Nothing like having someone that isn't even in a field of science (and actually just a lawyer) argue science on television. But then again this was the Christian supporting Faux News. Way to be good god fearing folk with truth on your side!
I posted video of evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman who represents other scientist from around the globe who are critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis and who are publicly challenging the limitations of the theory.......
There hasn't been a debate in 150 years??? Are u sure about that? I have at least 50 debates downloaded on my computer alone, including debates which have included members the National Academy of Sciences as well as the NCSE. Scientist and scholars from both sides have been debating the neo Darwinian/ modern synthesis for 80 years and Darwinism in general for almost twice that long. Lets at least be honest man. Even evo devos are now challenging the limitations of the neo Darwinian synthesis.
@benthemiester yeah.it is kind of like the debates people have about if elvis is still alive, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, and anal probing aliens in trailer parks. the similarity is: one side has evidence and one side doesnt. who in the national academy of science supports creation? what evidence have they produced? can they make a correct prediction using the scientific method? can you name one breakthrough in medical science made by "creation theory".
@SuperAthiest1 cont..... I didn't say that members of the Academy have shown up to back up ID, only that they have shown up to debate. Francisco Ayala who is a nice gentleman is one of them. However if you want to find other members of the American Academy who have signed on to the Discovery institutes "Dissent Fron Darwin" list, then you can find there names on their cite with same tittle which also includes members of foreign Academies as well.
"yeah.it is kind of like the debates people have about if elvis is still alive, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, and anal probing aliens in trailer parks"
If you can tell me where prominent scientist show up with standing room only audiences to debate Bigfoot & annal probing then give citation. I was not speaking of YEC or creationism, I was speaking of Intelligent design.......
@TatsunoKoori I hate yo break it to you, but Biblical YEC is not Intelligent design, and you don't need to be a theist to believe in intelligent design. Francis Crick proposed Directed Pan Spermia and he was not a theist.
One of ID's leading philosophical proponents is atheist Bradley Monton. A Scientific Dissent from Darwin or the "Dissent From Darwin" list contains almost a thousand signatories of earth scientist & growing, & many of them are atheist. Don't be a Parrot and do some research.
Federal judges are not qualified to determine what a valid scientific theory is, & since the trial, 100's more scientist are starting to openly challenge the neo Darwinian synthesis. S.Newman an atheist & an evo devo also criticizes Dover and says people were lied to. He also challenges the limitations of Neo Darwinian synthesis that the NCSE pushed as being a fact. I believe at least 400 more scientist have signed the Dissent list.
Do you know or understand the difference between a federal district court and the Supreme court? because If you dont understand the difference, then I'm not sure there is any rational way of speaking to you about this.
@benthemiester I believe the question in the establishment clause went to supreme court, but the actual matter of the subject was left to what you say a district court. Either way it was a precedent set
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I asked u twice if you knew the difference between the courts & you did not. Do you have a law background because if you did you would realize that an opinion is not a ruling and does not set a precedent. The case was over stickers being placed on books. Contrary to popular belief no lesson plans were ever drawn for teaching ID. The students were told there was book in the school library but they were not going to teach from the book they were going to teach neo Darwinism.
@benthemiester I think your confusing Dover with Supreme court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, 593-594 (1987)......."We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . "Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
@benthemiester no, I used to like a magna called Naruto and this account is like 5 years old, and it does not reflect me or my interests anymore, I was thinking of making a new one.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I made the point because the anti chinese act and exclusionary laws were put in place during the 18th and early 19th century which also effected discrimination of Japanese. This was the law of the land but that didn't mean it was right.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD He also criticizes Dover and says that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. If you have a background in biology I also posted "Do we need a new theory of Evolution" I will also remind you that ID theorist are now getting published in peer review science journals and university press.
@benthemiester peer reviewed by who? does it matter if the press publishes it? even as high as the AP?
do you realize that ID is creationism, and that there is no evidence for it and that any argument for it is illogical, from flagellum to the human eye has already been explained
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD The evidence is in nature itself. ID is based on the premise that living things are better explained by an intelligent process rather than un guided processes. Irreducible complex systems are cited as well as specified information, especially in the form of precision nano molecular machinery & reams & reams of digital encoded information within our genome as well as built redundancy. This cannot be explained by the neo Darwinian synthesis but are better explained by design.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "Thats not evidence, just because things exist in nature doesn't mean it was just intelligently guided"
"That wasn't my point. Tell me the last time you heard of nature producing digital encoded information and a sophisticated mechanism to read and translate it?
"Evolution is not a random process"
Then how do you explain random mutations as being one of the central tenants of Neo Darwinism/modern synthesis?
So if its not random are you your saying that its guided?
@benthemiester You obviously don't understand speciation and it explains how it isn't a random process, the mutations and how it is not guided, but still not random.
If you look at many of the dinosaurs, the carnivores tend to have sharper teeth than the rest, this is because when species started to feed on other species, they evolved sharper teeth as a result, this is not guided, it is caused by the beneficial traits being kept in the species and the unfitting traits being lost.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I have no problem with micro evolution or natural selection being able to explain teeth getting sharper or hair getting longer. Its prokaryote to man neo Darwinism that I and many other growing numbers have issue with. Random mutations are random mutations whether or not they act on natural selection. Did you know that even evolutionary biologist are now challenging the limitations of neo Darwinism including the limited ability of natural selection and random mutation?
@benthemiester you saying its a random mutation doesn't make it true.
yes you can find random mutations in the multiple forms, cancers, tumors, and other things, these are caused by changes in the genome of a cell, just because Science doesn't have a definitive answer for things yet even with Abiogenesis, doesn't mean science is wrong and ID has a place.
ID is literally only around 40 years old with its first introductions after another establishment clause case.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "you saying its a random mutation doesn't make it true"
Natural selection and random mutation are the major tenants of the neo Darwinian synthesis. I have no problem with science not having definitive answers. I have a problem with people being taught that the neo Darwinian synthesis does have the answers when even you admit it clearly doesn't. You can imagine that someday it will, that is your prerogative. Darwinist ignored Mendel for 50 years and Mendel was right.
@benthemiester Neo darwinism? dude its the same Evolution that has been studied since mendels time, darwin ignored mendel because darwin studied speciation in animals and locations, mendel studied genetics through species
you're just making up terms just because you say its random doesn't mean it is, speciation is funded through natural selection, only fittest survive, and those who can't survive die.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont..... It is he and his Law of Inheritance which is credited and considered the father of modern genetics. If you don't understand that random mutation is one of the central tenants of the neo Darwinian synthesis, then you need to do a little research young man. Darwin didn't even know what DNA or mutation were, so your statement that it is the same Evolution that has been studied since Mendel's time is just nonsense.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD You don't even know what your talking about. 1859 Classical Darwinism is not the same as neo Darwinism which was established in the late 1930s and early 40s. Darwin proposed pangenesis but he was wrong. Secondly Darwin didn't even know who Mendel was. I said Darwinist ignored him. Please read more carefully. Mendel did not even agree with Darwins work and believed in the limitation of the gene pool......
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD You need to actually read the threads. I said Darwinist ignored him. I didn't say Darwin ignored him and I pointed this out to you in one of my earlier threads. I dont think your familiar with the subject or the terminology.
Dar·win·ism (där w -n z m). n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop .. This is also a term that Richard Dawkins uses to describe himself. I'm not so sure why it seems ambiguous to you.
@benthemiester not what I was implying, what darwinists ignored mendel? at the time it was just darwin and some of his scholars, how can it be that darwin didn't know who mendel was, but somehow darwinists ignored mendel?
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD By 1865 when he proposed his theory to scholars in Brun Morovia & to anyone that would hear him, the Origin of the Species and Darwins work was already the popular view among these men. You didn't event know that random mutations were a part of the neo Darwinian synthesis or that there was a neo Darwinian synthesis. You questioned the term Darwinist. I am not going to give you a crash course on history. You should know the subject your debating before you try to debate it.
@benthemiester doesn't mean darwinist ignored mendel, the small scientific community did at that time, Religion still dominated until 1960's when the sputnik project went into effect, only then did the government invest in books to help educate the kids, this is where evolution took rise again in America.
Also I didn't say or imply that random mutations were apart of evolution, you simply introduced a new term of Neo-darwinism, instead of the regular term Evolution
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I was speaking of what happened in the meeting of the Historical society in Brun Morovia where scholars & scientist representing different fields in earth science from all over Europe came together. If your speaking of the US, I don't know who told you that the government didn't invested in educational school books until the sixties, but where ever you got this information it is false, and again I wasn't speaking of the history of Darwinism in US schools. Your point is moot.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD One of the reasons that I was put off by the theory is because as a kid I was lied too and taught that Piltdown man was an ancestor of humans and I repeated this to other people and ended up looking like a fool. It was still in my textbook even though it had been debunked 20 years before. I was especially upset when I found that Darwin, Huxley and even later James Watson and others considered Blacks to be closer related to apes and genetically inferior to nordic whites.
@benthemiester Its ok to think that, Indoctrination is a bitch, and during darwins time, slavery was prevalent in southern US.
If you just look at it chronologically, the blacks are still prevalent in africa and are basically the oldest forms of Humans, humans migrated north and around into america.
Blacks tend to be more susceptible to Tuberculosis, where whites aren't, and Latin American people tend to be prone to small pox
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD And whites are prone to Cystic fibrosis, Alzheimers & skin cancer. So what? If Blacks are the oldest form of humans then according to simple logic that means they had more time to evolve than their white counter parts who came much later according to the theory.
In reality know one knows what color skin the first humans had or how long it took skin color to change. These are all assumptions & if you think you are genetically superior, then again this is one of my pet peeves.
@benthemiester not necessarily, the environment of africa hasn't changed much, so evolving to one disease that doesn't affect many of its entire population isn't likely.
sort of like Small pox, it has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and not one person is immune from it unless you get the vaccine to prevent it.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Tuberculosis was first discovered near Heidelberg in the Neolithic bone remains, as well as the great Tuberculosis epidemic of Europe, and like many other diseases like Small Pox, Measles the Plague etc. again which all started in Europe and spread to the Americas.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD What do you mean the environment hasn't changed much in Africa? Do you think there aren't big cities in Africa. Or that all African live in huts and chuck spears?
Who do you think built the great cities of Ethiopia and Egypt. Or are you saying that the climate changed everywhere but Africa? According to your own theory man was supposed to have evolved in Africa. WTF?
@benthemiester missed what I said by it didn't change, the weather hasn't changed, just because people live in cities or bungaloes doesn't mean it changes like that, the cities and buildings are less than 200 years old, how much evolution do you think takes place in a city that is less than that, not even thinking about the lack of it without the cities, the climate hasn't changed, the jungles are still the same. They've adapted efficiently to it, by having darker skin for higher melonin
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont..... You say because the jungles are still there. So what? We have mountains in Europe and North America that are still here. If you think that the ancient cities of Ethiopia, Egypt, Nigeria, Mali, Kenya, Somalia, Morocco and Libya are less that 200 years old then some one really screwed with your head. Is this what evolution has taught you? I find this very sad.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I made the point that if Blacks were the oldest humans alive as you say, then they had more time to evolve. Your the one that said the environment hasn't changed so they didn't evolve, even though your own theory says that humans evolved in Africa. Again I don't even think you know what your talking about or what your point is........
@benthemiester yea 360,000 years isnt really long enough to produce anything but different colored skin and different bone structure thats about it. Not alot of argument.
@benthemiester you missed the point, the jungles are similar to the jungles back then, I know desertification occured to create the sahara, but people migrated and africa was still similar to what it is today, also, how much evolution do you think can take place in only 3million years when other evolutionary changes occur in as little as 5 to as much as 60 million, years with some species like Diatoms which evolve small bits in less than 20,000
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont... If by your own reasoning Blacks evolved first, and whites came after, then whites they had a lessor time to evolve as a race. Blacks, Indians and Mesopotamians were building pyramids and mapping the stars when Northern Europeans were still hunters and gathers & running around worshipping trees. Who do you think the Romans and Greeks were speaking of when they used the word "savage barbarians" This is not an insult but a historical fact.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "you missed the point, the jungles are similar to the jungles back then"
I have no idea what your point is. Again if you think Blacks are less evolved then something is wrong with your reasoning. Mountains are still similar to mountains. The ocean is still similar to the ocean. So what? Again I don't even know what your arguing anymore.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont..... When mutations occur, they can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Wikipedia under Evolution.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms, which produces genetic variation in a population. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome, which can be caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication......
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD The modern evolutionary synthesis is a union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution. It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis.
The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the current consensus
@SuperAthiest1 can they make a correct prediction using the scientific method? can you name one breakthrough in medical science made by "creation theory".
Great questions. Yes to first and second question, but evolution theory has not. If you want to get more detailed or technical, just ask, I dont want to spam you, but again we are not speaking of YEC we are speaking of ID. You dont need to be a theist to believe in ID.
@benthemiester Also, you simply say just because science doesn't explain where these random mutations come from, doesn't mean an intelligent designer did it.
you are causing an inference that leads to "if I don't know, therefore ID
Religious morons. Let's start teaching astrology next to astronomy too. Goodness people, we only have so much time to teach our children. There is NO debate.
Three words in of the first time I have EVER seen this man talk and I figured it out. I am a straight man who worked closely with many different types of people at a 4 star hotel. The hotel community has many openly homosexual individuals as employees. Many of these individuals I consider my friends. I am a straight man with gaydar, so to say. Casey Luskin is a closet gay and because of shame in himself was open to the suggestion of original sin as a youth therefor making him brainwashable. FTW
Everyone thinks that creationists were born that stupid. Some were, but most had to work at it all the way through school and their online degr- er I mean college
@ 5:30 i was rdy to punch holes all over HIS tree of life! man some ppl are so freaking stupid!
As i said to my sister a little while back and she knows this now, witch he havent learned obviously.
I said, If you don't know what the discussion is about then by all means ask, read and learn about it, but never ever join in a discussion that you know nothing about and state random things just because u feel left out not knowing what its about.
And to all those who think Intelligent Design theory is somehow trying to prove the Bible right, think again. ID is not a religious argument. Watch "Expelled" by Ben Stein for a good indicator of where that assumption goes wrong. A scientist is supposed to be rational and objective. Realize your confirmational bias, and stop cherry picking your evidence to cling to your theories; it's disgraceful, to say the least, especially here where it involves slanderous playschoolesque BS like this.
@Morpheus04200 First of all, intelligent design is not a theory. Second of all, Expelled is the absolute last thing you should watch for your science knowledge.
I can definitely see why they wanted to sensor you. You are incorrect on each of your assumptions and take his comments out of context. The embryos were exaggerated to make a point that isn't there, there is indeed various takes on the tree of life based on genetics, you claim he is a flat earther & that he denies dinosaurs - both statements are a lie, he is also right that there is much evidence against evolution [or say problems in] that they refuse to put in for honest science. + catcalls!
@dmcgraye Let's start with multi-strata fossils: ex. petrified wood standing up through 20 - 30 feet of sediment. These things shouldn't happen outside of large catastrophes [i.e. global floods] in the numbers / sizes we see them. Even though science has proven that spontaneous generation doesn't happen, evolution then requires it to get things started. Irreducible complexity : many structures have 14 or more minimum things before they work - less detracts from the creature [ex. flagellum].
@masterkeep those really aren't very good, geology is a field from which we cannot expect clerical certainty, too many variables, and the irreducible complexity argument just shows a failure of imagination if you think that it makes evolution less likely than... what exactly?
@dmcgraye What would you like... that stalactites actually have been seen to form in 50 years what is reportedly to take 1000, that modern wood has been petrified in 50 years [tools and supports in mines]. How is irreducible complexity lacking in imagination. I think it points to realistic expectations based on what is known, not on what is hoped to be.
@masterkeep Sir, what is the extent of your education in the biological sciences? A non-reply will imply K-12. (Or possibly home-school; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)
@freethinker923 I work in the field in actuality, not in theory. I have some advanced studies in the field just not the advanced degree in the field. My studies include biology, chemistry, physics, linguistics, geology, & philosophy [started college comprehensive science education]. When I mention problems with what is taught as evolution I am speaking from a wide field of view.
@masterkeep It would serve you well to keep in mind that you have been criticizing the scientific opinions of someone who has a PhD in Biology and has authored several peer reviewed journals. Get your Master's and then someone "might" listen to your dissent.
@freethinker923 I discented PhD's when they were wrong when I was just starting my BA. A degree does not mean you know how to think or are immune to argumental errors. Knowledge of the field is not limited to those who can pay money for paper certificates. I am not dismissing the hard work people put into it but it doesn't mean others haven't had the same hard work in study but have not had the money to get the same certificate.
@freethinker923 As to peer reviewed journals, Climategate, as some are calling the fiasco, proved that peer reviewed journals sometimes means they liked your conclusions so don't even look to the processes used in your study. Again, not discarding publications as some are fair, but many will not publish the discenting information because they cannot address it and that scares them. If we are intellectually honest you know that too. I hope you have a good day.
@freethinker923 By the way, I am not home schooled but in general home schooled children out perform their public school peers by about 18-28% on the standard tests.
@masterkeep That was not my point regarding home schooling. In america, is it common knowledge that most home school children are from evangelican christian parents who purposefully conceal evolutionary biology from the curriculum (or worse, teach bogus creationist alternatives). With regards to this subject, you would most likely have better education with regards to evolution if not home-schooled.
@blahdoot20 darwinism is a pet-name that creationists like to use. Using this label, they are able to attach an ad-hominem argument to the rest of their fallacious bullshit.
@freethinker923 haha yea i know its bullshit. Just pointing out that theyre just making stuff up to make evolution sound bad. It just scares me that some people actually take this douche face seriously...
Oh sorry, there's a worldwide conspiracy amongst biologists in unrelated and individual institutions throughout the world to LIE about EVILUTION. Once you play the 'conspiracy' card you end the debate, because you can't PROVE there's NO conspiracy...it's the final ploy of those whose arguments have run out.
I think that, as a humble office worker, I am going to start writing to prestigious scientific and medical journals offering my personal critiques of their work. What the fuck do they know about advanced procedures on the treatment of intestinal cariniomas, or the science of metallurgy, compared with ME?!! Come on, when you are diagnosed with a fatal disease you TELL the doctor he's wrong, and refuse the treatment, don't you, because YOU are more expert. This is the Casey Luskion/creationist way
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If Luskin writes all of the material he posts at Evolution News, then he is nothing short of a Darwin destroying machine. I've seen up to five highly-articulate pieces posted by him in a single day. His latest exposes the Darwinists' lies regarding biological information. It goes into detail explaining why Darwinist definitions fail.
Casey Luskin is hated for the same reason the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Lakers are hated - because he's damn good.
Is this is the same Casey Luskin who refused to defend his bullshit nonsense of creationism (ID) in court, because he knew that it would be proved a joke?
NOTHING Luskin or any of his miserable ilk has said or will ever say will have the slightest affect on Evolution, because Evolution is based upon fact, whereas creationism is just bullshit to protect the delicate ears of the faithful and their "precious" religion. Casey Luskin=Renowned Moron and bare-faced Liar. Ye fuckin' douchebag...
Luskin should be applauded for his frequent exposing of Darwinist deception. He's helping to steer biology clear of dogmatic 19th century mysticism (Darwinian evolution) and towards the future, Intelligent Design. For that all appreciates of science owe him a debt of gratitude.
Then you are just as much of a tool as he is. You have fallen for his quote mining, his negative arguments, and his junk science. The discotute, and by extension Luskin, has produced nothing of any value. Not a single one of their "theories" has lead to any advancement of science. If you don't believe in evolution then you should stop using modern medicine because evolutionary biology is the keystone.
I love this ass-clown! It's like watching a stand up comic.
Heckels embrios-
First, these drawings were used for many years in childrens text books because they illustrate the point in an easy to understand way. Yeah, they were a bit exaderated, they were for kids!
Second, most moden text books don't use them anymore, they use actual photographs! Photos taken with endoscope cameras that show how acurate the old drawings realy were!
It's bullshit to say that Haeckel's embryos were used to explain a point. I've read that three time on youtube now, but what's really going on is that it's just a mistake in science textbooks.
No, it was a mistake, they didn't use them on purpose. Haeckel may have been partially right, but on the basic shape of the embryos he was wrong. Google Ken Miller Haeckel's embryos. The photographs used in textbooks do not match the drawings. The photographs are clearly different from the drawings.
Oscourse they didn't match perfectley, they were exagerated, they were used to illustrait the point for children!
What part of childrens text books don't you understand?
And how the hell could it be a mistake, the drawings are over 100 years old, Heckels discreditation for presenting unfounded work is well known, it was years later that biologists relized Heckel was on to somthing, even if he couldn't back it up at the time.
What do you mean "Haeckel may have been partially right, but on the basic shape of the embryos he was wrong" ?
It's the basic shape he got right! The features were exagerated but the simalaritys between the developing stages of the embrios has been confirmed, the exagerated drawings were used because they illustraited the point in a way children could understand.
Again, this is beside the point, most modern text books don't even use them anymore, they use actual pohtos!
No, on the shape of the embryos they're very innaccurate. They could be worse, but still, they're a mistake. Do the google search that I recommended below. Where are you getting all this stuff that you're saying? Where did you read this? And yes, some textbooks still use them.
No, you don't need to repeat yourself, but what you're repeating is still false information. Feel free to provide a link to something documentating a statement by a textbook author saying that they used innaccurate information on purpose to make it easier to explain something. And yeah, it is amazing that the mistakes are in textbooks when the fraud was disproven so long ago. Even more amazing is that apparently they were in some scientific papers as well.
First, I've seen the pictures and the photos, I've seen for myself the similaritys, the pictures look like an exagerated, cartoonized version of the photos. If I can find the pictures, I'll send you a link.
Second, they wern't a fraud or disproven, they were dismissed as unfounded, later research showed his theories to be largeley acurate.
Third, didn't you go to school, don't you remember the simple, cartooney drawings in the books
Again, the reason why they're in textbooks is because it's a mistake. Showing the embryos as looking more similar than they really are would just confuse people. And they aren't necessarily in 6th grade books, they're also in high school and college level books.
The last few sentences that Luskin says are pure concentrated evil. What could possibly motivate a person to try this hard to break down science? I'm going to snap. FUCK.
this is a good man, he is working to create jobs for children in india, he is trying to make western children stupid so that in a few years time them the east will dominate the scientific world and all major scientific jobs. stone age here we come.
if darvin is right why life can't be created in labs? it can be only new copy of existing life form. I'm no creationist or anything but I'm not dumb. Gravity, life, even the radiation and many more are still in theory. Everything is under question mark, as Tesla sad or any other smart man. My English is limited so I can't write you more. btw we still don't know what is inside earth. I also can't stop wondering how do USA astronauts pass Van Allens radiation belt. Any clue? Please answer honestly
natural thing is to tire protecting your country, but hiv is created in a lab as well as h1n1. That is only fact here. I don't know who made them but they aren't natural. They are mix of different viruses.
Paranoid? After what I get from your country? I'm not paranoid as should be. BTW they synthesized genome, not created life only change it.
Well, you've made some pretty damn fantastical claims now haven't you? What kind of evidence do you have? (giggles in anticipation)
You do realize that HIV broke out LONG before we had anything near to the genetic capabilities we have now, don't you? There's a 25 year gap there. Furthermore, we've traced the origins of HIV to SIV in apes in Africa. SHIV was created by mixing HIV and SIV but that is specifically under controlled use in research to generate data for a cure.
Considering the very fast rate of mutation HIV exhibits, it's actually quite an expected outcome that specific strains appear geographically separate.
Of course HIV isn't natural to Humans! It only recently jumped from apes(SIV) to Humans(HIV). And there's genetic evidence that SIV jumped from from another species of simian to apes prior to our zoonotic event with them. Evolutionarily speaking, HIV is a mutated SIV and is indeed new to us.
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 34 billion years ago.
to create prokaryotes from scratch and make it a live, mathematically that is same as tornado flu try car dump and make Ferrari that work. I'm not biologist I'm Mathematician. Evo. vs Creo. have just a theory to suport them.
"mathematically that is same as tornado flu try car dump and make Ferrari that work."
Wow, so your not a biologist but you like to make naive sweeping statements regarding biological origins? Furthermore, half of your statement above is plagiarized.
Should we also pull some arbitrary numbers out of our asses to describe the odds of a creative deity being responsible for life? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, correct?
What that statement means is that if you can subscribe to arbitrary numbers being generated to disprove abiogenesis then we should be able to apply that very technique to a creator deity. In that case, the odds are in favor of abio...
i want to say that evo and creo theories have big holes. I'm think that if we combine this two with each other it will be closer to real deal. people engage in this story are easy to exclude each other. We are just scratch the history of world, but we already talk like we know all. I mean about everything...
Why do you keep using "WE". Who are you? Why do you call people names.
oaksmithiii 2 months ago
Nothing like having someone that isn't even in a field of science (and actually just a lawyer) argue science on television. But then again this was the Christian supporting Faux News. Way to be good god fearing folk with truth on your side!
thybigballs 3 months ago
Is it just me or does he put other people in mind of Mr.Bean?
TMTours 4 months ago
I posted video of evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman who represents other scientist from around the globe who are critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis and who are publicly challenging the limitations of the theory.......
benthemiester 6 months ago
There hasn't been a debate in 150 years??? Are u sure about that? I have at least 50 debates downloaded on my computer alone, including debates which have included members the National Academy of Sciences as well as the NCSE. Scientist and scholars from both sides have been debating the neo Darwinian/ modern synthesis for 80 years and Darwinism in general for almost twice that long. Lets at least be honest man. Even evo devos are now challenging the limitations of the neo Darwinian synthesis.
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester yeah.it is kind of like the debates people have about if elvis is still alive, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, and anal probing aliens in trailer parks. the similarity is: one side has evidence and one side doesnt. who in the national academy of science supports creation? what evidence have they produced? can they make a correct prediction using the scientific method? can you name one breakthrough in medical science made by "creation theory".
SuperAthiest1 7 months ago
@SuperAthiest1 cont..... I didn't say that members of the Academy have shown up to back up ID, only that they have shown up to debate. Francisco Ayala who is a nice gentleman is one of them. However if you want to find other members of the American Academy who have signed on to the Discovery institutes "Dissent Fron Darwin" list, then you can find there names on their cite with same tittle which also includes members of foreign Academies as well.
benthemiester 7 months ago
@SuperAthiest1
"yeah.it is kind of like the debates people have about if elvis is still alive, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, and anal probing aliens in trailer parks"
If you can tell me where prominent scientist show up with standing room only audiences to debate Bigfoot & annal probing then give citation. I was not speaking of YEC or creationism, I was speaking of Intelligent design.......
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester I hate to break it to you, but Creationism IS Intelligent Design. Deny it all you want, but that fact still stands.
TatsunoKoori 7 months ago
@TatsunoKoori And there is nothing intelligent about it.
TatsunoKoori 7 months ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 7 months ago
@TatsunoKoori I hate yo break it to you, but Biblical YEC is not Intelligent design, and you don't need to be a theist to believe in intelligent design. Francis Crick proposed Directed Pan Spermia and he was not a theist.
One of ID's leading philosophical proponents is atheist Bradley Monton. A Scientific Dissent from Darwin or the "Dissent From Darwin" list contains almost a thousand signatories of earth scientist & growing, & many of them are atheist. Don't be a Parrot and do some research.
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester But the Supreme court had made it clear that in Kitzmiller vs Dover in 2005 that ID was Creationism in disguise that it is a religion.
ID had no evidence the same as creation.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD The Supreme court? Are u sure about that?
Federal judges are not qualified to determine what a valid scientific theory is, & since the trial, 100's more scientist are starting to openly challenge the neo Darwinian synthesis. S.Newman an atheist & an evo devo also criticizes Dover and says people were lied to. He also challenges the limitations of Neo Darwinian synthesis that the NCSE pushed as being a fact. I believe at least 400 more scientist have signed the Dissent list.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester it went to supreme court because it violated the establishment clause, it was determined and set as future precedent.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
Do you know or understand the difference between a federal district court and the Supreme court? because If you dont understand the difference, then I'm not sure there is any rational way of speaking to you about this.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester I believe the question in the establishment clause went to supreme court, but the actual matter of the subject was left to what you say a district court. Either way it was a precedent set
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I asked u twice if you knew the difference between the courts & you did not. Do you have a law background because if you did you would realize that an opinion is not a ruling and does not set a precedent. The case was over stickers being placed on books. Contrary to popular belief no lesson plans were ever drawn for teaching ID. The students were told there was book in the school library but they were not going to teach from the book they were going to teach neo Darwinism.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester I think your confusing Dover with Supreme court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, 593-594 (1987)......."We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . "Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Let me ask you a question if I may, and I mean nothing personel or hostile towards you, but are you of Asian decent?
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester no, I used to like a magna called Naruto and this account is like 5 years old, and it does not reflect me or my interests anymore, I was thinking of making a new one.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I made the point because the anti chinese act and exclusionary laws were put in place during the 18th and early 19th century which also effected discrimination of Japanese. This was the law of the land but that didn't mean it was right.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD He also criticizes Dover and says that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. If you have a background in biology I also posted "Do we need a new theory of Evolution" I will also remind you that ID theorist are now getting published in peer review science journals and university press.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester peer reviewed by who? does it matter if the press publishes it? even as high as the AP?
do you realize that ID is creationism, and that there is no evidence for it and that any argument for it is illogical, from flagellum to the human eye has already been explained
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD AP is not a university peer review press, nor is it a science Journal. If you want a list I can send you one.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester I believe that would be the Associated Press, they'll publish anything for views
PLEASE OH PLEASE JUST GIVE AN EXAMPLE of creation or ID, or even any evidence, you'll have the hardest time trying to do so.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD The evidence is in nature itself. ID is based on the premise that living things are better explained by an intelligent process rather than un guided processes. Irreducible complex systems are cited as well as specified information, especially in the form of precision nano molecular machinery & reams & reams of digital encoded information within our genome as well as built redundancy. This cannot be explained by the neo Darwinian synthesis but are better explained by design.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Thats not evidence, just because things exist in nature doesn't mean it was just intelligently guided.
Evolution is not a random process
Irreducible complexity doesn't exist, you have a better time arguing this if you studied quantum mechanics and you studied Tau Neutrinos.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "Thats not evidence, just because things exist in nature doesn't mean it was just intelligently guided"
"That wasn't my point. Tell me the last time you heard of nature producing digital encoded information and a sophisticated mechanism to read and translate it?
"Evolution is not a random process"
Then how do you explain random mutations as being one of the central tenants of Neo Darwinism/modern synthesis?
So if its not random are you your saying that its guided?
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester You obviously don't understand speciation and it explains how it isn't a random process, the mutations and how it is not guided, but still not random.
If you look at many of the dinosaurs, the carnivores tend to have sharper teeth than the rest, this is because when species started to feed on other species, they evolved sharper teeth as a result, this is not guided, it is caused by the beneficial traits being kept in the species and the unfitting traits being lost.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I have no problem with micro evolution or natural selection being able to explain teeth getting sharper or hair getting longer. Its prokaryote to man neo Darwinism that I and many other growing numbers have issue with. Random mutations are random mutations whether or not they act on natural selection. Did you know that even evolutionary biologist are now challenging the limitations of neo Darwinism including the limited ability of natural selection and random mutation?
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester you saying its a random mutation doesn't make it true.
yes you can find random mutations in the multiple forms, cancers, tumors, and other things, these are caused by changes in the genome of a cell, just because Science doesn't have a definitive answer for things yet even with Abiogenesis, doesn't mean science is wrong and ID has a place.
ID is literally only around 40 years old with its first introductions after another establishment clause case.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "you saying its a random mutation doesn't make it true"
Natural selection and random mutation are the major tenants of the neo Darwinian synthesis. I have no problem with science not having definitive answers. I have a problem with people being taught that the neo Darwinian synthesis does have the answers when even you admit it clearly doesn't. You can imagine that someday it will, that is your prerogative. Darwinist ignored Mendel for 50 years and Mendel was right.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Neo darwinism? dude its the same Evolution that has been studied since mendels time, darwin ignored mendel because darwin studied speciation in animals and locations, mendel studied genetics through species
you're just making up terms just because you say its random doesn't mean it is, speciation is funded through natural selection, only fittest survive, and those who can't survive die.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont..... It is he and his Law of Inheritance which is credited and considered the father of modern genetics. If you don't understand that random mutation is one of the central tenants of the neo Darwinian synthesis, then you need to do a little research young man. Darwin didn't even know what DNA or mutation were, so your statement that it is the same Evolution that has been studied since Mendel's time is just nonsense.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD You don't even know what your talking about. 1859 Classical Darwinism is not the same as neo Darwinism which was established in the late 1930s and early 40s. Darwin proposed pangenesis but he was wrong. Secondly Darwin didn't even know who Mendel was. I said Darwinist ignored him. Please read more carefully. Mendel did not even agree with Darwins work and believed in the limitation of the gene pool......
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester but you just said darwin ignored mendel, how did he ignore him if he didn't know who he was.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD You need to actually read the threads. I said Darwinist ignored him. I didn't say Darwin ignored him and I pointed this out to you in one of my earlier threads. I dont think your familiar with the subject or the terminology.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester darwinist? this is almost ambiguous
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
Dictionary com
Origin:
1855–60; Darwin + -ism
Related forms
Dar·win·ist, Dar·win·ite [dahr-wuh-nahyt] Show IPA, noun, adjective
Dar·win·is·tic, adjective
an·ti-Dar·win·ism, noun
an·ti-Dar·win·ist, noun, adjective
pro-Dar·win·ism, noun
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Deffiniton of Darwinist free online dictionary.....
Dar·win·ism (där w -n z m). n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop .. This is also a term that Richard Dawkins uses to describe himself. I'm not so sure why it seems ambiguous to you.
Dictionary.....DERIVATIVES Darwinist noun & adjective
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester not what I was implying, what darwinists ignored mendel? at the time it was just darwin and some of his scholars, how can it be that darwin didn't know who mendel was, but somehow darwinists ignored mendel?
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD By 1865 when he proposed his theory to scholars in Brun Morovia & to anyone that would hear him, the Origin of the Species and Darwins work was already the popular view among these men. You didn't event know that random mutations were a part of the neo Darwinian synthesis or that there was a neo Darwinian synthesis. You questioned the term Darwinist. I am not going to give you a crash course on history. You should know the subject your debating before you try to debate it.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester doesn't mean darwinist ignored mendel, the small scientific community did at that time, Religion still dominated until 1960's when the sputnik project went into effect, only then did the government invest in books to help educate the kids, this is where evolution took rise again in America.
Also I didn't say or imply that random mutations were apart of evolution, you simply introduced a new term of Neo-darwinism, instead of the regular term Evolution
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I was speaking of what happened in the meeting of the Historical society in Brun Morovia where scholars & scientist representing different fields in earth science from all over Europe came together. If your speaking of the US, I don't know who told you that the government didn't invested in educational school books until the sixties, but where ever you got this information it is false, and again I wasn't speaking of the history of Darwinism in US schools. Your point is moot.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD One of the reasons that I was put off by the theory is because as a kid I was lied too and taught that Piltdown man was an ancestor of humans and I repeated this to other people and ended up looking like a fool. It was still in my textbook even though it had been debunked 20 years before. I was especially upset when I found that Darwin, Huxley and even later James Watson and others considered Blacks to be closer related to apes and genetically inferior to nordic whites.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Its ok to think that, Indoctrination is a bitch, and during darwins time, slavery was prevalent in southern US.
If you just look at it chronologically, the blacks are still prevalent in africa and are basically the oldest forms of Humans, humans migrated north and around into america.
Blacks tend to be more susceptible to Tuberculosis, where whites aren't, and Latin American people tend to be prone to small pox
each group of people has pros and cons
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD And whites are prone to Cystic fibrosis, Alzheimers & skin cancer. So what? If Blacks are the oldest form of humans then according to simple logic that means they had more time to evolve than their white counter parts who came much later according to the theory.
In reality know one knows what color skin the first humans had or how long it took skin color to change. These are all assumptions & if you think you are genetically superior, then again this is one of my pet peeves.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester not necessarily, the environment of africa hasn't changed much, so evolving to one disease that doesn't affect many of its entire population isn't likely.
sort of like Small pox, it has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and not one person is immune from it unless you get the vaccine to prevent it.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Tuberculosis was first discovered near Heidelberg in the Neolithic bone remains, as well as the great Tuberculosis epidemic of Europe, and like many other diseases like Small Pox, Measles the Plague etc. again which all started in Europe and spread to the Americas.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD What do you mean the environment hasn't changed much in Africa? Do you think there aren't big cities in Africa. Or that all African live in huts and chuck spears?
Who do you think built the great cities of Ethiopia and Egypt. Or are you saying that the climate changed everywhere but Africa? According to your own theory man was supposed to have evolved in Africa. WTF?
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester missed what I said by it didn't change, the weather hasn't changed, just because people live in cities or bungaloes doesn't mean it changes like that, the cities and buildings are less than 200 years old, how much evolution do you think takes place in a city that is less than that, not even thinking about the lack of it without the cities, the climate hasn't changed, the jungles are still the same. They've adapted efficiently to it, by having darker skin for higher melonin
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont..... You say because the jungles are still there. So what? We have mountains in Europe and North America that are still here. If you think that the ancient cities of Ethiopia, Egypt, Nigeria, Mali, Kenya, Somalia, Morocco and Libya are less that 200 years old then some one really screwed with your head. Is this what evolution has taught you? I find this very sad.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I made the point that if Blacks were the oldest humans alive as you say, then they had more time to evolve. Your the one that said the environment hasn't changed so they didn't evolve, even though your own theory says that humans evolved in Africa. Again I don't even think you know what your talking about or what your point is........
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester yea 360,000 years isnt really long enough to produce anything but different colored skin and different bone structure thats about it. Not alot of argument.
TheHowardZinn 3 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "the climate hasn't changed, the jungles are still the same"
Google "climate or environmental change in Africa" and you will find many examples of this happening even throughout Africa's existence.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester you missed the point, the jungles are similar to the jungles back then, I know desertification occured to create the sahara, but people migrated and africa was still similar to what it is today, also, how much evolution do you think can take place in only 3million years when other evolutionary changes occur in as little as 5 to as much as 60 million, years with some species like Diatoms which evolve small bits in less than 20,000
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 5 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont... If by your own reasoning Blacks evolved first, and whites came after, then whites they had a lessor time to evolve as a race. Blacks, Indians and Mesopotamians were building pyramids and mapping the stars when Northern Europeans were still hunters and gathers & running around worshipping trees. Who do you think the Romans and Greeks were speaking of when they used the word "savage barbarians" This is not an insult but a historical fact.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "you missed the point, the jungles are similar to the jungles back then"
I have no idea what your point is. Again if you think Blacks are less evolved then something is wrong with your reasoning. Mountains are still similar to mountains. The ocean is still similar to the ocean. So what? Again I don't even know what your arguing anymore.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester well if they're the same then there isn't much evolving now is there?
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "well if they're the same then there isn't much evolving now is there?"
Bingo and KyuubiMaruto finally gets it. Please forgive my sarcasm and grouchyness. I'm old.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD cont..... When mutations occur, they can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Wikipedia under Evolution.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms, which produces genetic variation in a population. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome, which can be caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication......
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD The modern evolutionary synthesis is a union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution. It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis.
The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the current consensus
The National Academy of Sciences. 1999. p. 28.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Again the AP has nothing to do with this. Im not sure why you keep bring up the AP. I never did.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester I just thouight the AP would do that anyway.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "it went to supreme court because it violated the establishment clause, it was determined and set as future precedent"
Can you cite evidence that it went to the Supreme court?
benthemiester 6 months ago
@SuperAthiest1 can they make a correct prediction using the scientific method? can you name one breakthrough in medical science made by "creation theory".
Great questions. Yes to first and second question, but evolution theory has not. If you want to get more detailed or technical, just ask, I dont want to spam you, but again we are not speaking of YEC we are speaking of ID. You dont need to be a theist to believe in ID.
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester Also, you simply say just because science doesn't explain where these random mutations come from, doesn't mean an intelligent designer did it.
you are causing an inference that leads to "if I don't know, therefore ID
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 6 months ago
He doesn't deserve my hand, he deserves a finger from all of us.
ImAnotherZang 8 months ago
There are nineteen sheep.
HimesInu 8 months ago
Religious morons. Let's start teaching astrology next to astronomy too. Goodness people, we only have so much time to teach our children. There is NO debate.
kailabreece 10 months ago
8:12 - 8:18 LMAO
Ant42Lee 10 months ago
Guys like him make me sick!How can he grin like that by telling these lies?
gastarbeiter1 10 months ago
Three words in of the first time I have EVER seen this man talk and I figured it out. I am a straight man who worked closely with many different types of people at a 4 star hotel. The hotel community has many openly homosexual individuals as employees. Many of these individuals I consider my friends. I am a straight man with gaydar, so to say. Casey Luskin is a closet gay and because of shame in himself was open to the suggestion of original sin as a youth therefor making him brainwashable. FTW
derman077 11 months ago
BAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH VENOMFANGX IS A MUMMIES BOI LOL
ooloogooloo 11 months ago
Everyone thinks that creationists were born that stupid. Some were, but most had to work at it all the way through school and their online degr- er I mean college
05swanbe 1 year ago 3
@ 5:30 i was rdy to punch holes all over HIS tree of life! man some ppl are so freaking stupid!
As i said to my sister a little while back and she knows this now, witch he havent learned obviously.
I said, If you don't know what the discussion is about then by all means ask, read and learn about it, but never ever join in a discussion that you know nothing about and state random things just because u feel left out not knowing what its about.
MasterOfFlash92 1 year ago
he's a dork... what is it like living in his world?
Kclaybond 1 year ago
White Hot???
It isn't white hot in the scientific community.
dlhitch2007 1 year ago 2
I'm glad there are dumb creationists out there. They give me something to laugh at.
AtheisticHappiness 1 year ago 12
Absolutely fantastic rebuttal to his interview. Too bad the only creationists that saw this were probably the 18 downward-pointing thumbs.
Ultracity6060 1 year ago 4
@Ultracity6060 The really sad thing about it is, they probably didn't see the video. Just the title.
brewerbrian420 5 months ago
How on earth does Fox news get away with being allowed to make programs like this? What appalling 'journalism'.
tafftastic 1 year ago
And to all those who think Intelligent Design theory is somehow trying to prove the Bible right, think again. ID is not a religious argument. Watch "Expelled" by Ben Stein for a good indicator of where that assumption goes wrong. A scientist is supposed to be rational and objective. Realize your confirmational bias, and stop cherry picking your evidence to cling to your theories; it's disgraceful, to say the least, especially here where it involves slanderous playschoolesque BS like this.
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
@Morpheus04200 Is being willfully ignorant fun?
LordUa437 1 year ago
@LordUa437 I wouldn't know, I constantly learn as much as I can. Perhaps you're experiencing a little subconscious projection?
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
@Morpheus04200 wow nice troll bait, almost all the buzz words in there, you sure are an adept at the craft.
VictorEchoNovember79 1 year ago
@Morpheus04200 NAME ONE ATHEIST CREATIONALIST.
SuperAthiest1 11 months ago
@SuperAthiest1 What is a creationalist?
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester try removing the a and the l.... i know its hard for you to figure out what i ment, but you should try. you just might get it.
SuperAthiest1 7 months ago
@Morpheus04200 First of all, intelligent design is not a theory. Second of all, Expelled is the absolute last thing you should watch for your science knowledge.
TheGreatRL 10 months ago
Comment removed
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
ummm, you got a typo in that DOUCHEBAG poster at the end. u have teaching wrote twice
krypekeeper 1 year ago
I think it is called "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This is false
timothy51886 1 year ago
Thou shalt not bear false witness?
darcyhouston 1 year ago
"We don't support creationism, but we support good science" Did he really fucking say that with a straight face? Unbelievable.
freethinker923 1 year ago
I can definitely see why they wanted to sensor you. You are incorrect on each of your assumptions and take his comments out of context. The embryos were exaggerated to make a point that isn't there, there is indeed various takes on the tree of life based on genetics, you claim he is a flat earther & that he denies dinosaurs - both statements are a lie, he is also right that there is much evidence against evolution [or say problems in] that they refuse to put in for honest science. + catcalls!
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep what evidence is there against evolution? on good piece would satisfy me
dmcgraye 1 year ago
@dmcgraye Let's start with multi-strata fossils: ex. petrified wood standing up through 20 - 30 feet of sediment. These things shouldn't happen outside of large catastrophes [i.e. global floods] in the numbers / sizes we see them. Even though science has proven that spontaneous generation doesn't happen, evolution then requires it to get things started. Irreducible complexity : many structures have 14 or more minimum things before they work - less detracts from the creature [ex. flagellum].
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep those really aren't very good, geology is a field from which we cannot expect clerical certainty, too many variables, and the irreducible complexity argument just shows a failure of imagination if you think that it makes evolution less likely than... what exactly?
dmcgraye 1 year ago
@dmcgraye What would you like... that stalactites actually have been seen to form in 50 years what is reportedly to take 1000, that modern wood has been petrified in 50 years [tools and supports in mines]. How is irreducible complexity lacking in imagination. I think it points to realistic expectations based on what is known, not on what is hoped to be.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep Sir, what is the extent of your education in the biological sciences? A non-reply will imply K-12. (Or possibly home-school; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 I work in the field in actuality, not in theory. I have some advanced studies in the field just not the advanced degree in the field. My studies include biology, chemistry, physics, linguistics, geology, & philosophy [started college comprehensive science education]. When I mention problems with what is taught as evolution I am speaking from a wide field of view.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep It would serve you well to keep in mind that you have been criticizing the scientific opinions of someone who has a PhD in Biology and has authored several peer reviewed journals. Get your Master's and then someone "might" listen to your dissent.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 I discented PhD's when they were wrong when I was just starting my BA. A degree does not mean you know how to think or are immune to argumental errors. Knowledge of the field is not limited to those who can pay money for paper certificates. I am not dismissing the hard work people put into it but it doesn't mean others haven't had the same hard work in study but have not had the money to get the same certificate.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@freethinker923 As to peer reviewed journals, Climategate, as some are calling the fiasco, proved that peer reviewed journals sometimes means they liked your conclusions so don't even look to the processes used in your study. Again, not discarding publications as some are fair, but many will not publish the discenting information because they cannot address it and that scares them. If we are intellectually honest you know that too. I hope you have a good day.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@freethinker923 By the way, I am not home schooled but in general home schooled children out perform their public school peers by about 18-28% on the standard tests.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep That was not my point regarding home schooling. In america, is it common knowledge that most home school children are from evangelican christian parents who purposefully conceal evolutionary biology from the curriculum (or worse, teach bogus creationist alternatives). With regards to this subject, you would most likely have better education with regards to evolution if not home-schooled.
freethinker923 1 year ago
guys quite clearly gay
Brushles83 1 year ago
darwinism? what the heck is darwinism?
im pretty sure ive never heard a science teacher teach darwinism
stop bullshitting
blahdoot20 1 year ago
@blahdoot20 darwinism is a pet-name that creationists like to use. Using this label, they are able to attach an ad-hominem argument to the rest of their fallacious bullshit.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 haha yea i know its bullshit. Just pointing out that theyre just making stuff up to make evolution sound bad. It just scares me that some people actually take this douche face seriously...
blahdoot20 1 year ago
trees have roots
MensMentisVoro 1 year ago
Oh sorry, there's a worldwide conspiracy amongst biologists in unrelated and individual institutions throughout the world to LIE about EVILUTION. Once you play the 'conspiracy' card you end the debate, because you can't PROVE there's NO conspiracy...it's the final ploy of those whose arguments have run out.
derek24hudson 2 years ago 19
I think that, as a humble office worker, I am going to start writing to prestigious scientific and medical journals offering my personal critiques of their work. What the fuck do they know about advanced procedures on the treatment of intestinal cariniomas, or the science of metallurgy, compared with ME?!! Come on, when you are diagnosed with a fatal disease you TELL the doctor he's wrong, and refuse the treatment, don't you, because YOU are more expert. This is the Casey Luskion/creationist way
derek24hudson 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If Luskin writes all of the material he posts at Evolution News, then he is nothing short of a Darwin destroying machine. I've seen up to five highly-articulate pieces posted by him in a single day. His latest exposes the Darwinists' lies regarding biological information. It goes into detail explaining why Darwinist definitions fail.
Casey Luskin is hated for the same reason the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Lakers are hated - because he's damn good.
signatureinthecell 2 years ago
Everyone get that? Please remember to add
"signatureinthecell"
to your list of Discovery Institute lackey usernames.
separatethread 2 years ago 3
@separatethread
Better yet, everyone add me to your list of subscriptions.
signatureinthecell 2 years ago
I don't subscribe to lying lackies.
separatethread 2 years ago
Is this is the same Casey Luskin who refused to defend his bullshit nonsense of creationism (ID) in court, because he knew that it would be proved a joke?
NOTHING Luskin or any of his miserable ilk has said or will ever say will have the slightest affect on Evolution, because Evolution is based upon fact, whereas creationism is just bullshit to protect the delicate ears of the faithful and their "precious" religion. Casey Luskin=Renowned Moron and bare-faced Liar. Ye fuckin' douchebag...
Drweavil 1 year ago 3
Well, using typical Creationist logic... can you prove he isn't? No? Well, guess that means he is.
Memeticemetic 2 years ago
Luskin is a tool. He might be the "Discotutes" most morally bankrupt and repulsive figure.
Jonobos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Jonobos
Luskin should be applauded for his frequent exposing of Darwinist deception. He's helping to steer biology clear of dogmatic 19th century mysticism (Darwinian evolution) and towards the future, Intelligent Design. For that all appreciates of science owe him a debt of gratitude.
signatureinthecell 2 years ago
Then you are just as much of a tool as he is. You have fallen for his quote mining, his negative arguments, and his junk science. The discotute, and by extension Luskin, has produced nothing of any value. Not a single one of their "theories" has lead to any advancement of science. If you don't believe in evolution then you should stop using modern medicine because evolutionary biology is the keystone.
Jonobos 2 years ago 2
Slight modification is nothing. All there is instructed information to build protein. The primordial soup had repeatedly is a fail.
MyPenis13inchGirlFit 2 years ago
I'd like some free Hovind, Captain.
What bit can I have?
crabbygaz 2 years ago
This is what you get when a lawyer tries to explain biology.
baldurus1 2 years ago
Free Hovind
CaptainArmageddon 2 years ago
I love this ass-clown! It's like watching a stand up comic.
Heckels embrios-
First, these drawings were used for many years in childrens text books because they illustrate the point in an easy to understand way. Yeah, they were a bit exaderated, they were for kids!
Second, most moden text books don't use them anymore, they use actual photographs! Photos taken with endoscope cameras that show how acurate the old drawings realy were!
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
It's bullshit to say that Haeckel's embryos were used to explain a point. I've read that three time on youtube now, but what's really going on is that it's just a mistake in science textbooks.
Mortison77577 2 years ago
Mortison77577
It was hardley a mistake, they used the drawings on purpose.
Heckel faced discreditation for being unable to back up his work, it was years later, with advancements in research science relized Heckel was right.
But this is moot since most modern text book use actual photographs.
Photographs that match the drawings!
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
SkyDog:
No, it was a mistake, they didn't use them on purpose. Haeckel may have been partially right, but on the basic shape of the embryos he was wrong. Google Ken Miller Haeckel's embryos. The photographs used in textbooks do not match the drawings. The photographs are clearly different from the drawings.
Mortison77577 2 years ago
Mortison77577
Do I have to repeat myself?
Oscourse they didn't match perfectley, they were exagerated, they were used to illustrait the point for children!
What part of childrens text books don't you understand?
And how the hell could it be a mistake, the drawings are over 100 years old, Heckels discreditation for presenting unfounded work is well known, it was years later that biologists relized Heckel was on to somthing, even if he couldn't back it up at the time.
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mortison77577
What do you mean "Haeckel may have been partially right, but on the basic shape of the embryos he was wrong" ?
It's the basic shape he got right! The features were exagerated but the simalaritys between the developing stages of the embrios has been confirmed, the exagerated drawings were used because they illustraited the point in a way children could understand.
Again, this is beside the point, most modern text books don't even use them anymore, they use actual pohtos!
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
SkyDog:
No, on the shape of the embryos they're very innaccurate. They could be worse, but still, they're a mistake. Do the google search that I recommended below. Where are you getting all this stuff that you're saying? Where did you read this? And yes, some textbooks still use them.
Mortison77577 2 years ago
SkyDog:
No, you don't need to repeat yourself, but what you're repeating is still false information. Feel free to provide a link to something documentating a statement by a textbook author saying that they used innaccurate information on purpose to make it easier to explain something. And yeah, it is amazing that the mistakes are in textbooks when the fraud was disproven so long ago. Even more amazing is that apparently they were in some scientific papers as well.
Mortison77577 2 years ago
Mortison77577
First, I've seen the pictures and the photos, I've seen for myself the similaritys, the pictures look like an exagerated, cartoonized version of the photos. If I can find the pictures, I'll send you a link.
Second, they wern't a fraud or disproven, they were dismissed as unfounded, later research showed his theories to be largeley acurate.
Third, didn't you go to school, don't you remember the simple, cartooney drawings in the books
Continued>
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
would you expect 12 year olds to understand masters level text books?
Childrens text books oftern contain inacurate, over simplified explanations for things, the're ment for children!
This is common sence!
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
Again, the reason why they're in textbooks is because it's a mistake. Showing the embryos as looking more similar than they really are would just confuse people. And they aren't necessarily in 6th grade books, they're also in high school and college level books.
Mortison77577 2 years ago
So...is it "Hundreds of years" or "Decades" that they've known that the embryo comparison is wrong?
For Lickskin, it's probably for the entire life span of the planet; about 6,000 years. ;)
I suspect that the most accurate information for Evolution today would be...
The Bible!
Fancy that.
DoucheBagster 2 years ago
lying son of a bitch
laswap1 2 years ago
The last few sentences that Luskin says are pure concentrated evil. What could possibly motivate a person to try this hard to break down science? I'm going to snap. FUCK.
giggletronics 2 years ago
this is a good man, he is working to create jobs for children in india, he is trying to make western children stupid so that in a few years time them the east will dominate the scientific world and all major scientific jobs. stone age here we come.
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
I watched this like 5 times now to really understand the english,but I can't focus with Lickskin's retarded voice.Man he sounds like a mental!
Torcika 2 years ago
So in the end did he get back his rights?How did the Ban end?
Torcika 2 years ago
Yeah. He's currently fighting it.
Chooky707 2 years ago
Wonderful video! It shows just how retarded you have to be to go on faux news!
crazy4carolyn 2 years ago
if darvin is right why life can't be created in labs? it can be only new copy of existing life form. I'm no creationist or anything but I'm not dumb. Gravity, life, even the radiation and many more are still in theory. Everything is under question mark, as Tesla sad or any other smart man. My English is limited so I can't write you more. btw we still don't know what is inside earth. I also can't stop wondering how do USA astronauts pass Van Allens radiation belt. Any clue? Please answer honestly
lordenija 2 years ago
lordenija,
Perhaps you should read up about Craig Venter and latest achievement. They've synthesized a genome in the form of a virus that attacks bacteria...
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
twothlesswonder
that's how USA made HIV, and all kinds of flue. Isn't it?
lordenija 2 years ago
Hah! No. HIV and the the flu have been around for MUCH, MUCH longer than our gene splicing capabilities. In fact, HIV came out of Africa, not the US.
Paranoid often?
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
natural thing is to tire protecting your country, but hiv is created in a lab as well as h1n1. That is only fact here. I don't know who made them but they aren't natural. They are mix of different viruses.
Paranoid? After what I get from your country? I'm not paranoid as should be. BTW they synthesized genome, not created life only change it.
lordenija 2 years ago
Well, you've made some pretty damn fantastical claims now haven't you? What kind of evidence do you have? (giggles in anticipation)
You do realize that HIV broke out LONG before we had anything near to the genetic capabilities we have now, don't you? There's a 25 year gap there. Furthermore, we've traced the origins of HIV to SIV in apes in Africa. SHIV was created by mixing HIV and SIV but that is specifically under controlled use in research to generate data for a cure.
twothlesswonder 2 years ago 2
african HIV-2 USA and europe HIV-1 tips. not the same one. what is the point to give any more if you don't wont to admit that hiv isn't natural.
DR Kongo 1959
St. Luisu 1969
europe 1976
The worldwide epidemic of HIV and AIDS is caused by HIV-1 while HIV-2 is mostly restricted to west Africa.
lordenija 2 years ago
Of course there are different strains. Sheesh!
Considering the very fast rate of mutation HIV exhibits, it's actually quite an expected outcome that specific strains appear geographically separate.
Of course HIV isn't natural to Humans! It only recently jumped from apes(SIV) to Humans(HIV). And there's genetic evidence that SIV jumped from from another species of simian to apes prior to our zoonotic event with them. Evolutionarily speaking, HIV is a mutated SIV and is indeed new to us.
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
ok. let's live that there. :)
evolution
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 34 billion years ago.
to create prokaryotes from scratch and make it a live, mathematically that is same as tornado flu try car dump and make Ferrari that work. I'm not biologist I'm Mathematician. Evo. vs Creo. have just a theory to suport them.
lordenija 2 years ago
"mathematically that is same as tornado flu try car dump and make Ferrari that work."
Wow, so your not a biologist but you like to make naive sweeping statements regarding biological origins? Furthermore, half of your statement above is plagiarized.
Should we also pull some arbitrary numbers out of our asses to describe the odds of a creative deity being responsible for life? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, correct?
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, correct?
I don't understand. English isn't my first language.
And my statement is almost all copied from net. I can't explain with my words if I must track for half of words in dictionary.
I just give up...
lordenija 2 years ago
What that statement means is that if you can subscribe to arbitrary numbers being generated to disprove abiogenesis then we should be able to apply that very technique to a creator deity. In that case, the odds are in favor of abio...
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
i want to say that evo and creo theories have big holes. I'm think that if we combine this two with each other it will be closer to real deal. people engage in this story are easy to exclude each other. We are just scratch the history of world, but we already talk like we know all. I mean about everything...
lordenija 2 years ago