If a population geneticist contradicts something we were taught in a Grade 9 Biology textbook, then we're going to go with the Grade 9 Biology textbook.
Reading some of these comments by the evolutionists provides an immediate explanation of why there are problems in our education system. Evolutionists, who author many of our textbooks, are incapable of critical thinking. Their ignorance, lies, and plain stupidity are propagated to school kids. The movie Expelled should be shown to every school kid.
@YHWHisSovereign And you think creationists are capable of critical thinking? Evolution is fact, and propagation of facts to school kids will serve to cure them of ignorance. The movie Expelled is a compiled jumble of lies, misinformation, and deceit. I can't believe it's even floating around out there.
Wow. The one thing that upsets me the most about this clip, is that all the answers to this mans questions can be found in my Grade 12 Biology textbook. This means that not only do they have absolutly no knowledge of how the Scientific Method works, they also :
a) do not even have entry level insight into the mechanisms of Biology, or
b) they understand how evolution works, but chooses to feign ignorance because as long as they do so, they will seem strong in the eyes of others.
"It not only stops working but it crashes immediately." I'd like for him to show some observational study of that. It's a bold claim. "it's specially designed..." How does he show that it's "specially designed?" That guy isn't even a Biologist.
@powerinstars6 You should look up his education background. He was a post-doctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia University. His education and teaching career is quite extensive. Impressive by any comparison in the world of academia and intellectualism.
@MatthewMcIntyre321 I apologize -- that comment was referring to Dr. David Berlinski. On the other hand, Dr. Berlinski would agree with everything this Population Geneticist said.
This guy must not be a scientist cause there are TONS of mutations that have been positive, take for instence the mutations that some people in a hill town in italy got that allows them to eat fatty high cal. and chol. foods with virtually no risk of heart diese. There is pently of muations that do good things you just have to look(I am also a genetic mutant whom was born with out wisdom teeth so whole all of you are in pain for a week sucking food out of straw ill be fine with out them.MUTATION
For evolution through mutation the their must me a "beneficial" gain and it must be "new". Corruption of bacterial DNA does not lead to anything that wasnt already there. The animal has infact DEVOLVED. It may benefit, but you are missing the second part of the equation, that is "new genetic" information.
Your comments are the stupidest ever written, and you are the only one who doesn't seem to know it. In your ignorant mind manipulating electrons can't evolve from a light bulb to a PC. Afterall its just electricity. You probably are not evolved enough to know your an idiot.
All this testifies to is that both Ben and his guest do not understand genetics or natural selection. Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance. Science is a philosophy of discovery. ID is religion, and should never be taught in a science class. Maybe fictional literature.
You darwinist mullahs are so transparent in your ignorance it brings tears to ones eyes. Every time some one against evolutionist pauses a serious scientific question you come up with this nonsensical judgments devoid of any common sense or scientific fact.
Do you have proof that any of the scientific facts addressed are wrong? How about you post that proof and prove it once and for all. Or do you think people will be overwhelmed by your factless blather..Post facts not jibber jabber.
To paraphrase - it has never been observed that a genetic mutation has produced something new and positive. Umm . . . evolution has been at work for millions of years and we've been observing and recording for, what? a few thousand? And some people would classify anything different as bad irregardless. Look at "global warming."
Global warming and coolin has always happenned in cycles. The political rubbish is a hoax and a scam. Its only a deceptive tax stream for the new world order to be funded. 30,000 scientists have partitioned to have Al Gore sued in court for his lies. He has pocketed over 100 million from it all. He won't listen to the real science. But evolution is a lie as well. It is mans self righteous denial of God and his way to justify an unbelieving heart before God. Its the foundation of humanism
Again the stupidity of another darwinist half educated moron shines through. What scientists do to make up for lost time, they study organisms that reproduce quickly like bacteria that can produce a generation in just an hour or so.
Also they use their common sense.A constant replication of dna punctuated by constant subtractions in genetic material can not result in the formation of new genetic material. It makes no logic whatsoever. You can even simulate this on a pc. You wont get new INFO!
I will not apologize for calling some one who said that 99% of mutations are harmless! That is about as stupid as saying driving a car with no brakes is harmless 99% of the time.
Only a moron could say something that stupid and i stand by what i said.
You know what, I was thinking on a macro scale, as in large, multicelled creatures when I made my original statement, but upon further reflection of the microscopic world, I would have to disagree even further.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria crop up spontaneously all the time. Seems to me this is an example of a genetic mutation producing something new and positive.
Just curious as to where I said that 99% of mutations are harmless. You sure you meant me?
I was referring to some one else about the (99% remark)..
About Antibiotic bacteria you are YET AGAIN WRONG! LMAO! (I am really getting tired of correcting you folks) They acquire this immunity through mutation (where their proteins are actually corrupted and can no longer bond with the antibiotic or by swapping DNA. Swapping DNA does not lead to new genetic info. corrupting your genes so they cant bond does not lead to new information!
Do yourself a favor, stop parroting these silly answers you glean from darwinists websites because any fool who has taken biology 101 or higher can easily find your lies and expose them .(mb you arent lying.. mb you are truly ignorant of the truth) but do yourself a favor research and understand the truth. If you talk about a mutation then go read up on it. find out exactly what happened to cause the mutation.
9/10 time you will find a well documented corruption of a gene or protein..(contd)
It does not matter if this corruption has what may seem like a benefit to an organism. That does not translate into NEW information. (By the way that mutation is only seemingly beneficial if you only look at one aspect of the bacteria but it does suffer losses to other functionality of other proteins)
What is WRONG with you? Calm down! Are you saying that it's not a mutation unless it produces an entirely new species? I mean, because you say right there in your rebuttal that it's a mutation and I would posit that it's beneficial to the bacteria. Is what you're saying that this doesn't alter the DNA? Because even a rearranging of the existing DNA structure is a mutation, right? And the bacterium benefit, right? Sooo . . . ?
No bro.. what i clearly said was that THE MUTATION DID NOT RESULT IN "NEW" INFORMATION!!!!! What we are looking for is a new gene. NOt species.
DNa is altered in that it has actually lost information, doesnt matter if you just rearrange it the sum effect is no new information. NO new genetic information, but in fact a reduction in information.
Can you simply explain how constant re-arranging of DNA results in new genetic info?
If i rearrange my furniture will i get a new coffee table?
No, but if you cut up your coffee table, you could make it into, say, a shelf. That seems to be a closer analogy. It's not new wood, but it's a new thing altogether.
I'm trying to understand your argument. It seems that you are saying that if you had a book, filled with words, that you could rearrange the words, copy and paste the words, turn some words upside down and yet, there would never be anything new actually created and it would only be worse than the original?
Yes... cutting up the table and making it into a shelf is a great example. Fine you have a new surface that you can use as a shelf. But the shelf itself is made of material that already existed. (ie part of the coffee table.) The material you are working with is not new. And worse yet you have lost the legs of the coffee table now. Forever they are gone. the best you can get out of the shelf now is turn into something smaller and smaller until what you have is useless. Thats mutation
Regarding the book analogy. You are correct. If you have a book (let say 10 page kids book with no words with the letter Q or Z ) and you jumbled up the words, see you can create a new word, but that word you created used the same letters already in the book. No matter how much you jumble them you can never get the letter Q or Z added to the book even if you copied and pasted.
And worse yet, after you jumble the words , you have ruined a sentence in the book.
This is why scientists can calculate that in 150k years every man on this planet will be dead! Because every man passes on a mutation to his son on the Y chromosome that is deleterious. None have ever been proven to be positive and as such, extinction is our fate.
If your book still doesn't have the letters Q or Z, that doesn't mean a new overall book hasn't been created. A bird can't become a horse. The info isn't there. But a bird can become a slightly different bird. No new info, just rearrangement. Is there information lost? Is the new bird a bad thing?
And, Damn! Update your sources on that Y chromosome thing. Five minutes on Google harpooned that one.
I am sorry you think that by moving around a few letters in say a book like moby dick you are gonna create a new book? ARE YOU FREAKIN SERIOUS?
ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION A HORSE CAME FROM AN ANCESTOR EVEN SMALLER THAN A BIRD!!!
And again with the y chromo thing.. boy do you sound stupid... HOw about you post proof that you "harpooned" it.. Whats your source" WTF do you even mean by harpooned it?
If Moby Dick were distributed over a diverse region, rewritten continually over the years to reflect changing times, cultures, regional preferences and language, then it's still sort of Moby Dick, but not the original one and there would certainly be many versions, some only slightly representing the original. Many versions will have fallen by the wayside, but some may be quite successful locally.
I did call you a moron before and you are quickly proving me to have been right! YOU ARE AWARE THAT MUTATION IS RANDOM!!! THAT IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION!
HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU COME UP WITH THIS SHIT? YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON I HAVE MET WHO THINKS RANDOMLY JUMBLING THE WORDS IN A BOOK AND REPLICATING IT SEVERAL TIMES OVER WOULD RESULT IN A NEW BOOK!
Oh good. You are right about the y chromosome not getting extinct. I learnt something new today. but i also read this from that study.."This self-correction mechanism permits the Y chromosome to maintain the integrity of its genes and argues against the demise of the Y."
That pretty much puts a yet another damper on your argument doesnt it? Seems like life actually has inbuilt mechanisms supposed to fight off mutations and their effects.
You are a variation from your parents. Every generation varies from the previous generation. Natives living near the equator have MORE and DIFFERENT pigmentations that are better suited for a higher solar exposure. This is a clear and obvious example of MORE genetic material for one function. It is also true that two africans cannot sire a swede and two swedes cannot sire an african, yet we ALL share common ancestors! Evolution is fact.
Get over it. Some mutations are harmful, some are beneficial and most have no noticeable effect. Throw some into every single generation and work it over with natural selection for millions of years.
Classic modern example: African Elephants have a rare mutation that causes them to lack tusks. Normally, this would be a disadvantage and selection would keep it rare. Since the ivory trade exploded, 25%+ of male African elephants in certain areas have no tusks or tusks that hardly grow.
What fucking african elephants have you been looking at?
African elephants do have tasks you moron...
ANd again this is the stupidity of evolutionists at work. LEt me explain what this moron just said. Imagine you have some blue eyed people and some brown eyed people living in a country.You come along and shoot 90% of the brown eyed people.. Of course the numbers of the blue eyed people are going to increase. The brown eyed people are dead and cant reproduce at the same rate.
Much like the african poachers only killed elephants with tasks, they culled the numbers of african elephants that have the "task" gene and left the ones that had the "SUPPRESSED" task gene...Of course the animals with the suppressed gene are going to increase in number.
folks beware of dumb ass evolutionists spreading their nonsensical moronic ideology that even a two year old can figure out is bogus!
I have to state this.. the "suppressed" task gene is actually one and the same as the regular task gene. Its just that in these animals the gene has had a protein or chemical taken away that would other wise have facilitated the growth of tasks.
All elepants have the gene for growing tasks, its just expressed differently. (thats why some have big tasks, long tasks, short tasks, no tasks, curved tasks, straight tasks etc etc.
Thanks for your learned reply. The joker in this clip is saying: Mutation = bad, We don't know of any "good" mutations, ever. I was providing one example and not even a great one: Bacteria that can now digest nylon would have been much better.
He is also simply lying about "no new information" The gene duplication and addition that can occur in reproduction is well documented.
That is why i called that guy a moron for claiming that the "no task" elephant gene is new information.
It simply isnt. Its the same old gene that incidentally has been corrupted and doesnt work any more.
This is why they talk about computer programs being corrupted. It works the same way.
No matter how many times you corrupt a pc program and recompile it you will never ever get new info. DNA is no different from your typical program.. just way more complex of course.
The PC analogy is useless: PCs don't reproduce and have no DNA equivalent: programs don't code for PCs. You called me a moron, after criticizing people who accept mainstream science for making ad hominem attacks. Touche indeed. 99% of mutations are harmless, not malignent: the harmful ones just get all the press. When a bacteria develops a new enzyme to digest nylon: new info. When tusk DNA changes to not express a tusk: new info. People with Down's syndrome have LOTS of new info & do just fine.
pc programs can be copied over and over again just like DNA.. (its a freaking analogy.. then you complain when i call you a moron.)
Scientific fact% 70% of all mutations are harmful this is not some bogus stat like your local town murders its scientific fact.. MORON!!! the rest are neutral or just barely beneficial.
NOw do you need more science facts from the anti evolutionist?
The duplicate gene doesn't have the same selection pressures on it, so over a given number of generations, it can mutate more than the normal genome, because those mutations are less likely to have a fatally negative effect on an organism. Its not immediately an advantage in itself, but it lends more adaptability to a species. The new duplicate can code for new proteins, as it does in Nylon-eating bacteria.
There is a certain selection bias involved though because if a mutation is harmful it is much more likely to be documented, as people will seek medical help for the symptoms. The vast majority of beneficial mutations are not going to be documented because there is no interest in them. No-one goes to a doctor and has a study done because their child strangely tall for their family, which could be caused by an increased genome. Nylonase is an example of increased genome that is beneficial btw.
This is not a problem with evolution because Stein and the interviewee have completely misunderstood Darwin's model. There are mutations that are beneficial. Look at sickle cell anaemia and malaria resistance. Also, no-one says that new genetic information comes from natural selection. Natural selection elliminates the non-beneficial genetic information. New genetic information comes from the mutations, which we can see in studies of genetic disorders.
There have been new species and new organs. 2 species of Hedylepta butterflies in Hawaii have developed specialised mouth-pieces so they can eat bananas. They are endemic to Hawaii and bananas were only introduced there 1000 years ago, so speciation and a new organ are observed. I do concede that they are still butterflies, but the extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro is a safe one, given our knowledge of mutations and natural selection, which are both observed and well understood.
I would liken this extrapolation to that of the orbit of Pluto. Pluto has only been known about for around 80years, yet it takes it 240years to orbit the Sun. This is extrapolated using our knowledge of other planets, whose orbits we have completely witnessed. Should we assume Pluto doesn't orbit the sun until we have observed a full orbit? I hope you can see how this is like the micro to macro-evolution extrapolation.
It is not the same. If you want it to be the same sort of question as evolution, you should ask 'Should we assume pluto doesn't orbit another planet that we have not yet discovered as well?' or something like that.
We have not seen new things created by mutation and therefore it is pure FAITH... a religion.
It is not 'pure faith', because the principles and phenomona that go into the model are all observed, as well as many predictions of the model. An extrapolation from evidence is not 'pure faith'. How is evolution 'a religion' exactly? Can you define a religion please? 'And a wrong one at that.' That's just a hugely subjective opinion, and a very dismissive one at that.
The question you have asked about the Pluto example involves an explanation involving a new factor (the undiscovered planet). The explanation of macro from micro evolution does not.
We have seen new organs. The mouth is an organ and as I explained with Hedylepta, we have seen a new one develop. I think you're slightly confused about the definition of species and theory as well btw, but I still see the point you're trying to make. Mutations, natural selection, new enzymes, new species (the definition of species is quite broad so under some definitions the butterflies, or nylon-eating bacteria qualify as new species) have all been observed.
The Pluto extrapolation is just a time one. We see it is orbiting the Sun over the time we have observed it, then we assume the rules don't change and we calculate how long it takes for it to completely orbit the Sun. If we do the same with evolution, we see micro becomes macro provided the principles we have discovered are invariant over time.
99.99% (yes, I did pass calculus) of mutations are known by other terms. Cancer, birth defects, sterile hybrids, Turner's syndrome, Kleinfelter's syndrome, Down's syndrome.
If you disagree with Ben Stein that's OK, but don't call him unscientific. He's actually following the rules to a T here.
Ignorance is Bliss. "We have never seen a positive mutation". TO WHAT STANDARD!? He's putting a value on whats positive and negative, what a fuckin idiot.
Actually,counter intuitive, BUT, he's being purely scientific. Science, esp. phylogeny, is a definition of positives over negatives. SIMPLIFIED example: we classify organisms by what they are or have instead of what the are NOT or do NOT have. BUT this was not always so, an example, jawless fish-agnatha (without hinged bone jaws) sea aquirts and lancelets don't have jaws but why aren't they agnatha? All are sea animals, right? Since, it's been positive over negative. Science is the standard.
Ummm... i dont get your rant, you're arguing that jawless fishes dont have jaws therefore it is negative... That's not in the context of what ben stein was talking about. He said there was some kind of an, objective Positive mutation, which i disagree with. Animals evolve by adapting to their environment, the only "Positive" mutation is so they can survive in their environment, not "Climb up the evolution latter" and devolop a jaw (Watch goal of evolution by atheist experience)
If I.D. is going to be taught in the classroom, and if the basis is the book of genesis then the curriculum will be done in 1 session. Even a 5 year old can understand it. Not to include the sexual stuff of course.
I'm not trying to play 'gotcha' BUT I have never met a five year old who can understand Chi (squared) formula, let alone understand what it means in genetics.
You have just proven my point. Neither a five year old, nor yourself understand X^2. No one in this clip said I.D. basis is the book of genesis. They are questioning where beneficial genes come from, NOT, the universe and all organisms therein.
Intelligent design is proven in court to be creationism with a different name, creationism believes in genesis as science. Sorry man but you lost you cant teach them coz its not science its religion separation of state and religion constitution of US.
"I could readily explain it but you would not understand" means you cant explain it coz with your arrogance you would jump to any opportunity to try to be smart. I have not seen a smart creationist sorry
No, YOUR analogy was based on 'proven in court' not what is based on observation. AND, wrong assumption again, I am a biologist, specifically a zoology and cellular development specialist. I was also a medical laboratory technician for ten years. You keep harping on the bible, not me.
If I may ask an unrelated question? Do you think the Apollo lunar missions were fake or did they really land on the moon?
Ponder this fact, C. Darwin was both correct and an ordained Anglican pastor.
nope there were scientists on that court that testified, your argument that 15ht century court is applicable is lame. Your line of questions does not make any sense and then putting other people down coz you cant answer it. Just answer it pls. How did you get to the question that made you think that i thought genetics is religion?
and your screen name, and supposed "scientific background" you have does not automatically give you any respect. Go ahead and lay out your arguments, and make a good point.
the large mutation they are talking about that would create a new species is simply a lot of small mutations over time... a single creature exposed to so much mutation would die... and we don't need nuclear reactions around us to mutate, we have many nuclear reactions in our own body they are just not as significant...
LOOK, humans are evolving, we are living longer! The Cellular genetics are changing look at the mutations of child births unrelated to chemical interference! OH, Wait I forgot, God didn't plan any of this it was the aliens that started it all! God became a solice for our human fears, Religeon is the tool that guides the fear. Uh, Don't do that or this will happen when you die! Earth even evloves, but under a constraint of designed laws of physics, so it is really both!
It should be noted that newer theories in genetics believe mutation to be less important to the genetic change that causes evolution. Now it's about "jumping genes." And yes we have observed genetic changes that are new and positive. How do you think selective breeding in crops works? By random genetic changes, some of which are new and positive, creating over the long run completely new strains of plants. And positive mutations are rare but do happen.
for selective breeding in crops, you must select the traits you want and insert whatever qualities you want into it. You can keep the good traits and take out bad traits, but either way your selecting from what is already there. There is no new information that mutated.
Ben Stein is a sneaky, dishonest little man. He's so scared of another holocaust happening, he's churning out this dross. Look, totally irrelevant of evolution being scientific fact, a rotting economy is what would lead to another holocaust and scapegoating of minority groups: gay, black or jewish people, anybody. I'd be more concerned about some of the individuals praising your crap mockumentary, Mr. Stein. You aren't helping anyone.
Oh Stein and your "Oh wow!" bug-eyes. Geirtychh is listed as a dendrologist not genetists. His PhD is in forestry. But its funny. If he was a real population genetists he would be studying the "mutations" of living organisms and would know that mutations rarely produce any effects. Berlinsky fails to mention that the DNA proofreader does fail. Why would an all powerful designer include a failing proofreader. Any engineer who could would fix this flaw.
wow, two people lying with dramatic music. cool. this isnt even a rival, opposing theory. theyre lying. IVE mutated, things in labs mutated, EVERYONE has mutated. You mutate a hundred times before you were born. The colors on a butterfly are mutations.......
theres a difference between believing in an opposing SOMETHING, and simply just lying
"cars dont exist" "Pie doesnt have apple in it" its a lie, not an arguement.
When are you Darwinists going to face facts and admit that it is an antiquated and outdated THEORY which had very little "scientifically obtained" data from the beginning. Modern technology is discrediting this OLD and MISINFORMED theory on a daily basis. Not to mention, the scientists that Stein interviews in this film are infinitely more intelligent than any of you - do some homework, these are the top minds of today's science and they are willing to move beyond 1800s thinking.
biogenesis law - all life comes from previous life
Everything about nature tells us life can only come from previous life.
law of thermodynamics - matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed
You can say everything used to be squished into a little dense dot, but that doesn't explain where ANYTHING came from. Everything is made of matter and energy, and you dont know how ANY of it got here.
you are using a "cause and effect" argument. This requires a time element. We don't need a "beginning" to the density before the big bang because time had not begun yet. Time began with the big bang. This dimension sprang from the event. Work is currently being done on the "cyclical universe" hypothesis. Read this material. It has some intriguing hypothesis into the extrapolation of string theory.
The argument of the "dense dot" is a fundamental part of Big Bang theory, it explain the origin of matter as we know it today. Science dont know for certain what was going on before that, we are still limited in those issues, but the most honest thing to say is that humankind through science is making efforts to reach those levels of knowledge with humility. And to me thats better that blindly believe in bronze age myths and dark age explanations.
What do you mean by "explains" the origin of matter? Science tells us that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. There arent any exceptions. Nothing can explain the origin of matter & energy. The problem with evolution is that the more scientific knowledge we get, the less probable it seems. Ex: Darwin thought a living cell was a blob of jello, and it wasn't a problem back then to imagine life coming from non life. Now we know this is impossible, and has never been tested or observed.
By origin I meant the initial conflict between matter and antimatter, which is an unfinished chapter in the theoretical physics and specifically the theories of the origin of the universe, probably you just take it too literally. The fact that we dont now something now does not mean that nothing can explain it. Anyway whats your point? Your back your statement with a basic thermodynamic postulate, and support a film that stand against science?
Hitler believed jews were a less evolved species. He thought he was helping out the world by eliminating them. That does not mean that science=killing. The point is evolution justified killing the jews for hitler. That is how he rationalized it.
hes not argueing wether its a good or bad rationalization. Hes just saying that that is how he rationalized it. you dont need to put your spin on it. Face the fact.
But of course he is not argueing. He is declaring a very irresponsible and ignorant statement. And you should be ashame for defending that kind of irresponsability. The whole point about debating this film is not about deffend or attack ID or evolution but about intellectual integrity and profesionalism in investigation procedures. And above all, honesty. This film lacks those three.
Ok this is getting pointless, obviously you dont know much about the topic besides this film. Your making me repeat myself, cant you understand that theres a lot of problems and mistakes with the thesis that the film provides? I also watched Steins interviews in other media. The guy dont even understand evolution!!!!!
Maybe your repeating yourself because your not providing any answers. What is the problem with the films thesis? are you referring to freedom of inquiry? Im just an average, regular guy, and im wondering if evolutionists have ANY counter claims to this film. I havent heard any. Even richard dawkins, all he did was critize the filming hahaha. oh yeah and he said that you can find the mark of an inteligent designer if you look at a cell. Remember that part?
science tells us this can not happen naturally. All this energy/matter had to come from something outside of our whole time/space/matter world. Something obviously very powerful, judging by how much energy there is everything around us. And based on how everything from orbits to cells work, I would say something very intelligent. Basic laws of cause and effects pretty much. We scientifically known it couldn't of came here naturally, because that would go against the laws of thermodynamics.
"All this energy/matter had to come from something outside of our whole time/space/matter world"
Not necessarily. Why is it impossible for matter/energy to be eternal? It always is, and always was. This remains consistent with the observation that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and does not require the invention of any supernatural entities.
are you serious?? if matter and energy were eternal, they would be ina heat death. there would be no useful energy left today. just a complete heat death! (I took 2 thermodynamic classes)
I am simply proposing an alternate hypothesis that does not require the invention of additional entities.
"if matter and energy were eternal, they would be ina heat death."
...what?
"there would be no useful energy left today"
Why not? The universe is expanding. Perhaps it expands to a point, at which it contracts (ala 'Big Crunch') back to a singularity, before expanding again, all in a continuous cycle. No need to make up anything extra.
congradulations, you took 4 years of med sci. classes. Berlinski is a mathemetician, philosopher, and molecular biogist, and an author. Why should I take your word for it? Ive done alot of research on this myself, and im not just gonna believe what some guy on you tube tells me. do you have an explanation why there is still usable energy in our universe? Or why there are any temperature differences?
I would not expect you to. Just as I would not take your word on the laws of thermodynamics simply because you have taken a few classes in it. Appeals to authority are meaningless.
"do you have an explanation why there is still usable energy in our universe?"
"Ive done alot of research on this myself, and im not just gonna believe what some guy on you tube tells me"
So dont 'just believe'. Here is a proper definition of evolution: Evolution is the accumulation of small, adaptive changes in a population over successive generations. Do you accept that this occurs?
Yes. I believe God designed life so that it would not all die when the first winter came around, or its habitat changes slightly. Its amazing it can do that huh?
"I believe God designed life so that it would not all die when the first winter came around, or its habitat changes slightly"
Before getting in to the heart of what you are asserting, I would like you to clarify one mroe thing for me: Do you believe God made the human population in the same form as it is today? Or do you believe that God made the entire universe some time in the past and allowed events to proceed, eventually resulting in the formation of humans through natural processes?
Congratulations. I have taken 4 years of medical science classes, and can tell you with great confidence that this Berlinski fellow is immensely deficient in his understanding of cell biology and genetics.
I do not expect you to accept my position as valid simply on the basis that I have taken courses in the subject; I will gladly support my assertions with logic and reasoning. You should do the same.
heat always moves from a warm place to a cooler place. if matter and energy always existed, everything would be the same temperature. your arugrment doesnt hold up against basic thermodynamic laws, or common sense. sorry.
"heat always moves from a warm place to a cooler place"
You ought to understand what temperature is. Heat is simply a representation of how fast molecules are vibrating. If they vibrate more, they are perceived as hotter. Heat does not move, but rather energy is transferred from one molecule to another as they collide.
Apparently your classes on thermodynamics did not do a terribly good job.
You didnt ask any questions in that post. you simply presented a lack of understanding of the nature of 'heat'. If there are other posts that you have made containing questions that I have not answered, I apologize; please restate the question, and I will try to make sure I do not miss it this time.
"it came from something outside of the universe that is more powerful then the universe itself, based on basic laws of cause and effect!"
Scientific laws are not absolutes. The function of a scientific law is to describe observations and make predictions. Allow me to propose an idea to you (bear in mind that I do not necessarily subscribe to it, but it is something I want you to consider): What if the universe has always existed, continuing in an infinite loop of expantion and condensation?
the price of oil, over a couple of years has gone from $30 to $115, changing our mindset about oil. but some during $30 oil we're already living a $140 lifestyle, while others we're living a $15, but most we're living a $30 lifestyle. But when oil shot up to $140, it killed (changed peoples mindsets) those who were living a $110 lifestyle of lower, and the $140 mindset is now the norm, 25% decrease in fuel consumption. but there is still a variablity in the people's minds about the price of oil.
I don't know who these so-called experts are, but they are very misinformed. The vast majority of genetic mutatins aren't harmful or beneficial, most are neutral. Every once in a while a harmful mutation will arise and even less often a beneficial one will arise. But to say that there have never been any beneficial mutations observed in nature is just absurd. The mutation that caused Sickle Cell is a perfect example of a beneficial mutation that later became harmful due to a change in local.
We have witnessed positive mutations. Nylon eating bacteria is one example. The guy in this video is a lying christian, which means that even if he was right about intelligent design he would burn in hell.
"Ahahahaaha!!"
The presence and dating of transitional fossils supports positive mutations as well.
More and more evidence of no intelligence allowed.
Of course mutation is bad for you. Natural selection primarily selects stable genes which work well with others. Radical MUTANT ones are weaned out of the genome.
But in periods of extreme strife, when the environement or competition or food supplies - or advancements in the predator's genome - al gang up on the genome, it's a case of go with the risky mutant who just so happens to have a replication error giving them the edge.
The "scientist" in this video falsely claims that there has never been an observed mutation that has lead to something new and positive.
The breed of cattle known as the belgian blue has been selectively bred to produce unprecedented amounts of leans muscle. It has lead to something new because it's characteristics have never been seen before and it's positive because it's more useful as livestock.
could we not find the truth by measuring the information of wolves and bred dogs? if the information of heavily bred dogs is shorter than wolves and those closer to wolves, that would be one test... but then again i'm not sure that guy knew wut he was talking about and mabe i'm thinkin too much O.0
now i don't believe or disbelieve in evolution since i'm just workin with old memories of highschool bio, but wtf is a decrease/increase in "information" in this context? the raw amount of chromosomes, length o the dna strands, number of genes that can be combined? and is he saying they get shorter when they mutate because of damage? wut about normal gamete-style mutation? and wut about all the different types of dogs? is their information running out as we speak? if information is measurable...
I believe he is talking about variation within a species. Some dogs have long hair, some have short hair. Kill all the short hair dogs and that information is lost from the gene pool. That's a crude and inaccurate example, but you get the point. A better example would probably be red hair in humans.
Of course it all falls down if you want to talk about Adam and Eve being our only progenitors.
To say that all mutations are destructive is a violation of logic, because mutations can reverse. If one is destructive, the reverse mutation back to the original can't also be destructive.
And comparing life to an OS, and of all OS's Microsoft Windows...
Either the people in this video have no idea what they are talking about or they are deliberately trying to mislead people. Not all mutations are bad. Most of them are but the bad mutations are filtered out of the gene pool through natural selection. In the rare case where the mutation is beneficial and increases the organism's fitness those genes become naturally selected over time.
Computers with random code stop functioning therefore organisms with random variation would stop functioning? Why couldn't you just use the same "logic" to say Computers with random code display a blue error screen therefore organisms with random code display a blue error screen?
The analogies that some of the interviewees create in this movie are mind-numbingly false. I can just picture the ignorant ID supporters in the theatre nodding along like a bunch of zombies. How tragically funny!
Not all mutations are harmful. A lot of mutations are harmful or fatal, but not all. The one thing that determines whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial is the environment. For instance, there is a variation of the green anole that is blue. In the anole's natural habitat, this is disadvantageous, but in a more blue environment, this variant would be more likely to survive. Therefore, depending on the environment, the mutation can be beneficial, or harmful.
Heh, way to let a mathematician without any understanding about biology look at evolution: a chromosome is not a computer program. At all.
Although, of course, any mutation that actually changes anything important is almost always deleterious (as in: the embryo, in that case, will usually not even develop into a foetus)
Also: information HAS been observed to increase, several times. And with positive effects too- google, for example, for "pod mrcaru podarcis sicula"
It is very hard to understand how new sophisticated systems can arise. It is not hard to understand how sophisticated systems could be lost. Loss is easier and fast. Gain takes far longer. When you go forwards 1 step, you'll have gone backwards 100 steps, and made 10000 steps to nowhere in the same time frame. Evolutionists emphasize the forward steps, and the neutral steps. They naiively think natural selection will balance out the worst errors, giving an upward trend. It's not that efficient.
You're making analogies to things that aren't comparable to evolution at all. Imagine this, imagine that. We're not arguing about anything imaginary. Stop making arguments about something by comparing it to something else.
How about you use arguments based on the actual topic. Computers processes info completely differently to an organism and use different sorts of information and function differently, yet you think they're similar enough for you to interchange them in your reasoning.
Because they're using an analogy to help explain their opinions, not using analogies as evidence as the IDers in this video and this comments section are.
Question for the Christians: as Ben Stein is Jewish and does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but does believe in God, will his punishment in afterlife be the same as the athiests Myers and Dawkins, or will it be milder? What does the bible say? Does the fact that Ben believes in creation make his sin of disbelief in the divinity of Jesus any less damning? Lastly, is the sin of believing in evolution worse than the sin of pride, blasphemy, anger towards enemies, or is it the same?
if organisms can adapt... What's stopping them from adapting until they become a new species, especially over a length of time like a tens of millions of years? IDers just state that, I've never heard a reason backing it up.
the theory here is called natural limits. for example weve been trying to get faster race horses, yet over the last 100 years the average speed has actually gone down about 1mp/h. there has been countless millions if not billions of dollars spent on horses in that time, yet we have most likely reached a limit to which we can push the speed of horses.
Imagine some textbooks. Randomly alter a letter differently in each copy. Then teach some students from them. Pick the altered copies that were given to the best performing students, and reprint those. Then make another round of random changes in each book, teach another class, base your next printing on the best students copies, repeat...!
You tell me. Will students in the far far future going to improve their grades, or get worse? Evolution as we know it is a process that loses information.
"Intelligent design is the only mechanism possible for technology to arise because technology can't reproduce. I don't see any relevance."
Reproduction and the ability of genetic code to dictate the nanotechnological mechanism which literally builds a living being is infinitely more advanced than programming a computor. How can you say they have no relavance? We have been intellectually dwarfed and we are denying the existence of a superior intellect?
This has been flagged as spam show
If a population geneticist contradicts something we were taught in a Grade 9 Biology textbook, then we're going to go with the Grade 9 Biology textbook.
lol!
Hannodb1961 6 months ago
Comment removed
Hannodb1961 6 months ago
Reading some of these comments by the evolutionists provides an immediate explanation of why there are problems in our education system. Evolutionists, who author many of our textbooks, are incapable of critical thinking. Their ignorance, lies, and plain stupidity are propagated to school kids. The movie Expelled should be shown to every school kid.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign And you think creationists are capable of critical thinking? Evolution is fact, and propagation of facts to school kids will serve to cure them of ignorance. The movie Expelled is a compiled jumble of lies, misinformation, and deceit. I can't believe it's even floating around out there.
Bushater2000 7 months ago
These guys are big fat liars. There is volumes of evidence against them.
MrRedthief 1 year ago
creationism always wins
nunogonewild 1 year ago
Wow. The one thing that upsets me the most about this clip, is that all the answers to this mans questions can be found in my Grade 12 Biology textbook. This means that not only do they have absolutly no knowledge of how the Scientific Method works, they also :
a) do not even have entry level insight into the mechanisms of Biology, or
b) they understand how evolution works, but chooses to feign ignorance because as long as they do so, they will seem strong in the eyes of others.
803T 1 year ago
@803T Grade 12? Try Grade 9...
TehKign12356 1 year ago
"Natural selection reduces genetic information" ummmmm that sounds like an out-and-out lie
spideylover 1 year ago
"It not only stops working but it crashes immediately." I'd like for him to show some observational study of that. It's a bold claim. "it's specially designed..." How does he show that it's "specially designed?" That guy isn't even a Biologist.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
@powerinstars6 You should look up his education background. He was a post-doctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia University. His education and teaching career is quite extensive. Impressive by any comparison in the world of academia and intellectualism.
MatthewMcIntyre321 1 year ago
@MatthewMcIntyre321 I apologize -- that comment was referring to Dr. David Berlinski. On the other hand, Dr. Berlinski would agree with everything this Population Geneticist said.
MatthewMcIntyre321 1 year ago
@MatthewMcIntyre321 See the video response.
MatthewMcIntyre321 1 year ago
This guy must not be a scientist cause there are TONS of mutations that have been positive, take for instence the mutations that some people in a hill town in italy got that allows them to eat fatty high cal. and chol. foods with virtually no risk of heart diese. There is pently of muations that do good things you just have to look(I am also a genetic mutant whom was born with out wisdom teeth so whole all of you are in pain for a week sucking food out of straw ill be fine with out them.MUTATION
ThePWNZORorNOOBZOR 1 year ago
For evolution through mutation the their must me a "beneficial" gain and it must be "new". Corruption of bacterial DNA does not lead to anything that wasnt already there. The animal has infact DEVOLVED. It may benefit, but you are missing the second part of the equation, that is "new genetic" information.
karamarouge 2 years ago
Your comments are the stupidest ever written, and you are the only one who doesn't seem to know it. In your ignorant mind manipulating electrons can't evolve from a light bulb to a PC. Afterall its just electricity. You probably are not evolved enough to know your an idiot.
shawn199500 1 year ago
wtf.... what the hell is this shit? what are you talking about? light bulbs and pcs? did i say this was possible?
who the fuck was even talking about electrons?
karamarouge 1 year ago
All this testifies to is that both Ben and his guest do not understand genetics or natural selection. Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance. Science is a philosophy of discovery. ID is religion, and should never be taught in a science class. Maybe fictional literature.
shawn199500 2 years ago
You darwinist mullahs are so transparent in your ignorance it brings tears to ones eyes. Every time some one against evolutionist pauses a serious scientific question you come up with this nonsensical judgments devoid of any common sense or scientific fact.
Do you have proof that any of the scientific facts addressed are wrong? How about you post that proof and prove it once and for all. Or do you think people will be overwhelmed by your factless blather..Post facts not jibber jabber.
karamarouge 2 years ago
Neil says it pretty well, watch this, possibly you will get the point.
shawn199500 1 year ago
watch?v=YotBtibsuh0
shawn199500 1 year ago
To paraphrase - it has never been observed that a genetic mutation has produced something new and positive. Umm . . . evolution has been at work for millions of years and we've been observing and recording for, what? a few thousand? And some people would classify anything different as bad irregardless. Look at "global warming."
justgonnastay 2 years ago
wich is a hoax too.
breedofthe45 2 years ago
Global warming and coolin has always happenned in cycles. The political rubbish is a hoax and a scam. Its only a deceptive tax stream for the new world order to be funded. 30,000 scientists have partitioned to have Al Gore sued in court for his lies. He has pocketed over 100 million from it all. He won't listen to the real science. But evolution is a lie as well. It is mans self righteous denial of God and his way to justify an unbelieving heart before God. Its the foundation of humanism
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Again the stupidity of another darwinist half educated moron shines through. What scientists do to make up for lost time, they study organisms that reproduce quickly like bacteria that can produce a generation in just an hour or so.
