FYI: There's something wrong with your upload. I keep getting a glitch at about 25s. I can cope with skipping a few seconds forwards but it's very annoying having to do that.
@smhussain62 Sorry about that, but no one else has reported a problem and it plays fine for me. Try reloading or checking your Flash version. You can also try clicking on the gear button and changing the resolution to 480p, 720p, or whatever. It may work with a different encoding.
great videos. only sad thing is you're by and large preaching to the choir haha. The creationists however don't seem to get it because they don't want to get it because then they will be shunned so they are scared, but they're probably suspecting something isn't right so they scream louder to silence the voice of reason "IT*S ONLY A THEORY!"
The irony is that the more they attempt to disprove evolution the stronger it will get since that's how science works. That makes me so happy! : )
The iguanas on galapagos have eveolved, so one branch lives in the midst of the island, where it's almost desertlike, the other branch are living near the sea, and feeding on seaweed. Their DNA shows they are the same specie.
This must be one of the best examples of evolution.
If we could stick around for another 50000 years maybe the sea dwelling iguana would evolve into something more like a manate ? Who knows ?
It's the thing bronzeagemythists don't understand. TIMEspan !
@BelieveNoGod Yes, in order for their bogosity to be correct, they need a mechanism that stops changes from accumulating--that stops inches from becoming miles. And they don't have one!
Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires & brimstone.
Its a shame when political leaders are anti-science. Studying fruit flies is very important to medicine, biology, genetics etc. And the other type of fruit flies (the pest kind) is a very important pest of crops. You try to bring on of those into the country and you will see how important it is.
Ok Shane, we may have some differences in some Political/Social issues. But at least I'm glad we both agree that Evolution is, at least currently, the ONE AND ONLY WAY for life to reach the complexity of the life around us...
Good luck (You're REEEEEEEAAAAAALLLY gonna need it...) fighting the creationist ignorance in your country.
Check out MeatForChristians com Excerpts on the Lie of Evolution and Proof of God. If an E. coli bacterium were disassembled into its component parts (atoms), the probability that it would spontaneously reassemble is estimated at one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. How big is this number? Compare it to the number of atoms in the universe, which is 10 to the 80th power, and impossibility or the miraculous, which is anything less than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power. Learn some math.
@shanedk Can't have evolution without the first cell. If the first cell is impossible, so is evolution. The problem with biologists is that they don't know the hard science of chemistry and mathematics. Crunch the numbers having to do with non-spontaneous chemical reactions (those with positive delta Gs) needed to produce the component parts of a cell and you'll see that it's so far beyond the realm of possibility as to be laughable. See website MeatForChristians on Proof of God.
@shanedk If the first cell is impossible, evolution becomes irrelevant. But even granted the first cell, evolution is impossible for various reasons such as Irreducible Complexity, Chirality, Information Theory, etc.. See MeatForChristians the Lie of Evolution for more information. Really, evolution is a rejection of the truth of the Bible, and therefore a rejection of God Himself. Get right with God! Jesus loves you! Receive Him.
@PatHarrity The first cell was nowhere near as complex as a modern bacterium. It was little more than a replicating polymer bounded to a simple lipid membrane.
Furthermore even if you could, somehow, prove that random mutations and natural selection are useless that only a centrally planned biosphere can possibly produce anything worthwhile that wouldn't prove that your god exists - it would only suggest that *a* very powerful creative entity exists.
@bluecode320 Even the molecular components of your "simple" first cell, the proteins, lipids and the DNA would be impossible to randomly or spontaneously assemble. Study some chemistry. The reactions would be equivalent to ice forming in boiling water. I do agree with you that science proves a very powerful creative entity exists, but that Entity would have to be beyond our time and space, outside our laws of physics, because the laws of physics in this universe will not produce life.
@PatHarrity Except that those reactions can occur spontaneously if there is a source of energy. And complex proteins would not have been necessary for the first cell. Lipids certainly aren't difficult to form; it just takes two hydrocarbon chains and an ion attaching to a partially oxidised 3-carbon chain.
And the central planner of the Universe would need to be far more more complex than any protein yet you claim that it has existed perpetually.
@bluecode320 Reactions occur spontaneously only if they have a negative dGs. Those that produce biomolecules have positive dGs. The random addition of energy has a destructive effect. Only energy funneled through an intelligent apparatus can overcome positve dGs, as with the staggeringly complex apparatus of plants using sunlight to produce sugar, or the exquisitely intricate machinery of animals using sugar to drive the ATP/ADP cycle which powers the synthesis of complex molecules with pos dGs.
@shanedk Read any biochem or thermodynamics textbook. The only science which utterly ignores the rock-solid laws of chemistry is evolutionary biology, which disregards the 2nd law of TD, which states that entropy (or disorder) will increase over time. This law is so powerfully, powerfully against the formation of complex molecules and ordered structures, and so powerfully, powerfully in favor of the disintegration of complex molecules and ordered structures, that life could never randomly form.
@PatHarrity Are you seriously trying to use the 2nd Law like this? I'm sorry, sir, but your idea would also say that the spontaneous formation of ice at certain temperatures would be impossible because it is more organized. It would mean that polymers wouldn't spontaneously form, which they do, because they are more organized.
You, sir, show now understanding of what the 2nd Law states if you think it offers any resistance to these or any evolutionary processes.
@lhvinny The science on this is dG=dH-TdS. Only if dG is negative is reaction spontaneous. At Ts below freezing, dH is negative more than -T∆S is positive, so dG negative and reaction spontaneous, and ice freezes. Nothing special here. I tell you truly, there is a Creator. This Creator love you. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for you on the cross, to take the punishment due you. Believe in Him and receive Him as Lord and you can have the awesome joy of having your sins forgiven. Do it now
@PatHarrity I agree that freezing water is nothing special. Neither is self-polymerization. There are many examples of organic and biological monomers that spontaneously polymerize. Biologists have witnessed the spontaneous polymerization of an RNA chain more than 100 base-pairs long.
You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and your god concept. Evolution's being by no means says that a god doesn't exist. This is AronRa's 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.
@lhvinny RNA nucleotides will not form spontaneously in nature because their dGs are positive. No monomers, no polymers. They form in biosystems because in a very elegant, intelligent and complex way, coupled reactions with a net negative dG are used to drive pos dG reactions. Evolution says that God is a liar by calling his Word, the Bible, a lie.
@PatHarrity "RNA nucleotides will not form spontaneously in nature"
Direct experimentation has shown the spontaneous formation of TWO RNA nucleotides in completely natural conditions. 2 down, 2 to go. The evidence is on our side. We have direct observation, you have baseless assertion.
@shanedk RNA nucleotides will NOT form spontaneously because the dG is negative. That is an indisputable fact of chemistry. A chemical reaction consists of reactants and products. The amounts of these is determined by the reaction dG and the equilibrium constant K. If dG neg, K pos, and reaction driven from product to reactants. While some bio monomers may form briefly, their K is so huge that at equilibrium their concentrations will be infinitesimal and spontaneously driven back to reactants.
It is a fact that conditions exist under which nucleotides assemble, because nucleotides can be synthesised under lab conditions. You are claiming that similar conditions cannot occur naturally.
« RNA nucleotides will NOT form spontaneously because the dG is negative »
You are adhering to a particular definition of the word 'spontaneous', where a reaction is spontaneous if its dG>0. But the question is not whether nucleotides form spontaneously as per the above definition: the question is whether they can form - spontaneously or not - under naturally occurring conditions.
Even if it is true that there is no *known* process by which they may naturally form, there may yet be unknown processes. Even if it is true that (whether by known or unknown processes) nucleotides may not assemble from basic elements naturally, they may have resulted naturally from some as yet unknown precursor. In order to be able to say that "life cannot have come about by natural processes", you must exclude *every* possible hypothesis. Are you up to the task?
@XGralgrathor The chemistry behind these reactions is rock solid, as are the probabilities, which are determined by bond energies. You can choose to believe in something so unreasonable as to have for a single cell coming about by chance a probability of 0.00000... (one hundred billion zeroes here)... 00001% chance of happening, let alone multiple celled organisms, but I cannot. My position requires far less faith than yours. Do you really want to gamble your eternal soul on those odds?
@XGralgrathor Correct. But there is no other explanation. The probability of the random formation of even a single complex protein is wildly improbable.
A cell has software (DNA) and hardware (proteins), like a computer. What mechanism can explain the evolution of software that has the ability to make the hardware which in turns makes the software? There is none. They both had to have been created simultaneously.
@PatHarrity "Correct. But there is no other explanation."
Yes, there is, LIAR. You know it, you just choose to ignore it. NO ONE--not Dr. Szostak nor anyone else working in the field--says that the whole thing assembled spontaneously all at once.
It may not be proven, but it's still empirically true: ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
@shanedk No, there is not. There is no reasonable explanation for the origin of life other than creation. The odds are way, way, way, way for creation and way, way, way way against evolution. Your position, from a position of probability, is way, way, way, way less reasonable than mine. But you can choose to believe the impossible. I do not.
@shanedk The DNA software contains the instructions for how to make the hardware; the hardware makes the DNA and more hardware. But both the hardware and software needed at same time. Either one or the other alone useless, and to suppose they evolved independent of each other (like a disk with Excel on it, and an IBM computer) and just happened to work perfectly together, is absurd in the extreme.
False. And in fact, so obviously false (even *YOU* cannot pretend to have never heard of the "RNA world" hypothesis and similar explanatory models) that I am now forced to call you a liar.
