This is a well put together video much more worthy than its title.
I rebuked nephilimfree's RE to this without using ad hominem, he posted a response but blocked me from further posts so I could not comment back, from what other people say this is standard practice of his, but shows his own contradictions extend from just the realms of science, as he claims other people are the ones who will not debate him.
Impressive and honest presentation sir.It is worth pointing out that if the likes of nephilim cannot provide peer-reviewed evidence for their claims then they have no argument and it's GAME OVER.
Sir-and I use that term with utmost reverence-in this video you exemplify all the human traits that I value most. Logic, a commitment to making a thorough argument, a lack of unsubstantiated claims, and the dignity to pick your battles.
NephilimFree, aka Evan Phillips of Casa Grande Apartments, 3603 Terry Road, Apt. C-5, Jackson, MS 39212-4961 Phone# (601) 278-5421 - the illegimate son of the BTK killer, is a Youtube Young Earth Creatard, Fundamentalist, Geocentrist, Conservapedia addict, Paedophile, Flat Earther, the inventor of the pre-lubricated jock-strap, and all around master of all arts and sciences.
Jōmon Sugi is a large cryptomeria tree (yakusugi) located on Yakushima, in Japan. Scientific tests revielled the tree's age more than 6,000 years,and up to 7,000 years old.
Guess Neph got it wrong again. Please waste your small religious brain on the dumb and I will watch the tree of wisdom. Neph you must be 45-50,a Kentucky redneck that thinks he knows everything? Rather listen to what codes and history an ancient tree will reveal than you with 1974 glasses and a 1166 attitude about the world.
I believe there is a "God" but all science aside............. its a belief system and "Nephilimfree" make us all look bad! I see the science and acknowledge all opinions and I have to say "Nephilimfree" is a complete idiot and makes those of us that subscribe to are faith look silly, I see science and know the facts but I still consider all relevant science as just more the reason to hold onto my beliefs! I won't argue since "Faith" can't be argued. Thanks!
I saw this guy last year, I am amazed that Youtube is still hosting him & I'm flabbergasted that he is still online! Its beyond me that he is still going on about evolution. Well it just shows that Youtube will let any idiot on & allow it to continue. What a dip shit!
This dude is crazy and hes a bum, he mooches off his mentally disabled friend and he makes the most RIDICULOUS arguments i have ever heard, If you even attempt to question his so called "logic" he removes your comment and then blocks you. Im smarter than him and you wanna know whats sad? IM DYSLEXIC. Thats how stupid he is. he cant even provide an argument to top a dyslexic 20 year old...... sad isnt it?
I believe in mild to sever distortion with the communication and social section of the brain. It is a firmly held belief, and no one can talk me out of it.
Speaking of bacteria, you might as well take it to the next level and just admit that animals arose from the interactions of bacteria. Bacteria are all individuals, they aren't species, and they contain cognitive awareness on some fundamental level. They share genes, they symbiotically combine and reproduce. They are driven towards complexity by the nature of their internal/external environments. If nature is a TV program, bacteria are the signals that resonate into meaningful information.
How did the base pairs come to be sequenced within the context of genetic expression in the first place? If you are going to spend so much time on this topic, perhaps you should address the questions worth addressing.
+The lack of appreciation for the metabolic capabilities of bacteria.. specifically their ability to not only utilize a wide variety of carbon sources (like our pollutants), but also to biosynthesize the vast array of chemicals needed for life, like biotin, or fix nitrogen, etc. To think that a whole cell could effectively live off just a few inorganic nutrients- wow, now that is impressive!
Brilliant video, thanks for posting. It's nice to get away from hollow debates, and explore some of the endless and fascinating complexities which underlie the world. I wish I were a scientist.
You can't comment of NephilmFree's rediculous video's, you are prevented from voting "like or dislike" and you cannot comment on his channel without his approval. I asked him why this was so, and why he is so afraid to allow free thought or rebuttal to exist on his video's comment section - what is he afraid of? I pointed out Atheist channels didn't suffer from this form of censorship. My comment is currently under his approval. I doubt he will answer.
Your closing reminds me of Richard Feynman's cargo cult science speech where he also argued that what was lacking in pseudoscience was honesty in inquiry.
I made a comment or two on one of Neph's videos. I went to rebut his non answer to a question I had asked and guess what he blocked me. So Con good luck with educating Neph!
@Helixbuilder That was because you are too stupid for NephilimFree's superior intellect. How about sharing the Hopeful Monster theory with him as well ya moron.
Hi all you intelligent people. Could you please help me out? I've been looking for evidence that evolution is true! But I have yet to find anything. Also what evidence is there that the earth moves around the sun? I've looked at experiments over the past 300 years and they all say the earth isn't moving!
Guys, Nephs friend The PuppyTurtle changed his mind the 17. mai. Do you know why, because he is (at least became) an honest person that cared about truth. Neph however, is not like that, he doesnt care about truth. I have debated Neph several times on Voxli. Neph has a presumption that God exist and the bible is correct. And as long as he has that, its impossible to educate him.
I think that it's quite telling that NephilimFree doesn't allow ratings on his videos or the comments that are made. Honestly, these people wouldn't be so bad if they could actually make an argument without resorting totally to insults. At least when C0nc0rdance and others insult creationists, they have the facts to back it up.
Google "The Genetic Codes taxonomy browser PUBMED"
The genetic codes are 100% arbitrary. This establishes the genome has multiple communication systems with both sending and receiving ends that must SIMULTANEOUSLY evolve.
Identical ribosomes are also now known to have separate codes for separate functions. ribosomes function is not dictated by shape as previously thought.
@rationalw0lf "No! Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells not functioning in the same way? That's like... Blasphemy!
OR you didn't bothered to open up a biology book to even remotely think, that this is somehow a "challenge" to evolution."
I hate to break this to you but evolution needs to establish mechanisms for at least 17 (probably more) 100% arbitrary communication systems. It was all so easy (so you naturalist thought) in the 1950s when you thought "the DNA" code was non-arbitrary & universal
Oh dear deity of choice! There's something in complex cellular pathways we still don't know. Therefore; science must be wrong. Call the WTF police!
Or perhaps; you're basically clueless how science works and you never bothered to look into biology book. Did you ever looked into biology books about what evolution is? Because, I don't know how to tell you, but DNA is non-arbitrary and it's universal. Even with bacteria we share like 5% of DNA. Surprise!
@rationalw0lf "Or perhaps; you're basically clueless how science works and you never bothered to look into biology book. Did you ever looked into biology books about what evolution is?"
I know exactly what evolution CLAIMS to be. It claims through random copying errors & selection things far more complex than anything a human can create will develop. However when the fossil record proves you wrong. you just make a theory with no mechanism (P.E.) to show for it.
No, no you don't. Evolution is change of genetic material in population over time. HOW this changes occur is the THEORY of evolution, which explains, that the drivers are random mutation and non-random natural selection. But that is observed over and over and over again.
@rationalw0lf "No, no you don't. Evolution is change of genetic material in population over time"
How do you think you can get away with starting a naturalistic theory after the genetic material & completed species with highly accurate error correction mechanisms is already in place?
Your theory (after jumping right over laughable abiogenesis) starts at the single cell with no information for morphological changes. If the single cell defy the mechanisms of your theory, your theory FAILS
"highly accurate error correction mechanisms is already in place"
What do you mean by "highly accurate"? As in "allowing many replication errors"? And why can we find mechanism with poor error corrections, for instance in HIV reverse transcriptions?
Also; What does abiogenesis got to do with evolution?
And more important; did you actually read what you're trying to "refute"? How does any of what you've stated invalidates evolution?
@rationalw0lf ""What do you mean by "highly accurate"? As in "allowing many replication errors"?
As in allowing very little errors in hundreds of millions of years. What do you think the living fossils are telling us?. We have fossils that are over 400 MYO that look identical to modern species. We have 250 MYO bacteria with identical DNA to modern ones. STASIS is the predominate feature in the fossil record. Google "A Third way" by Molecular biologist (& evolutionist) James Shapiro
"We have fossils that are over 400 MYO that look identical"
Look isn't everything. Lizard look like dinosaurs, too, but they have nothing to do with em. Point being...?
"We have 250 MYO bacteria with identical DNA to modern ones."
Point being? The reasons why the DNA change is so small is written as "unknown". I also find it amusing, that you're ignoring the papers, that show pretty rapid change in genetic structure. Such as round worms, humans, fruit flies, etc.
What about him? I'm going to quote C0nc0rdance on this one: "Why are so few actual molecular biologists (researchers) persuaded by the various creationist groups (Discovery Inst, AiG), in your view?" Or in this case; Shapiro's views?
@rationalw0lf "What does abiogenesis got to do with evolution?"
Naturalism or Darwinian evolution stands on abiogenesis. Naturalistic (no intelligent designer involved) evolution can not start with the highly complex single cell and still claim to refute intelligent design. If the single cell was not a product of chemical reactions/natural forces it was intelligently designed. This is how I know Dawkins is a illogical liberal, he does not grasp abiogenesis is the naturalists starting point
"Naturalism or Darwinian evolution stands on abiogenesis."
Wait... Weren't you the one advocating "the truth"? Or is that just convenient concept to manipulate your version of events? I can't remember; But can you please refresh my memory, how many times I've send you reading a biology book?
And no. Evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with eachother, because they're completely different mechanisms.
I also know molecular biology is falsifying your every prediction. And I bet you dont know it yet.
"DNA is non-arbitrary and it's universal"
You have no idea what your talking about. The DNA codes & RNA codes are many and 100% arbitrary
Google "taxonomy browser PUBMED genetic codes".. we know of 17 (and counting) codes in DNA that are identical in sequences but have different meanings.
There are multiple communication systems in the cells
@rationalw0lf ""I also know molecular biology is falsifying your every prediction" If by "falsifying" you mean "confirming", then yes, yes it is."
You dont want to know the truth. And from the responses you gave to my other points, it suggests you dont recognize an error in the theory when you see it.
Atheists do not study the problems with the theory. You want to be "willingly ignorant" of the truth. All the molecular evidence invalidates the theories predictions. Study it
@C0nc0rdance "Why are so few actual molecular biologists (researchers) persuaded by the various creationist groups (Discovery Inst AiG) in your view?"
Because biology & science in general is atheistic (or naturalistic) in its views. There are numerous quotes that state this fact. Therefore the vast majority of those entering the field would have naturalistic views by default. Also there's is an animosity towards intelligent design by the naturalists. Admitting defeat to I.D. is hard to swallow
"Because biology & science in general is atheistic"
No, it isn't. It's driven by evidence. We don't go and assume, that something just poofed into existence, when we can easily observe morphological and genetic change inside of the lab.
So your assertion is that molecular biology is so biased towards an atheist position that it cannot admit frank evidence for the existence of magical acts of creation? Is there a conspiracy to brainwash these people?
