You keep telling everyone that they are running from you because you like to pretend thats the reason they are ignoring you when in reality we all know its because people realise you are clinically insane when you pretend you cant see their response to your questions. Just because you act crazy and delude yourself into thinking people didnt reply to u does not make it a fact. To the rest of us you appear as completely insane when you pretend you cant see comments
Srexob is a clinically insane stalker. He has many accounts and everytime I block one of his accounts he uses another account to send me the same message with his crazy laugh "WAHAHAHAHAH" look on the channel named "proudfemale" and read through his crazy behaviour and harassment of others, he will be banned very soon if anyone else wants to report his account srexob715, these are his other accounts...
You have a dozen accounts you made purely to stalk people. In fact you even admite to it saying " I had to make all those accounts because people block me and run" then you have the nerve to call others a stalker when it is you that keeps making new accounts everytime I block you. Furthermore you stalked that 15 year old boy buzzkila threatening him that you will track him down and now he has reported you to lthe police for being the child stalker you are
@FeistyForJustice Still running away and providing evidence that he's a coward. Go to proudfemale's page to see how stupid he really is! Its hilarious!
@UvenYakinoff How the fuck does that prove anything dummy. You ID-iots don't uderstand enough logic to put 2+2 together. I am not a female or an atheist. I studied chemistry. You should try reading some science.
This guy was purely paid to refute evolution or he is plainly ignorant,and allowing his traditional faith pave the road for his doomed future of a education.
Wow..... My brother is going to graduate school for Genetics.... He would probably want to do horrible things to this douche. Also, djarm 67, that moment of zen was awesome!
The text books don't take a one sided view. They take a side that is supported by evidence. The only thing ID does is question the validity of evolution of natural selection. Which is fine, but if you want to challenge the theory, then you MUST submit evidence. ID has no evidence therefore it cannot be disproven. It cannot be disproven because it is a super natural explanation, which explains nothing other than what you believe. Unsupported beliefs do not belong in the text books.
Don, please quit twisting the facts. Casey Luskin cited one article after he stated a true fact: when we develop the "tree" according to one gene we get one tree, when we develop the "tree" according to another, the tree goes another way. The same is true if you shape the tree according to phenotype versus genotype.
You know this to be true. You aren't a moron, so why do you slur Luskin for citing the truth? Hiding or twisting the truth isn't telling the truth--as a scientist you know better.
"There is no horizontal gene transfer between larger organisms." Excellent point--this knocks out one rationalization of how such rapid change can take place during the brief punctuated bands of time between stasis. Point changes caused by random mutation can't get the job done in this short amount of time. You make a good case for Intelligent Design.
Shouldn't tell a third grader the truth about the tree of life? You probably don't want to tell a high school student either. That's immoral.
@MorganMarvinson The clade hypothesis focuses more on the necessary selective pressure not mutation rate to force rapid change such as form example a shift in environment, population density, or predation or adjacent competition population changes. The equations which govern population genetic modeling do not show such rates of rapid speciation are impossible.
@CliffStamp "necessary selective pressure not mutation rate to force rapid change" That's all fine and good for selecting variation within a species, like types of beaks among finches. One can readily see how a stouter beak provides an advantage to a bird when easier seeds are unavailable through drought. But nature doesn't have any selections if mutations aren't occurring--any more than Cubans have selections available in their bodegas. So "pressure" does nothing to generate changes available.
@MorganMarvinson I don't understand, you accept that variation within a species, you accept new species form, what exactly are you disputing? Is it that species can not move out of the genus? What is the the dispute with the current model that explains how this happens (summarized as : random mutation + selective pressure, and/or genetic drift).
@CliffStamp "you accept ... " Yes, that is right. New branches of a given species, which sometimes lose the ability to mate with other individuals in that species--creating a dead end. This can be demonstrated. What cannot be demonstrated is that the species goes on to develop novel body parts--even from ones they already had. Moreover, no real links between body plans have been found in the fossil record. It is mere supposition that all animals had a common ancestor.
@MorganMarvinson New species have been observed, and further they are not "dead ends", they have the ability to reproduce with their own species. This is published in the literature.
Ok, so to be clear, in order for you to accept proof of common decent, you would need to see speciation to such an extent it would create a large scale morphological change?
What exactly would you want to see in the fossil record as proof of a "link", what characteristics would that fossil require?
@CliffStamp "dead ends" Are these species formed by isolation expected to turn into some other body type?
Proof of common decent would require what Darwin projected:
"INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS.”
That we have a few doubtful mosaic forms isn't very encouraging.
I call this: "The dog ate the transitionals."
This would mean INNUMERABLE examples of organisms with the intermediate changes in organs, eyes, skin, reproductive systems, lungs, hearts--all of the features we do NOT find.
@MorganMarvinson To clarify, is your position that we have transitional fossils but simply not have enough? Or that we have no transitional fossils at all?
@CliffStamp No organism is directly transitional--according to evolutionary biologists. Every candidate for a transitional is a new side branch on the tree. Yet, there should be INNUMERABLE examples of in-betweens with all the in-between organs and systems I listed.
@MorganMarvinson I still do not understand, are you asserting that there are no examples of an in-between form (show a more advanced feature than A but less advanced than C and thus = B a transitional form between A and C), or simply not enough?
@CliffStamp I'd like to get you to stretch your thinking to understand the point I am making. "Advanced" is a relative term that can be used to categorize things like nails or shoes, finding a place to put them according to features. Being able to categorize isn't providing a transitional form. Here's what is required:
If an organism went from a two-chambered heart to a three-chambered heart, where is the in between? If an organism went from simple eyes to complex eyes, where is the in between?
@MorganMarvinson Ok, but that is the idea of IC popularized by Behe and that has been disproved in the literature, the main reason it is wrong is because evolution does not always proceed by a linear progression of positive changes, there are redundancies, combinations, etc. . Again, IC is disproven, and example after example which has been shown to be able to be evolved (eye, blood clotting, immune system, flagella, etc.).
@CliffStamp I will repeat that which I have stated to others: the CLAIM of disproving something is not the same as disproving it. Otherwise, evolution has been disproved.
Miller's approach to disproving the bacterial flagella is to point to a similar structure (which population studies declare it to be a later derivative) and say, "See, it was co-opted."
Wow! Evolution has done so much from so little for so long that now it can do nearly anything with nothing--including going back in time.
@MorganMarvinson That is true, it is not the claim, but the acceptance in the literature which would be taken as support and IC has been shown to be false in the literature, in fact the basic definition is contrary to the theory and is clearly a strawman at best because never has evolution been argued to be a simple and linear series of positive steps. Genetic drift is clearly a completely non-linear process.
@CliffStamp Miller starts his "disproof" of IC by holding up a mousetrap, repeating Behe's claim that it is irreducibly complex to function as a mousetrap and acknowledging "that's a valid point." Right. Then evolutionists get really creative and say it doesn't need the platform, all you have to do is attach it to the floor. Dumkaufs! They just gave it a BIGGER platform. What lengths to avoid the concept! Why such lengths to avoid the concept? (I know, not the literature.)
@MorganMarvinson The argument there is that the wooden part just made it portable and thus easier to set up.
A better example would be a light bulb, but if you are sufficiently clever you can probably see a way to make some use out of a light bulb even with each part removed.
@CliffStamp Making uses out of a broken mousetrap or lightbulb doesn't say how they were created OR tell why as the object itself, it isn't irreducibly complex. They both are.
@MorganMarvinson We know how they were created, they were both invented objects. The argument was to show that they could be created by a process analogous to the evolutionary methods.
@CliffStamp "they were created" Design points to a designer.
Again, knowing what they're made of and knowing what you can do with broken pieces of them doesn't tell you how they got that way or what intelligence designed them. I suppose you know who gets credit for the lightbulb, but do you know who designed it?
Maybe in your book "design" points to happenstance or the laws that hold the thing together, but of course, what holds a thing together is not what made it or who designed it.
@MorganMarvinson Correct we would not know who as in the name of the person who made an individual light bulb, but we would know the what as in a person made it.
