetic variability works and how to limit the effects a bottleneck would have on it.
@TheScienceFoundation "There is no ignoring it, because it doesn't exist." You are ignoring it. In fact, you are trying to censor it as we speak! Take a look at what's really going on.
@TChapman500 There is no ignoring it and there is no censoring it, it really doesn't exist. In case you haven't noticed every single example you've brought up has been roundly refuted.
I've already pointed out to you that creation dot com automatically rejects any evidence even perceived to contradict what they already believe. Why do you continue to use them if you're going to pretend to be interested in science?
@TChapman500 It is impossible for the sleeping degenerate, who wants to have fun with anyone they want, avoid any responsibility for their actions, and blatantly wants to destroy themselves and humanity from that level of ignorance, to understand the obvious.
In order to understand the obvious, one must get rid of all beliefs, and only go with what is absolutely irrefutable physical evidence.
By the way, it's not my God. It's not anyone's God. Whatever it is, it is something real, powerful, and intelligent. Grasp that before you try to dismiss all of philosophy, all of theology, and half the scientific evidence in one fail swoop with your misguided skepticism.
@circusOFprecision That makes it worse, now you're saying that whatever intangible magic makes them personally comfortable can be crammed into the first spot willy nilly. The only thing I'm dismissing is your empty claim based on your ignorance of epistemology. All philosophical arguments for god have failed and there certainly isn't any scientific evident for it.
Intelligence is not a projection, it's a common empirical phenomenon. Understanding that intelligence gives rise to intelligence is the only logical explanation for how order overcomes entropy. Nature tends towards disorder. The only one talking about magic is you with your magical theory that everything here is built on mutations and vague selective, unguided processes. Your world view explains nothing.
@circusOFprecision It's projection to say that naturalism is shallow when ID/Creationism is the laziest most useless non-answer ever conceived. No, order is derived from non-order naturally, it's known as emergence and entropy applies most practically to isolated systems, which earth is not. You have it completely backwards as usual, the only model that explains anything with any actual testable mechanisms is evolution.
Junk DNA doesn't refer to DNA that is useless. It refers to DNA that isn't coded for proteins--this includes structural DNA or buffer DNA (such as the TATA box). It does NOT provide evidence for intelligent design.
How does creation account for the pseudogene, psi-GULO? It's a gene that codes for the production of vitamin C in humans, but it doesn't work. Can creation explain that?
DeadFishFactory 3 days ago
Here's some good advice - take a break from making videos, rattling on about subjects you very little about, and spend some time learning about what is actually being discovered in the field you are speaking of.
rolandharding 1 week ago
@Equestions "How do [genes] know what to do and when to do it?"
It would be an excellent idea to make a video explaining how gene expression works.
YurNotSpecial 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YurNotSpecial
This guy doesn't know how anything works.
odinata 2 weeks ago
K. Miller exact quote.. "The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival"
benthemiester 3 weeks ago
Kenneth Miller just a few short years ago said.....Why would would an intelligent designer spent his time designing a bunch of mindless scribble? Today many neo Darwinist are trying to re-write history by trying to now say.... We knew it wasn't junk all along, and the term "Junk DNA" is just a colloquial term used for non protein coding DNA. While it is true in the past a very few brave souls questioned this paradigm, they were ignored by neo Darwinist scientist who made up the majority.
benthemiester 3 weeks ago
I wonder if you had the chance to look up the difference between non-coding RNA and junk DNA?
usertripppleA 3 weeks ago
Dear Equestions, you keep showing a paper about non-coding RNA and talk about junk DNA. What exactly do these things have in common? Do you know what junk DNA is? Do you know what non-coding RNA is? Also, how exactly can we use junk DNA to determine ancestry? Do you have any idea about the scientific background of the things you are talking about?
usertripppleA 4 weeks ago
you keep insisting that the DNA is a literal form of coding, when you can not present any relevant evidence to demonstrate otherwise. For example you have failed to outline how your specific god is responsible for the creation of DNA. The scientists you refer to as evolutionary scientists are not. They are scientists of a specific field in the study of Evolution. For example in this video I think you maybe referring to are geneticists who, have an expertise in the field of genetics.
emptywithoutbrain 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
There can be no NEW genetic information added to an already existing creature. That is like having your car get hit by another car and magically it is cured or made better by it.
All events that cause changes to the genome are destructive to normal gene expression. These Micro
"mutations" ARE DESTRUCTIVE TO GENE FUNCTION AND CAUSE DISEASES OR LOSS OF GENE FUNCTION ONLY.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou This guy is a complete COWARD. He blocks you from his site when he realizes he CANT prove you wrong.
He runs from debates! A true coward who doesn't like the evidence against him.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 I block people who are really stupid and post nothing but insults and worthless comments that contain no supporting evidence. You don't know anything about science, obviously. You also don't know anything about arguments. You post your faith and beliefs and I post the truth. That is how I work from absolutely clear irrefutable data.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
The idiots will only allow certain evidence in the study.