What would a success be for Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC)? Getting their beliefs taught in secular public schools? Winning over 0.1% of PhD researchers in the field of biology? Publishing a meaningful paper?
"you dont recognize an error in the theory when you see it"
No. I just know, what the theory of evolution actually says. I also know, what evolution is. Changing what theory of evolution states would only mean that's not theory of evolution anymore, right?
"problems with theory"?
As in what? Corelation with abiogenesis? Not the same thing.
@rationalw0lf "No. I just know, what the theory of evolution actually says. I also know, what evolution is. Changing what theory of evolution states would only mean that's not theory of evolution anymore right?
There is not just one theory.
Naturalism predicts the cell and all species arose from non-intelligent non-directed natural sources.
I.D. evolution predicts an intellect created the cell with all the capabilities to evolve all the species.
Huh. I'd swear, that I've only found a single theory of evolution. I'd probably read it in Nature, sciam or other peer-reviewed journals, if there was another Theory of evolution. But I guess I've missed that. Can I get a peer-reviewed paper doi, please?
"Naturalism predicts the cell and all species"
I don't know, what does this got to do with evolution. Care to explain?
What exactly is that you consider a "minor change"? As in mutations? And; according to you; this changes could not possibly accumulate over -- psh -- generations or something? Because that logic is somewhat reminding me of taking a steps outside the house; You can take a tiny step at a time, but there's no way, that you could walk like 5 miles?
If you're accepting change, you're accepting evolution. It's that simple.
@rationalw0lf "What exactly is that you consider a "minor change"? As in mutations? And; according to you; this changes could not possibly accumulate over -- psh -- generations?"
No. In order for minor changes to accumulate, the error correction mechanisms must also evolve. Each species has its own proteins that are subject to error corrections, If a change it protein shape is detected, the error corrections rejects it. You combine the molecular data with STASIS in the fossil record that = NO
"In order for minor changes to accumulate, the error correction mechanisms must also evolve."
I think, that you should stop commenting, since your comments make less and less sense as the time passes. Like in this case; wouldn't better error correction mean less changes? Just a thought.
"If a change it protein shape is detected, the error corrections rejects it."
Change in protein shape?!? Dear god, please don't tell me you can't distinct DNA from a protein? Please?
@rationalw0lf ""In order for minor changes to accumulate, the error correction mechanisms must also evolve."
"I think, that you should stop commenting, since your comments make less and less sense as the time passes. Like in this case; wouldn't better error correction mean less changes? Just a thought."
LOL..Yes that's my point why do you think we find STASIS throughout the fossil record & 450MYO living fossils?. The error correction mechanisms do NOT evolve as needed for speciation.
For the n-th post you're showing, that you fail even at the most basic grasp of biology. I could tell you how mutations and speciation actually works; But why bother, since you're going to ignore it?
And that's how you proclaim the "truth"? By hoping that the other people are dumb enough that would never bothered to open up a science book and actually read it?
Open up a book and stop claiming that exceptions are the norm, hoping that nobody would know.
@rationalw0lf "For the n-th post you're showing, that you fail even at the most basic grasp of biology. I could tell you how mutations and speciation actually works; But why bother, since you're going to ignore it?"
I do not ignore any DATA. I evaluate it to see what it actually predicts. I know what is needed to substantiate evolution. ":Closely related species" must show similar sequences with the same genes forming the same organs. & VISA VERSA. This evidence is non-existent
Except basic biology. And genetics. And cell biology. And what does the evolutionary theory actually say. And what the science paper actually say. And on and on and on and on.
"I know what is needed to substantiate evolution."
How can you know what to expect, if you have no clue about evolution? Or speciation? Or mutations?
"This evidence is non-existent "
It shows, how much you don't ignore any data. Human and chimp genome anyone? No? Oh, well...
@rationalw0lf "It shows, how much you don't ignore any data. Human and chimp genome anyone? No? Oh, well..."
NONE of the atheists I debate study any recent material. All you guys are stuck in 19th century predictions
ABSTRACT
"The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small"..... CONTINUED
"....The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species."
The paper is called "Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees." by Glazko G et. al. But rather then reading only the title and abstract, why not read the entire paper? It's the first page if you're searching it by google.
It doesn't say what you think it says. Read the entire paper.
@rationalw0lf "It doesn't say what you think it says. Read the entire paper.'
I know exactly what it says. 98% of the 2% of DNA that codes for proteins (primary structure) is identical with chimps. Which means nothing because the mouse shares 97% of those same genes..However the secondary structure of those same proteins are only 20% identical.
For a chimp to evolve into a human, 80% of the secondary structure of his proteins must change shape (evolve or mis-fold its proteins)
1. How many germline single base mutations are there per person, on average?
2. How many total mutations are present in least 2% of a human population (there are called SNPs). How many SNPs are known in humans?
There are 20,000 genes in humans. 80% of them have at least one mutation. That's ~16,000 changes in 20 million bases (assume 1 kb gene size). What percent is that? Is that more or less than the number of SNPs?
Also; your reply on sickle cell anemia speaks volumes.
Can you do me a favor and stop spreading your ignorance and start learning what you're actually saying? Please? It doesn't do anything else than insult my intelligence and makes biologists facepalm and headdesk simultaneously.
"Where did I post anything about sickle cell anemia?"
You didn't. You've failed to present your evidence for "if the shape of the 3 dimensional protein is mis-folded, it is rejected by the highly accurate error correction mechanism because it wont function", and I've asked for explanation how sickle cell anemia is possible, since it's exactly that. Mis-folded protein.
@rationalw0lf "You didn't. You've failed to present your evidence for "if the shape of the 3 dimensional protein is mis-folded, it is rejected... sickle cell anemia is possible, since it's exactly that. Mis-folded protein.'
Correct. I mis spoke and I knew this from Doug Axe's work on protein folding. . However this does nothing to support your case. Mis-folded proteins are either rejected or cause problems. This is evolutions main problem. Changing a proteins shape as species evolves.
Why am I not surprised? Oh, why am I not surprised at all?
"Mis-folded proteins are either rejected or cause problems."
What's that? Can you hear biologists screaming "NATURAL SELECTION!" over that argument? My ears are bleeding, because it's so loud.
How many times am I in need to repeat "grab a biology book and read it"? Because of your inability to grasp on how evolution works, you keep on returning to the braindead biologic institute's work.
@rationalw0lf ""If a change it protein shape is detected, the error corrections rejects it."
Change in protein shape?!? Dear god, please don't tell me you can't distinct DNA from a protein? Please?"
And please don't tell me you don't understand a proteins function is dictated by its shape and if the shape of the 3 dimensional protein is mis-folded, it is rejected by the highly accurate error correction mechanism because it wont function. & EVERY species has different proteins & shapes
"it is rejected by the highly accurate error correction mechanism"
Explain sickle cell anemia. Ready, get set, go!
I'm not really holding my breath for an answer here. You'll probably ignore my question, like you do other questions that contradict your views. With that said, I think, that I'm done with this "debate". When you decide to read on evolution, mutation and cell biology, then come back for a debate.
I think your opponent has exposed his lack of any basic biology knowledge.
This is why debates of this sort are usually unproductive. You are trying to get your opponent to clarify meanings. Your opponent is reading from a script that he doesn't understand. There will never be a meeting of the minds here.
I've switched to outreach. I'm here to answer questions, but I try not to respond to these types of trolling.
I fully understand your point; I was aware of it when I've started the debate. It's just -- Maybe, just maybe there will be a person, willing to spend just a minimal amount of time behind a basic elementary school biology book and learning what theory of evolution actually says, not what the creationists claim what it is.
Perhaps someone someday will be honest enough to listen what I'm actually saying. Perhaps.
"You combine the molecular data with STASIS in the fossil record"
I find it amusing, that you're telling me to study molecular biology, and yet you are completely clueless about basic biology, genetics and -- you know -- evolution.
And a word of advice: Before you decide to throw random words around (in this case stasis), I would want you to read what that means. Also read on stabilizing selection.
Also; did you ever bothered to actually LOOK into fossil records?
@toobsucker Please, I am interested in these 17 arbitrary communication systems. Could you please tell me where you found them? Or what they are? Thanks.
I went to your "functional specificity..." search and came to Cell. 2007 Nov 2;131(3):557-71.
Here is how it begins:
"The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from an ancient whole genome duplication followed by massive gene loss, as redundant copies were eliminated from the genome. Roughly 10% of duplicated genes were maintained, mainly through the evolution of specialized functions (Kellis et al., 2004)."
I think you have no idea what this paper is showing. Prove me wrong.
@C0nc0rdance ""The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from an ancient whole genome duplication followed by massive gene loss.....I think you have no idea what this paper is showing. Prove me wrong."
Idon't know what your reading but it was not off PUBMED
"Together, our data indicate complex specialization of ribosomal proteins for specific cellular processes, and support the existence of a ribosomal code."
@toobsucker Yes, they found that certain ribosomes could have specific functions and be more specialized than previously thought, which is really cool, but that doesn't mean that anything is arbitrary. It shows how the cells have utilized the duplicate copies of the ribosome genes and, if you will, tailored them to be more specific. This shows how the organisms are evolving, not that the rRNA is arbitrary.
@MicroRedhawk "It shows how the cells have utilized the duplicate copies of the ribosome.....This shows how the organisms are evolving, not that the rRNA is arbitrary'
We don't know yet how many languages are in RNA. ENCODE is finding how very little we do know about the genome. Trifonov (1989) has shown DNA has 12 overlapping codes. And you do understand apparent duplicates with different functions does not prove evolution. The actual change (evolution) in ribosomes function must be observed
@toobsucker Well I looked at Trifonov (1989), I would like you to read a quote from the conclusion of that paper.."What is frequently called a neutral mutation is only an apparently silent event that will remain so until one will be able to "read" the yet unrecognized context(s) of the mutation and find out what those elusive phenotypical changes are that are caused by the mutation. Moreover, the codes themselves are obviously subject to evolution."
@MicroRedhawk ""apparent" duplicates with different functions does not prove evolution"....of course it doesn't, its just a supporting piece of data for evolution. Its showing how after a gene duplication, the mutations in the duplicated genes can confer new functions.
"The actual evolution in the ribosomes function must be observed"....that's what the paper is talking about! How the multiple copies of ribosomal proteins have actually have gained divergent functions over time (evolved!)
@MicroRedhawk "The actual evolution in the ribosomes function must be observed"....that's what the paper is talking about! How the multiple copies of ribosomal proteins have actually have gained divergent functions over time (evolved!) '
I would be willing to bet there is absolutely no evidence for ribosomes changing their rRNA & hence changing (evolving) their functionality. You do understand everything in biology is based in the presupposition specieation is a fact. Give me the reference
@toobsucker Whoa whoa hold on, the paper you're talking about is talking about ribosomal proteins, not rRNA. rRNA is highly conserved among species, they use 16SrRNA sequences to determine different species in bacteria. The paper talks how there was a duplication of ribosomal PROTEIN genes and how the duplicate copies gained newer functions and thats why they were maintained in the genome due to these specialized functions.