« A cell has software (DNA) and hardware (proteins) »
What a crappy attempt at analogy. In what computer system you know does the hard- and software interact chemically to produce replicas of itself? Come on, you can do better.
The cell? The process by which the first cellular biological replicators came to be is not subject of evolutionary theory, but of the field of research known as abiogenesis. I suggest you take some time to learn what hypotheses are current in that field of study.
« The chemistry behind these reactions is rock solid »
And yet conditions exist under which nucleotides will synthesise. Are you saying that what we *know* and can *demonstrate* to occur is in fact impossible? Isn't that like shooting yourself in the foot with a huge calibre handcannon?
@XGralgrathor The conditions under which nucleotides will synthesize are the highly intelligent coupling of reactions with negative dGs to drive reactions with positive dGs. This takes intelligence and complex design. It will not occur randomly in nature.
@shanedk This is a well-known principle found in numerous chemistry textbooks. Lehninger's "Biochemistry" is one example; check out Chapter 15 on bioenergetic principles.
... So again, you are claiming that the conditions under which nuceotides may assemble from their components do not - and *cannot* occur in nature? And yet they have been *observed* to synthesise in very simple experimental setups - not much intelligence required at all. Hell, in one experiment, nucleobases were produced after simply putting a batch of chemicals on ice. Are you saying those chemicals and ice cannot combine naturally?
« your claim that nucleotides have been observed to spontaneously assemble »
Read again, kid. I was not claiming that this had been observed under plausible prebiotic circumstances, since at the time I had not encountered any relevant research.
But now I have:
Sutherland et al, 2009, Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
Nope. I happen to know that god did not write or inspire the bible. In fact, he is very unhappy about the whole thing. I am calling whoever says that the bible is the word of god a liar.
@XGralgrathor Only God can predict the future from the past (prophecy). God uses fulfilled prophecy to authenticate the Bible as His Word. That is His signature. God is the author of the Bible. Try reading it, or reading it again. Suggest starting with the New Testament. Give it a chance and the Holy Spirit will also confirm its truth within your heart.
« Only God can predict the future from the past (prophecy) »
If you want to sound like an irrational god-botherer, go ahead. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you're attempting to comment on or discuss scientific findings though. O, by the way; predicting the future from the past is what advanced brains do - it's why vertebrates and non-vertebrates with ever greater brain sizes were such an evolutionary success that they still exist today.
« God uses fulfilled prophecy to authenticate the Bible as His Word »
Except that the bible contains no prophecies that were fulfilled AND non-trivial. Nothing to be impressed about, in other words - and simply false on many more occasions. This clearly shows that the bible is not god's word, and that people worshiping the bible as if it were are guilty of blasphemy and will pay for their sin with eternal torment in the fires of hell. So there you go, bible-boy.
@XGralgrathor At the time of the Babylonian empire, the Bible (Daniel) predicted the coming Medo-Persian empire, Alexander the Great and the Greek empire, the spilt into four empires following Alexander's death, the birth of Christ, and much more, all non-trivial. These have been 100% accurate, as have been its historical accuracy. It goes on to predict a coming 7-yr peace treaty with Israel and antichrist leading to a Great Tribulation followed by Christ's return at the end of the 7 years.
« the Bible (Daniel) predicted the coming Medo-Persian empire »
Or were rather vague stories later interpreted in the light of things that had come to pass? Or were the stories written or rewritten long after those things had come to pass?
@PatHarrity "Evolution says that God is a liar by calling his Word, the Bible, a lie." Evolution is a scientific theory. Science makes no comment about the supernatural because the supernatural is beyond what science can test. Your misconceptions are addressed in AronRa's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Falsehoods of Creationsim. I highly recommend you check them out.
@PatHarrity However, since you brought it up, before you can tell me truly that there is a creator who loves me and wants his son to face punishments meant for me (which I wouldn't allow to happen since having someone else get punished for something I did is morally wrong), you must first show how you know all this is true.
I have the awesome joy of having my "sins" forgiven by asking the offended party for forgiveness by saying I'm sorry and making amends. No supernatural beings required.
@lhvinny As with creation, probabilities can be developed on the liklihood of Biblical predictions (prophecy) about Jesus Christ (some 350) having come to pass, like being born in Bethlehem, in line of David, etc. The remoteness of these mathematically prove that Jesus Christ was Who He said He is--God in human form! And if God, we should listen to what He said. What did He say? You must believe in Him to be saved. See Meat for Christians website Proof of God for more detail. Receive Jesus now
@shanedk Before Christ was born, the Bible predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem. The odds of that coming to pass for any random individual can be determined by dividing the population of Bethlehem by the population of the world at the time. At Jesus' time this was 1 in 300,000. Prob's can be similarly determined for the other 350 prediction that all came true inJesus, and when compounded, result in a number so vast that it authenticates Jesus, as only God knows the future. Jesus is God.
@PatHarrity "Before Christ was born, the Bible predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem"
And the authors of the gospels read that book. If you think that verifies anything, you're seriously deluded. I mean, look at all the machinations Matthew and Luke had to go through to make his birth in Bethlehem--and they don't even agree with each other!
@PatHarrity "Before Christ was born, the Bible predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem."
Are you talking about Micah 5:2? This is misquoted in the New Testament. The "prediction" in Micah refers to Bethlehem Ephratah, the family clan, not the place. Additionally, the person referenced in Micah is a military leader (see Micah 5:6) that was supposed to defeat the Assyrians. Jesus never did this.
@theradioschizo Bethlehem Ephratah is a place. Bethlehem means "house of bread" (fitting, as Jesus, the Bread of Life would be born there); Ephratah means "fruitful," also fitting. Here's another passage that refers it as a place:
Gen 35:19, And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. (KJV)
@PatHarrity "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah"
Does that sound like it's referencing a place or a tribe of people? Ephratah has been used to refer to the place or the tribe, but come on man. Use your brain. Again Jesus never went defeated the Assyrians like the military leader described in Micah.
@PatHarrity Maybe you can explain to me WHEN Jesus was born. Matthew and Luke chapter 1 say it was during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. Luke Chapter 2 says he was born during the term of Governor Quirinius who didn't start until 6 AD. I'd love to know how Jesus was born before 4BC AND after 6AD. That would definitely be pretty miraculous.
@theradioschizo There were two Quiriniuses. Archaeologist Jerry Vardaman found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it, which places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod. Jesus was born during the rule of the earlier one. The Bible is correct. Over the years there have been many attacks on the Bible, but the Bible always proves correct because it is God’s inerrant Word. The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many a hammer over the centuries.
@PatHarrity Please give me an argument you didn't just copy and paste from an apologist who asserted it without backing it up. Jerry Vardaman claims to have found two thousand year old coins with microscopic letter invisible to the human eye. Letters that would have to be made with tools that are not found in the time he claims. These coins touted were never submitted to peer review or even physical scrutiny.
@theradioschizo Any reference to "peer review" shows absolute desparation. There isn't just peer-review and non-peer review; there's just truth and lies. I think you know what I'm saying is truth, but because you want to remain in sin, you reject it. But I hope you will come to the truth one day, most especially, Christ's love for you.
@PatHarrity Any dismissal of the peer review process shows a magnificent ignorance of the scientific method. There most definitely IS a peer review.
"Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field." From wikipedia
Jerry Vardaman made an archeological claim that these coins had certain words and names. [cont]
@PatHarrity How do you know his claims are true if nobody has verified them! He never let anyone test his claim. Nobody has examined these coins and he's only produced drawings. I already pointed out how the drawings had "microleters" that were made in latin (the wrong language) and contained a letter that DID NOT EXIST FOR 900 YEARS. You have no evidence. Only claims. You dismiss these objections outright because you have NOTHING.
@PatHarrity The drawings he showed people contained the letter "J" which didn't even exist for another 900 years. Those drawings are fakes. Nice try though. That was the best rebuttal I've heard so far. It's complete nonsense like all the rest, though.
@PatHarrity Oh and given the scale of the drawings, the microletters would be about 1/50th of an inch (or less than half of a millimeter). Did I mention the letters were in Latin and the place where the coin would have been minted would have written the coin in Greek. Oh wait, they DID write on the coin in Greek! Only the alleged microletters are in Latin and the actual visible letters are in Greek and they spell Greek words.
@PatHarrity Your quotes about biblical prophecy are pointless for two reasons. First, the bible has failed prophecies in it, one being that Egypt would speak the Canaanite language. It never did and it is not an extinct language. Second, every religion claims fulfilled prophecies. Thus, it is not special for you to cite any for your god of choice.
@lhvinny The Bible doesn't have failed prophecies. The ones that have come to pass at this stage in history have been 100% accurate so far. No other religion can claim this. The ability to predict future from past is a sole attribute of God, and lends authentication to the Bible as being God's Word. Hebrews were exiled in Egypt for 400 years and spoke Hebrew then; but this language prophecy may refer to the coming rule and reign of Jesus Christ on earth (not yet fulfilled). Jesus loves You!
@PatHarrity "And if God, we should listen to what He said." If the bible is correct, then god is a violent, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, tyrannical monster to whom I would never listen.
"You must believe in Him to be saved." God made up the rules about the world from which we would need saving in your view, so why does god need to save us from his own rules?
I have visited Proof of God and Meat for Christians. I find both sites unconvincing due to logical fallacies therein.
@lhvinny God is just and He loves us, like a parent. His rules are for our good. As a parent, you wouldn't want your child to eat candy all the time, because you know that's not best, but the child doesn't understand this. Similarly, God's rules are what are best for us, though we may not fully understand. The basic rule is that if you have sin (disobedience), you will go to heaven. But God gives an easy way to have sin forgiven: Receive Christ as Lord. Re MFC site, what fallacies specifically?
@PatHarrity So, because we're justified in not wanting to eat candy all the time, God is justified in sentencing to eternal torture everyone who hasn't grovelled in front of him despite how well we live our lives.
@shanedk Christ, God in flesh, died on the cross to pay for a free pardon for you. That is how much He loves you. But He is a Gentleman. He won't force you to take that pardon. You have to willingly receive it. Turn it down, and yes, hell awaits. You'd have to be a fool to turn it down. Nevertheless, many still do. Once they die, and find themselves in hell, though, they wish they hadn't. I pray you see the truth in what I say and realize how much Jesus loves you. Receive Him now.
@PatHarrity So, God put Christ through a few hours of torture and death, so he'd have an excuse for torturing you for all eternity if you don't grovel before him. That's how much he's a primitive, narcissistic, capricious, utterly malevolent and evil deity.
You need to step out of your disgusting primitive barbaric bronze-age belief system and see it for what it really is. Only a complete sociopath could consider this a good and loving thing.
@PatHarrity "God is just" It is impossible to show mercy and claim to judge by justice. You are wrong.
"His rules are for our good." It is morally wrong to discriminate according to sexual orientation. It is morally wrong to promote slavery by setting up rules governing it. It is silly to set up rules saying that one should not wear clothing made out of multiple types of fiber. It is sexist to say a woman should not speak in church. If you see these things as good, I feel sorry for you.
@PatHarrity You have shown me no good reason to want to be obedient to your god. Your god, based upon the rules he has set forth, is a bully, a tyrant, and an ass. Why would I want to follow rules set by this being?
As for MFC, you have parroted one of the lies, which you repeated to Shane, and we have both debunked it. So did Darwin when he wrote his book and Sagan back in 1980. Do you really need me to point out where you have done a copy and paste job of falsehoods?
@PatHarrity Um, NO. As I explain in my video, physics measures temperatures in Kelvins, which are NEVER negative. So the ONLY factor determining whether entropy increases or decreases is whether energy is gained or lost. Any time energy is lost--in other words, any exothermic reaction--the entropy of the system DECREASES. Naturally and with no need for an invisible man in the sky.
@shanedk Respectfully, you are incorrect. The chemistry is dG=dH-TdS. Although T always pos, "-TdS" is neg if "dS" is pos. Reaction spontaneous only if dG neg. Almost all exothermic reactions result in INCREASED disorder (increased S), not decreased as you say. Rare exceptions include freezing water to ice, which is exothermic and decreases disorder (dS is neg so "-TdS" pos), but still spontaneous as dH is neg more than "-TdS" is positive Need to look at dH, dS and T to determine spontaneity.
@PatHarrity "Read any biochem or thermodynamics textbook."
I have. They do NOT say what you claim. I have a video on evolution and the Second Law; go watch it. My book also goes into it in more detail. It does NOT say what you claim it does.
@shanedk By the way, where did you get your talking points from, Al Gore? Reference to "peer reviewed" literature while side-stepping facts and trying to plant a red herring shows real desperation. I say this with some humor!
@PatHarrity dG is temperature dependant; reactions which do not occur spontaneously at room temperature might occur spontaneously at 60 degrees. Once a polymer is capable of self-replicatation and interaction with other molecules it is possible for evolution to start.
And remember; as complex as life is it isn't anywhere near complex as the god you claim always existed.
And punctuated equilibrium does not, contrary to your lies, result in speciation in single generations.
@bluecode320 Monomers won't form spontaneously in nature since dGs neg. No monomer, no polymer. But even if they could, they would not carry information. Also, proteins are needed to make DNA, yet DNA is needed to make the proteins that make the DNA! Both had to be created together! On the punct eq, my point was that Evolution cannot explain how a system with multiple parts can evolve over multiple generations when all parts are needed for functionality but no parts alone confer survivability
@PatHarrity It is clear that you are only parroting things, even within the same comments section. Your most recent post to Shane is exactly the same one you addressed to me earlier today. You are going in circles, repeating debunked claim after debunked claim, without ever bothering to realize how wrong you are. As such, it is obvious that speaking with you is a pointless endeavor, since it is the same as speaking with a brick wall.
@lhvinny He had the same issue as you, and therefore my response was the same. You bring no facts to the table in your comment here. Just vacuous wind. Do you have any factual comment? If not, why bother to comment?
@shanedk Irreducible Complexity disproves natural selection. Evolution cannot explain how a system with multiple subsystems like the eye can evolve when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole but none of the parts alone confer any survival advantage and so would not have been concentrated in the population. Re info theory, Proteins are needed to make DNA, yet DNA is needed to make the proteins that make the DNA! They both had to have been created together. Created.
No, natural selection PREDICTS what Behe calls "irreducible complexity." Again, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Like ALL creationists.
"Proteins are needed to make DNA, yet DNA is needed to make the proteins that make the DNA"
Nonsense. RNA and other polymers can make proteins as well. Idiot.
@shanedk Let's both refrain from ad hominem attacks and stick to facts. You responded with no facts on irreducible complexity so nothing added there. I reassert that irreducible complexitity utterly defeats natural selection (this is well known among evolutionists, who are desperately striving for an alternative, such as the ludicrous punctuated equilibrium!). Regarding RNA making proteins, the RNA is transcribed from DNA, so my argument still stands. Shane Jesus Christ loves you. Receive Him!
@PatHarrity I haven't made a SINGLE ad hominem attack.
As for evolution predicting IC, see "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, Genetics 3(5):422-499, Sept 1918
Your assertions (and reassertions) mean NOTHING. Other than how ignorant you are, that is.
And punctuated equilibrium has been directly observed. Do you even know what it IS?
@shanedk When you call me an idiot, instead of sticking to facts, that is an ad hominem attack. But that is a usual tactic for those losing the argument. Try to succinctly reply with facts. Don't just tell me that I am wrong.
@shanedk Since evolution cannot explain a gradual accumulation of non-beneficial bio subsystems leading toward a beneficial whole, they've invented the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium, whereby entire new species come about in a single generation, like a bird from a frog. But let's grant the impossible that one did come about. To reproduce, another would also have had to magically come about, of opposite sex, in the same geographical area, at the same time, and they would have to meet and mate!
@PatHarrity Nowhere in the idea of punctuated equilibrium does it state that a new species will form with only one generation. It states that cladogenesis can occur relatively rapidly depending on how drastically the environment changes, but the idea of it taking place over a single generation without a catastrophic population isolating event is a horrible straw man.
@lhvinny My point was more that evolution and natural selection cannot explain how a system with multiple subsystems like the eye can evolve through multiple generations when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole but none of the parts alone confer any survival advantage and so would not have been concentrated in the population. A blind worm with one eye part has no survival advantage. If it doesn't happen in a single generation, it ain't gonna happen!
@PatHarrity Your argument is an attempt to use irreducible complexity to promote a designer. You do realize that this argument failed in a Supreme Court case 6 years ago, right? Your example of the eye has been debunked since the 1970s, since Carl Sagan even used it in his Cosmos television series airing in 1980. If you're going to express an argument, at least use one that hasn't been refuted millions of times before.
@lhvinny You tell me I'm wrong. Explain why I'm wrong with specifics. Please explain the process of eye formation through natural selection. You will not be able to so, because there is no explanation for the addition of disadvantageous parts through multiple generations until the final part is magically added and the eye finally works.
@PatHarrity Please research the history of the concept of Irreducibly complex systems. You will learn quickly that it was first proposed as a natural consequence of the evolutionary process. They are predicted to evolve as part of the first peer-reviewed paper that mentions irreducibly complex systems. Your entire argument only shows that you have not bothered to study that which you are promoting as a problem to evolution by natural selection.
@PatHarrity "A blind worm with one eye part has no survival advantage." That's exactly where you're wrong. If you actually had researched the evolution of the eye, you would notice that we have live animal examples of multiple species with eyes at every stage of development from a simple photosensitive membrane that can only tell light from dark up to the human eye, and then onto other eyes even better than ours. You are so wrong that you don't even realize how wrong you are.
@lhvinny A photosensitive membrane is already a highly complex system consisting of multiple subsystems, none of which alone confer survivability. The membrane alone without nerves to convey the light information to the brain does no good. Even membrane and nerves together do no good without a very specifically designed brain to interpret the nerve signals. And even all of this is of no use unless coupled to other body parts like those controlling motor functions. Evolution cannot explain this.
This is wrong. Phototropic cells in themselves, without them forming a membrane, would already allow the organism to respond to variations in light intensity or direction.
@XGralgrathor Phototropic cells in plants elongate on the shaded side, causing the plant to bend toward light. But that single phototropic cell and its elongation mechanism is itself a highly complicated system comprised of multiple subsystems, none of which alone confer survival advantage.
@PatHarrity@PatHarrity "they've invented the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium, whereby entire new species come about in a single generation, " This is not accurate and it's the problem I have with your argument.
« But that single phototropic cell and its elongation mechanism is itself a highly complicated system »
Cells are complex systems, yes. But phototropic chemical reactions do not require cells. They exist outside life as well. Under some circumstances, cells that accumulated or produced the chemicals required for such reactions would have an advantage over cells that did not.
@XGralgrathor The phototropic chemical reactions and subsequent cellular elongation mechanisms are extremely complex systems composed of multiple subsystems. A non-phototropic cell that had a mutation whereby auxin was made, for example, would not have any advantage without the rest of the extradordinarily complex elongation apparatus.
« A non-phototropic cell that had a mutation whereby auxin was made »
Then the first step towards that development did likely *not* include auxin, but something other that had *in its own way* a beneficial impact. Is that so difficult for you to grasp? EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK TELEOLOGICALLY. It does not work towards a goal.
@PatHarrity "If it doesn't happen in a single generation, it ain't gonna happen!" Except for the fact that we've seen it happen in a process that takes multiple generations. We have never noticed an evolutionary change of significance occur only after one generation. Your statement here, along with the fast majority of what you said in your latest post, goes completely against what we observe in nature.
@lhvinny It's never been seen. Please explain the mechanism whereby parts conferring no advantage are accumulated from generation to generation into a multi-part system such as the eye which doesn't work until the final part is added.
This is false. See also: Borland et al, 2008, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.
This describes how two separate mutations in consecutive generations, neither of which would in themselves have bestowed a large advantage to its bearer, lead to an adaptation in metabolic processes.
« Please describe the evolutionary process whereby the eye formed. »
(1/2)
Are you asking for a reproductive variation-by-reproductive variation account of every change at the molecular level that contributed to the structure of the human eye as it is today? Do you think that is realistic? Simplified models explaining how eyes might evolve through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success have already been presented to you. On what basis do you reject them?
@XGralgrathor Just looking for a conceptual overview. Let's take some basic parts of the visual system: cornea, iris, lens, lens muscles, retina, optic nerve, brain interpreting optic nerve signals, nerves from brain to muscles or other body parts (muscles to flee from something seen to be dangerous; stomach or mouth to secrete acid or salivate in response to sight of food). In what order were these added, and what was the advantage of their addition along the way?
@shanedk Darwin called it an absurdity, then was very vague about saying if parts with advantage could be added slowly, they could eventually sum up to an eye. But he gave no details about the order of eye parts added and what advantage they had along the way. If you know, state the order here. Can you even come up with the first couple of parts? Quit pointing elsewhere and answer it here.
NO HE ABSOLUTELY DID NOT, YOU PATHETIC, DISGUSTING LIAR!!! ANYONE who has read that chapter knows how false it is. You are an utterly vile and contemptible person; there is not an OUNCE of morality in you.
@shanedk Resorting to attacks on me instead of addressing the question. That's a sign your losing the debate. Why won't you simply answer the question? And why are you so upset! I'm laughing over here.
They've already been provided to you. There are numerous videos on youtube that detail possible routes along which the eye may have evolved, and list some of the evidence supporting those hypothetical models. I would start out with some colony organism, of which some of the surface cells produce phototropic chemicals.
I get the idea that you're imagining that we are claiming these must all evolved seperately and consecutively. But of course we do no such thing; the organism evolves as a whole, not a collection of separately evolving parts. As for the exact order in which the evolutionary 'steps' towards the modern human eye occurred: I don't know. Perhaps genetic research may shed some light on that.
« Please describe the evolutionary process whereby the eye formed. »
(2/2)
On the other hand, if you're not asking for such a molecule-by-molecule account, but are inquiring after the nature of the process by which these iterative and cumulative changes themselves occurred, I can be quite brief about that:
That evolutionary process consists of reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
@XGralgrathor I'm looking for the order in which the major eye components (cornea, iris, lens, retina, optic nerve, brain interpreting optic nerve signal, visual brain center to motor control) supposedly were added through multiple generations, and what advantage they had along the way.
@PatHarrity The fact that you even asked that question shows how ridiculously ignorant you are, and that you didn't even read the primary sources we've given to you. There IS NO ORDER. Most of the components developed together, gradually over time.
@shanedk Name one component of the eye that was added by some sort of mutation, and what advantage that addition had. That should be fairly simple for you. Don't think you'll have an answer, though, other than more side-stepping of the question.
« I'm looking for the order in which the major eye components »
I get the idea that you're imagining that we are claiming these must all evolved seperately and consecutively. But of course we do no such thing; the organism evolves as a whole, not a collection of separately evolving parts. As for the exact order in which the evolutionary 'steps' towards the modern human eye occurred: I don't know. Perhaps genetic research may shed some light on that.
@shanedk Please enlighten me. How does the eye form by natural selection? What is the mechanism? An eyeball even with all its many complex parts is useless without an optic nerve. Even an eye with an optic nerve is useless without being connected to brain tissue able interpret the signals. And even all of this is useless to the organism if not then connected to other parts of the brain, such as those controlling motor function.
Are you asking for a reproductive variation-by-reproductive variation account of every change at the molecular level that contributed to the structure of the human eye as it is today? Do you think that is realistic? Simplified models explaining how eyes might evolve through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success have already been presented to you. On what basis do you reject them?
@shanedk I knew you'd sidestep the question! Please explain it to me here. I'm looking for the order in which the major eye components (cornea, iris, lens, retina, optic nerve, brain interpreting optic nerve signal, visual brain center to motor control) supposedly were added through multiple generations, and what advantage they had along the way. Please don't evade this direct question again, or point to some other explanation out there somewhere. Answer it here.
@shanedk Darwin didn't answer it other than in gross generalities. If you think he did, briefly tell me what he said with specifics. I'll try to make it simple for you: what single eye part was added by mutation, and what was it's advantage?
@PatHarrity "Darwin didn't answer it other than in gross generalities."
Liar. He gave specifics. You either didn't read the chapter (in which case you lied about having read it), or you're lying directly about what it says.
@PatHarrity "they've invented the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium, whereby entire new species come about in a single generation, "
Punctuated equilibrium says NO SUCH THING. Not even CLOSE. You're just another ignorant, lying creationist shooting off his mouth. There isn't ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST EVER who said that species change in a single generation. YOU ARE A LIAR.
@shanedk My point was more that evolution and natural selection cannot explain how a system with multiple subsystems like the eye can evolve through multiple generations when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole but none of the parts alone confer any survival advantage and so would not have been concentrated in the population. A blind worm with one eye part has no survival advantage. If it doesn't happen in a single generation, it ain't gonna happen!
« when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole »
All of the parts are needed for the whole to be the sum of all of those parts. But there are other systems, that do not contain all of those parts, that nevertheless have a function beneficial to the organism. One only has to show that such intermediate stages can, did or do exist in order to debunk claims from irreducible complexity.
FYI: There's something wrong with your upload. I keep getting a glitch at about 25s. I can cope with skipping a few seconds forwards but it's very annoying having to do that.
Good vid, though. Thanks.
smhussain62 1 week ago in playlist How Evolution Is Scientific
@smhussain62 Sorry about that, but no one else has reported a problem and it plays fine for me. Try reloading or checking your Flash version. You can also try clicking on the gear button and changing the resolution to 480p, 720p, or whatever. It may work with a different encoding.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk
great videos. only sad thing is you're by and large preaching to the choir haha. The creationists however don't seem to get it because they don't want to get it because then they will be shunned so they are scared, but they're probably suspecting something isn't right so they scream louder to silence the voice of reason "IT*S ONLY A THEORY!"
The irony is that the more they attempt to disprove evolution the stronger it will get since that's how science works. That makes me so happy! : )
aNdYmAtTeR 2 weeks ago
Wow..very informative, thanks for sharing :)
RealistMe 2 months ago
The iguanas on galapagos have eveolved, so one branch lives in the midst of the island, where it's almost desertlike, the other branch are living near the sea, and feeding on seaweed. Their DNA shows they are the same specie.
This must be one of the best examples of evolution.
If we could stick around for another 50000 years maybe the sea dwelling iguana would evolve into something more like a manate ? Who knows ?
It's the thing bronzeagemythists don't understand. TIMEspan !
BelieveNoGod 2 months ago 3
@BelieveNoGod Yes, in order for their bogosity to be correct, they need a mechanism that stops changes from accumulating--that stops inches from becoming miles. And they don't have one!
shanedk 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires & brimstone.
tot792 4 months ago
Its a shame when political leaders are anti-science. Studying fruit flies is very important to medicine, biology, genetics etc. And the other type of fruit flies (the pest kind) is a very important pest of crops. You try to bring on of those into the country and you will see how important it is.
finderfinder100 5 months ago 6
i wish all utube vids had subtitles
esraretin 7 months ago
Ok Shane, we may have some differences in some Political/Social issues. But at least I'm glad we both agree that Evolution is, at least currently, the ONE AND ONLY WAY for life to reach the complexity of the life around us...
Good luck (You're REEEEEEEAAAAAALLLY gonna need it...) fighting the creationist ignorance in your country.
GohanLSSJ2 9 months ago
Is my theory scientific!
All will say they are and prove beyond a shadow of doubt why!
But stop fighting each other and use propper science and prove your case!
anthowes 10 months ago
PatHarrity has been blocked for sockpuppetry.
Non-bigots don't use the f-word to describe gays.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "God's rules are for our own good."
So said every abuser and tyrant who ever lived.
Also, bigoted comments about homosexuals are NOT allowed on this channel. Your comment was deleted. First warning.
shanedk 11 months ago
Check out MeatForChristians com Excerpts on the Lie of Evolution and Proof of God. If an E. coli bacterium were disassembled into its component parts (atoms), the probability that it would spontaneously reassemble is estimated at one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. How big is this number? Compare it to the number of atoms in the universe, which is 10 to the 80th power, and impossibility or the miraculous, which is anything less than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power. Learn some math.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Good thing, then, that spontaneous assembly has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
More ignorant ranting from people who don't even understand the basics.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Can't have evolution without the first cell. If the first cell is impossible, so is evolution. The problem with biologists is that they don't know the hard science of chemistry and mathematics. Crunch the numbers having to do with non-spontaneous chemical reactions (those with positive delta Gs) needed to produce the component parts of a cell and you'll see that it's so far beyond the realm of possibility as to be laughable. See website MeatForChristians on Proof of God.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@shanedk If the first cell is impossible, evolution becomes irrelevant. But even granted the first cell, evolution is impossible for various reasons such as Irreducible Complexity, Chirality, Information Theory, etc.. See MeatForChristians the Lie of Evolution for more information. Really, evolution is a rejection of the truth of the Bible, and therefore a rejection of God Himself. Get right with God! Jesus loves you! Receive Him.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity The first cell was nowhere near as complex as a modern bacterium. It was little more than a replicating polymer bounded to a simple lipid membrane.
Furthermore even if you could, somehow, prove that random mutations and natural selection are useless that only a centrally planned biosphere can possibly produce anything worthwhile that wouldn't prove that your god exists - it would only suggest that *a* very powerful creative entity exists.
bluecode320 11 months ago
@bluecode320 Even the molecular components of your "simple" first cell, the proteins, lipids and the DNA would be impossible to randomly or spontaneously assemble. Study some chemistry. The reactions would be equivalent to ice forming in boiling water. I do agree with you that science proves a very powerful creative entity exists, but that Entity would have to be beyond our time and space, outside our laws of physics, because the laws of physics in this universe will not produce life.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Except that those reactions can occur spontaneously if there is a source of energy. And complex proteins would not have been necessary for the first cell. Lipids certainly aren't difficult to form; it just takes two hydrocarbon chains and an ion attaching to a partially oxidised 3-carbon chain.
And the central planner of the Universe would need to be far more more complex than any protein yet you claim that it has existed perpetually.
bluecode320 11 months ago
@bluecode320 Reactions occur spontaneously only if they have a negative dGs. Those that produce biomolecules have positive dGs. The random addition of energy has a destructive effect. Only energy funneled through an intelligent apparatus can overcome positve dGs, as with the staggeringly complex apparatus of plants using sunlight to produce sugar, or the exquisitely intricate machinery of animals using sugar to drive the ATP/ADP cycle which powers the synthesis of complex molecules with pos dGs.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Reference to peer-reviewed scientific literature please.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Read any biochem or thermodynamics textbook. The only science which utterly ignores the rock-solid laws of chemistry is evolutionary biology, which disregards the 2nd law of TD, which states that entropy (or disorder) will increase over time. This law is so powerfully, powerfully against the formation of complex molecules and ordered structures, and so powerfully, powerfully in favor of the disintegration of complex molecules and ordered structures, that life could never randomly form.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Are you seriously trying to use the 2nd Law like this? I'm sorry, sir, but your idea would also say that the spontaneous formation of ice at certain temperatures would be impossible because it is more organized. It would mean that polymers wouldn't spontaneously form, which they do, because they are more organized.
You, sir, show now understanding of what the 2nd Law states if you think it offers any resistance to these or any evolutionary processes.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny The science on this is dG=dH-TdS. Only if dG is negative is reaction spontaneous. At Ts below freezing, dH is negative more than -T∆S is positive, so dG negative and reaction spontaneous, and ice freezes. Nothing special here. I tell you truly, there is a Creator. This Creator love you. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for you on the cross, to take the punishment due you. Believe in Him and receive Him as Lord and you can have the awesome joy of having your sins forgiven. Do it now
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity I agree that freezing water is nothing special. Neither is self-polymerization. There are many examples of organic and biological monomers that spontaneously polymerize. Biologists have witnessed the spontaneous polymerization of an RNA chain more than 100 base-pairs long.
You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and your god concept. Evolution's being by no means says that a god doesn't exist. This is AronRa's 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny RNA nucleotides will not form spontaneously in nature because their dGs are positive. No monomers, no polymers. They form in biosystems because in a very elegant, intelligent and complex way, coupled reactions with a net negative dG are used to drive pos dG reactions. Evolution says that God is a liar by calling his Word, the Bible, a lie.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "RNA nucleotides will not form spontaneously in nature"
Direct experimentation has shown the spontaneous formation of TWO RNA nucleotides in completely natural conditions. 2 down, 2 to go. The evidence is on our side. We have direct observation, you have baseless assertion.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk RNA nucleotides will NOT form spontaneously because the dG is negative. That is an indisputable fact of chemistry. A chemical reaction consists of reactants and products. The amounts of these is determined by the reaction dG and the equilibrium constant K. If dG neg, K pos, and reaction driven from product to reactants. While some bio monomers may form briefly, their K is so huge that at equilibrium their concentrations will be infinitesimal and spontaneously driven back to reactants.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« RNA nucleotides will NOT form spontaneously »
It is a fact that conditions exist under which nucleotides assemble, because nucleotides can be synthesised under lab conditions. You are claiming that similar conditions cannot occur naturally.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« RNA nucleotides will NOT form spontaneously because the dG is negative »
You are adhering to a particular definition of the word 'spontaneous', where a reaction is spontaneous if its dG>0. But the question is not whether nucleotides form spontaneously as per the above definition: the question is whether they can form - spontaneously or not - under naturally occurring conditions.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "RNA nucleotides will NOT form spontaneously because the dG is negative. That is an indisputable fact of chemistry."
Reference to peer-reviewed literature please.
And explain why the experiments WORKED, then. You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!
shanedk 11 months ago
« RNA nucleotides »
Even if it is true that there is no *known* process by which they may naturally form, there may yet be unknown processes. Even if it is true that (whether by known or unknown processes) nucleotides may not assemble from basic elements naturally, they may have resulted naturally from some as yet unknown precursor. In order to be able to say that "life cannot have come about by natural processes", you must exclude *every* possible hypothesis. Are you up to the task?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor The chemistry behind these reactions is rock solid, as are the probabilities, which are determined by bond energies. You can choose to believe in something so unreasonable as to have for a single cell coming about by chance a probability of 0.00000... (one hundred billion zeroes here)... 00001% chance of happening, let alone multiple celled organisms, but I cannot. My position requires far less faith than yours. Do you really want to gamble your eternal soul on those odds?
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« a single cell coming about by chance a probability of 0.00000 [...] »
Based on the assumption that the whole thing assembled spontaneously from its component elements, something which nobody is silly enough to claim.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor Correct. But there is no other explanation. The probability of the random formation of even a single complex protein is wildly improbable.
A cell has software (DNA) and hardware (proteins), like a computer. What mechanism can explain the evolution of software that has the ability to make the hardware which in turns makes the software? There is none. They both had to have been created simultaneously.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Correct. But there is no other explanation."
Yes, there is, LIAR. You know it, you just choose to ignore it. NO ONE--not Dr. Szostak nor anyone else working in the field--says that the whole thing assembled spontaneously all at once.
It may not be proven, but it's still empirically true: ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk No, there is not. There is no reasonable explanation for the origin of life other than creation. The odds are way, way, way, way for creation and way, way, way way against evolution. Your position, from a position of probability, is way, way, way, way less reasonable than mine. But you can choose to believe the impossible. I do not.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity
>>Implying creation is reasonable to begin with.
vspqbd 11 months ago
@PatHarrity So you STILL haven't look at Dr. Szostak's work. That means we can chalk this up to yet another LIE. ALL you have are lies.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "A cell has software (DNA) and hardware (proteins), like a computer."
Wait, are you saying that software makes hardware???
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk The DNA software contains the instructions for how to make the hardware; the hardware makes the DNA and more hardware. But both the hardware and software needed at same time. Either one or the other alone useless, and to suppose they evolved independent of each other (like a disk with Excel on it, and an IBM computer) and just happened to work perfectly together, is absurd in the extreme.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Um, no. That isn't anywhere CLOSE to how it works. Crack open a basic biology book sometime.
shanedk 11 months ago
« But there is no other explanation »
False. And in fact, so obviously false (even *YOU* cannot pretend to have never heard of the "RNA world" hypothesis and similar explanatory models) that I am now forced to call you a liar.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« A cell has software (DNA) and hardware (proteins) »
What a crappy attempt at analogy. In what computer system you know does the hard- and software interact chemically to produce replicas of itself? Come on, you can do better.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« What mechanism can explain the evolution of »
The cell? The process by which the first cellular biological replicators came to be is not subject of evolutionary theory, but of the field of research known as abiogenesis. I suggest you take some time to learn what hypotheses are current in that field of study.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« The chemistry behind these reactions is rock solid »
And yet conditions exist under which nucleotides will synthesise. Are you saying that what we *know* and can *demonstrate* to occur is in fact impossible? Isn't that like shooting yourself in the foot with a huge calibre handcannon?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor The conditions under which nucleotides will synthesize are the highly intelligent coupling of reactions with negative dGs to drive reactions with positive dGs. This takes intelligence and complex design. It will not occur randomly in nature.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity [citation needed]
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk This is a well-known principle found in numerous chemistry textbooks. Lehninger's "Biochemistry" is one example; check out Chapter 15 on bioenergetic principles.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Reference specifically where they call these reactions "intelligent" and require "complex design."
shanedk 11 months ago
« highly intelligent coupling of reactions »
... So again, you are claiming that the conditions under which nuceotides may assemble from their components do not - and *cannot* occur in nature? And yet they have been *observed* to synthesise in very simple experimental setups - not much intelligence required at all. Hell, in one experiment, nucleobases were produced after simply putting a batch of chemicals on ice. Are you saying those chemicals and ice cannot combine naturally?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor Please provide a citation for your claim that nucleotides have been observed to spontaneously assemble in nature.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity See the work of Jack Szostak (YET again), Andy Knoll, and David Deamer, just to get you started.
shanedk 11 months ago
« your claim that nucleotides have been observed to spontaneously assemble »
Read again, kid. I was not claiming that this had been observed under plausible prebiotic circumstances, since at the time I had not encountered any relevant research.
But now I have:
Sutherland et al, 2009, Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« Evolution says that God is a liar by calling his Word, the Bible, a lie »
And I am calling you a liar for saying that the bible is god's word. So?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor You are not calling me a liar. You are calling God a liar.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« You are calling God a liar. »
Nope. I happen to know that god did not write or inspire the bible. In fact, he is very unhappy about the whole thing. I am calling whoever says that the bible is the word of god a liar.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor Only God can predict the future from the past (prophecy). God uses fulfilled prophecy to authenticate the Bible as His Word. That is His signature. God is the author of the Bible. Try reading it, or reading it again. Suggest starting with the New Testament. Give it a chance and the Holy Spirit will also confirm its truth within your heart.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« Only God can predict the future from the past (prophecy) »
If you want to sound like an irrational god-botherer, go ahead. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you're attempting to comment on or discuss scientific findings though. O, by the way; predicting the future from the past is what advanced brains do - it's why vertebrates and non-vertebrates with ever greater brain sizes were such an evolutionary success that they still exist today.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« God uses fulfilled prophecy to authenticate the Bible as His Word »
Except that the bible contains no prophecies that were fulfilled AND non-trivial. Nothing to be impressed about, in other words - and simply false on many more occasions. This clearly shows that the bible is not god's word, and that people worshiping the bible as if it were are guilty of blasphemy and will pay for their sin with eternal torment in the fires of hell. So there you go, bible-boy.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor At the time of the Babylonian empire, the Bible (Daniel) predicted the coming Medo-Persian empire, Alexander the Great and the Greek empire, the spilt into four empires following Alexander's death, the birth of Christ, and much more, all non-trivial. These have been 100% accurate, as have been its historical accuracy. It goes on to predict a coming 7-yr peace treaty with Israel and antichrist leading to a Great Tribulation followed by Christ's return at the end of the 7 years.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« the Bible (Daniel) predicted the coming Medo-Persian empire »
Or were rather vague stories later interpreted in the light of things that had come to pass? Or were the stories written or rewritten long after those things had come to pass?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@PatHarrity No, we're calling YOU a liar. The only thing you've shown with that post is that you're also an extreme narcissist.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk When God's Word is called a lie, it is the same as calling God a liar. I'm just the messenger.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Evolution says that God is a liar by calling his Word, the Bible, a lie." Evolution is a scientific theory. Science makes no comment about the supernatural because the supernatural is beyond what science can test. Your misconceptions are addressed in AronRa's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Falsehoods of Creationsim. I highly recommend you check them out.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@PatHarrity However, since you brought it up, before you can tell me truly that there is a creator who loves me and wants his son to face punishments meant for me (which I wouldn't allow to happen since having someone else get punished for something I did is morally wrong), you must first show how you know all this is true.
I have the awesome joy of having my "sins" forgiven by asking the offended party for forgiveness by saying I'm sorry and making amends. No supernatural beings required.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny As with creation, probabilities can be developed on the liklihood of Biblical predictions (prophecy) about Jesus Christ (some 350) having come to pass, like being born in Bethlehem, in line of David, etc. The remoteness of these mathematically prove that Jesus Christ was Who He said He is--God in human form! And if God, we should listen to what He said. What did He say? You must believe in Him to be saved. See Meat for Christians website Proof of God for more detail. Receive Jesus now
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The probability of a historical event as having happened is either 0 or 1.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Before Christ was born, the Bible predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem. The odds of that coming to pass for any random individual can be determined by dividing the population of Bethlehem by the population of the world at the time. At Jesus' time this was 1 in 300,000. Prob's can be similarly determined for the other 350 prediction that all came true inJesus, and when compounded, result in a number so vast that it authenticates Jesus, as only God knows the future. Jesus is God.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Before Christ was born, the Bible predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem"
And the authors of the gospels read that book. If you think that verifies anything, you're seriously deluded. I mean, look at all the machinations Matthew and Luke had to go through to make his birth in Bethlehem--and they don't even agree with each other!
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Before Christ was born, the Bible predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem."
Are you talking about Micah 5:2? This is misquoted in the New Testament. The "prediction" in Micah refers to Bethlehem Ephratah, the family clan, not the place. Additionally, the person referenced in Micah is a military leader (see Micah 5:6) that was supposed to defeat the Assyrians. Jesus never did this.
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@theradioschizo Bethlehem Ephratah is a place. Bethlehem means "house of bread" (fitting, as Jesus, the Bread of Life would be born there); Ephratah means "fruitful," also fitting. Here's another passage that refers it as a place:
Gen 35:19, And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. (KJV)
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah"
Does that sound like it's referencing a place or a tribe of people? Ephratah has been used to refer to the place or the tribe, but come on man. Use your brain. Again Jesus never went defeated the Assyrians like the military leader described in Micah.
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Maybe you can explain to me WHEN Jesus was born. Matthew and Luke chapter 1 say it was during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. Luke Chapter 2 says he was born during the term of Governor Quirinius who didn't start until 6 AD. I'd love to know how Jesus was born before 4BC AND after 6AD. That would definitely be pretty miraculous.
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@theradioschizo There were two Quiriniuses. Archaeologist Jerry Vardaman found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it, which places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod. Jesus was born during the rule of the earlier one. The Bible is correct. Over the years there have been many attacks on the Bible, but the Bible always proves correct because it is God’s inerrant Word. The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many a hammer over the centuries.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Please give me an argument you didn't just copy and paste from an apologist who asserted it without backing it up. Jerry Vardaman claims to have found two thousand year old coins with microscopic letter invisible to the human eye. Letters that would have to be made with tools that are not found in the time he claims. These coins touted were never submitted to peer review or even physical scrutiny.
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@theradioschizo Any reference to "peer review" shows absolute desparation. There isn't just peer-review and non-peer review; there's just truth and lies. I think you know what I'm saying is truth, but because you want to remain in sin, you reject it. But I hope you will come to the truth one day, most especially, Christ's love for you.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Any dismissal of the peer review process shows a magnificent ignorance of the scientific method. There most definitely IS a peer review.
"Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field." From wikipedia
Jerry Vardaman made an archeological claim that these coins had certain words and names. [cont]
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@PatHarrity How do you know his claims are true if nobody has verified them! He never let anyone test his claim. Nobody has examined these coins and he's only produced drawings. I already pointed out how the drawings had "microleters" that were made in latin (the wrong language) and contained a letter that DID NOT EXIST FOR 900 YEARS. You have no evidence. Only claims. You dismiss these objections outright because you have NOTHING.
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@PatHarrity The drawings he showed people contained the letter "J" which didn't even exist for another 900 years. Those drawings are fakes. Nice try though. That was the best rebuttal I've heard so far. It's complete nonsense like all the rest, though.
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Oh and given the scale of the drawings, the microletters would be about 1/50th of an inch (or less than half of a millimeter). Did I mention the letters were in Latin and the place where the coin would have been minted would have written the coin in Greek. Oh wait, they DID write on the coin in Greek! Only the alleged microletters are in Latin and the actual visible letters are in Greek and they spell Greek words.
theradioschizo 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Your quotes about biblical prophecy are pointless for two reasons. First, the bible has failed prophecies in it, one being that Egypt would speak the Canaanite language. It never did and it is not an extinct language. Second, every religion claims fulfilled prophecies. Thus, it is not special for you to cite any for your god of choice.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny The Bible doesn't have failed prophecies. The ones that have come to pass at this stage in history have been 100% accurate so far. No other religion can claim this. The ability to predict future from past is a sole attribute of God, and lends authentication to the Bible as being God's Word. Hebrews were exiled in Egypt for 400 years and spoke Hebrew then; but this language prophecy may refer to the coming rule and reign of Jesus Christ on earth (not yet fulfilled). Jesus loves You!
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "And if God, we should listen to what He said." If the bible is correct, then god is a violent, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, tyrannical monster to whom I would never listen.
"You must believe in Him to be saved." God made up the rules about the world from which we would need saving in your view, so why does god need to save us from his own rules?
I have visited Proof of God and Meat for Christians. I find both sites unconvincing due to logical fallacies therein.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny God is just and He loves us, like a parent. His rules are for our good. As a parent, you wouldn't want your child to eat candy all the time, because you know that's not best, but the child doesn't understand this. Similarly, God's rules are what are best for us, though we may not fully understand. The basic rule is that if you have sin (disobedience), you will go to heaven. But God gives an easy way to have sin forgiven: Receive Christ as Lord. Re MFC site, what fallacies specifically?
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity So, because we're justified in not wanting to eat candy all the time, God is justified in sentencing to eternal torture everyone who hasn't grovelled in front of him despite how well we live our lives.
Gotcha.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Christ, God in flesh, died on the cross to pay for a free pardon for you. That is how much He loves you. But He is a Gentleman. He won't force you to take that pardon. You have to willingly receive it. Turn it down, and yes, hell awaits. You'd have to be a fool to turn it down. Nevertheless, many still do. Once they die, and find themselves in hell, though, they wish they hadn't. I pray you see the truth in what I say and realize how much Jesus loves you. Receive Him now.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity So, God put Christ through a few hours of torture and death, so he'd have an excuse for torturing you for all eternity if you don't grovel before him. That's how much he's a primitive, narcissistic, capricious, utterly malevolent and evil deity.
You need to step out of your disgusting primitive barbaric bronze-age belief system and see it for what it really is. Only a complete sociopath could consider this a good and loving thing.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk One day you will know the truth. Hope it's before you die. After you die it will be too late. Read Luke 16 from verse 19 onwards.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "God is just" It is impossible to show mercy and claim to judge by justice. You are wrong.
"His rules are for our good." It is morally wrong to discriminate according to sexual orientation. It is morally wrong to promote slavery by setting up rules governing it. It is silly to set up rules saying that one should not wear clothing made out of multiple types of fiber. It is sexist to say a woman should not speak in church. If you see these things as good, I feel sorry for you.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@PatHarrity You have shown me no good reason to want to be obedient to your god. Your god, based upon the rules he has set forth, is a bully, a tyrant, and an ass. Why would I want to follow rules set by this being?
As for MFC, you have parroted one of the lies, which you repeated to Shane, and we have both debunked it. So did Darwin when he wrote his book and Sagan back in 1980. Do you really need me to point out where you have done a copy and paste job of falsehoods?
lhvinny 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Um, NO. As I explain in my video, physics measures temperatures in Kelvins, which are NEVER negative. So the ONLY factor determining whether entropy increases or decreases is whether energy is gained or lost. Any time energy is lost--in other words, any exothermic reaction--the entropy of the system DECREASES. Naturally and with no need for an invisible man in the sky.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Respectfully, you are incorrect. The chemistry is dG=dH-TdS. Although T always pos, "-TdS" is neg if "dS" is pos. Reaction spontaneous only if dG neg. Almost all exothermic reactions result in INCREASED disorder (increased S), not decreased as you say. Rare exceptions include freezing water to ice, which is exothermic and decreases disorder (dS is neg so "-TdS" pos), but still spontaneous as dH is neg more than "-TdS" is positive Need to look at dH, dS and T to determine spontaneity.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Read any biochem or thermodynamics textbook."
I have. They do NOT say what you claim. I have a video on evolution and the Second Law; go watch it. My book also goes into it in more detail. It does NOT say what you claim it does.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Please address a specific issue. Your comments are too general to form a response. Thanks.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity I DID address a specific issue: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Don't evade just because you don't have a response to the data.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Thermodynamics is a vast subject. Please drill down to a specific within it. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Tell me why with specifics.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Watch the video. It's just under 5 minutes.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk By the way, where did you get your talking points from, Al Gore? Reference to "peer reviewed" literature while side-stepping facts and trying to plant a red herring shows real desperation. I say this with some humor!
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity No, I want you to back up your assertions. I've backed up mine with references; you need to as well. Otherwise you have NOTHING.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Please address a specific issue. Your comment is too general to form a response. Thanks.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity dG is temperature dependant; reactions which do not occur spontaneously at room temperature might occur spontaneously at 60 degrees. Once a polymer is capable of self-replicatation and interaction with other molecules it is possible for evolution to start.
And remember; as complex as life is it isn't anywhere near complex as the god you claim always existed.
And punctuated equilibrium does not, contrary to your lies, result in speciation in single generations.
bluecode320 11 months ago
@bluecode320 Monomers won't form spontaneously in nature since dGs neg. No monomer, no polymer. But even if they could, they would not carry information. Also, proteins are needed to make DNA, yet DNA is needed to make the proteins that make the DNA! Both had to be created together! On the punct eq, my point was that Evolution cannot explain how a system with multiple parts can evolve over multiple generations when all parts are needed for functionality but no parts alone confer survivability
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity It is clear that you are only parroting things, even within the same comments section. Your most recent post to Shane is exactly the same one you addressed to me earlier today. You are going in circles, repeating debunked claim after debunked claim, without ever bothering to realize how wrong you are. As such, it is obvious that speaking with you is a pointless endeavor, since it is the same as speaking with a brick wall.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny He had the same issue as you, and therefore my response was the same. You bring no facts to the table in your comment here. Just vacuous wind. Do you have any factual comment? If not, why bother to comment?
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity dG is dependent on temperature though; it is the Enthalphy of the reaction minus the product of Temperature and Entropy.
bluecode320 11 months ago
@bluecode320 Agreed.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Monomers won't form spontaneously in nature"
Yes, they do. Happens all the time.
"But even if they could, they would not carry information."
Do you know what the scientific definition of information is?
As for the rest, see the work of Dr. Jack Szostak.
shanedk 11 months ago
@bluecode320 Proteins and DNA would be necessary for cellular reproduciton.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity No, they aren't. Szostak proved that.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "the proteins, lipids and the DNA would be impossible to randomly or spontaneously assemble."
Nonsense; Szostak has demonstrated that all you need for this is water and convection currents. That's ALL you need for proto-cells to form.
(And YET AGAIN, they didn't have DNA; they had other nucleotides and DNA developed later through natural selection.)
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "evolution is impossible for various reasons such as Irreducible Complexity,"
Sorry, but that's a PREDICTION of evolution, and I can show you a paper from 1918 saying so.
"Chirality,"
What it is about that that you think disproves evolution is beyond me.
"Information Theory,"
Bullshit. See my video, "Evolution CAN Increase Information."
"Really, evolution is a rejection of the truth of the Bible,"
Because the Bible is just fairy tales. Deal with it.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Irreducible Complexity disproves natural selection. Evolution cannot explain how a system with multiple subsystems like the eye can evolve when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole but none of the parts alone confer any survival advantage and so would not have been concentrated in the population. Re info theory, Proteins are needed to make DNA, yet DNA is needed to make the proteins that make the DNA! They both had to have been created together. Created.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Irreducible Complexity disproves natural selection."
No, natural selection PREDICTS what Behe calls "irreducible complexity." Again, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Like ALL creationists.
"Proteins are needed to make DNA, yet DNA is needed to make the proteins that make the DNA"
Nonsense. RNA and other polymers can make proteins as well. Idiot.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Let's both refrain from ad hominem attacks and stick to facts. You responded with no facts on irreducible complexity so nothing added there. I reassert that irreducible complexitity utterly defeats natural selection (this is well known among evolutionists, who are desperately striving for an alternative, such as the ludicrous punctuated equilibrium!). Regarding RNA making proteins, the RNA is transcribed from DNA, so my argument still stands. Shane Jesus Christ loves you. Receive Him!
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity I haven't made a SINGLE ad hominem attack.
As for evolution predicting IC, see "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, Genetics 3(5):422-499, Sept 1918
Your assertions (and reassertions) mean NOTHING. Other than how ignorant you are, that is.
And punctuated equilibrium has been directly observed. Do you even know what it IS?
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk When you call me an idiot, instead of sticking to facts, that is an ad hominem attack. But that is a usual tactic for those losing the argument. Try to succinctly reply with facts. Don't just tell me that I am wrong.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity So, you don't even know what an ad hominem is. Figures. And you yourself just committed ad hominem recursus.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Since evolution cannot explain a gradual accumulation of non-beneficial bio subsystems leading toward a beneficial whole, they've invented the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium, whereby entire new species come about in a single generation, like a bird from a frog. But let's grant the impossible that one did come about. To reproduce, another would also have had to magically come about, of opposite sex, in the same geographical area, at the same time, and they would have to meet and mate!
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Nowhere in the idea of punctuated equilibrium does it state that a new species will form with only one generation. It states that cladogenesis can occur relatively rapidly depending on how drastically the environment changes, but the idea of it taking place over a single generation without a catastrophic population isolating event is a horrible straw man.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny My point was more that evolution and natural selection cannot explain how a system with multiple subsystems like the eye can evolve through multiple generations when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole but none of the parts alone confer any survival advantage and so would not have been concentrated in the population. A blind worm with one eye part has no survival advantage. If it doesn't happen in a single generation, it ain't gonna happen!
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Your argument is an attempt to use irreducible complexity to promote a designer. You do realize that this argument failed in a Supreme Court case 6 years ago, right? Your example of the eye has been debunked since the 1970s, since Carl Sagan even used it in his Cosmos television series airing in 1980. If you're going to express an argument, at least use one that hasn't been refuted millions of times before.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny You tell me I'm wrong. Explain why I'm wrong with specifics. Please explain the process of eye formation through natural selection. You will not be able to so, because there is no explanation for the addition of disadvantageous parts through multiple generations until the final part is magically added and the eye finally works.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Please research the history of the concept of Irreducibly complex systems. You will learn quickly that it was first proposed as a natural consequence of the evolutionary process. They are predicted to evolve as part of the first peer-reviewed paper that mentions irreducibly complex systems. Your entire argument only shows that you have not bothered to study that which you are promoting as a problem to evolution by natural selection.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny Don't just tell me my argument is wrong. Tell me specifically what about my argument you disagree with.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "A blind worm with one eye part has no survival advantage." That's exactly where you're wrong. If you actually had researched the evolution of the eye, you would notice that we have live animal examples of multiple species with eyes at every stage of development from a simple photosensitive membrane that can only tell light from dark up to the human eye, and then onto other eyes even better than ours. You are so wrong that you don't even realize how wrong you are.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny A photosensitive membrane is already a highly complex system consisting of multiple subsystems, none of which alone confer survivability. The membrane alone without nerves to convey the light information to the brain does no good. Even membrane and nerves together do no good without a very specifically designed brain to interpret the nerve signals. And even all of this is of no use unless coupled to other body parts like those controlling motor functions. Evolution cannot explain this.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« none of which alone confer survivability »
This is wrong. Phototropic cells in themselves, without them forming a membrane, would already allow the organism to respond to variations in light intensity or direction.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor Phototropic cells in plants elongate on the shaded side, causing the plant to bend toward light. But that single phototropic cell and its elongation mechanism is itself a highly complicated system comprised of multiple subsystems, none of which alone confer survival advantage.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Moving the goalposts again.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity @PatHarrity "they've invented the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium, whereby entire new species come about in a single generation, " This is not accurate and it's the problem I have with your argument.
thelordmemnoch 11 months ago
« But that single phototropic cell and its elongation mechanism is itself a highly complicated system »
Cells are complex systems, yes. But phototropic chemical reactions do not require cells. They exist outside life as well. Under some circumstances, cells that accumulated or produced the chemicals required for such reactions would have an advantage over cells that did not.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor The phototropic chemical reactions and subsequent cellular elongation mechanisms are extremely complex systems composed of multiple subsystems. A non-phototropic cell that had a mutation whereby auxin was made, for example, would not have any advantage without the rest of the extradordinarily complex elongation apparatus.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity At this point, we're going to have to ask you to specifically and quantifiably define your terms "complex" and "system."
shanedk 11 months ago
« A non-phototropic cell that had a mutation whereby auxin was made »
Then the first step towards that development did likely *not* include auxin, but something other that had *in its own way* a beneficial impact. Is that so difficult for you to grasp? EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK TELEOLOGICALLY. It does not work towards a goal.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "If it doesn't happen in a single generation, it ain't gonna happen!" Except for the fact that we've seen it happen in a process that takes multiple generations. We have never noticed an evolutionary change of significance occur only after one generation. Your statement here, along with the fast majority of what you said in your latest post, goes completely against what we observe in nature.
lhvinny 11 months ago
@lhvinny It's never been seen. Please explain the mechanism whereby parts conferring no advantage are accumulated from generation to generation into a multi-part system such as the eye which doesn't work until the final part is added.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« It's never been seen »
This is false. See also: Borland et al, 2008, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.
This describes how two separate mutations in consecutive generations, neither of which would in themselves have bestowed a large advantage to its bearer, lead to an adaptation in metabolic processes.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor Please describe the evolutionary process whereby the eye formed.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« Please describe the evolutionary process whereby the eye formed. »
(1/2)
Are you asking for a reproductive variation-by-reproductive variation account of every change at the molecular level that contributed to the structure of the human eye as it is today? Do you think that is realistic? Simplified models explaining how eyes might evolve through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success have already been presented to you. On what basis do you reject them?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor Just looking for a conceptual overview. Let's take some basic parts of the visual system: cornea, iris, lens, lens muscles, retina, optic nerve, brain interpreting optic nerve signals, nerves from brain to muscles or other body parts (muscles to flee from something seen to be dangerous; stomach or mouth to secrete acid or salivate in response to sight of food). In what order were these added, and what was the advantage of their addition along the way?
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Just looking for a conceptual overview."
Origin of Species. Chapter 6. Goes start to finish in detail.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Darwin called it an absurdity, then was very vague about saying if parts with advantage could be added slowly, they could eventually sum up to an eye. But he gave no details about the order of eye parts added and what advantage they had along the way. If you know, state the order here. Can you even come up with the first couple of parts? Quit pointing elsewhere and answer it here.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Darwin called it an absurdity,"
NO HE ABSOLUTELY DID NOT, YOU PATHETIC, DISGUSTING LIAR!!! ANYONE who has read that chapter knows how false it is. You are an utterly vile and contemptible person; there is not an OUNCE of morality in you.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 11 months ago 3
@shanedk Resorting to attacks on me instead of addressing the question. That's a sign your losing the debate. Why won't you simply answer the question? And why are you so upset! I'm laughing over here.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Your question IS answered, you bigoted asshole.
shanedk 11 months ago
« Just looking for a conceptual overview »
They've already been provided to you. There are numerous videos on youtube that detail possible routes along which the eye may have evolved, and list some of the evidence supporting those hypothetical models. I would start out with some colony organism, of which some of the surface cells produce phototropic chemicals.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« In what order were these added »
I get the idea that you're imagining that we are claiming these must all evolved seperately and consecutively. But of course we do no such thing; the organism evolves as a whole, not a collection of separately evolving parts. As for the exact order in which the evolutionary 'steps' towards the modern human eye occurred: I don't know. Perhaps genetic research may shed some light on that.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
« Please describe the evolutionary process whereby the eye formed. »
(2/2)
On the other hand, if you're not asking for such a molecule-by-molecule account, but are inquiring after the nature of the process by which these iterative and cumulative changes themselves occurred, I can be quite brief about that:
That evolutionary process consists of reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor I'm looking for the order in which the major eye components (cornea, iris, lens, retina, optic nerve, brain interpreting optic nerve signal, visual brain center to motor control) supposedly were added through multiple generations, and what advantage they had along the way.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity The fact that you even asked that question shows how ridiculously ignorant you are, and that you didn't even read the primary sources we've given to you. There IS NO ORDER. Most of the components developed together, gradually over time.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Name one component of the eye that was added by some sort of mutation, and what advantage that addition had. That should be fairly simple for you. Don't think you'll have an answer, though, other than more side-stepping of the question.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« I'm looking for the order in which the major eye components »
I get the idea that you're imagining that we are claiming these must all evolved seperately and consecutively. But of course we do no such thing; the organism evolves as a whole, not a collection of separately evolving parts. As for the exact order in which the evolutionary 'steps' towards the modern human eye occurred: I don't know. Perhaps genetic research may shed some light on that.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@PatHarrity Which eye? There are dozens, all of which evolved independently.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "It's never been seen."
Yes, it has. NUMEROUS times. Again, you're arguing with OBSERVED FACT.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "A blind worm with one eye part has no survival advantage."
Then how do earthworms actually survive? With no eyes, just light-sensitive cells that can barely distinguish light from dark?
This has been debunked so long ago it's embarrassing for you.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Please enlighten me. How does the eye form by natural selection? What is the mechanism? An eyeball even with all its many complex parts is useless without an optic nerve. Even an eye with an optic nerve is useless without being connected to brain tissue able interpret the signals. And even all of this is useless to the organism if not then connected to other parts of the brain, such as those controlling motor function.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« How does the eye form by natural selection? »
Are you asking for a reproductive variation-by-reproductive variation account of every change at the molecular level that contributed to the structure of the human eye as it is today? Do you think that is realistic? Simplified models explaining how eyes might evolve through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success have already been presented to you. On what basis do you reject them?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Please enlighten me. How does the eye form by natural selection?"
Darwin explained it quite clearly in Origin of Species, with evidence to back it up.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk I knew you'd sidestep the question! Please explain it to me here. I'm looking for the order in which the major eye components (cornea, iris, lens, retina, optic nerve, brain interpreting optic nerve signal, visual brain center to motor control) supposedly were added through multiple generations, and what advantage they had along the way. Please don't evade this direct question again, or point to some other explanation out there somewhere. Answer it here.
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity I did NOT side-step the question! I told you where to go for the answer!
But like all creationist LIARS, you try every cheap and disgusting trick in the book to avoid reality.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Darwin didn't answer it other than in gross generalities. If you think he did, briefly tell me what he said with specifics. I'll try to make it simple for you: what single eye part was added by mutation, and what was it's advantage?
PatHarrity 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "Darwin didn't answer it other than in gross generalities."
Liar. He gave specifics. You either didn't read the chapter (in which case you lied about having read it), or you're lying directly about what it says.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PatHarrity "they've invented the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium, whereby entire new species come about in a single generation, "
Punctuated equilibrium says NO SUCH THING. Not even CLOSE. You're just another ignorant, lying creationist shooting off his mouth. There isn't ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST EVER who said that species change in a single generation. YOU ARE A LIAR.
ALL creationists are liars.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk My point was more that evolution and natural selection cannot explain how a system with multiple subsystems like the eye can evolve through multiple generations when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole but none of the parts alone confer any survival advantage and so would not have been concentrated in the population. A blind worm with one eye part has no survival advantage. If it doesn't happen in a single generation, it ain't gonna happen!
PatHarrity 11 months ago
« when all of the parts are needed for the system to function as a whole »
All of the parts are needed for the whole to be the sum of all of those parts. But there are other systems, that do not contain all of those parts, that nevertheless have a function beneficial to the organism. One only has to show that such intermediate stages can, did or do exist in order to debunk claims from irreducible complexity.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago