Mutations - Loss of Information (Evolution)

[TheSpikeystuff]

brilliant video

[MrJonkelp]

good work here

[makarr01]

in nature all the mutations we know of produce harmful effects according to that quack, please explain the observed mutation in that species of moth during the industrial revolution that was observed to change from white to grey to adapt better when on the soot covered buildings...

[philackey]

@makarr01 You cite Kettlewells research. His research has been completely debunked. His research has been invalidated and examples of fraud exposed. His moths were dead and he glued them to trees. Yet further proof of that evo-tards need lies for their fake theory to work. If evolution is valid why cite an example that has been disproved. Probably because you can't. What is scary is this has been known for years yet science texts still parrot out lies.

[TheMrgoku1985]

Nylon eating bacteria.

[achilles197474]

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!

[ndrthrdr1]

@achilles197474 Evolution doesn't happen to one individual. It's the result of very small changes over very long periods of time and many, many generations. No scientists think that an animal changed into another species during its lifetime.

You shouldn't comment about evolution until you learn the facts. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Google Project Steve NCSE, get a grownup to read and explain it to you, and hang your creationist head in shame and humiliation.

[achilles197474]

@ndrthrdr1 "It's the result of very small changes over very long periods of time and many, many generations." I am understanding now. Since this is they way evolution works, it explains why animals become extinct. The environment changes and animals can't because changes occur, "...over very long periods of time and many, many generations." In reality, environments change rapidly, animals don't evolve and they become extinct. So, when exactly does your version of evolution work?

[ndrthrdr1]

@achilles197474 Evolution is a very slow process, but environmental changes can happen very quickly by comparison. Therefore, there's not enough time for ALL species to adapt. Those best able to change and adapt do better than others

What is confusing about this? Are you still clinging to Bronze Age mythology, and frantically disregarding the evidence showing it's inaccuracy? If so, keep that head buried in your book of myths. Out here in reality, your superstitions don't stand a chance.

[oceanistoosmall]

@ndrthrdr1 Yes! He is an embarrassment, if he has no clue about what he is talking about he should shut up!

[ndrthrdr1]

@oceanistoosmall It's like trying to explain to a five year old (who's a little "slow" at that) that Santa's not real.

At least with kids, there's the hope that they'll grow out of it. With the really stubborn creatards, there's just too much fear of actually thinking about it. If they do, maybe the boogeyman will get them. :P

[achilles197474]

@ndrthrdr1"Not enough time for ALL species to adapt." An understatement if there ever was one. "Though the exact number is impossible to determine, an unprecedented mass extinction of life on Earth is occurring. Scientists estimate that between 150 and 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours." Ants, scorpions, roaches, rats, and people adapt. The other species simply become extinct. Actually, I would love to believe that evolution works, because extinction really is forever.

[MajesticCyru]

@Qba86 i agree that this video is right & u 4 agreeing about mutation.

However, i have yet 2 c any evidence that more intel is added 2 the Genome through natural selection.

"Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exist, it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs" ~Parasitology: Biology of Animal's Parasites -pg165 textbook

Dr. Elmer Noble -Biologist

Dr. Glenn Noble -Zoologist

Dr. Austin Macinner -Biologist

Dr. Gerhard Schad -Biologist

[Chadzxx1]

You really need to lose the frankenstien image if you want to be taken serious...Epic Fail!

[tristandelforge01]

Example of mutations that add information: mosquitoes gained resistance to ddt.

[BereanBeacon1]

@tristandelforge01 They are still mosquitoes, unless they are evolving into DDT.

[nelixnkes]

If mutations were so wonderful we would see a superior race of humans near Chernobyl, but there is no such race. There are however, many people dying of cancer. Mutations hurt us. Evolution is a lie and mistakes do not improve us.

[rkyeun]

@nelixnkes

It's nice to see that you think comic book logic applies to real life.

[Qba86]

The definition goes as follows: a Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ was the Messiah. I also suggest you read a bit about fossilisation process. Every geologist/paleontologist will tell you, that only a very small fractions of animals and plants becomes preserved in the geological record. And we've dug up only a tiny fraction of those. Therefore, the data is incomplete., but what we have agrees perfectly with the predictions of the theory of evolution.