I don't have access to "The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences" E. N. Trifonov so can not read it. I would like to know if "the codes themselves are obviously subject to evolution." has been observed.
I doubt seriously they have. Again evolutionary biology has a presupposition of speciation therefore every discovery must some how fit into the presupposition Ancient DNA (250MYO halo bacteria) have identical DNA to modern bacteria. The "codes" are not changing.
@toobsucker They are obviously subject to evolution because when you have mutations in the sequences it affects these many codes. The point that they made in their conclusion is that the fact that a single mutation could actually have a much greater affect than previously thought because of these multiple codes and overlapping codes, so in affect, mutations can make a much greater impact on the organism (and evolution) when there are these multiple "codes", rather than just one "code".
@MicroRedhawk "the fact that a single mutation could actually have a much greater affect than previously thought because of these multiple codes and overlapping codes"
Yes that was the point Trifonov made. However his point proves "poly functional codes" equates "poly constraint codes" meaning changing one sequence also changes any other "overlapping code". like two cross words utilizing one letter, change one letter & both words change. This would be disastrous to a communication system
@toobsucker but yet its not disastrous, because we can observe have mutations can cause gain of functions or appear to not affect anything and be neutral (though Trifonov shows that these may have more subtle affects that we need to search for) and from what I've seen, the previous school of thought that most mutations are dangerous to the cells is being overturned and we are still learning about how mutations happen and about different types of mutations happen. Ah science at work :)
@MicroRedhawk "but yet its not disastrous, because we can observe have mutations can cause gain of functions or appear to not affect anything and be neutral"
The information I have read, Trifonov uses the poly-functional codes to discount random mutations as a source for new information. The conserved parts of the genome are death nails in evolution. These are elements that can not evolve. They are not subject to any of the mechanisms evolution proposes for change. Most don't understand this
@toobsucker I would need specific examples in articles because it really depends on the context of a lot of things. It also depends on what you mean as "new information".
There are 40 molecular machines involved in cell division. Each one of these machines many proteins have precise parameters by which they must fold. IM sure you have heard of the Levinthal paradox in which if all possible folds were tried at random, it would take longer than the age of the universe to arrive at the precise fold by chance. Yet each of these 40 machines MUST exist before evolution can even get going. How were the parameters for each machines proteins established?
@MicroRedhawk"the paper you're talking about is talking about ribosomal proteins, not rRNA. rRNA is highly conserved among species"
Its rRNA that determines its function. Tell me in identical ribosomes, what is the determining factor that dictates specialized function?. I know the ribosomes proteins are highly conserved and identical in all species. And I reiterate. Give me the article so I can read it. I will bet there is no observable evidence for a ribosomes suddenly evolving new abilities
@toobsucker It depends on the function that you're talking about. The ribosomes themselves are a complex of rRNA and proteins that form the overall ribosomal complex. In this paper they point out that the ribosomal proteins are playing the functioning role in localization of the ribosomal complex. Its the rRNA that are highly conserved but they are NOT identical in all species, just highly conserved so we can judge relatedness based on how different the rRNA sequence are between organisms.
@MicroRedhawk "Its the rRNA that are highly conserved but they are NOT identical in all species"
Then this falsifies evolution.
Any highly conserved element has no way to evolve a new function because it can not change (evolve). Evolution is 100% dependent on the entire system changing. This is why the theory starts with the completed species & the conserved elements already in place. If the theory attempted to evolve the UCE (ribosomes etc..) The theory would INSTANTLY be falsified
@toobsucker They are highly conserved because translation is such an essential function in ALL cells! Ribosomes are present in all known cells and are shown to do translation in all cells. This does not falsify anything, it shows how there are certain functions that are so essential that they cannot modify to a great extent and that's why the rRNA genes are so important in determining relatedness. Evolution is not 100% dependent on the entire system changing, on the contrary....
@MicroRedhawk .....it was proposed that there would be essential functions that would have to be highly conserved. But ribosomes do change because there are more components than just rRNA, the ribosomes of eukaryotes are different than that of prokaryotes. There are around 70ish proteins that complex with rRNA to aid in the functioning of the entire ribosome complex.
@MicroRedhawk "This does not falsify anything, it shows how there are certain functions that are so essential that they cannot modify to a great extent"
LOL...by modify you mean evolve. Evolutionists can no longer get away with starting the theory with the UCE already in place & claim evolution is valid. Do you think the ribosomes (with over 200 proteins) just popped into existence.? It had to be slowly "modified" and in the process be functional to keep from elimination
Don't let toobsucker confuse you with his lack of knowledge about basic biology. But if you want to confuse him, just ask him what evolution actually is.
@rationalw0lf "Don't let toobsucker confuse you with his lack of knowledge about basic biology. But if you want to confuse him, just ask him what evolution actually is.'
You realize everything we debate is 100% answerable VIA the internet. If IM in error, its very easy to find it out.. I know exactly what evolution predicts & I know exactly where the theory supposed to start, It starts at the single cell and predicts the entire system (including UCE & parameters for new proteins) must change
You mean not knowing what evolution is, not having a basic idea of biology, not reading the papers that you promote. Believe it or not, those are easy errors to find out. For instance -- opening a biology book.
Yes, one would think, that there is more effort involved in this. But it isn't.
@rationalw0lf "What the paper actually says is, that yes, 80% of the proteins is different in 1 or more aminoacids"
No. the proteins (not DNA sequences) are 20% identical thus 80% different. Your liver, brain, pancreas etc..are all proteins folded into a 3 dimensional form. 80% of these proteins are different in humans & chimps, For a chimp to evolve into a human, he must evolve his protein folds. While simultaneously evolving the error corrections so the new protein shape will not be rejected
"...are all proteins folded into a 3 dimensional form."
Except those which aren't.
"For a chimp to evolve into a human"
...
...
Yes, my brain just exploded.
"so the new protein shape will not be rejected "
Aw, how cute. 4 days have passed and you still have no idea about basic biology. Not that you've bothered to look into a book or something. That'd be too much to ask, won't it?
@rationalw0lf ""so the new protein shape will not be rejected "
Aw, how cute. 4 days have passed and you still have no idea about basic biology. Not that you've bothered to look into a book or something. That'd be too much to ask, won't it? "
You should not be debating things you have not studied. Protein mis-folding is a rare occurrence because the multiple layers of error corrections prevents this very thing evolution requires.
Google "A Third Way" by biologist James Shapiro and read
"You should not be debating things you have not studied."
Yes. Unlike you, I actually study the stuff that's in the books. Namely biology.
"Google "A Third Way""
A biologist said it, so it must be true! Screw those stupid 99.9% of biologists that actually know what they're talking about. Let's study Doug Axe, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe! Those know what they're talking about.
And hum. Why can't anyone state, what evolution is? Ah, who cares! They're the ones that are right.
@rationalw0lf "You mean not knowing what evolution is, not having a basic idea of biology, not reading the papers that you promote. Believe it or not, those are easy errors to find out. For instance -- opening a biology book."
wolf honestly you are totally lame debate. You never answer any questions, you never address the problems with the theory. All your responses are personal opinions. That is a waste of my time
You actually thought diet controls protein folding. Your light years away
"You actually thought diet controls protein folding."
Dishonesty. Such an admirable attribute of a creationist. Care to quote when I've said that? It's the internet, you know. You can easily find out stuff..
@rationalw0lf "And one more thing: No protein comes from DNA."
That quote proves your in serious need of study time. The proteins that make up the 40ish molecular machines are all encoded in DNA. & the proteins that make up your body are also encoded in DNA & RNA. I was correct in evaluating your understanding as extremely lacking
"And tell the room exactly where mRNA getting its information from?"
Okay, class. Let me tell this once again: No protein comes from DNA. DNA has to be transcribed by RNA polymerase to messenger RNA and with the help of the ribosome, the tRNA matches the codons on the mRNA. tRNA tails then form the polymerization of the peptide-bonded aminoacids, which become protein.
Imagine DNA as being a hard drive. Without machinery, it's nothing. Machinery codes for proteins, not DNA itself.
@rationalw0lf "Okay, class. Let me tell this once again: No protein comes from DNA."
I do believe you need to remove the "rational" part from your name and just go as w0lf.
No protein comes from DNA just like no videos come from your hard drive. All videos are transcribed by the CodexPolymerase. The transcribed audio & video are then transferred to the video player by mMouseClick.
@MicroRedhawk "Here is an interesting article to read "A hierarchical model for evolution of 23S ribosomal RNA"
I have not read the article yet, but assume (as it is in every case) no actual evolution is being observed. As with Miller & Behes I.C. argument. Miller attempts to debunk I.C. by showing how other components can be functional by themselves. This is like parts of your TV serving more than one function. The transition (evolutionary prediction) from one to the other must be observed
@toobsucker What this article is showing is how the function of the 23S rRNA could have evolved from just ribozymes. Its showing how recent findings in the structure of the ribosomes, it can be shown how it evolved overtime, still maintaining the important function. This is showing how, when you were talking about important essential components had to be around, the activity and importance these essential components provide can be shown in early evolution with much simpler molecules.
"Evolution is not 100% dependent on the entire system changing, on the contrary..."
No idea what your talking about to put it bluntly. And science does not agree with you. The cells cytoskeleton must first be established as well as the protein shape/functionality. The ribosomes with over 200 proteins must slowly evolve and at each stage be functional so as not to be eliminated by selection
Evolution MUST show the UCE changing (evolving) at every step or it FAILS miserably
@toobsucker I am talking about from current cells, the entire system does not have to change. If you go all the way back to the origin of life then yes. I was talking about current evolution of organisms because that's what the papers you were referring to were talking about.
@MicroRedhawk "I am talking about from current cells, the entire system does not have to change. If you go all the way back to the origin of life then yes. I was talking about current evolution of organisms because that's what the papers you were referring to were talking about"
Incorrect. Each species has its own specific proteins. Google "Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees" thus evolution of protein shape & functionality must also evolve with each species
@toobsucker Well I actually want to thank you for this discussion, you're showing me where I need to research and learn more about certain areas. I am looking into all of what you said :)
Do you think its even remotely possible Darwinian evolution is invalid?. Or do you reject its possible invalidity on the grounds it will open the intelligent design can of worms.?
@toobsucker I feel like I need to follow the research and facts wherever that may take me. Do I think Darwinian evolution could possibly be wrong, I think it is always possible because nothing is absolute. I truly try to keep biases out of things (as much as I can). I personally think the theory of evolution will undoubtedly have to change to accommodate new findings. I am personally really interested in the field of metagenomics to bring big new discoveries to evolution and origins of life.
@MicroRedhawk "is it at all possible for you to accept evolution or a future form of it, even if it may conflict with religious views? "
Creationists do not deny evolution. We deny its scope & the mechanisms (copying errors & selection) proposed by naturalists. Virtually all the evolution witnessed is the selection of INFO already on file or turning current genes off/on. There are examples of "directed mutations" (Barry Hall & John Cairns) statistically these can not be random mutations
Also IM not a young earth creationist. I believe Gen 1 & Gen 2 are two separate creation events. Gen 1 was more than likely the Neanderthal. And Gen 2 was Adam & Eve. Solomon implied a race before homosapiens in Ecc.
More & more biologists are rejecting the Darwinian mechanisms. The Altenberg 16 is a recent example.
A good article "A Third Way" from biologist James Shapiro (Not a I.D. proponent) points to Barbara McClintock genome reorganization discovery in the 1940s
I just wanted to say that the Alternberg conference was not a rejection of evolution, it was a discussion of new mechanisms not known to the 1st generation of the modern synthesis. I would say it was more of a rejection of Mendelian inheritance than Darwin.
The existence of transposons have no bearing on external selection of phenotypes. This was also a modification of Mendelian genetics. Do you see the difference?
@toobsucker [1] I read "A Third Way", I really really like that article and feel like more people need to read that. It highlights some of the things that I have been so frustrated with lately. However, I think inherently with the nature of the evolution-creationism debate it will be impossible to get around the problems associated with it. Its too much attacking and defensiveness. There's not enough unbiased....discussions....but this is a failing of both camps, not just one.
@MicroRedhawk [2] The article highlights why I am so happy I am getting into science and will be able to do research on some really cool things and the fact that there is always, always new things to figure out. And as I said in a different comment, do NOT think the theory of evolution in its current state is correct. I feel like there is going to have to be a big reboot in the near future because we are able to go into such more detail than ever before and its just such an amazing thing!
@MicroRedhawk [3] But to suggest there need be a Intelligent creator....I think that is still very, very premature and not needed. Partly because I do not agree with much of the logic around having an Intelligent designer or a "God", in a scientific world. I don't think it gives people a need to question what they see or try to figure out how they work, I've heard people say that they will to try and figure out more about God....but that's not what I see happen. I just don't like the logic.
@MicroRedhawk "But to suggest there need be a Intelligent creator....I think that is still very, very premature and not needed'
The only thing that can verify naturalism is abiogenesis. even if all species can be proven to arise from one cell (which they cant) . Its the origins of the cell that determines naturalism or I.D. NOT EVO
watch?v=WZKx1i0T9VA&feature=related
At 8:50 Nobel laureate Lee Hartwell says the more we learn about the cell the more we know how incredibly complex it is.
@toobsucker But abiogenesis is a relatively new endeavor, the reason I get frustrated at many creationists is because they want answers right away and when questions pop up about the hypotheses about abiogenesis they quickly point to a creator....this is not what science is about. Oh I feel like anyone who makes it to college level courses where they get really in depth are fully aware of how the cell is very complex.
@MicroRedhawk "But abiogenesis is a relatively new endeavor,"
Dean Kenyon (hes on youtube) wrote a book on abiogenesis called "Biochemical Predestination" that explained the process. However he eventually gave up on naturalism when he understood what was needed.
The cell has a "chicken & egg" problem of which came first. The proteins for the 40 machines & the cytoskeleton in the cell ALL have to exist simultaneously & the information to create them are all encoded in DNA.
@toobsucker And see there is a very big difference between how a scientist thinks compared to other people. You seem to discount it because of what you claim has to be true, rather then looking into and doing research on the subject to prove why it must be like that. Claiming it has to be that way based on what seems right, is not the same thing. You say that a cell needs the 40 machines & cytoskeleton so therefore abiogenesis cannot be true. Show it by doing research into the first cells.
@MicroRedhawk "You say that a cell needs the 40 machines & cytoskeleton so therefore abiogenesis cannot be true. Show it by doing research into the first cells."
Its already been done. The cell can not replicate without the molecular machines. without replication there are no copying errors for selection to chose from. Do you understand highly complex machinery & information MUST exist even before the mechanisms of evolution can even start?. This is not a small problem for evolution
@toobsucker No no no, it has not already been done. You must do research into why things like the RNA world hypothesis is wrong. You are making assumptions that cells have to be identical to there current state and do everything the same. This is a big assumption. You have to be alongside those researchers looking into the RNA world and show why their findings are inconsistent or wrong, or if ID is correct, that'll happen anyway. The thing I am getting at is that you are making assumptions.
@MicroRedhawk "You are making assumptions that cells have to be identical to there current state and do everything the same. This is a big assumption."
Yyour assuming a primitive cells existence is also a big assumption. The current cell is the same in all species. Therefore the theory predicts the current single cell must be able to change its phenotype and morph into a different looking species. And with billions of generational years of bacteria evolution. Darwinian evolution It not evident
@toobsucker I know I am, but the research is being done to show that this is the case rather than yours. But research is being done to show why its possible to have a primitive cell and also to show why the idea that the current cell is all that has ever been. The problem is that you have to disprove, by research, why things like endosymbiosis are false (among many other things). Things like that is what is going to have to happen if you ever want evolution to be kicked out. I don't see that.
@MicroRedhawk "Its more than just similarities (very very close similarities)" There are very very close similarities between mice & men.
Google "Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men". There are also many close similarities between human DNA & fruit DNA.
Similarities mean NADA. I reiterate. We have living fossils over 400 million years old identical to modern day species. We have many examples of "ancient DNA" that is VERY SIMILAR to other unrelated DNA sequences. Yet is does not evolve
@MicroRedhawk "Well then how the hell can you say that since DNA is similar to a code there has to be a designer? "
The DNA molecule contains multiple coded languages. Its not "similar" to a code. it has real overlapping codes. DNA contains multiple codes layered over each other, the only way these codes dont crash the system is there must be a complex regulation mechanism that knows when & where & how to read DNA
Human intelligence cant even come close to this multilevel code writing
@MicroRedhawk "You have NOT empirically shown the creation process, you are deluded if you think you have"
Tell me why are you allowed the double standard?. I have to empirically show the process of the cells assembly by an intellect, but natural abiogenesis is accepted BY FAITH with NO OBSERVATION?
Correct we have not shown the creation process. However would you like to make a bet.?
Ill bet you the cell will be intelligently designed before undirected self assembly of the cell is observed.
"And Venter accepts evolution! Venter won't put ID on the table."
Give the liberal mind enough time and it will rear its illogical head
Venter practices intelligent design EVERY DAY. I suggest when science does intelligently design the cell, you inform them they did not actually intelligently design the cell. Not because they did not adhere to the definition of the term I.D., but simply because you have irrationally separated the definition of I.D. from the act of assembly.
@toobsucker Yes, I have no doubt that we will create life in the lab.....that does nothing for Intelligent design however. Its rather funny because experiments after that will be used as more evidence for evolution but you can believe what you want. If you think there's an intelligent designer then that's your choice. Creating life will not verify intelligent design, just to let you know.
@MicroRedhawk "Yes, I have no doubt that we will create life in the lab.....that does nothing for Intelligent design however."
How is it using an intelligence to design and build a cell "does nothing for Intelligent design" when this is in fact the foundation of intelligent design?.
This would be like witnessing abiogenesis of the cell talking place on another planet and claiming that its not evidence that same process took place on earth. Evolutionary science would KILL for such verification
My sister is bisymmetrically lateral!
TuahShinguru 1 week ago
I love the subtle ad hominems in this video :P
Love your videos c0nc0rdance!
Palaflax 1 week ago
This is a well put together video much more worthy than its title.
I rebuked nephilimfree's RE to this without using ad hominem, he posted a response but blocked me from further posts so I could not comment back, from what other people say this is standard practice of his, but shows his own contradictions extend from just the realms of science, as he claims other people are the ones who will not debate him.
radroatch 2 weeks ago
Impressive and honest presentation sir.It is worth pointing out that if the likes of nephilim cannot provide peer-reviewed evidence for their claims then they have no argument and it's GAME OVER.
stratocaster539 1 month ago
Sir-and I use that term with utmost reverence-in this video you exemplify all the human traits that I value most. Logic, a commitment to making a thorough argument, a lack of unsubstantiated claims, and the dignity to pick your battles.
I literally applauded this video.
zanderaw 1 month ago
You'll never be able to educate NephilimFree because he's a loser who has the intelligence capacity on a cashew.
TheUberAtheist 2 months ago
@TheUberAtheist that's not being fair on cashew's is it?
stratocaster539 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NephilimFree, aka Evan Phillips of Casa Grande Apartments, 3603 Terry Road, Apt. C-5, Jackson, MS 39212-4961 Phone# (601) 278-5421 - the illegimate son of the BTK killer, is a Youtube Young Earth Creatard, Fundamentalist, Geocentrist, Conservapedia addict, Paedophile, Flat Earther, the inventor of the pre-lubricated jock-strap, and all around master of all arts and sciences.
VanDoodah 5 months ago
Where can I find videos of sneezing pandas being hit in the crotch?
GoblinXXX 6 months ago 2
Jōmon Sugi is a large cryptomeria tree (yakusugi) located on Yakushima, in Japan. Scientific tests revielled the tree's age more than 6,000 years,and up to 7,000 years old.
Guess Neph got it wrong again. Please waste your small religious brain on the dumb and I will watch the tree of wisdom. Neph you must be 45-50,a Kentucky redneck that thinks he knows everything? Rather listen to what codes and history an ancient tree will reveal than you with 1974 glasses and a 1166 attitude about the world.
rotateddisk 7 months ago
@rotateddisk
King Clone has been tested to be 11,700 years old, not looking good for Nephy.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
I believe there is a "God" but all science aside............. its a belief system and "Nephilimfree" make us all look bad! I see the science and acknowledge all opinions and I have to say "Nephilimfree" is a complete idiot and makes those of us that subscribe to are faith look silly, I see science and know the facts but I still consider all relevant science as just more the reason to hold onto my beliefs! I won't argue since "Faith" can't be argued. Thanks!
scottmdy40 7 months ago 5
Also it also shows that he keeps on about his views and how he blocks anyone that disputes his views!
scottmdy40 7 months ago
I saw this guy last year, I am amazed that Youtube is still hosting him & I'm flabbergasted that he is still online! Its beyond me that he is still going on about evolution. Well it just shows that Youtube will let any idiot on & allow it to continue. What a dip shit!
scottmdy40 7 months ago
This dude is crazy and hes a bum, he mooches off his mentally disabled friend and he makes the most RIDICULOUS arguments i have ever heard, If you even attempt to question his so called "logic" he removes your comment and then blocks you. Im smarter than him and you wanna know whats sad? IM DYSLEXIC. Thats how stupid he is. he cant even provide an argument to top a dyslexic 20 year old...... sad isnt it?
supershuu 7 months ago
Am I seeing this right? Did Nephy seriously make a 6 part reply to this 1 video? O_o
419Films 7 months ago
I believe in mild to sever distortion with the communication and social section of the brain. It is a firmly held belief, and no one can talk me out of it.
Jonstern1983 7 months ago
Couldn't we have at least ONE guy being hit in the crotch?
slamdrump 7 months ago
Comment removed
slamdrump 7 months ago
Speaking of bacteria, you might as well take it to the next level and just admit that animals arose from the interactions of bacteria. Bacteria are all individuals, they aren't species, and they contain cognitive awareness on some fundamental level. They share genes, they symbiotically combine and reproduce. They are driven towards complexity by the nature of their internal/external environments. If nature is a TV program, bacteria are the signals that resonate into meaningful information.
circusOFprecision 7 months ago
How did the base pairs come to be sequenced within the context of genetic expression in the first place? If you are going to spend so much time on this topic, perhaps you should address the questions worth addressing.
circusOFprecision 7 months ago
I'm pretty sure Nephilim is an "evolutionist". The things he says have to be because he's trying to show people how silly creationism is.
lajakl 8 months ago
@lajakl Exactly. Have you seen his channel? Obvious troll is obvious.
maverikdemon 8 months ago
+The lack of appreciation for the metabolic capabilities of bacteria.. specifically their ability to not only utilize a wide variety of carbon sources (like our pollutants), but also to biosynthesize the vast array of chemicals needed for life, like biotin, or fix nitrogen, etc. To think that a whole cell could effectively live off just a few inorganic nutrients- wow, now that is impressive!
synthpop88 8 months ago
Brilliant video, thanks for posting. It's nice to get away from hollow debates, and explore some of the endless and fascinating complexities which underlie the world. I wish I were a scientist.
Epistemofo 8 months ago
You can't comment of NephilmFree's rediculous video's, you are prevented from voting "like or dislike" and you cannot comment on his channel without his approval. I asked him why this was so, and why he is so afraid to allow free thought or rebuttal to exist on his video's comment section - what is he afraid of? I pointed out Atheist channels didn't suffer from this form of censorship. My comment is currently under his approval. I doubt he will answer.
ambygirl1008 8 months ago
C0nc0rdance: I'm sorry for the spam. I didn't realize, that it would gone this far. If I knew, I wouldn't start.
Sorry.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
Your closing reminds me of Richard Feynman's cargo cult science speech where he also argued that what was lacking in pseudoscience was honesty in inquiry.
2cabs2toucan 8 months ago
I made a comment or two on one of Neph's videos. I went to rebut his non answer to a question I had asked and guess what he blocked me. So Con good luck with educating Neph!
Helixbuilder 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Helixbuilder That was because you are too stupid for NephilimFree's superior intellect. How about sharing the Hopeful Monster theory with him as well ya moron.
YOU LOOSE DUMASS HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealuis 8 months ago
Hi all you intelligent people. Could you please help me out? I've been looking for evidence that evolution is true! But I have yet to find anything. Also what evidence is there that the earth moves around the sun? I've looked at experiments over the past 300 years and they all say the earth isn't moving!
mharrold61 9 months ago
Communities of bacteria?! I'M UNCLEAN!
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
Guys, Nephs friend The PuppyTurtle changed his mind the 17. mai. Do you know why, because he is (at least became) an honest person that cared about truth. Neph however, is not like that, he doesnt care about truth. I have debated Neph several times on Voxli. Neph has a presumption that God exist and the bible is correct. And as long as he has that, its impossible to educate him.
gulbirk 9 months ago
I think that it's quite telling that NephilimFree doesn't allow ratings on his videos or the comments that are made. Honestly, these people wouldn't be so bad if they could actually make an argument without resorting totally to insults. At least when C0nc0rdance and others insult creationists, they have the facts to back it up.
AuraHero 9 months ago
Educating NephilimFree? Good luck with that.
You'd have better luck building a highway to Mars or prying the Pentagon off its foundation with a chopstick.
mikefromwa 9 months ago
As an Ex-Creationist, I understand what is meant by information, You call it Genetic complexity.
ThePuppyTurtle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NephilimFree is smarter than you will ever be.
Furriesarecute 9 months ago
Nephy doesn't even know that adenine pairs with thymine and guanine pairs with cytosine.
drrobertoboogie97 10 months ago
"Houston we have a (serious) problem"
HUMAN mRNA UGA= STOP
Mycoplasma mRNA UGA = NEXT CODON
Google "The Genetic Codes taxonomy browser PUBMED"
The genetic codes are 100% arbitrary. This establishes the genome has multiple communication systems with both sending and receiving ends that must SIMULTANEOUSLY evolve.
Identical ribosomes are also now known to have separate codes for separate functions. ribosomes function is not dictated by shape as previously thought.
Nail in evolutions coffin
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker
No! Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells not functioning in the same way? That's like... Blasphemy!
OR you didn't bothered to open up a biology book to even remotely think, that this is somehow a "challenge" to evolution...
I'm going for the latter one myself.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "No! Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells not functioning in the same way? That's like... Blasphemy!
OR you didn't bothered to open up a biology book to even remotely think, that this is somehow a "challenge" to evolution."
I hate to break this to you but evolution needs to establish mechanisms for at least 17 (probably more) 100% arbitrary communication systems. It was all so easy (so you naturalist thought) in the 1950s when you thought "the DNA" code was non-arbitrary & universal
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
Oh dear deity of choice! There's something in complex cellular pathways we still don't know. Therefore; science must be wrong. Call the WTF police!
Or perhaps; you're basically clueless how science works and you never bothered to look into biology book. Did you ever looked into biology books about what evolution is? Because, I don't know how to tell you, but DNA is non-arbitrary and it's universal. Even with bacteria we share like 5% of DNA. Surprise!
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "Or perhaps; you're basically clueless how science works and you never bothered to look into biology book. Did you ever looked into biology books about what evolution is?"
I know exactly what evolution CLAIMS to be. It claims through random copying errors & selection things far more complex than anything a human can create will develop. However when the fossil record proves you wrong. you just make a theory with no mechanism (P.E.) to show for it.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"I know exactly what evolution CLAIMS to be."
No, no you don't. Evolution is change of genetic material in population over time. HOW this changes occur is the THEORY of evolution, which explains, that the drivers are random mutation and non-random natural selection. But that is observed over and over and over again.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "No, no you don't. Evolution is change of genetic material in population over time"
How do you think you can get away with starting a naturalistic theory after the genetic material & completed species with highly accurate error correction mechanisms is already in place?
Your theory (after jumping right over laughable abiogenesis) starts at the single cell with no information for morphological changes. If the single cell defy the mechanisms of your theory, your theory FAILS
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"highly accurate error correction mechanisms is already in place"
What do you mean by "highly accurate"? As in "allowing many replication errors"? And why can we find mechanism with poor error corrections, for instance in HIV reverse transcriptions?
Also; What does abiogenesis got to do with evolution?
And more important; did you actually read what you're trying to "refute"? How does any of what you've stated invalidates evolution?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf ""What do you mean by "highly accurate"? As in "allowing many replication errors"?
As in allowing very little errors in hundreds of millions of years. What do you think the living fossils are telling us?. We have fossils that are over 400 MYO that look identical to modern species. We have 250 MYO bacteria with identical DNA to modern ones. STASIS is the predominate feature in the fossil record. Google "A Third way" by Molecular biologist (& evolutionist) James Shapiro
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"We have fossils that are over 400 MYO that look identical"
Look isn't everything. Lizard look like dinosaurs, too, but they have nothing to do with em. Point being...?
"We have 250 MYO bacteria with identical DNA to modern ones."
Point being? The reasons why the DNA change is so small is written as "unknown". I also find it amusing, that you're ignoring the papers, that show pretty rapid change in genetic structure. Such as round worms, humans, fruit flies, etc.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
"James Shapiro"
What about him? I'm going to quote C0nc0rdance on this one: "Why are so few actual molecular biologists (researchers) persuaded by the various creationist groups (Discovery Inst, AiG), in your view?" Or in this case; Shapiro's views?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "What does abiogenesis got to do with evolution?"
Naturalism or Darwinian evolution stands on abiogenesis. Naturalistic (no intelligent designer involved) evolution can not start with the highly complex single cell and still claim to refute intelligent design. If the single cell was not a product of chemical reactions/natural forces it was intelligently designed. This is how I know Dawkins is a illogical liberal, he does not grasp abiogenesis is the naturalists starting point
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"Naturalism or Darwinian evolution stands on abiogenesis."
Wait... Weren't you the one advocating "the truth"? Or is that just convenient concept to manipulate your version of events? I can't remember; But can you please refresh my memory, how many times I've send you reading a biology book?
And no. Evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with eachother, because they're completely different mechanisms.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf
I also know molecular biology is falsifying your every prediction. And I bet you dont know it yet.
"DNA is non-arbitrary and it's universal"
You have no idea what your talking about. The DNA codes & RNA codes are many and 100% arbitrary
Google "taxonomy browser PUBMED genetic codes".. we know of 17 (and counting) codes in DNA that are identical in sequences but have different meanings.
There are multiple communication systems in the cells
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"I also know molecular biology is falsifying your every prediction" If by "falsifying" you mean "confirming", then yes, yes it is.
"The DNA codes & RNA codes are many and 100% arbitrary"
Do you understand what natural selection is? Mutations MAY BE random, but natural selection isn't. Read a biology book.
"we know of 17 (and counting)"
Thanks for confirming evolution. Appreciate it. Oh, and what evolution actually is, I wrote in my previous comment. You want to read that.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf ""I also know molecular biology is falsifying your every prediction" If by "falsifying" you mean "confirming", then yes, yes it is."
You dont want to know the truth. And from the responses you gave to my other points, it suggests you dont recognize an error in the theory when you see it.
Atheists do not study the problems with the theory. You want to be "willingly ignorant" of the truth. All the molecular evidence invalidates the theories predictions. Study it
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
Why are so few actual molecular biologists (researchers) persuaded by the various creationist groups (Discovery Inst, AiG), in your view?
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance "Why are so few actual molecular biologists (researchers) persuaded by the various creationist groups (Discovery Inst AiG) in your view?"
Because biology & science in general is atheistic (or naturalistic) in its views. There are numerous quotes that state this fact. Therefore the vast majority of those entering the field would have naturalistic views by default. Also there's is an animosity towards intelligent design by the naturalists. Admitting defeat to I.D. is hard to swallow
toobsucker 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
"Because biology & science in general is atheistic"
No, it isn't. It's driven by evidence. We don't go and assume, that something just poofed into existence, when we can easily observe morphological and genetic change inside of the lab.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@toobsucker
So your assertion is that molecular biology is so biased towards an atheist position that it cannot admit frank evidence for the existence of magical acts of creation? Is there a conspiracy to brainwash these people?
What would a success be for Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC)? Getting their beliefs taught in secular public schools? Winning over 0.1% of PhD researchers in the field of biology? Publishing a meaningful paper?
What would success look like for IDC?
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"you dont recognize an error in the theory when you see it"
No. I just know, what the theory of evolution actually says. I also know, what evolution is. Changing what theory of evolution states would only mean that's not theory of evolution anymore, right?
"problems with theory"?
As in what? Corelation with abiogenesis? Not the same thing.
"Study it"
I study biology. What about you?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "No. I just know, what the theory of evolution actually says. I also know, what evolution is. Changing what theory of evolution states would only mean that's not theory of evolution anymore right?
There is not just one theory.
Naturalism predicts the cell and all species arose from non-intelligent non-directed natural sources.
I.D. evolution predicts an intellect created the cell with all the capabilities to evolve all the species.
And adaptation (only minor changes)
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"There is not just one theory."
Huh. I'd swear, that I've only found a single theory of evolution. I'd probably read it in Nature, sciam or other peer-reviewed journals, if there was another Theory of evolution. But I guess I've missed that. Can I get a peer-reviewed paper doi, please?
"Naturalism predicts the cell and all species"
I don't know, what does this got to do with evolution. Care to explain?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@toobsucker
Also; "(only minor changes)"?
What exactly is that you consider a "minor change"? As in mutations? And; according to you; this changes could not possibly accumulate over -- psh -- generations or something? Because that logic is somewhat reminding me of taking a steps outside the house; You can take a tiny step at a time, but there's no way, that you could walk like 5 miles?
If you're accepting change, you're accepting evolution. It's that simple.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "What exactly is that you consider a "minor change"? As in mutations? And; according to you; this changes could not possibly accumulate over -- psh -- generations?"
No. In order for minor changes to accumulate, the error correction mechanisms must also evolve. Each species has its own proteins that are subject to error corrections, If a change it protein shape is detected, the error corrections rejects it. You combine the molecular data with STASIS in the fossil record that = NO
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"In order for minor changes to accumulate, the error correction mechanisms must also evolve."
I think, that you should stop commenting, since your comments make less and less sense as the time passes. Like in this case; wouldn't better error correction mean less changes? Just a thought.
"If a change it protein shape is detected, the error corrections rejects it."
Change in protein shape?!? Dear god, please don't tell me you can't distinct DNA from a protein? Please?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf ""In order for minor changes to accumulate, the error correction mechanisms must also evolve."
"I think, that you should stop commenting, since your comments make less and less sense as the time passes. Like in this case; wouldn't better error correction mean less changes? Just a thought."
LOL..Yes that's my point why do you think we find STASIS throughout the fossil record & 450MYO living fossils?. The error correction mechanisms do NOT evolve as needed for speciation.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"as needed for speciation"
For the n-th post you're showing, that you fail even at the most basic grasp of biology. I could tell you how mutations and speciation actually works; But why bother, since you're going to ignore it?
And that's how you proclaim the "truth"? By hoping that the other people are dumb enough that would never bothered to open up a science book and actually read it?
Open up a book and stop claiming that exceptions are the norm, hoping that nobody would know.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "For the n-th post you're showing, that you fail even at the most basic grasp of biology. I could tell you how mutations and speciation actually works; But why bother, since you're going to ignore it?"
I do not ignore any DATA. I evaluate it to see what it actually predicts. I know what is needed to substantiate evolution. ":Closely related species" must show similar sequences with the same genes forming the same organs. & VISA VERSA. This evidence is non-existent
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"I do not ignore any DATA."
Except basic biology. And genetics. And cell biology. And what does the evolutionary theory actually say. And what the science paper actually say. And on and on and on and on.
"I know what is needed to substantiate evolution."
How can you know what to expect, if you have no clue about evolution? Or speciation? Or mutations?
"This evidence is non-existent "
It shows, how much you don't ignore any data. Human and chimp genome anyone? No? Oh, well...
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "It shows, how much you don't ignore any data. Human and chimp genome anyone? No? Oh, well..."
NONE of the atheists I debate study any recent material. All you guys are stuck in 19th century predictions
ABSTRACT
"The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small"..... CONTINUED
toobsucker 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf
"....The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species."
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
*headdesk*headdesk*headdesk*
The paper is called "Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees." by Glazko G et. al. But rather then reading only the title and abstract, why not read the entire paper? It's the first page if you're searching it by google.
It doesn't say what you think it says. Read the entire paper.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rationalw0lf "It doesn't say what you think it says. Read the entire paper.'
I know exactly what it says. 98% of the 2% of DNA that codes for proteins (primary structure) is identical with chimps. Which means nothing because the mouse shares 97% of those same genes..However the secondary structure of those same proteins are only 20% identical.
For a chimp to evolve into a human, 80% of the secondary structure of his proteins must change shape (evolve or mis-fold its proteins)
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
Here's an exercise for you, answer the following:
1. How many germline single base mutations are there per person, on average?
2. How many total mutations are present in least 2% of a human population (there are called SNPs). How many SNPs are known in humans?
There are 20,000 genes in humans. 80% of them have at least one mutation. That's ~16,000 changes in 20 million bases (assume 1 kb gene size). What percent is that? Is that more or less than the number of SNPs?
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@toobsucker
Also; your reply on sickle cell anemia speaks volumes.
Can you do me a favor and stop spreading your ignorance and start learning what you're actually saying? Please? It doesn't do anything else than insult my intelligence and makes biologists facepalm and headdesk simultaneously.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "Also; your reply on sickle cell anemia speaks volumes."
Where did I post anything about sickle cell anemia?.
Your response it typical of all ill-informed atheists. Atheists do not refute DATA with DATA, they refute DATA with personal opinions & Ad Homs
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"Where did I post anything about sickle cell anemia?"
You didn't. You've failed to present your evidence for "if the shape of the 3 dimensional protein is mis-folded, it is rejected by the highly accurate error correction mechanism because it wont function", and I've asked for explanation how sickle cell anemia is possible, since it's exactly that. Mis-folded protein.
I am still waiting.
"personal opinions & Ad Homs"
Nah. You're too stupid for that.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "You didn't. You've failed to present your evidence for "if the shape of the 3 dimensional protein is mis-folded, it is rejected... sickle cell anemia is possible, since it's exactly that. Mis-folded protein.'
Correct. I mis spoke and I knew this from Doug Axe's work on protein folding. . However this does nothing to support your case. Mis-folded proteins are either rejected or cause problems. This is evolutions main problem. Changing a proteins shape as species evolves.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"Doug Axe's work"
Why am I not surprised? Oh, why am I not surprised at all?
"Mis-folded proteins are either rejected or cause problems."
What's that? Can you hear biologists screaming "NATURAL SELECTION!" over that argument? My ears are bleeding, because it's so loud.
How many times am I in need to repeat "grab a biology book and read it"? Because of your inability to grasp on how evolution works, you keep on returning to the braindead biologic institute's work.
Stop it.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rationalw0lf ""If a change it protein shape is detected, the error corrections rejects it."
Change in protein shape?!? Dear god, please don't tell me you can't distinct DNA from a protein? Please?"
And please don't tell me you don't understand a proteins function is dictated by its shape and if the shape of the 3 dimensional protein is mis-folded, it is rejected by the highly accurate error correction mechanism because it wont function. & EVERY species has different proteins & shapes
toobsucker 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
"you don't understand a proteins function"
*headdesk*
"it is rejected by the highly accurate error correction mechanism"
Explain sickle cell anemia. Ready, get set, go!
I'm not really holding my breath for an answer here. You'll probably ignore my question, like you do other questions that contradict your views. With that said, I think, that I'm done with this "debate". When you decide to read on evolution, mutation and cell biology, then come back for a debate.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf
I think your opponent has exposed his lack of any basic biology knowledge.
This is why debates of this sort are usually unproductive. You are trying to get your opponent to clarify meanings. Your opponent is reading from a script that he doesn't understand. There will never be a meeting of the minds here.
I've switched to outreach. I'm here to answer questions, but I try not to respond to these types of trolling.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
I fully understand your point; I was aware of it when I've started the debate. It's just -- Maybe, just maybe there will be a person, willing to spend just a minimal amount of time behind a basic elementary school biology book and learning what theory of evolution actually says, not what the creationists claim what it is.
Perhaps someone someday will be honest enough to listen what I'm actually saying. Perhaps.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"You combine the molecular data with STASIS in the fossil record"
I find it amusing, that you're telling me to study molecular biology, and yet you are completely clueless about basic biology, genetics and -- you know -- evolution.
And a word of advice: Before you decide to throw random words around (in this case stasis), I would want you to read what that means. Also read on stabilizing selection.
Also; did you ever bothered to actually LOOK into fossil records?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@toobsucker Please, I am interested in these 17 arbitrary communication systems. Could you please tell me where you found them? Or what they are? Thanks.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "I am interested in these 17 arbitrary communication systems Could you please tell me where you found them? Or what they are? Thanks"
Google "Taxonomy browser the genetic codes" Should be the first link.
Also ribosomes rRNA have proven to have 100% arbitrary codes
Google
"Functional specificity among ribosomal proteins regulates gene expression"
It is statistically impossible to develop this many arbitrary communication systems via evolutions mechanisms
Evolution is DEAD
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
I went to your "functional specificity..." search and came to Cell. 2007 Nov 2;131(3):557-71.
Here is how it begins:
"The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from an ancient whole genome duplication followed by massive gene loss, as redundant copies were eliminated from the genome. Roughly 10% of duplicated genes were maintained, mainly through the evolution of specialized functions (Kellis et al., 2004)."
I think you have no idea what this paper is showing. Prove me wrong.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance ""The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from an ancient whole genome duplication followed by massive gene loss.....I think you have no idea what this paper is showing. Prove me wrong."
Idon't know what your reading but it was not off PUBMED
"Together, our data indicate complex specialization of ribosomal proteins for specific cellular processes, and support the existence of a ribosomal code."
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker Yes, they found that certain ribosomes could have specific functions and be more specialized than previously thought, which is really cool, but that doesn't mean that anything is arbitrary. It shows how the cells have utilized the duplicate copies of the ribosome genes and, if you will, tailored them to be more specific. This shows how the organisms are evolving, not that the rRNA is arbitrary.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "It shows how the cells have utilized the duplicate copies of the ribosome.....This shows how the organisms are evolving, not that the rRNA is arbitrary'
We don't know yet how many languages are in RNA. ENCODE is finding how very little we do know about the genome. Trifonov (1989) has shown DNA has 12 overlapping codes. And you do understand apparent duplicates with different functions does not prove evolution. The actual change (evolution) in ribosomes function must be observed
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker Well I looked at Trifonov (1989), I would like you to read a quote from the conclusion of that paper.."What is frequently called a neutral mutation is only an apparently silent event that will remain so until one will be able to "read" the yet unrecognized context(s) of the mutation and find out what those elusive phenotypical changes are that are caused by the mutation. Moreover, the codes themselves are obviously subject to evolution."
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk ""apparent" duplicates with different functions does not prove evolution"....of course it doesn't, its just a supporting piece of data for evolution. Its showing how after a gene duplication, the mutations in the duplicated genes can confer new functions.
"The actual evolution in the ribosomes function must be observed"....that's what the paper is talking about! How the multiple copies of ribosomal proteins have actually have gained divergent functions over time (evolved!)
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "The actual evolution in the ribosomes function must be observed"....that's what the paper is talking about! How the multiple copies of ribosomal proteins have actually have gained divergent functions over time (evolved!) '
I would be willing to bet there is absolutely no evidence for ribosomes changing their rRNA & hence changing (evolving) their functionality. You do understand everything in biology is based in the presupposition specieation is a fact. Give me the reference
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker Whoa whoa hold on, the paper you're talking about is talking about ribosomal proteins, not rRNA. rRNA is highly conserved among species, they use 16SrRNA sequences to determine different species in bacteria. The paper talks how there was a duplication of ribosomal PROTEIN genes and how the duplicate copies gained newer functions and thats why they were maintained in the genome due to these specialized functions.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
I don't have access to "The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences" E. N. Trifonov so can not read it. I would like to know if "the codes themselves are obviously subject to evolution." has been observed.
I doubt seriously they have. Again evolutionary biology has a presupposition of speciation therefore every discovery must some how fit into the presupposition Ancient DNA (250MYO halo bacteria) have identical DNA to modern bacteria. The "codes" are not changing.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker They are obviously subject to evolution because when you have mutations in the sequences it affects these many codes. The point that they made in their conclusion is that the fact that a single mutation could actually have a much greater affect than previously thought because of these multiple codes and overlapping codes, so in affect, mutations can make a much greater impact on the organism (and evolution) when there are these multiple "codes", rather than just one "code".
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "the fact that a single mutation could actually have a much greater affect than previously thought because of these multiple codes and overlapping codes"
Yes that was the point Trifonov made. However his point proves "poly functional codes" equates "poly constraint codes" meaning changing one sequence also changes any other "overlapping code". like two cross words utilizing one letter, change one letter & both words change. This would be disastrous to a communication system
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker but yet its not disastrous, because we can observe have mutations can cause gain of functions or appear to not affect anything and be neutral (though Trifonov shows that these may have more subtle affects that we need to search for) and from what I've seen, the previous school of thought that most mutations are dangerous to the cells is being overturned and we are still learning about how mutations happen and about different types of mutations happen. Ah science at work :)
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MicroRedhawk "but yet its not disastrous, because we can observe have mutations can cause gain of functions or appear to not affect anything and be neutral"
The information I have read, Trifonov uses the poly-functional codes to discount random mutations as a source for new information. The conserved parts of the genome are death nails in evolution. These are elements that can not evolve. They are not subject to any of the mechanisms evolution proposes for change. Most don't understand this
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker I would need specific examples in articles because it really depends on the context of a lot of things. It also depends on what you mean as "new information".
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
There are 40 molecular machines involved in cell division. Each one of these machines many proteins have precise parameters by which they must fold. IM sure you have heard of the Levinthal paradox in which if all possible folds were tried at random, it would take longer than the age of the universe to arrive at the precise fold by chance. Yet each of these 40 machines MUST exist before evolution can even get going. How were the parameters for each machines proteins established?
toobsucker 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk"the paper you're talking about is talking about ribosomal proteins, not rRNA. rRNA is highly conserved among species"
Its rRNA that determines its function. Tell me in identical ribosomes, what is the determining factor that dictates specialized function?. I know the ribosomes proteins are highly conserved and identical in all species. And I reiterate. Give me the article so I can read it. I will bet there is no observable evidence for a ribosomes suddenly evolving new abilities
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker It depends on the function that you're talking about. The ribosomes themselves are a complex of rRNA and proteins that form the overall ribosomal complex. In this paper they point out that the ribosomal proteins are playing the functioning role in localization of the ribosomal complex. Its the rRNA that are highly conserved but they are NOT identical in all species, just highly conserved so we can judge relatedness based on how different the rRNA sequence are between organisms.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "Its the rRNA that are highly conserved but they are NOT identical in all species"
Then this falsifies evolution.
Any highly conserved element has no way to evolve a new function because it can not change (evolve). Evolution is 100% dependent on the entire system changing. This is why the theory starts with the completed species & the conserved elements already in place. If the theory attempted to evolve the UCE (ribosomes etc..) The theory would INSTANTLY be falsified
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker They are highly conserved because translation is such an essential function in ALL cells! Ribosomes are present in all known cells and are shown to do translation in all cells. This does not falsify anything, it shows how there are certain functions that are so essential that they cannot modify to a great extent and that's why the rRNA genes are so important in determining relatedness. Evolution is not 100% dependent on the entire system changing, on the contrary....
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk .....it was proposed that there would be essential functions that would have to be highly conserved. But ribosomes do change because there are more components than just rRNA, the ribosomes of eukaryotes are different than that of prokaryotes. There are around 70ish proteins that complex with rRNA to aid in the functioning of the entire ribosome complex.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "This does not falsify anything, it shows how there are certain functions that are so essential that they cannot modify to a great extent"
LOL...by modify you mean evolve. Evolutionists can no longer get away with starting the theory with the UCE already in place & claim evolution is valid. Do you think the ribosomes (with over 200 proteins) just popped into existence.? It had to be slowly "modified" and in the process be functional to keep from elimination
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker Here is an interesting article to read "A hierarchical model for evolution of 23S ribosomal RNA" (Bokov, Steinberg 2009)
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
Don't let toobsucker confuse you with his lack of knowledge about basic biology. But if you want to confuse him, just ask him what evolution actually is.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "Don't let toobsucker confuse you with his lack of knowledge about basic biology. But if you want to confuse him, just ask him what evolution actually is.'
You realize everything we debate is 100% answerable VIA the internet. If IM in error, its very easy to find it out.. I know exactly what evolution predicts & I know exactly where the theory supposed to start, It starts at the single cell and predicts the entire system (including UCE & parameters for new proteins) must change
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"If IM in error, its very easy to find it out.."
You mean not knowing what evolution is, not having a basic idea of biology, not reading the papers that you promote. Believe it or not, those are easy errors to find out. For instance -- opening a biology book.
Yes, one would think, that there is more effort involved in this. But it isn't.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "What the paper actually says is, that yes, 80% of the proteins is different in 1 or more aminoacids"
No. the proteins (not DNA sequences) are 20% identical thus 80% different. Your liver, brain, pancreas etc..are all proteins folded into a 3 dimensional form. 80% of these proteins are different in humans & chimps, For a chimp to evolve into a human, he must evolve his protein folds. While simultaneously evolving the error corrections so the new protein shape will not be rejected
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"...are all proteins folded into a 3 dimensional form."
Except those which aren't.
"For a chimp to evolve into a human"
...
...
Yes, my brain just exploded.
"so the new protein shape will not be rejected "
Aw, how cute. 4 days have passed and you still have no idea about basic biology. Not that you've bothered to look into a book or something. That'd be too much to ask, won't it?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf ""so the new protein shape will not be rejected "
Aw, how cute. 4 days have passed and you still have no idea about basic biology. Not that you've bothered to look into a book or something. That'd be too much to ask, won't it? "
You should not be debating things you have not studied. Protein mis-folding is a rare occurrence because the multiple layers of error corrections prevents this very thing evolution requires.
Google "A Third Way" by biologist James Shapiro and read
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"You should not be debating things you have not studied."
Yes. Unlike you, I actually study the stuff that's in the books. Namely biology.
"Google "A Third Way""
A biologist said it, so it must be true! Screw those stupid 99.9% of biologists that actually know what they're talking about. Let's study Doug Axe, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe! Those know what they're talking about.
And hum. Why can't anyone state, what evolution is? Ah, who cares! They're the ones that are right.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "You mean not knowing what evolution is, not having a basic idea of biology, not reading the papers that you promote. Believe it or not, those are easy errors to find out. For instance -- opening a biology book."
wolf honestly you are totally lame debate. You never answer any questions, you never address the problems with the theory. All your responses are personal opinions. That is a waste of my time
You actually thought diet controls protein folding. Your light years away
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"You actually thought diet controls protein folding."
Dishonesty. Such an admirable attribute of a creationist. Care to quote when I've said that? It's the internet, you know. You can easily find out stuff..
Go for it!
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf ""You actually thought diet controls protein folding."
Dishonesty. Such an admirable attribute of a creationis"
Maybe IM wrong. I debate scores of people on many sites.. let me look
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"let me look"
Take all the time you can. And what's an "IM"?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf
Correction is was not you. It was WeedOfCrime
"Proteins are made up of amino acids.
Animals obtain animo acids from food.
Different foods have different amino acids.
Different diet means different foods means different animo acids means different proteins.
Humans and chimpanzees have VERY different diets.
Any questions? "
toobsucker 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf
However you did say
""If a change it protein shape is detected, the error corrections rejects it."
Change in protein shape?!? Dear god, please don't tell me you can't distinct DNA from a protein? Please?
Which appears ( I maybe wrong) you do not know the difference between the DNA molecule & the 3D protein that comes from it.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
*headdesk*headdesk*headdesk*
But... But...
*headdesk*headdesk*headdesk*
Poor desk. So much abuse these days.
And one more thing: No protein comes from DNA.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rationalw0lf "And one more thing: No protein comes from DNA."
That quote proves your in serious need of study time. The proteins that make up the 40ish molecular machines are all encoded in DNA. & the proteins that make up your body are also encoded in DNA & RNA. I was correct in evaluating your understanding as extremely lacking
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"The proteins that make up the 40ish molecular machines are all encoded in DNA."
Did anyone mention "RNA Polymerase, messenger RNA and transfer RNA?" No? Basics of transcription of mRNA to a protein?
I warned you not to try to insult my intelligence.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf ""The proteins that make up the 40ish molecular machines are all encoded in DNA."
Did anyone mention "RNA Polymerase, messenger RNA and transfer RNA?" No? Basics of transcription of mRNA to a protein?"
And tell the room exactly where mRNA getting its information from?
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
"And tell the room exactly where mRNA getting its information from?"
Okay, class. Let me tell this once again: No protein comes from DNA. DNA has to be transcribed by RNA polymerase to messenger RNA and with the help of the ribosome, the tRNA matches the codons on the mRNA. tRNA tails then form the polymerization of the peptide-bonded aminoacids, which become protein.
Imagine DNA as being a hard drive. Without machinery, it's nothing. Machinery codes for proteins, not DNA itself.
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@rationalw0lf "Okay, class. Let me tell this once again: No protein comes from DNA."
I do believe you need to remove the "rational" part from your name and just go as w0lf.
No protein comes from DNA just like no videos come from your hard drive. All videos are transcribed by the CodexPolymerase. The transcribed audio & video are then transferred to the video player by mMouseClick.
So yes you got me on that one w0lf.
toobsucker 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
"No protein comes from DNA just like no videos come from your hard drive."
No, no, no, no. I have a better one. How about this one:
"Which appears ( I maybe wrong) you do not know the difference between the DNA molecule & the 3D protein that comes from it."
But hey. I've tried to explain you 3 times already,... Oh, well...
Now what was that pesky evolution again?
rationalw0lf 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "Here is an interesting article to read "A hierarchical model for evolution of 23S ribosomal RNA"
I have not read the article yet, but assume (as it is in every case) no actual evolution is being observed. As with Miller & Behes I.C. argument. Miller attempts to debunk I.C. by showing how other components can be functional by themselves. This is like parts of your TV serving more than one function. The transition (evolutionary prediction) from one to the other must be observed
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker What this article is showing is how the function of the 23S rRNA could have evolved from just ribozymes. Its showing how recent findings in the structure of the ribosomes, it can be shown how it evolved overtime, still maintaining the important function. This is showing how, when you were talking about important essential components had to be around, the activity and importance these essential components provide can be shown in early evolution with much simpler molecules.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
"Evolution is not 100% dependent on the entire system changing, on the contrary..."
No idea what your talking about to put it bluntly. And science does not agree with you. The cells cytoskeleton must first be established as well as the protein shape/functionality. The ribosomes with over 200 proteins must slowly evolve and at each stage be functional so as not to be eliminated by selection
Evolution MUST show the UCE changing (evolving) at every step or it FAILS miserably
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker I am talking about from current cells, the entire system does not have to change. If you go all the way back to the origin of life then yes. I was talking about current evolution of organisms because that's what the papers you were referring to were talking about.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "I am talking about from current cells, the entire system does not have to change. If you go all the way back to the origin of life then yes. I was talking about current evolution of organisms because that's what the papers you were referring to were talking about"
Incorrect. Each species has its own specific proteins. Google "Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees" thus evolution of protein shape & functionality must also evolve with each species
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker Well I actually want to thank you for this discussion, you're showing me where I need to research and learn more about certain areas. I am looking into all of what you said :)
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
Do you think its even remotely possible Darwinian evolution is invalid?. Or do you reject its possible invalidity on the grounds it will open the intelligent design can of worms.?
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker I feel like I need to follow the research and facts wherever that may take me. Do I think Darwinian evolution could possibly be wrong, I think it is always possible because nothing is absolute. I truly try to keep biases out of things (as much as I can). I personally think the theory of evolution will undoubtedly have to change to accommodate new findings. I am personally really interested in the field of metagenomics to bring big new discoveries to evolution and origins of life.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "is it at all possible for you to accept evolution or a future form of it, even if it may conflict with religious views? "
Creationists do not deny evolution. We deny its scope & the mechanisms (copying errors & selection) proposed by naturalists. Virtually all the evolution witnessed is the selection of INFO already on file or turning current genes off/on. There are examples of "directed mutations" (Barry Hall & John Cairns) statistically these can not be random mutations
toobsucker 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
Also IM not a young earth creationist. I believe Gen 1 & Gen 2 are two separate creation events. Gen 1 was more than likely the Neanderthal. And Gen 2 was Adam & Eve. Solomon implied a race before homosapiens in Ecc.
More & more biologists are rejecting the Darwinian mechanisms. The Altenberg 16 is a recent example.
A good article "A Third Way" from biologist James Shapiro (Not a I.D. proponent) points to Barbara McClintock genome reorganization discovery in the 1940s
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker
I just wanted to say that the Alternberg conference was not a rejection of evolution, it was a discussion of new mechanisms not known to the 1st generation of the modern synthesis. I would say it was more of a rejection of Mendelian inheritance than Darwin.
The existence of transposons have no bearing on external selection of phenotypes. This was also a modification of Mendelian genetics. Do you see the difference?
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@toobsucker [1] I read "A Third Way", I really really like that article and feel like more people need to read that. It highlights some of the things that I have been so frustrated with lately. However, I think inherently with the nature of the evolution-creationism debate it will be impossible to get around the problems associated with it. Its too much attacking and defensiveness. There's not enough unbiased....discussions....but this is a failing of both camps, not just one.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk [2] The article highlights why I am so happy I am getting into science and will be able to do research on some really cool things and the fact that there is always, always new things to figure out. And as I said in a different comment, do NOT think the theory of evolution in its current state is correct. I feel like there is going to have to be a big reboot in the near future because we are able to go into such more detail than ever before and its just such an amazing thing!
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk [3] But to suggest there need be a Intelligent creator....I think that is still very, very premature and not needed. Partly because I do not agree with much of the logic around having an Intelligent designer or a "God", in a scientific world. I don't think it gives people a need to question what they see or try to figure out how they work, I've heard people say that they will to try and figure out more about God....but that's not what I see happen. I just don't like the logic.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "But to suggest there need be a Intelligent creator....I think that is still very, very premature and not needed'
The only thing that can verify naturalism is abiogenesis. even if all species can be proven to arise from one cell (which they cant) . Its the origins of the cell that determines naturalism or I.D. NOT EVO
watch?v=WZKx1i0T9VA&feature=related
At 8:50 Nobel laureate Lee Hartwell says the more we learn about the cell the more we know how incredibly complex it is.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker But abiogenesis is a relatively new endeavor, the reason I get frustrated at many creationists is because they want answers right away and when questions pop up about the hypotheses about abiogenesis they quickly point to a creator....this is not what science is about. Oh I feel like anyone who makes it to college level courses where they get really in depth are fully aware of how the cell is very complex.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "But abiogenesis is a relatively new endeavor,"
Dean Kenyon (hes on youtube) wrote a book on abiogenesis called "Biochemical Predestination" that explained the process. However he eventually gave up on naturalism when he understood what was needed.
The cell has a "chicken & egg" problem of which came first. The proteins for the 40 machines & the cytoskeleton in the cell ALL have to exist simultaneously & the information to create them are all encoded in DNA.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker And see there is a very big difference between how a scientist thinks compared to other people. You seem to discount it because of what you claim has to be true, rather then looking into and doing research on the subject to prove why it must be like that. Claiming it has to be that way based on what seems right, is not the same thing. You say that a cell needs the 40 machines & cytoskeleton so therefore abiogenesis cannot be true. Show it by doing research into the first cells.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "You say that a cell needs the 40 machines & cytoskeleton so therefore abiogenesis cannot be true. Show it by doing research into the first cells."
Its already been done. The cell can not replicate without the molecular machines. without replication there are no copying errors for selection to chose from. Do you understand highly complex machinery & information MUST exist even before the mechanisms of evolution can even start?. This is not a small problem for evolution
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker No no no, it has not already been done. You must do research into why things like the RNA world hypothesis is wrong. You are making assumptions that cells have to be identical to there current state and do everything the same. This is a big assumption. You have to be alongside those researchers looking into the RNA world and show why their findings are inconsistent or wrong, or if ID is correct, that'll happen anyway. The thing I am getting at is that you are making assumptions.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "You are making assumptions that cells have to be identical to there current state and do everything the same. This is a big assumption."
Yyour assuming a primitive cells existence is also a big assumption. The current cell is the same in all species. Therefore the theory predicts the current single cell must be able to change its phenotype and morph into a different looking species. And with billions of generational years of bacteria evolution. Darwinian evolution It not evident
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker I know I am, but the research is being done to show that this is the case rather than yours. But research is being done to show why its possible to have a primitive cell and also to show why the idea that the current cell is all that has ever been. The problem is that you have to disprove, by research, why things like endosymbiosis are false (among many other things). Things like that is what is going to have to happen if you ever want evolution to be kicked out. I don't see that.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "Its more than just similarities (very very close similarities)" There are very very close similarities between mice & men.
Google "Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men". There are also many close similarities between human DNA & fruit DNA.
Similarities mean NADA. I reiterate. We have living fossils over 400 million years old identical to modern day species. We have many examples of "ancient DNA" that is VERY SIMILAR to other unrelated DNA sequences. Yet is does not evolve
toobsucker 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "Well then how the hell can you say that since DNA is similar to a code there has to be a designer? "
The DNA molecule contains multiple coded languages. Its not "similar" to a code. it has real overlapping codes. DNA contains multiple codes layered over each other, the only way these codes dont crash the system is there must be a complex regulation mechanism that knows when & where & how to read DNA
Human intelligence cant even come close to this multilevel code writing
toobsucker 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "You have NOT empirically shown the creation process, you are deluded if you think you have"
Tell me why are you allowed the double standard?. I have to empirically show the process of the cells assembly by an intellect, but natural abiogenesis is accepted BY FAITH with NO OBSERVATION?
Correct we have not shown the creation process. However would you like to make a bet.?
Ill bet you the cell will be intelligently designed before undirected self assembly of the cell is observed.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
"And Venter accepts evolution! Venter won't put ID on the table."
Give the liberal mind enough time and it will rear its illogical head
Venter practices intelligent design EVERY DAY. I suggest when science does intelligently design the cell, you inform them they did not actually intelligently design the cell. Not because they did not adhere to the definition of the term I.D., but simply because you have irrationally separated the definition of I.D. from the act of assembly.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk
You can go here watch?v=bq92jTtMYRM
A question is asked by the audience if science will create life in the lab. Venter says "that's easy YES"
Intelligent designs verification is at your door step. Learn to deal with it
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker Yes, I have no doubt that we will create life in the lab.....that does nothing for Intelligent design however. Its rather funny because experiments after that will be used as more evidence for evolution but you can believe what you want. If you think there's an intelligent designer then that's your choice. Creating life will not verify intelligent design, just to let you know.
MicroRedhawk 8 months ago
@MicroRedhawk "Yes, I have no doubt that we will create life in the lab.....that does nothing for Intelligent design however."
How is it using an intelligence to design and build a cell "does nothing for Intelligent design" when this is in fact the foundation of intelligent design?.
This would be like witnessing abiogenesis of the cell talking place on another planet and claiming that its not evidence that same process took place on earth. Evolutionary science would KILL for such verification
toobsucker 8 months ago