When somebody does not allow looking at any piece of evidence by some method that they "deem as not science" you know they are protecting an ideology.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou This guy couldn't be more dumb. Any time you prove him wrong, he just runs away because he realizes that he is left without any reason to keep believing you are wrong.
Instead of admitting he can't prove you wrong, he tucks his tail and runs away like a true coward does. Then he doesn't like it when we believe the evidence he provides that PROVES he's a coward for god! PATHETIC!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 So, far, because you present no evidence for discussion, and you have nothing but "hand waving" and saying over and over how dumb I am, shows you are a incapable of rational thoughts or a coherent argument for your religion.
Now, where is your absolutely irrefutable physical evidence showing that simple life has evolved into complex? It must contain no opinions only evidence from all angles all areas of life to support it.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou You are a coward and dishonest and I don't waste my time discussing things with evil, vile, dishonest people like you are.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 You are a hateful bitter troll who's religion of evolution is being debunked by absolutely clear physical evidence.
You don't ever present any evidence or add anything to this discussion. You just troll and cuss at people.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou MORON! There is no sense in discussing science with someone that is deluded as you are. All you do is run away and act like a coward.
so keep running FOOL! Sucks you can't delete me from here like you do on your website. PATHETIC FOOL!
srexob715 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou People do a little research on this fool. He CANT debate and does nothing but run away from them. He can't run a business. His own brother doesn't support his brainwashed feculence.
the guy is a complete LOSER!
srexob715 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou SEE? He runs away. Pathetic.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Wow buddy you're a real shining star for the enlightened aren't you? Every single one of your comments are little more than ad hominems and fallacies tied together with various verbal diarrhea and vehement frothing of the mouth. Settle down, take a breather. There is plenty of evidence against evolution, just start looking with intent to learn, instead of intent to attack every single person that you can find who disagrees with your religious world view.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada You see sister? When you don't want to address anything on topic, because you know your arguments will get squashed, you are only left with the ability to rant and rave about nothing at all. Incoherent posts are not flattering!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Are you speaking of yourself, because everything you just said to me is incoherent. What the hell does "you see sister?" mean? Honestly bro, go sit down and relax I think you got so angry that too much blood rushed to your head and you may have had a mild stroke you're not making any sense whatsoever.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada You are still making incoherent posts. Talk some sense and people might be willing to respect you, but not until then!
srexob715 1 month ago
Magical Words that are totally worthless in biology:
"Random Mutation" is the most idiotic concept that Evotards have come up with to date. It is their explanation for natural existing traits that are already in the genome, but they are too lazy to go and see if they have appeared before in the history of the creature. This is the "science by exclusion" idea.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
There are known to be over 6000 defects in the human genome across the species. And we have just got started on this. I guess that really shows "evolution". NOT!
It only shows genetic degeneration. This is anti-evolution.
This is absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that is totally against any form of evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
Now it is over 6000 genetic defects in humans. No wonder humans believe in magical garbage myths.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
I asked many people for their absolutely irrefutable evidence for evolution and no one has any. PERIOD. These are PHD's of various sects of this religious cult.
I asked them to show me ALL of the positive mutation in the human genome. They gave me ONLY 4. That really shows evolution! RIGHT! NOT!
There are known to be over 4600 defects in the human genome across the species. And we have just got started on this. I guess that really shows "evolution". NOT!
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All you have to do is look at the completed human genome chart to realize that is false. There is nothing in evidence but atrophied gene function (psuedo genes) that indicate lowered complexity, weakened tissue, weakened bones, and genetic diseases cause by real mutations from toxins in the environment.This is the absolute truth.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
All you have to do is look at the completed human genome chart to realize that is false. There is nothing in evidence but atrophied gene function (psuedo genes) that indicate lowered complexity, weakened tissue, weakened bones, and genetic diseases cause by real mutations from toxins in the environment.This is the absolute truth.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
Evolution: This magical, religious, idea that by magical processes and mystical causes, creatures have gained in features, become more complex, and have new gene functions that were not ever in the genetic make up of the original of the species.
Magical thinking; "I will drive my car into a wall and smash it about 45KMPH. Then I will drive it backwards into the same wall it it will be perfect again." This is the Evotard philosophy.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
"Evolutionary Pressure" Is the idea that events in the environment cause creatures to magically obtain information that was not present from the oldest version. In every case the creature that survives does so because it was out of balance with the rest of the creatures that did not survive. It has ONE characteristic that was a special remnant the others did not have.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
There has never been a NET number of "helpful" nor "progressive" nor "evolutionary" NET positive sets of mutations that has increased information, increased the ability to survive, nor has it cause any added complexity to any organism. Just look at the human genome and all the defects we have imposed on our selves, by stupidity, compulsion, war, wanting the easy life, making toxins to give our lives less "work". Following normal human tendencies has not been good for our species.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
This has never happened in biology.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Human Genome Project. The national library of medicine, The CDC, PubMed, NORD, GDF, American Cancer Society, American Diabates Association.
