This guys is making a mistake. If you have 48 chromosomes, and two of them fused, you're left with 47 chromosomes. Look: [--] [--] [--] [--] We have 4 boxes. Lets fuse two of them. [--] [--] [-- --] We now have 3 boxes... NOT 2 boxes. Similarly, if we have 48 chromosomes, and fuse two of them, we are left with 47 chromosomes, NOT 46 of them. What he should have said is that an entire PAIR of chromosomes fused. Look: [--] [--] [--] [--] Let's fuse two PAIRS: [-- --] [-- --] We now have 2 :)
@drionsh Friend, you really need to take a biology class... No offense, but you don't know shit about molecular biology.
DNA in DIPLOID species works in pair, that is, we have 2 X chromosome #1, 2 X chromosome #2, 2 X chromosome #3, etc
Apes don't have 48 chromosomes, they have 24 X 2, just like human have 23 X 2 (46).
Two chromosomes indeed fused to give rise to chromosome #2 in humans... but you have to multiply this by 2 to understand what you find in a diploid cell.
So from I can gather from the video is that the highlighted difference between the human DNA which has 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to that of the great ape which is 24 pairs of chromosomes
And so the theory of evolutionary science for human evolution is hinged on the theory that the 1 missing pair chromosome which isn't found in human DNA is a product of 2 chromosomes been fused to become 1
Is there a vid explaining how & when this may have occurred?
@theinvisiablehand No, they have 0 way of explaining how the fusion may have occured. Yet they present this info as if it is proof positive that we are modified apes. They also never explain the significance of those chimp chromosomes in regard to us as even evolutionists don't say we descended from them anyway. This whole argument is the usual evo pure speculation presented as evidence, seen constantly in evo thought, with the usual gang of logical fallacies, as mentioned in my earlier posts.
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
What could be more ancient than evolutionary conjecture's Sumerian gospel ("...an arcanum of prosodic theory which is the province of specialists..." — P.F. Baum) with its interrelated specialisms: Big Bang, primordial ooze, vicinism & subsequent congeneric sway, archallaxis, unicellular life's speciational advancements through a positive and naturalistic eugenism, transitional relics and whatnot?
There is NO proof that the chromosome "fusion" actually happened. It's a mere conjecture and assumption. Ken Miller you're an idiot and a liar. "I think this is authentic" That's PROOF POSITIVE that YOU don't fucking know.
Ken Miller is a shame to evolution theory. Unrelated species may have the same number of chromosomes. It is the code sequence in the DNA that determines whether a creature will turn out to be a human or a chimp, not number of chromosomes. Even now biologists are still unable decipher so many segments in the DNA strand.
@daogdaog "It is the code sequence in the DNA that determines whether a creature will turn out to be a human or a chimp, not number of chromosomes" You are indeed correct.
@splicedenergy What misinformation are you talking about? Based on mtDNA evidence humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. There is no mtDNA evidence extracted from a so called ape-like common ancestor. Humans and chimps are ASSUMED to have a common ancestor based on mtDNA rate of mutation which is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources.
@daogdaog That's a lie. We know where and when "mitochondrial eve" lived even. Mitochondrial only means maternal. You are leaving paternal out of the equation.
@splicedenergy "mitochondrial eve" has nothing to do with chimp-human or neanderthal-human common ancestor. It is the point of origin of modern humans, not apes. Read Krings et al mtDNA research so that will have a little background on how biologists compute divergence based on mtDNA rate of mutation which is not well known.
@daogdaog We are closer relatives to chimps than neanderthals. We did not evolve from them. You have this idea in your head that all the species are headed the same way. Which is a mistake. We are related to everything to which degree can be minor or major. The branches of the family tree from the beginning has easily a trillion olive branches. Evolution doesn't have a purpose or a plane. You think species change as a whole. They don't. Many populations branch off into other branches
@splicedenergy Let us take a simple case by factoring in random mutation and natural selection. Which series of animals did giraffe evolve from the earliest known giraffid?
Yes Mr Miller we can compare our genome to the chimpanzees. As it turns out
"Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees"
Abstract
"...the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%...However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences... about 80% of proteins are different between the two species"
The evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.
A conjecture does not meet the definition of the word "science" whose derivation is fr. the Latin verb "scire" meaning "to know." To suppose, theorize, guess, as had Darwin & his boot-licks, is not scientific. Darwinism is a relic of the 19th century. It fills a religious void in the warped minds of Western-Civilization-destroying "atheists."
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery. --- March 14, 1861
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. --- September 15, 1858
Chihuahuas & evolutionism: Evolved logic dictates that if for the next million years many Chihuahuas are routinely lobbed to their deaths from cliffs eventually (the key word) some will develop the type of evolved webbing that allows flying squirrels to glide & land safely. It's true. Everyone who understands the way evolution works understands that.
so how first protein was able to be occured by chance from molecules?
and more importantly how on earth did all case begin from one single cell.if its true how can not wee see this in labratuary even if we plan the conditions.
wow we cant do the random simplest first cell.only nature can create it but only in first times of world.nature did its job 3.7 billion years ago and now its wacthin whats happening. u apes re really smart
Just because scientists cannot create a human from a few cells in a lab in front of your eyes for your convenience( something which takes billions of years) doesn't make the theory of evolution any less probable. You prove nothing. Your logic is " my simple mind cannot comprehend this is possible therefore it isn't." There is plenty science hasn't discovered yet or is unable to recreate, again this proves nothing except that we don't know everything. Well done ; >
@esraretin The theory of evolution very specifically does not include abiogenesis, which is a separate matter covered under the theory of abiogenesis--in no small part because we know a great deal about the diversification of life compared to how it got started in the first place. Our lack of knowledge of abiogenesis doesn't even *begin* to imply that evolution is false.
There has never seen shown a case where a mutation was shown to increase the information in the Genome. Thus, the Human Genome would have to be the original parent and the apes fell away, not evolving away but breaking down genetically , literally degenerative or devolving down. The Genome does not evolve to increase information , it breaks down, loses genetic sequences and eventually goes extinct and never evolves to over come the limits of it's design. So Evolution is a false theory.
the arguments are all better answered on the assumption that the Human Genome was the Parent, existing early, and then Chip and other apes fell away as degenerates of the species of original. STDS , Radiation, Retro Viruses can account for the Human Genome to devolve into 48 chromosomes by X Fracturing , which has been observed scientifically, then the obvious stretch of evolution by Fusion of Telomeres. The more likely answer, the Human Genome is the original, not the apes.
@The1andonlyBYack This is a very small section of a very large argument. This by itself is not meant to prove evolution, it just adds to the argument, It's only a 4 min vid. Show me ANY religous argument that isn't lame.
@The1andonlyBYack Spoken like someone who knows nothing about science or the subject being discussed. Well done.
Of course the argument for a divine creator is much better: "Well there's this book you see that was written thousands of years ago. It's AWESOME! There's talking snakes and floods and parting the Red Sea."
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
furthermore, he shows us there was a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.
this proves nothing. The evidence does indicate that human chromosomes were once more similar to those of apes than they are currently, but that is all. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human to ape common ancestry. Simply put, there are no "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA.
@brie7xo 'Simply put, there are no "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA.'
ERVs are retroviruses which integrate themselves into the DNA of any host they enter. The ERV therefor becomes part of the genome of that host, and is passed on to the next generation, and the next, and so on. It has been shown through genome sequencing that Chimps and Humans share these ERVs. The exact same ERVs, the same number of base pairs long, in exactly the same places in our genomes
@brie7xo The chances of just one of these ERVs appearing in precisely the same place in the genome of Chimps and Humans are practically non-existent if you're appealing to an option other than common ancestry (Given that our genomes are 3 billion base pairs long, and these ERVs are made of only 500 base pairs). And Humans and Chimps share no less than 14 of these ERVs. So to say that there are no 'shared errors' is to basically be rather misinformed.
The manager has 25$, the bellhop has two, and each guy has a dollar.
The guys paid 9 x 3 = 27 dollars, 25$ to the manager and the 2 the bellhop grab for himself.
This is the issue with your type of mentality, parlor tricks or simple distortion of the documented evidence does not go against mathematics or science.
It simple shows desperation, from the side that is lacking in evidence.
hmm grab two from both piles... glues them togeather... now my count is 45... & the human gene went out the window. look, i get it, evolution is a religion! these 3 hunters went hunting- after a full day they got nothin// so they checked into a motel room- they paid $30 ($10 each)... the manager sends the bellhop $5 to refund the guys- crooked bellhop pockets $2 gives each man $1.. so you got 3 guys at $9 each.. 3x9=27 plus the two the bellhop took... 27+2=29.... where is the missing dollar?
hmm grab two from both piles... glues them togeather... now my count is 45... & the human gene went out the window. look, i get it, evolution is a religion these 3 hunters went hunting- after a full day they got nothin// so they checked into a motel room- they paid $30 ($10 each)... the manager sends the bellhop $5 to refund the guys- crooked bellhop pockets $2 gives each man $1.. so you got 3 guys at $9 each.. 3x9=27 plus the two the bellhop took... 27+2=29.... where is the missing dollar?
hmm grab two from both piles... glues them togeather... now my count is 45... & the human gene went out the window.. look, i get it, evolution is a religion these 3 hunters went hunting- after a full day they got nothin// so they checked into a motel room- they paid $30 ($10 each)... the manager sends the bellhop $5 to refund the guys- crooked bellhop pockets $2 gives each man $1.. so you got 3 guys at $9 each.. 3x9=27 plus the two the bellhop took... 27+2=29.... where is the missing dollar?
