Yes evolution can increase information by man made added intelligence, but when the total function of the gene changes it is never beneficial for the overall system, hence degeneration and genetic entropy. which will never result into new organs and higher life forms!
@CJones990 That is a great example of added manmade intelligence, and adaptive error correcting coding programmed into the cell, but it still has a digestive function which is now corrupted and actually weakens to overall system. When you take the nylon away the bacteria dies out. Great example of degeneration. Don't allow nylonase to reject God and take you to hell, because you will hate that stupid movie for eternity!
Organism can't take on new information? What the hell do call what I am doing right now?!
What do you call natural instincts? what do you call civilization's advances?
This idea is beyond simple logic! they require that define a rock, water, sunlight, and other LIVING things as non life. They are all living, just because they don't go see a movie and eat at burger king doesn't mean rocks and water are not living!
The evo-religion and evo-faith is apparently strong with this deluded one.
You do realize that when Creationists cite example after example of fully formed fossils of never before seen life forms in the fossil record (like Bats for instance) that just suddenly appear with no traceable source of origin and with complex systems (like Sonar and winged appendages) it destroys this entire video? Evo-kids love to cherry pick ;)
So what you are saying is that when a scientist finds something new rather than investigating it, you say proclaims it is proof of god and everybody goes home.
Fantastic video, I feel half the problem in the evolution argument is that evolutionists take this sort of information for granted and creationists don't seek out this sort of information. The fact that the likes of Richard Dawkins don't have the time to educate people to this degree leaves creationists able to claim that we don't even understand our own theories!!
Creationists make the problem "too complex"? I'm sorry, but believing that your great ancestor looked like a Mudskipper and that human beings evolved from sea slime is absurd. Humans allegedly spun off from a common ancestor with chimps a mere 30-40 thousand generations ago. Bacteria reproduce by the countless trillions across the globe everyday, and no new complex life forms ever emerge. What's taking so long? It's easy right?
@thewordofgod2010 Even in a matter of decades/centuries, bacteria are evolving rapidly (hence drug-resistant bacteria/new diseases, etc). What sort of "new complex life form" are you expecting? Obviously bacteria will not just sprout into larger, more advanced beings in the same amount of time it would take for a variation of an already complex being to arise.
@LIEPANEW I don't dispute that bacteria, and all life for that matter, can adapt in order to survive. Random mutation and natural selection are real, and and can do real things in nature. What it does NOT do is turn single celled bacteria into human beings. And there is no evidence such nonsense ever happened, except in the wild imaginations of the Cult of Darwin.
@thewordofgod2010 I hate it how you state bacteria "turned" into human beings, ignoring the countless intermediate steps. If you can admit random mutation and natural selection are real, how can you ignore the overwhelming evidence of evolution via a clear family tree demonstrated in independant fields of study(ie. DNA, embryology, etc). It is rather ironic a christian would demand evidence,quite humorous in fact.The people who wrote the Bible thought God lived in the sky -.-
@LIEPANEW What steps? It is assumed that 99.9% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because macro evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 60-90% of current living animals are represented in the fossil record! A known factor we can check the rate of fossilzation against. Thus we have EMPIRICAL evidence the fossil record is not 99.9% incomplete based on animals we know exist! Thus we know those needed missing animals never existed.
@thewordofgod2010 1. Fossils are degraded over time. So logically we would find more fossils that look like the animals we have today.
2. 60-90%? Where are you getting such a specific percentage (just curious). Of course many fossils would bear resemblance to modern day animals (for the reason above) as well as the fact that small changes would not present clear observational changes upon first look.
3. There are fossils of intermediate forms -.- Prorastomus, Onychonycteris, Eupodophis.
@LIEPANEW The age of the fossils has nothing to do with it. Some of the oldest fossil on earth are the best preserved. 60-90% is from Dr. Michael Denton "Evolution a Theory in Crisis". The range is dependent on the type of animal. Since this really completely refutes evolution they came up with what is called "punctuated equilibrium." Meaning evolution doesn't happen slowly, but in rapid spurts hiding fossil the evidence. And I guess fairies dance in the woods, only when nobody is looking too.
@thewordofgod2010 Look up "Transitional Fossils" (wikipedia will likely suffice)
Just to give you an idea of how many KNOWN transitional fossils there are.Do you also deny vestigal organs, homologous structures, and gene order? If your God did exist, this evidence he left behind would make him the most deceitful being in existence (just to test your faith?).But I guess it is more logical that since stuff appears complicated, a man in the sky (yours specifically/mysteriously) must have made it.
@LIEPANEW All life is homologous within a phylum. DNA codes for proteins and proteins are needed by all life. And of course you will have similar gene order for similar body plans. The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999. But I don't deny that life adapts anyway. And all transitional fossils are pure fantasy. If a seal were extinct I could say they evolved into whales. Everything I see in nature is 100% consistent with design, NOT random mutations.
@thewordofgod2010 There are homologous structures shared by whales, humans,bats,etc.These as well as embryology, DNA, and others show a consistent family tree. They corroborate one another and their findings are consistent with the predictions made by evolution. HAHAH vestigial organs, just to name a few: wisdom teeth, the coccyx, the pyramidalis muscle, ect! Can you explain how transitional fossils are fantasy (other than confirmation bias)? At this point it may be pointless to argue.
@thewordofgod2010 Why would your God design human beings with one tube for both air intake and food intake? Horrible design... it leads to countless deaths. The heart is another inefficient system, hence the pervasiveness of heart disease. Made after his image huh? Pathetic.
PS. I used to be a christian so I can understand how you get caught in the horrible web of fear and desperate clamoring for anything to prove a premise you've already accepted. I hope you find the truth.
@LIEPANEW You were correct when you were a Christian, turn back to Christ. He is your ONLY hope!
Noah, was the only righteous man of his day. The ONLY reason his family got on the ark was because they belonged to Noah. Everyone else was washed away by the flood.
Jesus is the true Noah and only true righteous man. The only reason anyone will be spared is because they belong to him. Everyone else will be washed away forever! Do you belong to Jesus' household? Believe in Jesus and be saved!
@thewordofgod2010 And this is where the argument ends. Reason goes flying out the window and preaching ensues. The only righteous man of his day you say? What about children, virgins, disabled people... all evil? And Noah's family got a pass because they were born in the right place at the right time? This encompasses well the reality of christianity: it is exclusionary, immoral, genocidal, and just plain ludicrous.
@LIEPANEW Yes, every person on this earth is a sinner and therefore evil. You, me everyone! The road to life is narrow and few find it. Your offer of salvation from Jesus Christ is not exclusionary, immoral, genocidal, or ludicrous. Rejecting it because you believe you evolved from a mudskipper it is. Choose life!
@thewordofgod2010 People who are born into other faiths have little to no chance of redemption. As well as this, it says in the Bible many who call themselves Christians will not even get into heaven. This leaves just about less than 10% of the world that will go to heaven. All this even though God created a system where he created humans to compulsively do things he deemed "sin", only to be forgiven by believing in an absurd blood sacrifice (which contradicts the logic he gave us).
@LIEPANEW you where born as an atheast. all babys are not part of any religion until their parents force the religion. so everbodys not going to get in so why try when you are born with 2 sins alredy. in a diffrent comment you say 'penalty for sin is death' that is how belives say they get to heven so heven is the pushment. so if i belived in heven i do not have a ending no matter what my life is like
@thewordofgod2010 You seemed reasonably intelligent when we began this discussion :( How could you have sunk so low as to submit blind emotional statements into a factual debate. Christianity is exclusionary for the reason above. It is immoral because it endorses slavery (as well as violence towards slaves), infanticide, mass rape, blood sacrifice, etc. It is genocidal for many reasons (the flood/not to mention the fact that 90% of the world will receive eternal damnation for circumstance).
@LIEPANEW That Jesus Christ rose from the dead is a fact of history. And yes, I am an intelligent person and possess an IQ 146. Your understanding of the Christian faith is misguided. God said the penalty for sin is death, he created us and has the right to take our lives. He will prove before all of creation that you are guilty. In fact, God is going to use your own measure to punish you with, and you will agree. A couple videos I can offer: watch?v=3tsY3oZVsaM - watch?v=2YEivEc6KcI
@thewordofgod2010 I am not insulting your potential to acquire information (which you childishly retorted with your claim about your IQ), I am insulting the pathetic threats and quibble which you attempt to equivocate with fact. That to me is a sign of foolishness. And again you try to refute my statements without proving how they are actually incorrect. And oh no, God does not only say the penalty for sin is death, he says it is eternal fire. My parents gave birth to me, can they torture me?
"That Jesus Christ rose from the dead is a fact of history"
No it isn't. The existance of Jesus is still considered in debate
"I am an intelligent person and possess an IQ 146"
Liar...Inttelect contains with it the intelligence to understand taht IQ scores don't mean much and thus are not advertised as relevant to an argument
@tnafguy that is what natural selection is. if any one human had a mutation that cause deformities or disease they would die generaly befor they can pass on the deforemed allele. but some times people with a benifical allele will pass on the dna. i watched a part of his speach and it had some intersting parts and it dose seem like evouution is enginered because the replicaion protean could be a lot more accurate but those that can change will survive so evlution is evulving
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
@achilles197474 there is repetitive DNA sequences at the end of a chromosome called a telomere.
in humans the telomere shortan when a cell Replicates.when a new human is created the telomere is returned to its normal length. the telomere is not used to code for proteins but when it is lengthed more infomation is being added.
sometimes when copying textsi accedentally copy a line twice
Everything was created by an intelligent mind, but you need an intelligent mind to see it - the creation v evolution debate is a simple intelligence test...you either see it or you don't...e.g. did a whale's blow hole occur through natural selection? - if you are intellingent you will see the impossibility of this occuring through natural selection, and you will know that the mutations required to achieve this simply never occur in nature - it simply couldn't happen by chance or mutation!
Or it shows that you simply haven't studied evolution enough to fully understand it. Rather than saying an invisible wizard created the blow hole, try to research and understand its development. It can be explained very easily.
@TREACLE97 It isn't ONE mutation that does something like that, and evolution through natural selection doesn't happen by chance - it's anything but! :) The mathmatics behind it is quite sound as is the empirical evidence.
@TREACLE97 You were born 1997, right? Are you a 14 year old girl that believes in god? If you are, the text you have written is cute, adorable, you are young and you think that you know something about this world.
But, if you are much older...well, the it is really really sad for you to think like that.
@hypercub You atheists always use the same old and dumb trick of condescending sarcasm, when you have no arguments. What, you think you will disarm believers and creationists with this? Get real and realize for once and for all, that it requires more faith to believe in the miracles of evolution than to believe in plain "ex-nihilo" creationism. Don't be ridiculous!
@stephen7796 "There was no universe before god made it" is just an assumption. Please prove it (and win your Nobel prize), if you want to take part in a scientific debate.
Anyway nobody is claiming that "something evolved from nothing": Evolution started on our planet about 3.2 billions years ago, when the known universe was about 11 billions years old, so the problem of the origin of universe is irrelevant to evolution. You're messing up two different scientific issues.
@stephen7796 that's the same thing i ask when i think about god. you are just assuming that god is eternal when you in fact just as well can say that matter itself is eternal. universe may be just a temporary form...
The whole point of evolution and natural selection, is that intelligent intervention isn't necessary. Yet you demonstrate more examples of microevolution by mans amazing intervention within the range of microevolution. As there is no macroevolution demonstrated, what is the point?
What blatant bullshit. 10 seconds on google blows that dishonest and ignorant statement out of the water with at more scientific papers, publications, and facts than you could read in a lifetime.
Didn't think to use something as simple as google, didya? No, of course not, because you're too blinded by your propaganda to even read a fucking scientific paper. Way to represent.
Multicellularity. You don't call multicellularity macroevolution? You don't call morphologically significant speciation macroevolution?
Your conflict is with a dictionary and the scientific community, good sir, not me. "No macroevolution demonstrated" is a fabrication of creationist propaganda artists and has absolutely no presence in the scientific community. Ask a fucking biologist.
Evo-delusionists wrongly extrapolate an increase in FREQUENCY or VOLUME of genetic information with an increase of new, unique, organized genetic information. This is identical to comparing A ream of copy paper to a book. It may have the appearance of a 500 page book, but it lacks the printed & organized information that makes it a book.
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this." Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79.
@WirtyDord Its hard not to give these examples because.. we've all encountered em. At least I have. I have one guy who used to use these examines, now he just goes around quoting evolutionary studies in peer reviewed science journals trying to say its means creationism is true.
in communication systems: if the character is shifted the error correcting algorthm will be able to reach this only happens because the datan is sent through that standard.
but every layer of transportation is designed, also in a non error correcting protocoles, one error is not considered adding information it means one garbeled information.
Errors do not make protocoles or standards.
this Guys who amde this video is stupid or thinks others are stupider than him
@billytistrak You are comparing apples & oranges. It isn't the mistake itself that adds the information. It merely gives natural selection something to work with. And evolution works with populations not individuals.
It is obvious that the genetic code is far more flexible then you think it is. You and everyone else have dozens of mutations. And this was just as true in past generations. But we are still here.
" It merely gives natural selection something to work with"
LOL as if "Natural selection" is one of the organization that creates standards.(IANA, ISO, ITU, IAB,IETF,IEEE)
That is farce comedy. You Moron if u do not know what U are talking about I will give you just two hints: how do you save mutation in the next genome(male female)? and how to apply it to embryology.
2- "WTF genetic code more flexible than I think"
I think your craziness is more flexible than logic
@billytistrak I was creating you on the definition of evolution. The principle's use by humans isn't even beside point.
"You Moron" Do you know what that means? A moron is someone with an IQ less the 70. Literally below room temperature.
"how do you save mutation in the next genome(male female)?" Are your mutations causing you trouble? Then they probably won't give your kids trouble either.
Once again your own existence is evidence that it works.
it is you who do not read , and if you read you can not understand.
do not want to...
one thing moron, flexible craziness ==> tolerate all errors and disregards all errors and does not listen to logic, the way you interpret that as if it means you are smart, and that is stupid :-P
@billytistrak I did read those ad hominems. But After a couple years of arguing on the internet I know how fast replying to those can destroy a debate.
,cherry picking (Ignoring that I answered the 2 questions you asked. Why? In favor of not letting go of a perceived insult that I already explained as quote from you.)
And multiple ad hominems.
No misquoting--> No I don't think that I am brighter, just more mature. And not because I'm an atheist, but because of quotes like these:
"pooh talk about shit"
"That is farce comedy. You Moron if u do not know what U are talking about"
@SuperMerlin100 Mutations produce new alleles & add variety. However, molecules-to-man evolution requires the generation of new information to build new, complex, interdependent biochemical pathways. Despite the misleading wording found in the gain-of-function definition, there is
no increase of information or improvement
of biochemical pathways. Without a mechanism for developing such pathways, evolutionism is nothing more than a fairy tale.
Instead, what is observed fits exactly with what we would expect if the Bible is true. Living things are very well designed. Errors introduced by mutations do not build new, well integrated biochemical pathways; instead they often cause disease, and always cause a loss in overall information.
1) Biological evolution started at the beginning of life not before. That's abiogenesis.
2) Mutations can add information. For example: single celled yeast was pushed into evolving multicellularity in a lab.
3) Mutations are usually harmless.
Then there comparative genetics, the fossil recorded, serious design flaws like vertebrate retinas being backwards, ring species, transitional forms, and we've observe macroevolution in & out of the lab.
@SuperMerlin100 (continued) As for that quote, it seems someone forgot to mention that by the definition being used everything has information.
When you burn a book you make the information uselessly scattered; you don't destroy it.
P.S. According to Dr. Stephen Thaler's theory our creativity could work in a evotionary manner.
Background noise perturbs neurosignals, potentially introducing new thoughts (based on preexisting thoughts) into our heads. Our brains then throw out the garbage.
2) Add information? Evo-delusionists wrongly extrapolate an increase in FREQUENCY or VOLUME of genetic information with an increase of new, unique, organized genetic information. This is identical to comparing A ream of copy paper to a book. It may have the appearance of a 500 page book, but it lacks the printed & organized information that makes it a book.
3) Design flaws, backwards retinas? Only from an ignorant layman viewpoint.
150 years without a single INDISPUTABLE transitional form is one heck of a fossil record. The average life that fossils remain transitional forms before peer reviewers start to dispute them is less than 2 months.
Your statement: "When you burn a book you make the information uselessly scattered; you don't destroy it" is WRONG!
That is treating information as tangible matter. Genetic information is not matter. When you burn the matter that the information is imprinted on, the information is destroyed when the matter itself is uselessly scattered.
@SuperMerlin100 (contineued) ...that supply the retina run in FRONT of the it. None of these flaws are unavoidable.
Information while not a physical material itself is preserved by the laws of physics.
Even the molecular structure of the book matters, let alone the text.
Coming back to transitional forms. Anything can and most likely will be disputed by someone. Whether they actually have a clue what they are disputing is another matter.
@SuperMerlin100 Good grief! You are STILL using the debunked Miller argument of bad retinal design. It has been long shown the existing mammalian retina design is a superior compromise for a number of reasons to what we understood even just a few short years ago. Note: Compromise in design REQUIRES forethought i.e.: intelligence, not brainless evolution. You evodelusionists just never give up a bad argument do you? Back to your kennel boy.
@Bereitwilligkeit Firstly it wasn't half of the counter is that the brain fixes the image so it doesn't matter. But the flaws are still there.The other half ignores that the verted design that is out right claimed to be unworkable exists (is used by cephalopods) and works. So they're not necessary. And one common strategy for nocturnal vision is for light to be reflected back on to the retina, but they still have these flaws. (continued)
@SuperMerlin100 (continued) Then there are far more fundamental design problems. Mostly arising from the consistency of physical laws.
If the goal is to create a world for Sentient beings (us). Then what is all of this lethal stuff for? Compromise? only if the laws of physics have to be consistent. Otherwise UVs don't have to cause cancer. Heck nothing does.
If we had a hit point system. That would be so helpful. (continued)
Basically if God had made the universe like a videogame... (con)
@SuperMerlin100 (con) ...he could have avoid so much suffering without interfering with free will.
Actually some of the patches I can think of would increase free will.
P.S. If God is temporal and the first cause he and time must have a beginning. But then doesn't he need an explanation? And if he is atemporal he can't change. Therefore he can't and can't be intelligent. So how is ID suppose to hold up?
@SuperMerlin100 You foolish atheists think Christians are stupid for believing we are intelligently designed, and think you are smart for believing you are not designed intelligently at all. Oh, the irony.
@SuperMerlin100 Still an Ignorant argument. Apparently you aren't aware that cephalopods are marine animals. That means they live underwater. UV light doesn't penetrate water, thus the cephalopod requires no UV filtration as effectively provided by H2O. So you see for a cephalopod it is an intelligent design. Also; systems using reflected light are not useful for eyes that have colored vision because colored light refracts at different focal lengths and would be impossible to compensate for.
@Bereitwilligkeit Wow! Read my comments again the uv part was a complaint about the universe's design where we humans are concerned.
Additional, not all cephalopods are deep sea creatures.
More importantly all light is colored; all photons have a wavelength.
As for your previous comment it is a ad hominem (insult used as an argument) , and an over generalization. There are people who believe in God and that Jesus is their savor who accept evolution. There are also atheist IDers.
@SuperMerlin100 You make no attempt to be logical & I haven't the time nor qualifications to educate you on topics that touch on specialized medical knowledge, especially as you WILL not be educated. As to appeasers, I don’t have to believe in a deity or have any degrees to know what common sense dictates. However, “The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
@Bereitwilligkeit Omnipotent chance? And I'm suppose to be the illogical one when you're using a strawman. You seem to have forgot NATURAL SELETION! Evolution is a DETERMINISTIC process.
I'm not sure if you'll read this. But until you at least know the dictionary definition of evolution; there isn't much sense talking about it.
@SuperMerlin100 Evolution is a DETERMINISTIC process." Oh yes, a "deterministic" process without intelligence should get you somewhere all right. LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Give that a try the next time you take a ride in a car with an untrained monkey behind the wheel. That's an example of inadequate intelligence in control, and you want go go without any? LOL!
@SuperMerlin100 By failing to man up to the fact that you are defining evolution as: When a population has evolved such that they are reproductively isolated & are no longer capable of exchanging genes (change over time) but, deceitfully using it to mean universal common ancestry, along with your puerile attempt to confine me to YOUR limited choices doesn't work as the fact: you WILL not hear ANY response I make violating your dogma, leaves us with no common ground for debate.
@SuperMerlin100 OOps! Sorry, multitasked myself into an error.
EVOLUTION: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are THOUGHT to have developed & diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth (change over time).
Limited choices: You apparently forgot YOUR limitations in "There are 3 replies you could give". Actually there are far better replies I could give but I haven't time nor space to debate with one who is in DENIAL. While we are at it,
Atheist koolaid drinkers won't believe anything negative about evolutionism even if it were to land their their front yard with the presidential helicopter, walk into their house, & shoot Grandma in the face. They’ll not be convinced because they are terrified in the knowledge that some day they will have to face the God they scream doesn’t exist.
*
Should you have an epiphany, feel free to ask me all the questions you want. Anything else is just a waste of my time.
@gregrutz Why do you you jump into the melee when you don't take the time to find the gist of the debate? supermerlin brought atheists in with his comment: "There are people who believe in God and that Jesus is their savor who accept evolution.
All of the above examples were from enviromental adaptations. i dont think many creationists would disagree with enviromental adaptations. can someone please point to a macro example.thanks
@Ebrainiac1 The whole point of evolution and natural selection, is that intelligent intervention isn't necessary. Yet you demonstrate more examples of mans amazing laboratory intervention within the range of speciation. Further, while it’s already known that all plants can change, they remain plants. As you have presented no proof that they ever have been or ever will be anything but plants or they are capable of changing into animals which your posit suggests, what exactly is your point?
@MrMaxTruth this video is only dealing with specific creationist claims that new information cannot be formed in the genome. what do you classify as a macro evolutionary event??
Did you pay attention to the video? that is exactly the argument this debunks! 100% of genetic information cant have been in the first humans because every generation we have MORE genetic info. that is what this video is proving! additionally, if we have more disease than our first ancestors, then explain the eradication of smallpox. and the near eradication of polio. and our rapidly increasing lifespans.
I dont think you understand the argument Creationists make regarding this. ALL (100%) of genetic information available in humans was created by God and placed in Adam. Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, death and decay entered into the world, and now as generations have re-produced over time, more and more genetic information is lost. (This is why we ... several thousands of years after Adam have much more disease, cancers, malfunctions... etc). Evolutionists assume incorrectly.
@Huttate1 Hey I'll be an ass an jump right in to the middle of what looks like a resolved issue and say I disagree with both of you. So lets just rehash the whole issue again shall we. Cing as how I don't know what the comment was about I am just being an ass and agree only with my self. With that stated your whole commentary is wrong and mine is correct seeing how I have stated nothing about it I haven't changed it and will bask in what ever glory of being correct thrre is.Its fun being an ass.
@silvrstridr Um... you realize that there are less diseases that arent curable now than there ever was, and the only reason people think there are more is because we have more exposure to science. AIDS existed in the middle ages, its just that no one knew what it was.
@silvrstridr "Evolutionists assume incorrectly.".... thats hilarious coming from someone who has spent no time in biological academia, towards biological experts who have spent their lives assuming nothing.
we have countless examples of increased genetic information, in humans alone. simply asserting that evidence doesnt exist wont change anything.
@uriituw Some people require hard proofs to start believing in impossible things...drawing a poster and creating hypothetical parents to animals we have today that look nothing like their off spring is silly. esspecially one as silly as the hypothetical dog or cow that became a whale....Think critically and you will see alot of shaky speculation that is non falsifiable of provable,,,You just have to believe. The faith needed for this leap is great when held to a higher standard.
@smoothpeople33 Could you not use strawmen? Distant ancestors not parents. The timescale these trees cover is millions of years. There is no excuse for this mistake.Whale are related to cows not deceded. Do some bloody research.
While your here, you should know hell isn't eternal. God doesn't claim to be nearly as grand as people make him out to be (See tower of babel). And he kicked Adam and Eve out to keep them from eating from the tree of immortality not because he was mad.
a mutation is an increase of info that is already present in the dna. not an addition of new info but the same info duplicated in almost every case with a negitive result
@moedizzl3 Exactly...nylon eating bacteria are an example of this. This has been proven using bacteria cultureed from people that had been frozen before the invention of nylon. and guess what....the bacteria knew haw to process the nylon also. This proves that the ability to process nylon was already present in the code.
@moedizzl3 That is only one kind of mutation. And mutations are usually neutral.
You should be thankful that. If they were as bad as you thought they were you would have died years age. Yes, you have a few dozen personal mutations. So did your parents when you were conceived.
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.
@konohanominato Some of the bible is fairy tale but mostly its about humans and their relationship with a higher power they call God, it provides a way of life without fear.
mutations can produce information, changing nucleotides bit by bit but mutations are mostly noise. Yeah, noise is information too, meaningless information. Two issues - one: what's the threshold for noise to become signal? two: mutagenesis is a stochastic process independent of natural selection, and without proper feedback loop you will never build an ordered sequence of nucleotides. But why am I wasting my time? You Evolutionists, are as ignorant and stubborn as you think we Creationists are.
you claimed to show an example of a new gene produced from scratch. What you showed was a shift in an ORF of a "pre-existing, internally repetitious" gene. This is an isolated case where luck played a big role in gene's function. I do not reject that but I want to see an example of a new gene produced completely from scratch, non-repetitious, average-size amino acid sequence with a promoter and untranslated regions, introns and polyadenilation sites - and of course a novel protein function.
MrRealScience is another sock account of GoodScienceForYou, and he's endlessly pimping his brain-dead forum on a variety of old videos, mainly about evolution, and primarily on science supporting channels. His more popular socks include GruverGuitars, Revurg, HavenMadeInc, HavenHead, SpaSpecialist and MrRealScience, the latter created only yesterday to help him thumb up his own comments and down the opposition!!
70% of mutations are negative, bad, detrimental, cause loss if fitness or de-evolution.
29% are considered neutral and 1% are considered maybe positive.
There is no way for evolution to produce more fitness or more complexity.
All we get from genetics is a gradual reduction in fitness based upon mutations caused by radiation and toxins. There is no magic fairy that increases fitness.
Goto Neutral Evolution Forum and study this ask questions.
@florinmoc I'm sure anyone who has studied biology to any appreciable degree has heard about sickle cell enough to know, at the bare minimum, its symptoms. That doesn't change the fact that sickle cell is selected for in areas with high instances of malaria (Africa, Central America, etc)
@Molfranzofith I've heard someone say that having sickle cell anemia is as useful in fighting malaria, as having both your legs amputated in fighting athlet's food disease.
@florinmoc That's...not a very informative analogy in that it doesn't account for the observed facts. Sickle cell has actually been observed to have higher incidence in areas where malaria is prevalent. As terrible as the condition is, it isn't as threatening, from a reproductive standpoint, as going without any resistance to malaria. There are several factors that account for the malarial resistance of sickle cell individuals. Too many to iterate here, and nothing you can't look up.
@Molfranzofith 1The living bodies are amazing machineries. They have been designed to survive even in the toughest environments. Natural selection is an amazing mechanism in itself. The organisms will select anything in order to survive. Some lizards, for example, would break their tails in order to be able to run away and survive. As a child I had the chance to observe it: I would catch lizards by the tale and be left with the tale in my hand (I didn't knwo then I would learn this in biology).
@Molfranzofith 2. So, living organisms would do anything to survive, even make use of sickle cell or breaking their tales. This is observable science and no one can deny it. But to say that SUCH mutations are the "raw material for evolution" is a bit of a stretch to me. Sickle cell anemia is considered a disease with not much treatment. Are you saying that diseases are the raw material of evolution? (nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Sca/SCA_WhatIs.html)
@florinmoc You're extending the case far too broadly. People (not just you) seem to have a preconceived notion when it comes to mutations, like you are implying in this statement. Sickle cell anemia may well have been caused by a mutation, and, despite its ill effects, has not been selected against to the point of obscurity due to the benefit it has to certain populations.
@florinmoc Mutations themselves however, do not simply cause harmful effects. There are beneficial, neutral, and harmful mutations. Anything that keeps an organism from successfully reproducing, will not be passed on (intuitively). If a mutation has no bearing on reproductive success then it may or may not be passed on. If it aids success in the slightest, then it will more than likely will be transmitted. Change in allele frequency over time is a key principle of evolution.
@Molfranzofith Am I right to say that just 1% of the mutations seem to have some benefit? Isn't it a bit odd for you that the wonderful complexity of life should be explained by mutations such as sickle cell anemia?
Another beneficial mutations seems to be the one who brings about wingless flies. These flies survive better on windy islands. Isn't it a bit odd for a fly to lose it's wings and us to call it "beneficial mutation that evolution uses"?
@Molfranzofith Isn't it a bit odd that in a world of billions and billions and billions of plants animals and humans we keep hunting for "beneficial mutations"? Shoulnd't they be more readily available?
On the other hand we see billions and billions and billions of plants, animals and humans reproducing AFTER THEIR KIND, as if they were designed to do do that but we ignore this huge evidence!!! It would be easier to prove evolution if we had many half-half (half cow-half whale) animals today.
@florinmoc I apologize. I usually operate under the assumption that anyone trying to make a point regarding a subject has at least taken the time to understand it. If you wish to debate the matter any further, with myself or anyone else, I would ask that you at least take the time to learn the fundamental principles of genetics and natural selection. Even if you do not agree with them, you will be able to articulate why in terms that scientifically minded individuals can appreciate.
Cows and whales are on seperate branches of the tree of life. We do however see half dinosaur and half bird because birds share many of the same anotomical features of dinosaurs; hollow bones, wishbones (seen only in therepods in the actual dinosaurs), we see dinosaurs with feathers that aren't birds (Velociraptor, Ovaraptor, and others) and lets not forget the vestigial DNA in birds which allow them to grow teeth and longer tails. Those genes are turned off at the moment.
Yes, you are wrong. Whales evolved from a creature that looked similar to a wolf (it was not a wolf at all, mind you. Whales are in no way related to canines aside from the fact they're mammals like we are) and it adapted to life in the water some thirty million years ago. Also, no animal evolved from a modern animal, that's another fallacy made by creationists. Modern animals are too different from the ancestors they had to make a creature like we see today further down the line.
Specifically that's why Chimps are our cousins as opposed to direct ancestors. they and the other great apes evolved with us from our ancestor. Chimps in particular along with humans are a moe recent evolutionary acheivment. This is also why we have most every other major animal group around still (Fish, amphibian, ect) as they evolved from lesser versions of themselves. These animals are now too different to make life the same way we see now in another few million years.
The author is either wrong or misleading when he says that Creationists never give a meaningful definition of information.
On the contrary, Werner Gitt give quite an elaborated definition of information and shows how DNA could not have originated in anything else but a mind.
I have seen beautiful crystals inside of caves. They can break off pieces and form new crystals, but they never transform into clocks or cars. They say mutation is evolution's engine. When there is an error in a computer program it crashes and does not evolve into a superior program. Likewise an organism is not improve via errors.
got a question and hope I don't get flamed: So I agree with mutation causing increases in "information" but the bacteria is still a bacteria, and the virus is still a virus. What evidence do with have that it can lead to a new species or classification?
With bacteria and viruses that's a bit difficult - after all, they reproduce asexually. The classification is purely semantics, tbh. If you want to know more about speciation, I'd be focusing on larger, more complex organisms which do not reproduce asexually.
Yes, but if we all came from single cell organisms, through evolution, it shouldn't be that difficult. Because if we can't explain how a single cell organism evolves into a multi-cell...seperate species / classification then how can evolutionists believe that a multi-cell organism can mutate into a seperate multi-celled organsim.
I'm just trying to understand because I don't see how evolution is any more a "theory" as creationsim.
On the wikipedia page for "Multicellular organism" there's a header called "Hypotheses for origin". They describe three hypotheses which all work, but haven't become theories yet because we haven't been able to establish yet which one actually happened rather than *could've* happened.
As for speciation: It has little to do with this. Again, it's a semantics issue. We can rarely draw a "speciation line". Though it certainly *is* interesting in the context of microbiology!
@BrentandPaulaHobbs "if we can't explain how a single cell organism evolves into a multi-cell..."
The truth is, single cells can evolve into multi celled, highy complex animals. Its called fertilization. Both the sperm and the egg are single cells. So its obvious that this is a key feature of life being displayed, its a clue about how life originated. From simplicity to complexity. Its an amazing idea, but the hard evidence actually proves our relationship with every living organism. TC
@BrentandPaulaHobbs "if we can't explain how a single cell organism evolves into a multi-cell..."
The truth is, single cells can evolve into highy complex animals. Its called embryology. Both the sperm and the egg are single cells. So its obvious that this is a key feature of life being displayed, its a clue about how life originated. From simplicity to complexity. Its an amazing idea, but the hard evidence actually proves our relationship with every living organism. TC
Yes evolution can increase information by man made added intelligence, but when the total function of the gene changes it is never beneficial for the overall system, hence degeneration and genetic entropy. which will never result into new organs and higher life forms!
Ramohog 2 weeks ago
@Ramohog watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU
CJones990 4 days ago
Comment removed
Ramohog 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CJones990 That is a great example of added manmade intelligence, and adaptive error correcting coding programmed into the cell, but it still has a digestive function which is now corrupted and actually weakens to overall system. When you take the nylon away the bacteria dies out. Great example of degeneration. Don't allow nylonase to reject God and take you to hell, because you will hate that stupid movie for eternity!
Ramohog 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Organism can't take on new information? What the hell do call what I am doing right now?!
What do you call natural instincts? what do you call civilization's advances?
This idea is beyond simple logic! they require that define a rock, water, sunlight, and other LIVING things as non life. They are all living, just because they don't go see a movie and eat at burger king doesn't mean rocks and water are not living!
truthseeker010101 3 weeks ago
Epic evo straw man arguments in this vid.
Hard to take it seriously.
The evo-religion and evo-faith is apparently strong with this deluded one.
You do realize that when Creationists cite example after example of fully formed fossils of never before seen life forms in the fossil record (like Bats for instance) that just suddenly appear with no traceable source of origin and with complex systems (like Sonar and winged appendages) it destroys this entire video? Evo-kids love to cherry pick ;)
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution LOL you have to be kidding.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution I think someone's gettin their troll on.
KevinLounsberry 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution How does that even make sense?
So what you are saying is that when a scientist finds something new rather than investigating it, you say proclaims it is proof of god and everybody goes home.
CleverWendago 3 weeks ago
Fantastic video, I feel half the problem in the evolution argument is that evolutionists take this sort of information for granted and creationists don't seek out this sort of information. The fact that the likes of Richard Dawkins don't have the time to educate people to this degree leaves creationists able to claim that we don't even understand our own theories!!
Very well done for having the time and patience!
meztini 2 months ago
Creationists make the problem "too complex"? I'm sorry, but believing that your great ancestor looked like a Mudskipper and that human beings evolved from sea slime is absurd. Humans allegedly spun off from a common ancestor with chimps a mere 30-40 thousand generations ago. Bacteria reproduce by the countless trillions across the globe everyday, and no new complex life forms ever emerge. What's taking so long? It's easy right?
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Even in a matter of decades/centuries, bacteria are evolving rapidly (hence drug-resistant bacteria/new diseases, etc). What sort of "new complex life form" are you expecting? Obviously bacteria will not just sprout into larger, more advanced beings in the same amount of time it would take for a variation of an already complex being to arise.
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW I don't dispute that bacteria, and all life for that matter, can adapt in order to survive. Random mutation and natural selection are real, and and can do real things in nature. What it does NOT do is turn single celled bacteria into human beings. And there is no evidence such nonsense ever happened, except in the wild imaginations of the Cult of Darwin.
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 I hate it how you state bacteria "turned" into human beings, ignoring the countless intermediate steps. If you can admit random mutation and natural selection are real, how can you ignore the overwhelming evidence of evolution via a clear family tree demonstrated in independant fields of study(ie. DNA, embryology, etc). It is rather ironic a christian would demand evidence,quite humorous in fact.The people who wrote the Bible thought God lived in the sky -.-
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW What steps? It is assumed that 99.9% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because macro evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 60-90% of current living animals are represented in the fossil record! A known factor we can check the rate of fossilzation against. Thus we have EMPIRICAL evidence the fossil record is not 99.9% incomplete based on animals we know exist! Thus we know those needed missing animals never existed.
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 1. Fossils are degraded over time. So logically we would find more fossils that look like the animals we have today.
2. 60-90%? Where are you getting such a specific percentage (just curious). Of course many fossils would bear resemblance to modern day animals (for the reason above) as well as the fact that small changes would not present clear observational changes upon first look.
3. There are fossils of intermediate forms -.- Prorastomus, Onychonycteris, Eupodophis.
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW The age of the fossils has nothing to do with it. Some of the oldest fossil on earth are the best preserved. 60-90% is from Dr. Michael Denton "Evolution a Theory in Crisis". The range is dependent on the type of animal. Since this really completely refutes evolution they came up with what is called "punctuated equilibrium." Meaning evolution doesn't happen slowly, but in rapid spurts hiding fossil the evidence. And I guess fairies dance in the woods, only when nobody is looking too.
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Look up "Transitional Fossils" (wikipedia will likely suffice)
Just to give you an idea of how many KNOWN transitional fossils there are.Do you also deny vestigal organs, homologous structures, and gene order? If your God did exist, this evidence he left behind would make him the most deceitful being in existence (just to test your faith?).But I guess it is more logical that since stuff appears complicated, a man in the sky (yours specifically/mysteriously) must have made it.
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW All life is homologous within a phylum. DNA codes for proteins and proteins are needed by all life. And of course you will have similar gene order for similar body plans. The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999. But I don't deny that life adapts anyway. And all transitional fossils are pure fantasy. If a seal were extinct I could say they evolved into whales. Everything I see in nature is 100% consistent with design, NOT random mutations.
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 There are homologous structures shared by whales, humans,bats,etc.These as well as embryology, DNA, and others show a consistent family tree. They corroborate one another and their findings are consistent with the predictions made by evolution. HAHAH vestigial organs, just to name a few: wisdom teeth, the coccyx, the pyramidalis muscle, ect! Can you explain how transitional fossils are fantasy (other than confirmation bias)? At this point it may be pointless to argue.
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 Why would your God design human beings with one tube for both air intake and food intake? Horrible design... it leads to countless deaths. The heart is another inefficient system, hence the pervasiveness of heart disease. Made after his image huh? Pathetic.
PS. I used to be a christian so I can understand how you get caught in the horrible web of fear and desperate clamoring for anything to prove a premise you've already accepted. I hope you find the truth.
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW You were correct when you were a Christian, turn back to Christ. He is your ONLY hope!
Noah, was the only righteous man of his day. The ONLY reason his family got on the ark was because they belonged to Noah. Everyone else was washed away by the flood.
Jesus is the true Noah and only true righteous man. The only reason anyone will be spared is because they belong to him. Everyone else will be washed away forever! Do you belong to Jesus' household? Believe in Jesus and be saved!
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 And this is where the argument ends. Reason goes flying out the window and preaching ensues. The only righteous man of his day you say? What about children, virgins, disabled people... all evil? And Noah's family got a pass because they were born in the right place at the right time? This encompasses well the reality of christianity: it is exclusionary, immoral, genocidal, and just plain ludicrous.
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW Yes, every person on this earth is a sinner and therefore evil. You, me everyone! The road to life is narrow and few find it. Your offer of salvation from Jesus Christ is not exclusionary, immoral, genocidal, or ludicrous. Rejecting it because you believe you evolved from a mudskipper it is. Choose life!
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 People who are born into other faiths have little to no chance of redemption. As well as this, it says in the Bible many who call themselves Christians will not even get into heaven. This leaves just about less than 10% of the world that will go to heaven. All this even though God created a system where he created humans to compulsively do things he deemed "sin", only to be forgiven by believing in an absurd blood sacrifice (which contradicts the logic he gave us).
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW you where born as an atheast. all babys are not part of any religion until their parents force the religion. so everbodys not going to get in so why try when you are born with 2 sins alredy. in a diffrent comment you say 'penalty for sin is death' that is how belives say they get to heven so heven is the pushment. so if i belived in heven i do not have a ending no matter what my life is like
circle601 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@circle601 I am an atheist ;) You need to work on your English xD
LIEPANEW 1 month ago
@LIEPANEW responed to wrong comment
circle601 1 month ago
@circle601 Oh ok my apologies ;)
LIEPANEW 1 month ago
@thewordofgod2010 You seemed reasonably intelligent when we began this discussion :( How could you have sunk so low as to submit blind emotional statements into a factual debate. Christianity is exclusionary for the reason above. It is immoral because it endorses slavery (as well as violence towards slaves), infanticide, mass rape, blood sacrifice, etc. It is genocidal for many reasons (the flood/not to mention the fact that 90% of the world will receive eternal damnation for circumstance).
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
@LIEPANEW That Jesus Christ rose from the dead is a fact of history. And yes, I am an intelligent person and possess an IQ 146. Your understanding of the Christian faith is misguided. God said the penalty for sin is death, he created us and has the right to take our lives. He will prove before all of creation that you are guilty. In fact, God is going to use your own measure to punish you with, and you will agree. A couple videos I can offer: watch?v=3tsY3oZVsaM - watch?v=2YEivEc6KcI
thewordofgod2010 3 months ago
@thewordofgod2010 I am not insulting your potential to acquire information (which you childishly retorted with your claim about your IQ), I am insulting the pathetic threats and quibble which you attempt to equivocate with fact. That to me is a sign of foolishness. And again you try to refute my statements without proving how they are actually incorrect. And oh no, God does not only say the penalty for sin is death, he says it is eternal fire. My parents gave birth to me, can they torture me?
LIEPANEW 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewordofgod2010
"That Jesus Christ rose from the dead is a fact of history"
No it isn't. The existance of Jesus is still considered in debate
"I am an intelligent person and possess an IQ 146"
Liar...Inttelect contains with it the intelligence to understand taht IQ scores don't mean much and thus are not advertised as relevant to an argument
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewordofgod2010
"Noah, was the only righteous man of his day'
In bible..Noah was a drunkard
Out of Bible...Flood didn't happen
No flood layer, no evidence of flood at all and more importantly, not enough water.
To have the Global flood, requires over 90Million times all the water on the planet
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@tnafguy that is what natural selection is. if any one human had a mutation that cause deformities or disease they would die generaly befor they can pass on the deforemed allele. but some times people with a benifical allele will pass on the dna. i watched a part of his speach and it had some intersting parts and it dose seem like evouution is enginered because the replicaion protean could be a lot more accurate but those that can change will survive so evlution is evulving
circle601 3 months ago
@adamparker13 And what does a man who lived 2,000 years ago have to do with this debate?
achilles197474 3 months ago
@adamparker13 Don't worry. I didn't evolve and neither did you. It is a fairy tale.
achilles197474 3 months ago
@achilles197474 the bible done not disagree with evoluation it disagrees with abiogenoisis
eveoluton is defined as "The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form."
and i can prove evelution just buy a game of Mastermind_(board_game)
circle601 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circle601 Duh...what does the bible, written thousands of years ago, have to do with this debate?
achilles197474 3 months ago
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 3 months ago
@tnafguy Deoxyribonucleic acid (dna) is matter and energy
the information is the pattern of cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T)
the change for evolution is an error copying the dna
circle601 3 months ago
@circle601 Copying errors do not increase information, they destroy it.
achilles197474 3 months ago
@achilles197474 there is repetitive DNA sequences at the end of a chromosome called a telomere.
in humans the telomere shortan when a cell Replicates.when a new human is created the telomere is returned to its normal length. the telomere is not used to code for proteins but when it is lengthed more infomation is being added.
sometimes when copying textsi accedentally copy a line twice
circle601 3 months ago
Everything was created by an intelligent mind, but you need an intelligent mind to see it - the creation v evolution debate is a simple intelligence test...you either see it or you don't...e.g. did a whale's blow hole occur through natural selection? - if you are intellingent you will see the impossibility of this occuring through natural selection, and you will know that the mutations required to achieve this simply never occur in nature - it simply couldn't happen by chance or mutation!
TREACLE97 6 months ago
Comment removed
guthzammysara 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TREACLE97 :edit:
Or it shows that you simply haven't studied evolution enough to fully understand it. Rather than saying an invisible wizard created the blow hole, try to research and understand its development. It can be explained very easily.
guthzammysara 6 months ago
@TREACLE97 It isn't ONE mutation that does something like that, and evolution through natural selection doesn't happen by chance - it's anything but! :) The mathmatics behind it is quite sound as is the empirical evidence.
Lemonz1989 6 months ago
@TREACLE97 Argument from ignorance = fail
Sweddude 5 months ago
@TREACLE97 Please describe the physical processes by which an "intelligent mind" engaged in the act of "creating everything".
Dimensiom 5 months ago
@TREACLE97 You were born 1997, right? Are you a 14 year old girl that believes in god? If you are, the text you have written is cute, adorable, you are young and you think that you know something about this world.
But, if you are much older...well, the it is really really sad for you to think like that.
hypercub 4 months ago
@hypercub You atheists always use the same old and dumb trick of condescending sarcasm, when you have no arguments. What, you think you will disarm believers and creationists with this? Get real and realize for once and for all, that it requires more faith to believe in the miracles of evolution than to believe in plain "ex-nihilo" creationism. Don't be ridiculous!
raponte1955 3 months ago
There was no universe before god made it!!! how can something evolve from absolutely nothing?
stephen7796 6 months ago
@stephen7796 "There was no universe before god made it" is just an assumption. Please prove it (and win your Nobel prize), if you want to take part in a scientific debate.
Anyway nobody is claiming that "something evolved from nothing": Evolution started on our planet about 3.2 billions years ago, when the known universe was about 11 billions years old, so the problem of the origin of universe is irrelevant to evolution. You're messing up two different scientific issues.
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@stephen7796 that's the same thing i ask when i think about god. you are just assuming that god is eternal when you in fact just as well can say that matter itself is eternal. universe may be just a temporary form...
whiltetodayitisme 6 months ago
The whole point of evolution and natural selection, is that intelligent intervention isn't necessary. Yet you demonstrate more examples of microevolution by mans amazing intervention within the range of microevolution. As there is no macroevolution demonstrated, what is the point?
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
No macroevolution demonstrated?
What blatant bullshit. 10 seconds on google blows that dishonest and ignorant statement out of the water with at more scientific papers, publications, and facts than you could read in a lifetime.
Didn't think to use something as simple as google, didya? No, of course not, because you're too blinded by your propaganda to even read a fucking scientific paper. Way to represent.
Ebrainiac1 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
Multicellularity. You don't call multicellularity macroevolution? You don't call morphologically significant speciation macroevolution?
Your conflict is with a dictionary and the scientific community, good sir, not me. "No macroevolution demonstrated" is a fabrication of creationist propaganda artists and has absolutely no presence in the scientific community. Ask a fucking biologist.
Ebrainiac1 6 months ago
Evo-delusionists wrongly extrapolate an increase in FREQUENCY or VOLUME of genetic information with an increase of new, unique, organized genetic information. This is identical to comparing A ream of copy paper to a book. It may have the appearance of a 500 page book, but it lacks the printed & organized information that makes it a book.
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this." Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79.
Bereitwilligkeit 7 months ago
booring
futureboy00 7 months ago
Is it even possible for evolutionists to speak about creationists without lying?
WirtyDord 7 months ago
@WirtyDord Its hard not to give these examples because.. we've all encountered em. At least I have. I have one guy who used to use these examines, now he just goes around quoting evolutionary studies in peer reviewed science journals trying to say its means creationism is true.
iliveon 7 months ago
in communication systems: if the character is shifted the error correcting algorthm will be able to reach this only happens because the datan is sent through that standard.
but every layer of transportation is designed, also in a non error correcting protocoles, one error is not considered adding information it means one garbeled information.
Errors do not make protocoles or standards.
this Guys who amde this video is stupid or thinks others are stupider than him
billytistrak 7 months ago
@billytistrak
It is like saying every time a mistake happens in communication system this means a new protocol and new standard formss.
Standards & protocols are designed by engineer and approved by the IEEE
the genome is my more complicated than the OSI model
billytistrak 7 months ago
@billytistrak You are comparing apples & oranges. It isn't the mistake itself that adds the information. It merely gives natural selection something to work with. And evolution works with populations not individuals.
It is obvious that the genetic code is far more flexible then you think it is. You and everyone else have dozens of mutations. And this was just as true in past generations. But we are still here.
SuperMerlin100 7 months ago
@SuperMerlin100
" It merely gives natural selection something to work with"
LOL as if "Natural selection" is one of the organization that creates standards.(IANA, ISO, ITU, IAB,IETF,IEEE)
That is farce comedy. You Moron if u do not know what U are talking about I will give you just two hints: how do you save mutation in the next genome(male female)? and how to apply it to embryology.
2- "WTF genetic code more flexible than I think"
I think your craziness is more flexible than logic
billytistrak 7 months ago
@billytistrak I was creating you on the definition of evolution. The principle's use by humans isn't even beside point.
"You Moron" Do you know what that means? A moron is someone with an IQ less the 70. Literally below room temperature.
"how do you save mutation in the next genome(male female)?" Are your mutations causing you trouble? Then they probably won't give your kids trouble either.
Once again your own existence is evidence that it works.
Flexible as in survive relatively large errors.
SuperMerlin100 7 months ago
@SuperMerlin100
of course ad hominem when you can not anserwr simple questions,
you disregard when it is too difficult to think
you insult to runaway,
You assume superiority when you are inferior mentally and morally
tfeh
Tfooo 3ala sharafak
billytistrak 7 months ago
@billytistrak DUDE, it is in quotation marks for a reason!
I was quoting YOU!!!
You called me insane and a moron.
Read what I wrote.
SuperMerlin100 7 months ago
@SuperMerlin100
it is you who do not read , and if you read you can not understand.
do not want to...
one thing moron, flexible craziness ==> tolerate all errors and disregards all errors and does not listen to logic, the way you interpret that as if it means you are smart, and that is stupid :-P
billytistrak 7 months ago
@billytistrak I did read those ad hominems. But After a couple years of arguing on the internet I know how fast replying to those can destroy a debate.
In short stick and stones.
SuperMerlin100 7 months ago
@SuperMerlin100
cool ... still avoiding the questions, and pretending that you did not ad hominem others...
assuming you are brighter because ur an atheist...pooh talk about shit
billytistrak 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billytistrak Remember these?
"I was creating you on the definition of evolution. The principle's use by humans isn't even beside point."
"Once again your own existence is evidence that it works."
"Flexible as in it can survive relatively large errors."
NO, because you got hung up on the dumb joke.
Go back up 3 comments (counting yours 6).
And read the rest of the comment.
You'll see that I answered the only 2 questions you have asked in this thread.
"ad hominem others..." When?
SuperMerlin100 7 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 (Continued)
Strawmen (1st comment I replied to)
,cherry picking (Ignoring that I answered the 2 questions you asked. Why? In favor of not letting go of a perceived insult that I already explained as quote from you.)
And multiple ad hominems.
No misquoting--> No I don't think that I am brighter, just more mature. And not because I'm an atheist, but because of quotes like these:
"pooh talk about shit"
"That is farce comedy. You Moron if u do not know what U are talking about"
SuperMerlin100 7 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 Mutations produce new alleles & add variety. However, molecules-to-man evolution requires the generation of new information to build new, complex, interdependent biochemical pathways. Despite the misleading wording found in the gain-of-function definition, there is
no increase of information or improvement
of biochemical pathways. Without a mechanism for developing such pathways, evolutionism is nothing more than a fairy tale.
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 7 months ago
(cont)
Instead, what is observed fits exactly with what we would expect if the Bible is true. Living things are very well designed. Errors introduced by mutations do not build new, well integrated biochemical pathways; instead they often cause disease, and always cause a loss in overall information.
Bereitwilligkeit 7 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit That is false.
1) Biological evolution started at the beginning of life not before. That's abiogenesis.
2) Mutations can add information. For example: single celled yeast was pushed into evolving multicellularity in a lab.
3) Mutations are usually harmless.
Then there comparative genetics, the fossil recorded, serious design flaws like vertebrate retinas being backwards, ring species, transitional forms, and we've observe macroevolution in & out of the lab.
(continued)
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 (continued) As for that quote, it seems someone forgot to mention that by the definition being used everything has information.
When you burn a book you make the information uselessly scattered; you don't destroy it.
P.S. According to Dr. Stephen Thaler's theory our creativity could work in a evotionary manner.
Background noise perturbs neurosignals, potentially introducing new thoughts (based on preexisting thoughts) into our heads. Our brains then throw out the garbage.
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperMerlin100 1) Who said anything about abiogenesis?
2) Add information? Evo-delusionists wrongly extrapolate an increase in FREQUENCY or VOLUME of genetic information with an increase of new, unique, organized genetic information. This is identical to comparing A ream of copy paper to a book. It may have the appearance of a 500 page book, but it lacks the printed & organized information that makes it a book.
(CONT)
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
(CONT)
3) Design flaws, backwards retinas? Only from an ignorant layman viewpoint.
150 years without a single INDISPUTABLE transitional form is one heck of a fossil record. The average life that fossils remain transitional forms before peer reviewers start to dispute them is less than 2 months.
(CONT)
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
(CONT)
Your statement: "When you burn a book you make the information uselessly scattered; you don't destroy it" is WRONG!
That is treating information as tangible matter. Genetic information is not matter. When you burn the matter that the information is imprinted on, the information is destroyed when the matter itself is uselessly scattered.
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Firstly your problem seems to be that you don't know the defitions of the words you are using.
"The average life that fossils remain transitional forms before peer reviewers start to dispute them is less than 2 months."
This is unforgivably false. What is your source? How many cases can you point to that you didn't copy and paste of an unsourced creationist website?
Our photo receptors are backwards, they are at the back of the retina, and the veins and nerves... (continued)
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 (contineued) ...that supply the retina run in FRONT of the it. None of these flaws are unavoidable.
Information while not a physical material itself is preserved by the laws of physics.
Even the molecular structure of the book matters, let alone the text.
Coming back to transitional forms. Anything can and most likely will be disputed by someone. Whether they actually have a clue what they are disputing is another matter.
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 Good grief! You are STILL using the debunked Miller argument of bad retinal design. It has been long shown the existing mammalian retina design is a superior compromise for a number of reasons to what we understood even just a few short years ago. Note: Compromise in design REQUIRES forethought i.e.: intelligence, not brainless evolution. You evodelusionists just never give up a bad argument do you? Back to your kennel boy.
*
Try googling: "photo receptors backwards?"
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Firstly it wasn't half of the counter is that the brain fixes the image so it doesn't matter. But the flaws are still there.The other half ignores that the verted design that is out right claimed to be unworkable exists (is used by cephalopods) and works. So they're not necessary. And one common strategy for nocturnal vision is for light to be reflected back on to the retina, but they still have these flaws. (continued)
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 (continued) Then there are far more fundamental design problems. Mostly arising from the consistency of physical laws.
If the goal is to create a world for Sentient beings (us). Then what is all of this lethal stuff for? Compromise? only if the laws of physics have to be consistent. Otherwise UVs don't have to cause cancer. Heck nothing does.
If we had a hit point system. That would be so helpful. (continued)
Basically if God had made the universe like a videogame... (con)
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 (con) ...he could have avoid so much suffering without interfering with free will.
Actually some of the patches I can think of would increase free will.
P.S. If God is temporal and the first cause he and time must have a beginning. But then doesn't he need an explanation? And if he is atemporal he can't change. Therefore he can't and can't be intelligent. So how is ID suppose to hold up?
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 You foolish atheists think Christians are stupid for believing we are intelligently designed, and think you are smart for believing you are not designed intelligently at all. Oh, the irony.
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 Still an Ignorant argument. Apparently you aren't aware that cephalopods are marine animals. That means they live underwater. UV light doesn't penetrate water, thus the cephalopod requires no UV filtration as effectively provided by H2O. So you see for a cephalopod it is an intelligent design. Also; systems using reflected light are not useful for eyes that have colored vision because colored light refracts at different focal lengths and would be impossible to compensate for.
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Wow! Read my comments again the uv part was a complaint about the universe's design where we humans are concerned.
Additional, not all cephalopods are deep sea creatures.
More importantly all light is colored; all photons have a wavelength.
As for your previous comment it is a ad hominem (insult used as an argument) , and an over generalization. There are people who believe in God and that Jesus is their savor who accept evolution. There are also atheist IDers.
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 You make no attempt to be logical & I haven't the time nor qualifications to educate you on topics that touch on specialized medical knowledge, especially as you WILL not be educated. As to appeasers, I don’t have to believe in a deity or have any degrees to know what common sense dictates. However, “The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
(CONT)
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
(CONT)
But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal"
*
Winston Churchill addressed the appeasers strategy when he said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Omnipotent chance? And I'm suppose to be the illogical one when you're using a strawman. You seem to have forgot NATURAL SELETION! Evolution is a DETERMINISTIC process.
I'm not sure if you'll read this. But until you at least know the dictionary definition of evolution; there isn't much sense talking about it.
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 Evolution is a DETERMINISTIC process." Oh yes, a "deterministic" process without intelligence should get you somewhere all right. LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Give that a try the next time you take a ride in a car with an untrained monkey behind the wheel. That's an example of inadequate intelligence in control, and you want go go without any? LOL!
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit 2 days and that't the best you could come up with?
Before this argument you didn't even know what evolution was. Something that you could have fixed in 5 minutes.
There are 3 replies you could given. Leave, thank me for the heads up, or this the single most immature choice; pretend it didn't happen.
Worst still, you still don't know.
The like begets like, but not perfectly. This creates diversity. Natural selection removes the unfit. So now all long term chance goes to (con)
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 (con) increasing the species' fitness.
(That last "chance" was meant to be "change.)
Now get some better sources, hit the books, and if you are still not convinced maybe come back here.
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 By failing to man up to the fact that you are defining evolution as: When a population has evolved such that they are reproductively isolated & are no longer capable of exchanging genes (change over time) but, deceitfully using it to mean universal common ancestry, along with your puerile attempt to confine me to YOUR limited choices doesn't work as the fact: you WILL not hear ANY response I make violating your dogma, leaves us with no common ground for debate.
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit I didn't say anything about common ancestry. Also I'm talking about evolution in general not just macro evolution.
"limited choices" I'm using the least restrictive definition. It isn't my fault you are read words that simply aren't there.
P.S. The definition you gave above was for speciation.
You may have had some excuse the first time, but now there is no question, you're being an immature brat.
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 OOps! Sorry, multitasked myself into an error.
EVOLUTION: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are THOUGHT to have developed & diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth (change over time).
Limited choices: You apparently forgot YOUR limitations in "There are 3 replies you could give". Actually there are far better replies I could give but I haven't time nor space to debate with one who is in DENIAL. While we are at it,
(CONT)
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
(CONT)
ATHEIST DENIAL:
Atheist koolaid drinkers won't believe anything negative about evolutionism even if it were to land their their front yard with the presidential helicopter, walk into their house, & shoot Grandma in the face. They’ll not be convinced because they are terrified in the knowledge that some day they will have to face the God they scream doesn’t exist.
*
Should you have an epiphany, feel free to ask me all the questions you want. Anything else is just a waste of my time.
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit "Atheist koolaid drinkers" LoL
As for you definition: okay no one as far as I know believes any form of biological evolution other then Darwin's version, but at least it is right.
I have to wonder though; if you don't have time, why are you here?
SuperMerlin100 6 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Why do you keep changing the subject to atheists, no one cares what you think of atheists. We are talking about Science.
Why do dinosaurs have feathers?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz Why do you you jump into the melee when you don't take the time to find the gist of the debate? supermerlin brought atheists in with his comment: "There are people who believe in God and that Jesus is their savor who accept evolution.
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
All of the above examples were from enviromental adaptations. i dont think many creationists would disagree with enviromental adaptations. can someone please point to a macro example.thanks
MrMaxTruth 8 months ago
By macro you mean evolution at or above the species level?
New species of Tragopogon were produced by polyploidization.
Stephanomeira malheurensis split into different species with morphological and chromosomal differences.
A speciation event occurred in a lab culture of Drosophila paulistorum between 1958 and 1963.
Multicellularity was induced in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation.
Hawaiian Drosophila show patterns of colonization and speciation.
Ebrainiac1 8 months ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ebrainiac1 The whole point of evolution and natural selection, is that intelligent intervention isn't necessary. Yet you demonstrate more examples of mans amazing laboratory intervention within the range of speciation. Further, while it’s already known that all plants can change, they remain plants. As you have presented no proof that they ever have been or ever will be anything but plants or they are capable of changing into animals which your posit suggests, what exactly is your point?
Bereitwilligkeit 6 months ago
@MrMaxTruth Google "Ring species" These are a good example of evolutionary divergence.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@MrMaxTruth this video is only dealing with specific creationist claims that new information cannot be formed in the genome. what do you classify as a macro evolutionary event??
scottpastry 7 months ago
@silvrstridr
Did you pay attention to the video? that is exactly the argument this debunks! 100% of genetic information cant have been in the first humans because every generation we have MORE genetic info. that is what this video is proving! additionally, if we have more disease than our first ancestors, then explain the eradication of smallpox. and the near eradication of polio. and our rapidly increasing lifespans.
lazarouslive 8 months ago
@lazarouslive at 3:41 it says "most likely" as not concrete evidence.
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
I dont think you understand the argument Creationists make regarding this. ALL (100%) of genetic information available in humans was created by God and placed in Adam. Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, death and decay entered into the world, and now as generations have re-produced over time, more and more genetic information is lost. (This is why we ... several thousands of years after Adam have much more disease, cancers, malfunctions... etc). Evolutionists assume incorrectly.
silvrstridr 8 months ago
@silvrstridr It was? So you can explain Eve and the need for sexual reproduction from that statement?
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 Hey I'll be an ass an jump right in to the middle of what looks like a resolved issue and say I disagree with both of you. So lets just rehash the whole issue again shall we. Cing as how I don't know what the comment was about I am just being an ass and agree only with my self. With that stated your whole commentary is wrong and mine is correct seeing how I have stated nothing about it I haven't changed it and will bask in what ever glory of being correct thrre is.Its fun being an ass.
ttopperr 7 months ago
@silvrstridr Um... you realize that there are less diseases that arent curable now than there ever was, and the only reason people think there are more is because we have more exposure to science. AIDS existed in the middle ages, its just that no one knew what it was.
Prognosticator00 7 months ago
@silvrstridr "Evolutionists assume incorrectly.".... thats hilarious coming from someone who has spent no time in biological academia, towards biological experts who have spent their lives assuming nothing.
we have countless examples of increased genetic information, in humans alone. simply asserting that evidence doesnt exist wont change anything.
scottpastry 7 months ago
Who are the people who 'dislike' this? Are they the scientifically illiterate?
uriituw 9 months ago
@uriituw Some people require hard proofs to start believing in impossible things...drawing a poster and creating hypothetical parents to animals we have today that look nothing like their off spring is silly. esspecially one as silly as the hypothetical dog or cow that became a whale....Think critically and you will see alot of shaky speculation that is non falsifiable of provable,,,You just have to believe. The faith needed for this leap is great when held to a higher standard.
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 Could you not use strawmen? Distant ancestors not parents. The timescale these trees cover is millions of years. There is no excuse for this mistake.Whale are related to cows not deceded. Do some bloody research.
While your here, you should know hell isn't eternal. God doesn't claim to be nearly as grand as people make him out to be (See tower of babel). And he kicked Adam and Eve out to keep them from eating from the tree of immortality not because he was mad.
SuperMerlin100 7 months ago
a mutation is an increase of info that is already present in the dna. not an addition of new info but the same info duplicated in almost every case with a negitive result
moedizzl3 9 months ago
@moedizzl3 Exactly...nylon eating bacteria are an example of this. This has been proven using bacteria cultureed from people that had been frozen before the invention of nylon. and guess what....the bacteria knew haw to process the nylon also. This proves that the ability to process nylon was already present in the code.
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 yes!!! great example
moedizzl3 8 months ago
@moedizzl3 That is only one kind of mutation. And mutations are usually neutral.
You should be thankful that. If they were as bad as you thought they were you would have died years age. Yes, you have a few dozen personal mutations. So did your parents when you were conceived.
SuperMerlin100 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
@achilles197474 the bible is a fairy tale for all ages...
konohanominato 9 months ago
@konohanominato Some of the bible is fairy tale but mostly its about humans and their relationship with a higher power they call God, it provides a way of life without fear.
jonesgerard 9 months ago
mutations can produce information, changing nucleotides bit by bit but mutations are mostly noise. Yeah, noise is information too, meaningless information. Two issues - one: what's the threshold for noise to become signal? two: mutagenesis is a stochastic process independent of natural selection, and without proper feedback loop you will never build an ordered sequence of nucleotides. But why am I wasting my time? You Evolutionists, are as ignorant and stubborn as you think we Creationists are.
alexanderbabich 9 months ago
you claimed to show an example of a new gene produced from scratch. What you showed was a shift in an ORF of a "pre-existing, internally repetitious" gene. This is an isolated case where luck played a big role in gene's function. I do not reject that but I want to see an example of a new gene produced completely from scratch, non-repetitious, average-size amino acid sequence with a promoter and untranslated regions, introns and polyadenilation sites - and of course a novel protein function.
alexanderbabich 9 months ago
MrRealScience is another sock account of GoodScienceForYou, and he's endlessly pimping his brain-dead forum on a variety of old videos, mainly about evolution, and primarily on science supporting channels. His more popular socks include GruverGuitars, Revurg, HavenMadeInc, HavenHead, SpaSpecialist and MrRealScience, the latter created only yesterday to help him thumb up his own comments and down the opposition!!
KrokrX 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
70% of mutations are negative, bad, detrimental, cause loss if fitness or de-evolution.
29% are considered neutral and 1% are considered maybe positive.
There is no way for evolution to produce more fitness or more complexity.
All we get from genetics is a gradual reduction in fitness based upon mutations caused by radiation and toxins. There is no magic fairy that increases fitness.
Goto Neutral Evolution Forum and study this ask questions.
MrRealScience 10 months ago
Lol, evolution is a suspect theory at best.
xBBWCx 11 months ago
Comment removed
xXSARS48Xx 11 months ago
@xBBWCx I bet pretending to sound sure is a really hollow kind of smug.
spacecowboy95 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"a suspect theory at best"
All the evidence points to it, and none contradicts it. Here's some:
Homologous Structures, Vestigial Organs, Genone Synteny, Gene Order, Wobble Position Sequence, Intron Sequence, Pseudogene Sequence, Retroviruses, Transposons, Human Chromosome #2, Beneficial Mutations, Molecular Clock, Neanderthal DNA, New Genes, New Structures, micro and macroevolution, Biogeography, Natural Selection, Variation, Stratigraphy, Order of Fossils, Transitional Fossils
flylike1 11 months ago
Since the author mentioned the sickle cells....
Would the author be happy to suffer from sickle cell anemia? Just read the DREADFUL effects and the meager benefits of this "beneficial mutation"
florinmoc 1 year ago
@florinmoc I'm sure anyone who has studied biology to any appreciable degree has heard about sickle cell enough to know, at the bare minimum, its symptoms. That doesn't change the fact that sickle cell is selected for in areas with high instances of malaria (Africa, Central America, etc)
Molfranzofith 11 months ago
@Molfranzofith I've heard someone say that having sickle cell anemia is as useful in fighting malaria, as having both your legs amputated in fighting athlet's food disease.
florinmoc 11 months ago
@florinmoc That's...not a very informative analogy in that it doesn't account for the observed facts. Sickle cell has actually been observed to have higher incidence in areas where malaria is prevalent. As terrible as the condition is, it isn't as threatening, from a reproductive standpoint, as going without any resistance to malaria. There are several factors that account for the malarial resistance of sickle cell individuals. Too many to iterate here, and nothing you can't look up.
Molfranzofith 10 months ago
@Molfranzofith 1The living bodies are amazing machineries. They have been designed to survive even in the toughest environments. Natural selection is an amazing mechanism in itself. The organisms will select anything in order to survive. Some lizards, for example, would break their tails in order to be able to run away and survive. As a child I had the chance to observe it: I would catch lizards by the tale and be left with the tale in my hand (I didn't knwo then I would learn this in biology).
florinmoc 10 months ago
@Molfranzofith 2. So, living organisms would do anything to survive, even make use of sickle cell or breaking their tales. This is observable science and no one can deny it. But to say that SUCH mutations are the "raw material for evolution" is a bit of a stretch to me. Sickle cell anemia is considered a disease with not much treatment. Are you saying that diseases are the raw material of evolution? (nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Sca/SCA_WhatIs.html)
florinmoc 10 months ago
@florinmoc You're extending the case far too broadly. People (not just you) seem to have a preconceived notion when it comes to mutations, like you are implying in this statement. Sickle cell anemia may well have been caused by a mutation, and, despite its ill effects, has not been selected against to the point of obscurity due to the benefit it has to certain populations.
Molfranzofith 10 months ago
@florinmoc Mutations themselves however, do not simply cause harmful effects. There are beneficial, neutral, and harmful mutations. Anything that keeps an organism from successfully reproducing, will not be passed on (intuitively). If a mutation has no bearing on reproductive success then it may or may not be passed on. If it aids success in the slightest, then it will more than likely will be transmitted. Change in allele frequency over time is a key principle of evolution.
Molfranzofith 10 months ago
@Molfranzofith Am I right to say that just 1% of the mutations seem to have some benefit? Isn't it a bit odd for you that the wonderful complexity of life should be explained by mutations such as sickle cell anemia?
Another beneficial mutations seems to be the one who brings about wingless flies. These flies survive better on windy islands. Isn't it a bit odd for a fly to lose it's wings and us to call it "beneficial mutation that evolution uses"?
florinmoc 10 months ago
@Molfranzofith Isn't it a bit odd that in a world of billions and billions and billions of plants animals and humans we keep hunting for "beneficial mutations"? Shoulnd't they be more readily available?
On the other hand we see billions and billions and billions of plants, animals and humans reproducing AFTER THEIR KIND, as if they were designed to do do that but we ignore this huge evidence!!! It would be easier to prove evolution if we had many half-half (half cow-half whale) animals today.
florinmoc 10 months ago
@florinmoc I apologize. I usually operate under the assumption that anyone trying to make a point regarding a subject has at least taken the time to understand it. If you wish to debate the matter any further, with myself or anyone else, I would ask that you at least take the time to learn the fundamental principles of genetics and natural selection. Even if you do not agree with them, you will be able to articulate why in terms that scientifically minded individuals can appreciate.
Molfranzofith 10 months ago
@Molfranzofith Fair comment :o)
florinmoc 10 months ago
@florinmoc
Cows and whales are on seperate branches of the tree of life. We do however see half dinosaur and half bird because birds share many of the same anotomical features of dinosaurs; hollow bones, wishbones (seen only in therepods in the actual dinosaurs), we see dinosaurs with feathers that aren't birds (Velociraptor, Ovaraptor, and others) and lets not forget the vestigial DNA in birds which allow them to grow teeth and longer tails. Those genes are turned off at the moment.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Why was then the hypothesis that whales evolved from cows been promoted by evolutionists? Or am I wrong?
florinmoc 9 months ago
@florinmoc
Yes, you are wrong. Whales evolved from a creature that looked similar to a wolf (it was not a wolf at all, mind you. Whales are in no way related to canines aside from the fact they're mammals like we are) and it adapted to life in the water some thirty million years ago. Also, no animal evolved from a modern animal, that's another fallacy made by creationists. Modern animals are too different from the ancestors they had to make a creature like we see today further down the line.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@florinmoc
Specifically that's why Chimps are our cousins as opposed to direct ancestors. they and the other great apes evolved with us from our ancestor. Chimps in particular along with humans are a moe recent evolutionary acheivment. This is also why we have most every other major animal group around still (Fish, amphibian, ect) as they evolved from lesser versions of themselves. These animals are now too different to make life the same way we see now in another few million years.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
The author is either wrong or misleading when he says that Creationists never give a meaningful definition of information.
On the contrary, Werner Gitt give quite an elaborated definition of information and shows how DNA could not have originated in anything else but a mind.
Keep researching......
florinmoc 1 year ago
You guys made this up
Christianspwn 1 year ago
I smell straw men.
pipjmalt 1 year ago
I have seen beautiful crystals inside of caves. They can break off pieces and form new crystals, but they never transform into clocks or cars. They say mutation is evolution's engine. When there is an error in a computer program it crashes and does not evolve into a superior program. Likewise an organism is not improve via errors.
nelixnkes 1 year ago
@nelixnkes Guess what a rock and a computer have too do with a person?
NOTHING!
They are not biomechanical.
radahad000 1 year ago
@nelixnkes because computers are designed and humans are not
NScott45 1 year ago
@nelixnkes But over billions of years that computer will definitely evolve!
Into a flying pig for example.... :o)
florinmoc 1 year ago
got a question and hope I don't get flamed: So I agree with mutation causing increases in "information" but the bacteria is still a bacteria, and the virus is still a virus. What evidence do with have that it can lead to a new species or classification?
BrentandPaulaHobbs 1 year ago
@BrentandPaulaHobbs
With bacteria and viruses that's a bit difficult - after all, they reproduce asexually. The classification is purely semantics, tbh. If you want to know more about speciation, I'd be focusing on larger, more complex organisms which do not reproduce asexually.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo
Yes, but if we all came from single cell organisms, through evolution, it shouldn't be that difficult. Because if we can't explain how a single cell organism evolves into a multi-cell...seperate species / classification then how can evolutionists believe that a multi-cell organism can mutate into a seperate multi-celled organsim.
I'm just trying to understand because I don't see how evolution is any more a "theory" as creationsim.
BrentandPaulaHobbs 1 year ago
@BrentandPaulaHobbs
On the wikipedia page for "Multicellular organism" there's a header called "Hypotheses for origin". They describe three hypotheses which all work, but haven't become theories yet because we haven't been able to establish yet which one actually happened rather than *could've* happened.
As for speciation: It has little to do with this. Again, it's a semantics issue. We can rarely draw a "speciation line". Though it certainly *is* interesting in the context of microbiology!
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@BrentandPaulaHobbs "if we can't explain how a single cell organism evolves into a multi-cell..."
The truth is, single cells can evolve into multi celled, highy complex animals. Its called fertilization. Both the sperm and the egg are single cells. So its obvious that this is a key feature of life being displayed, its a clue about how life originated. From simplicity to complexity. Its an amazing idea, but the hard evidence actually proves our relationship with every living organism. TC
spacecowboy95 11 months ago
@BrentandPaulaHobbs "if we can't explain how a single cell organism evolves into a multi-cell..."
The truth is, single cells can evolve into highy complex animals. Its called embryology. Both the sperm and the egg are single cells. So its obvious that this is a key feature of life being displayed, its a clue about how life originated. From simplicity to complexity. Its an amazing idea, but the hard evidence actually proves our relationship with every living organism. TC
spacecowboy95 11 months ago
@BrentandPaulaHobbs That's a good question and shows you want to understand. Anyone who flames you should go sit on a post and rotate.
I would recommend talkorigns . org
Read EVERYTHING about archaeopteryx. All the links in there and really read to understand, not just put