The Human Genome Project has found over 6000, mutations that cause serious diseases. We know they are screwed up because we have samples of the correct coding in some people. Every genetic disease we have results in 100% of humans having genetic disease(s).
All of the religious slogans do not cause any positive mutations.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
All of you need to goto the "Neutral Evolution Forum".
It details all the latest scientific findings that only show genetic loss and lack of fitness. The human genome project has shown that there is overwhelming evidence against evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou COWARD! LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum"."
No, dont go. All he does it block people when he realizes he can't defeat your argument. He RUNS from this forum and then blocks you from his. MORE proof that he's a coward and he supplies the evidence. Then he gets mad when we beleive the evidence he supplies. JUST STUPID! WHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAH
srexob715 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Also do a little research on this moron. He is a crook and a liar. He had a failed spa business at one point in time, but it failed and was even sued, if I remember correctly.
His brother is on youtube also and has nothing good to say about him. WHAT A PATHETIC HUMAN BEING!!!
srexob715 2 months ago
Everybody needs to go to the "Neutral Evolution Forum" and understand what is contained in real evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
Equestions, There is only one error in this video. You used the term "mutation" where it doesn't belong in describing how DNA works.
Here is the Evotards nightmare videos:
/watch?v=JntCa6FssRQ
/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
/watch?v=emPINOUlfnE
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
I never have been a fan of the term "Junk DNA." Then again, my background is geology. not genetics. However, you gave us a classic God of the Gaps argument, so by all means, please tell us how your claim is supposed to be "scientific."
I do know enough that the main controls for regulating the development of an offspring, from zygote to newborn is controlled largely by hox genes. Now we can test for hox genes and how they work.
So where is the science in your claim? I am still waiting.
lawilson200 2 months ago
3. Fingers aren't created in the order bone-then-tissue-then-skin. It all develops at the same time in the embryo.
4. Why did you use that old tornado-building-the-car argument? That's ancient. Claim CF002.1
5. What, the genome gets rid of duplications? Really? I didn't know that, where did you hear that?
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
2. Questions of where the stomach goes once it's created are also the task of the DNA, not magical intelligence. And asking how a fully functional stomach could have suddenly evolved in an organism which previously had no stomach is a common faulty argument. In actual fact, you start with a primitive stomach that becomes more complex, with the blood supply and everything around it that depends on it evolving at the same time. So it's just another irreducible complexity argument (Claim CB200)
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
1. Not all junk-DNA has regulatory functions. E.g. humans have broken genes which would code for the production of Vitamin C if it worked. You could have said that Adam and Eve had more functional genes than we did, and some of the junk DNA was destroyed after the fall, but you didn't. And it still wouldn't explain why humans have the genes to make tails, and whales have the genes to make legs (not vestigial features. Genes which, if turned on, create whole legs!) (Also, google "Claim CB130")
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel It's been shown by many sites that Talk.Origins is purely a propaganda site Here is a list of sites refuting Talk.Origins. At least one appears to be an evolutionist site. [creationwiki(.)org/Talk_Origins].
[creationwiki(.)org/CB130] [creationwiki(.)org/CB200]
Oh and what's this? An evolutionist making the analogy about a tornado not producing order? [creationwiki(.)org/CF002.1]
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 What exactly is to you a "purely a propaganda site"? A site that is "wrong"? Well duh, of course you'd say that.
Um, you only listed one site.
- I don't care who said it, the tornado analogy is wrong
- Irreducible complexity is a mix of an argument from ignorance (even if the creationists claim otherwise) and "that couldn't have evolved!", followed by the rebuttal "yes it could have", so that wasn't refuted by creationwiki.
- Creationwiki doesn't refute what I said about junk DNA.
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel "What exactly is to you a "purely a propaganda site"? A site that is "wrong"? Well duh, of course you'd say that." Being wrong doesn't constitute the "propaganda" label. A propaganda site is a site that is deliberately misleading its readers. For example: talk.origins uses the "bait-and-switch" tactic to define evolution to be something that even creationists agree with, then appends the definition that is actually being referred to by the term "evolution" as if they are equal.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel "I don't care who said it, the tornado analogy is wrong" Why is the tornado analogy wrong?
