The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked

[YamiYami17]

They think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,

social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects is in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolve wings ! and the ability to fly !

throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...

[cctman]

Sounds like she hasn't read Origin of Species either because Darwin did not claim what she said either... She is such a hypocrite!

[hisham031170]

She's so arrogant in her speech, like typical atheist. She thought she successfully debunked creationism, she did not.

[tep2005]

She's right on:

1. The organisms with simpler visual systems do have adaptive values (ex: snails).

2. One shouldn't quote Darwin out of context.

But her claim on 100 million years to evolve the mammalian eye evolution is plain wrong. She clearly knows little about molecular biology. 100 mil. years is not even close to being enough (not even if for billions, for that matter). This is why evolution is still on shaky ground--time, math, and molecular biology is not on evolution's side.

[cctman]

@tep2005 Shes a hypocrite! She is doing the very thing she is claiming creationists have do. Darwin did not say what she claimed in this video.

[Gilmaris]

@cctman Darwin DID say that. What she is doing is called "paraphrasing", but she did not misrepresent Darwin in any way.

[cctman]

@Gilmaris Uhh no he didn't. You want to give it a shot and address every comment she made so I can point out what he really said according to Origin of Species?

[Gilmaris]

@cctman I HAVE the Origin of Species. What did she say which Darwin did NOT?

[cctman]

@Gilmaris Let me clear you up on a quick point... Eugenie says that Darwin states on the eye "that it would not be possible for his natural selection to do this." and then she claims that creationists don't even read the book and that Darwin says "but I can assure you this is not the case, and I can do this...". see 45 secs.

No only does Darwin not say that in his book, but he directly acknowledges not being able to demonstrate the evolution of the eye through his natural selection (cont...)

[Gilmaris]

@cctman "Eugenie says that Darwin states on the eye "that it would not be possible for his natural selection to do this.""

That's not what she said. She said, "nobody would think it would be possible for natural selection to produce this." What Darwin said was that it "seems absurd in the highest degree". Those sentences convey the same message, but with different words. So it's a paraphrase.

[cctman]

@Gilmaris What? I was pretty clear in my quote below.

[themsfightinwoids]

@cctman GOTCHA, LIAR!

"To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist..." -Darwin

You are just a plain old LIAR for Jesus aren't you? What an ODIOUS lack of integrity you display. Your god sanctions such outright lying??

LMAO!

[themsfightinwoids]

@cctman Darwin's book"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eyeto one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its..."

[themsfightinwoids]

@cctman Darwin cont'd: "possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, THEN THE DIFFICULTY of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, CAN HARDLY BE CONSIDERED REAL."

So you are a demonstrated LIAR cctman.

[CrikeyTomatoes]

@themsfightinwoids Then he explains right after how it's done, maybe you should re read and try to understand what darwin really meant. Also the eye is not perfect. For instance, I am near sided and some people are blind as fuck.

[CrikeyTomatoes]

@themsfightinwoids Also when reading his book again (which you did read right? You didn't just quote mine this shit did you?) Make sure you read all the words around that passage you just quoted, that could be helpful. You know, so you won't look quite as ignorant?

[themsfightinwoids]

@CrikeyTomatoes Um, I think you meant to reply to cctman, not me. I made the same argument as you (that Darwin was taken out of context by ignoring the following sentences).

[cctman]

@Gilmaris within small orders of gradation within ( "in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head." see Origin of Species Ch.VI Difficulties on Theory) and he then has to jump to "far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages" to even try to attempt to demonstrate how the eye can possibly have evolved.

[cctman]

@Gilmaris Its pretty clear that Eugenie Scott is a media spokesman for evolution and by laying claims to creationists not reading Origin of Species and then lying about what Darwin said she just makes herself look ridiculous and foolish.

[zytigon]

Richard Dawkins covers similar points in his excellent books "Climbing mount improbable", "Blind watchmaker" , "The Blind watchmaker" & "River out of Eden"

[TheCreativemind40]

Another one bites the dust Eugenie Scott :) simplifying to hearts content

[NewnotesJR]

It's easy to say, "we have eyes and the snail has the patch, so it must have happened. That's very easy to just say that.

You accuse ID theorists of trying to take on the latest version of the eye to refute evolution, but evolutionary theorists do the same when they so easily claim that the astronomical coincidence must have taken place based solely on the fact that we have eyes and snails have patches today.

Well, a claim that it was designed to work that way is no more astronomical.

[types10000]

@NewnotesJR

"but evolutionary theorists do the same when they so easily claim that the astronomical coincidence must have taken place based solely on the fact that we have eyes and snails have patches today. Well, a claim that it was designed to work that way is no..."

- the difference is that we have every stage between the snails eye and our eye throughout the animal kingdom in an order that complies with testable predictions of evolutionary theory.

in short, we have evidence

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

No, you don't, otherwise there wouldn't be an argument. You're just making an assumption based on your faith in our scientific system.

Look when the money gets the scientific "proof" it wants, the whole system comes into suspect. In other words, today, if you can't study the raw data for yourself, then you can't be sure of anything.

I mean think about it, when has science ever been so certain. Certainty and science is a contradiction of terms.

[types10000]

@NewnotesJR

"No, you don't, otherwise there wouldn't be an argument."

- i'm not so much arguing as i am educating, the person i was talking to was clearly unaware of the evidence, i was making him aware.

"assumption based on your faith in our scientific system."

- science is an evidence based system, that's opposite of faith.

"Look when the money gets the scientific proof it wants, the whole system comes into suspect."

- scientific peer review exists to eliminate this very bias

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there aren't things that science can be certain about, obvious things. But usually everything is questioned, that's what science is about, especially when talking about something so subjective as biology, and our observations of things we don't truly understand yet.

Yet we are so certain. It's just ludicrous and absurd, the certainty. The certainty itself is enough to bring the science into suspicion, not even mentioning the questions.

[types10000]

@NewnotesJR

"But usually everything is questioned, that's what science is about, especially when talking about something so subjective as biology, "

- subjective? psychology is subjective, BIOLOGY is one of the hard-science for the very reason that is so based on empirical evidence.

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

Okay, you're going to have to forgive my use of this term. I'm not sure what's more correct for what I'm saying so I'll explain it.

By subjective, I mean that Biology is very subject to a vastly innumerable amount of variables, both known and unknown. Much of what we understand about biology riddled with both observable facts and assumptions of things not observable.

I would say Physics is less like this because physics is mostly a study of only what's observable.

[types10000]

@NewnotesJR

"By subjective, I mean that Biology is very subject to a vastly innumerable amount of variables, both known and unknown. Much of what we understand about biology riddled with both observable facts and assumptions of things not observable. I would say Physics is less like this because physics is mostly a study of only what's observable"

- incorrect, you've just described all of science and with respect to physics does the big bang ring a bell?

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

Physics is mostly right or wrong. We get our principles from observed things, and we really can only prove them right or wrong, there's not quite as much middle ground with physics.

However, Biology, although it operates on many physical principles has so many variations of many many different things all working together at once it's very difficult to create concrete conclusions. I mean, what cures one man, does not necessarily cure the other. And to explain it is very complicated

[types10000]

@NewnotesJR

"Physics is mostly right or wrong"

- no, physics is as much about assumptions as biology, what your referring to are mathematical proofs (which apply to both)

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

My main point is Biology is extremely, probably more than any other science, subject to a multitude, an uncountable number of variables. To be so certain of something that is so inconsistent, so unpredictable, so not-so-well understood, is absurd. It's not science, it's political. There are enough influential people out there who think they have too much to lose and a whole lot to gain. This is why such realistically uncertain things can be so publicly certain. 

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

Societies have been this way since forever. Always truth is downplayed at the convenience of those with influence enough to get their opinions wide-spread. The Crusades were not perpetrated by Christians, they were perpetrated by greedy and powerful men who had an opportunity to exploit, thereby manipulate, thereby further exploit, public opinion.

We thought the earth was flat because certain people of influence were afraid to consider that it wasn't, for whatever reason.

[types10000]

@NewnotesJR

"Societies have been this way since forever. Always truth is downplayed at the convenience of those with influence "

- this is WHY the scientific exists and thus far it has proven itself as the most effective mechanism for identifying what is true in all of human history.

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

You know, Dawkins said that if there was one gift that he could give somebody, it would be skepticism. However, he obviously doesn't apply that same skepticism to his own beliefs. In other words, he doesn't truly question everything, but I'm sure he thinks that he does. The reality of the matter is, one must be willing to accept that reality is rarely PC and is rarely composed of popular opinion.

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

Continued from my last post

I know people like to believe that they are more evolved today, that they are somehow smarter than past peoples, that they are immune to the manipulation of past leaders of even just a few decades ago, that they are somehow born more intelligent, but that's not even how evolution works. In other words, we love to believe that we are more evolved, but we are just as stupid, just as capable of succumbing to manipulation as anyone in past times.

[NewnotesJR]

@types10000

continued from my last two posts

We are not more evolved today, we are only more educated. We are only warned to think about things and not to believe what we are told. Yet somehow we still only have moderate success in not just believing as we are told, or rather believing how we want to believe rather than believing as the truth demonstrates its reality to us.

There is a lot more to consider for the sake of truth. And certainty in science is most often absurd.

[NewnotesJR]

Evolutionary science has already indicated that most likely things that are not used will eventually dissappear. What about a single mutation that COULD be beneficial, but is NOT YET beneficial? What's the likelyhood that will dissappear?

You see the question becomes, that in the time between when the patch first developed and when that beneficial behavior that utilized that patch developed, what was happending to the patch on a genetic level? Why did it stick around?

[NewnotesJR]

In fact, due to this, we'd have to assume that it is most likely that the appearance of this light sensitive patch just by chance was also accompanied by an irritation or aversion to light, which also just so happened to be beneficial. Which increases the odds several fold against the idea that it just so happened to work out this way.

Really when you extend time so far out to litterally being beyond understanding, it becomes so vague that you can essentially claim anything.

[NewnotesJR]

Just because you can see a car coming does not mean you'll know to move out of the way. That process would indicate several more thousands or millions of years of evolving the instincts to even use such a mutation as a light sensitive patch.

[NewnotesJR]

My point here is that according to the evolutionary theory, you cannot take the light sensitivity of the snail and assume that it remains because it did anything to benefit the snail because when it first appeared, there was no behavior, instinct, or, if you will, "programming" to tell the snail how to properly use the light sensitivity to inhance it's survivability.

[NewnotesJR]

Yeah, it would be "capable" helping the snail, but then that raises another question. Before that snail could even tell light from dark, it couldn't, and thus the behavior that was beneficial would not have developed until much later, thus the advantage would have gone unused, and thus would have done nothing for survival of the snail.

Any rudimetary robotic design proves that merely having light sensitivity without the programming ot utilize it means absolutely nothing.

[coolgreyoneabby]

@achzdck For you to make a scientific claim, you first must define your terms that are not standard science terms. Please define: "Lifeforce", "information" and "pre living DNA". Once you can tell me exactly what these are, I and the rest of the world may have a better chance at understanding what you just wrote.

[coolgreyoneabby]

@achzdck A few corrections: First, we all have ape bones in us because we are all apes, just like Collies have dog bones in them. Second, Science is the investigation of how the world works through experiment and evidence. Science is the opposite of religion. Religion bases it's conclusions on suppositions and faith. So what is the truth, and what evidence do you have to support your belief system? Also, I can read just fine, so all caps is not needed.

[GsliMaIiy]

Jesus Christ Is God

1. Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Micah 5:2; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.

2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.

Ex: “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.

3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.

[TheOneHidalgo]

@GsliMaIiy Nice claims. Now test them. And provide evidence for claim 1 other than "because the Bible said so."

[coolgreyoneabby]

@GsliMaIiy Or not.

Jesus said himself that he was not God, He said that you cannot get to God except through me ( paraphrased) Also in several sections of the Bible, Jesus speaks to God. So are all the other religions throughout history that do not include Jesus as the saviour just wrong?

[Jayoung1000]

Very enjoyable!

[im4everskilled]

See- the thing is- science (unlike religion) makes progress. We learn new things.

[jmatos316]

funny ... for a scientist she really over simplified a snail's eye ... it's a complex structure that requires a series of components to work properly ....

[jamespiperca]

I love it. The eye is the perfect design?

Never heard of myopia, prebyopia, astigmatism, colour-blindness and other forms of blindness.

Some design.

[versuz2]

What she fails to realize is , There is NO step by step on irreducible complexity, The snails eye IS the final product for the snail, It's not step one and then another creature has step two.

[coolgreyoneabby]

@versuz2 The point here is that the "irreducible complexity" argument claims that all the subsystems have to be in place for the entire system to work, no step by step evolution of the system is possible since a half formed eye system is non-functional and of no use, therefore could not have evolved, Examples of simpler eye systems shows that simpler functional eye systems do exists and help those organisms. These same organisms may evolve more complex eyes in the future.

[benthemiester]

How does she explain the eyes of trilobites which had very complex eyes from the beginning showing up during the Cambrian radiation event when we see multy cellular phyla showing up in orders of magnitude all ready highly specialized in such a form that modern lenses are based on the same design. Some of these creatures had 1500 lenses. The Mantis Shrimp showed up 250 million years ago with an extremely sophisticated eyes and sensory apparatus that we still cant reproduce with modern science.

[IheartFreedom]

why the hell do RELIGIOUS people emphasize certain WORDS by capitalization as if THEY were some sort of forum EVANGELIST?

[NewnotesJR]

@IheartFreedom

MORON!!! Why do you think? And why the heck do you assume it has anything to do with whether or not they're religious?

Can you change your tone ot express your words when you type? Because normal people can't do that, thus are stuck having to use the printed shape of words to convey a message.

How would you suggest a better way to emphasize, writing an entirely new sentence or two to explain the emphasis?

[mukkohaha]

@IheartFreedom We Just DO ! Can't You UNDERstand THIS ? YES WE CAN !

[BTek4]

Assumptions assumptions assumptions. Anyone will accept anything that rejects God. And how is the eye complexity debunked??? You can't debunk it. You can make crap up like this crazy lady, but you can't debunk it.

[alekzo1]

Watch the movie expelled no intelligence allowed. Scientists are now believing that an "outside" intelligence could have intervened in creation.

[phelius]

snazzy discussion.

[RELLIK97]

This women is retarted, so what if the snail has a pigmentged patch. Does that mean they evolved into other creatures, No there is no evidence of that. This lady is saying this EVOLVEd, then this Evolved ,Then this EVOLVED , Then this Evolved, without any evidence that it ever happened. Sure a lens is an ADVANTAGE, but you have no proof that it happened that way. also this lady is fuckin ugly man , and she keep smaking her mouth like and swallowing her spit like my Grandma...

[Hjernespreng]

@RELLIK97

First of all, I would like to point out that she is debunking the notion of Irreducible complexity of the eye and saying HOW it could and most likely did evolve.

It is really simple.

Also, your rant on the end is nothing but an Ad-Hominem attack.

What does her looks have to do with this?

Nothing.

[CrystalEye736]

I love that eye evolution and ocular development is one of the topics for my exams, so I can watch these videos and not feel bad for procrastinating :D Its just too bad I'm not going to get such an easy question as "debunk this creationist statement". If only!!

[yubarraboo]

Oh boy, another delusional nut creationist having an emotional breakdown on youtube. Shock.

[KnightofMotley]

Okay, so by what mechanism does the indentation become a pinhole cup? And where did the "wiring" come from? "And then you add a lens, and that's an improvement as well." Where did the crystaline structures come from, and what mechanism fashioned them into a lens? What are the causes? Sorry if I sound dubious, but it seems that they take a whole lot of this stuff on faith.

[Sickopath333]

The causes don't need explaining. Ya see, the eye we have is complicated, and in order for the random process of evolution by natural selection to create it, all that has to happen is a lot of time and small, gradual steps (which we see in lower life forms). We don't have to understand those details, it isn't a valid question against the theory, because it's very possible. It must be because we're here, there's no interactive God, and science agrees. If you disagree read some texts about it.

[KnightofMotley]

@Sickopath333 Good point; I hadn't seen it that way before. Thank you!

[Sickopath333]

@KnightofMotley Well I'm a tad confused.. I was being overly sarcastic and mocking evolution. Or is that what you meant...

[KnightofMotley]

@Sickopath333 She was only hypothesizing, and I thought that you were stressing that aspect. She's not going to get fossil evidence, because it's soft tissue, and I was sort of demanding what she couldn't deliver. I see the sarcasm now. I disagree completely w/ evolution, but I don't mock it; people get irrational about it.

[EvanTeH]

Seriously, arguing against evolution is a lot like arguing against levers.

There's NO PROOF that when you push down on one end the other end comes up!! SCIENCE CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHY SOME LEVERS HAVE ONLY ONE END!! ONE END COMES UP BECAUSE GOD WILLS IT SO

[EvanTeH]

Which is to say, you're arguing against evolution while simultaneously showing that you do not understand it at all, and likely have no intention of understanding it because you only want to show science as fallible so you can... what?

What exactly do you believe in if you'd choose instead to ignore evidence and try to instead argue a theory that's been disproven over and over?

[cryingsoftly]

I love the use of snazzy.

[toobsucker]

Evolutionists response to I.C. is so lame.

They give nothing but unsubstantiated hypothesis's to prove their point.

"Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible stories need not be true."

(Stephen Jay Gould) Paleobiology, vol 3(1), 977, pp 34-35)

You need to show example in nature the individual parts of a I.C. system being utilized before all parts are developed.

[Leehofooks]

"The spatial acuity (or optical resolving power) of these eyes ranges from spectacularly high in the camera-style eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods, through moderate in the compound eyes of arthropods, to very low in the eyes (or eye-spots) of certain primitive invertebrate species."

The Evolution of Phototransduction and Eyes

Trevor D. Lamb, Detlev Arendt, Shaun P. Collin

[toobsucker]

@Leehofooks

OK in order to prove the eye evolved. you must show ALL the individual parts of all 40 eye designs being utilized by other USEFUL systems until ALL the parts for the eye are available. then show how and WHY those individual parts for the eye, will now suddenly stop utilizing their current system to be apart of the new eye design system.

Good luck

[Leehofooks]

Typical creationist BS. You seem to think that the evolutionary model for the eye is that one generation produced the retina, another produced the iris, and so on. The evolution of the eye has been pretty thoroughly studied. Do some research outside of whatever creationist propaganda website you've been visiting.

[toobsucker]

@Leehofooks

OK, then if they don't produce the individual pieces ONE AT A TIME, (as ALL prominent evolutionists believe) then all the parts were produce all at one time.

All by random errors. not bloody likely

[Leehofooks]

Or they evolved gradually, starting with light-receptive cells.

Like I said, do some research.

[toobsucker]

@Leehofooks

Thats fine. but if they evolved gradually, they must have a useful function NOT RELATED to the eye because the eye is irreducibly complex. take away one component and the eye will not function properly

So the individual parts must be utilized by the body in another system in order for natural selection to preserve them. but they can not be utilized by the eyes system because all the parts are not there yet.

ToE never address this glaring problem

[Leehofooks]

Still haven't done that research, huh?

Darwin himself addressed this long ago in his book, "The Origin of Species," and (like I said) the evolution of the eye has been studied extensively.

Do some real research, and get back to me.

[KnightofMotley]

@Leehofooks All he was asking for was specifics. If you're unwilling to give him specifics, it's not helping your argument. Saying, "do some research" is not addressing his question, it's relying on the authority of the scientific establishment. That's loyalty, not science. The anti-theist sarcasm doesn't help anyone's understanding of the evolutionary reasoning, either. You're coming off emotional, not reasonable. :)

[Leehofooks]

@KnightofMotley So I'm supposed to prove the evolution of the eye in 500 characters or less to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of science. What's wrong with "relying on the authority of the scientific establishment?" Where would we be if we didn't do that to an extent? (Did you design your computer from scratch? No? Watch out! It could explode any second!) Also, please point out my "anti-theist sarcasm."

[KnightofMotley]

@Leehofooks "invisible hands of God/atheist conspiracy" aren't sarcastic? If not, my bad. The establishment says anyone who denies Darwinism is no longer a part of the scientific community; It's a "No Girls Allowed" attitude, hardly scientific. Just because I didn't design the computer from scratch doesn't mean it's about to explode! We're more complex than a computer, & computers don't evolve. It's reasonable to postulate that we didn't either.

[Leehofooks]

@KnightofMotley Sarcastic? Yes. Anti-theist? No. I was making a point - that you can't necessarily "prove" anything to someone who has a religiously-based bias. As for the "atheist conspiracy" - well, creationist talk as if it exists (and talking about "the establishment" doesn't help your case).

You seem to be missing my point about the computer... You trust "the establishment" when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. Am I right?

[KnightofMotley]

@Leehofooks It is the motivations of the establishment that I don't trust. I'll buy the computer! I may not trust them w/ my credit card number.

[Leehofooks]

@KnightofMotley And no - it's not reasonable to postulate that we don't evolve, since there are mountains of evidence saying that we do.

[KnightofMotley]

@Leehofooks And just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he lacks a basic understanding of science. Maybe he's questioning some presuppositions; that's part of the process.

[Leehofooks]

@KnightofMotley He's questioning some "presuppositions?" Fine. Great, in fact! But he should do so using the scientific method - not by pointing out perceived holes in a theory and filling them in with his religious beliefs.

[KnightofMotley]

@Leehofooks That assumes that presuppositions are testable by scientific means. Some will be & some won't. Carl Sagan was notorious for inserting religious & philosophical beliefs into his theories. If he can, why can't toobsucker?

[Leehofooks]

@KnightofMotley Name some of these theories.

[toobsucker]

@Leehofooks

Darwinian evolution is naturalism (life without a designer) life started from abiogenesis and everyone has a single common ancestor

Don't fool yourself

[Leehofooks]

Well the theory of gravitation doesn't mention the invisible hands of God keeping us from floating off into space. Is that part of some atheist conspiracy, too?

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker Done.

100% of the protein structures in the eye are homologous to other earlier proteins which have individual functions.

However, proof hardly means anything because you're assuming your conclusion is true and then trying to prove it, which is the antithesis of science.

Why is your idea of God so weak that it can't handle the idea that evolution would be a mechanism of creation? Why does your universe insist upon the irrational?

[toobsucker]

@EvanTeH

"100% of the protein structures in the eye are homologous to other earlier proteins which have individual functions."

Post your sources. I would like to see ALL the individual pieces of the eye being utilized by other systems other than the eye

Thats the first problem. second is showing how and why these pieces would stop utilizing their "current system" in favor of the eyes system.

And you need to show this will ALL 40 eye structures that exist.

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker Look, my friend. I'm not sure how much patience I'm going to have for deliberate ignorance. My sources are a high level cellular ("The Cell", Cooper and Hausman) biology textbook where every last sentence is backed up by a cited source from peer reviewed journal and absolutely none of it would be possible without evolution behind it all. None of biology is possible without evolution. You can watch evolution taking place day to day at the microbiological level. This is fact.

[toobsucker]

@EvanTeH

Most of what you witness in biology is the natural selection of information that already exists. don't get fooled by it.

Adaptation in a species is evident. however the extent of this change is whats in question. and the gaps between every species and every fossil record conclude the changes do NOT produce new body plans. the over 1 million years of generational mutations with the fruit flies prove the "changes" stay WITHIN the species and DO NOT produce new body plans

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker pieces do not "stop utilizing their 'current system' in favor of" more complex systems. Look at the multitude different types of eyes in different species--some are little more than a pigmented spot for detecting light--the old forms still exist if they are suited for the survival of a species. Evolution is not some monolith moving always towards greater complexity--it moves only towards survival--sometimes things get LESS complicated and favor earlier forms.

[toobsucker]

@EvanTeH

1) You have not shown the mechanism behind creating the code for folding the proteins for the eyes structure

2) You have not posted your sources that show where ALL the pieces of the eye are utilized in other areas of the body

3) you have not explained the theory on HOW all the parts (once assembled in other areas ) can be arranged to function properly as an eye

[toobsucker]

@ EvanTeH

""you're assuming your conclusion is true and then trying to prove it, which is the antithesis of science"

IN fact this is EXACTLY what Darwinian evolution does

ToE starts its theory with the metaphysical assumption that God does not exist therefore the digital coded information in DNA MUST have written its self, and molecular machines must have randomly self assembled along with the code to build them. ToE ASSUMES abiogenesis with no evidence to show for it. Thats not science

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker No, no, no, no. You don't understand evolution at all and yet you're lecturing on it. The theory of evolution is constantly being revised. A good theory does two things:

1) explains all past data

2) model future behavior

Evolution is constantly revised as we make new discoveries, and in its current form it does both. Saying "it was God what did it" not only fails utterly on 2), and looks silly when we find reliable scientific explanations for physical phenomena.

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker You're all over the place and wrong constantly. For one thing, Evolution has nothing to do with God. There is nothing in ANY scientific textbook that says GOD DOESN'T EXIST. It is an irrelevant question.

Abiogenesis is not only reasonable but can be backed up by laboratory experiments. You recreate the general conditions of the early earth and wow what a surprise basic amino acids start to assemble. Let that stew for a few millions of years and wow a self-replicating molecule!

[toobsucker]

@EvanTeH

"Why is your idea of God so weak that it can't handle the idea that evolution would be a mechanism of creation?"

There is no proof of ToE. you start with its foundation (abiogeneis) which is laughable to say the least, the Cambrian explosion shows exactly the opposite of what ToE predicts i.e. few organism evolving into the many, the fossil record is nothing BUT sudden appearance and

stasis

"Why does your universe insist upon the irrational?"

Why is I.D. irrational?

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker Get it out of your head that science has anything to do with God.

Ignore any preconceptions you have, look only at the data presented to us, and there is NO reasonable conclusion but evolution.

The only people who have any trouble with evolution are people who started with the fallacious and INCREDIBLY prideful idea that they alone understand both the will and the mechanisms of their Creator and would rather live in their own ideas than the universe the divine has provided for us.

[toobsucker]

@EvanTeH

I can show you how phenomenally easy is to dismantle ToE

In order for the theory to have any degree of validity. it must be testable and predictable, or you must have other examples to show the theory is valid

Lets start from the beginning. answer my questions

Darwinian evolution predicts the digital code in DNA can write its self from a random process.

Question 1) PROVE the theory valid by showing how digital codes can be written by a non-intelligent source

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker That is a logical fallacy--you assume your premises are true. You don't understand cellular biology at all, and yet you keep making "MODERN SCIENCE ASSERTS THIS!" statements.

You have absolutely no basis for criticizing evolution when you are about 40 years behind research into the workings of the cell.

Seriously, go read ANY microbiological textbook--I gave you one to start with--go to a library, learn how things work, and then come back with your bizarre criticisms.

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker What?

"Lets start from the beginning."

Great. Or let's start from the middle and ignore the beginning like all your bizarre assertions so far.

"Darwinian evolution predicts the digital code in DNA can write its self from a random process."

lol, there's so many things stupid about this sentence.

1) "Darwinian Evolution" great except why would we want to talk about 100 year old theories instead of modern evolutionary theory?

[toobsucker]

@EvanTeH

"lol, there's so many things stupid about this sentence."

There is nothing stupid about it. in order to have a valid theory you must show the mechanism behind the theory.

Naturalistic ToE can NOT start its theory with highly complex organisms with their DNA code already written. then observe the selection of info already written to

prove ToE

NO EXAMPLES of digital information being written from a random process can be given . the very foundation of ToE is not provable

[EvanTeH]

@toobsucker

" Darwinian evolution predicts the digital code in DNA can write its self from a random process."

Again this is only PROOF that evolution doesn't exist if you are already sure that we were designed.

Oh god why am I arguing with you

You don't care about argument you were raised to be certain that faith is more important than science so the opinion of every scientist in the world isn't enough to convince you

Look, there is no argument in the scientific community about evolution.

[toobsucker]

@EvanTeH

"Look, there is no argument in the scientific community about evolution"

Yes of course. but its how you define evolution. all the changes within a species STAY within that species. why do you think there are well defined gaps between every species? because of the restrictions within the cell. Muller's ratchet shows this

There is NO evidence that the process of random copying errors and deletions can produce new body plans or 40 different eye structures. stay with the evidence

[KnightofMotley]

@EvanTeH The God isn't weak; your reasoning might have a bit of a weak spot. Your last statement implies that anything not explainable by scientific means is not rational, which is going out on a dangerously weak philosophical limb. There are many things in this universe that defy scientific explanation; that does not mean that they are irrational.

[KnightofMotley]

@EvanTeH Your last statement implies that anything not explainable by scientific means is irrational; can you back that statement up by scientific means? No offense to you, but I think you're going out on a philosophical limb. This world has a great many phenomena that defy scientific explanation; that doesn't mean they aren't real.

[cryingsoftly]

@toobsucker Except in the video you are commenting on the speaker is showing examples in nature of individual parts of a supposedly I.C. system before the system was completely together.

[jaronmusic]

This didn't debunk shit!!! I was hoping to be convinced. Come up with a stronger argument!

[41312111]

good video it doesnt debunk creationism though thats a faulse title just thought id let you know. creationism doesnt require evolution to be faulse to exist. infact it relies on it.

[gregrutz]

Great videos, keep up the good work.

[DNALearningCenter]

Will do :)