[ssj7warrior]

Sir BereanBacon, can you help me. I am a Christian losing my faith because I can't believe in a God that will allow Genitic mutations to occur. I have a friend born without arms, how does that show God as a perfect designer? I am being serious. Help me with my faith. Please!

[drjharri]

@ssj7warrior

It's too late. You already started asking questions because things weren't lining up. You've opened the door to even more questions.

Stop-gap answers like 'God did it' to difficult questions are no longer sufficient for most of us, and they need not be sufficient for you either.

[ssj7warrior]

@drjharri That is what I am starting to think. Everything can be set to "fit in" with religion. I've been researching and I have noticed who is right when a religion will have the same outlook as another religion but deny any religion. It doesn't make sense to me. It's just people "fitting in" their definition of what they precieve.

[achilles1974]

@ssj7warrior Honestly, your friend is your opportunity to be God's hands and feet on the earth. God wants us to express His love through our actions. Taking care of others is how we show that we follow Him. Ever wonder why it is the Christians who send missionary doctors to minister around the world and there are no atheist organizations doing the same? We see God's purpose for our gifts, atheists do not.

[ssj7warrior]

@achilles1974 But what is my friend wanted to be God's hands and feet?

[Neeboopsh]

lol. every single human born, on average has 200 or so mutations from conception. if all, or even most....or even many, were detrimental, life would not exist 4.5 billion years of getting worse adapted :) second, dont get your science information from theologically motivated sources. third, dont get biology information from someone who calls a chromosome a "chromosone".

[sabertooth1980]

Retarded.

[Quinxcunz]

no comment

[Xamaza]

The moment when someone starts spouting ID or creationism with science, they are ignored. Why is that? In science you can not state there is a creator as an argument from ignorance. You have no proof of said creator other than the lack of knowledge of how life started, but you do not get to jump to 'goddunit' just because you cant answer a question. Goddunit is NOT a scientific statement until you can PROVE he exists. Thanks.

[MumblingMickey]

3:25 'all the mutations we know... produce harmful effects'

Well I think Barry should go tell that to the London underground mosquito... they no longer need a breeding cycle linked to the outside world and multiply like jack rabbits!

Also an observed incidence of speciation too! And he'd know about it too... but seems to keep pretty quiet about it!

[FirstFreedomFighter]

If a mutation is a loss of information, then what are supposed to call it when exon-intron gene linkage structures generate new information?

[FirstFreedomFighter]

Most mutations are neutral; I just don't see why you cannot see that mutations merely consist of the substitution of nucleotides in the DNA double helix, and aren't always harmful. Most of the time they are neutral.

[FirstFreedomFighter]

This makes the creationist camp looks silly.

[MumblingMickey]

@FirstFreedomFighter

Fact is they have a limited time left to sell their books, get rich, and leave a few million idiots with no education all working in MacDonalds flipping burgers... but to be honest they don't care... neither do I to be honest... let them believe what they like... they have no hope of getting this crap into schools... they are doing it for publicity and to be seen as 'on a par' with real science... if we all ignored them... they would go away!

[FirstFreedomFighter]

I happen to be an ID proponent, but I fully agree with you.

[MumblingMickey]

@FirstFreedomFighter Thanks to the idea of ID... those who offered it as a suggestion simply had those they want to continue as YEC's look into Genetics... as soon as that happens... education happens.... you'll believe in ID for about a year or two more... at which point the education you'll have amassed will simply get in the way.

Oddly adding up ALL the papers published by the ID camp... my own department produced more in a month than they did in ten years! And thats just from one college!

[FirstFreedomFighter]

"not nearly as effective as when we were young"

Duh. Mutations occur in the human genome during mitosis.

[SocialistReign]

WHOOPSIES!

Almost tricked me there!

"This is science, scripture, and salvation."

Oxymoron.

That's like using "sexy" and "Roseanne Bar" in the same sentence.

Oh, but you thought you got me didn't ya?

Very Clever.

[owchywawa]

I used to listen to this show! lol

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa Wow.... that's some admission!

How the hell did you square off the inconsistencies?

[owchywawa]

Creationist shows confuse the arguments of more intelligent critics of evolution and are generally wrong, but if you hunt down the sources there are some interesting arguments.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa

They are obviously not really aiming the show at you & certainly not me... I switched off as soon as they started going on about 'NO' mutations being beneficial...and using domentic sheep which are in fact a result of 'artifical selection' lol

All they need to do is take a look at a deleterious mutation CRC5 ^32 which gives Europeans a partial immunity to aids!

As a European with this allele I'd consider it pretty darned beneficial... and my daughter will be having the test too!

[owchywawa]

Yes, that would be them confusing unlikely with impossible again. They do the same thing for information gaining mutations..

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa Well the whole 'information theory' being dragged kicking and screaming into this debate is silly to be honest...

I work in physics... particularly nanotechnology... Information theory (and I'm one of the few who has actaully bothered to bore themselves stupid and read it) is totally unrelated to this... because information theory uses 'channels' as an attrition on information and there is no reproduction of the data. Its an expansion of their silly thermodynamics argument!

[owchywawa]

Oh that's cool. I'm thinking about going into biotechnology when I get out of college (if I don't get an internship before then). I've looked a little into information theory and it is an expansion of the second law argument, but I think it may be valid. The only way evolution can work is with natural selection and this can only work on fitness. If information has little to no effect on fitness, then there is absolutely no guide for the evolution of information and evolution is impossible.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa well erm... no.. they are unrelated.

Evolution uses a channel... lets call that natural selection. However unlike information theory where that channels gets 1 chance to pass its information to a receiver across a channel evolution get billions of chances to pass the same data with no compression.

To be fair its a little like saying that the speed of light is not 186k mps because the speed limit is 55mph! one is a human law... the other is a natural law! they have no relationship!

[MumblingMickey]

Information theory is a study of how information degrades when used over a medium...

But the actual data 'importance' to the receiver is not part of information theory...

So lets use the same amount of words...

' I'd Like to eat a cake'

'Call me an ambulance'

Both have almost the same amount of data... but a loss on one channel result in a lost cake... in the other a lost life! So the DATA can be lost on either... but the results of the loss of that data can be pretty varied!

[owchywawa]

Yes, but the information content is dependent upon the receiver's ability to understand the message. For example, if I only understood Chinese, then wouldn't your message convey no information to me? Suppose we have a cell which could bind to another cell and it requires proteins abc to bind specifically with the cell, but it can bind partially with abb. Which one conveys more information abc or abb? I know I'm not conveying my message very well, but maybe you see what I am saying now.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa

Thats right... if my message was english and you spoke chinese... you'd make no sense of either... the 'interpreter' is circumstance brought about by environment.

Now if we had ONE cell there would be a choice.... but mutations are only ever neutral when there is no current selective pressure effect on the organism.. and not just ONE organism. One organism can generate a mutation... but theres no magic rule that it generates a use 'right now' That'd be pretty coincidental alright!

[MumblingMickey]

Maybe you are looking at this in a sort of linear way... Single Organism -> mutation -> environment -> pressure -> decider and then benefit , -> enhanced reproduction / death / neutrality.

But in reality by the time a mutation is actaully operating as advantageous or deleterious MANY generations might have passed... there is a whole population with that and other many other mutations in the population!

Neutral mutations might or might not be neutral permanently too! I have one of those myself!

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa

Evolution of course is a process... not a 'receiver' which is purpose built... and that means in our analogy here that the message is unrelated.

As I said information theory is a BAD analogy... It does not take into account the importance of the message.

A mutation which gives the organism defense against a virus will NEVER see any benefit if the virus is actaully beneficial to the organism! Like CDK's software... there are like 10 parameters its lacking a few million channels!

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa Evolution with regard to natural selection does not require fitness.. it requires that an organism be suited for its environment Its fitness relates to its ability to account for this.

For example a person with an IQ of 170 might seem like an extreme advantage. but drop them into the plains of africa and that IQ won't make them taste any better to what will eat them! Which will happen...as fast as it would happen with anyone else... their fitness only applies in one environment!

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa another example might be to take someone who IS physically fit...and can carry out lots of physical tasks and has a lot of stamina. lets say an educated new york marathon runner. put them in the arctic... and they will be frozen stiff before a polar bear even finds them... their fitness is unrelated to their ability to survive... but drop a beer swilling homer Simpson lookalike in the same place and they 'might' survive long enough to be eaten! Body fat does wonders in the cold!

[owchywawa]

I don't know if you are trying to respond to my comments on the other channel or what, but I said from the beginning that "If information has little to no effect on fitness, then there is absolutely no guide for the evolution of information..." For my argument to be true, information must be unrelated to evolution (i.e. natural selection/fitness). So, you are not responding to my argument if you are talking about how evolution is unrelated to fitness and explaining how fitness works.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa evolution has a poor guide that is correct. its all cause and effect.

If there were any robust guide at all it wouldn't be such a BAD chaotic system or process and it is!

With the exception of the species currently on the planet 99% of species (or more) are extinct! the smaller you are the better adopted you are so complexity in an organism is the kiss of death! The more complex an organism is, the more it needs to be in tune with its environment and the LOWER its survivability!

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa

information...as understood in information theory... is not 'cause and effect' its related to actual data...traveling along an actual 'channel' and being reconstituted at the other end into the same message data..

That is not analogous to evolution at all.

We might as well say that the message (dna) and any or all mutations...NEVER reach the receiver! they are all destroyed in transit though the channel (selection)

Unless you know of any organisms that are immortal?

[owchywawa]

Fitness is dependent upon the environment. An organism is only fit in regards to it's environment; I understand that.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa okay... what if that environment itself changes... for whatever reason... it certainly does throughout the year... but lets say permanently... either swiftly (over 100 years or less) or gradually (over thousands of generations)

What do you think happens to MOST of the animals and plants in that environment?

Remember they don't 'know' the environment is about to change and their mutation rate certainly stays the same... and mostly governed by the same probabilities!

[CBALLEN]

You're mumbling again.

[ChickenHawk110]

Sigh.

Lies. Lies. And some more lies.

Creationists shouldnt touch science that they dont understand.

Whats more, why do these creationists comment so "authoritively" on subjects they dont know much about, and they KNOW they dont know.

Answer : They are fundamentially dishonest.

[hgryphon]

I love how they assert all these things, but have zero proof of what they are saying.

More stupid old men who refuse to accept anything that's not in the Bible.

I like the guy who says evolutionists want things to get "better and better." Evolution isn't about getting better, you idiots. How about you read a science book?

I also like the part at the end about a decline in life span. Average life span in biblical time? 30 years or so. Now? 70 years or so. Yeah, lower life spans there. Morons.

[PraiseYeshua]

Ugh... Evolution does teach Man evolved from a lesser ape like creature, correct?

[hgryphon]

Yes, this is correct.

[PraiseYeshua]

And if we evolved to a higher creature, wouldn't then that be true that evolution does teach that humans became better and better and thus more advanced?

[hgryphon]

Evolution is not a ladder with a goal of being "most advanced" at the top.

Further, humans are only "more advanced" at technology. However, this "more advanced" evolution could be our own extinction waiting to happen in the event that something happens which wipes out our infrastructure. What if something happens tonight, and tomorrow you have no electricity, no water, the roads are torn up, cell and phones don't work, and it's irreversible? Then your "better" man is dead.

[PraiseYeshua]

Yet Darwin was known for preaching survival of the fittest. That would suggest that the species with the best characteristics would be the most ideal. Technology and computers are not the only thing humans are capable of.

[hgryphon]

Survival of the fittest is situational. If the only food source on an island is a nut with a thick shell, then creatures who can best break the shell will out-survive those who can not, and their genes will be passed on. With a species that has great variation, such as birds with strong and not as strong beaks, the stronger beaked birds will survive better and pass their genes on, and eventually, only strong beaked birds will be left. That would create a new species, different from the original.

[PraiseYeshua]

dditionally, they are the only creatures on the planet that express the concepts of linguistics and language, intelligence, love, etc. Last I checked, evolution would have us believe that somehow that the human level of cognizance was a result of favorable characteristics which came about by overcoming lesser characteristics. Sounds like an admission that Evolution at least for the most part teaches a progression that creatures become better and better due to the survival of the fittest.

[hgryphon]

Well, they're not the only creatures on the planet with linguistics, intelligence, and love. I'd have to send you a private note to delve deeper into that subject. And again, you're thinking in terms of "looking back." Millions of years ago, a little bit more intelligence was favorable for survival, so more intelligent pre-humans survived to pass on the genes that provided for better intelligence. That doesn't make "getting better" the goal.

[hgryphon]

Finally, it appears that as far as humans go, we did "get better." That doesn't mean that's the only path evolution takes. The creature that lives passes on it's genes, and as generations come and go, the genes that make survival easier are passed on by the sheer fact of survival. Creatures that can't survive or mate don't pass off their genes, and the traits that prevent that from happening are removed. As the environment changes, the aspects that make survival possible do too.

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

I see a lot of evolution deniers making this mistake.

No evolution doesn't say that things INEVITABLY get better and better.

Imagine for a moment that a virus has a 100% kill rate except for people with Downs Syndrome.

While downs syndrome is a sad malady that puts those affected at a disadvantage to their fellow humans, it would in this case be considered a desirable trait.

Imagine how many 7" bodybuilder potential brain surgeons have been lost to the Gene pool and not able to contribute.

[FirstFreedomFighter]

We're not the only creatures that express the concepts of linguistics; even the DNA molecule and its correlation to the central dogma of molecular biology expresses linguistics and functional semantics.

[hgryphon]

You could even take it further. What if there was a goal to evolution? What if it were "running faster?" Then a cheetah would be more evolved. What if it's "holding one's breath?" Whales and reptiles have us beat. What if it's "eating wood?" Termites.

What one species has evolved to be good at, another lacks evolution in that direction. It doesn't make one better and one worse, it just means they're diverse. Do you see what I mean now?

[MumblingMickey]

@hgryphon It's when you know it'll have an impact! one guy insisted that inbreeding was perfectly okay withe no side effects... My worry is what happens when he and his creationist cousin, sister or mother try to apply that 'truth' to themselves... ugggghhh

They wouldn't really make great animal breeders...would they? Out of business in the first two years as farmers with notions like that!

Considering the states they are from I'm surprised they don't understand that!

[D0ubleHelixFilms]

Lets just ignore the fact that the second sentence shows that they don't know what they are talking about , but what the hell lets lump abiogenesis in with evolution.

Also, I just had to point out that any mutation that increases survival is beneficial should the environment change so that said gene is malignant then that gene will die out of the species.

You can't add information to the genome to the genome? I call bullshit creationists.

[sirnlawson]

Cooking can be a good analogy to DNA.

Your original recipe (DNA) gives a nice meal (or produces the right amino acids etc)

One day, you accidentally knock a little spice (doesn't matter what it is, it's random) into your regular recipe. This could be considered a mutation to the recipe. It will either make it taste better, make it taste worse, or it might not do anything. If it tastes better, you might add the spice to the recipe, and use it every time. This is a beneficial mutation.

[sirnlawson]

Another way of looking at the question "Can mutations be beneficial?" is - "Can accidents be useful?"

You bump into someone, and apologise. That's neutral.

You bump into someone, and knock them over. That's bad.

You bump into someone, and knock them over, and the police turn up a few seconds later and thank you for stopping a thief. That's good. It was no more intentional than the others, but it had a positive result.

Biological mutations can also be good, bad, or neutral.

[Paomnnehal]

The so called "Dr" comes from a Creationist School. He's as much as a doctor as Hovind's claim that his PhD was legitimate.

[Paomnnehal]

Omg, this is so wrong. If these creationist knew anything about sickle cell anemia they would know that sickle cell anemia poses as beneficial mutation for people who lived in regions where malaria was dominant. Of course with the wonderful history of slave trading, many people were taken out of their environment and the mutation no long posed as beneficial in regions where they were no malaria.

[Paomnnehal]

*sigh* The majority of mutations are neutral, they don't do anything. These people should just go over to Iran and live a happy lives under a theocracy.

[ThePerrynator]

you can't look at a person's reason for his argument. you can only look at the facts. casting an argument aside on the basis of WHY they argue is not a valid thing to do. That's like saying that i can't believe this person simply because they come from a certain area or because they hold a specific political bias when they've still done scientific research on something.

[2TESLACOIL]

any human being who drives a car uses a mobile phone flys on a jet plane sends an email on a computer etc has but thinks science is bullshit is deluded

how can u trust your life and your lifestyle to science and do this every day yet ignore basic facts of evolution

ill tell you how...

be born american

[Paomnnehal]

I was born as an American and I support your claim so you're wrong.

[oceanistoosmall]

@Paomnnehal 80% of the American Scientists believe in evolution, so they are wrong too?

[MestrongNigga]

thats not very nice man

stop sipin on the hateraid

-)

[Qba86]

If you compare sequences of related genes, in different organizms, you will find differences in those sequences. Some of them insignificant, other ensuring better adaptation - all of them produced by mutations... There are mutations that allow a gain of an entirely new function. There are gene duplications. The common ancestor of all vertebrates had only one hemoglobin gene. We now have two genes, that encode two sligtly different subunits, which together form a tetrameric protein.

[oceanistoosmall]

@Qba86 you are ill informed! The rate of beneficial mutation is very very rare, and even if its beneficial it is in the context of surviving in the environment, not benefiting itself! All mutations are downhill, its devolution, very rare cases have positive effect! No mutation has ever produced a new gene or new function! mutations which resulted as immune to AIDS and Heart diseases have ill effects too, they are not totally beneficial! Strong Bone mutation side effect causes deformity in jaw!

[ledz2032]

@oceanistoosmall Having hands means you cant fly. Ill effect. Having fins means you cant walk, ill effect? What the hell is your point, if you can do one thing you can usually not do the other. Great argument.

[oceanistoosmall]

@ledz2032 Now what the hell is your point? are you smoking?

[ledz2032]

@oceanistoosmall My argument is that nothing is totally beneficial. No species have a "totally beneficial" mutation, and it is true that a lot, if not most are in fact not at all, but the ones that may be slightly are the ones that survive. The others die off. Your argument that some mutations cause ill effects, though it may be true in some ways, doesn't matter to survival and is a moot point. I.E.: having fins and gills means you cant walk and breath on land. but is that really an ill effect?

[ledz2032]

@ledz2032 first sentence was confusing, i think faster than I can type sometimes. Clarifying: It is true that most mutations do not benefit the species at all and usually have the opposite effect, but they die off. The ones that are beneficial survive through natural selection.

[ledz2032]

@ledz2032 again, basically I am saying that everything you said is true, except the devolution. All of your arguments are in fact taught in any well written book about evolution.

[oceanistoosmall]

@Qba86 You said that Mutations dont introduce information but Natural Selection does? LOL how?? can you come up with a mechanism to back it up? ever heard of Neo-Darwinism much? We can artificially select via modification in the pre existing proteins and sometimes Nature Selects the passable mutation in the pre existing information so the species can better survive the environment! Molecule to Molecular Biologist? The answer is NO!

[CBALLEN]

Evolutionist don't believe because they don't want to believe.We see them on many Christian videos ranting and raving against God and creation even when there are no Christians present.All they are trying to do is console one another in their fallacy because the facts certainly don't back them up.

[Qba86]

Some 99% of biologists accept evolution as a coherent theory, backed up by empirical evidence and mathematical models. I personally am agnostic, but many of my collegues are quite religious. And none of them has any serious doubts about weather evolution took place.

On the other hand, all the people that I know, who question evolution, are christian fundamentalists. This gives a pretty clear picture of what the entire argument is about...

[havabighed]

@Qba86 it is exactly about the existence and influence of God. Thats why religious people call it "Intelligent Design" and Atheists call it "Evolution". Some people call it Adaptation, but not evolution. Evolution is a theory that God did not create the universe and that all life was an accident. That is why religious people dont accept Evolution but do accept Intelligent Design/Adaptation. In a sense, Evolution IS adaptation over time. The fundamental evolutionist doesnt believe in God.

[RussianPunch]

@Qba86 You are basing your ignorant conclusions not on the overwhelming evidence against evolutionism, but on your bigotry against those closer to true Christianity recognizing the authority of Christ.

[Qba86]

@RussianPunch

Most of the "overwhelming evidence" agains evolution falls apart upon closer examination. Usually the only thing this "evidence" proves, is that people who put it forward have no understanding of what the theory of evolution postulates.

You should read a few boks about what evolution actually is (the ones written by competent biologists). Then we can talk.

BTW: I take it you don't consider christians who accept evolution to be "true"? And yet I'm the evil bigot...

[RussianPunch]

@Qba86 You got it ass backwards, bud: Stephen Gould's veritable fig leaf to cover for the stark absence of intermediary fossils is only one example of using elaborate tales to account for the lack of evidence. To your second point about what a Christian is: What is a Christian, just anyone who self-proclaims to be one? According to Jesus Christ, how do we distinguish between a true Christian and soi disant one? The following video about this issue is SHOCKING: /watch?v=YpkfKln7CWs

[BASSonSTEROIDS94]

@Qba86 your right this is a matter of religion, not science; so why even bring in scientific evidences and counter-evidences if it's actually unrelated? And once again, science isn't a democracy, so according to natural laws, 2 different theories, no matter how many people back each up, have an equal chance of being the truth so I can't understand why evolutionists, like you, always push Creationism under the table without giving it a chance

[Qba86]

@BASSonSTEROIDS94 Creationism has had its chance. In fact, it was a dominant theory until the second half of 19th century. Later, as the theory of evolution by natural selection was formulated, and found to fit the data incomparably better, creationism was abandoned. It was simply inconsistent with observations. The reason why I pointed to the fact that nearly all biologists accept evolution was to show that the scientific consensus in that area has existed for nearly a century.

[TheLogic1010]

@Qba86 What needs to be asked, have the 99% of biologists looked at the evidence for and against evolution rather than just accept ToE without question. Evolution of some sort definitely took place, natural selection only being the one mechanism, definitely not. I am not a christian, I have worked in laboratories and have a science degree. Yes, I do question ToE. Why?? The simple answer being that anyone who questions, ToE is immediately labelled a creationist.

[Qba86]

@TheLogic1010

Gee... And there I was thinking that the main reason for questioning any scientific theory should be evidence that contradict it. But sarcasm aside - in molecular biology we obtain tons of data on daily basis.Much of this data could (hypothetically) undermine evolution. Yet it fits the theory very neatly. You make it sound as if TE was accepted without reflecting on it content. Yet there are constant arguments over the significance of different mechanisms and individual events.

[TheLogic1010]

@Qba86 There is plenty of evidence to contradict TE. Molecular biology is one area that is very faithful to TE. To my knowledge, TE has been successfully altered to fit in with the scientific theory criteria. TE is accepted we are told(the general public) by science without question. TE is rejecting by knowledge seekers like myself, who do not have any alliegence to any religious belief.

[Qba86]

@TheLogic1010

Tell me which areas of biology provide evidence the contradict TE? And I don't mean little details regarding specific evolutinary events, but the "hard core" of the theory. And what do you men by saying TE was altered? Sure, theories do get altered to fit data, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as tis doesn't decrease their coherency and predicive power...

[TheLogic1010]

@Qba86 OK, start with DNA. Evolutionists have said that DNA evidence will support TE, but the truth being it doesn't and I will explain why because your going to ask why? Darwin didn't know about DNA so when DNA was discovered. It was predicted by evolutionists that certain different species would have common DNA patterns than other non related species. This was found not to be true. Toad's DNA is so varied that to suggest they are unrelated.

[MajesticCyru]

@Qba86 [many of my colleagues are quite religious]

Theistic evolutions are waking up to the Darwinian Doctrine, as they agree that it only applies to natural selection known commonly as micro or little "e" evolution. Yes, many species with genetic variation have been identified, as the same kind or family, which disproves Darwin's fictitious model. This makes it easy to get all the kinds on Noah's Ark, when the sub-species developed from same family through Genetic Variability :).

[oceanistoosmall]

@Qba86 Actually Biology doesnt need Evolution! the fact that 99% dont question evolution doesnt mean they take it as a fact! Most of them are not bothered by the evidences for it and leave it to their peers, so it is the Origins Scientists who yelp criticize or embrace it! And most of them do not want to oblige themselves to anything supernatural but are presuppositonaly materialistic and are happy to settle with a lackluster materialistic explanation as they hold a philosophical dogma!

[thkaal]

Can you cite one example of this that I can look up?  Just one will be sufficient, but I'd like at least 3.

[MumblingMickey]

@CBALLEN

Let me get this straight... just so I understand... you are a christian... and you find christian videos... (like supposedly this one) where there are no christians present... and ranting on those videos are evolutionists... but no christians... not even you or the others that make up the 'we' in your comment...or the poster of the video? and you're observing this ranting?

So there are no Christians here?... Or on these 'other' videos where presumably YOU are not present either?

[fergmasterflex]

Pure bollocks.

[BereanBeacon]

fergmasterflex, Mutations - w w w dot warneveryone dot com/mutations dot htm

Soup?, In the Beginning... - w w w dot warneveryone dot com/soup dot htm

[rob80nikki]

If you want to create something, how about creating Politicians who wont use our fellow brothers and sisters as pawns for greedy, globalist, corporations? We are tired of dying to make the wealthy, even wealthier. We as American servicemembers, desrve more than that. Pres. Candidate Ron Paul 2008

[MajesticCyru]

@fergmasterflex I'm wondering have u mutated into anything in 3 yrs. What r u hoping your offspring will gain, tail.. wings.. lol. There is 101 reasons the Darwinian model has been a EPIC FAIL.

Evolution BS:

1) Darwin's Finches ..actual same species

2) 1938 The Coelacanth ..still living in Deep Waters.

3) Haeckel's Embryonic Fraud

4) Archaeopteryx ..a bird, not a transitional form

5) Mutation in Fruit Flies ..debunked

U r so bias 2 your world view that u can't c the trees 4 the forest.

[SqrJames]

Then they start woffling about mutation being caused by sin. At that point i started laughing.

[SqrJames]

once again creationists too thick to understand statistics and probability. Not all mutations are harmful, most have no effect, some are harmful, some have an effect that isn't harmful, those effects that are not harmful may be beneficial. But these beneficial mutations are rare.. however with hundreds of billions of organisms in one generation over billions of years, guess what? thats alot of beneficial mutations.

[BereanBeacon]

SqrJames, " 'Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mismash of guessing games and figure juggling." Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

[zenithar6666]

and far too much faith

[achilles1974]

@SqrJames Mutations are copying errors, mistakes. Complex information system are not improved by copying errors. Secondly, in real life genomes contain genes that repair mutations to keep them from debilitating the offspring. If the Primary Axiom, mutations plus natural selection to improve the species was correct, this safeguard against mutations would not be needed. Mutations that do make it through the filter are causing the human genome to deteriorate.

[BASSonSTEROIDS94]

@SqrJames are you kidding me? we're too thick to understand statistics and probability?

Look at yourself before you point the finger at us. The probability of consecutive, similar mutations causing a benefical body part, let alone a whole new species is outrageously highly improbable. And the proabability of creating 250 consecutive, folded correctly, left-handed amino-acids (in other words the first 'life' form) is 1 in 1 to the power of 140

it's utter craziness

[mindwis3]

(2)

"all the mutations cause bad side effects" that's quite a statement, but we're used to that from creationists.

Odd they fail to mention that EVERYONE has about 4 mutations NOT present in either parent, most of the time without negative side effects or any effect at all, but sometimes in more hight or whatever.

Funny how creationists talk about 'not possible; but yet subscribe to "the sun standing still for a day (joshua)".

[mindwis3]

(1)

Ah, creation reseach, keep on searching till oblivion.

If one wants to understand evolution the proper way, not the 'creationist' way (like the creationists completely unsupported explenation of the formation of races).

Let's hear what a creationist "professor" has to say on the subject (to remain objective or what?).

Inteligent christians, stand up against this insult to your beliefs.