Also they use their common sense.A constant replication of dna punctuated by constant subtractions in genetic material can not result in the formation of new genetic material. It makes no logic whatsoever. You can even simulate this on a pc. You wont get new INFO!
karamarouge 2 years ago
How cute! Name calling! Have a nice day.
justgonnastay 2 years ago
I will not apologize for calling some one who said that 99% of mutations are harmless! That is about as stupid as saying driving a car with no brakes is harmless 99% of the time.
Only a moron could say something that stupid and i stand by what i said.
karamarouge 2 years ago
You know what, I was thinking on a macro scale, as in large, multicelled creatures when I made my original statement, but upon further reflection of the microscopic world, I would have to disagree even further.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria crop up spontaneously all the time. Seems to me this is an example of a genetic mutation producing something new and positive.
Just curious as to where I said that 99% of mutations are harmless. You sure you meant me?
justgonnastay 2 years ago
I was referring to some one else about the (99% remark)..
About Antibiotic bacteria you are YET AGAIN WRONG! LMAO! (I am really getting tired of correcting you folks) They acquire this immunity through mutation (where their proteins are actually corrupted and can no longer bond with the antibiotic or by swapping DNA. Swapping DNA does not lead to new genetic info. corrupting your genes so they cant bond does not lead to new information!
karamarouge 2 years ago
Do yourself a favor, stop parroting these silly answers you glean from darwinists websites because any fool who has taken biology 101 or higher can easily find your lies and expose them .(mb you arent lying.. mb you are truly ignorant of the truth) but do yourself a favor research and understand the truth. If you talk about a mutation then go read up on it. find out exactly what happened to cause the mutation.
9/10 time you will find a well documented corruption of a gene or protein..(contd)
karamarouge 2 years ago
It does not matter if this corruption has what may seem like a benefit to an organism. That does not translate into NEW information. (By the way that mutation is only seemingly beneficial if you only look at one aspect of the bacteria but it does suffer losses to other functionality of other proteins)
karamarouge 2 years ago
What is WRONG with you? Calm down! Are you saying that it's not a mutation unless it produces an entirely new species? I mean, because you say right there in your rebuttal that it's a mutation and I would posit that it's beneficial to the bacteria. Is what you're saying that this doesn't alter the DNA? Because even a rearranging of the existing DNA structure is a mutation, right? And the bacterium benefit, right? Sooo . . . ?
justgonnastay 2 years ago
No bro.. what i clearly said was that THE MUTATION DID NOT RESULT IN "NEW" INFORMATION!!!!! What we are looking for is a new gene. NOt species.
DNa is altered in that it has actually lost information, doesnt matter if you just rearrange it the sum effect is no new information. NO new genetic information, but in fact a reduction in information.
Can you simply explain how constant re-arranging of DNA results in new genetic info?
If i rearrange my furniture will i get a new coffee table?
karamarouge 2 years ago
No, but if you cut up your coffee table, you could make it into, say, a shelf. That seems to be a closer analogy. It's not new wood, but it's a new thing altogether.
I'm trying to understand your argument. It seems that you are saying that if you had a book, filled with words, that you could rearrange the words, copy and paste the words, turn some words upside down and yet, there would never be anything new actually created and it would only be worse than the original?
justgonnastay 2 years ago
Yes... cutting up the table and making it into a shelf is a great example. Fine you have a new surface that you can use as a shelf. But the shelf itself is made of material that already existed. (ie part of the coffee table.) The material you are working with is not new. And worse yet you have lost the legs of the coffee table now. Forever they are gone. the best you can get out of the shelf now is turn into something smaller and smaller until what you have is useless. Thats mutation
karamarouge 2 years ago
Regarding the book analogy. You are correct. If you have a book (let say 10 page kids book with no words with the letter Q or Z ) and you jumbled up the words, see you can create a new word, but that word you created used the same letters already in the book. No matter how much you jumble them you can never get the letter Q or Z added to the book even if you copied and pasted.
And worse yet, after you jumble the words , you have ruined a sentence in the book.
If thats DNA you are dead!
karamarouge 2 years ago
This is why scientists can calculate that in 150k years every man on this planet will be dead! Because every man passes on a mutation to his son on the Y chromosome that is deleterious. None have ever been proven to be positive and as such, extinction is our fate.
karamarouge 2 years ago
If your book still doesn't have the letters Q or Z, that doesn't mean a new overall book hasn't been created. A bird can't become a horse. The info isn't there. But a bird can become a slightly different bird. No new info, just rearrangement. Is there information lost? Is the new bird a bad thing?
And, Damn! Update your sources on that Y chromosome thing. Five minutes on Google harpooned that one.
justgonnastay 2 years ago
I am sorry you think that by moving around a few letters in say a book like moby dick you are gonna create a new book? ARE YOU FREAKIN SERIOUS?
ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION A HORSE CAME FROM AN ANCESTOR EVEN SMALLER THAN A BIRD!!!
And again with the y chromo thing.. boy do you sound stupid... HOw about you post proof that you "harpooned" it.. Whats your source" WTF do you even mean by harpooned it?
Where do you darwinists learn to debate any way?
karamarouge 2 years ago
If Moby Dick were distributed over a diverse region, rewritten continually over the years to reflect changing times, cultures, regional preferences and language, then it's still sort of Moby Dick, but not the original one and there would certainly be many versions, some only slightly representing the original. Many versions will have fallen by the wayside, but some may be quite successful locally.
justgonnastay 2 years ago
I did call you a moron before and you are quickly proving me to have been right! YOU ARE AWARE THAT MUTATION IS RANDOM!!! THAT IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION!
HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU COME UP WITH THIS SHIT? YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON I HAVE MET WHO THINKS RANDOMLY JUMBLING THE WORDS IN A BOOK AND REPLICATING IT SEVERAL TIMES OVER WOULD RESULT IN A NEW BOOK!
I ASK AGAIN. ARE YOU SERIOUS WITH THIS SHIT?
karamarouge 2 years ago
Google this: y chromosome extinct whitehead institute
justgonnastay 2 years ago
Oh good. You are right about the y chromosome not getting extinct. I learnt something new today. but i also read this from that study.."This self-correction mechanism permits the Y chromosome to maintain the integrity of its genes and argues against the demise of the Y."
That pretty much puts a yet another damper on your argument doesnt it? Seems like life actually has inbuilt mechanisms supposed to fight off mutations and their effects.
karamarouge 2 years ago
After all a mutation cant be carried on if those same mechanisms talked about in that study have the effect of reversing the effect..
lol..
Even when you are right, you are still wrong..
lmao
karamarouge 2 years ago
You are a variation from your parents. Every generation varies from the previous generation. Natives living near the equator have MORE and DIFFERENT pigmentations that are better suited for a higher solar exposure. This is a clear and obvious example of MORE genetic material for one function. It is also true that two africans cannot sire a swede and two swedes cannot sire an african, yet we ALL share common ancestors! Evolution is fact.
CHAS1422 2 years ago
Get over it. Some mutations are harmful, some are beneficial and most have no noticeable effect. Throw some into every single generation and work it over with natural selection for millions of years.
Classic modern example: African Elephants have a rare mutation that causes them to lack tusks. Normally, this would be a disadvantage and selection would keep it rare. Since the ivory trade exploded, 25%+ of male African elephants in certain areas have no tusks or tusks that hardly grow.
wearealltubes 2 years ago
What fucking african elephants have you been looking at?
African elephants do have tasks you moron...
ANd again this is the stupidity of evolutionists at work. LEt me explain what this moron just said. Imagine you have some blue eyed people and some brown eyed people living in a country.You come along and shoot 90% of the brown eyed people.. Of course the numbers of the blue eyed people are going to increase. The brown eyed people are dead and cant reproduce at the same rate.
karamarouge 2 years ago
Much like the african poachers only killed elephants with tasks, they culled the numbers of african elephants that have the "task" gene and left the ones that had the "SUPPRESSED" task gene...Of course the animals with the suppressed gene are going to increase in number.
folks beware of dumb ass evolutionists spreading their nonsensical moronic ideology that even a two year old can figure out is bogus!
karamarouge 2 years ago
I have to state this.. the "suppressed" task gene is actually one and the same as the regular task gene. Its just that in these animals the gene has had a protein or chemical taken away that would other wise have facilitated the growth of tasks.
All elepants have the gene for growing tasks, its just expressed differently. (thats why some have big tasks, long tasks, short tasks, no tasks, curved tasks, straight tasks etc etc.
karamarouge 2 years ago
Thanks for your learned reply. The joker in this clip is saying: Mutation = bad, We don't know of any "good" mutations, ever. I was providing one example and not even a great one: Bacteria that can now digest nylon would have been much better.
He is also simply lying about "no new information" The gene duplication and addition that can occur in reproduction is well documented.
wearealltubes 2 years ago
He did not say all mutation is bad.. 99% of it is bad.. the other may be beneficial in some ways but it never results in new info. Understand this,
Understand this, there is a difference between a beneficial mutation and new genetic information being formed.
That is almost impossible and has never been observed. that is what he is talking about.
karamarouge 2 years ago
That is why i called that guy a moron for claiming that the "no task" elephant gene is new information.
It simply isnt. Its the same old gene that incidentally has been corrupted and doesnt work any more.
This is why they talk about computer programs being corrupted. It works the same way.
No matter how many times you corrupt a pc program and recompile it you will never ever get new info. DNA is no different from your typical program.. just way more complex of course.
karamarouge 2 years ago
The PC analogy is useless: PCs don't reproduce and have no DNA equivalent: programs don't code for PCs. You called me a moron, after criticizing people who accept mainstream science for making ad hominem attacks. Touche indeed. 99% of mutations are harmless, not malignent: the harmful ones just get all the press. When a bacteria develops a new enzyme to digest nylon: new info. When tusk DNA changes to not express a tusk: new info. People with Down's syndrome have LOTS of new info & do just fine.
wearealltubes 2 years ago
pc programs can be copied over and over again just like DNA.. (its a freaking analogy.. then you complain when i call you a moron.)
Scientific fact% 70% of all mutations are harmful this is not some bogus stat like your local town murders its scientific fact.. MORON!!! the rest are neutral or just barely beneficial.
NOw do you need more science facts from the anti evolutionist?
karamarouge 2 years ago
The duplicate gene doesn't have the same selection pressures on it, so over a given number of generations, it can mutate more than the normal genome, because those mutations are less likely to have a fatally negative effect on an organism. Its not immediately an advantage in itself, but it lends more adaptability to a species. The new duplicate can code for new proteins, as it does in Nylon-eating bacteria.
firthio2 2 years ago
There is a certain selection bias involved though because if a mutation is harmful it is much more likely to be documented, as people will seek medical help for the symptoms. The vast majority of beneficial mutations are not going to be documented because there is no interest in them. No-one goes to a doctor and has a study done because their child strangely tall for their family, which could be caused by an increased genome. Nylonase is an example of increased genome that is beneficial btw.
firthio2 2 years ago
This is a good summary of one of the key problems of evolution...
Repent and believe in Jesus Christ ...
1wingsolja 2 years ago
This is not a problem with evolution because Stein and the interviewee have completely misunderstood Darwin's model. There are mutations that are beneficial. Look at sickle cell anaemia and malaria resistance. Also, no-one says that new genetic information comes from natural selection. Natural selection elliminates the non-beneficial genetic information. New genetic information comes from the mutations, which we can see in studies of genetic disorders.
firthio2 2 years ago
firthio2:
There may perhaps be mutation which is beneficial.
However NO mutation has ever been observed where mutation ADDs information.
1wingsolja 2 years ago
Mutations are observed that add genetic information. Downe's Syndrome, Klinefelter's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, Haemaphroditism etc. Look it up.
firthio2 2 years ago
firthio2:
Perhaps I was not clear in my previous comment.
There have been no new organs or new things produced such as new species, etc., An organ is still an organ, a pig a pig, etc.
You won't find any new life created.
1wingsolja 2 years ago
There have been new species and new organs. 2 species of Hedylepta butterflies in Hawaii have developed specialised mouth-pieces so they can eat bananas. They are endemic to Hawaii and bananas were only introduced there 1000 years ago, so speciation and a new organ are observed. I do concede that they are still butterflies, but the extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro is a safe one, given our knowledge of mutations and natural selection, which are both observed and well understood.
firthio2 2 years ago
I would liken this extrapolation to that of the orbit of Pluto. Pluto has only been known about for around 80years, yet it takes it 240years to orbit the Sun. This is extrapolated using our knowledge of other planets, whose orbits we have completely witnessed. Should we assume Pluto doesn't orbit the sun until we have observed a full orbit? I hope you can see how this is like the micro to macro-evolution extrapolation.
firthio2 2 years ago
It is not the same. If you want it to be the same sort of question as evolution, you should ask 'Should we assume pluto doesn't orbit another planet that we have not yet discovered as well?' or something like that.
We have not seen new things created by mutation and therefore it is pure FAITH... a religion.
And a wrong one at that.
1wingsolja 2 years ago
It is not 'pure faith', because the principles and phenomona that go into the model are all observed, as well as many predictions of the model. An extrapolation from evidence is not 'pure faith'. How is evolution 'a religion' exactly? Can you define a religion please? 'And a wrong one at that.' That's just a hugely subjective opinion, and a very dismissive one at that.
firthio2 2 years ago
The question you have asked about the Pluto example involves an explanation involving a new factor (the undiscovered planet). The explanation of macro from micro evolution does not.
firthio2 2 years ago
firthio2:
No it doesn't... we have not seen any new species let alone organs, therefore we do not have anything except a theory. Just as in my pluto example.
1wingsolja 2 years ago
We have seen new organs. The mouth is an organ and as I explained with Hedylepta, we have seen a new one develop. I think you're slightly confused about the definition of species and theory as well btw, but I still see the point you're trying to make. Mutations, natural selection, new enzymes, new species (the definition of species is quite broad so under some definitions the butterflies, or nylon-eating bacteria qualify as new species) have all been observed.
firthio2 2 years ago
The Pluto extrapolation is just a time one. We see it is orbiting the Sun over the time we have observed it, then we assume the rules don't change and we calculate how long it takes for it to completely orbit the Sun. If we do the same with evolution, we see micro becomes macro provided the principles we have discovered are invariant over time.
firthio2 2 years ago
99.99% (yes, I did pass calculus) of mutations are known by other terms. Cancer, birth defects, sterile hybrids, Turner's syndrome, Kleinfelter's syndrome, Down's syndrome.
If you disagree with Ben Stein that's OK, but don't call him unscientific. He's actually following the rules to a T here.
dieselscience 3 years ago
Ignorance is Bliss. "We have never seen a positive mutation". TO WHAT STANDARD!? He's putting a value on whats positive and negative, what a fuckin idiot.
zombieiscool 3 years ago
Actually,counter intuitive, BUT, he's being purely scientific. Science, esp. phylogeny, is a definition of positives over negatives. SIMPLIFIED example: we classify organisms by what they are or have instead of what the are NOT or do NOT have. BUT this was not always so, an example, jawless fish-agnatha (without hinged bone jaws) sea aquirts and lancelets don't have jaws but why aren't they agnatha? All are sea animals, right? Since, it's been positive over negative. Science is the standard.
dieselscience 3 years ago
Ummm... i dont get your rant, you're arguing that jawless fishes dont have jaws therefore it is negative... That's not in the context of what ben stein was talking about. He said there was some kind of an, objective Positive mutation, which i disagree with. Animals evolve by adapting to their environment, the only "Positive" mutation is so they can survive in their environment, not "Climb up the evolution latter" and devolop a jaw (Watch goal of evolution by atheist experience)
zombieiscool 3 years ago
Comment removed
zombieiscool 3 years ago
If I.D. is going to be taught in the classroom, and if the basis is the book of genesis then the curriculum will be done in 1 session. Even a 5 year old can understand it. Not to include the sexual stuff of course.
bajorjor1 3 years ago
I'm not trying to play 'gotcha' BUT I have never met a five year old who can understand Chi (squared) formula, let alone understand what it means in genetics.
dieselscience 3 years ago
Chi (squared) formula in the book of genesis? genetics in book of genesis? read my comment well pls
bajorjor1 3 years ago
You have just proven my point. Neither a five year old, nor yourself understand X^2. No one in this clip said I.D. basis is the book of genesis. They are questioning where beneficial genes come from, NOT, the universe and all organisms therein.
dieselscience 3 years ago
Intelligent design is proven in court to be creationism with a different name, creationism believes in genesis as science. Sorry man but you lost you cant teach them coz its not science its religion separation of state and religion constitution of US.
bajorjor1 3 years ago
So, you are calling molecular genetics a religion?
dieselscience 3 years ago
could you explain how you got to that question
bajorjor1 3 years ago
I could readily explain it but you would not understand.
dieselscience 3 years ago
"I could readily explain it but you would not understand" means you cant explain it coz with your arrogance you would jump to any opportunity to try to be smart. I have not seen a smart creationist sorry
bajorjor1 3 years ago
Hmm, what else was proven in court???
The Earth is flat AND it is the center of the universe....woops, it was PROVEN IN COURT SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
dieselscience 3 years ago
hmm, what else was proven in court???
The Earth is flat AND it is the center of the universe....woops, it was PROVEN IN COURT SO IT MUST BE TRUE."
I see your court is based in the 15th century, oh i forgot your a creationist
bajorjor1 3 years ago
No, YOUR analogy was based on 'proven in court' not what is based on observation. AND, wrong assumption again, I am a biologist, specifically a zoology and cellular development specialist. I was also a medical laboratory technician for ten years. You keep harping on the bible, not me.
If I may ask an unrelated question? Do you think the Apollo lunar missions were fake or did they really land on the moon?
Ponder this fact, C. Darwin was both correct and an ordained Anglican pastor.
dieselscience 3 years ago
nope there were scientists on that court that testified, your argument that 15ht century court is applicable is lame. Your line of questions does not make any sense and then putting other people down coz you cant answer it. Just answer it pls. How did you get to the question that made you think that i thought genetics is religion?
bajorjor1 3 years ago
Flame off, junior. Run along and circularly argue with a peer. YOU brought up 'the bible' NOT ME.
dieselscience 3 years ago
you dont have to answer it if you cant, I understand
bajorjor1 3 years ago
and your screen name, and supposed "scientific background" you have does not automatically give you any respect. Go ahead and lay out your arguments, and make a good point.
zombieiscool 3 years ago
Facts are not right because of a social status, evidence is evidence whether you're a high school dropout or a PHD scientist.
zombieiscool 3 years ago
the large mutation they are talking about that would create a new species is simply a lot of small mutations over time... a single creature exposed to so much mutation would die... and we don't need nuclear reactions around us to mutate, we have many nuclear reactions in our own body they are just not as significant...
micp4130 3 years ago
The problem with common sense
is: it isn't common enough.
procommenter 3 years ago
That sounds familiar. Did you make that up or did you get it from somewhere?
Scarface1034 3 years ago
It's been attributed to Ruby Bagonia.
procommenter 3 years ago
mutations of the species is fatal
yankeegurl62 3 years ago
LOOK, humans are evolving, we are living longer! The Cellular genetics are changing look at the mutations of child births unrelated to chemical interference! OH, Wait I forgot, God didn't plan any of this it was the aliens that started it all! God became a solice for our human fears, Religeon is the tool that guides the fear. Uh, Don't do that or this will happen when you die! Earth even evloves, but under a constraint of designed laws of physics, so it is really both!
johnnyboypdq 3 years ago
It should be noted that newer theories in genetics believe mutation to be less important to the genetic change that causes evolution. Now it's about "jumping genes." And yes we have observed genetic changes that are new and positive. How do you think selective breeding in crops works? By random genetic changes, some of which are new and positive, creating over the long run completely new strains of plants. And positive mutations are rare but do happen.
jkranak 3 years ago
for selective breeding in crops, you must select the traits you want and insert whatever qualities you want into it. You can keep the good traits and take out bad traits, but either way your selecting from what is already there. There is no new information that mutated.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
Wow.. look at all the hate on the comments here. Probably a good idea not to get into politics.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
Ben Stein is a sneaky, dishonest little man. He's so scared of another holocaust happening, he's churning out this dross. Look, totally irrelevant of evolution being scientific fact, a rotting economy is what would lead to another holocaust and scapegoating of minority groups: gay, black or jewish people, anybody. I'd be more concerned about some of the individuals praising your crap mockumentary, Mr. Stein. You aren't helping anyone.
blaggardman121 3 years ago
Oh Stein and your "Oh wow!" bug-eyes. Geirtychh is listed as a dendrologist not genetists. His PhD is in forestry. But its funny. If he was a real population genetists he would be studying the "mutations" of living organisms and would know that mutations rarely produce any effects. Berlinsky fails to mention that the DNA proofreader does fail. Why would an all powerful designer include a failing proofreader. Any engineer who could would fix this flaw.
snakeguy76 3 years ago
wow, two people lying with dramatic music. cool. this isnt even a rival, opposing theory. theyre lying. IVE mutated, things in labs mutated, EVERYONE has mutated. You mutate a hundred times before you were born. The colors on a butterfly are mutations.......
theres a difference between believing in an opposing SOMETHING, and simply just lying
"cars dont exist" "Pie doesnt have apple in it" its a lie, not an arguement.
grendelee 3 years ago
They say in there that mutations happen. So much for accusing them of not having an argument huh! You may have missed that part, i dunno.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
yes. they say mutations kill you. lie, yes?
grendelee 3 years ago
When are you Darwinists going to face facts and admit that it is an antiquated and outdated THEORY which had very little "scientifically obtained" data from the beginning. Modern technology is discrediting this OLD and MISINFORMED theory on a daily basis. Not to mention, the scientists that Stein interviews in this film are infinitely more intelligent than any of you - do some homework, these are the top minds of today's science and they are willing to move beyond 1800s thinking.
Cothius 3 years ago
provide your data with sources against evolution. good luck.
atheismmakessense 3 years ago
biogenesis law - all life comes from previous life
Everything about nature tells us life can only come from previous life.
law of thermodynamics - matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed
You can say everything used to be squished into a little dense dot, but that doesn't explain where ANYTHING came from. Everything is made of matter and energy, and you dont know how ANY of it got here.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
you are using a "cause and effect" argument. This requires a time element. We don't need a "beginning" to the density before the big bang because time had not begun yet. Time began with the big bang. This dimension sprang from the event. Work is currently being done on the "cyclical universe" hypothesis. Read this material. It has some intriguing hypothesis into the extrapolation of string theory.
atheismmakessense 3 years ago
The argument of the "dense dot" is a fundamental part of Big Bang theory, it explain the origin of matter as we know it today. Science dont know for certain what was going on before that, we are still limited in those issues, but the most honest thing to say is that humankind through science is making efforts to reach those levels of knowledge with humility. And to me thats better that blindly believe in bronze age myths and dark age explanations.
luedocam 3 years ago
What do you mean by "explains" the origin of matter? Science tells us that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. There arent any exceptions. Nothing can explain the origin of matter & energy. The problem with evolution is that the more scientific knowledge we get, the less probable it seems. Ex: Darwin thought a living cell was a blob of jello, and it wasn't a problem back then to imagine life coming from non life. Now we know this is impossible, and has never been tested or observed.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
By origin I meant the initial conflict between matter and antimatter, which is an unfinished chapter in the theoretical physics and specifically the theories of the origin of the universe, probably you just take it too literally. The fact that we dont now something now does not mean that nothing can explain it. Anyway whats your point? Your back your statement with a basic thermodynamic postulate, and support a film that stand against science?
luedocam 3 years ago
The film is not against science. Did you watch it?
mattea19841984 3 years ago
Yes and dont come to me with that, even when stein have said in interviews that science leads to killing people.
luedocam 3 years ago
Hitler believed jews were a less evolved species. He thought he was helping out the world by eliminating them. That does not mean that science=killing. The point is evolution justified killing the jews for hitler. That is how he rationalized it.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
Yes and thats a very poor rationalization. A naive, unfortunate and shameful statement.
luedocam 3 years ago
hes not argueing wether its a good or bad rationalization. Hes just saying that that is how he rationalized it. you dont need to put your spin on it. Face the fact.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
But of course he is not argueing. He is declaring a very irresponsible and ignorant statement. And you should be ashame for defending that kind of irresponsability. The whole point about debating this film is not about deffend or attack ID or evolution but about intellectual integrity and profesionalism in investigation procedures. And above all, honesty. This film lacks those three.
luedocam 3 years ago
are you sure youve seen this movie????? He specifically very carefully explains his point, and your obviously missing it!
mattea19841984 3 years ago
Ok this is getting pointless, obviously you dont know much about the topic besides this film. Your making me repeat myself, cant you understand that theres a lot of problems and mistakes with the thesis that the film provides? I also watched Steins interviews in other media. The guy dont even understand evolution!!!!!
luedocam 3 years ago
Maybe your repeating yourself because your not providing any answers. What is the problem with the films thesis? are you referring to freedom of inquiry? Im just an average, regular guy, and im wondering if evolutionists have ANY counter claims to this film. I havent heard any. Even richard dawkins, all he did was critize the filming hahaha. oh yeah and he said that you can find the mark of an inteligent designer if you look at a cell. Remember that part?
mattea19841984 3 years ago
"Everything is made of matter and energy, and you dont know how ANY of it got here."
Do you? And if so, what is your basis for having determined this?
1emart1 3 years ago
science tells us this can not happen naturally. All this energy/matter had to come from something outside of our whole time/space/matter world. Something obviously very powerful, judging by how much energy there is everything around us. And based on how everything from orbits to cells work, I would say something very intelligent. Basic laws of cause and effects pretty much. We scientifically known it couldn't of came here naturally, because that would go against the laws of thermodynamics.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
"science tells us this can not happen naturally"
Really? Which studies have indicated as much?
"All this energy/matter had to come from something outside of our whole time/space/matter world"
Not necessarily. Why is it impossible for matter/energy to be eternal? It always is, and always was. This remains consistent with the observation that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and does not require the invention of any supernatural entities.
1emart1 3 years ago
are you serious?? if matter and energy were eternal, they would be ina heat death. there would be no useful energy left today. just a complete heat death! (I took 2 thermodynamic classes)
mattea19841984 3 years ago
"are you serious?"
I am simply proposing an alternate hypothesis that does not require the invention of additional entities.
"if matter and energy were eternal, they would be ina heat death."
...what?
"there would be no useful energy left today"
Why not? The universe is expanding. Perhaps it expands to a point, at which it contracts (ala 'Big Crunch') back to a singularity, before expanding again, all in a continuous cycle. No need to make up anything extra.
1emart1 3 years ago
congradulations, you took 4 years of med sci. classes. Berlinski is a mathemetician, philosopher, and molecular biogist, and an author. Why should I take your word for it? Ive done alot of research on this myself, and im not just gonna believe what some guy on you tube tells me. do you have an explanation why there is still usable energy in our universe? Or why there are any temperature differences?
mattea19841984 3 years ago
"Why should I take your word for it?"
I would not expect you to. Just as I would not take your word on the laws of thermodynamics simply because you have taken a few classes in it. Appeals to authority are meaningless.
"do you have an explanation why there is still usable energy in our universe?"
You assume that there must be a purpose; why?
1emart1 3 years ago
"Ive done alot of research on this myself, and im not just gonna believe what some guy on you tube tells me"
So dont 'just believe'. Here is a proper definition of evolution: Evolution is the accumulation of small, adaptive changes in a population over successive generations. Do you accept that this occurs?
1emart1 3 years ago
Yes. I believe God designed life so that it would not all die when the first winter came around, or its habitat changes slightly. Its amazing it can do that huh?
mattea19841984 3 years ago
"I believe God designed life so that it would not all die when the first winter came around, or its habitat changes slightly"
Before getting in to the heart of what you are asserting, I would like you to clarify one mroe thing for me: Do you believe God made the human population in the same form as it is today? Or do you believe that God made the entire universe some time in the past and allowed events to proceed, eventually resulting in the formation of humans through natural processes?
1emart1 3 years ago
"(I took 2 thermodynamic classes)"
Congratulations. I have taken 4 years of medical science classes, and can tell you with great confidence that this Berlinski fellow is immensely deficient in his understanding of cell biology and genetics.
I do not expect you to accept my position as valid simply on the basis that I have taken courses in the subject; I will gladly support my assertions with logic and reasoning. You should do the same.
1emart1 3 years ago
heat always moves from a warm place to a cooler place. if matter and energy always existed, everything would be the same temperature. your arugrment doesnt hold up against basic thermodynamic laws, or common sense. sorry.
mattea19841984 3 years ago
"heat always moves from a warm place to a cooler place"
You ought to understand what temperature is. Heat is simply a representation of how fast molecules are vibrating. If they vibrate more, they are perceived as hotter. Heat does not move, but rather energy is transferred from one molecule to another as they collide.
Apparently your classes on thermodynamics did not do a terribly good job.
1emart1 3 years ago
lol well your restating my statement in different terms, and completely ignoring the question!
mattea19841984 3 years ago
You didnt ask any questions in that post. you simply presented a lack of understanding of the nature of 'heat'. If there are other posts that you have made containing questions that I have not answered, I apologize; please restate the question, and I will try to make sure I do not miss it this time.
1emart1 3 years ago
"if matter and energy always existed, everything would be the same temperature"
Not if the universe were expanding (which it is).
"your arugrment doesnt hold up against basic thermodynamic laws,"
I think you need to try retaking those classes on thermodynamics, maybe.
1emart1 3 years ago
it came from something outside of the universe that is more powerful then the universe itself, based on basic laws of cause and effect!
mattea19841984 3 years ago
"it came from something outside of the universe that is more powerful then the universe itself, based on basic laws of cause and effect!"
Scientific laws are not absolutes. The function of a scientific law is to describe observations and make predictions. Allow me to propose an idea to you (bear in mind that I do not necessarily subscribe to it, but it is something I want you to consider): What if the universe has always existed, continuing in an infinite loop of expantion and condensation?
1emart1 3 years ago
"top minds of today`s science" your killing me man, that`s hilarious
luedocam 3 years ago
the price of oil, over a couple of years has gone from $30 to $115, changing our mindset about oil. but some during $30 oil we're already living a $140 lifestyle, while others we're living a $15, but most we're living a $30 lifestyle. But when oil shot up to $140, it killed (changed peoples mindsets) those who were living a $110 lifestyle of lower, and the $140 mindset is now the norm, 25% decrease in fuel consumption. but there is still a variablity in the people's minds about the price of oil.
jakehr3 3 years ago
we do want radiation... its called sunlight, plant cells cant srvive without it...
this is why im so at awe when creationists want to be treated with respect.
ragnar336 3 years ago
I don't know who these so-called experts are, but they are very misinformed. The vast majority of genetic mutatins aren't harmful or beneficial, most are neutral. Every once in a while a harmful mutation will arise and even less often a beneficial one will arise. But to say that there have never been any beneficial mutations observed in nature is just absurd. The mutation that caused Sickle Cell is a perfect example of a beneficial mutation that later became harmful due to a change in local.
evolve749 3 years ago 3
*mutations
evolve749 3 years ago
We have witnessed positive mutations. Nylon eating bacteria is one example. The guy in this video is a lying christian, which means that even if he was right about intelligent design he would burn in hell.
"Ahahahaaha!!"
The presence and dating of transitional fossils supports positive mutations as well.
brucerobertson99 3 years ago 4
Ahahahaaha!!
More and more evidence of no intelligence allowed.
Of course mutation is bad for you. Natural selection primarily selects stable genes which work well with others. Radical MUTANT ones are weaned out of the genome.
But in periods of extreme strife, when the environement or competition or food supplies - or advancements in the predator's genome - al gang up on the genome, it's a case of go with the risky mutant who just so happens to have a replication error giving them the edge.
edwaltthespisactor 3 years ago
A more strawmen logical fallacies:
1.) Gene duplication creates new alleles and is responsible for color vision.
2.) Computers and computer code don't self replicate, which negates the whole point.
Why did the creators of "Expelled" have to lie to Richard Dawkins to obtain an interview with him?
Mattyouarebeingglib 3 years ago 2
The fossil record refutes these claims entirely.
The "scientist" in this video falsely claims that there has never been an observed mutation that has lead to something new and positive.
The breed of cattle known as the belgian blue has been selectively bred to produce unprecedented amounts of leans muscle. It has lead to something new because it's characteristics have never been seen before and it's positive because it's more useful as livestock.
It also hasn't stopped functioning.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
could we not find the truth by measuring the information of wolves and bred dogs? if the information of heavily bred dogs is shorter than wolves and those closer to wolves, that would be one test... but then again i'm not sure that guy knew wut he was talking about and mabe i'm thinkin too much O.0
ReverendInfidel 3 years ago
now i don't believe or disbelieve in evolution since i'm just workin with old memories of highschool bio, but wtf is a decrease/increase in "information" in this context? the raw amount of chromosomes, length o the dna strands, number of genes that can be combined? and is he saying they get shorter when they mutate because of damage? wut about normal gamete-style mutation? and wut about all the different types of dogs? is their information running out as we speak? if information is measurable...
ReverendInfidel 3 years ago
I believe he is talking about variation within a species. Some dogs have long hair, some have short hair. Kill all the short hair dogs and that information is lost from the gene pool. That's a crude and inaccurate example, but you get the point. A better example would probably be red hair in humans.
Of course it all falls down if you want to talk about Adam and Eve being our only progenitors.
conradleviston 3 years ago
To say that all mutations are destructive is a violation of logic, because mutations can reverse. If one is destructive, the reverse mutation back to the original can't also be destructive.
And comparing life to an OS, and of all OS's Microsoft Windows...
ThetaOmega 3 years ago 5
It's funny when people who don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about pretend to be authorities on a subject.
godbegone 3 years ago 3
Either the people in this video have no idea what they are talking about or they are deliberately trying to mislead people. Not all mutations are bad. Most of them are but the bad mutations are filtered out of the gene pool through natural selection. In the rare case where the mutation is beneficial and increases the organism's fitness those genes become naturally selected over time.
Project107 3 years ago 3
Computers with random code stop functioning therefore organisms with random variation would stop functioning? Why couldn't you just use the same "logic" to say Computers with random code display a blue error screen therefore organisms with random code display a blue error screen?
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
The analogies that some of the interviewees create in this movie are mind-numbingly false. I can just picture the ignorant ID supporters in the theatre nodding along like a bunch of zombies. How tragically funny!
jbooth002 3 years ago
Not all mutations are harmful. A lot of mutations are harmful or fatal, but not all. The one thing that determines whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial is the environment. For instance, there is a variation of the green anole that is blue. In the anole's natural habitat, this is disadvantageous, but in a more blue environment, this variant would be more likely to survive. Therefore, depending on the environment, the mutation can be beneficial, or harmful.
leecristo 3 years ago
Heh, way to let a mathematician without any understanding about biology look at evolution: a chromosome is not a computer program. At all.
Although, of course, any mutation that actually changes anything important is almost always deleterious (as in: the embryo, in that case, will usually not even develop into a foetus)
Also: information HAS been observed to increase, several times. And with positive effects too- google, for example, for "pod mrcaru podarcis sicula"
yaerav 3 years ago 2
It is very hard to understand how new sophisticated systems can arise. It is not hard to understand how sophisticated systems could be lost. Loss is easier and fast. Gain takes far longer. When you go forwards 1 step, you'll have gone backwards 100 steps, and made 10000 steps to nowhere in the same time frame. Evolutionists emphasize the forward steps, and the neutral steps. They naiively think natural selection will balance out the worst errors, giving an upward trend. It's not that efficient.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
You're making analogies to things that aren't comparable to evolution at all. Imagine this, imagine that. We're not arguing about anything imaginary. Stop making arguments about something by comparing it to something else.
How about you use arguments based on the actual topic. Computers processes info completely differently to an organism and use different sorts of information and function differently, yet you think they're similar enough for you to interchange them in your reasoning.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
well evolutionists say imagine a missing link, imagine another missing link and another and another, how is that any different?
saYer 3 years ago
Because they're using an analogy to help explain their opinions, not using analogies as evidence as the IDers in this video and this comments section are.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
Question for the Christians: as Ben Stein is Jewish and does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but does believe in God, will his punishment in afterlife be the same as the athiests Myers and Dawkins, or will it be milder? What does the bible say? Does the fact that Ben believes in creation make his sin of disbelief in the divinity of Jesus any less damning? Lastly, is the sin of believing in evolution worse than the sin of pride, blasphemy, anger towards enemies, or is it the same?
scpotts101 3 years ago
Who would want to see this movie anyway?
maggythecat 3 years ago
lol@expelled
baldur26 3 years ago
if organisms can adapt... What's stopping them from adapting until they become a new species, especially over a length of time like a tens of millions of years? IDers just state that, I've never heard a reason backing it up.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
the theory here is called natural limits. for example weve been trying to get faster race horses, yet over the last 100 years the average speed has actually gone down about 1mp/h. there has been countless millions if not billions of dollars spent on horses in that time, yet we have most likely reached a limit to which we can push the speed of horses.
Colt1911Killer 3 years ago
Imagine some textbooks. Randomly alter a letter differently in each copy. Then teach some students from them. Pick the altered copies that were given to the best performing students, and reprint those. Then make another round of random changes in each book, teach another class, base your next printing on the best students copies, repeat...!
You tell me. Will students in the far far future going to improve their grades, or get worse? Evolution as we know it is a process that loses information.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
Imagine you had an example that was remotely relevant to biology.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
"Intelligent design is the only mechanism possible for technology to arise because technology can't reproduce. I don't see any relevance."
Reproduction and the ability of genetic code to dictate the nanotechnological mechanism which literally builds a living being is infinitely more advanced than programming a computor. How can you say they have no relavance? We have been intellectually dwarfed and we are denying the existence of a superior intellect?
lightwithoutlimit 3 years ago
I never said the fossil record supports abiogenesis.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago