Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@Heinoisurehero We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
7. Non random selection is meaningless, You might as well say non random death, Natural Selection is not a force, All it means is those organisms that were unsuited to their enviroment died, those that survived were said to have been selected, but nothing was actually being selected, the unfit were eliminated. The coloquiolism for natural selection/survival of the fittest is Survivors Survive, How vaccuous, what needs explaining is not survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest.
6. Intelligent design is part of the scientific process Scientists are trying to create a living organism from scratch and if they one day they succeed then it will be a testament to what you can do when you use intelligent design , CDK's belief is not part of the scientific process at all, Scientists are not waiting around hoping that one day a living organism will arise on its own in a natural enviroment, thus there is no reason to believe in CDK's pseudoscientific faith.
5. So if the law of biogenesis cannot be violated then the first cell must have been created, there are only two options, that life was designed or it came into being on its own in a natural enviroment, however the law of biogenesis has never been violated and thus there is 0 evidence that a living organism can come into being from non living matter without design thus it is more reasonable to believe that life came into being by design.
@FSApetheist "5. So if the law of biogenesis cannot be violated then the first cell must have been created, there are only two options"
Occam's Razor proves creation. All logic brings evolution down to only two choices: 1. All things were created by God. 2. All things were created by nothing. Since all the laws of science prove #2 to be pure insanity that only leaves you with #1. God created all things. Nothing is unable to create even the smallest particle of anything.
@MaximusArurealius That's what they're testing in Sweden right now, and theoretically, it is possible to create matter out of nothing. The "God" particle was it?
So biological evolution is an argument for the diversity of life not how life came to be in the first place, without existing life then you couldn't even make an argument for the unproven darwinian evolution tale. If you want to argue against design then you have to argue how life came into being in the first place which is chemical evolution but the evidence in all of recorded history is that life only comes from previous life which is biogenesis.
3. The argument for Darwinism is not for the origin of life but for the diversity of life, Even if the Darwinian just so stories had a scientific basis, life would not be the result of Darwinian evolution but Darwinian evolution would be the result of life already existing, If you want to argue against ID then you have to show how a living organism came into being on its own in a natural enviroment without design, There is 0 evidence for this atheist faith.
@FSApetheist actually there is. They recreated the primal condition on Earth, and in 1 week they found organic molecules. So yes, you argument is invalid. Actually it proves that life CAN be formed in the environment on its own
1. Fallacy of false dichotmoy, The designer could have used an evolutionary process, The two are not mutually exclusive, The only problem is that there is not any observed evidence that the genetic principle of like begets like can be violated so it is best to be skeptical of the evo tale.
2. If we found a watch that reproduced that would be more reason to believe how brilliant the creator was that could created that watch with that reproductive capability.
Natural selection doesn’t' select. It eliminates, but does not upgrade anything. Nor does it create new organs or species. It cannot go beyond the genetic limitations. Study genetics.
Southpark figures don't appear in truely random noise. Since this picture was perfectly centered, it is obvious that you predetermined the outcome. I shall name you an intelligent designer!
5. Random Variation + Natural Selection are incapable of generating sufficient amount of novelty. NS is simply culling while chance and/or law-like necessity cannot do it because of not having enough probabilistic resources. Large enough quantities of information cannot emerge spontaneously but must be intelligently imparted to the system.
@TennisAnnalyst you would have to prove that... because we already have examples in nature that suggest otherwise. natural selection selects from pre existing information.. what ever information is not carried over is lost... a prime example of this would be a chihuahua.. A chihuahua is the result of a dog that was breed over and over again until all of its dominating traits were lost... and the evidence shows us that two chihuahuas cannot revert back to what it was again.
@TennisAnnalyst natural selection "selects" it dosen't add, selecting from preexisting dna and then keeping only beneficial traits is a loss, not a gain... the guiding force is "mutations" yet 99.9 percent of all mutations are lethal to the organism... and even all of the so called beneficial mutations are still a loss( for example.. if u cut off my hands, then i cant get arrested). and for natural selection to even work! the beneficial traits CANNOT be polluted back into the old gene pool.
@Gods0n1 it's the other way around. almost no mutations are lethal. or did you count them? (I assume not, or you wouldn't be arguing this)
don't forget that humans produce enough sperm to select the good ones. but this reason is unnecessary.
life forms have enough measures to adapt to their mutations. you're probably assuming a "perfect" intelligently designed genome. It's not, because it also has redundancy. enough to make almost all mutations have no effect.
@TennisAnnalyst yea but what is the guiding force behind it? because it would seem there is a destination and an agenda to have beneficial traits passed on... why not the contrary when unbeneficial genes are more abundant? it would see there is an agenda from this if only blind random processes were the force guiding it.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
@mmartini50 Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
@1tabligh Oh, my darling, my darling, my darling. You speak absolute bollocks, you silly person, and you think using big words like 'impropriety' and 'abiogenesis' makes you clever: well it doesn't, and all your silly asterisks and affirmations will never change the fact that you don't understand evolutionary theory. Not a jot, not a tittle. Ta ta, darling!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
@mmartini50 "3. Say exactly what you mean, to others and to yourself. Be ready to reconsider even your most cherished opinions in the face of new evidence."
This whole topic is all one enormous semantic punch-up. It all hinges on meaning ( of course! ) At the point of 'The Big Bang' natural selection didn't 'exist', although the POSSIBILITY of it did ( of course... again ). DITTO Intelligent Design! Believe me! In the future, barring a collapse of civilization, people like Craig Venter will no doubt be 'Intelligently Designing' genomes 'a la go go'. So there!
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living! Read the popular Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! Just google the title.
@Mogley52 What does the development of a single cell have to do with evolution? Like, at all? You aren't talking about evolution, you are talking about developmental genetics. Yes, you are right, a cell that fails to complete would be destroyed. Duh. What is a 'partially-evolved' cell? That doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing as 'partially evolved' as evolution is a continuous, never-ending process. Do you mean a proto-cell, or a any of the predecessors to modern eukaryote cells?
On a pedantic note, you've shown that natural selection is valid, not that ID is wrong. One can always invoke invisible, unverifiable faeries as an explanation without being proven wrong.
Why o why is no-one of these smartasses smart enough to first understand what ID-ers actually say instead of reading what The Darwinchurch SAY about ID.
No ID-ers ever said that something is to complex to appear by chance.
What are you assuming with step 2?
Children can get 7/9 DNA from their mother and 2/9 from their father?
Why is it that you assume an offspring of 12.000 children?
@Gammaburster1 "No ID-ers ever said that something is to complex to appear by chance." Yes, they do. Behe asserts the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have appeared by Darwinian means, let alone by chance. In fact, even evolutionists say that things are too complex to appear by chance, which is obvious since evolution isn't pure 'chance'. But back to Behe, he argues explicitly that certain things cannot arise by chance. He says as much in his book. Time for you to do your homework.
@Gammaburster1 Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You said that no ID-er ever said that something is too complex to appear by chance. That is pattently false. That is precisely an ID argument the likes that Behe and Dembski make, regularly and repeatedly. Your reply has nothing to do with my correction of that statement, which remains false. I am fully aware of the type of arguments Behe and others put forward. Also, evolutionary biologists agree that chance alone is insuficient.
@ianman6 , You still can't read. It's clear that you haven't read any of Behe's books but only what Darwinists say about him. But keep on repeating a 15 year old quote as a argument against ID. If that is still the only thing that Darwinists can come up with, it's even more lear that ID-ers haver very strong arguments.
Wining about te mousetrap is just as stupid as for me to wine about Ernst Haeckel as an argument against Darwinism. You are really talking old school...very old school...
@Gammaburster1 Behe's willful ignorance of every fact given to him is proof enough that his books are complete bunk. So get your pseudo-intellectual head out of your arse.
@Gammaburster1 "The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
@Gammaburster1 "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918,
This paper, ancient though it may be, utterly destroys Behe's arguement. It states that Irreducable Complexity (Miller uses the term Interlocking Complexity) is a product of evolution.
Creationist, why did God designed humans with genetic problems? Why did the almighty design schizophrenia? As a creationist with a child along the way, would you abort your child if a doctor told you said child was going to be born to struggle in life? Or would you have your God designed child hoping that said child will one day will be cure by God? Have God take back the less than desirable design under warranty and fix it, parts and labor free of charge? Just a few questions.
@ClarksonsinUSA No, evolution does not state that the universe is random. It only states why we see diversity in species. It doesn't talk about anything else. So your questions are meaningless since they don't talk about evolution, but rather subjects from different sciences. This is a common mistake made by people who don't understand evolution and just go with what evolution opponents say.
2.Being located the perfect distance to have liquid water.
3.Having a moon to slow the spin of the Earth,without this the earth would rotate much faster generating winds of of hundreds of miles per hour.That would be bad for Human life.
Wow. That looks like many patterns,its suppose to be random......Maybe we are lucky a few million times... ;)
cdk007 fails miserably to understand every species & every cell has fixed parameters that DO NOT MOVE (evolve). And if they did evolve problems would arise. Conserved elements & ultra conserved elements are death nails in evolution and the genome is filled with these conserved (non evolvable) elements. Every protein has extremely precise parameters by which it must fold & function
If science attempted to change (evolve) the parameters for ANY of the molecular machines folds function would cease
@toobsucker a species is used as a description to make classification of living organisms easier. sickle cell anemia is a condition in which hemoglobin has a slightly different sequence. although less efficient, hemoglobin s is unaffected by malaria. switching of 1 or a few amino acids in a sequence may increase or decrease efficiency of the protein. in some cases, a protein may have a completely new use.
@thrillzonevideos "switching of 1 or a few amino acids in a sequence may increase or decrease efficiency of the protein. in some cases, a protein may have a completely new use"
Give me the references that state protein misfolding creates new protein folds with new beneficial functions.
And If my information is correct, and I believe it is. DNA sequences do not determine the tertiary structure of the protein. If they did, there would be no protein folding problems to understand
The fitness to cost ratio is huge. One minor benefit is achieved only because parasite hitched its self to the deformed blood cell that is targeted for destruction only because of its deformity.
This would be like a PC virus attaching its self to a program on a PC in which all the programs are unstable and have a tendency to turn faulty. Then the error corrections recognizes the faulty program and uninstalls it and the virus along with it. This is not the evolution needed
This explains the evolution of an origin that would already exist. Neither science or religion will ever completely explain existence. Science comes a whole lot closer though
and the animals evolved on their own, without intelligence from the designer. this video is showing how evolution works, and the thing that creationists are wrong about IS evolution. if you want to talk about the ORIGIN of life, watch "the origin of life-abiogenesis-dr jack szostak" ,another video by cdk007. hope i helped you understand more :)
@ITSROBHERE not quite, although i can see why you think that. all cdk has done is simulate natural conditions, but first set up an environment and animal. in this simulation, he is some designer who made life, but this video doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis; it's about evolution. after "creating" the life, cdk just left it to evolve by allowing the organisms to reproduce, suffer environmental attrition, and thus take part in natural selection. no further intervention is required,...
but in your video the goal is set by you, an intelligent entity, therefore the whole experiment is a complete conundrum, it comes from intelligent design :/
i have also never seen a pocket watch or mount Rushmore increase in size or "grow" on there own. so for me, that makes these "objects" not worth trying to compare with living things.
The Intelligent Designer was smart enough to include sufficient genetic diversity in the initial manifestation and use mutation, genetic transplantation, ..., as well as natural selection to establish a self perpetuating system we call life. There is no contradiction between the properly defined words intelligent design and evolution.
Ditto to that. You intelligently program your picture changing software to head for a specific goal and you select for this at every step of the way. The whole point of pointing out irreducibly complex systems like vision, coagulation, or the flagellum is to show that for most steps of the process there is no selection. All that you have is mutation alone (usually being selected against) trying to make numerous successive changes. unrealistic.
religion is like a penis, it's nice to have one, it's ok to be proud of it, just don't go waving it out in public. and especially don't shove it down the throats of children.
@TheZooCrew SNOWFLAKES make pretty patterns. You might be fascinated by it's pretty patterns but it doesn't contain Information. That's the difference between a CODE and PATTERN. From maths/statistics, Information has never been extracted from randomness. We can only extract information from intelligence. So where does the information from DNA come from? From everything we know, it comes from another Intelligence and hence Intelligent design.
@DYTisOver The source of your knowledge and all things true is Wikipedia? LOL...sorry, had to laugh...really.
Breaking it down a bit more for you. DNA has information. In maths/statistics, you can extract information. It is a fact that you can never extract information from random occurances. So DNA must have come from an intelligence.
@jamestrekky Wikipedia is actually very reliable when it comes to factual reporting without bias, there is nothing to laugh about.
More importantly, what is the basis for your claims that information cannot be extract from random occurrences? Light is a form of information, and it is pretty random.
Seriously, if you actually did some research about DNA, you would find that there is nothing truly spectacular about it. It could have easily developed from RNA through evolution.
Wikipedia cites everything, so it's not actually a source. It's a middleman.
Evolution isn't random in the least. Neither is crystal formation (which does contain information, such as physical properties, smart guy). Of course, it makes sense that a proponent of intelligent design doesn't fully understand evolution.
@TheZooCrew Wiki doesn't cite everything, that's why there's a lot of [citation need]. And where/who do they cite from? And the author cannot interpret data?
What physical properties are you talking about?
Repeat..SNOWFLAKES make pretty patterns. You might be fascinated by it's pretty patterns but it doesn't contain Information. That's the difference between a CODE and PATTERN.
The molecular pattern of a crystal determines its yield strength, failure mode, conditions during formation, etc. This is information.
Wiki cites when it doesn't have a citation, but almost everything about DNA and evolution has citations. You just don't want to see them.
I don't know what you mean by "interpret" data. "Interpreting" data in the science world without stacks of evidence just leads to people looking stupid.
@TheZooCrew We are talking about Codes in DNA, not patterns in crystals. DNA is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. This is supported by maths and statistics.
I guess I'm not surprised. Your response is "That example doesn't count because we're not talking about that." It's not much different from your original argument of "I don't understand evolution or biochemistry or logical fallacies, therefore intelligent design is right."
@jamestrekky Well, let's take this apart. DNA isn't a language. You wouldn't attempt to send the message 'Happy Birthday' in DNA. Languages are convention, and DNA isn't convention, it's chemically deteministic. Many things store information, like the rock layers that define geology. We take the light from distant stars, and we find information about the temperature and composition of the star. The reason it's information is because there is no mind involved, thus no deceit.
@gamesbok Let's take this apart: DNA is a Code, Rocks layers are not codes. Since all codes we know of are from intelligent design, then it is much more reasonable to say DNA is from intelligent design.
@jamestrekky Not all codes were obtained from intelligent design, only the ones we know that were created by humans. That is not a logic step, since if you start thinking that DNA is not intelligently designed, then there is automatically a code that is not intelligently designed. And since your argument that all codes are intelligently designed is not based on irrefutable proof, then nothing contradicts the idea that DNA might not be intelligently designed.
@raviept Your comment is not logical. If everything we know says Codes are from design, you want to say Codes are not? Of course there is no proof. You have no proof, I have no proof. We only have observation. And everything we know about Codes say it is from a designer. But you want to go against everything we know and say that Codes can just "happen". What do you base that on? My comment is based on our observations on Codes.
@jamestrekky Yes, and i'm saying that since there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the claim that all codes are designed, then you cannot say that if DNA is a code, then it must have been designed.
you say "everything we know says Codes are from design". First of all, how do you define codes. Second of all, how do you know they are all from design?
@raviept Going by your theory, you can't say anything is true. Every time we add 1+1=2 but hang on, there's no real proof that 1+1=2, it's just that every time we do it we see 1+1=2. Is there a Sun? Every time we observe it is there, but maybe it only appears when we observe? no proof the sun exists. This is an example of your argument "The sun doesn't exist! You have no proof! So what if you measure and observe it." OK, I will argue the sun doesn't exist then. Same principal as you.
@jamestrekky What? You have one rock plus another rock. How many rocks do you have? And about the sun, we see it everyday and we know that life would not exist without it. This is totally different from saying since every bear i ever saw was brown, then all bears should be brown. And if someone says that it saw a black bear, it must be mistaken.
@raviept Where's your proof? You can't prove 1 rock plus 1 rock is 2 rocks. What if one day you saw 3 rocks? You have no proof that life needs the sun,only observations. Every normal bear we have seen has 2 eyes and a nose. There's a bear in a box. I bet it has two eyes and a nose, then you say NO you can't say that. You go with the least probable explanation, I go with most probable statistically. Statistically 100% Codes are designed by intelligence. So what about the DNA code?
@jamestrekky 1+1=2 is a Mathematical axiom.It is true by definition, although it is also confirmed by observation. Regarding the sun, i think you don't know the difference between "exists" and "for all". One thing is to say that the sun exists, and to prove that, you only need one observation. Another is to say that all stars have some property, and for asserting that, either you observe all the stars, which is impossible, or you demonstrate how that is/must be true.
@jamestrekky Finally, to say that all codes must be designed, you must first find a relation between all codes that implies that property regarding their creation. Only then, you may use statistics to verify if it is statistically likely that all codes were designed. The problem is that there is no such statistical analysis, and furthermore that analysis is useless. Why? Because the notion of code is abstract, not a physical one.
@jamestrekky But even if DNA is intelligently designed, that does not contradict Evolution, since this Theory does not account for the creation of DNA. Instead, Evolution just explain how changes in DNA, that occur from generation to generation, combined with Natural Selection can give origin to new species, after a sufficient amount of time.
@jamestrekky snow flakes actually contain information. much like everything else in the universe. if you actually study snowflakes, how they are formed, its composition and how it behaves similar to other fractal geometric shapes. So instead of just focusing on DNA as the super proof of someone intelligent at work, just say that anything is proof that intelligence which includes apparent randomness. Or maybe its just that everything can be studied by applying our own intelligence:)
@Iopipimps errr...you're telling me fractals are a code? Fractals are a pattern, you might be excited about the properties of fractals but it is still a pattern. DNA is a code, fractals are NOT. Fractals have only geometric properties which we can analyse. With DNA we are not talking about it's geometric properties but the Code that it contains within, DNA stores information, it is the instructions to build organisms. Snow flakes vs DNA? Not likely.
@jamestrekky its not just the fractals. the laws of physics that permit it to happen. The bonds between the atoms to create the right molecules. you really want to say that these things are less deserving "creations"
What im saying why stop with DNA when the whole universe can be said to need a creator since it works in such a way. Or are you conceding that everything else which exhibit complexity can be random?
@Iopipimps "bonds" "atoms" "molecules"?? You are still ONLY talking about physical properties. DNA has more than just physical properties, it is NOT random, it stores information that is NOT random, it contains a language which is a manual for creation. The fractals case is false.
@jamestrekky wow so your really aren't mystified by what set these physical laws in the first place? why fractals persist in your blood vessels (hey how'd it get there). but wait, DNA still works on physical properties. That's why we study it with molecular biology, bio chemistry etc. in the end its all chemistry is still a part of natural science. And natural science is bound to the physical laws. Word play like, only x can come from x is kinda weak alternative to the actual scientific method.
@Iopipimps Why does everything always need a creator? Heres an idea, try and think of our world in any other way than the way it is. If you changed one thing about the physics of the universe, than everything else would be effected. Just because we haven't found an answer to something doesn't mean it's automatically the work of a "divine creator". Just deal with the fact that there are somethings in this universe that we may never be able to explain. Don't get hooked into religion because of it.
@godlynessdog i was just entertaining his idea of complex systems need to come from a mind. He keeps asserting that only a mind can create a code but i can easily assert the same thing for the origins of the physical laws that governs the universe. If you read my comments carefully you'll see that im actually putting DNA in the same position of other laws in the universe can have a natural cause and explanation. And that information we get from DNA is due to our application of our intelligence
@jamestrekky plus you can't claim DNA isn't random when mutations do happen. or are mutations not random to you. it just takes many generations for those changes to show in the species. How those mutations survive to the next generation however isn't random. Darwin already established how that works..
@Iopipimps "scientific method" repeatable and verifiable. Show me an example where random mutations in the DNA actually survive and improves the organism?? DNA stores information in a code, you choose to ignore this completely.
@jamestrekky Because feathers are made of the same thing as scales. Look at a birds leg, it goes from scales to feathers. Birds are still dinosaurs. They have the genes to grow teeth.
@jamestrekky No evidence?!? Science has the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, comparative biochemistry, observe speciation, transitional fossils and on and on and on...
DNA code proves evolution. It's nested hierarchy matches Darwin's tree of life.
@gregrutz None of which is evidence for evolution. Please explain any of those. Start with DNA. How does DNA code prove evolution?? Evolution is all based on speculation.
@jamestrekky DNA markers exist. If an animal that lived in the past passes the marker on to it's ancestors there will be a pattern. If the first ape has a marker then all apes will have the marker. And they do, humans, chimps and gorillas have the same markers. You never, NEVER find the marker in the wrong order, like in a bird. Like finding a nipple on a bird, or a feather on a cow. [trying to make it simple]
@gregrutz But just because apes, chimps and gorillas might share some same DNA, does not mean they evolved from some first ape. DNA marker can mean many DNA sequence. Even if we have the same markers, that is not evidence for evolution. We share some same markers as pigs, does this mean we evolved from pigs?
'« just because apes, chimps and gorillas might share some same DNA, does not mean they evolved from some first ape »
It's not just that they "share some DNA": the DNA sequences in man and the other apes follow a very specific pattern of similarities and differences; they follow a nested hierarchy, something we would expect from common descent, but has no good explanation otherwise.
@XGralgrathor You keep repeating the same thing. One more time "DNA sequences in man and the other apes follow a very specific pattern of similarities and differences" DOES NOT mean or prove evolution. Just because two things look the same doesn't prove anything. Believing in evolution is like believing in playing poker and getting 4 aces in hand billions and billions of times over and saying it's ok, it just happens. It is not logical.
2. But it DOES strongly suggest and confirm the hypothesis of common ancestry. Do I need to explain AGAIN about the difference between proof and evidence in a scientific context?
@XGralgrathor Say it takes millions of years for the reproductive system to evolve. How did animals reproduce while it was still evolving? How did mammals breathe while the lungs were evolving?
« Say it takes millions of years for the reproductive system to evolve »
But it didn't, like I've been telling you: reproduction existed even before cellular replicators did, before life as we know it emerged. If you just stop trying to confuse matters for a minute, perhaps you can learn something about what science ACTUALLY claims.
@XGralgrathor "reproduction existed even before cellular replicators did, before life as we know it emerged." So reproduction another form of reproduction was evolving? How do you know this? Where did you get this from?
Why did this happen? When did this happen? The questions go on forever with no answers.
« So reproduction another form of reproduction was evolving? »
Not really. The first forms of sexual reproduction, the exchange of genetic materials, was simply an artefact of the way the first cellular replicators were built: their cellular envelopes were more permeable than those of modern cells, and molecules that were small enough freely entered and exited those cells. Later, this developed into more elaborate schemes of genetic exchange.
@XGralgrathor So when did this stop and eggs start forming? how does a progressive evolution go from 1% egg to 100% and know how to progress to a functional product over millions of years? what happens to the reproductive systems (that we see today) when it was 2% evolved? 10% evolved? 20% evolved? even 90% evolved? fetuses aborted? what happens when fish have gills 50% evolved? or mammals with lungs 50% evolved?
One intermediate stage that could have led to the development of sexual reproduction through eggs and sperm is the sexual reproduction cycle of yeast. Look into it. Such a development could have occurred anywhere between 2 and 0.7 billion years ago.
@XGralgrathor That comment if guess work. There is no evidence or science to back that statement. What we do know from Maths is that it is absurdly improbable to reach the complexity we see today from the such simple origins in the matter of billions of years.
« What we do know from Maths is that it is absurdly improbable to reach the complexity we see today »
We know no such thing "from maths". What we do know is that a number of ID-nuts have tried to tweak premises and mathematical models just so that the results would seem to support their claims. But I ask you: what use is a mathematical model showing that proteins do not randomly assemble when NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT THEY DO?
It is something less than a scientific theory, but something more than mere speculation: it is a scientific hypothesis. That means that if it is accurate, we should expect to see certain specific features in modern life, and possibly in the fossil record. A very basic example of this is modern instances of each intermediary mode of sexual reproduction.
One intermediate stage that could have led to the development of sexual reproduction through eggs and sperm is the sexual reproduction cycle of yeast. Look into it. Such a development could have occurred anywhere between 2 and 0.7 billion years ago.
You are again thinking teleologically. You are assuming that because a situation currently exists, it must have been intended to exist. But evolution is not teleological. It has no particular goal. The current situation exists, but it might just as well all have turned out differently.
@XGralgrathor If there is no goal then it is random. If it is random, you are betting on winning the Lotto trillions and trillions of times over in a row. Logic would say to the Lottery office, this does not happen and you must be cheating. The evolutionist says that this just happens in this universe.
@XGralgrathor You are admitting that it is still by chance. So you are saying that you are here because you won the Lotto trillions of times over. You are saying that you get 4 Aces in Poker every single game just because it happens. What is more logical? That is common sense? The more logical and sensible argument is no, we don't win Lotto trillions of times over. Else, I can claim anything. Humans came from peanut butter, hey, it's possible!
But not random chance. For instance, combine hydrogen with oxygen, and you'll get water. It'll be up to random chance which specific molecules will react at what time, but it is a certainty that water will be formed at a specific rate, depending on circumstances. Chance is involved, but the reaction is *not* random: it obeys physical laws.
« So you are saying that you are here because you won the Lotto trillions of times over »
No. I am here because it is in the nature of the game that ONLY the winners of each draw in the "lottery" were allowed to go on ("winners" being those who managed to reproduce). Evolution is a game in which the "losers" of each draw are discarded. So in the end, you *CAN* only have "winners" left. Why are you arguing against something you apparently have failed to understand even in the slightest bit?
« How did mammals breathe while the lungs were evolving? »
Likewise, lungs existed LONG before mammals did. Lungs first evolved in lungfish, lobe finned fish that later produced the clade of tetrapods, the clade of which mammals (and many other clades) are part of.
You really have to do some reading. It's impossible for you to have a serious discussion on something you know nothing about.
@XGralgrathor So all mammals evolved from lungfish? how do you know this? Because they have "lungs"? How did gills evolve over millions of years and fish don't drown? How do you know gills, lungs evolved? when did they start evolving? Are they still evolving? Have you tested, observed and found these things repeatable?
Yes, that's what the data, the fossil remnants, the comparative genomics studies, and all other lines of evidence, indicate.
« How did gills evolve over millions of years and fish don't drown? »
Think logically for a minute: gills evolved as a part of the organism. Not separately. Organisms without gills apparently don't need gills. If such an organism were to develop gills, it would have something more than it needs, not less.
@XGralgrathor You just keep making things up. There is no substantial evidence that all mammals come from lungfish. Everything you say is just guess work. And now you are saying that fish could breathe underwater without gills but grew gills later on simultaneously so they could still breathe while gills were evolving. Really? How do you know this? Where's your evidence? It's frustrating when you keep making things up. That's what evolution is, it's just making things up as you go along.
« There is no substantial evidence that all mammals come from lungfish »
Yes, there is. Not just the morphological nested hierarchies show this, but also the comparative genomics data, leading to phylogenies with a certitude of better than 95%.
@XGralgrathor We already established similar genes don't mean they evolved from one another! Stop repeating yourself. The first lungfish we can find existed 400 million years ago, not even Billions or Trillions of years ago. You're saying that in merely 400 million years, all mammals: humans, elephants, horses, giraffes evolved from lungfish?????? The evolutionists theories are getting really silly now. And guess what? When we look at lungfish today, they are almost exactly the same.
@XGralgrathor You have not corrected me because your statements are all false and it is evident that you are just making things up. You are saying comparing "differences" gives evidence of evolution? That cannot be more false. That is your problem, everything you say has no evidence, only speculation. Your whole argument has been that when one thing looks like another so they must have evolved from one another. And of course you have no PROOF, because you don't have any Evidence of evolution.
@XGralgrathor you can't be serious now. what you're saying is getting more and more ridiculous with all respect. Ofcourse primate and guinea pigs, ants and fish are different. we don't need to examine DNA to know that. of course there is deviation! That in no way confirms a common descent hypothesis.
@jamestrekky Divergence: Process in which two or more populations of an ancestral species accumulate genetic changes through time, often after the populations have become reproductively isolated. Subpopulations living in distinct environments can exhibit genetic divergence from the remainder of a population, esp. if the range of a population is very large. The genetic differences among divergent populations can involve silent mutations or give rise to significant differences in form. -Wikipedia
@jamestrekky you're right btw that looking at any individual piece of evidence will not confirm a hypothesis, however, science works on supporting a claim with evidence: we don't just look at DNA, we look at what we know about reproduction, environmental pressures, survival, we look at the fossil record etc.then deduce what we think is the most logical model of why there are so many species. So the question is, if you think common descent isn't true, what model can you propose? with evidence~
« Ofcourse primate and guinea pigs, ants and fish are different »
It seems you do not understand the significance of the observation - either that, or you're simply asserting "it was designed that way!" anyway, without providing either a testable model or evidence to support it. Do I need to explain the concept of falsifiability to you?
Ah, you did indeed miss the point. The point is that, given the assumption of design, there's no reason to expect the same gene to be present in both guinea pigs and humans - since we don't actually have the ability that gene codes for - both broken in subtly different ways - what would be the point in having a gene that doesn't do anything anyway be broken in different places in different species? You cannot explain that. Common descent can.
I did. Three times you asserted that similarities are not proof. Three times I corrected you by saying that 1) the natural sciences consider evidence, not proof, and 2) it's not just about similarities, but about a pattern of specific similarities AND differences forming matching nested hierarchies.
« You are saying comparing "differences" gives evidence of evolution? »
Yes. For instance, most mammals have the ability to synthesise vitamin C. In primates and guinea pigs this ability is absent. If common ancestry is true, then
1) there must, in primates and in guinea pigs, be a sequence resembling the gene complex for making vitamin C, and
« And now you are saying that fish could breathe underwater without gills »
No, I am not. I am saying that the ANCESTORS of fish would have been aquatic organisms with no need for gills. Single celled plankton, for instance, do not use gills; they extract whatever they need from the surrounding water through their cell membranes directly.
@XGralgrathor Fish would have could have evolved from plankton. These statements are not science. Why keep stating what is the least probable?
So at some point, plankton started growing into an organism that then started growing gills. What did it look like when it has 1% gill formation? 2% gill formation? 20% gill formation? 60% gill formation? Why would the the non-functional 1% gill formation mutation be passed down? or the 2% or the 3%? This is absurd.
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 1 week ago in playlist Evolution and Intelligent Design
@1tabligh there isnt really anything spectacular or unneccesary in nature... if there was a creator you would think he might have some creativity
Heinoisurehero 2 days ago
@Heinoisurehero We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
1tabligh 2 days ago
7. Non random selection is meaningless, You might as well say non random death, Natural Selection is not a force, All it means is those organisms that were unsuited to their enviroment died, those that survived were said to have been selected, but nothing was actually being selected, the unfit were eliminated. The coloquiolism for natural selection/survival of the fittest is Survivors Survive, How vaccuous, what needs explaining is not survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest.
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
6. Intelligent design is part of the scientific process Scientists are trying to create a living organism from scratch and if they one day they succeed then it will be a testament to what you can do when you use intelligent design , CDK's belief is not part of the scientific process at all, Scientists are not waiting around hoping that one day a living organism will arise on its own in a natural enviroment, thus there is no reason to believe in CDK's pseudoscientific faith.
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
5. So if the law of biogenesis cannot be violated then the first cell must have been created, there are only two options, that life was designed or it came into being on its own in a natural enviroment, however the law of biogenesis has never been violated and thus there is 0 evidence that a living organism can come into being from non living matter without design thus it is more reasonable to believe that life came into being by design.
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
@FSApetheist "5. So if the law of biogenesis cannot be violated then the first cell must have been created, there are only two options"
Occam's Razor proves creation. All logic brings evolution down to only two choices: 1. All things were created by God. 2. All things were created by nothing. Since all the laws of science prove #2 to be pure insanity that only leaves you with #1. God created all things. Nothing is unable to create even the smallest particle of anything.
MaximusArurealius 2 weeks ago
@MaximusArurealius That's what they're testing in Sweden right now, and theoretically, it is possible to create matter out of nothing. The "God" particle was it?
PeterKim1230 2 weeks ago
@PeterKim1230 Until their tests create matter, there's nothing to talk about.
MaximusArurealius 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So biological evolution is an argument for the diversity of life not how life came to be in the first place, without existing life then you couldn't even make an argument for the unproven darwinian evolution tale. If you want to argue against design then you have to argue how life came into being in the first place which is chemical evolution but the evidence in all of recorded history is that life only comes from previous life which is biogenesis.
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
3. The argument for Darwinism is not for the origin of life but for the diversity of life, Even if the Darwinian just so stories had a scientific basis, life would not be the result of Darwinian evolution but Darwinian evolution would be the result of life already existing, If you want to argue against ID then you have to show how a living organism came into being on its own in a natural enviroment without design, There is 0 evidence for this atheist faith.
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
@FSApetheist actually there is. They recreated the primal condition on Earth, and in 1 week they found organic molecules. So yes, you argument is invalid. Actually it proves that life CAN be formed in the environment on its own
qcpatente 1 week ago
@qcpatente
"they recreated"
1. speculation about how the early earth was is not a recreation but a possibility.
2. there is no they for you, there is no intelligence allowed for the atheist. sorry.
FSApetheist 4 days ago
@qcpatente
So yes your argument is invalid.
FSApetheist 4 days ago
1. Fallacy of false dichotmoy, The designer could have used an evolutionary process, The two are not mutually exclusive, The only problem is that there is not any observed evidence that the genetic principle of like begets like can be violated so it is best to be skeptical of the evo tale.
2. If we found a watch that reproduced that would be more reason to believe how brilliant the creator was that could created that watch with that reproductive capability.
cont:
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
This pathetic video borders on fraud.
"Proteins are part of living organisms which do three things mountains and watches don't do, reproduce, mutate, and are subject to natural selection."
None of those are mutually exclusive with design. False assumption.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 weeks ago
Natural selection doesn’t' select. It eliminates, but does not upgrade anything. Nor does it create new organs or species. It cannot go beyond the genetic limitations. Study genetics.
FAIL AGAIN
MaximusArurealius 2 weeks ago
"Reproduction may be random, mutations are random, but natural selection is not."
Natural selection is not? Ask the dinos how that helped them out. All you have are false assumptions with no proof of having ever happened.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 weeks ago
@MaximusArurealius
great points
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
"Natural selection can make almost infinitesimally improbably events occur with ease."
OH BULLSHIT, You're living in some kind of dream world. Now tell us what improbable events? Where does it cross the genetic border?
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 weeks ago
"We are going to simulate evolution with pictures as our organisms."
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Hilarious! Your pictures are designed, not intelligently but they are designed. hahahahahahahahaaaa
Not only that, but they don't reproduce, mutate, or are selected naturally.
EPIC FAILURE YOU PWNED YOUR OWN VIDEO
MaximusArurealius 2 weeks ago
You are pro ID. Am I right?
Southpark figures don't appear in truely random noise. Since this picture was perfectly centered, it is obvious that you predetermined the outcome. I shall name you an intelligent designer!
StudioStereotron 3 weeks ago
5. Random Variation + Natural Selection are incapable of generating sufficient amount of novelty. NS is simply culling while chance and/or law-like necessity cannot do it because of not having enough probabilistic resources. Large enough quantities of information cannot emerge spontaneously but must be intelligently imparted to the system.
Nickk356 1 month ago
This is wrong in many respects:
1. Strictly speaking ID is NOT counter-evolution. ID is compatible with it.
2. Evolution has NO goal, so the example is FLAWED because it has been programmed to evolve.
3. No one disputes micro-adaptations. What is disputed is unwarranted extrapolations as an attempt to explain observed bio-diversity on the planet.
4. Control is part of biosystems, while regularity can spontaneously emerge (e.g. crystallisation), control has NEVER been seen to emerge by itself.
Nickk356 1 month ago
@TennisAnnalyst you would have to prove that... because we already have examples in nature that suggest otherwise. natural selection selects from pre existing information.. what ever information is not carried over is lost... a prime example of this would be a chihuahua.. A chihuahua is the result of a dog that was breed over and over again until all of its dominating traits were lost... and the evidence shows us that two chihuahuas cannot revert back to what it was again.
Gods0n1 2 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst natural selection "selects" it dosen't add, selecting from preexisting dna and then keeping only beneficial traits is a loss, not a gain... the guiding force is "mutations" yet 99.9 percent of all mutations are lethal to the organism... and even all of the so called beneficial mutations are still a loss( for example.. if u cut off my hands, then i cant get arrested). and for natural selection to even work! the beneficial traits CANNOT be polluted back into the old gene pool.
Gods0n1 2 months ago
@Gods0n1 it's the other way around. almost no mutations are lethal. or did you count them? (I assume not, or you wouldn't be arguing this)
don't forget that humans produce enough sperm to select the good ones. but this reason is unnecessary.
life forms have enough measures to adapt to their mutations. you're probably assuming a "perfect" intelligently designed genome. It's not, because it also has redundancy. enough to make almost all mutations have no effect.
pcdsgh 2 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst yea but what is the guiding force behind it? because it would seem there is a destination and an agenda to have beneficial traits passed on... why not the contrary when unbeneficial genes are more abundant? it would see there is an agenda from this if only blind random processes were the force guiding it.
Gods0n1 2 months ago
Nice vid. Don't expect creationists to understand it though.
mmartini50 2 months ago
@mmartini50
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@mmartini50 Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Oh, my darling, my darling, my darling. You speak absolute bollocks, you silly person, and you think using big words like 'impropriety' and 'abiogenesis' makes you clever: well it doesn't, and all your silly asterisks and affirmations will never change the fact that you don't understand evolutionary theory. Not a jot, not a tittle. Ta ta, darling!
mmartini50 1 month ago
@mmartini50 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
1tabligh 1 month ago
@mmartini50 "3. Say exactly what you mean, to others and to yourself. Be ready to reconsider even your most cherished opinions in the face of new evidence."
1tabligh 1 month ago
this video doesn't even make any sense at all....
irhjma30000 2 months ago
so if natural selection is a guided force... whats guiding it?
Gods0n1 2 months ago
natural selection.. selects... its not a mechanism that adds anything..
Gods0n1 2 months ago
buy the PowerVideoMaker, cheapo
yigal345 3 months ago
@yigal345 You fail to see this video was made 5 years ago. Lrn2Read
fromdirttodustpro1 3 months ago in playlist evolution vs creationsim
What is the music? Awesome piece.
IanSaxman 3 months ago
@IanSaxman Look just under the like/dislike bar, "Carmen Suite No. 2: VI. Danse Boheme".
GuillemotWatcher 3 months ago
This whole topic is all one enormous semantic punch-up. It all hinges on meaning ( of course! ) At the point of 'The Big Bang' natural selection didn't 'exist', although the POSSIBILITY of it did ( of course... again ). DITTO Intelligent Design! Believe me! In the future, barring a collapse of civilization, people like Craig Venter will no doubt be 'Intelligently Designing' genomes 'a la go go'. So there!
jonimethfan 4 months ago
wow basic misunderstanding of it.
pliskin543 4 months ago
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living! Read the popular Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! Just google the title.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Why Intelligent Design is WRONG
@Mogley52 What does the development of a single cell have to do with evolution? Like, at all? You aren't talking about evolution, you are talking about developmental genetics. Yes, you are right, a cell that fails to complete would be destroyed. Duh. What is a 'partially-evolved' cell? That doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing as 'partially evolved' as evolution is a continuous, never-ending process. Do you mean a proto-cell, or a any of the predecessors to modern eukaryote cells?
ianman6 5 months ago
On a pedantic note, you've shown that natural selection is valid, not that ID is wrong. One can always invoke invisible, unverifiable faeries as an explanation without being proven wrong.
HitfulVids 5 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
Maybe your next video will be bether.
So far no sign of what natural selection can do.
Why on earth did you even make this video.
Oke, I'm gonna watch your next video.
Gammaburster1 6 months ago
Part 2;
the selection scenario offcourse is worthless sinds you are using foresigth as you pointing out yourself so I don't know why you are doing this video.
100 generations of intelligent selection to reach a goal which was selected for every generation.
I really don't see your point yet but maybe it will come now?
No, it doesn't get any better.
Next example is again one with foresight.
You select intelligent for the traits you want to get to your goal.
It's the opposite of NS.
Gammaburster1 6 months ago
Of course, the same stroman here.
Starting the video with some mis-quotes of ID.
Why o why is no-one of these smartasses smart enough to first understand what ID-ers actually say instead of reading what The Darwinchurch SAY about ID.
No ID-ers ever said that something is to complex to appear by chance.
What are you assuming with step 2?
Children can get 7/9 DNA from their mother and 2/9 from their father?
Why is it that you assume an offspring of 12.000 children?
Gammaburster1 6 months ago
@Gammaburster1 "No ID-ers ever said that something is to complex to appear by chance." Yes, they do. Behe asserts the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have appeared by Darwinian means, let alone by chance. In fact, even evolutionists say that things are too complex to appear by chance, which is obvious since evolution isn't pure 'chance'. But back to Behe, he argues explicitly that certain things cannot arise by chance. He says as much in his book. Time for you to do your homework.
ianman6 5 months ago
@ianman6
Do your own homework.
I've read Behe's books.
He's says that some features are better explained as being the result of design instead of being the result of a darwinian proces.
It's very unlikely that selectable undirected mutations built certain features.
Behe made his point even much more clear in "the edge of evolution" which is 100% based on empiric data.
People are still wining about a quote which is 15 years old, and act as if the entire ID argument is based on it.
Gammaburster1 5 months ago
@Gammaburster1 Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You said that no ID-er ever said that something is too complex to appear by chance. That is pattently false. That is precisely an ID argument the likes that Behe and Dembski make, regularly and repeatedly. Your reply has nothing to do with my correction of that statement, which remains false. I am fully aware of the type of arguments Behe and others put forward. Also, evolutionary biologists agree that chance alone is insuficient.
ianman6 5 months ago
@ianman6 , You still can't read. It's clear that you haven't read any of Behe's books but only what Darwinists say about him. But keep on repeating a 15 year old quote as a argument against ID. If that is still the only thing that Darwinists can come up with, it's even more lear that ID-ers haver very strong arguments.
Wining about te mousetrap is just as stupid as for me to wine about Ernst Haeckel as an argument against Darwinism. You are really talking old school...very old school...
Gammaburster1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gammaburster1
Wow, you really are an idiot
sonykroket 5 months ago
@Gammaburster1 Behe's willful ignorance of every fact given to him is proof enough that his books are complete bunk. So get your pseudo-intellectual head out of your arse.
andromidius 4 months ago
@Gammaburster1 "The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
What, exactly, did Haeckle get wrong?
gamesbok 4 months ago
@Gammaburster1 "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918,
This paper, ancient though it may be, utterly destroys Behe's arguement. It states that Irreducable Complexity (Miller uses the term Interlocking Complexity) is a product of evolution.
gamesbok 4 months ago
haha.....this is absurd
hashpuppy101 6 months ago
1:15 yea given billions of years, and that's saying there's plenty of mutations to go around that make a difference
hubjubjub 6 months ago
"666 dislikes" :D
karrpoff 6 months ago
ClarksoninsinUSA, go ahead broadcast your ignorance to the world.
Nobullporfavor 6 months ago
Creationist, why did God designed humans with genetic problems? Why did the almighty design schizophrenia? As a creationist with a child along the way, would you abort your child if a doctor told you said child was going to be born to struggle in life? Or would you have your God designed child hoping that said child will one day will be cure by God? Have God take back the less than desirable design under warranty and fix it, parts and labor free of charge? Just a few questions.
raybanfandom 6 months ago
@raybanfandom SOme bullshit about "God" having a plan. That's the only answer I've ever seen.
HimesInu 6 months ago
Which came first the chicken or the egg??????Cant have one without the other,unless there is a divine creator...
Evolution suggest the universe is random....
Can atheist spot a pattern?
A few examples of millions that if they had not occurred,for Human life to exist......
1.For starters without a molten rotating Iron core ,there would be no magnetic field .The solar wind would sterilize the planet,in less than a week.
ClarksonsinUSA 6 months ago
@ClarksonsinUSA No, evolution does not state that the universe is random. It only states why we see diversity in species. It doesn't talk about anything else. So your questions are meaningless since they don't talk about evolution, but rather subjects from different sciences. This is a common mistake made by people who don't understand evolution and just go with what evolution opponents say.
HimesInu 6 months ago
To finish...
2.Being located the perfect distance to have liquid water.
3.Having a moon to slow the spin of the Earth,without this the earth would rotate much faster generating winds of of hundreds of miles per hour.That would be bad for Human life.
Wow. That looks like many patterns,its suppose to be random......Maybe we are lucky a few million times... ;)
ClarksonsinUSA 6 months ago
Comment removed
ClarksonsinUSA 6 months ago
cdk007 fails miserably to understand every species & every cell has fixed parameters that DO NOT MOVE (evolve). And if they did evolve problems would arise. Conserved elements & ultra conserved elements are death nails in evolution and the genome is filled with these conserved (non evolvable) elements. Every protein has extremely precise parameters by which it must fold & function
If science attempted to change (evolve) the parameters for ANY of the molecular machines folds function would cease
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker a species is used as a description to make classification of living organisms easier. sickle cell anemia is a condition in which hemoglobin has a slightly different sequence. although less efficient, hemoglobin s is unaffected by malaria. switching of 1 or a few amino acids in a sequence may increase or decrease efficiency of the protein. in some cases, a protein may have a completely new use.
thrillzonevideos 6 months ago
@thrillzonevideos "switching of 1 or a few amino acids in a sequence may increase or decrease efficiency of the protein. in some cases, a protein may have a completely new use"
Give me the references that state protein misfolding creates new protein folds with new beneficial functions.
And If my information is correct, and I believe it is. DNA sequences do not determine the tertiary structure of the protein. If they did, there would be no protein folding problems to understand
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker unfortunately, youtube doesn't allow me to post links in comments.
i did find a page on sickle cell anemia on carnagiescience (dot) edu. maybe a link could be posted in a personal message.
thrillzonevideos 6 months ago
@thrillzonevideos
The fitness to cost ratio is huge. One minor benefit is achieved only because parasite hitched its self to the deformed blood cell that is targeted for destruction only because of its deformity.
This would be like a PC virus attaching its self to a program on a PC in which all the programs are unstable and have a tendency to turn faulty. Then the error corrections recognizes the faulty program and uninstalls it and the virus along with it. This is not the evolution needed
toobsucker 6 months ago
The real truth: watch?v=fE8VO6z4tcg
JungleJargon 7 months ago
OMG 666 dislikes. This totally proves that Thunderf00t is Satan in human form. GUYS DON'T LISTEN TO HIM HE'S GOING TO DRAG YOU DOWN TO HELL!
LOLJK.
Pickle900 7 months ago
Watch the video:
Evolution vs Creation : # 9 Natural Selection
And you will have the answer. You are just theorizing, but in practice you are proposing something which is contrary to the logic.
antropophil 8 months ago
@antropophil your a moron
zooryanzoo123 7 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
your or you are?
1Mperios 6 months ago
@1Mperios *faceplams at self*
zooryanzoo123 6 months ago
This explains the evolution of an origin that would already exist. Neither science or religion will ever completely explain existence. Science comes a whole lot closer though
GreenLulz 8 months ago
The old Intelligent Design was incorrect but not the new one. See my videos.
MrIntelligentdesign 8 months ago
and the animals evolved on their own, without intelligence from the designer. this video is showing how evolution works, and the thing that creationists are wrong about IS evolution. if you want to talk about the ORIGIN of life, watch "the origin of life-abiogenesis-dr jack szostak" ,another video by cdk007. hope i helped you understand more :)
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
@ITSROBHERE not quite, although i can see why you think that. all cdk has done is simulate natural conditions, but first set up an environment and animal. in this simulation, he is some designer who made life, but this video doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis; it's about evolution. after "creating" the life, cdk just left it to evolve by allowing the organisms to reproduce, suffer environmental attrition, and thus take part in natural selection. no further intervention is required,...
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
but in your video the goal is set by you, an intelligent entity, therefore the whole experiment is a complete conundrum, it comes from intelligent design :/
ITSROBHERE 9 months ago
i have also never seen a pocket watch or mount Rushmore increase in size or "grow" on there own. so for me, that makes these "objects" not worth trying to compare with living things.
k0rps3gynd3r 9 months ago
The Intelligent Designer was smart enough to include sufficient genetic diversity in the initial manifestation and use mutation, genetic transplantation, ..., as well as natural selection to establish a self perpetuating system we call life. There is no contradiction between the properly defined words intelligent design and evolution.
suedonym0 9 months ago
Ditto to that. You intelligently program your picture changing software to head for a specific goal and you select for this at every step of the way. The whole point of pointing out irreducibly complex systems like vision, coagulation, or the flagellum is to show that for most steps of the process there is no selection. All that you have is mutation alone (usually being selected against) trying to make numerous successive changes. unrealistic.
smitty0521 9 months ago
religion is like a penis, it's nice to have one, it's ok to be proud of it, just don't go waving it out in public. and especially don't shove it down the throats of children.
carllarsen 9 months ago
Proof of Intelligent Design:
(1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.
(3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.
Full stop.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky
Good grief.
SNOWFLAKES, damn it.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew SNOWFLAKES make pretty patterns. You might be fascinated by it's pretty patterns but it doesn't contain Information. That's the difference between a CODE and PATTERN. From maths/statistics, Information has never been extracted from randomness. We can only extract information from intelligence. So where does the information from DNA come from? From everything we know, it comes from another Intelligence and hence Intelligent design.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky DNA is proof for evolution, not intelligent design. A simple search on Wikipedia would correct all of the stupid ideas you seem to have.
DYTisOver 9 months ago
@DYTisOver The source of your knowledge and all things true is Wikipedia? LOL...sorry, had to laugh...really.
Breaking it down a bit more for you. DNA has information. In maths/statistics, you can extract information. It is a fact that you can never extract information from random occurances. So DNA must have come from an intelligence.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky Wikipedia is actually very reliable when it comes to factual reporting without bias, there is nothing to laugh about.
More importantly, what is the basis for your claims that information cannot be extract from random occurrences? Light is a form of information, and it is pretty random.
Seriously, if you actually did some research about DNA, you would find that there is nothing truly spectacular about it. It could have easily developed from RNA through evolution.
DYTisOver 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DYTisOver "More importantly, what is the basis for your claims that information cannot be extract from random occurrences?" - maths, statistics.
If you can extract information from random events, it defeats the whole definition of randomness.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky
Wikipedia cites everything, so it's not actually a source. It's a middleman.
Evolution isn't random in the least. Neither is crystal formation (which does contain information, such as physical properties, smart guy). Of course, it makes sense that a proponent of intelligent design doesn't fully understand evolution.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew Wiki doesn't cite everything, that's why there's a lot of [citation need]. And where/who do they cite from? And the author cannot interpret data?
What physical properties are you talking about?
Repeat..SNOWFLAKES make pretty patterns. You might be fascinated by it's pretty patterns but it doesn't contain Information. That's the difference between a CODE and PATTERN.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky
The molecular pattern of a crystal determines its yield strength, failure mode, conditions during formation, etc. This is information.
Wiki cites when it doesn't have a citation, but almost everything about DNA and evolution has citations. You just don't want to see them.
I don't know what you mean by "interpret" data. "Interpreting" data in the science world without stacks of evidence just leads to people looking stupid.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew We are talking about Codes in DNA, not patterns in crystals. DNA is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. This is supported by maths and statistics.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky
I guess I'm not surprised. Your response is "That example doesn't count because we're not talking about that." It's not much different from your original argument of "I don't understand evolution or biochemistry or logical fallacies, therefore intelligent design is right."
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@jamestrekky Well, let's take this apart. DNA isn't a language. You wouldn't attempt to send the message 'Happy Birthday' in DNA. Languages are convention, and DNA isn't convention, it's chemically deteministic. Many things store information, like the rock layers that define geology. We take the light from distant stars, and we find information about the temperature and composition of the star. The reason it's information is because there is no mind involved, thus no deceit.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok Let's take this apart: DNA is a Code, Rocks layers are not codes. Since all codes we know of are from intelligent design, then it is much more reasonable to say DNA is from intelligent design.
jamestrekky 4 months ago
@jamestrekky Not all codes were obtained from intelligent design, only the ones we know that were created by humans. That is not a logic step, since if you start thinking that DNA is not intelligently designed, then there is automatically a code that is not intelligently designed. And since your argument that all codes are intelligently designed is not based on irrefutable proof, then nothing contradicts the idea that DNA might not be intelligently designed.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Your comment is not logical. If everything we know says Codes are from design, you want to say Codes are not? Of course there is no proof. You have no proof, I have no proof. We only have observation. And everything we know about Codes say it is from a designer. But you want to go against everything we know and say that Codes can just "happen". What do you base that on? My comment is based on our observations on Codes.
jamestrekky 3 months ago
@jamestrekky Yes, and i'm saying that since there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the claim that all codes are designed, then you cannot say that if DNA is a code, then it must have been designed.
raviept 3 months ago
@jamestrekky
you say "everything we know says Codes are from design". First of all, how do you define codes. Second of all, how do you know they are all from design?
StealthDonkey007 3 months ago
@raviept Going by your theory, you can't say anything is true. Every time we add 1+1=2 but hang on, there's no real proof that 1+1=2, it's just that every time we do it we see 1+1=2. Is there a Sun? Every time we observe it is there, but maybe it only appears when we observe? no proof the sun exists. This is an example of your argument "The sun doesn't exist! You have no proof! So what if you measure and observe it." OK, I will argue the sun doesn't exist then. Same principal as you.
jamestrekky 3 months ago
@jamestrekky What? You have one rock plus another rock. How many rocks do you have? And about the sun, we see it everyday and we know that life would not exist without it. This is totally different from saying since every bear i ever saw was brown, then all bears should be brown. And if someone says that it saw a black bear, it must be mistaken.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Where's your proof? You can't prove 1 rock plus 1 rock is 2 rocks. What if one day you saw 3 rocks? You have no proof that life needs the sun,only observations. Every normal bear we have seen has 2 eyes and a nose. There's a bear in a box. I bet it has two eyes and a nose, then you say NO you can't say that. You go with the least probable explanation, I go with most probable statistically. Statistically 100% Codes are designed by intelligence. So what about the DNA code?
jamestrekky 3 months ago
@jamestrekky 1+1=2 is a Mathematical axiom.It is true by definition, although it is also confirmed by observation. Regarding the sun, i think you don't know the difference between "exists" and "for all". One thing is to say that the sun exists, and to prove that, you only need one observation. Another is to say that all stars have some property, and for asserting that, either you observe all the stars, which is impossible, or you demonstrate how that is/must be true.
raviept 3 months ago
@jamestrekky Finally, to say that all codes must be designed, you must first find a relation between all codes that implies that property regarding their creation. Only then, you may use statistics to verify if it is statistically likely that all codes were designed. The problem is that there is no such statistical analysis, and furthermore that analysis is useless. Why? Because the notion of code is abstract, not a physical one.
raviept 3 months ago
@jamestrekky But even if DNA is intelligently designed, that does not contradict Evolution, since this Theory does not account for the creation of DNA. Instead, Evolution just explain how changes in DNA, that occur from generation to generation, combined with Natural Selection can give origin to new species, after a sufficient amount of time.
raviept 3 months ago
@jamestrekky snow flakes actually contain information. much like everything else in the universe. if you actually study snowflakes, how they are formed, its composition and how it behaves similar to other fractal geometric shapes. So instead of just focusing on DNA as the super proof of someone intelligent at work, just say that anything is proof that intelligence which includes apparent randomness. Or maybe its just that everything can be studied by applying our own intelligence:)
Iopipimps 9 months ago
@Iopipimps errr...you're telling me fractals are a code? Fractals are a pattern, you might be excited about the properties of fractals but it is still a pattern. DNA is a code, fractals are NOT. Fractals have only geometric properties which we can analyse. With DNA we are not talking about it's geometric properties but the Code that it contains within, DNA stores information, it is the instructions to build organisms. Snow flakes vs DNA? Not likely.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky its not just the fractals. the laws of physics that permit it to happen. The bonds between the atoms to create the right molecules. you really want to say that these things are less deserving "creations"
What im saying why stop with DNA when the whole universe can be said to need a creator since it works in such a way. Or are you conceding that everything else which exhibit complexity can be random?
Iopipimps 9 months ago
@Iopipimps "bonds" "atoms" "molecules"?? You are still ONLY talking about physical properties. DNA has more than just physical properties, it is NOT random, it stores information that is NOT random, it contains a language which is a manual for creation. The fractals case is false.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky wow so your really aren't mystified by what set these physical laws in the first place? why fractals persist in your blood vessels (hey how'd it get there). but wait, DNA still works on physical properties. That's why we study it with molecular biology, bio chemistry etc. in the end its all chemistry is still a part of natural science. And natural science is bound to the physical laws. Word play like, only x can come from x is kinda weak alternative to the actual scientific method.
Iopipimps 9 months ago
@Iopipimps Why does everything always need a creator? Heres an idea, try and think of our world in any other way than the way it is. If you changed one thing about the physics of the universe, than everything else would be effected. Just because we haven't found an answer to something doesn't mean it's automatically the work of a "divine creator". Just deal with the fact that there are somethings in this universe that we may never be able to explain. Don't get hooked into religion because of it.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
@godlynessdog i was just entertaining his idea of complex systems need to come from a mind. He keeps asserting that only a mind can create a code but i can easily assert the same thing for the origins of the physical laws that governs the universe. If you read my comments carefully you'll see that im actually putting DNA in the same position of other laws in the universe can have a natural cause and explanation. And that information we get from DNA is due to our application of our intelligence
Iopipimps 9 months ago
@jamestrekky plus you can't claim DNA isn't random when mutations do happen. or are mutations not random to you. it just takes many generations for those changes to show in the species. How those mutations survive to the next generation however isn't random. Darwin already established how that works..
Iopipimps 9 months ago
@Iopipimps "scientific method" repeatable and verifiable. Show me an example where random mutations in the DNA actually survive and improves the organism?? DNA stores information in a code, you choose to ignore this completely.
jamestrekky 9 months ago
@jamestrekky Feathers on dinosaurs. A random mutation changed scales to feathers.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz how do you know that?
jamestrekky 8 months ago
@jamestrekky Because feathers are made of the same thing as scales. Look at a birds leg, it goes from scales to feathers. Birds are still dinosaurs. They have the genes to grow teeth.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz Things that are made of same or similar things is not evidence of evolution. There is no evidence for evolution at all.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
@jamestrekky No evidence?!? Science has the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, comparative biochemistry, observe speciation, transitional fossils and on and on and on...
DNA code proves evolution. It's nested hierarchy matches Darwin's tree of life.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz None of which is evidence for evolution. Please explain any of those. Start with DNA. How does DNA code prove evolution?? Evolution is all based on speculation.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
@jamestrekky DNA markers exist. If an animal that lived in the past passes the marker on to it's ancestors there will be a pattern. If the first ape has a marker then all apes will have the marker. And they do, humans, chimps and gorillas have the same markers. You never, NEVER find the marker in the wrong order, like in a bird. Like finding a nipple on a bird, or a feather on a cow. [trying to make it simple]
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz But just because apes, chimps and gorillas might share some same DNA, does not mean they evolved from some first ape. DNA marker can mean many DNA sequence. Even if we have the same markers, that is not evidence for evolution. We share some same markers as pigs, does this mean we evolved from pigs?
jamestrekky 8 months ago
'« just because apes, chimps and gorillas might share some same DNA, does not mean they evolved from some first ape »
It's not just that they "share some DNA": the DNA sequences in man and the other apes follow a very specific pattern of similarities and differences; they follow a nested hierarchy, something we would expect from common descent, but has no good explanation otherwise.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor You keep repeating the same thing. One more time "DNA sequences in man and the other apes follow a very specific pattern of similarities and differences" DOES NOT mean or prove evolution. Just because two things look the same doesn't prove anything. Believing in evolution is like believing in playing poker and getting 4 aces in hand billions and billions of times over and saying it's ok, it just happens. It is not logical.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« DOES NOT mean or prove evolution »
1. Evolutionary theory, you mean.
2. But it DOES strongly suggest and confirm the hypothesis of common ancestry. Do I need to explain AGAIN about the difference between proof and evidence in a scientific context?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor Say it takes millions of years for the reproductive system to evolve. How did animals reproduce while it was still evolving? How did mammals breathe while the lungs were evolving?
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« Say it takes millions of years for the reproductive system to evolve »
But it didn't, like I've been telling you: reproduction existed even before cellular replicators did, before life as we know it emerged. If you just stop trying to confuse matters for a minute, perhaps you can learn something about what science ACTUALLY claims.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor "reproduction existed even before cellular replicators did, before life as we know it emerged." So reproduction another form of reproduction was evolving? How do you know this? Where did you get this from?
Why did this happen? When did this happen? The questions go on forever with no answers.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« So reproduction another form of reproduction was evolving? »
Not really. The first forms of sexual reproduction, the exchange of genetic materials, was simply an artefact of the way the first cellular replicators were built: their cellular envelopes were more permeable than those of modern cells, and molecules that were small enough freely entered and exited those cells. Later, this developed into more elaborate schemes of genetic exchange.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor So when did this stop and eggs start forming? how does a progressive evolution go from 1% egg to 100% and know how to progress to a functional product over millions of years? what happens to the reproductive systems (that we see today) when it was 2% evolved? 10% evolved? 20% evolved? even 90% evolved? fetuses aborted? what happens when fish have gills 50% evolved? or mammals with lungs 50% evolved?
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« So when did this stop and eggs start forming? »
One intermediate stage that could have led to the development of sexual reproduction through eggs and sperm is the sexual reproduction cycle of yeast. Look into it. Such a development could have occurred anywhere between 2 and 0.7 billion years ago.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor That comment if guess work. There is no evidence or science to back that statement. What we do know from Maths is that it is absurdly improbable to reach the complexity we see today from the such simple origins in the matter of billions of years.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« What we do know from Maths is that it is absurdly improbable to reach the complexity we see today »
We know no such thing "from maths". What we do know is that a number of ID-nuts have tried to tweak premises and mathematical models just so that the results would seem to support their claims. But I ask you: what use is a mathematical model showing that proteins do not randomly assemble when NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT THEY DO?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« That comment if guess work »
It is something less than a scientific theory, but something more than mere speculation: it is a scientific hypothesis. That means that if it is accurate, we should expect to see certain specific features in modern life, and possibly in the fossil record. A very basic example of this is modern instances of each intermediary mode of sexual reproduction.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« So when did this stop and eggs start forming? »
One intermediate stage that could have led to the development of sexual reproduction through eggs and sperm is the sexual reproduction cycle of yeast. Look into it. Such a development could have occurred anywhere between 2 and 0.7 billion years ago.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« and know how »
You are again thinking teleologically. You are assuming that because a situation currently exists, it must have been intended to exist. But evolution is not teleological. It has no particular goal. The current situation exists, but it might just as well all have turned out differently.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor If there is no goal then it is random. If it is random, you are betting on winning the Lotto trillions and trillions of times over in a row. Logic would say to the Lottery office, this does not happen and you must be cheating. The evolutionist says that this just happens in this universe.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« If there is no goal then it is random »
Wrong. It may be accidental, but it is not random. Things in this universe are subject to physical laws, as a result of their behavioral properties.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor You are admitting that it is still by chance. So you are saying that you are here because you won the Lotto trillions of times over. You are saying that you get 4 Aces in Poker every single game just because it happens. What is more logical? That is common sense? The more logical and sensible argument is no, we don't win Lotto trillions of times over. Else, I can claim anything. Humans came from peanut butter, hey, it's possible!
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« You are admitting that it is still by chance »
But not random chance. For instance, combine hydrogen with oxygen, and you'll get water. It'll be up to random chance which specific molecules will react at what time, but it is a certainty that water will be formed at a specific rate, depending on circumstances. Chance is involved, but the reaction is *not* random: it obeys physical laws.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« So you are saying that you are here because you won the Lotto trillions of times over »
No. I am here because it is in the nature of the game that ONLY the winners of each draw in the "lottery" were allowed to go on ("winners" being those who managed to reproduce). Evolution is a game in which the "losers" of each draw are discarded. So in the end, you *CAN* only have "winners" left. Why are you arguing against something you apparently have failed to understand even in the slightest bit?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« How did mammals breathe while the lungs were evolving? »
Likewise, lungs existed LONG before mammals did. Lungs first evolved in lungfish, lobe finned fish that later produced the clade of tetrapods, the clade of which mammals (and many other clades) are part of.
You really have to do some reading. It's impossible for you to have a serious discussion on something you know nothing about.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor So all mammals evolved from lungfish? how do you know this? Because they have "lungs"? How did gills evolve over millions of years and fish don't drown? How do you know gills, lungs evolved? when did they start evolving? Are they still evolving? Have you tested, observed and found these things repeatable?
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« So all mammals evolved from lungfish? »
Yes, that's what the data, the fossil remnants, the comparative genomics studies, and all other lines of evidence, indicate.
« How did gills evolve over millions of years and fish don't drown? »
Think logically for a minute: gills evolved as a part of the organism. Not separately. Organisms without gills apparently don't need gills. If such an organism were to develop gills, it would have something more than it needs, not less.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor You just keep making things up. There is no substantial evidence that all mammals come from lungfish. Everything you say is just guess work. And now you are saying that fish could breathe underwater without gills but grew gills later on simultaneously so they could still breathe while gills were evolving. Really? How do you know this? Where's your evidence? It's frustrating when you keep making things up. That's what evolution is, it's just making things up as you go along.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« There is no substantial evidence that all mammals come from lungfish »
Yes, there is. Not just the morphological nested hierarchies show this, but also the comparative genomics data, leading to phylogenies with a certitude of better than 95%.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor We already established similar genes don't mean they evolved from one another! Stop repeating yourself. The first lungfish we can find existed 400 million years ago, not even Billions or Trillions of years ago. You're saying that in merely 400 million years, all mammals: humans, elephants, horses, giraffes evolved from lungfish?????? The evolutionists theories are getting really silly now. And guess what? When we look at lungfish today, they are almost exactly the same.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« We already established similar genes »
And this is the THIRD (fourth?) time I have to correct you:
1) Not just similarities, but similarities AND differences, in a distinct PATTERN of nested hierarchies.
2) Science uses EVIDENCE to support explanatory models. PROOF is an ideal that CANNOT be achieved in the natural sciences.
Stop repeating your mistakes, and LEARN something, boy.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor You have not corrected me because your statements are all false and it is evident that you are just making things up. You are saying comparing "differences" gives evidence of evolution? That cannot be more false. That is your problem, everything you say has no evidence, only speculation. Your whole argument has been that when one thing looks like another so they must have evolved from one another. And of course you have no PROOF, because you don't have any Evidence of evolution.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
« You are saying comparing "differences" gives evidence of evolution? »
2) these sequences must contain some deviation from the functional form we find in other mammals, and
3) the deviation cannot be the same one in both primates and guinea pigs: they must be different.
We do indeed find this, confirming the common descent hypothesis.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor you can't be serious now. what you're saying is getting more and more ridiculous with all respect. Ofcourse primate and guinea pigs, ants and fish are different. we don't need to examine DNA to know that. of course there is deviation! That in no way confirms a common descent hypothesis.
jamestrekky 8 months ago
@jamestrekky Divergence: Process in which two or more populations of an ancestral species accumulate genetic changes through time, often after the populations have become reproductively isolated. Subpopulations living in distinct environments can exhibit genetic divergence from the remainder of a population, esp. if the range of a population is very large. The genetic differences among divergent populations can involve silent mutations or give rise to significant differences in form. -Wikipedia
Nazarus8 8 months ago
@jamestrekky you're right btw that looking at any individual piece of evidence will not confirm a hypothesis, however, science works on supporting a claim with evidence: we don't just look at DNA, we look at what we know about reproduction, environmental pressures, survival, we look at the fossil record etc.then deduce what we think is the most logical model of why there are so many species. So the question is, if you think common descent isn't true, what model can you propose? with evidence~
Nazarus8 8 months ago
« Ofcourse primate and guinea pigs, ants and fish are different »
It seems you do not understand the significance of the observation - either that, or you're simply asserting "it was designed that way!" anyway, without providing either a testable model or evidence to support it. Do I need to explain the concept of falsifiability to you?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« we don't need to examine DNA to know that »
Ah, you did indeed miss the point. The point is that, given the assumption of design, there's no reason to expect the same gene to be present in both guinea pigs and humans - since we don't actually have the ability that gene codes for - both broken in subtly different ways - what would be the point in having a gene that doesn't do anything anyway be broken in different places in different species? You cannot explain that. Common descent can.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« You have not corrected me »
I did. Three times you asserted that similarities are not proof. Three times I corrected you by saying that 1) the natural sciences consider evidence, not proof, and 2) it's not just about similarities, but about a pattern of specific similarities AND differences forming matching nested hierarchies.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« You are saying comparing "differences" gives evidence of evolution? »
Yes. For instance, most mammals have the ability to synthesise vitamin C. In primates and guinea pigs this ability is absent. If common ancestry is true, then
1) there must, in primates and in guinea pigs, be a sequence resembling the gene complex for making vitamin C, and
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« And now you are saying that fish could breathe underwater without gills »
No, I am not. I am saying that the ANCESTORS of fish would have been aquatic organisms with no need for gills. Single celled plankton, for instance, do not use gills; they extract whatever they need from the surrounding water through their cell membranes directly.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor Fish would have could have evolved from plankton. These statements are not science. Why keep stating what is the least probable?
So at some point, plankton started growing into an organism that then started growing gills. What did it look like when it has 1% gill formation? 2% gill formation? 20% gill formation? 60% gill formation? Why would the the non-functional 1% gill formation mutation be passed down? or the 2% or the 3%? This is absurd.
jamestrekky 8 months ago