"Irreducible complexity is a mix of an argument from ignorance ... and "that couldn't have evolved!"" First off, 'yes it could have' is NOT a rebuttal. And there has not been a single case where irreducible complexity has been legitimately refuted. Only straw man arguments have been made against it. And it's been proven that evolution cannot produce a single gene in such a system.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel "Creationwiki doesn't refute what I said about junk DNA." Yes it does. Also look at evolutionnews(.)org and creation(.)com. They have links to peer-reviewed articles about what's being found in 'junk' DNA.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel By the way, irreducible complexity is tested by knocking out a single gene that is known to control the development or function of the specified system. In many cases, if a single gene is removed (such as in the flagellum), the system will stop functioning. When the experiment is allowed to continue, they find that evolution CANNOT build that final gene to repair that system.
continued...
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500
Irreducible complexity has been debunked.
Its religious garbage.
All the components you have mentioned have other uses.
odinata 2 months ago
@odinata No it hasn't.
TChapman500 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500
Yes, irreducible complexity has been shown to be total bullshit.
In a court of law, no less.
Sorry bud.
odinata 2 months ago
@TChapman500 Yes, it has. Irreducible complexity was never anything but an argument from incredulity.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation "Yes, it has. Irreducible complexity was never anything but an argument from incredulity." Example? Which argument refutes the claim that if a well-matched, interacting part is *removed* from the said system, then that system will stop functioning?
HINT: Parts being used in other systems is NOT a refutation. It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
srexob715 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
srexob715 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
srexob715 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500 It has to be shown that the system will not function if the part is not there at all."
Will not function as originally intended or will not function at all? For instance, remove part of a mousetrap, it will not longer function as originally intended in catching mice, but it could function as a tie clip.
srexob715 2 months ago
@odinata Irreducible complexity has not be debunked, because it can't be falsified. There is no evidence against it. There is only denial from Evotards. Denial and saying something over and over is a Evodelusionism slogans. Slogans are not science. But you would not know that.
When you remove the components of anything that is working correctly, then it doesn't work correctly. That is why your brain is malfunctioning now. Too many mutations in the brain area.
Nothing "makes" itself.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou You ran away coward! LOL This is how we know you don't speak the truth and are filled with feculence. You run away once you have been exposed.
srexob715 2 months ago
@odinata When you realize that nothing complex can make itself, which is so damned obvious, you can give up your religious faith in this Evodelusionism. How stupid do you have to be to believe that fish evolved into humans? Do you ever think about anything.
Evotards believe that if you crash your car into a tree, then crash into another tree it will magically fix itself. That is the basic foundation of your religion.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@odinata As soon as you have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that fish evolved into humans then I will believe you.
You see in real science we only go with what is obvious, irrefutable, and physical. DNA and all the facts on humans show that humans are extremely degraded from a condition of far more fit.
Your family is sick, you are sick, your friends are sick and weak and you think there is evolution? How can anyone be like you?
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that fish evolved into humans "
And again............proof is not needed in order for beliefs to occur. And I am very sorry that I am having to teach someone that calls themself a genius on very simple logic. Its just amazing! LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou If I told you that a purple car drove past my house 5 minutes ago, there is no evidence that I could present to you, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to believe me.
You would or would not believe me based on LOGIC, not evidence. If what I said/claimed was illogical, then evidence would be required in order for you to believe. But if what I say is logical, then no evidence is necessary to believe the logical. DUMB ASS!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 The only thing that counts is absolute evidence. Most of the people of the Evodelusionism faith have no idea what that means, because their minds are full of illogical slogans from religious ideas. The fact is humans are terribly genetically degraded. They have no signs of any form of evolution towards more fitness. but only a direction towards extinction along with all the millions of creatures humans have cause the extinction of. Humans have a horrible record of destroying life.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou The only thing that counts is absolute evidence."
Ahhhh, so now you are changing your mind. You asked for proof, now you are saying evidence. Make up your mind before you try to debate here.
srexob715 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Cowards always run away once they realize they are dealing with smarter people than they are!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 You already lost. There is no use in discussing the reality of true science with foolish people who believe in 17th century mythological garbage.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
You have already been shown to be a complete idiot.
All the science shows you are 100% wrong.
Jack ass.
odinata 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou You ran away. So you LOST and proved you are a coward. Run along now!
srexob715 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou There is no use in discussing the reality of true science with foolish people like you who believe in 17th century man made fantasyland creatures.
Get lost COWARD! What a dope!
srexob715 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou
You have ZERO proof that chimpanzees were once superhumans, but that doesn't stop you from making hilarious assertions that they were.
odinata 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel ...Plus, DNA is built using proteins and enzymes. Proteins and enzymes are built from the instructions in DNA. The ATP-motor supplies the energy required to carry out those functions. It is also constructed using proteins, which as already mentioned, proteins are build from the instructions in DNA. Oh, and RNA is used as "ram" in the process and destroyed after use.
ATP-Motor, DNA, RNA, Enzymes, and Proteins do not create any functions if even one component is missing.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 (is this the second part of a longer message? Cause I only see this one.)
Anyway, sounds like Claim CB015 to me. And generally, concerning irreducible complexity: imagine a bridge where if you remove one brick, the whole thing crashes. How was it built? It may once have had a supporting structure underneath it, which was removed once the bridge was complete. Likewise, complexity evolves. Don't you think biologists who study this would have noticed if DNA couldn't evolve?
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel "sounds like Claim CB015 to me." Talk.Origins is a propaganda machine. And it's "refutation" has been refuted.
"concerning irreducible complexity: imagine a bridge" Straw man. Bridge components do not interact. Irreducible complexity is about parts that interact with each other. To refute the claim that something is irreducibly complex, you have to prove that the system can be built one part at a time with each part having a function...
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 And it's "refutation" has been refuted."
If this were true you would have provided evidence. Instead you run. Hmmm! LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 I've already provided the evidence. It's up to you to provide evidence that refutes irreducible complexity, which so far, no one has done. Just dodging the question of whether or not a system will continue to function if a specified part is removed.
TChapman500 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500 It's up to you to provide evidence that refutes irreducible complexity, which so far, no one has done. "
And again, lack of belief doesn't mean we didn't explain it to you. Try to prove us wrong, but since you can't you are taking the cowards way out!
srexob715 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500
Irreducible complexity is not science.
It has been debunked.
odinata 2 months ago
@TChapman500 Dont run away brother. You CANT learn that way, but maybe that's why you do it. LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel ..And that system must use interacting parts. A system that is irreducibly complex cannot be built in a step-by-step process and have function at each step. All the steps must be completed before any function will occur. So what if many parts are used by other systems. Remove those parts completely, and all systems that use them will stop functioning. Remove those parts from a single system, only that system will stop functioning.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 All the steps must be completed before any function will occur."
Nope, because what's left after you remove a part from a mousetrap can still have various other functions. Which proves it doesn't have to function as a mousetrap with missing parts. SORRY!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 "Nope, because what's left after you remove a part from a mousetrap can still have various other functions." But will the mousetrap itself still function? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You completely dodged the question of whether or not the system (that the part is removed from) will function if a part is removed. Changing the function of a part is irrelevant.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 But will the mousetrap itself still function? That's exactly what I'm talking about"
And it doesn't have to, because the remaining parts of the mousetrap can THEN function as a tie clip. This NEW function shows that just because something is lost or a part is removed does not render that organ useless.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 "And it doesn't have to, because the remaining parts of the mousetrap can THEN function as a tie clip." But the mousetrap no longer functions. That's exactly what we're talking about. You are creating a straw man.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 But the mousetrap no longer functions."
So, this doesn't prove evolution is wrong or doesn't happen. I keep telling you, but you keep proving you CANT understand. Why?
srexob715 2 months ago
@TChapman500 If I follow your guys' discussion, you're saying that it doesn't function the same if something is removed from it, and then he says, yes, but it functions in another way, and then you say, well that's a straw man, because I said it needed to be exactly the same.
Anyway, if you want someone to respond directly to what you're saying, let me say this:
Why must it function the same?
pjnlsn 2 months ago
@TChapman500 You completely dodged the question"
Because whether it can still function as originally intended is irrelevant when loss of a part can lead to new functions. You either don't want to understand or can't understand.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 "Because whether it can still function as originally intended is irrelevant" It's perfectly relevant. In fact, that's the whole point!
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 So a mousetrap that loses a part can function as a tie clip? This CHANGE in function shows that removing parts can lead to new function, right or wrong? LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@TChapman500 You're the one who's confused. The argument is: "Why did natural selection make half a mouse trap? What would be the advantage?" and the answer is: "It didn't. It was first selected for as a tie clip. Those animals with 'tie clips' survived better. Then some started mutating into 'mouse traps' and were even better off, etc."
Also, think of a bridge that has a support structure while being built. And once it's finished, the support is removed. NOW, it breaks if you remove a part.
Mithcoriel 3 weeks ago
Back when I took genetics (20 years ago) I don't remember "junk DNA" being mentioned. We were taught about various functions of non-coding DNA, including gene regulation. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function. Your characterization of genetics seems to be based on creationists' straw man arguments and not actual science.
Btw, you show an article about non-coding RNA, which is completely different from non-coding DNA. In fact Non-coding RNA is coded for in DNA.
yugyfoog 2 months ago
@yugyfoog Argument from authority is supposed to impress us?
"Your characterization of genetics seems to be based on creationists' straw man arguments and not actual science." There are many creationists that ARE scientists.
"However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function." That is based on primitive technology. It is now being discovered that almost none of the DNA is functionless. The DNA that is truly functionless is removed by the organism.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 "It is now being discovered that almost none of the DNA is functionless. The DNA that is truly functionless is removed by the organism."
Those statements are so ridiculously wrong that I doubt you could name even one scientist, even a creationist scientist, that would agree with you.
yugyfoog 2 months ago
Everything is a 'Creation killer'. You just have to look.