"one" human gene "fused" from "two" primate genes... would be a case of 22+22 with two paird to = 46... but that isn't the case (wouldn't be human now would it?)... an this pooves it... scientists everywhere are liars talking out their butt about a "fairy tale" they call evolution- because it's easy money... I've also prooven to have a better mind than many many millions of brainwashed people that hopelessly believe what they are told and do no research of their own to either prove or disprove
lemme get this straight... we have 23 from mom, 23 from pops, 23+23=46 while apes have 24+24= 48 and you saying a monkey and a chimp 24+24 with a fused chrom = 46? lets see now... I have two piles of 24 dollar bills each... (takes one bill off each) now there's 23! amazing... I'm now super gluing the two bills togeather... (one from each pile) it's now one bill! great, lets count... .. hmmm, i got 47 chromosomes. looks like evolution is as wrong as your math! so NOW, wheres MY honorary degree?
These are pair chromosomes. What it means is that not just one side gets fused. But both sides.
So you have to grab two bills from one side, then glue those together. Then you grab two in the other side and then you glue those together as well. So each side is reduced to 23 a piece. Then you pair them and they will all have a match. So 23 pairs for a total of 46.
In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
@achilles197474 Except that you're merely taking universal physical constants and assuming that because you, a conscious observer, have come about in this system, these are the only physical constants which could have brought about a conscious observer, so the system must have been designed by a conscious creator. This is non-scientific, teleological thinking equivalent to saying that because you've been dealt a winning hand on your first try, the game was designed for you to win all along.
this site fell flat because nothing has been added as proof to the hypothesis presented purporting to explain why chimps have 48 and human 46 . The counter to the entire hypothesis is reasonable medical science that shows that human beings can easily be the original parent Genome and for Retro Viruses, Radiation and Diseases, that an ancient humanoid being had a broken chromosome pattern that repeated in close proximity to others, and the apes then fell away from humans, but not evolution.
@Blacksmart1000 You can literally watch evolution take place in bacteria, and through fast breeding life forms.
As far as you user name, did you name yourself blacksmart so that when someone says you are black who isn't smart you can call them racist and avoid the whole thing. Pathetic, not just the avoidance, but also in the stupid irony that that isn't racist. IE:. It isn't prejudice if the attribute is announced.
@blacksmart1000 Oh wow.... he just explained the entire process to you... its really pathetic how blinded by religion some people are... science has already disproved the bible many times, but I bet you ignored that or don't even know about it because your one of the countless brainwashed sheeple. There is not only an incredible amount of evidence for evolution, but there is an incredible amount of evidence that the bible is a load of lies.
@Randomidable The Bible is not a science textbook... Therefore, there is nothing for science to disprove things in the Bible... You might as well say that the science has disproved the Native American Indian Spirituality... Or that science has disproved the Dharma... It is misguided for those to refer to the Bible as a science textbook. It is equally misguided for those who try to debunk the Bible scientifically.
@ChannelJoeE Actually many of the stories in the bible can be disproven by basic physics. The age of the earth contradicts the bible, and the idea that there was no death until Eve bit the apple is disproven by carbon dating of fossils dating back millions of years ago, taking place far earlier than the story of Adam and Eve (therefore proving that death took place long before the times of Adam and Eve). Science cannot fully disprove it, but theres far greater reasons to not believe in it.
@Randomidable Dude. Did you miss my entire post...? It is absurd in itself to use physics to even attempt to debunk the Bible. As I said above, there is no point! Those who take Genesis as a "literal" sequence of events are misguided and wrong. And dare I say, stupid. But those who hit back that stupidity with "The Genesis is scientifically implausible" is equally misguided and dare I say stupid. Again, would you tell an American Indian "Well, your creation story is scientifically flawed."? -_-"
@ChannelJoeE I know the bibles stories arent to be taken literaly, but most of its followers still do. I thought you were one of those people who do take the stories literaly, so I thought I would disprove the stories using science, even though a person who believes the stories are literal probably thinks that the "events" were "supernatural" and therefore dont follow the laws of science.
@Randomidable The Bible is full of lies? The word "lie" implies the writers of the Bibles knew the truth to begin with! They had no idea about concepts of modern science (because they didn't have experiments or peer-review), so they couldn't have possibly lied! :-)
@chuckinator0 What I meant by lies is that its full of bullshit thought up by people who were either crazy and heard voices in their head, or who wanted to create an organized religion and made up a bunch of little stories and ideas and put it all into a book( not lying, just making stories). And five months after my comment, I don't think science has disproven the bible, I think the bible does that all on its own. I just used the word "lies" because I was angry at the moment =D
@Randomidable Guess what? Some people think that evolutin is a religion composed of lies. (Some scientists are not aware that they are lies because they have not been taught to do anything but accept what they have been taught and wouldn't know a logical fallacy from a banana.) For ex. in this video we see the following logical fallacies. 1) The Fallacy of the Single Cause, as in, "Look! We found something new! And only evolution can explain it!" Funny thing. Cont.
@Randomidable Cont. About 1 in 1000 people have an additional fusesd chromosome. Let's see if one came from apes, then why not both? But the evolutionists don't even mention the other one since it doesn't fit in with their nice little "proof." 2) The Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Bees, moths & birds fly. Chimps & tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Snakes & worms look a lot alike. But...correlation does not imply causation. 3) The Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Cont."
@Randomidable Cont. Yes there is a superficial number match with the chromosomes but the content of the chimps' and that of humans does NOT match! And anyway, even evolutionists aren't saying we're descended from chimps, so the argument is bogus all around.
Religion is when you have faith in what you can't see. Like the primal pond - zip evidence life can come from inorganic matter but it's in kids library books on evo, on Nova, & all over the media as if its a scientific fact. Cont.
@Randomidable We are told to believe in the invisible when told that Fossil A led to Fossil B, C, D based on never to be seen innumerable links between them. How do we tell a "missing" link from a never existed one? Have faith brother! Just belieeeeve! We were told scales turned into feathers & feet into fins. Yet with billioins of fossils we only see 100% scales, 100% feathers, 100% fins & 100% feet. This is the tip of the iceberg ot things evolution teaches that are lies.
This guy is just as convincing as a politician or used car salesman. Humans for 46 chromosomes and apes have 48 chromosomes. So what does that tell you? We were created differently. Duh....?
@blacksmart1000 Are you dumb? Lol are you stupid? Did you even pay attention to the video. No it would seem you are a black who isn't smart. Others are but you aren't.
Actually, John Brody, I am not black. It was just a name that I made up to see how many ignorant racists out there would assume that I was black based upon my screen name. You just proved my point. Thanks. Next, aside from being obnoxious, you have not even replied back with an intelligent response to justify (by the way, that means to defend) Ken's statements.
Most scientist are compromised by the system and the scientific mafia...I say this at the risk of sounding extreme, however sometime the easiest way to say something is ...to simply just say it!
I commend 'circus' for stating it much more eloquently than I!
Not so..if you were to say data or information than that would be correct..however the difference between indoctrination and education is with education all available information and data is generally put forth and the public with this information can make an informed decision one way or the other. Whereas with indoctrination they only give you what is in favor of their hypothesis while any inconvenient data is left out! I.E. climate gate emails reported by Wall. St. Jrn.
@hayomtov7 Education is not about letting people make "informed decisions" about evidence. People can't make informed decisions if they don't have a basic understanding of the science. You're full of shit. Sorry.
@hayomtov7 NO. Education is not about letting kids decide what is true. Education is about teaching kids how to think and giving them a baseline understanding of what we know.
Arrogant does NOT mean 'wrong.' Science is arrogant BECAUSE IT WORKS, BITCHES.
@FreePlay ..Education is not about letting people make "informed decisions" about evidence
Huh! you seem to be talking in circles exposing yourself as a proponent of 'indoctrination' and now you attempt to back peddle so lets try it one more time!
I reitterate, 'all available information and data is generally put forth and the public with this information can make an informed decision one way or the other! Thats education!
True science is not arrogant since it is corrected continually!
@FreePlay On the contrary, Science is not arrogant at all. Arrogance is an exaggerated estimation of superiority; but Science is demonstrably, objectively superior to the notions advocated by those who lack any skill at critical thinking ;)
@hayomtov7 No, it IS about making 'informed' decisions. However, most religious people are not informed, or educated, in the right way to be able to understand science. Which is why they remain blind.
It's like trying to make an amazonian tribal man understand Chinese
I wonder if you got a modern chimp & could go in at the genetic level and fuse the correct chromosomes we could artificially evolve a chmp into something even closer to a human? just a thought..
It doesn't work, I'm pretty sure someone told me that it is much more complicated than that. Which leaves me scratching my head as to how this chromosome evidence gives Ken the confidence to paint the picture he paints. He fills in the blanks based on assumptions, not data.
Interesting,You know it doesn't work?It was just a random thought I threw out here,but if you "know"? , how? has someone or group/s etc tried it already? & if so who? have you got any links you could point me to? or peer reviewed articles etc? that would be very interesting to look into ,thanks for your reply btw & happy holidays.PS "pretty sure"? your either sure you were told or not? do you remember yet if you were? & by whom? pps I dont mean to sound be rude its an honest question/observation
If you do a search, and pay attention to the blogs, this topic has been discussed quite a bit. I can't remember exactly who I was talking to, but I remember the gist of it. Basically, even if you fuse the chromosomes together, you still have to change a lot of other genes, and the protein coverings of those genes have to change as well. The physiology between man and ape is quite different. Honestly, I don't know what would happen directly if we manipulated the embryo of an ape.
wait he says he believes in a designer, but not a deceptive one. If what he is saying is true, the designer is deceptive. in other words why is he a roman catholic theist.
Because he is defending the philosophy of materialism at all costs, even if it conflicts with his own beliefs. Science pays his bills, Catholicism makes him feel righteous.
According to you no reputable scientist support ID, so when I name those who do, u say they're not reputable because they support ID. This is the classic definition of circular reasoning and I told you that you would use that BS before I even answered your question. Your a very amusing fellow. I guess if I lived in a country were there are more kangaroos than quadruple the human population I would be a little off too. Just kidding man don't cry.
@benthemiester "According to you no reputable scientist support ID, so when I name those who do, u say they're not reputable because they support ID"
They're not reputable for more than that though. In my short analysis of each (limited by space) I didn't dismiss them on the basis they supported ID (two didn't anyway.) I pointed out their actual scientific disrepute.
@ProcInc U put them down for being creationist or IDers even calling Gonzales who won numerous awards & citations & even discovered a new principle, dead weight, even after it was proven through emails that he was denied tenure because of his involvement with the production of the privileged planet (in which the word ID was never mentioned) and not because he was a mediocre scientist as you claim.
You have not made a case on any of them unless you call rumors or unsubstantiated charges proof.
@benthemiester "U put them down for being creationist or IDers"
Creationists, yes (and you would agree that's not a good sign) but I never discounted any for using the term ID because that was the point (however many purported IDers were in fact, YECs). Einstein and Beloussov weren't IDers though.
Emails 'proved' no such thing. You are simply believing want to want to believe and what the Dishonesty Institute says. 'Privelaged Planet' was a good reason to boot him but it wasn't the reason
I didn't say Einstein was an IDers. The term didn't exist then. I said he believed that nature had an intelligent causation. The God Spinoza who revealed himself through nature.
The flagellar motor complexus is enough to frustrate frontal-bone-beaten-monkey-lovers in Dover & Santa Monica. Evolutionists (indoctrinates and congregants) can't differentiate between speculation and knowledge (knowledge of things that are physically/mathematically measured and/or measurable) as their grasp of the English language is threadbare at best.
as i watched this video,i thought, heres an intelligent guy.by the end of it though my thoughts had changed to the point where i was thinking this must be a spoof or joke video.
@shagger1968 Ironically it's people who home home educate that believe in creationism. Ken Miller is a professor at Brown University. He's also taught at Harvard. The bits brought up in this particular clip from this lecture are facts though. Nothing is disputed here by science. It's all been through the peer review process which is what keeps science honest.
Ken has no explanation for the fused chromosome, therefore he simply assumes it must be part of our evolutionary distinction from apes. If he's right, it's by sheer belief alone, not evidence. How did the chromosome fuse and why, if it indeed did? Still waiting for an answer.
Of course he has, its called chromosomal translocation and happens every day not only in humans but in nearly any species. Its a common event.
"he assumes distinction from apes"
Well, first of all we are apes, humans are apes. So it isn´t a distinction. Secondly its about inheritance of certain characteristics and not speciation. A fusion doesn´t make a new species.
Than why do we have the same number of chromosomes as every other human known to live? Am I missing something? Did downs syndrome people branch off with their extra chromosome and produce a new lineage? I know how chromosomes fuse, but that doesn't explain shit. Did the apes come down off the trees and start eating psychedelic plants? What happened? Ken has no answer.
I don´t understand how you could possibly say this, given the fact that what Miller discusses is only and entirely based on evidence and facts. Nothing of what he says is not based on sheer facts.
Are there researchers in some dark basement somewhere messing with ape genes to see what comes of it? Apes are not nearly as genetically similar as I once thought. While many genes appear in sequence, and appear to have similar function, the way genes are expressed is quite different. There is much to explain.
@TheKatman my friend, you only have to listen to him to realise he has been touched by the devil himself.he talks nonsense and has cleary brainwashed you too.throw out satan and walk into the light
@shagger1968 Why touched by Satan? Because the prospect of humans resulting from gradual improvement over tens of thousands of years cramps your desire to have a simple explanation gift-wrapped in an ancient book? Let's be honest. If you're after an excuse to keep believing in your favorite fairy tale and not to have to do the work of learning what kids in 8th grade grasp when they try, too bad. It's your problem, not the rest of us. Keep your lack of discipline and mental laziness to yourself.
If apes are supposed to be so closely related to us, then why would any Darwinist object to his daughter bringing home an ape as a mate? Humans differ to other humans genetically by no more than two percent, and many would have you believe that humans and apes differ by the same two percent. So if your a Darwinist, whats the freaken problem? Go bop a monkey have a good time. No judgment here. Knock yourself out.
@ProcInc Maybe twenty years ago I might have believed that, but we can now compare larger parts of our genome, not just a small part of the 2% of genes that code for protein. Including indels takes it down to 95-96%. When we take everything into consideration as close as possible which the first early comparisons didn't take into account, the difference can be as high as 30%.
@benthemiester Ben comaring two PEOPLE yields similar results simply because non coding DNA can accumulate random noise safely. Evolution accounts for both the similarities and the differences because it always fits the same pattern regardless.
No alternative mechanism has ever been proposed that than explain either. The fact is that here we have a quantifiable molecular piece of evidence unequivocally in favour of common descent and your reaction was "I don't wanna fuck a monkey"
@ProcInc This whole notion of random noise is as obsolete as a typewriter. Much of what we once thought was (in the words of Kenneth Miller a few years ago, mindless scribble) now appears to be anything but mindless. Most of the genome is now considered to have many beneficial functions, such as gene regulation and expression and seems to be intertwined with different emergent regulatory sequences that have a non random properties. We are finding more function all the time.
>According to modern evolutionary synthesis, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.
To put it more simply Ben. Evolution predicts that specific transitional features should be found in both extinct snd extant species according to to their evolutionary history.
We find these.
There's nothing disagreeable about the text you copy pasted. I don't know why a creationist would share it
@ProcInc Now I get it. Every creature living, dead or imaginary is a transitional. There are plenty of transitional's because we're all here, so at some point we had to make a transition. Yeah thats it. I've seen the light.
How could any real scientist call that circular reasoning? It all makes perfects sense now.
@benthemiester "Every creature living, dead or imaginary is a transitional."
No Ben, just living or dead. Imaginary creatures are not bound by evolutionary laws of form.
It's true that all species are transitional between its progeny and descendents but the term "transitional form" is more commonly used in its traditional definition. You pasted this definition yourself earlier.
It's not hard to understand, but then I underestimate your density
@ProcInc "According to modern evolutionary synthesis"
As for the above quotation, maybe you missed the fact that this was my point.
In evolutionary theory its always better to redefine the term rather than admit the inconstancies & problems that some people refer to as gaps, or even others who deny that there are any problems at all, and that the modern synthesis is perfect as is. Its not just the religious people anymore, even atheist and agnostics are openly chalenging & criticizing ToE.
@benthemiester "In evolutionary theory its always better to redefine the term rather than admit the inconstancies & problems that some people refer to as gaps"
The term hasn't been redefined, especially in this case.
Evolutionary theory is refined (if necessary) according to new data insofar that its most recent incarnation is consistent with every one of the facts at hand. Scientific theories do this universally and ID creationism doesn't which is why it fails.
@ProcInc You also admit that the modern synthesis is being challenged by evolutionist. If people who don't even accept their own synthesis are non the less willing to accept evolution, then this proves that evolution is faith based. The modern synthesis is the standard the Dover trial was based on, and neo Darwinist used a federal judge to validate it, and they told the public the theory was sound enough to be proven in court. OOPS
oops nothing mr monkey bopper. The Modern Synthesis is indeed sound enough to be proven in court but that doesn't mean it can't be extended. People who understand science would acknowledge this. Newtonian mechanics can be proven in court and that is far less accurate than neodarwinian evolution
Evolution is evidence based and its nobody but ID's fault it was trounced in court for being absurd and dishonest
@ProcInc "Do you actually know what parts of the synthesis are being challenged"
Yes I do. As I have said before, I have posted Newman's interview who was an attendee at Altenberg meeting, and even he criticized Dover verdict and he along with Massimo Piglicuci are calling for the relaxing of the assumptions of the modern synthesis.
@benthemiester "Yes I do. As I have said before, I have posted Newman's interview who was an attendee at Altenberg meeting, and even he criticized Dover verdict and he along with Massimo Piglicuci are calling for the relaxing of the assumptions of the modern synthesis"
Ben, I've already addressed this and pointed out how you are talking a load of crap to try until your knuckles are white to alleviate how embarrassing ID fails when put under the lightest scrutiny
"If people who don't even accept their own synthesis are non the less willing to accept evolution"
Do you actually know what parts of the synthesis are being challenged, (why and how) and are simply being dishonest or are you so lacking in any knowledge in what you are talking about you figured anything's better than nothing?
Also, none of the mechanisms covered in the Dover Trial are in any way the subject of challenge anyway.
@ProcInc cont....... Newman himself blames his own colleagues for hand waiving and for telling people to believe things that are simply not true. You need to ask your self why would he say this?…….and these men are hardcore evolutionist who admit still little is understood about the extended synthesis (which by the way) the NCSE, Eugenie Scott and other Neo Darwinist are in opposition to.
"even atheist and agnostics are openly chalenging & criticizing ToE."
Actually Ben you have it backwards. The theory of evolution is universally accepted and no valid argument has ever been presented against despite centuries of attempts (The modern evolutionary sythesisis is challenged by scientists who unequivocally accept evolution). So much that modern creationists accept common descent more often than not
@ProcInc I cant say enough about your use of these airtight caveats.
The phrase usually goes like this or something to this affect. No real scientist, or no valid argument, or no serious biologist. You also keep repeating the mantra that there are tons of intermediates and your goal post is that all extinct and extant animals are intermediates.
@benthemiester "I cant say enough about your use of these airtight caveats."
You can't really say anything about them Ben, probably why you called them airtight. You need to learn that eventually identifying a point is not the same as refuting it.
"No real scientist, or no valid argument"
If you disagree with this you have been so far hesitant to name any of either.
There are tons of intermediates and I mean according to the stricter definition.
@benthemiester "So now I suppose Stewart Newman doesn't understand. I guess this make him one of those non real scientist."
Stewart Newman understands that ID creationism is bunk and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is an effective scientific model. You would like to think he is a non scientist thanks to his contributions to evolutionary biology but he is
@benthemiester "your goal post is that all extinct and extant animals are intermediates."
It's not my fault that objectively all animals are in transition Ben so you may as well not have your little sook about it.
On top of that however, evolutionary theory predicts that we should find transitions in the fossil record indicative in hindsight of specific stages of evolutionary history. And we do.
Whenever I say transitional fossil, that is what I refer to
@ProcInc " If you disagree with this you have been so far hesitant to name any of either"
Are you challenging me to name reputable scientists who have contributed to science and who believe ID is a plausible alternative theory, or that it is a better explanation in general? If you are, I can name several, however according to your reasoning (that no real scientist would advocate this), does it really matter?
"Are you challenging me to name reputable scientists who have contributed to science and who believe ID is a plausible alternative theory"
sure, put one up for analysis.
"however according to your reasoning (that no real scientist would advocate this), does it really matter?"
It will certainly give me an opportunity to make my point with a specific example. After all currently a mediocre internet musician is trying to defend it. You could at least raise the bar from there
@ProcInc "put one up for analysis" Are there some kind of rules to this challenge? Something like.... the ones that agree with Intelligent design don't count because they don't understand. I'm not sure if I can pass the high standard of circular reasoning that governs your judgment. Mediocre internet musician. That sounds like something an ex girlfriend would say. I think I hurt someones feewings. lol
As for the Cambrian and invertebrates comments, I think you missed the sarcastic tone.
It isn't my fault that you take the veracity of evolution personally or that you are a classic dunning-kruger Ben. You believe in an absurd pseudoscience and defend it childishly.
Sarcasm and evolution means 'monkey bopping' is hardly reasoned discourse.
As is misrepresenting evolutionary biologists.
So who are you going to plug as the reputable ID lauding scientist?
@ Here is a partial list. Scott Minnich John C. Sanford PHD Mike Behe Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Academy of Natural Sciences Philip Skell, University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Dean Kenyon Charles Thaxton Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia Ralph Seelke, Ph.D. Guillermo Gonzalez Hoyle wrote 3 books on intelligent causation. Even Einstein believed in a universal architect. Many of the names on the DI list support it.
@benthemiester Ben this is just a list of Discovery Institute hacks, none of them are reputable at all. Their arguments have been refuted by the scientific commiunity and their faculties disown themselves from their absurdities on record.
Hell, at least one in your "partial" list (Kenyon) is a young Earth creationist!
Einstein did not believe in an intelligent architect at all and even named Darwin as an example of a scientist opposed by religious dogma (May 19, 1939)
'Minnich'- Minich has no reputation at all except for his embarrassing admissions in the Dover trial that his works were minmally reviewed. He does not publish
'Behe'- Not only did Behe lie under oath attempting to defend ID but he admitted a definition of science that accommodated it also accomodated astrology and he has been refuted without response multiple times by real scientists
'Beloussov'-accepts evolution.
'Skell'- A creationist, widely refuted by the scientific community
'Thaxton'- An evangelical writer of "Pandas and People" which was thoroughly discredited throughout the Dover trial itself
'Sermonti'- An AIDs denialist who is in all liklihood a young earth creationist.
'Gonzalez'- Gonzalez was nothing but dead weight in his faculty and when his tenure was denied he lied about the reasons to try and win support for ID. Why would you try to associate with him?
'Seelke'-self described apologist. No scientific contributions of note.
@ProcInc Furthermore you try to pretend these nuts are laudible by pointing out some do (or once did) belonged to the NAS.
But the NAS' official stance is
"The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming...., examination of [creationist quote mines] reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred"-("Science and Creationism", National Academies press)
ellipsed for space, feel free to check the bit in between
I mean, I'm curious Ben. Do you have any standard of excellence at all fo rthe actual practise of science and or intellectual honesty in general?
I mean you listed freaking Behe and Kenyon as purported "reputable scientists"
Why?
is your only source of "information" the Dishonesty Institute and genesissafaries? I mean at what point do you draw the line at your own incompetence?
@ProcInc Please do not respond any more. You said so many things that are just false. Lets leave it there and go one by one so as not to convolute. Again please give citation Sermonti denies that aids exist or are you using the term aids denialist in the preparative sense. Please clarify.
@benthemiester "You said so many things that are just false"
Name one thing
"please give citation Sermonti denies that aids exist"
Sermonti is an AIDs denialist, he denies that HIV is the cause of AIDs. An utterly preposterous viewpoint that is inexplicably popular among ID creationists
@ProcInc For the sake of argument lets say these scientists are wrong. So what, Einstein, Darwin, and Steven Hawkings were wrong. Should we also marginalize these men as scientist? The theory of evolution has been wrong, there were 80+ different body parts we were told were useless & vestigial, from pituitary to the appendix. We were told the same about Junk DNA. I can point out many more
examples but with your circular reasoning and dual standards you would say thats just science advancing
"For the sake of argument lets say these scientists are wrong."
Not only are they wrong but they are not doing science. They are using their qualifications as a means of appearing capable in delivering their antiscience rhetoric. Some even explicitly state this such as Jonathon Wells who made it clear that his biology PHd was part of a plan outlined by his church.
Einstein, Darwin and Hawking (not Hawkings) were also right. Perhaps you should read "Relativity of Wrong"
@ProcInc The Beauty of theories is that they don't have to constantly be corrected time and time again. Even when Einstein gave us general relativity, it did not change the fact of Newtons Universal Law of Gravity, in fact his equations are just as valid now as they were when written, and still used today in the world of mechanics, unlike Darwin who was wrong about a lot of things as well as the modern synthesis which was also wrong about a lot of things.
drionsh 1 month ago
@drionsh Friend, you really need to take a biology class... No offense, but you don't know shit about molecular biology.
DNA in DIPLOID species works in pair, that is, we have 2 X chromosome #1, 2 X chromosome #2, 2 X chromosome #3, etc
Apes don't have 48 chromosomes, they have 24 X 2, just like human have 23 X 2 (46).
Two chromosomes indeed fused to give rise to chromosome #2 in humans... but you have to multiply this by 2 to understand what you find in a diploid cell.
Gazdo01 2 weeks ago
That's very cool!
So from I can gather from the video is that the highlighted difference between the human DNA which has 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to that of the great ape which is 24 pairs of chromosomes
And so the theory of evolutionary science for human evolution is hinged on the theory that the 1 missing pair chromosome which isn't found in human DNA is a product of 2 chromosomes been fused to become 1
Is there a vid explaining how & when this may have occurred?
theinvisiablehand 3 months ago
@theinvisiablehand No, they have 0 way of explaining how the fusion may have occured. Yet they present this info as if it is proof positive that we are modified apes. They also never explain the significance of those chimp chromosomes in regard to us as even evolutionists don't say we descended from them anyway. This whole argument is the usual evo pure speculation presented as evidence, seen constantly in evo thought, with the usual gang of logical fallacies, as mentioned in my earlier posts.
LoricaLady 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 3 months ago in playlist The study of science leads to humanism which leads to peace
This has been flagged as spam show
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
achilles197474 3 months ago
What could be more ancient than evolutionary conjecture's Sumerian gospel ("...an arcanum of prosodic theory which is the province of specialists..." — P.F. Baum) with its interrelated specialisms: Big Bang, primordial ooze, vicinism & subsequent congeneric sway, archallaxis, unicellular life's speciational advancements through a positive and naturalistic eugenism, transitional relics and whatnot?
FinallyTheNight 3 months ago
A mere conjecture?
Its a done deal.
The proof is right there in chromosome 2.
Another MAXTARD fail.....
odinata 4 months ago
There is NO proof that the chromosome "fusion" actually happened. It's a mere conjecture and assumption. Ken Miller you're an idiot and a liar. "I think this is authentic" That's PROOF POSITIVE that YOU don't fucking know.
EPIC FAIL
SockPuppet357 4 months ago
@SockPuppet357 Even if there was no chromosome 2, there is still tons of indicators in our genomes that still prove this
splicedenergy 3 months ago
Comment removed
SockPuppet357 4 months ago
Ken Miller is a shame to evolution theory. Unrelated species may have the same number of chromosomes. It is the code sequence in the DNA that determines whether a creature will turn out to be a human or a chimp, not number of chromosomes. Even now biologists are still unable decipher so many segments in the DNA strand.
daogdaog 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog "It is the code sequence in the DNA that determines whether a creature will turn out to be a human or a chimp, not number of chromosomes" You are indeed correct.
SockPuppet357 4 months ago
@daogdaog You have no idea what you are talking about. Go read a book and stop saying misinformed things to others
splicedenergy 3 months ago
@splicedenergy What misinformation are you talking about? Based on mtDNA evidence humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. There is no mtDNA evidence extracted from a so called ape-like common ancestor. Humans and chimps are ASSUMED to have a common ancestor based on mtDNA rate of mutation which is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog That's a lie. We know where and when "mitochondrial eve" lived even. Mitochondrial only means maternal. You are leaving paternal out of the equation.
splicedenergy 3 months ago
@splicedenergy "mitochondrial eve" has nothing to do with chimp-human or neanderthal-human common ancestor. It is the point of origin of modern humans, not apes. Read Krings et al mtDNA research so that will have a little background on how biologists compute divergence based on mtDNA rate of mutation which is not well known.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog We are closer relatives to chimps than neanderthals. We did not evolve from them. You have this idea in your head that all the species are headed the same way. Which is a mistake. We are related to everything to which degree can be minor or major. The branches of the family tree from the beginning has easily a trillion olive branches. Evolution doesn't have a purpose or a plane. You think species change as a whole. They don't. Many populations branch off into other branches
splicedenergy 3 months ago
@daogdaog You are not factoring in random mutation and natural selection either.
splicedenergy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@splicedenergy Let us take a simple case by factoring in random mutation and natural selection. Which series of animals did giraffe evolve from the earliest known giraffid?
daogdaog 3 months ago
But, but...god fused the chromosomes.
DBCOOPER888 5 months ago
@DBCOOPER888 god did nothing since there is no proof of this fairy god you speak of.
JordoF6 5 months ago
@JordoF6 Dude, I was mocking.
DBCOOPER888 5 months ago
Where is Stephen C Meyer when you need him?
compgrad1 6 months ago
Yes Mr Miller we can compare our genome to the chimpanzees. As it turns out
"Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees"
Abstract
"...the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%...However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences... about 80% of proteins are different between the two species"
toobsucker 6 months ago
The evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.
TheWorldFarOff 6 months ago
There's no evidence, no eyewitness accounts, no genuine link between simian & Man.
TheWorldFarOff 6 months ago
A conjecture does not meet the definition of the word "science" whose derivation is fr. the Latin verb "scire" meaning "to know." To suppose, theorize, guess, as had Darwin & his boot-licks, is not scientific. Darwinism is a relic of the 19th century. It fills a religious void in the warped minds of Western-Civilization-destroying "atheists."
TheWorldFarOff 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lincoln on Slavery:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery. --- March 14, 1861
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. --- September 15, 1858
TheWorldFarOff 6 months ago
Chihuahuas & evolutionism: Evolved logic dictates that if for the next million years many Chihuahuas are routinely lobbed to their deaths from cliffs eventually (the key word) some will develop the type of evolved webbing that allows flying squirrels to glide & land safely. It's true. Everyone who understands the way evolution works understands that.
TheWorldFarOff 6 months ago
ok lets kill evolution!
protein can only be synthesed by proteins!!
so how first protein was able to be occured by chance from molecules?
and more importantly how on earth did all case begin from one single cell.if its true how can not wee see this in labratuary even if we plan the conditions.
wow we cant do the random simplest first cell.only nature can create it but only in first times of world.nature did its job 3.7 billion years ago and now its wacthin whats happening. u apes re really smart
esraretin 6 months ago
@esraretin
Just because scientists cannot create a human from a few cells in a lab in front of your eyes for your convenience( something which takes billions of years) doesn't make the theory of evolution any less probable. You prove nothing. Your logic is " my simple mind cannot comprehend this is possible therefore it isn't." There is plenty science hasn't discovered yet or is unable to recreate, again this proves nothing except that we don't know everything. Well done ; >
jonsweep 6 months ago
@esraretin The theory of evolution very specifically does not include abiogenesis, which is a separate matter covered under the theory of abiogenesis--in no small part because we know a great deal about the diversification of life compared to how it got started in the first place. Our lack of knowledge of abiogenesis doesn't even *begin* to imply that evolution is false.
belladonna5012 6 months ago
There has never seen shown a case where a mutation was shown to increase the information in the Genome. Thus, the Human Genome would have to be the original parent and the apes fell away, not evolving away but breaking down genetically , literally degenerative or devolving down. The Genome does not evolve to increase information , it breaks down, loses genetic sequences and eventually goes extinct and never evolves to over come the limits of it's design. So Evolution is a false theory.
CarmineFragione 6 months ago
LOL @ the 100 people who downvoted this.
yergi 7 months ago
Does the information (genetic code) in the portions of genome in the "fused" human bits correspond to the unfused pair in the apes?
doireallyneed1 8 months ago
@doireallyneed1 Yes its been tested and tried. A dozen genetic studies have shown them to be congruent from every possible angle.
slippy441 7 months ago
@slippy441,
Sounds like case closed to me.
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
the arguments are all better answered on the assumption that the Human Genome was the Parent, existing early, and then Chip and other apes fell away as degenerates of the species of original. STDS , Radiation, Retro Viruses can account for the Human Genome to devolve into 48 chromosomes by X Fracturing , which has been observed scientifically, then the obvious stretch of evolution by Fusion of Telomeres. The more likely answer, the Human Genome is the original, not the apes.
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
A beaver, hare, and deer mouse also ALL have 48 chromosomes.... Lol, what a LAME argument for evolution.
The1andonlyBYack 8 months ago
@The1andonlyBYack This is a very small section of a very large argument. This by itself is not meant to prove evolution, it just adds to the argument, It's only a 4 min vid. Show me ANY religous argument that isn't lame.
MyJibJib 8 months ago
@The1andonlyBYack Spoken like someone who knows nothing about science or the subject being discussed. Well done.
Of course the argument for a divine creator is much better: "Well there's this book you see that was written thousands of years ago. It's AWESOME! There's talking snakes and floods and parting the Red Sea."
ixnay66 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Awwwww. Most people aren't giving Randomidable the Thumbs Up because they're religous. D:
stuffedpandamayu 10 months ago
Comment removed
stuffedpandamayu 10 months ago
furthermore, he shows us there was a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.
brie7xo 10 months ago
this proves nothing. The evidence does indicate that human chromosomes were once more similar to those of apes than they are currently, but that is all. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human to ape common ancestry. Simply put, there are no "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA.
brie7xo 10 months ago
@brie7xo 'Simply put, there are no "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA.'
ERVs are retroviruses which integrate themselves into the DNA of any host they enter. The ERV therefor becomes part of the genome of that host, and is passed on to the next generation, and the next, and so on. It has been shown through genome sequencing that Chimps and Humans share these ERVs. The exact same ERVs, the same number of base pairs long, in exactly the same places in our genomes
CreationistsGoToHell 10 months ago
@brie7xo The chances of just one of these ERVs appearing in precisely the same place in the genome of Chimps and Humans are practically non-existent if you're appealing to an option other than common ancestry (Given that our genomes are 3 billion base pairs long, and these ERVs are made of only 500 base pairs). And Humans and Chimps share no less than 14 of these ERVs. So to say that there are no 'shared errors' is to basically be rather misinformed.
CreationistsGoToHell 10 months ago
Lol, and once again Major mathematical fail.
The manager has 25$, the bellhop has two, and each guy has a dollar.
The guys paid 9 x 3 = 27 dollars, 25$ to the manager and the 2 the bellhop grab for himself.
This is the issue with your type of mentality, parlor tricks or simple distortion of the documented evidence does not go against mathematics or science.
It simple shows desperation, from the side that is lacking in evidence.
perstriker 10 months ago
hmm grab two from both piles... glues them togeather... now my count is 45... & the human gene went out the window. look, i get it, evolution is a religion! these 3 hunters went hunting- after a full day they got nothin// so they checked into a motel room- they paid $30 ($10 each)... the manager sends the bellhop $5 to refund the guys- crooked bellhop pockets $2 gives each man $1.. so you got 3 guys at $9 each.. 3x9=27 plus the two the bellhop took... 27+2=29.... where is the missing dollar?
phoenixgms21 10 months ago
@phoenixgms21 Now is when you offer the "proof" that 1 = 0 and pretend like nobody has exposed the inherent fallacy.
Ematched 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hmm grab two from both piles... glues them togeather... now my count is 45... & the human gene went out the window. look, i get it, evolution is a religion these 3 hunters went hunting- after a full day they got nothin// so they checked into a motel room- they paid $30 ($10 each)... the manager sends the bellhop $5 to refund the guys- crooked bellhop pockets $2 gives each man $1.. so you got 3 guys at $9 each.. 3x9=27 plus the two the bellhop took... 27+2=29.... where is the missing dollar?
phoenixgms21 10 months ago
hmm grab two from both piles... glues them togeather... now my count is 45... & the human gene went out the window.. look, i get it, evolution is a religion these 3 hunters went hunting- after a full day they got nothin// so they checked into a motel room- they paid $30 ($10 each)... the manager sends the bellhop $5 to refund the guys- crooked bellhop pockets $2 gives each man $1.. so you got 3 guys at $9 each.. 3x9=27 plus the two the bellhop took... 27+2=29.... where is the missing dollar?
phoenixgms21 10 months ago
"one" human gene "fused" from "two" primate genes... would be a case of 22+22 with two paird to = 46... but that isn't the case (wouldn't be human now would it?)... an this pooves it... scientists everywhere are liars talking out their butt about a "fairy tale" they call evolution- because it's easy money... I've also prooven to have a better mind than many many millions of brainwashed people that hopelessly believe what they are told and do no research of their own to either prove or disprove
phoenixgms21 10 months ago
lemme get this straight... we have 23 from mom, 23 from pops, 23+23=46 while apes have 24+24= 48 and you saying a monkey and a chimp 24+24 with a fused chrom = 46? lets see now... I have two piles of 24 dollar bills each... (takes one bill off each) now there's 23! amazing... I'm now super gluing the two bills togeather... (one from each pile) it's now one bill! great, lets count... .. hmmm, i got 47 chromosomes. looks like evolution is as wrong as your math! so NOW, wheres MY honorary degree?
phoenixgms21 10 months ago
@phoenixgms21 You really need to learn math.
These are pair chromosomes. What it means is that not just one side gets fused. But both sides.
So you have to grab two bills from one side, then glue those together. Then you grab two in the other side and then you glue those together as well. So each side is reduced to 23 a piece. Then you pair them and they will all have a match. So 23 pairs for a total of 46.
perstriker 10 months ago
brilliant work from a brilliant man....
googulisevilscum 10 months ago
In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
achilles197474 10 months ago
@achilles197474 Except that you're merely taking universal physical constants and assuming that because you, a conscious observer, have come about in this system, these are the only physical constants which could have brought about a conscious observer, so the system must have been designed by a conscious creator. This is non-scientific, teleological thinking equivalent to saying that because you've been dealt a winning hand on your first try, the game was designed for you to win all along.
ethanxvx 10 months ago
Why can't we just say that anyone who still believes in creation hasn't evolved at all?
tomblack2112 10 months ago
this site fell flat because nothing has been added as proof to the hypothesis presented purporting to explain why chimps have 48 and human 46 . The counter to the entire hypothesis is reasonable medical science that shows that human beings can easily be the original parent Genome and for Retro Viruses, Radiation and Diseases, that an ancient humanoid being had a broken chromosome pattern that repeated in close proximity to others, and the apes then fell away from humans, but not evolution.
CarmineFragione 11 months ago
@Blacksmart1000 You can literally watch evolution take place in bacteria, and through fast breeding life forms.
As far as you user name, did you name yourself blacksmart so that when someone says you are black who isn't smart you can call them racist and avoid the whole thing. Pathetic, not just the avoidance, but also in the stupid irony that that isn't racist. IE:. It isn't prejudice if the attribute is announced.
cemarz 11 months ago
@blacksmart1000 Good god. How did this go that far over your head? It's not even complex.
cemarz 11 months ago 2
@cemarz ..Evolution is still a lie.
blacksmart1000 11 months ago
@blacksmart1000 Oh wow.... he just explained the entire process to you... its really pathetic how blinded by religion some people are... science has already disproved the bible many times, but I bet you ignored that or don't even know about it because your one of the countless brainwashed sheeple. There is not only an incredible amount of evidence for evolution, but there is an incredible amount of evidence that the bible is a load of lies.
Randomidable 11 months ago 27
@Randomidable The Bible is not a science textbook... Therefore, there is nothing for science to disprove things in the Bible... You might as well say that the science has disproved the Native American Indian Spirituality... Or that science has disproved the Dharma... It is misguided for those to refer to the Bible as a science textbook. It is equally misguided for those who try to debunk the Bible scientifically.
ChannelJoeE 7 months ago
@ChannelJoeE Actually many of the stories in the bible can be disproven by basic physics. The age of the earth contradicts the bible, and the idea that there was no death until Eve bit the apple is disproven by carbon dating of fossils dating back millions of years ago, taking place far earlier than the story of Adam and Eve (therefore proving that death took place long before the times of Adam and Eve). Science cannot fully disprove it, but theres far greater reasons to not believe in it.
Randomidable 7 months ago
@Randomidable Dude. Did you miss my entire post...? It is absurd in itself to use physics to even attempt to debunk the Bible. As I said above, there is no point! Those who take Genesis as a "literal" sequence of events are misguided and wrong. And dare I say, stupid. But those who hit back that stupidity with "The Genesis is scientifically implausible" is equally misguided and dare I say stupid. Again, would you tell an American Indian "Well, your creation story is scientifically flawed."? -_-"
ChannelJoeE 7 months ago
@ChannelJoeE I know the bibles stories arent to be taken literaly, but most of its followers still do. I thought you were one of those people who do take the stories literaly, so I thought I would disprove the stories using science, even though a person who believes the stories are literal probably thinks that the "events" were "supernatural" and therefore dont follow the laws of science.
Randomidable 7 months ago
@Randomidable Tell that to Ken Miller...who is a Roman Catholic.
Grant692 6 months ago
@Randomidable he just lie last arguments show that 22nd chromosone of chimps re more different than previuosly reported
esraretin 6 months ago
@Randomidable The Bible is full of lies? The word "lie" implies the writers of the Bibles knew the truth to begin with! They had no idea about concepts of modern science (because they didn't have experiments or peer-review), so they couldn't have possibly lied! :-)
chuckinator0 6 months ago
@chuckinator0 What I meant by lies is that its full of bullshit thought up by people who were either crazy and heard voices in their head, or who wanted to create an organized religion and made up a bunch of little stories and ideas and put it all into a book( not lying, just making stories). And five months after my comment, I don't think science has disproven the bible, I think the bible does that all on its own. I just used the word "lies" because I was angry at the moment =D
Randomidable 6 months ago
@Randomidable Guess what? Some people think that evolutin is a religion composed of lies. (Some scientists are not aware that they are lies because they have not been taught to do anything but accept what they have been taught and wouldn't know a logical fallacy from a banana.) For ex. in this video we see the following logical fallacies. 1) The Fallacy of the Single Cause, as in, "Look! We found something new! And only evolution can explain it!" Funny thing. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago in playlist The study of science leads to humanism which leads to peace
Comment removed
LoricaLady 3 months ago in playlist The study of science leads to humanism which leads to peace
Comment removed
LoricaLady 3 months ago in playlist The study of science leads to humanism which leads to peace
@Randomidable Cont. About 1 in 1000 people have an additional fusesd chromosome. Let's see if one came from apes, then why not both? But the evolutionists don't even mention the other one since it doesn't fit in with their nice little "proof." 2) The Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Bees, moths & birds fly. Chimps & tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Snakes & worms look a lot alike. But...correlation does not imply causation. 3) The Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Cont."
LoricaLady 3 months ago in playlist The study of science leads to humanism which leads to peace
@Randomidable Cont. Yes there is a superficial number match with the chromosomes but the content of the chimps' and that of humans does NOT match! And anyway, even evolutionists aren't saying we're descended from chimps, so the argument is bogus all around.
Religion is when you have faith in what you can't see. Like the primal pond - zip evidence life can come from inorganic matter but it's in kids library books on evo, on Nova, & all over the media as if its a scientific fact. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago in playlist The study of science leads to humanism which leads to peace
@Randomidable We are told to believe in the invisible when told that Fossil A led to Fossil B, C, D based on never to be seen innumerable links between them. How do we tell a "missing" link from a never existed one? Have faith brother! Just belieeeeve! We were told scales turned into feathers & feet into fins. Yet with billioins of fossils we only see 100% scales, 100% feathers, 100% fins & 100% feet. This is the tip of the iceberg ot things evolution teaches that are lies.
LoricaLady 3 months ago in playlist The study of science leads to humanism which leads to peace
This guy is just as convincing as a politician or used car salesman. Humans for 46 chromosomes and apes have 48 chromosomes. So what does that tell you? We were created differently. Duh....?
blacksmart1000 1 year ago
@blacksmart1000 Are you dumb? Lol are you stupid? Did you even pay attention to the video. No it would seem you are a black who isn't smart. Others are but you aren't.
JohnBrody23 1 year ago
@JohnBrody23
Actually, John Brody, I am not black. It was just a name that I made up to see how many ignorant racists out there would assume that I was black based upon my screen name. You just proved my point. Thanks. Next, aside from being obnoxious, you have not even replied back with an intelligent response to justify (by the way, that means to defend) Ken's statements.
blacksmart1000 1 year ago
@blacksmart1000 Two ancestral chromosomes fused to form our chromosome 2.
Spartan9688 11 months ago
it was taken out, (ancient alian theory). we are hybrids.
MrIhaveacat 1 year ago
Most scientist are compromised by the system and the scientific mafia...I say this at the risk of sounding extreme, however sometime the easiest way to say something is ...to simply just say it!
I commend 'circus' for stating it much more eloquently than I!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@hayomtov7 "Scientific mafia"... LOL!
The evidence is available for EVERYONE, dipshit.
FreePlay 11 months ago
@FreePlay ...evidence?
Not so..if you were to say data or information than that would be correct..however the difference between indoctrination and education is with education all available information and data is generally put forth and the public with this information can make an informed decision one way or the other. Whereas with indoctrination they only give you what is in favor of their hypothesis while any inconvenient data is left out! I.E. climate gate emails reported by Wall. St. Jrn.
hayomtov7 11 months ago
@hayomtov7 Education is not about letting people make "informed decisions" about evidence. People can't make informed decisions if they don't have a basic understanding of the science. You're full of shit. Sorry.
FreePlay 11 months ago
@FreePlay ...Education is not about letting people make "informed decisions" about evidence???
You have demonstrated for all to see and have proven my point...you reflect the arrogance of the scientific mafia completely! Case and point!
hayomtov7 11 months ago
@hayomtov7 NO. Education is not about letting kids decide what is true. Education is about teaching kids how to think and giving them a baseline understanding of what we know.
Arrogant does NOT mean 'wrong.' Science is arrogant BECAUSE IT WORKS, BITCHES.
FreePlay 11 months ago 23
@FreePlay ..Education is not about letting people make "informed decisions" about evidence
Huh! you seem to be talking in circles exposing yourself as a proponent of 'indoctrination' and now you attempt to back peddle so lets try it one more time!
I reitterate, 'all available information and data is generally put forth and the public with this information can make an informed decision one way or the other! Thats education!
True science is not arrogant since it is corrected continually!
hayomtov7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hayomtov7 "True science is not arrogant since it is corrected continually!"
BY SCIENCE. IT'S CORRECTED BY SCIENCE. Not by ancient books of fiction.
FreePlay 11 months ago
@FreePlay On the contrary, Science is not arrogant at all. Arrogance is an exaggerated estimation of superiority; but Science is demonstrably, objectively superior to the notions advocated by those who lack any skill at critical thinking ;)
WilliamBlackWolf 5 months ago
@hayomtov7 No, it IS about making 'informed' decisions. However, most religious people are not informed, or educated, in the right way to be able to understand science. Which is why they remain blind.
It's like trying to make an amazonian tribal man understand Chinese
surgeboy99 10 months ago
I wonder if you got a modern chimp & could go in at the genetic level and fuse the correct chromosomes we could artificially evolve a chmp into something even closer to a human? just a thought..
paulspydar 1 year ago
@paulspydar
It doesn't work, I'm pretty sure someone told me that it is much more complicated than that. Which leaves me scratching my head as to how this chromosome evidence gives Ken the confidence to paint the picture he paints. He fills in the blanks based on assumptions, not data.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Interesting,You know it doesn't work?It was just a random thought I threw out here,but if you "know"? , how? has someone or group/s etc tried it already? & if so who? have you got any links you could point me to? or peer reviewed articles etc? that would be very interesting to look into ,thanks for your reply btw & happy holidays.PS "pretty sure"? your either sure you were told or not? do you remember yet if you were? & by whom? pps I dont mean to sound be rude its an honest question/observation
paulspydar 1 year ago
@paulspydar
If you do a search, and pay attention to the blogs, this topic has been discussed quite a bit. I can't remember exactly who I was talking to, but I remember the gist of it. Basically, even if you fuse the chromosomes together, you still have to change a lot of other genes, and the protein coverings of those genes have to change as well. The physiology between man and ape is quite different. Honestly, I don't know what would happen directly if we manipulated the embryo of an ape.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
wait he says he believes in a designer, but not a deceptive one. If what he is saying is true, the designer is deceptive. in other words why is he a roman catholic theist.
Dpesh7 1 year ago
@Dpesh7
Because he is defending the philosophy of materialism at all costs, even if it conflicts with his own beliefs. Science pays his bills, Catholicism makes him feel righteous.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
"Hey Ben can you name scientist who support ID?"
According to you no reputable scientist support ID, so when I name those who do, u say they're not reputable because they support ID. This is the classic definition of circular reasoning and I told you that you would use that BS before I even answered your question. Your a very amusing fellow. I guess if I lived in a country were there are more kangaroos than quadruple the human population I would be a little off too. Just kidding man don't cry.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "According to you no reputable scientist support ID, so when I name those who do, u say they're not reputable because they support ID"
They're not reputable for more than that though. In my short analysis of each (limited by space) I didn't dismiss them on the basis they supported ID (two didn't anyway.) I pointed out their actual scientific disrepute.
Also you are very bad at telling jokes
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc U put them down for being creationist or IDers even calling Gonzales who won numerous awards & citations & even discovered a new principle, dead weight, even after it was proven through emails that he was denied tenure because of his involvement with the production of the privileged planet (in which the word ID was never mentioned) and not because he was a mediocre scientist as you claim.
You have not made a case on any of them unless you call rumors or unsubstantiated charges proof.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "U put them down for being creationist or IDers"
Creationists, yes (and you would agree that's not a good sign) but I never discounted any for using the term ID because that was the point (however many purported IDers were in fact, YECs). Einstein and Beloussov weren't IDers though.
Emails 'proved' no such thing. You are simply believing want to want to believe and what the Dishonesty Institute says. 'Privelaged Planet' was a good reason to boot him but it wasn't the reason
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
I didn't say Einstein was an IDers. The term didn't exist then. I said he believed that nature had an intelligent causation. The God Spinoza who revealed himself through nature.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "The term didn't exist then. I said he believed that nature had an intelligent causation"
He didn't though, he used the term God as a description of the beauty through nature. He makes this very clear in several letters.
Also, this part really made me laugh
"The God Spinoza"
Spinoza was a pantheist philospher you dolt, not a god! Einstein did not believe in "the God Spinoza" he admired the philosopher Spinoza.
That's one for the record lol
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester the only rule is that if I take any issue with any of the whoevers you try to plug i will need to justify why.
ProcInc 1 year ago
The flagellar motor complexus is enough to frustrate frontal-bone-beaten-monkey-lovers in Dover & Santa Monica. Evolutionists (indoctrinates and congregants) can't differentiate between speculation and knowledge (knowledge of things that are physically/mathematically measured and/or measurable) as their grasp of the English language is threadbare at best.
FinallyTheNight 1 year ago
as i watched this video,i thought, heres an intelligent guy.by the end of it though my thoughts had changed to the point where i was thinking this must be a spoof or joke video.
is this man for real?
does he really believe the stuff he was saying?
who educated him?
dont home educate,thats the message i get
shagger1968 1 year ago
@shagger1968 Ironically it's people who home home educate that believe in creationism. Ken Miller is a professor at Brown University. He's also taught at Harvard. The bits brought up in this particular clip from this lecture are facts though. Nothing is disputed here by science. It's all been through the peer review process which is what keeps science honest.
leftofpunk 1 year ago 2
@leftofpunk
Ken has no explanation for the fused chromosome, therefore he simply assumes it must be part of our evolutionary distinction from apes. If he's right, it's by sheer belief alone, not evidence. How did the chromosome fuse and why, if it indeed did? Still waiting for an answer.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision "ken has no explanation for the fused chromosome"
Of course he has, its called chromosomal translocation and happens every day not only in humans but in nearly any species. Its a common event.
"he assumes distinction from apes"
Well, first of all we are apes, humans are apes. So it isn´t a distinction. Secondly its about inheritance of certain characteristics and not speciation. A fusion doesn´t make a new species.
HeavyweightThinker 1 year ago
@HeavyweightThinker
Than why do we have the same number of chromosomes as every other human known to live? Am I missing something? Did downs syndrome people branch off with their extra chromosome and produce a new lineage? I know how chromosomes fuse, but that doesn't explain shit. Did the apes come down off the trees and start eating psychedelic plants? What happened? Ken has no answer.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision "it´s by sheer belief alone, not evidence"
I don´t understand how you could possibly say this, given the fact that what Miller discusses is only and entirely based on evidence and facts. Nothing of what he says is not based on sheer facts.
"How did it fuse and why?"
Chromosomal translocation. A form of a mutation.
HeavyweightThinker 1 year ago
@HeavyweightThinker
Are there researchers in some dark basement somewhere messing with ape genes to see what comes of it? Apes are not nearly as genetically similar as I once thought. While many genes appear in sequence, and appear to have similar function, the way genes are expressed is quite different. There is much to explain.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@shagger1968 Apparently, you are not equipped to gauge intelligence!
Perhaps you should have done some research on Dr. Ken Miller, before you had decided to criticized his intelligence or credentials.
You might try reading once in a while, instead of solely relying on Youtube for information.
By the way, sentences start with capitals, or did your parents not teach that in school?
TheKatman 1 year ago
@TheKatman my friend, you only have to listen to him to realise he has been touched by the devil himself.he talks nonsense and has cleary brainwashed you too.throw out satan and walk into the light
shagger1968 1 year ago
@shagger1968 Why touched by Satan? Because the prospect of humans resulting from gradual improvement over tens of thousands of years cramps your desire to have a simple explanation gift-wrapped in an ancient book? Let's be honest. If you're after an excuse to keep believing in your favorite fairy tale and not to have to do the work of learning what kids in 8th grade grasp when they try, too bad. It's your problem, not the rest of us. Keep your lack of discipline and mental laziness to yourself.
iod3k 1 year ago
@iod3k im more darwin than dawkins himself mate,we are apes,although i have a brother who havent quite evolved yet
shagger1968 1 year ago
@shagger1968 agreed and me too.
freqeist 1 year ago
If apes are supposed to be so closely related to us, then why would any Darwinist object to his daughter bringing home an ape as a mate? Humans differ to other humans genetically by no more than two percent, and many would have you believe that humans and apes differ by the same two percent. So if your a Darwinist, whats the freaken problem? Go bop a monkey have a good time. No judgment here. Knock yourself out.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The same reason a Texan doesn't like it if his daughter brings home a black man
TaLuVs 1 year ago
@benthemiester haha, you're a sick man Ben.
Of course since creationists are so judgmental of even different ethnic groups dating they figure that evolution must allow bestiality.
Its a desperate and dishonest argument that only someone disinterested in what is true would support.
Humans and apes of course DO differ by as little as 2 percent. Are you saying if you accepted this you would have no issue in 'bopping a monkey'?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Maybe twenty years ago I might have believed that, but we can now compare larger parts of our genome, not just a small part of the 2% of genes that code for protein. Including indels takes it down to 95-96%. When we take everything into consideration as close as possible which the first early comparisons didn't take into account, the difference can be as high as 30%.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Ben comaring two PEOPLE yields similar results simply because non coding DNA can accumulate random noise safely. Evolution accounts for both the similarities and the differences because it always fits the same pattern regardless.
No alternative mechanism has ever been proposed that than explain either. The fact is that here we have a quantifiable molecular piece of evidence unequivocally in favour of common descent and your reaction was "I don't wanna fuck a monkey"
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc This whole notion of random noise is as obsolete as a typewriter. Much of what we once thought was (in the words of Kenneth Miller a few years ago, mindless scribble) now appears to be anything but mindless. Most of the genome is now considered to have many beneficial functions, such as gene regulation and expression and seems to be intertwined with different emergent regulatory sequences that have a non random properties. We are finding more function all the time.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Comment removed
ProcInc 1 year ago
>According to modern evolutionary synthesis, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
To put it more simply Ben. Evolution predicts that specific transitional features should be found in both extinct snd extant species according to to their evolutionary history.
We find these.
There's nothing disagreeable about the text you copy pasted. I don't know why a creationist would share it
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Now I get it. Every creature living, dead or imaginary is a transitional. There are plenty of transitional's because we're all here, so at some point we had to make a transition. Yeah thats it. I've seen the light.
How could any real scientist call that circular reasoning? It all makes perfects sense now.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Every creature living, dead or imaginary is a transitional."
No Ben, just living or dead. Imaginary creatures are not bound by evolutionary laws of form.
It's true that all species are transitional between its progeny and descendents but the term "transitional form" is more commonly used in its traditional definition. You pasted this definition yourself earlier.
It's not hard to understand, but then I underestimate your density
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Now I get it." you claim to have accepted evolution once, did you not get it then?
"There are plenty of transitional's because we're all here, so at some point we had to make a transition."
Well, we actually have such 'specific' transitions preserved in rocks to document our evolution
"Yeah thats it. I've seen the light."
I am inclined to believe you are still ignorantly predisposed to thinking that humans suddenly appeared fully formed out of nothing
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "According to modern evolutionary synthesis"
As for the above quotation, maybe you missed the fact that this was my point.
In evolutionary theory its always better to redefine the term rather than admit the inconstancies & problems that some people refer to as gaps, or even others who deny that there are any problems at all, and that the modern synthesis is perfect as is. Its not just the religious people anymore, even atheist and agnostics are openly chalenging & criticizing ToE.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "In evolutionary theory its always better to redefine the term rather than admit the inconstancies & problems that some people refer to as gaps"
The term hasn't been redefined, especially in this case.
Evolutionary theory is refined (if necessary) according to new data insofar that its most recent incarnation is consistent with every one of the facts at hand. Scientific theories do this universally and ID creationism doesn't which is why it fails.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc You also admit that the modern synthesis is being challenged by evolutionist. If people who don't even accept their own synthesis are non the less willing to accept evolution, then this proves that evolution is faith based. The modern synthesis is the standard the Dover trial was based on, and neo Darwinist used a federal judge to validate it, and they told the public the theory was sound enough to be proven in court. OOPS
benthemiester 1 year ago
"OOPS"
oops nothing mr monkey bopper. The Modern Synthesis is indeed sound enough to be proven in court but that doesn't mean it can't be extended. People who understand science would acknowledge this. Newtonian mechanics can be proven in court and that is far less accurate than neodarwinian evolution
Evolution is evidence based and its nobody but ID's fault it was trounced in court for being absurd and dishonest
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Do you actually know what parts of the synthesis are being challenged"
Yes I do. As I have said before, I have posted Newman's interview who was an attendee at Altenberg meeting, and even he criticized Dover verdict and he along with Massimo Piglicuci are calling for the relaxing of the assumptions of the modern synthesis.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Yes I do. As I have said before, I have posted Newman's interview who was an attendee at Altenberg meeting, and even he criticized Dover verdict and he along with Massimo Piglicuci are calling for the relaxing of the assumptions of the modern synthesis"
Ben, I've already addressed this and pointed out how you are talking a load of crap to try until your knuckles are white to alleviate how embarrassing ID fails when put under the lightest scrutiny
ProcInc 1 year ago
"If people who don't even accept their own synthesis are non the less willing to accept evolution"
Do you actually know what parts of the synthesis are being challenged, (why and how) and are simply being dishonest or are you so lacking in any knowledge in what you are talking about you figured anything's better than nothing?
Also, none of the mechanisms covered in the Dover Trial are in any way the subject of challenge anyway.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc cont....... Newman himself blames his own colleagues for hand waiving and for telling people to believe things that are simply not true. You need to ask your self why would he say this?…….and these men are hardcore evolutionist who admit still little is understood about the extended synthesis (which by the way) the NCSE, Eugenie Scott and other Neo Darwinist are in opposition to.
benthemiester 1 year ago
"even atheist and agnostics are openly chalenging & criticizing ToE."
Actually Ben you have it backwards. The theory of evolution is universally accepted and no valid argument has ever been presented against despite centuries of attempts (The modern evolutionary sythesisis is challenged by scientists who unequivocally accept evolution). So much that modern creationists accept common descent more often than not
Name one valid critic of evolutionary theory
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I cant say enough about your use of these airtight caveats.
The phrase usually goes like this or something to this affect. No real scientist, or no valid argument, or no serious biologist. You also keep repeating the mantra that there are tons of intermediates and your goal post is that all extinct and extant animals are intermediates.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I cant say enough about your use of these airtight caveats."
You can't really say anything about them Ben, probably why you called them airtight. You need to learn that eventually identifying a point is not the same as refuting it.
"No real scientist, or no valid argument"
If you disagree with this you have been so far hesitant to name any of either.
There are tons of intermediates and I mean according to the stricter definition.
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "The Modern Synthesis is indeed sound enough to be proven in court but that doesn't mean it can't be extended"
"People who understand" Another one of your qualifiers?
So now I suppose Stewart Newman doesn't understand. I guess this make him one of those non real scientist.
benthemiester 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benthemiester "So now I suppose Stewart Newman doesn't understand. I guess this make him one of those non real scientist."
Stewart Newman understands that ID creationism is bunk and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is an effective scientific model. You would like to think he is a non scientist thanks to his contributions to evolutionary biology but he is
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "your goal post is that all extinct and extant animals are intermediates."
It's not my fault that objectively all animals are in transition Ben so you may as well not have your little sook about it.
On top of that however, evolutionary theory predicts that we should find transitions in the fossil record indicative in hindsight of specific stages of evolutionary history. And we do.
Whenever I say transitional fossil, that is what I refer to
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc " If you disagree with this you have been so far hesitant to name any of either"
Are you challenging me to name reputable scientists who have contributed to science and who believe ID is a plausible alternative theory, or that it is a better explanation in general? If you are, I can name several, however according to your reasoning (that no real scientist would advocate this), does it really matter?
benthemiester 1 year ago
"Are you challenging me to name reputable scientists who have contributed to science and who believe ID is a plausible alternative theory"
sure, put one up for analysis.
"however according to your reasoning (that no real scientist would advocate this), does it really matter?"
It will certainly give me an opportunity to make my point with a specific example. After all currently a mediocre internet musician is trying to defend it. You could at least raise the bar from there
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc The Cambrian radiation, one of evolutions most predictable events, and all those millions of vertebrate to invertebrate transitions. lol
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "and all those millions of vertebrate to invertebrate transitions. lol"
You actually think the Cambrian explosion featured transitions of vertebrates into invertebrates? In several 'million' different lines?
Good god Ben, you haven't researched evolution a day in your life! No wonder your so hopelessly predisposed to your magical poof hypothesis.
In order to accept the fact of evolution you first need a clue in your head..
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "put one up for analysis" Are there some kind of rules to this challenge? Something like.... the ones that agree with Intelligent design don't count because they don't understand. I'm not sure if I can pass the high standard of circular reasoning that governs your judgment. Mediocre internet musician. That sounds like something an ex girlfriend would say. I think I hurt someones feewings. lol
As for the Cambrian and invertebrates comments, I think you missed the sarcastic tone.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I think I hurt someones feewings"
It isn't my fault that you take the veracity of evolution personally or that you are a classic dunning-kruger Ben. You believe in an absurd pseudoscience and defend it childishly.
Sarcasm and evolution means 'monkey bopping' is hardly reasoned discourse.
As is misrepresenting evolutionary biologists.
So who are you going to plug as the reputable ID lauding scientist?
ProcInc 1 year ago
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Ben this is just a list of Discovery Institute hacks, none of them are reputable at all. Their arguments have been refuted by the scientific commiunity and their faculties disown themselves from their absurdities on record.
Hell, at least one in your "partial" list (Kenyon) is a young Earth creationist!
Einstein did not believe in an intelligent architect at all and even named Darwin as an example of a scientist opposed by religious dogma (May 19, 1939)
ProcInc 1 year ago
'Minnich'- Minich has no reputation at all except for his embarrassing admissions in the Dover trial that his works were minmally reviewed. He does not publish
'Behe'- Not only did Behe lie under oath attempting to defend ID but he admitted a definition of science that accommodated it also accomodated astrology and he has been refuted without response multiple times by real scientists
'Beloussov'-accepts evolution.
'Skell'- A creationist, widely refuted by the scientific community
ProcInc 1 year ago
'Thaxton'- An evangelical writer of "Pandas and People" which was thoroughly discredited throughout the Dover trial itself
'Sermonti'- An AIDs denialist who is in all liklihood a young earth creationist.
'Gonzalez'- Gonzalez was nothing but dead weight in his faculty and when his tenure was denied he lied about the reasons to try and win support for ID. Why would you try to associate with him?
'Seelke'-self described apologist. No scientific contributions of note.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Furthermore you try to pretend these nuts are laudible by pointing out some do (or once did) belonged to the NAS.
But the NAS' official stance is
"The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming...., examination of [creationist quote mines] reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred"-("Science and Creationism", National Academies press)
ellipsed for space, feel free to check the bit in between
ProcInc 1 year ago
I mean, I'm curious Ben. Do you have any standard of excellence at all fo rthe actual practise of science and or intellectual honesty in general?
I mean you listed freaking Behe and Kenyon as purported "reputable scientists"
Why?
is your only source of "information" the Dishonesty Institute and genesissafaries? I mean at what point do you draw the line at your own incompetence?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Please do not respond any more. You said so many things that are just false. Lets leave it there and go one by one so as not to convolute. Again please give citation Sermonti denies that aids exist or are you using the term aids denialist in the preparative sense. Please clarify.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "You said so many things that are just false"
Name one thing
"please give citation Sermonti denies that aids exist"
Sermonti is an AIDs denialist, he denies that HIV is the cause of AIDs. An utterly preposterous viewpoint that is inexplicably popular among ID creationists
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc For the sake of argument lets say these scientists are wrong. So what, Einstein, Darwin, and Steven Hawkings were wrong. Should we also marginalize these men as scientist? The theory of evolution has been wrong, there were 80+ different body parts we were told were useless & vestigial, from pituitary to the appendix. We were told the same about Junk DNA. I can point out many more
examples but with your circular reasoning and dual standards you would say thats just science advancing
benthemiester 1 year ago
"For the sake of argument lets say these scientists are wrong."
Not only are they wrong but they are not doing science. They are using their qualifications as a means of appearing capable in delivering their antiscience rhetoric. Some even explicitly state this such as Jonathon Wells who made it clear that his biology PHd was part of a plan outlined by his church.
Einstein, Darwin and Hawking (not Hawkings) were also right. Perhaps you should read "Relativity of Wrong"
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc The Beauty of theories is that they don't have to constantly be corrected time and time again. Even when Einstein gave us general relativity, it did not change the fact of Newtons Universal Law of Gravity, in fact his equations are just as valid now as they were when written, and still used today in the world of mechanics, unlike Darwin who was wrong about a lot of things as well as the modern synthesis which was also wrong about a lot of things.
benthemiester 1 year ago