But the argument Behe made was similar to claiming no human could make a mousetrap, if a human could make one that would prove it false. You would not have to disprove the existance of Behe's God to falsify his statement.
@CliffStamp "no human could make a mousetrap" What are you citing? The point I have read is the design inference. When we see an irreducibly complex structure like a mousetrap, though we don't know who made it, we infer that it was done by intelligence--not accident or the laws that keep wood holding together or metal holding together. Those laws don't explain the new combination. Sure we are comparing animate and inanimate objects, reproducing and non-reproducing things, but they're analogous.
@MorganMarvinson Yes that was my point, the claim was that you could not make a mousetrap by a sequence, it had to be formed at once as-is, once you give an example, any example this is falsified. You do not need to prove which way, just a way which was possible.
Just like if you claimed a man could not have done something, you just have to show a man could, not actually find the man who did it.
@MorganMarvinson Here is the part I am curious about, is there any evidence that someone could find which would make you accept evolution as a viable theory, if so what would it be exactly.
@CliffStamp Good question. I've seriously considered it. The problem is the conveniently missing gradation of change before and after the Cambrian explosion, the convenient avowal that we shouldn't expect stable life forms to turn into something else now (though they supposedly did in the past), the absurdity of thinking CHANCE mistakes plus survivability is sufficient to recreate life forms. In short, it is the appeal to imagination to make up for all the missing evidence.
@MorganMarvinson There is a lot missing that is true, and it may not even be possible to find all the physical evidence as it may not be there. However in the future it may be computationally possible to compute it. Take any DNA strand, subject it to random mutation, then genetic drift + selective pressure and watch what happens. We are however very far from this now, just getting a gene by gene understanding.
@CliffStamp "There is a lot missing" the most essential to confirm the theory.
"computationally possible" If that is the case then the "evolution" of DNA isn't random. Some now postulate that to be the case, calling it an algorithm. I'm waiting for more than one doubtful transitional form before accepting the theory.
"very far from this now" But ... there's always faith!
@MorganMarvinson I don't see how when we achieve the computational ability to model genomes in variation it would prove they had to be from ID. In fact at that point it would be trivial to see exactly how variation + selective pressures effected them, it would be possible to measure exactly divergence times and see if the fossil record gaps between species match, which now can not be calculated.
@MorganMarvinson There are lots of things we can not model now but that does not mean the basic science used is accepted based on faith. For example we can not model the behavior of a leaf when it is dropped into a stream, but we don't just say it is moved by God. At this point even though the basics are known (essentially gravity and fluid dynamics) there is too much information to model, so those concepts are "proven" in simpler systems.
@CliffStamp ERVs (ERV's means "belonging to ERV" or the contraction for "ERV is") are as much evidence for common linkage as for common design. They aren't increasing being shown to provide essential functions in the DNA. They aren't junk and there is no known ERV adding to modern DNA, so it begs the question of their origin in the first place.
@MorganMarvinson Common design, you mean they are not ERV's at all (result of retro-virus attacks), but created in place in exactly the same creatures which follow exactly the same lineage that evolution predicts?
@MorganMarvinson Because it proposes a designer who coded the DNA in such a way on the linked species and only on the linked species. You don't find them in contradiction with the fossil record for example.
Your response to fusion? That shows that we have a fused chromosome in the exact same position as chimp DNA would predict if and only if we had a common ancestor.
@CliffStamp Since the ERVs affect the expression of certain genes, they need to be where they are.
Also chimps share ERVs with gorillas not shared with humans. Hmm.
The issue of fusion suggests that someone in our lineage did not have a fused chromosome at that location, but it is human chromosome #2 and chimp chromosomes #12 and 13. Also, the apparently fused chromosome is longer than the sum total of the separate chromosomes (see /watch?v=0OdgI-vecao).
@MorganMarvinson Well yes, I would assume that chimp and ape DNA is similar in regions where human and chimp is not, the total similarity should be closer in human and chimp is all.
It would not be expected they are exactly the same length, but the position which is almost to the exact base is what is telling.
As a simple question, if these issues do not support evolution, or in fact support ID, how come there is no mention of it in the literature?
@CliffStamp Chimp and gorilla, not chimp and ape. My point was more specific. Gorillas are supposed to be on an earlier branch before chimps and humans parted company. How did gorillas get "ERVs" in common with chimps at an earlier break in the supposed tree? Did they just vanish before division with humans?
@MorganMarvinson Sloppy language on my part, I understood your objection, and without looking at the paper, I would assume that chimps and gorilla share quite a bit of DNA that chimps and humans do not, just that we are closer on average which predicts a closer and separate common link. It is easier to explain using graphs of set theory.
@MorganMarvinson Draw a circle which represents all human DNA. Draw a circle which represents chimp DNA, make them overlap, showing the common DNA.
Draw a circle which does the same with a Gorilla.
You can make the Gorilla Circle (set) overlap on parts of the Chimp circle (intersection) which are not on the human circle.
Thus there would be unique intersections between human and chimp, chimp and gorilla and gorilla and human. Just more between human and chimp than chimp and gorilla.
@CliffStamp As a simple question, if these issues do not support evolution, or in fact support ID, how come there is no mention of it in the literature?
Are you asking why the issues I have raised are not in the literature, then I must say, I wouldn't have it if it weren't. I am not a DNA researcher.
If that is not your question, please restate it, because I do not understand what you are asking.
@MorganMarvinson No just in general, don't you wonder why there is no debate in the literature?
For example there is a large debate about string theory and it gets irate at times, well irate for physicists anyway where even prominent physicists (Feynman) will condemn string theory for having no predictive abilities.
Doesn't it cause a concern for you that you can find a hundred thousand papers which study and apply evolution and none that refute it?
@CliffStamp "no debate in the literature" Thanks for the clarification.
I would wager why it is that there wasn't any debate about whether "junk DNA" is all junk--until the evidence got so strong that scientists quietly tried to work themselves out of the hole they dug in predicting that it would be. In other words, if it seems to support the main predictions of evolution, why debate it?
The same can be said about catastrophism in geology. Evolutionary biologists simply ignored the evidence.
@MorganMarvinson One of the main reasons to correct something is that the reward is infinitely superior. How many people can you name who published a paper supporting the Newtonian Laws of Motion? How many can anyone name?
How man people recognize the name of the man who asserted they were a flawed set - Einstein (whose theory of Relativity corrected both the laws of motion and even the meaning of gravity from a force to a curvature in 4-dimensional space time).
@MorganMarvinson It is a fairly harsh statement to say a scientist ignores the evidence, that is actually showing intent to deceive. What tends to happen is that it takes a preponderance of evidence before you get a paradigm shift. Einstein for example never ignored the evidence for a quantum universe, he simply could not accept the consequences as rational. Most would argue now he was wrong, but it would be harsh to say he was being ignorant.
@CliffStamp "intent to deceive" Generally it is a matter of bias. What seems to be an aberration is merely ignored. You don't "see" what you aren't looking for. Sometimes it is worse. When I raise certain issues in discussion, I am ridiculed for raising such a "moronic" question. The ridiculers are generally non-scientists but, at least once, it was an actual scientist. I appreciate the fact that you have not ridiculed me.
@MorganMarvinson True, scientists are just people and subjective and susceptible to diagnosis bias (and attribute bias, etc.), however they should be less influenced in general as their principled training is to be objective.
Insults are an admission of defeat. It is common on the internet as there is no fear of consequence. It is a similar dynamic to conversations of disproportionate power. In a group conflict against an individual, the group will tend to get hostile very easily.
@MorganMarvinson Uniformitarianism says there are catastrophies in nature, just like Mt. St. Helens. It does not say it was 'slow' or 'gradual' or 'uniform'. It says the PROCESSES are the same everwhere.
@MorganMarvinson I've been over this with you in other threads. I've explained what an ERV is. You no longer have an excuse for your ignorancE.
An ERV is a remnant of a virus. You only have a specific ERV marker in your DNA if you ancestor was infected. And you will only share an ERV with another creature if you SHARE an ancestor that was infect.
This is all observed scientific fact. So again: how do you explain shared ERVs among primates?
@DarwinAwardsInc "how do you explain ..." I know the standard line. I just don't buy it. How is it that 20% of DNA is made up of old viruses that can only be passed on if they infect a sex cell? It just doesn't add up. Even if it is evidence of a virus, where does a virus get started? Does it start exogenously, or endogenously? I realize that the argument is convenient for evolutionary theory, but there are too many questions still unanswered.
@MorganMarvinson Dude... You are confusing yourself by pulling all kinds of irrelavent stuff into it.
It is well known what ERVs are. They are remnants of infections of ancestral creatures by retroviruses. That's what they are and nothing else.
If ONE organism shares ONE ERV with another organism... then from their follows that they share an ancestor that was infected by that particular virus wich inserted in that particular spot. This is scientific fact.
@MorganMarvinson ERV's are just used as markers in the DNA. It is the markers that show a patteren and that pattern would only be there if evolution was correct. The DNA tree of life is the same as Darwin's tree of life.
@gregrutz Darwin's "tree of life" was a tiny sketch on a paper. The DNA tree of life (which only effects organisms for which we have DNA) rewrites previous competing "trees of life" based on phylogeny. Same idea--different trees.
@MorganMarvinson "trees of life" based on phylogeny= is the DNA tree of life which matches all the trees of life, it all fits. No Crocoducks. No birds with nipples. ERV in the right places and only in the right places.
@gregrutz "My belief in God ..." Congratulations. That's a start
"Fact of evolution" Only if by it you mean variation within a species that--so far--gives no solid evidence of formulation of novel molecular machines. The BEST examples of microevolution--or adaptations within a species--involve loss of genetic information.
Your BELIEF in evolution gives you all confidence that, rather than undoing the theory, DNA evidence will vindicate Darwin--when all other lines of evidence have not.
@MorganMarvinson Yes, there is variation in species. That is one of the things needed for evolution to happen. ''formulation of novel molecular machines'' I thought we were talking about Evolution.
Lose of information?!? Do you think a trilobite is more complex than a bird?
@gregrutz "Variation ..." There is no evidence that VARIATION IN SPECIES creates novel molecular machines. That is absolutely necessary to make any JUMP in the punctuated equilibrium--not the gradual process of Darwin.
"Do you think a trilobite is more complex than a bird?" Of course not--and that is what shows that the bird didn't come from a trilobite or any other simpler life form. It would require the random development of molecular machines, for which there is no evidence--only inference.
@gregrutz "I don't know what you are talking about." Yes, that is apparent. I would suggest you read up on molecular machines and the multi-generation studies regarding E. Coli. Then you might be able to recognize that all the changes in the bacteria--used as evidence for evolution--go the wrong direction. Variation doesn't increase complexity, it culls the gene pool and loses complexity in the genome.
Greg, it's up to you as one who says he believes in God to consider the real world evidence.
@gregrutz Greg, apparently you need to read up on a "molecular machine." Neither a poodle nor a husky is one. You know YOUR stuff pretty well. It seems you don't know what I bring up very much at all. Let's not chase around the barn. You need to read up on "molecular machines" before we can discuss them.
@gregrutz "I have a B. of Science degree from a college." I don't, and I respect you for gaining a science education. However, the question is whether your college education dealt with molecular machines. Your responses indicate it didn't--hence the need to study.
@MorganMarvinson Research into the heart, where the chambers came from is ongoing, and not only is it explaining how you get from three to four chambers, it is giving understanding about the genetic defects which lead to people being born without properly formed four chambered hearts. Benoit Bruneau for example has done research in this area, recently published in Nature.
@CliffStamp My point has to do with the relationship between what random mutation can provide for selective pressure to select.
Walmart provides you several choices on items you might want to buy, but you can't buy what isn't provided. You can speak to a manager and request an item they don't have and they may order it, but "selective pressure" has no way of putting in an order to the DNA. The whale series REQUIRES that the pakicetus adapt to the water. That's Lamarckian.
I still don't understand the the basis for asserting that random mutation can not produce the variation required? What are you asserting is the limit in genetic mutation?
In a store the items do not reproduce and with variation thus there has to be an intelligent intent to get the desired goal.
@CliffStamp Would you expect to find a diamond ring in a sporting goods store? Then why would one expect that a land loving animal would produce variations to make him sea worthy? How does that variation help survival on land?
One might expect the programmed variation of beak size and wing size within a bird, but why would a dinosaur develop one-way lungs and what would the transition lungs look like?
Check Examiner dot com /science-news-in-national/new-doubts-arise-over-the-dinosaur-bird-link
@MorganMarvinson If there were diamond rings in a sporting goods store I would be curious as to why the owner called it a sporting goods store, it would be more like a pawn shop if there were completely random items there.
That is an interesting question, why would an obvious land based animal evolve into a purely water based animal. If I can provide a scenario would you then accept the history of evolutionary whale forms.
@MorganMarvinson There is debate in the scientific community if birds and dinosaurs are the same branch or two distinct branches from a common ancestor, but both sides clearly support common descent.
@CliffStamp "clearly support common descent" Because the evidence points to it? No, because it is the working assumption. There are problems whichever way one attempts to link birds and dinosaurs. Strangely the claim is the "bird-hip" dinosaurs aren't the ones that became birds. Then you have people claiming collagen is feathers to have feathers on dinosaurs that can't fly. Then the desire to have a transitional pushes National Geographic to accept evidence from a forged specimen. What a mess!
@MorganMarvinson Yes there are mistakes in the literature, not just in evolution, retractions happen. If you were going to apply the same criteria then you would end up rejecting all theories in all fields of science.
I still am not really sure what you would want to see in order to accept evolution both in the fossil record and elsewhere.
what science is there that is against creationism? show me. tell us. dont just say that there is. the bible doesnt count as proof cuz it cant be tested. what kind of reasoning is behind this garbage.
I hate it when religious fuck wads give themselves titles that have a science type of wording to it. Creation, Discovery Institute, Intelligent design.
Like they have any desire to be logical about anything.
What a bunch of fuck heads. I pine for the day when religion fades off.
@mrx0066600 Yes, those creationists are really fucked up and incredibly immoral. They even go on camera wearing lab coats with a background of some science evironment just to convince uneducated people. Check in Youtube how Kent Hovind (now in jail), John Pendleton and others of these scammers spread their lies.
1) It wastes huge mney on jails, prisons,police, security because of a major loss of morality because of evolution&media.
2) It's trying to be the word's policeman.
3) Being sue-happy.
4) It is following an economic system based on greed instead of principles of the Bible that even Voltaire/Rosseau affirmed that IN PRACTICE in the past and present have produced FAR FAR greater economic success than capitalism, socialism or communism.
because he found numerous areas the evidence didn't match evolution claims. Dr. Brown with a Ph.D. and 1000s of others have come to the same conclusions. Watch some of Veith's videos here:
For example, Duane Gish earned a doctorate in biochemistry from Berkeley, Steve Austin earned a doctorate in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and Kurt Wise earned his doctorate in paleontology from Harvard while studying under Stephen Jay Gould." Probably one of the best creationists is Dr. Walter Veith, former virulent atheist with a ph.d. in zoology and chair of department, who was convinced by scientific evidence to become a creationist
@ThinkingBetter Nice straw man there re Hovind, Pendleton. Many atheists use this same fallacy of representing creation science by amateurs, sometimes even teenagers (thunderfoot does that MANY times). Every world view has people at different levels of expertise. But, even the blatantly evolution site talkorigins says this:
"In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields.
@dotoree Creationism is not supported by any significant science. It's just religion in disguise. Evolution is what modern biology is build upon supported by endless evidence and what every respectable university would teach you; if you dared to be educated. Talkorigins does not support creationism.
@ThinkingBetter I'm sorry,but you are dead wrong. There are billions of testable confirmations of Bible science that have saved millions of lives and dollars if not billions. This is undisputable&a fact of history that can not be changed (unfortunately it can be lied about&is frequently done). Evolution is supported by speculation and extrapolation,ot by any directly testable or observable evidence. Talk origins??? ROFL. They are one of the most blatantly biased evolution sites ever.
@dotoree "There are billions of testable confirmations of Bible science that have saved millions of lives and dollars if not billions." Please give 5 examples.
@ThinkingBetter Modern Biology is not built on evolution. It's built on creationist natural selection which is falsely called Darwinian. Even respected evolutionists professors are on record saying that evolution is only a political narrative that is not necessary to do science. The astounding thing is that Darwin challenged the establishment of his day, but his followers don't even BEGIN to follow his example. Most are incredible embarrassments to his legacy.
@ThinkingBetter For your information I am well educated, scored in the top 2% in the nation on SATs, and have been a teacher for 17 years, the last 5 at the university level. Sheesh...the ignorant assumptions that atheists always make are simply mind blowing...why do you think that anyone who doesn't blindly follow the establishment is uneducated. Do you not realize the nearly every advance in science and correction of propaganda happened by questioning the establishment????
@dotoree Of course science is making progress through new creative thinking. Biology is no exception of this. Many science papers are published yearly proposing new theories of all sorts. Just check in Pubmed, Plosbiology etc. Any scientist knows that being behind knew knowledge is key to becoming successful. But creationism is not about creative new theories. It's about promoting religious very superficial ideas and using unsubstantiated "God of the gaps" arguments as "evidence".
@ThinkingBetter Your view of creation science is absolutely false&so is the idea that it's just god of the gaps. That is pure propaganda ¬hing less and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the facts of creation science in history. You may be sincere in your opinion,but your opinion is not based on even one single fact of indisputable scientific history. I'm writing an article&hopefully will finish soon with some examples of this to cure some of this propaganda that atheism has foisted on you.
@dotoree If you think there is such thing as "creation science" that represents something other than just seeking holes in established sciences; it's quite new to me and I'm curious what you have in your mind (I know the usual stuff e.g. Michael Behe's debunked irreducible complexity of the flagellum). I often read science journals and have yet to find something professional grade you could call "creation science". Please reference something e.g. from Pubmed.
@ZeylaBorn Some day the Bible will be found together with the Quran, Torah, Book of Mormons etc. in a section of books called "Mythology" where you also find books about Greek Mythology, Nordic Mythology etc. New books with the theme of Christian Mythology will explain how people in the past believed ridiculous stories about some David Copperfield type scammer Jesus who fooled people e.g. made water into wine, fake healings or a business man Noah who saved his animals during a local flood.
@ZeylaBorn One thing that makes me at least somewhat optimistic is that human knowledge is growing faster than ever and in the end knowledge will win over faith.
its interesting that Luskin and DI don't appear to have contacted the books authors or publishers and offered to assist in correcting the errors. If the embryo diagrams are such an issue then surely Behe and Luskin could have done a new set and presented them for use in text books.
This guy is SUCH a liar it actually hurts my consciousness. Do people seriously think that, if there WERE any scientific evidence that discredits evolution it wouldn't spread like wildfire through the scientific community? I don't understand how people that are this blatantly wrong about everything get air time on a supposed news show.
I think you have missed mine. I never said he says evolution is wrong in this particular video. He says that textbooks don't "cover the science that discredits Darwin", to which I said that if there were any, it would "spread like wildfire through the scientific community". He's lying. He also brings up haeckles embroys, which are NEVER used to teach evolution. He's lying about that too.
@CrystalEye736 there is lots of evidence against Darwin, that is why the theory of evolution has evolved over time and become the strong theory it is today, it is no longer Darwinian evolution. He is being misleading, but he isn't lying.
And i can't speak for wether or not they are used as evidence where you are, but they are in many places, and even if they wernt, he's just being misleading, not wrong.
@courty64 he's not wrong when he says that something is being used when its not? I have a lot of family in the states, and I have seen a lot of biology textbooks in my time, not one of them ever mentions haeclel. the fact that vertebrate embryos look alike is used by showing pictures of actual embryos now, not his drawings.
And please, give me an example of science that challenges Darwin's theory of evolution.
@CrystalEye736 the fact that darwin coined survival of the fittest and natural selection which are not actually accurate ways of describing how evolution worked, he has some misocnceptions which are easy to make, dont worry, it doesnt mean evolution is wrong, similar to if i said, newton was wrong (which he was) it doesnt mean gravity as a theory is wrong.
@courty64 Actually natural selection is used to this day by scientists to describe the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and survival of the fittest is simply a way to explain it to people who are unfamiliar with the theory. Besides, even if these two terms were no longer used because they are not accurate, that's still not scientific evidence that refutes the theory, nevermind discrediting darwin.
And no, I'm definitely not "worried" that evolution might be wrong. I'm a zoologist
@courty64 Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not the one marking you as spam. Im the one that unmarked you the first time I visited the video. Looks like there's soeone else that doesn't like what you say. Sorry to hear it.
@CrystalEye736 well, tbh, there's nothing wrong with what i've said at all, so whoever is doing it is a retard. Nothing says ignorance than just plain not listening to the opposition.
Everyone should come to proudfemale's channel to see how stupid this FEISTY guy really is. The entertainment value is extremely high with this one.
He says I am wrong, but when I ask him to prove it, he runs away like a coward. I wonder why? LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@srexob715
@srexob715
You keep telling everyone that they are running from you because you like to pretend thats the reason they are ignoring you when in reality we all know its because people realise you are clinically insane when you pretend you cant see their response to your questions. Just because you act crazy and delude yourself into thinking people didnt reply to u does not make it a fact. To the rest of us you appear as completely insane when you pretend you cant see comments
FeistyForJustice 2 months ago
Comment removed
FeistyForJustice 2 months ago
Srexob is a clinically insane stalker. He has many accounts and everytime I block one of his accounts he uses another account to send me the same message with his crazy laugh "WAHAHAHAHAH" look on the channel named "proudfemale" and read through his crazy behaviour and harassment of others, he will be banned very soon if anyone else wants to report his account srexob715, these are his other accounts...
Drpsholder
2rexob715
srexob715
majoratheist98
majoratheist99
majoratheist70
majoratheist71
FeistyForJustice 2 months ago
@FeistyForJustice This guy is stalking me. Pathetic.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715
You have a dozen accounts you made purely to stalk people. In fact you even admite to it saying " I had to make all those accounts because people block me and run" then you have the nerve to call others a stalker when it is you that keeps making new accounts everytime I block you. Furthermore you stalked that 15 year old boy buzzkila threatening him that you will track him down and now he has reported you to lthe police for being the child stalker you are
FeistyForJustice 2 months ago
@FeistyForJustice This pathetic moron can do nothing but STALK me. And then he wonders why we have no respect for him. Idiot!
srexob715 2 months ago
@FeistyForJustice Still running! LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@FeistyForJustice LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@FeistyForJustice Still running, but he doesn't like me thinking he's a coward! LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@FeistyForJustice Still running away! WHAHAHAHaH
srexob715 2 months ago
@FeistyForJustice Keep running! LMAO!
srexob715 1 month ago
@FeistyForJustice Still running away and providing evidence that he's a coward. Go to proudfemale's page to see how stupid he really is! Its hilarious!
srexob715 1 month ago
@FeistyForJustice Still running! WHHHAHAHAHAHAHA
srexob715 1 month ago
Google Project Steve NCSE.
If you understand and accept evolution, you'll smile.
If you are a creatard, you'll hang your head in shame.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@UvenYakinoff
watch?v=Y4Bu0PVqhg0
says all about how fucking stupid you are! lolol
you are just retarded! LOLOL
you are so pathetic!! lololol
transtlantic 5 months ago
@UvenYakinoff You can't stand it that Claire is smarter than you. IDiot
gregrutz 7 months ago
@UvenYakinoff I repeated what someone else said, so what, Oh and you are an ass hole.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@UvenYakinoff exposed to who gives a fuck
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz YOU should quit lying you asshole. WE know who you are! WildwoodClaire!
FAIL
EXPOSED
HateFilledTroll 7 months ago
@UvenYakinoff yup, I looked a your home page, you suck.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz OH YOU know how to look up a home page? HAHAHAHAAA IDIOT!
HateFilledTroll 7 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 7 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DishrackDarwin You talk like you don't know evolution has been proven. ID-iot.
And I am not a female or an atheist, dumb shit.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@UvenYakinoff How the fuck does that prove anything dummy. You ID-iots don't uderstand enough logic to put 2+2 together. I am not a female or an atheist. I studied chemistry. You should try reading some science.
gregrutz 7 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 7 months ago
@UvenYakinoff I am not a sock dip shit.
gregrutz 7 months ago
some one actually asked me why people dont fall of the bottom of the earth...and they were serious...
cjfilmproductions 7 months ago
@UvenYakinoff srexob = boxers backwards. HAR HAR HAR
DogFood631 8 months ago
@DishrackDarwin He runs like COWARDS always do! LOL
srexob715 8 months ago
@DishrackDarwin LIAR! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
srexob715 8 months ago
@UvenYakinoff MORON! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
srexob715 8 months ago
@DishrackDarwin WHAHAH! You LIED! WHAHAHAHAHAAHA
srexob715 8 months ago
@DishrackDarwin MORON! WHAHAHAHAHAAH
srexob715 8 months ago
This guy was purely paid to refute evolution or he is plainly ignorant,and allowing his traditional faith pave the road for his doomed future of a education.
lewisburgatheist 8 months ago
Hasn't the world figured out that were really traveling through space on the back of an epic space turtle? GOD, IDIOTS...
christoph2005 9 months ago
Seen many videos and still awaiting reliable evidence on Creationism / Intelligent Design........just one would satisfy my curiosity.
rasode 1 year ago
Even IF evolution were wrong there would still be no evidence that a god/creator exists.
max2right 1 year ago
More tripe from Faux News (Actual motto "Unfair and Mentally Unbalanced").
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Wow..... My brother is going to graduate school for Genetics.... He would probably want to do horrible things to this douche. Also, djarm 67, that moment of zen was awesome!
auggiedadoggie 1 year ago
The text books don't take a one sided view. They take a side that is supported by evidence. The only thing ID does is question the validity of evolution of natural selection. Which is fine, but if you want to challenge the theory, then you MUST submit evidence. ID has no evidence therefore it cannot be disproven. It cannot be disproven because it is a super natural explanation, which explains nothing other than what you believe. Unsupported beliefs do not belong in the text books.
chachee99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don, please quit twisting the facts. Casey Luskin cited one article after he stated a true fact: when we develop the "tree" according to one gene we get one tree, when we develop the "tree" according to another, the tree goes another way. The same is true if you shape the tree according to phenotype versus genotype.
You know this to be true. You aren't a moron, so why do you slur Luskin for citing the truth? Hiding or twisting the truth isn't telling the truth--as a scientist you know better.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
"There is no horizontal gene transfer between larger organisms." Excellent point--this knocks out one rationalization of how such rapid change can take place during the brief punctuated bands of time between stasis. Point changes caused by random mutation can't get the job done in this short amount of time. You make a good case for Intelligent Design.
Shouldn't tell a third grader the truth about the tree of life? You probably don't want to tell a high school student either. That's immoral.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The clade hypothesis focuses more on the necessary selective pressure not mutation rate to force rapid change such as form example a shift in environment, population density, or predation or adjacent competition population changes. The equations which govern population genetic modeling do not show such rates of rapid speciation are impossible.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "necessary selective pressure not mutation rate to force rapid change" That's all fine and good for selecting variation within a species, like types of beaks among finches. One can readily see how a stouter beak provides an advantage to a bird when easier seeds are unavailable through drought. But nature doesn't have any selections if mutations aren't occurring--any more than Cubans have selections available in their bodegas. So "pressure" does nothing to generate changes available.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I don't understand, you accept that variation within a species, you accept new species form, what exactly are you disputing? Is it that species can not move out of the genus? What is the the dispute with the current model that explains how this happens (summarized as : random mutation + selective pressure, and/or genetic drift).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "you accept ... " Yes, that is right. New branches of a given species, which sometimes lose the ability to mate with other individuals in that species--creating a dead end. This can be demonstrated. What cannot be demonstrated is that the species goes on to develop novel body parts--even from ones they already had. Moreover, no real links between body plans have been found in the fossil record. It is mere supposition that all animals had a common ancestor.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson New species have been observed, and further they are not "dead ends", they have the ability to reproduce with their own species. This is published in the literature.
Ok, so to be clear, in order for you to accept proof of common decent, you would need to see speciation to such an extent it would create a large scale morphological change?
What exactly would you want to see in the fossil record as proof of a "link", what characteristics would that fossil require?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "dead ends" Are these species formed by isolation expected to turn into some other body type?
Proof of common decent would require what Darwin projected:
"INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS.”
That we have a few doubtful mosaic forms isn't very encouraging.
I call this: "The dog ate the transitionals."
This would mean INNUMERABLE examples of organisms with the intermediate changes in organs, eyes, skin, reproductive systems, lungs, hearts--all of the features we do NOT find.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson To clarify, is your position that we have transitional fossils but simply not have enough? Or that we have no transitional fossils at all?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp No organism is directly transitional--according to evolutionary biologists. Every candidate for a transitional is a new side branch on the tree. Yet, there should be INNUMERABLE examples of in-betweens with all the in-between organs and systems I listed.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I still do not understand, are you asserting that there are no examples of an in-between form (show a more advanced feature than A but less advanced than C and thus = B a transitional form between A and C), or simply not enough?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I'd like to get you to stretch your thinking to understand the point I am making. "Advanced" is a relative term that can be used to categorize things like nails or shoes, finding a place to put them according to features. Being able to categorize isn't providing a transitional form. Here's what is required:
If an organism went from a two-chambered heart to a three-chambered heart, where is the in between? If an organism went from simple eyes to complex eyes, where is the in between?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Ok, but that is the idea of IC popularized by Behe and that has been disproved in the literature, the main reason it is wrong is because evolution does not always proceed by a linear progression of positive changes, there are redundancies, combinations, etc. . Again, IC is disproven, and example after example which has been shown to be able to be evolved (eye, blood clotting, immune system, flagella, etc.).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I will repeat that which I have stated to others: the CLAIM of disproving something is not the same as disproving it. Otherwise, evolution has been disproved.
Miller's approach to disproving the bacterial flagella is to point to a similar structure (which population studies declare it to be a later derivative) and say, "See, it was co-opted."
Wow! Evolution has done so much from so little for so long that now it can do nearly anything with nothing--including going back in time.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson That is true, it is not the claim, but the acceptance in the literature which would be taken as support and IC has been shown to be false in the literature, in fact the basic definition is contrary to the theory and is clearly a strawman at best because never has evolution been argued to be a simple and linear series of positive steps. Genetic drift is clearly a completely non-linear process.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Miller starts his "disproof" of IC by holding up a mousetrap, repeating Behe's claim that it is irreducibly complex to function as a mousetrap and acknowledging "that's a valid point." Right. Then evolutionists get really creative and say it doesn't need the platform, all you have to do is attach it to the floor. Dumkaufs! They just gave it a BIGGER platform. What lengths to avoid the concept! Why such lengths to avoid the concept? (I know, not the literature.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The argument there is that the wooden part just made it portable and thus easier to set up.
A better example would be a light bulb, but if you are sufficiently clever you can probably see a way to make some use out of a light bulb even with each part removed.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Making uses out of a broken mousetrap or lightbulb doesn't say how they were created OR tell why as the object itself, it isn't irreducibly complex. They both are.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson We know how they were created, they were both invented objects. The argument was to show that they could be created by a process analogous to the evolutionary methods.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "they were created" Design points to a designer.
Again, knowing what they're made of and knowing what you can do with broken pieces of them doesn't tell you how they got that way or what intelligence designed them. I suppose you know who gets credit for the lightbulb, but do you know who designed it?
Maybe in your book "design" points to happenstance or the laws that hold the thing together, but of course, what holds a thing together is not what made it or who designed it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Correct we would not know who as in the name of the person who made an individual light bulb, but we would know the what as in a person made it.
But the argument Behe made was similar to claiming no human could make a mousetrap, if a human could make one that would prove it false. You would not have to disprove the existance of Behe's God to falsify his statement.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "no human could make a mousetrap" What are you citing? The point I have read is the design inference. When we see an irreducibly complex structure like a mousetrap, though we don't know who made it, we infer that it was done by intelligence--not accident or the laws that keep wood holding together or metal holding together. Those laws don't explain the new combination. Sure we are comparing animate and inanimate objects, reproducing and non-reproducing things, but they're analogous.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes that was my point, the claim was that you could not make a mousetrap by a sequence, it had to be formed at once as-is, once you give an example, any example this is falsified. You do not need to prove which way, just a way which was possible.
Just like if you claimed a man could not have done something, you just have to show a man could, not actually find the man who did it.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Here is the part I am curious about, is there any evidence that someone could find which would make you accept evolution as a viable theory, if so what would it be exactly.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Good question. I've seriously considered it. The problem is the conveniently missing gradation of change before and after the Cambrian explosion, the convenient avowal that we shouldn't expect stable life forms to turn into something else now (though they supposedly did in the past), the absurdity of thinking CHANCE mistakes plus survivability is sufficient to recreate life forms. In short, it is the appeal to imagination to make up for all the missing evidence.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson There is a lot missing that is true, and it may not even be possible to find all the physical evidence as it may not be there. However in the future it may be computationally possible to compute it. Take any DNA strand, subject it to random mutation, then genetic drift + selective pressure and watch what happens. We are however very far from this now, just getting a gene by gene understanding.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "There is a lot missing" the most essential to confirm the theory.
"computationally possible" If that is the case then the "evolution" of DNA isn't random. Some now postulate that to be the case, calling it an algorithm. I'm waiting for more than one doubtful transitional form before accepting the theory.
"very far from this now" But ... there's always faith!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I don't see how when we achieve the computational ability to model genomes in variation it would prove they had to be from ID. In fact at that point it would be trivial to see exactly how variation + selective pressures effected them, it would be possible to measure exactly divergence times and see if the fossil record gaps between species match, which now can not be calculated.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson There are lots of things we can not model now but that does not mean the basic science used is accepted based on faith. For example we can not model the behavior of a leaf when it is dropped into a stream, but we don't just say it is moved by God. At this point even though the basics are known (essentially gravity and fluid dynamics) there is too much information to model, so those concepts are "proven" in simpler systems.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson How do you explain evidence for evolution such as ERV's, which again directly support the lineage as noted by the fossil record?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp ERVs (ERV's means "belonging to ERV" or the contraction for "ERV is") are as much evidence for common linkage as for common design. They aren't increasing being shown to provide essential functions in the DNA. They aren't junk and there is no known ERV adding to modern DNA, so it begs the question of their origin in the first place.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Common design, you mean they are not ERV's at all (result of retro-virus attacks), but created in place in exactly the same creatures which follow exactly the same lineage that evolution predicts?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Yes, there is some thought that Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) were the precursors to the Exogenous ones.
If they do perform the same functions in the various creatures, why wouldn't their coding be the same.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Because it proposes a designer who coded the DNA in such a way on the linked species and only on the linked species. You don't find them in contradiction with the fossil record for example.
Your response to fusion? That shows that we have a fused chromosome in the exact same position as chimp DNA would predict if and only if we had a common ancestor.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Since the ERVs affect the expression of certain genes, they need to be where they are.
Also chimps share ERVs with gorillas not shared with humans. Hmm.
The issue of fusion suggests that someone in our lineage did not have a fused chromosome at that location, but it is human chromosome #2 and chimp chromosomes #12 and 13. Also, the apparently fused chromosome is longer than the sum total of the separate chromosomes (see /watch?v=0OdgI-vecao).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Well yes, I would assume that chimp and ape DNA is similar in regions where human and chimp is not, the total similarity should be closer in human and chimp is all.
It would not be expected they are exactly the same length, but the position which is almost to the exact base is what is telling.
As a simple question, if these issues do not support evolution, or in fact support ID, how come there is no mention of it in the literature?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Chimp and gorilla, not chimp and ape. My point was more specific. Gorillas are supposed to be on an earlier branch before chimps and humans parted company. How did gorillas get "ERVs" in common with chimps at an earlier break in the supposed tree? Did they just vanish before division with humans?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Sloppy language on my part, I understood your objection, and without looking at the paper, I would assume that chimps and gorilla share quite a bit of DNA that chimps and humans do not, just that we are closer on average which predicts a closer and separate common link. It is easier to explain using graphs of set theory.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Draw a circle which represents all human DNA. Draw a circle which represents chimp DNA, make them overlap, showing the common DNA.
Draw a circle which does the same with a Gorilla.
You can make the Gorilla Circle (set) overlap on parts of the Chimp circle (intersection) which are not on the human circle.
Thus there would be unique intersections between human and chimp, chimp and gorilla and gorilla and human. Just more between human and chimp than chimp and gorilla.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp As a simple question, if these issues do not support evolution, or in fact support ID, how come there is no mention of it in the literature?
Are you asking why the issues I have raised are not in the literature, then I must say, I wouldn't have it if it weren't. I am not a DNA researcher.
If that is not your question, please restate it, because I do not understand what you are asking.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No just in general, don't you wonder why there is no debate in the literature?
For example there is a large debate about string theory and it gets irate at times, well irate for physicists anyway where even prominent physicists (Feynman) will condemn string theory for having no predictive abilities.
Doesn't it cause a concern for you that you can find a hundred thousand papers which study and apply evolution and none that refute it?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "no debate in the literature" Thanks for the clarification.
I would wager why it is that there wasn't any debate about whether "junk DNA" is all junk--until the evidence got so strong that scientists quietly tried to work themselves out of the hole they dug in predicting that it would be. In other words, if it seems to support the main predictions of evolution, why debate it?
The same can be said about catastrophism in geology. Evolutionary biologists simply ignored the evidence.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson One of the main reasons to correct something is that the reward is infinitely superior. How many people can you name who published a paper supporting the Newtonian Laws of Motion? How many can anyone name?
How man people recognize the name of the man who asserted they were a flawed set - Einstein (whose theory of Relativity corrected both the laws of motion and even the meaning of gravity from a force to a curvature in 4-dimensional space time).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson It is a fairly harsh statement to say a scientist ignores the evidence, that is actually showing intent to deceive. What tends to happen is that it takes a preponderance of evidence before you get a paradigm shift. Einstein for example never ignored the evidence for a quantum universe, he simply could not accept the consequences as rational. Most would argue now he was wrong, but it would be harsh to say he was being ignorant.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "intent to deceive" Generally it is a matter of bias. What seems to be an aberration is merely ignored. You don't "see" what you aren't looking for. Sometimes it is worse. When I raise certain issues in discussion, I am ridiculed for raising such a "moronic" question. The ridiculers are generally non-scientists but, at least once, it was an actual scientist. I appreciate the fact that you have not ridiculed me.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson True, scientists are just people and subjective and susceptible to diagnosis bias (and attribute bias, etc.), however they should be less influenced in general as their principled training is to be objective.
Insults are an admission of defeat. It is common on the internet as there is no fear of consequence. It is a similar dynamic to conversations of disproportionate power. In a group conflict against an individual, the group will tend to get hostile very easily.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Uniformitarianism says there are catastrophies in nature, just like Mt. St. Helens. It does not say it was 'slow' or 'gradual' or 'uniform'. It says the PROCESSES are the same everwhere.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson What the function of those parts of DNA ended up to be is not relavent.
What is relavent is how they got there. And the fact that they are there require an explanation.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I've been over this with you in other threads. I've explained what an ERV is. You no longer have an excuse for your ignorancE.
An ERV is a remnant of a virus. You only have a specific ERV marker in your DNA if you ancestor was infected. And you will only share an ERV with another creature if you SHARE an ancestor that was infect.
This is all observed scientific fact. So again: how do you explain shared ERVs among primates?
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@DarwinAwardsInc "how do you explain ..." I know the standard line. I just don't buy it. How is it that 20% of DNA is made up of old viruses that can only be passed on if they infect a sex cell? It just doesn't add up. Even if it is evidence of a virus, where does a virus get started? Does it start exogenously, or endogenously? I realize that the argument is convenient for evolutionary theory, but there are too many questions still unanswered.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Dude... You are confusing yourself by pulling all kinds of irrelavent stuff into it.
It is well known what ERVs are. They are remnants of infections of ancestral creatures by retroviruses. That's what they are and nothing else.
If ONE organism shares ONE ERV with another organism... then from their follows that they share an ancestor that was infected by that particular virus wich inserted in that particular spot. This is scientific fact.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ERV's are just used as markers in the DNA. It is the markers that show a patteren and that pattern would only be there if evolution was correct. The DNA tree of life is the same as Darwin's tree of life.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Darwin's "tree of life" was a tiny sketch on a paper. The DNA tree of life (which only effects organisms for which we have DNA) rewrites previous competing "trees of life" based on phylogeny. Same idea--different trees.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "trees of life" based on phylogeny= is the DNA tree of life which matches all the trees of life, it all fits. No Crocoducks. No birds with nipples. ERV in the right places and only in the right places.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz " 'trees of life' based on phylogeny= is the DNA tree of life which matches all the trees of life, it all fits."
FACTS:
DNA evidence can address only a very small portion of the tree.
Not all living organisms have even been sequenced.
However, your optimism about the tree of life has been duly noted and must be a real encouragement to your friends and supporters.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson ''Not all living organisms have even been sequenced. ''
So when they are you will accept evolution then, right?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz "So when they are [sequenced] you will accept evolution then, right?" Another voice of optimism for a "theory in crisis"!
Only a prophet of God could tell us how the evidence will play out. Oh, right, you don't believe in God. So, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson What does my belief in God have to do with the fact of evolution?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz "My belief in God ..." Congratulations. That's a start
"Fact of evolution" Only if by it you mean variation within a species that--so far--gives no solid evidence of formulation of novel molecular machines. The BEST examples of microevolution--or adaptations within a species--involve loss of genetic information.
Your BELIEF in evolution gives you all confidence that, rather than undoing the theory, DNA evidence will vindicate Darwin--when all other lines of evidence have not.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes, there is variation in species. That is one of the things needed for evolution to happen. ''formulation of novel molecular machines'' I thought we were talking about Evolution.
Lose of information?!? Do you think a trilobite is more complex than a bird?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz "Variation ..." There is no evidence that VARIATION IN SPECIES creates novel molecular machines. That is absolutely necessary to make any JUMP in the punctuated equilibrium--not the gradual process of Darwin.
"Do you think a trilobite is more complex than a bird?" Of course not--and that is what shows that the bird didn't come from a trilobite or any other simpler life form. It would require the random development of molecular machines, for which there is no evidence--only inference.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson ''creates novel molecular machines'' I don't know what you are talking about.
The list of species which possess transitional features continues to grow. Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz "I don't know what you are talking about." Yes, that is apparent. I would suggest you read up on molecular machines and the multi-generation studies regarding E. Coli. Then you might be able to recognize that all the changes in the bacteria--used as evidence for evolution--go the wrong direction. Variation doesn't increase complexity, it culls the gene pool and loses complexity in the genome.
Greg, it's up to you as one who says he believes in God to consider the real world evidence.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL! LOL He runs from comments that prove him wrong! LOL
srexob715 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson An example of the questions/statements that he runs from. Do you think a trilobite is more complex than a bird? HE RAN!
He also never clarified what "novel molecular machines" consists of. He must have made it up! LOL
srexob715 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson No, I was talking about Evolution of species.
What has lost more information, a poodle or a husky? Both are variations of a wolf. Both are ''molecular machines''
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Greg, apparently you need to read up on a "molecular machine." Neither a poodle nor a husky is one. You know YOUR stuff pretty well. It seems you don't know what I bring up very much at all. Let's not chase around the barn. You need to read up on "molecular machines" before we can discuss them.
Later.
Morgan
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson LIFE is a molecular machine !
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz You are wasting time. Get studying!
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I have a B. of Science degree from a college. How about you?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz "I have a B. of Science degree from a college." I don't, and I respect you for gaining a science education. However, the question is whether your college education dealt with molecular machines. Your responses indicate it didn't--hence the need to study.
For starters, YouTube has some nice animations.
/watch?v=U_mZGTB5uKg&feature=related
/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE&feature=related
/watch?v=6dMlde9akBk&feature=related
/watch?v=e3uL8rSKjA8
Search on "molecular machines" for more.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Nothing but a DUMB ASS TROLL who is scared of learning!
srexob715 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL!
srexob715 10 months ago
@srexob715 "TROLL!" Yes, we know you are here. You announce your presence regularly.
MORGAN.
MorganMarvinson 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson WHAHAH! TROLL!
srexob715 10 months ago
@MorganMarvinson PUSSY! WHAHAHA
srexob715 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson I love running you off of videos. Its just too easy!
srexob715 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Research into the heart, where the chambers came from is ongoing, and not only is it explaining how you get from three to four chambers, it is giving understanding about the genetic defects which lead to people being born without properly formed four chambered hearts. Benoit Bruneau for example has done research in this area, recently published in Nature.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp The "genetic defects" portion of the research sounds valuable.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@CliffStamp My point has to do with the relationship between what random mutation can provide for selective pressure to select.
Walmart provides you several choices on items you might want to buy, but you can't buy what isn't provided. You can speak to a manager and request an item they don't have and they may order it, but "selective pressure" has no way of putting in an order to the DNA. The whale series REQUIRES that the pakicetus adapt to the water. That's Lamarckian.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Soft inheritance? How is that required?
I still don't understand the the basis for asserting that random mutation can not produce the variation required? What are you asserting is the limit in genetic mutation?
In a store the items do not reproduce and with variation thus there has to be an intelligent intent to get the desired goal.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Would you expect to find a diamond ring in a sporting goods store? Then why would one expect that a land loving animal would produce variations to make him sea worthy? How does that variation help survival on land?
One might expect the programmed variation of beak size and wing size within a bird, but why would a dinosaur develop one-way lungs and what would the transition lungs look like?
Check Examiner dot com /science-news-in-national/new-doubts-arise-over-the-dinosaur-bird-link
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson If there were diamond rings in a sporting goods store I would be curious as to why the owner called it a sporting goods store, it would be more like a pawn shop if there were completely random items there.
That is an interesting question, why would an obvious land based animal evolve into a purely water based animal. If I can provide a scenario would you then accept the history of evolutionary whale forms.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "provide a scenario" I've read the scenario. It's ludicrous and a reshuffling of Lamarckian reasoning.
Leave a dog-like creature playing in the water long enough and the ones that start turning into whales have an advantage. Right. Right.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson There is debate in the scientific community if birds and dinosaurs are the same branch or two distinct branches from a common ancestor, but both sides clearly support common descent.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "clearly support common descent" Because the evidence points to it? No, because it is the working assumption. There are problems whichever way one attempts to link birds and dinosaurs. Strangely the claim is the "bird-hip" dinosaurs aren't the ones that became birds. Then you have people claiming collagen is feathers to have feathers on dinosaurs that can't fly. Then the desire to have a transitional pushes National Geographic to accept evidence from a forged specimen. What a mess!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes there are mistakes in the literature, not just in evolution, retractions happen. If you were going to apply the same criteria then you would end up rejecting all theories in all fields of science.
I still am not really sure what you would want to see in order to accept evolution both in the fossil record and elsewhere.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
Comment removed
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
I'm thinking it's something else because you have claimed that you aren't ignorant on these topics, yet you continue to misrepresent. So what is it?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
How do morons like Luskin get TV time? The Discovery Institute should be abolished.
tomestubbs 1 year ago
what science is there that is against creationism? show me. tell us. dont just say that there is. the bible doesnt count as proof cuz it cant be tested. what kind of reasoning is behind this garbage.
joesports9 1 year ago
I hate it when religious fuck wads give themselves titles that have a science type of wording to it. Creation, Discovery Institute, Intelligent design.
Like they have any desire to be logical about anything.
What a bunch of fuck heads. I pine for the day when religion fades off.
mrx0066600 1 year ago
@mrx0066600 Yes, those creationists are really fucked up and incredibly immoral. They even go on camera wearing lab coats with a background of some science evironment just to convince uneducated people. Check in Youtube how Kent Hovind (now in jail), John Pendleton and others of these scammers spread their lies.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter
Oh yeah and lets not forget Scientology...
mrx0066600 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter There are many reasons America is losing:
1) It wastes huge mney on jails, prisons,police, security because of a major loss of morality because of evolution&media.
2) It's trying to be the word's policeman.
3) Being sue-happy.
4) It is following an economic system based on greed instead of principles of the Bible that even Voltaire/Rosseau affirmed that IN PRACTICE in the past and present have produced FAR FAR greater economic success than capitalism, socialism or communism.
dotoree 1 year ago
because he found numerous areas the evidence didn't match evolution claims. Dr. Brown with a Ph.D. and 1000s of others have come to the same conclusions. Watch some of Veith's videos here:
· The Fossil Record Speaks: watch?v=5IpmRf07iGM
· Genes of Genesis: watch?v=mhSDM3OvV8g
· A Universal Flood: watch?v=kfTC6_OiAgA
· Bones in stones: watch?v=TuGMq4t-oQk
· When Mammals Reigned: watch?v=8WtrCxNhe0c others too.
Google creationscience to find Dr. Brown's free online book.
dotoree 1 year ago
For example, Duane Gish earned a doctorate in biochemistry from Berkeley, Steve Austin earned a doctorate in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and Kurt Wise earned his doctorate in paleontology from Harvard while studying under Stephen Jay Gould." Probably one of the best creationists is Dr. Walter Veith, former virulent atheist with a ph.d. in zoology and chair of department, who was convinced by scientific evidence to become a creationist
dotoree 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Nice straw man there re Hovind, Pendleton. Many atheists use this same fallacy of representing creation science by amateurs, sometimes even teenagers (thunderfoot does that MANY times). Every world view has people at different levels of expertise. But, even the blatantly evolution site talkorigins says this:
"In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Creationism is not supported by any significant science. It's just religion in disguise. Evolution is what modern biology is build upon supported by endless evidence and what every respectable university would teach you; if you dared to be educated. Talkorigins does not support creationism.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter I'm sorry,but you are dead wrong. There are billions of testable confirmations of Bible science that have saved millions of lives and dollars if not billions. This is undisputable&a fact of history that can not be changed (unfortunately it can be lied about&is frequently done). Evolution is supported by speculation and extrapolation,ot by any directly testable or observable evidence. Talk origins??? ROFL. They are one of the most blatantly biased evolution sites ever.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree "There are billions of testable confirmations of Bible science that have saved millions of lives and dollars if not billions." Please give 5 examples.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Modern Biology is not built on evolution. It's built on creationist natural selection which is falsely called Darwinian. Even respected evolutionists professors are on record saying that evolution is only a political narrative that is not necessary to do science. The astounding thing is that Darwin challenged the establishment of his day, but his followers don't even BEGIN to follow his example. Most are incredible embarrassments to his legacy.
dotoree 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter For your information I am well educated, scored in the top 2% in the nation on SATs, and have been a teacher for 17 years, the last 5 at the university level. Sheesh...the ignorant assumptions that atheists always make are simply mind blowing...why do you think that anyone who doesn't blindly follow the establishment is uneducated. Do you not realize the nearly every advance in science and correction of propaganda happened by questioning the establishment????
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Of course science is making progress through new creative thinking. Biology is no exception of this. Many science papers are published yearly proposing new theories of all sorts. Just check in Pubmed, Plosbiology etc. Any scientist knows that being behind knew knowledge is key to becoming successful. But creationism is not about creative new theories. It's about promoting religious very superficial ideas and using unsubstantiated "God of the gaps" arguments as "evidence".
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Your view of creation science is absolutely false&so is the idea that it's just god of the gaps. That is pure propaganda ¬hing less and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the facts of creation science in history. You may be sincere in your opinion,but your opinion is not based on even one single fact of indisputable scientific history. I'm writing an article&hopefully will finish soon with some examples of this to cure some of this propaganda that atheism has foisted on you.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree If you think there is such thing as "creation science" that represents something other than just seeking holes in established sciences; it's quite new to me and I'm curious what you have in your mind (I know the usual stuff e.g. Michael Behe's debunked irreducible complexity of the flagellum). I often read science journals and have yet to find something professional grade you could call "creation science". Please reference something e.g. from Pubmed.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ZeylaBorn Some day the Bible will be found together with the Quran, Torah, Book of Mormons etc. in a section of books called "Mythology" where you also find books about Greek Mythology, Nordic Mythology etc. New books with the theme of Christian Mythology will explain how people in the past believed ridiculous stories about some David Copperfield type scammer Jesus who fooled people e.g. made water into wine, fake healings or a business man Noah who saved his animals during a local flood.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago 2
@ZeylaBorn One thing that makes me at least somewhat optimistic is that human knowledge is growing faster than ever and in the end knowledge will win over faith.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
omfg, i actually read the article in new scientist, this guy is full of shit
lianghaochen 1 year ago
its interesting that Luskin and DI don't appear to have contacted the books authors or publishers and offered to assist in correcting the errors. If the embryo diagrams are such an issue then surely Behe and Luskin could have done a new set and presented them for use in text books.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
This guy is SUCH a liar it actually hurts my consciousness. Do people seriously think that, if there WERE any scientific evidence that discredits evolution it wouldn't spread like wildfire through the scientific community? I don't understand how people that are this blatantly wrong about everything get air time on a supposed news show.
CrystalEye736 1 year ago
@CrystalEye736 at no point does this guy say evolution is wrong, his entire argument is that its being taught incorrectly. You have missed the point.
courty64 1 year ago
@courty64
I think you have missed mine. I never said he says evolution is wrong in this particular video. He says that textbooks don't "cover the science that discredits Darwin", to which I said that if there were any, it would "spread like wildfire through the scientific community". He's lying. He also brings up haeckles embroys, which are NEVER used to teach evolution. He's lying about that too.
CrystalEye736 1 year ago
@CrystalEye736 there is lots of evidence against Darwin, that is why the theory of evolution has evolved over time and become the strong theory it is today, it is no longer Darwinian evolution. He is being misleading, but he isn't lying.
And i can't speak for wether or not they are used as evidence where you are, but they are in many places, and even if they wernt, he's just being misleading, not wrong.
courty64 1 year ago
@courty64 he's not wrong when he says that something is being used when its not? I have a lot of family in the states, and I have seen a lot of biology textbooks in my time, not one of them ever mentions haeclel. the fact that vertebrate embryos look alike is used by showing pictures of actual embryos now, not his drawings.
And please, give me an example of science that challenges Darwin's theory of evolution.
CrystalEye736 1 year ago
@CrystalEye736 the fact that darwin coined survival of the fittest and natural selection which are not actually accurate ways of describing how evolution worked, he has some misocnceptions which are easy to make, dont worry, it doesnt mean evolution is wrong, similar to if i said, newton was wrong (which he was) it doesnt mean gravity as a theory is wrong.
courty64 1 year ago
@courty64 Actually natural selection is used to this day by scientists to describe the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and survival of the fittest is simply a way to explain it to people who are unfamiliar with the theory. Besides, even if these two terms were no longer used because they are not accurate, that's still not scientific evidence that refutes the theory, nevermind discrediting darwin.
And no, I'm definitely not "worried" that evolution might be wrong. I'm a zoologist
CrystalEye736 1 year ago
@CrystalEye736 err... lol? you marked me as spam, thats... thats just special.
courty64 1 year ago
@courty64 Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not the one marking you as spam. Im the one that unmarked you the first time I visited the video. Looks like there's soeone else that doesn't like what you say. Sorry to hear it.
CrystalEye736 1 year ago
@CrystalEye736 well, tbh, there's nothing wrong with what i've said at all, so whoever is doing it is a retard. Nothing says ignorance than just plain not listening to the opposition.
courty64 1 year ago