BlowDevilUp 2 months ago
@BlowDevilUp Really? It seems like everything is an evolution killer. Why don't you take your own advice and just take a look?
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500
I've looked for every way possible to kill evolution, it cannot be killed because it is simply a description of reality. You can only kill reality with lies and delusion.
BlowDevilUp 2 months ago
@BlowDevilUp "I've looked for every way possible to kill evolution, it cannot be killed because it is simply a description of reality." Wrong! Evolution is a fantasy claiming to be reality. It is supported only by lies and misrepresentation.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 It is supported only by lies and misrepresentation."
This is your perception and your perception is wrong. Nothing disproves evolution and if you believe something does, then you are deluded.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 "This is your perception and your perception is wrong." Nope, that is reality. Evolution has no grounds in science. It doesn't even have grounds in logic.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 Nope, that is reality. Evolution has no grounds in science."
Nope you are wrong!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715
The idea that random mutations/selection produced the diversity of life is wrong, it's dead wrong. And that is precisely what he is talking about when he says evolution has no grounds in science. Now, if you are intelligent, you will be able to understand what that actually means. Don't blindly defend your world view here like all the other morons before you, instead go back to the science and make an argument, or smart people will ignore you.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision life is wrong, it's dead wrong"
Then show me, but I wonder why you COULDN"T and had to resort to only being able to SAY its wrong. Don't have any evidence, huh? Ahhhh, so no wonder you didn't present it, which only leaves you with being able to SAY its wrong. SAD, very sad, but its still funny! LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@TChapman500 "how," i mean
pjnlsn 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
No you're wrong. Your understanding of biology and the theory of evolution does not match reality as closely as what a scientific description provides. You should have gotten a real education. Too bad for you Science wins you lose. Loser. Go back to school.
BlowDevilUp 2 months ago
@BlowDevilUp "Your understanding of biology and the theory of evolution does not match reality" I understand evolution and biology pretty well. Biology argues against evolution.
"as closely as what a scientific description provides." Evolution is not science, it's religion. Even some evolutionists admit that [creation(.)com/15-questions].
"Too bad for you Science wins you lose." Evolution is not science. Science confirms creation. As it happens, YOU are the one who has lost.
TChapman500 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500
I have personally shown that your assertions have been incorrect.
Sorry bud.
odinata 2 months ago
@TChapman500 What exactly are you referring to? Is it the current science as to why these animals evolved that you think is fantasy, or the idea that they evolved at all?
pjnlsn 2 months ago
Evolutionists, the people with the strongest faith in the most unlikely option.
Ozzi4Japan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzi4Japan
Science doesn't work on faith.
Your religious opinions rely solely on it.
Sorry bud.
odinata 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzi4Japan Actually, we seem to be the only ones with a working knowledge of biology.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
Here's a good video showing your perfect intelligent designer at work. Why would such an all-loving god do this. I'm trying to think a little deeper here like you recommend and I just can't figure out why such overwhelming intelligence would screw up like what is seen in this video: watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY Common sense tells me an all-loving god would not allow these defects to occur.
MrWagman11 2 months ago
DNA doesn't know or have to know anything, it's a biochemical medium. We're not ignoring anything, most DNA is functionless, transcription alone does not denote function.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Most of, if not all of the genome is transcribed into RNA. DNA is a chemical template. No one knows exactly how and where the information is stored because the process is not equivalent to binary code. There is a basic "machine code" (codon vocabulary), but the source code is unseen. Thanks for the selfishness, your willful ignorance only impedes scientific progress, apparently so you can feel good about being an atheist.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision The code is the base pairs, the amino acids and so forth because these are the distinguishing characteristics of heredity.
You don't seem to realize that there's only one of us trying to inject a god of the gaps, a completely worthless non-answer that would never tell us anything of any use no matter how loudly it was chanted and by how many, into whatever holes are left in our knowledge of genetics, that's you.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation The information is in the base pairs* rather
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Right, but that is the machine code, not the source code. Yes, I am drawing an analogy between cells and computers because I think it works to get one's point across about the information problem. But a caveat to this is that cells are way more complex than computers.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision No, it's a horrible analogy because computers don't replicate with variation, nor are they comprised of parts that biochemically interact with one another. The only problem regarding information here is your understanding of it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The holes left? Are you kidding me? The more we look, the more we discover, the more complex it becomes. I don't share your sentiment at all. If only I could give you a compressed argument that you could grasp that would convince you to at least take it seriously. It doesn't even seem that we are truly arguing about the same thing here at all.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, the more we look the more we discover, and absolutely nothing found has supported an external intelligence in any way. You can make a post hoc rationalization, but this is not in any way even remotely the same as formulating a useful hypothesis, testable mechanisms and falsifiable predictions.
You're right though, I'm arguing the facts, you keep making empty assertion.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
I'm going to "mark" your words, lol. Oh please do a follow-up video when that happens ok?
YhwhKhaiMostHigh 2 months ago
From this observation (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I can infer that consciousness, or mental processes are NOT the product of brains, but the product of algorithms, memory storage and retrieval in "chaotic" systems. Consciousness is the key, because I believe it is God's tool for creating. Very hard to explain, but I think the philosophy behind these issues also needs a great deal of attention. The Darwinian mode if thinking is way too shallow, to the point of being harmful.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You do know that the science of Biology has move on since Darwin--right?
odinata 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision As usual, nothing but projection. There is no train of thought more shallow and absent of any explanatory power as the non-answer of 'god did it'
It's indistinguishable from from the invocation of pure intangible magic to 'explain' any given phenomenon.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Intelligent design doesn't appeal to God as the intelligent agent. Pure logic does (remember the infinite regress of designers problem I told you about?). Intelligent design itself only appeals to an intelligent source. That *IS* science in the EXACT same way that SETI is doing science by looking for signs of intelligence. I mean, if SETI somehow finds signs of intelligence, are you going to say "derr ... it dun done itself"? I highly doubt that.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost No, special pleading does, and don't kid yourself about intelligent design not being creationism rewrapped in a monkey suit. You're having to presuppose the problem of an infinite regress of designers to assert any given designer as the unmoved cause when nothing supports a designer in the first place. No, if SETI found signals produced by intelligence, they could determine it so through artificiality, not complexity IE strings of algorithms.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
There is no infinite regress problem, that would only apply if you assume the designer is a physical being like an alien race. That is why Dawkins should be the one rewrapped in a monkey suit.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision You're inventing a problem of infinite regress to try to shoehorn in your god as the uncaused cause, it's a strawman and special pleading.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Strawman? Than why did you bring it up? If you mention it, you own it. I said there was no infinite regress problem. Special pleading? To use the word random or natural is special pleading, unhelpful and creates a tautology that is meaningless. But to say that intelligence is the source of the universe, whether you like it or not, is to follow the evidence. Understanding doesn't stop there. But with randomness, indeed it does. You don't have a clue.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision Because you used one, no one is claiming an infinite regression. As I said, you invented it to try to arbitrarily insert your god at the beginning. I'm guessing you're not aware of what special pleading means, it means that you're trying to baselessly exempt a claim from standards held elsewhere. No, to say that intelligence is the source of the universe is completely bare assertion supported by nothing.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No, I infer that there is an intelligence behind the physical world in which we have our being. No infinite regress required. God isn't a gap stop or a starting point, rather the explanation for intelligence and order in nature. Very subtle, very powerful differences in how you conceive of this argument. And I can assure you that you don't understand it because you are unwilling to accept it for the simple fact that you don't want to accept it.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision No, you create a 'solution' to a problem that never existed. Yes, god is a stop gap argument, and no, it offers no explanatory value. If you think it does, list a single demonstrable empirical difference between 'god made the universe' and 'invisible magic just did it that way'
I reject it because it's demonstrably wrong and outright fabrication.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Your problem is that you can't see the problem. Until you do, your crap world view is blocking you from a deeper understanding of reality. You don't know why you are here. And if you say something about nature and evolution "DOING" something "MIRACULOUS" and you are just a by product, you've said nothing except hint at the fact that you are in denial by attributing attributes of mind to nature.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision My 'problem' is that I see the egregious error in your reasoning, there is no claimed infinite regression without your useless god so there is no need for you to try to inject your useless god into any uncaused position. There's nothing miraculous about evolution, it's the result of actual testable predictable phenomena.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
All you have to do is show me a system that produces information by randomness and unguided forces. Show it to me without any sort of intervention what so ever, and I will shut up forever. But you don't know the source of biological information, you don't know the depths of genetic expression, you don't know why all the constants are ideal for life, so don't you dare use life as the only example, give me a simpler one, they should be ample.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision nasa(.)gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/cassini20091209.html
A perfect hexagon formed by fluid dynamics, but I don't want you to shut up, I like making an example of you.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The logic is rock solid. Every system we know of that produces information and is goal oriented as life is, ALWAYS without fail has an intelligence behind it. It doesn't mean that on some level evolution can't take place. It just means that to explain the thing itself (i.e. LIFE) intelligence is required because of the information and purpose driven aspects. If nature was in the business of doing this, show me more examples, they should be everywhere
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision Your logic has failed every step of the way. Ignorance of what information actually is constitutes neither a positive argument for design nor an argument against naturalistic processes. Information is anything that makes distinction possible, anything that produces a characteristic that makes distinction possible has produced information.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Your definition of information is too vague to be of any use anywhere in science. Seriously, what is a characteristic? Or a distinction?
Try this definition:
Symbolically represented message that is conveyed (communicated) with a particular meaning for a specific purpose. That's information. You are still talking about the characteristics of informational capacity.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision Too vague? Heh, that's the definition used in information theory. ;
A theory that deals statistically with information, with the measurement of its content in terms of its distinguishing essential characteristics or by the number of alternatives from which it makes a choice possible.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Biological information goes beyond Shannon information, so why do you keep giving me definitions I already know?
Information carrying capacity doesn't get you to DNA and on to living things, not without intelligence. And stop dodging my request. Show me a system that produces meaningful information through random processes and unguided forces.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision No it doesn't. If you knew anything about biology or information theory you would know that the definition used in information theory applies directly to the components of DNA.
'not without intelligence'
This is the god of the gaps I've been referring to the entire time
I answered your question and you dodged my request initially, for an empirical difference between 'god did it' and 'untestable invisible magic just made it that way'
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You can apply information theory to DNA (assuming that it is a medium) all day long. I'm not talking about that, and you know that which is what pisses me off. I'm talking about the codon language and the instructions that go back and forth between the constituents of the cell, the messages that produce proteins and regulate gene expression and so on. That is the information, get off the capacity and deal with it, it's real.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision I know what you think you're talking about, it's just the small matter of you being utterly wrong and completely self misinformed regarding information. No, that's the gene expression, the information are the component base pairs.
Try actually learning anything about information theory
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
LOL!!! After people watch the videos they will know that you really pwnd me and tlhat's why I blocked your science blah blah account MONTHS BEFORE my first video. LOL!!!
btw, dunce, ppl have been sending me messages telling me how much you pwnd me! don't worry, the word is spreading!
at least, according to you, i'm ignorant whereas you are just a dunce.
leviMichealathan 2 months ago
@leviMichealathan You're trying to overlook the fact that you're ignorant, this means your opinion doesn't really matter.
I also like how you refuse to actually have a discussion on the topics you spew garbage about.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You are making almost exclusively non-arguments. The few arguments you do make are refuted immediately and you make non-arguments trying to overturn the refutation. You are blatantly ignoring the overwhelming *scientific evidence* that the universe, and life in it, is intelligently designed.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 No, I'm using actual data to refute the garbage spewed by the creationists here. You've never refuted anything I've said, you can't even grasp the concept of genetic variability and a bottlenecks effect on it.
There is no ignoring it, because it doesn't exist.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation "No, I'm using actual data to refute the garbage spewed by the creationists here." What type of "garbage?"
"You've never refuted anything I've said," I've refuted everything you've said.
"you can't even grasp the concept of genetic variability and a bottlenecks effect on it." I fully understand how genetic variability works and how to limit the effects a bottleneck would have on it.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "There is no ignoring it, because it doesn't exist." You are ignoring it. In fact, you are trying to censor it as we speak! Take a look at what's really going on.
[evolutionnews(.)org/]
[creation(.)com/]
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 There is no ignoring it and there is no censoring it, it really doesn't exist. In case you haven't noticed every single example you've brought up has been roundly refuted.
I've already pointed out to you that creation dot com automatically rejects any evidence even perceived to contradict what they already believe. Why do you continue to use them if you're going to pretend to be interested in science?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TChapman500 It is impossible for the sleeping degenerate, who wants to have fun with anyone they want, avoid any responsibility for their actions, and blatantly wants to destroy themselves and humanity from that level of ignorance, to understand the obvious.
In order to understand the obvious, one must get rid of all beliefs, and only go with what is absolutely irrefutable physical evidence.
Goto "Neutral Evolution Forum"
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You seem to think "nonsense" is a synonym for your own ignorance.
Do you suppose this is but another reason why your religious opinions can't seem to supplant science?
odinata 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
By the way, it's not my God. It's not anyone's God. Whatever it is, it is something real, powerful, and intelligent. Grasp that before you try to dismiss all of philosophy, all of theology, and half the scientific evidence in one fail swoop with your misguided skepticism.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision That makes it worse, now you're saying that whatever intangible magic makes them personally comfortable can be crammed into the first spot willy nilly. The only thing I'm dismissing is your empty claim based on your ignorance of epistemology. All philosophical arguments for god have failed and there certainly isn't any scientific evident for it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Intelligence is not a projection, it's a common empirical phenomenon. Understanding that intelligence gives rise to intelligence is the only logical explanation for how order overcomes entropy. Nature tends towards disorder. The only one talking about magic is you with your magical theory that everything here is built on mutations and vague selective, unguided processes. Your world view explains nothing.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
@circusOFprecision It's projection to say that naturalism is shallow when ID/Creationism is the laziest most useless non-answer ever conceived. No, order is derived from non-order naturally, it's known as emergence and entropy applies most practically to isolated systems, which earth is not. You have it completely backwards as usual, the only model that explains anything with any actual testable mechanisms is evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago