Evolution Fossils, Genes and Mousetraps 1-9

[procommenter]

[Should not Charles Darwin be exhumed to see what progress has been made in his putrefaction? Even people is sweaters are partially nude.]

[aerycksmusic]

Part 2, has a different title - Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps 2-9 *

[flyingscience]

Hello fossil/ science lovers , I belong to the oldest fossil club in the USA . I have posted many of our beginners classes , field trips and paleontologist lectures.

If you type in "Cincinnati Fossils" or "Dry Dredgers" in the search engine you will see over 50 videos to choose from . I thought some of you might enjoy these so I'm passing this on .New videos posted every year !

[jphainline]

chlorophile??....more like "bore-o'-fill".....

[afar1]

The evolution THEORY is plagued with a primitive idea with no real evidence. Il give it to you guys for using your imagination. but the lack of credibility speaks for itself. I think the ape cartoon drawings are a testament to the inventiveness and primitive approach used. Believing in a creator that is in full control of everything including the steady expansion of the universe that science only figured out recently is far easier to digest using logic and reason. Evolutionists - in a fantasy.

[arp76]

keep flying planes and leave biology to professionals.

[gregrutz]

The universe is expanding at an expanding rate.

And there is so much evidence of evolution it is accepted as fact, and there is a theory to explain how it happened.

[patrickledford420]

@afar1 maybe your god caused it? i dont think so by why be so ignorant about the theory you know nothing not even the definition of theory

[procommenter]

Taxation without representation is tyranny.

The power to tax involves the power to destroy.

Artifacts that challenge the orthodoxy of institutionalized "science" must be ignored, destroyed or denigrated.

[reinkaos82]

I wish I was living in America so I could get this on DVD free. Oh well, I'll have to write to them. :P

[jursamaj]

@reinkaos82

Actually, the catalog page says "If you are outside North America, videotapes are not available, and DVDs and CD-ROMs can be ordered only by written request."

[dekippiesip]

I must say he makes a really great point!!

[TheSlowThinker]

Very informative lecture!

I'd recommend anyone with questions concerning evolution to see what Ken Miller has to say. Very knowledgeable and pleasant fellow!

[agentorange20]

"in labs they use more mice than apes depending the purpose of the cure."

Ugh, you're a typical creationist moron. They use mice & rodents mostly in 1st level clinical trials for drugs as, get this, THEY"RE NOT ENDANGERED like apes are!

[agentorange20]

No, overall we're more 'apelike' than anything else.

"It depends what you want to compare, our eyeball is more similar to an octopus,"

Not. Their eyes are differently wired, while ours AND chimps share the same shitty design flaws.

"human milk is more similar to a jackass, etc."

Again, not. More similar to apes, look at the proteins in them.

[agentorange20]

"you cite is micro and I dont care what people believe as long as you cant show it in an empirical scientific way."

Ok, I can cite actual peer reviewed scientific literature backing up evolution, now, can you do the same for your no way flood? Didn't think so.

"I wasnt giving an example of symbiotic."

So why the fuck did you bring up 'symbiotic relationships' then? It has nothing to do with the same genes which are found in seperate species which exist in different families as I mentioned.

[agentorange20]

ME "You call articles like Science, Cell, Nature not peer reviewed now? You're a joke."

You:" You give evidence to create fairytales."

No, I cite PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE ARTICLES, something you can't even offer up for your BS.

"but thanks to the biological relationships the lion can survive so it can eat. "

That has nothing to do with symbiotic behavior, the lion isn't in a 'tit for tat' symbiotic relationship.

[AugmentedMinor]

Ha, ha, I typed in "evolution fossils" and this is all it could bring up. Shows there are not enough fossils for evidence to even make a video with simple slides.

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

Try "transitional fossils". Donexodus2 has a half hour video with nothing but transitional, or "Evolution" fossils.

You just basically typed in "Horseless carriage" in place of "Car".

[agentorange20]

AugmentedMinor, if you want some examples for transitional fossils, review the one of hominid fossils I put up, other users like DonExodus & AronRa have others up as well for other lineages.

[HushAndLearn]

That's why evolutions is not even a theory is just a Theosophy.

[agentorange20]

HushAndLearn, it's called a 'scientific theory', if you can refute the evidence for it, have at it.

[Entertainmentwf]

LOL, you have be kidding me. Clearly you haven't taken a real study in science. Evolution is just as real as the grationational theory. You must be clearly scientifically illiterate.

[HushAndLearn]

Macroevolution is not even close to be scientific (just micro). Science by definition are things that we can repeat, observe, test, demonstrate, etc. which macroevolution doesnt fill any of those aspects; therefore is a theosophy. If you are going to talk about micro, then dont even bother.

Take care

[Entertainmentwf]

explain the transitional fossils, explain the fossil record to me then? I'm a scientist and I really wish for you to enlighten me how you wish to explain why it is accepted by the scientific community like theorists as myself?

[HushAndLearn]

No problem. Transitional fossils are just an assumption that has nothing to do with science, neither fossil record since you cant prove they produce offspring neither if they had different kind of animal. You have to believe it happen, therefore is not science; making evolution mora part of pseudoscience as simple as that.

Regards

[agentorange20]

HushAndLearn, wow, 3 months later & you finally reply back, you sure are some 'debater', I better hush & learn around you.

"Transitional fossils are just an assumption "

No, the existence of such intermediate fossils are a prediction of evolutionary theory. & they have everything to do with Science as, get this, they are by virtue of being found in relation to others prior & later, testable. Fossils like Tiktaalik are found in principle due to where we aught to find them if evolution is true.

[agentorange20]

"but macroevolution never has been close to be a fact"

But it is. Macro evolution is defined as any evolutionary changes at OR above the species level. Thus, if we witness speciation events (which we have) then it's a fact by its own definition.

"All you have record in labs is microevolution (limits)"

What limits? Once a new species is formed the genetic pools are isolated & they go on their own trajectory according to new mutations & selection, they will invariably change as needed.

[agentorange20]

"Macroevolution is not even close to be scientific"

In biology, this term refers to reproduction isolation, IE the creation of a new species (speciation event) which we do have on record occurring many times in wild & labs. So if they can go beyond the species level, what's to stop them later?

As for fossils demonstrating it, we aught to, (if said theory is true) find specific fossils between major groups (like those from water to land) & we do.

[HushAndLearn]

FYI I didnt reply to you. Second you can make predictions on anything but on intermediate fossils is pointless. I can predict many things and base on facts, but macroevolution never has been close to be a fact or even theory (in scientific term), therefore is a pointless assumption. Is not science since you cant repeat it, observe it, demonstrate it.

All you have record in labs is microevolution (limits), nothing that indicates that such species change from a taxonomy family to another.

[agentorange20]

"FYI I didnt reply to you. "

That's what I mean. 3 months later, & still nada.

"Second you can make predictions on anything"

Indeed we can, but the predictions are required for the theory to be viable, just like other predictions for other science theories for their vindication. Same difference. Objects must obey certain gravitational predictions to support the theory of gravity, same with evolutionary theories predictions.

[agentorange20]

The fossils existing are not only a required prediction, but so are their morphology. That is, for intermediates linking homo sapiens with living apes we simply must intermediates displaying a modernization from more apelike to more sapien like, & this we do find. We find key changes: bipedalism, reduction in jaw size & robustness, reduction in brow ridges & migration of vertebrae to be more directly under the skull, growth in cranium, use of tools & fire, etc.

[HushAndLearn]

Thats not macro because they still the same taxonomy family, is just a variation within the same kind which make it micro by definition.

What I mean by predictions I mean on facts and fantasies and your prediction are base on fantasy by stretching the facts. I can also make predictions on Superman even when he doesnt exist by using any fossil to prove it using imagination & not science.

Your linking examples is just pure fantasy and not science. You cant repeat it or demonstrate it. :P

[agentorange20]

"the same taxonomy family"

You mean taxomonic group, & they would be in a different species group at that at that point.

"by predictions I mean on facts"

Fact: They existed. What evolutionary theory predicts, as Darwin noted, is that *some* aught to display said intermediate traits between specific groups of organisms. IE, how Archaeopteryx is an example of being an intermediate between theropod dinosaurs & birds. Tiiktalik would be another example for a different lineage.

[agentorange20]

"Predictions can be base of fairytales too"

Name one. What, you can't comment on Archeopteryx?

"The example of murder is a GREAT example on how many people after year of been guilty they become innocent for the misinterpretation of the evidence (same as macro).

This is a testament of how evidence can support a position, in some cases DNA evidence can clear a person. Your grasp of the English language is horrid, work on it. Big time.

[agentorange20]

"You cant repeat it or demonstrate it"

Science uses philosophical reductionism based on methodlogical naturalism. In the same way how we need not repeat the event of a murder to demonstrate who the murderer was in crime no one directly witness. The same logic is used in how science deduces the past based on many lines of consistent emprical evidence. When all lines of evidence concur on the same model, it's beyond any reasonable doubt.

[HushAndLearn]

Taxonomy is a classification of organism as family.

Predictions can be base of fairytales too and by keep using imagination you can make predictions become truth by pure fantasy without using science.

The example of murder is a GREAT example on how many people after year of been guilty they become innocent for the misinterpretation of the evidence (same as macro). That's why if you cant repeat it, observe it or demonstrate it as a natural thing is not science.

Take care...

[agentorange20]

"saying it doesnt have limits it surely not scientific."

What limits? Remember, the classification is arbitrary setup by us. A species can diverge into new ones, so where then is the intrinsic limit to how much the new species can diverge from the ancestral one? There isn't one as they will be genetically isolated & new mutations would occur in each species independently & they'd evolve on their own trajectory as needed.

[agentorange20]

"you are just using micro to prove macro as usual."

No, I am stating that there are not limits to how far organisms can diversify. If they can go past the species level, why not Genus, Family, Order, etc.? Give some evidence for why they can't.

"World population in math terms:"

how does this debunk evoution, again? it rambles on about population growth, but population growth didn't grow exponentially in the past. Famines ring a bell?

[agentorange20]

"Taxonomy is a classification of organism as family."

It's a twin nested hierarchical classification system, it's not composed of 'families', only arbitrary groups we've designated for them based largely on morphology. Grouping of like types, which at the species level, invariably further diversify showing no signs of limits between past ancestors. The lines between 'species' & 'genus' are thus arbitrary & exist in relation to the apparent amount of diversity.

[HushAndLearn]

FYI taxonomy is a classification of organism (read it yourself). Also, anything that change but still into the same taxonomy family is just micro and since you cant show the opposite is prove enough of limits, and saying it doesnt have limits it surely not scientific.

Archeopteryx is a ludicrous example of evolution because there are fishes with teeth and some others dont have teeth. Some reptiles have teeth and some other dont; as well as mammals have and some dont, etc.

[HushAndLearn]

And no, is not a testament of how evidence can support a position because evolution has been disproved many times and yet they still keep in the same fairy land.

Your grasp of the English language is horrid

What a typical red herring XP

Keep trying. (^o^)

[agentorange20]

"evolution has been disproved many times"

name one.

"What a typical red herring"

Muptard it's the truth, your lack of comprehension in the English language is evident of your ignorance, it's not a red herring, it's simply an observation.

"Keep trying."

Yeah, & you'll eventually explain how Archeopteryx isn't an intermediate one of these days too, right?

[HushAndLearn]

"Name one"

World population in math terms:

watch?v=QHngS9Rlb8w&feature=ch­annel_page

"A species can diverge into new ones"

It is micro

"how much the new species can diverge from the ancestral one?"

Dont matter, they still into the same kind or taxonomy family

new mutations would occur in each species independently

Yea, is call micro because they still into the same taxonomy family

[agentorange20]

"Yea, is call micro because they still into the same taxonomy family "

They would be in separate taxonomic GROUPS, not families. Family in taxonomy is part of the ranking scale, like Genus & Species are. They would be separate species, but still in the same Genus, Family, Order, etc.

[agentorange20]

"taxonomy is a classification of organism"

no shit, I never said it wasn't. I said speciation = macro evolution, as per how biology refers to reproductively isolated groups. Deal with it. Once they're past this, they're by definition a new species.

"anything that change but still into the same taxonomy family"

Ugh, by a new species being created via speciation it would no longer be in the former taxonomic group. Got it?

Next thing you're gonna tell me all mutations are harmful, right?

[HushAndLearn]

"I said speciation = macro evolution"

Well then you dont know what macro is. Macro are changes from one family to another taxonomy family (not at speciation level).

"they're by definition a new species."

Well again, you are just using micro to prove macro as usual.

"Ugh, by a new species being created via speciation it would no longer be in the former taxonomic group. Got it?"

New species? They still into the same taxonomy family; is call micro (not macro), got it?

[agentorange20]

"Macro are changes from one family to another taxonomy family (not at speciation level)."

That's not what the articles from HHMI, Berkeley(.)edu, or Wiki define it as. They define it as a speciation event. According to them macroevolution = speciation, if you have other articles showing otherwise, I'd love to hear them.

[HushAndLearn]

"They define it as a speciation event"

As an example is when a canidae in not longer a canidae (taxonomy family classification (kind)). That is the main point of evolution to prove different taxonomy families has a common ancestry in a scientific way and not in the imaginary way. Wolf and a dog is micro not macro since they still canidae.

"They would be in separate taxonomic GROUPS, not families."

Canidae is part of the taxonomy family

[HushAndLearn]

"If they can go past the species level, why not Genus, etc?"

Because is not science! you can't repeat it, etc. All we see are limits.

"Give some evidence for why they can't"

Well look around, all you see is micro because they still in the same kind or family. If you think they can go beyond is surely not scientific, you cant give empirical evidence for it.

"how does this debunk evoution?"

Watch the video; I cant explain it in 500 characters! I already sent you the link

[agentorange20]

"all you see is micro because they still in the same kind or family."

But this is in the short time span of a few generations, whereas the time line of life on earth is in the many billions.

"Watch the video"

I did, it says nada about biology, it only attempts to explain a 6000 YO earth via todays population & a hypothetical founding population of & 4000 years ago. All the while ignoring concepts like 'carrying capacity' & how famines occurred all the time in the past restricting growth.

[agentorange20]

So Archeopteryx is, according to you, fully bird then, right? How do rationalize all of its reptilian traits without acknowledging how similar it & others like microraptor are to modern aves?

And Tiktaalik is a fish to you too, right?

[agentorange20]

"you assume something doesnt become science by your own definition."

I'm not talking about assuming anything, the modern classification of organisms reveals the nested hierarchy, this is independent of descent. Why else, but for descent, would this nested structure even exist? Why else would genetics, & embryology & other systemic models reveal the same patterns?

[agentorange20]

"If they can go past the species level, why not Genus, etc?" Because is not science!you can't repeat it, etc."

But we have instances of new Genus' being created as well, so where is the limit then? there is nothing biologically stopping a new species to further change, that is what I am stating.

[HushAndLearn]

"But this is in the short time span"

I already know what you believe, that is why its not science because you cant observe or demonstrate your statements besides micro.

"All the while ignoring concepts like 'carrying capacity"

Well that is the average math by couple, and if you want to deny the math is fine to me (I dont mind), you can deny gravity as well.

"restricting growth"

Dont matter, that still happening.

[HushAndLearn]

"Archeopteryx according to u, fully bird?"

Is a bird class with similar trait as many other living organism too, but you still not getting the point; platypus and duck are different family and they look similar. You cant demonstrate in a scientific way they are relate in an evolutionary process. All animals have similar traits in differnet ways but is obvious for survival process, otherwise we wouldnt survive. Just because you assume something doesnt become science by your own definition.

[HushAndLearn]

"But we have instances of new Genus"

Genus is a very low level in a taxonomy rank. Dogs and Fox are different genus but STILL canidae, family is a higher level as evolution claims to happened which by definition it cant be science.

"so where is the limit then?"

In the taxonomy family.

"there is nothing biologically stopping a new species to further change"

Are you assuming everything is already known? Of course not! Science change, so dont rush because studies doesn't stop yet.

[agentorange20]

"Genus is a very low level in a taxonomy rank. Dogs and Fox are different genus but STILL canidae,"

Indeed Genus is, but can such species cross breed via hybridization? No. And when species can create hybrid offspring they're overwhelming sterile.

"taxonomy family."

If this is so, why can we look at examples of evolution in horses, elephants, & others in which the first species look barely like their descendants today. These are clearly a different family, & yet they're obviously related.

[agentorange20]

"platypus and duck are different family and they look similar."

Not really, they're quite different aside from the bill. Anatomically, embryologically, genetically. Every possible way, they're more different then Aves & more like mammals, or specifically a clade of mammals, monetremes.

"You cant demonstrate in a scientific way they are relate in an evolutionary process."

Morphology, embryology, genetics & other types of systemics do just that, & they're all consistent. Fancy that.

[agentorange20]

"Yea and is subject to error (big time)."

At least you acknowledge indirect evidence is science, bravo. When many lines of independent evidence are consistent & explain & conform on the same model, or criminal, it's logical to accept them.

[agentorange20]

"I already know what you believe,"

Yeah, Earth is quite old, 4.57 BYO, at least.

"its not science because you cant observe or demonstrate your statements besides micro"

Ok, get this, in science we can use indirect observation, so we need not directly observe something to know its occurred in the past. We can see a meteror impact site to infer an meteorite impact in the past, thought no one saw it directly.

Just like how in crime scene we can use consistent evidence to convict a person.

[HushAndLearn]

"These are clearly a different family, & yet they're obviously related."

Everything can be relate it in one way or another depending what were talking about; but it is not necessarily because of evolution!

"Why else, but for descent, would this nested structure even exist?"

Well "hellooooo"... it could be because of the Designer! Because of the symbiotic relationship we do so we can depend and survive one from another (as Jesus taught and does from God)!!!

[HushAndLearn]

"I'm not talking about assuming anything"

Well yea, you are assuming many things here by using those facts by ASSUMING is because evolution.

"Morphology, embryology, genetics & other types of systemics do just that, & they're all consistent."

In a way it does and it has nothing to do that is because macroevolution has occurred.

"Yeah, Earth is quite old, 4.57 BYO, at least."

Wrong believe show bad conclusion like evolution.

[HushAndLearn]

"Ok, get this, in science we can use indirect observation just like how in crime scene"

Yea and is subject to error (big time). You can do a lot of assumptions but is not error free and it has happened many times in science too, therefore macroevolution remains as pseudoscience.

"we can use consistent evidence to convict a person"

Depend the evidence; some evidence is repeatable and observable like medicine does and still not error free. All evidence evolution showed are very flaw.

[agentorange20]

"All evidence evolution showed are very flaw."

Name one. I just gave you some different independent lines of evidence, all being consistent: genetics, embryology, morphology, which all are consistent with the theory. Explain why they & many others are consistent, but somehow don't support evolution.

[HushAndLearn]

"At least you acknowledge indirect evidence is science"

Lol, no. I mean science can comment on evolution, but no because science comments on evolution it becomes science automatically. I can make comments on superman and not because of that I become superman or superman becomes part of me in real terms of supernatural power. I mean I wish, but is not how real thing works.

[HushAndLearn]

"independent evidence are consistent & it's logical to accept them"

Well sorry but many people have a twisted logic, and again; it depend the evidence. For example if the murder was on film then is powerful evidence.

"Explain why they & many others are consistent"

Is just depend of the implication, since most of the implications are just from micro and many scientist dont believe in it anyway (well, I dont care what scientist believe as long they cant show it in a scientific way).

[HushAndLearn]

"Name one."

Well, another one will be the Grand Canyon. If you didnt know, they already did a simulation years ago in a lab (at scale) about it and it was prove not to be by millions of years because the layers of strata were way too different from the ones we have and the only logical conclusion was by hydrologic sorting (if I find the video I send it to you (which I dont think you care anyway)).

[agentorange20]

"Well sorry but many people have a twisted logic, "

So, in your world when we find many lines of independent evidence is consistent & tested & which all conform on the same criminal for a crime, you conclude their innocent, huh? That would be twisted logic.

"if the murder was on film then is powerful evidence."

If the murderer is wearing a disguise, as they often do, it wont help as much. You might get height & weight, but that's not good enough. empirical evidence like DNA works.

[agentorange20]

"In a case of a murder works better,"

The same emprical evidence can tell use who the murdered was even though no one directly witnessed it. Same difference with evolution in relationships between species. You'r foolish, you're saying DNA is sufficient to explain a murder no one directly saw but it can't identify relationships using the same principle?

[agentorange20]

"science can comment on evolution, but no because science comments on evolution it becomes science automatically."

It comments on it b/c of the empirical consistent evidence, twit. Just like it comments on gravity & other sciences. As the plethora of evidence mounts, it's hard to conclude any other way. Gonna comment on them elephant & horse ancestors already? They weren't in the same family, there is your macro evolution.

[agentorange20]

\"You at least can repeat, test, demonstrate, etc. gravity"

Again, IDIRECT OBSERVATION is part of science. Recall the meteor example, & how deductive logic works. You're asking for a species to give rise to a quite differnt other species of another family in single generation, something we know isn't possible in a single generation as a zygote wouldn't even form. The changes from generation to generation are slight, accumulating, & compounding.

[agentorange20]

"the Grand Canyon."

The same grand canyon which creationists say was formed via the single 'no-way flood', while they also state it laid down nearly a dozen geological layers?

Wow, how'd it manage to both lay down all the layers, all in succession, with no intermixed fossils & then cut through them in a single flood? Some miracle.

"If you didnt know, they already did a simulation years ago in a lab"

Good, cite the peer reviewed articles, source it, I'll check it out.

[HushAndLearn]

single 'no-way flood', how'd it manage to both lay down all the layers

When I said Hydrologic sorting, I obviously talk about the flood. It is the most possible way and by skill, weight, density, etc. is what we have.

cite the peer reviewed articles

It actually is a video here in YT and as soon as I found it Ill send it to you.

you conclude their innocent, huh?

I think I was clear, I said it depend on the evidence for it to be or not to be.

[HushAndLearn]

"empirical evidence like DNA works"

In a case of a murder works better, but in a case of evolution all you can prove is speciation within the same family. So yea, DNA works just for micro.

"Just like it comments on gravity & other sciences."

Well duh! You at least can repeat, test, demonstrate, etc. gravity which is something I am getting affected by right now. But is a ludicrous comparison with evolution. You comparisons are from micro (not macro).

[HushAndLearn]

"Gonna comment on them elephant & horse ancestors already?"

Didnt I just tell you about it? I said we all have symbiotic relationship which obviously mean we all have something is common in relationship in one way or another. If they do have things in common so as we all do too.

Take care...

[agentorange20]

"Didnt I just tell you about it?"

Nope, you just doged it like you did here again. You continually asked for fossil evidence in which a new taxonomic family is derived from an acnestral species, well, elephants & horses would be examples. You never denined their existance, nor their probability of being descended from them. Explain.

[agentorange20]

"No, because those are base on 2 completely different assumptions"

It's not an assumption that we and apes both have the same genes, or that that entirely different species from different families have the same genes, it's an empirical fact directly observed in labs. DNA shows relationships between organisms. Paternity tests ring a bell?

[agentorange20]

'Didnt I just tell you about it?"

But get this, we fine species of entirely different families sharing the same genetic sequences, many times they are retro-elements, or transposons. Why else, but for descent, would such identical sequences exist? One is the evidenc for human chromosome 2 fusion, explain that.

[agentorange20]

"It actually is a video here in YT"

If it's not even scientifically peer reviewed, why would you bother? Say, how does a single flood lay down all those layers in succession, while also cuting through it later? Explain that one pal.

"it depend on the evidence for it to be or not to be"

So in evolutions case, we have many independent lines of evidence all conforming on the same model, & in your mind this doesn't suffice, huh? Mkay.

[HushAndLearn]

"You asked for fossil evidence in which a new taxonomic family is derived from an acnestral species"

I didn't ask you for fossils because they dont show anything beside the fact that is death.

"You never denined their existance, nor their probability of being descended from them. Explain."

Just think about for a minute that we have no relationship with nothing around this world, then how on earth do you suppose to survive! Because we all depend from something (symbiotic relationship).

[agentorange20]

"how on earth do you suppose to survive! Because we all depend from something (symbiotic relationship)."

And this...debunks biological changes (evolution), how again?

Your English is really bad. Symbiotic refers to a common goal between members, obviously the predator eating the prey isn't a symbiotic relationship.

[HushAndLearn]

"we fine species of entirely different families sharing the same genetic"

Well obviously, if we have symbiotic relationships are exactly that we suppose to find. We have many other common things with animals beside apes.

"You're asking for a species to give rise to a quite differnt other species of another family in single generation"

I DONT CARE HOW MANY GENERATIONS, just show it in a scientific way (as simple as that).

"something we know isn't possible"

Well, yes it is.

[agentorange20]

"From the river which is the path was left from the flood,"

That makes ZERO sense & you have no evidence to support it either.

"REAL definition of science."

3rd time now, science (like crime court cases) uses indirect observations as evidence along with direct evidence. Get it?

[HushAndLearn]

"If it's not even scientifically peer reviewed, why would you bother?"

Because neither evolution is.

"You'r foolish, you're saying DNA is sufficient to explain a murder but it can't identify relationships using the same principle?"

No, because those are base on 2 completely different assumptions. All you can show is speciation using DNA (variations within the same kind or family).

"Again, IDIRECT OBSERVATION is part of science."

Gravity IS NOT AN INDIRECT OBSERVATION as Evolution.

[agentorange20]

"I DONT CARE HOW MANY GENERATIONS, just show it in a scientific way (as simple as that)."

Genetics. Embryology. Paleontology. Homologous structures, etc. Some using indirect observation, others using direct, all conforming on the same model - evolution. Deal with it.

"Gravity IS NOT AN INDIRECT OBSERVATION as Evolution."

Both use direct & indirect observations as evidence.

[HushAndLearn]

"how does a single flood lay down all those layers in succession, while also cuting through it later? Explain that one pal."

From the river which is the path was left from the flood, which by evolutionary sense doesnt even make any.

"So in evolutions case, we have many independent lines of evidence all conforming on the same model, & in your mind this doesn't suffice, huh?"

Is not in my mind, is what the real empirical scientific evidence can show in the REAL definition of science.

[agentorange20]

ME:"If it's not even scientifically peer reviewed, why would you bother?"

You"Because neither evolution is."

You call articles like Science, Cell, Nature not peer reviewed now? You're a joke.

[HushAndLearn]

"That makes ZERO sense & you have no evidence to support it either."

If macro doesnt make sense, then that is what I am expecting to hear from evolutionists and BTW, yours is worst.

"Get it?"

Yea I do but you aint yet. Your implications are seriously flaw.

"debunks biological changes"

Once again, your examples are ONLY for micro.

"DNA shows relationships between organisms. "

If it doesnt, then we wouldnt survive as well as we do.

[HushAndLearn]

"Symbiotic refers to a common goal between members"

Is also a relationship between two entities which is mutually beneficial for the participants of the relationship and of course because our similarities physical and biological. Example: The bumblebee needs the flower to survive; the flower needs the bumblebee to survive.

"Is not an assumption that we and apes both have the same genes"

As we do with many other living organism but is surely and assumption to say we have common ancestor.

[HushAndLearn]

"It use direct & indirect observations as evidence"

Macroevolution doesnt give any direct observation except variations within the same kind.

"You call articles like Science, Cell, Nature not peer reviewed now? You're a joke."

You give evidence to create fairytales. The only articles I call are just as it is WITHOUT stretching the facts.

"predator eating the prey isn't a symbiotic relationship"

Is not, but thanks to the biological relationships the lion can survive so it can eat.

[agentorange20]

"Macroevolution doesnt give any direct observation except variations within the same kind."

Shared ERV's, shared Genetic retro elements, shared transposons, atavisms, (do you even know what atavisms are?), embryological development paths, all are direct and ALL support macro evolution.

[agentorange20]

The number chromosome count between us and chimps isn't alone how we know our # 2 chromosome is the result of the fusion in the past. Duh.

It's due to how same telomeric DNA which exists in their coresponding chromsomes fits perfectly with ours, & it's in the middle where it doesn't belong. There is also the centromere. I explain this in detail here

Evidence for Evolution - Analysis of Human Chromosome 2 pt1

watch?v=GPp0c_5_m6Q

and here...

watch?v=Uk5W2ISYvjM

Explain, smart ass.

[agentorange20]

"Is also a relationship between two entities which is mutually beneficial for the participants of the relationship"

So according to you, it's symbiotic & mutually beneficial to a prey animal in a 'predator & prey' relationship? No, didn't think so.

"The bumblebee needs the flower to survive; the flower needs the bumblebee to survive."

And what has this got to do with their genes they posses? That was, after all, my implication earlier.

[agentorange20]

"As we do with many other living organism "

But isn't it odd, that relative to ANY other living species, we share MORE in common morphologically, genetically, in embryonic development, & so on than ANY other species. We are more like apes, specifically bonobos & chimps than any other species. Now why should that be? It's practically obvious.

[LoricaLady]

@agentorange20 Evolution is based on speculation presented as data, and many logical fallacies. When you compare us to chimps based on "common" this & that you use several of them. 1. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. We already knew people & apes have some similarities. That does not provide any evidence we came from them. Bee, birds & bats fly, snakes & worms slither. Tobacco & chimps have 48 chromosomes. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. 2. Fallacy of the Single Cause. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@agentorange20 Cont. No other possiilities are considered. Courts fights are led by people like Miller so that no one can speak about the problems of evolution. 3. Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. For ex., you say embryonic development shows we came from apes. If so, what is it? More of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy? Humans are 100% human from the zygote on. Where are the fossils showing ape to man (or anything to anything else)? They have a few paltry fossils. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@agentorange20 Cont. There is not 1 "transition" that the evolutionists themselves agree on. They just find this or that fragment, maybe even a full skeleton and start telling us, with the faith based magical thinking typical of evolution, that they KNOW its a transitional form and they KNOW that its invisible descendants' invisible descendants (how do you tell a missing link from a never existed one?) leave invisible dots to us. And they call that science. Ida ain't your great etc. grammaw.

[agentorange20]

"If macro doesnt make sense, "

Ok, so you can't support your no-way flood with any peer reviews articles, I got it.

"Your implications are seriously flaw."

Your grasp of the English language is seriously flawed.

me :"DNA shows relationships between organisms. "

you: "If it doesnt, then we wouldnt survive as well as we do. "

No, I am stating THE SAME GENES EXIST IN IDENTILCAL GENOMICAL LOCATIONS IN DIFFERENT SPECIES WHICH EXIST IN DIFFERENT FAMILIES. Showing they're related.

[agentorange20]

"your answer at minute 8:38: "

Kent Hovind? C'mon, you'll have to do better than this. This didn't answer anything, it's entirely based on wrong information. The evidence for the fusion is the telomeric DNA in the middle, along with the extra centromre DNA off center, it has little to do with the number count in relation to other organisms chromosome count.

Why don't you offer ratings or comments on your vids, are your creationist views so frail they can be crushed in 300 words?

[AugmentedMinor]

No, if that was so, don't you think it's teachings would be worldwide?

[Entertainmentwf]

where is it not teached? Last time I checked it a pretty fundamental theory to teach in biology at a university level.

[Vektruscen]

Great video, every Christian fundamentalist should watch this.

[papasitoman]

This guy is an AMAZING teacher. You can tell that he is patient and doesn't talk down to people by systematically destroys bad ideas while conveying the most up-to-date info on the subjects. He was the perfect person for the Dover trail.

[ngarey]

Respect to the Miller, thanks for uploading this.

[ricknitro]

why does it take so long to load?!!! ken miller is my hero! He is the best speaker on evolution, in my opinion.

[Erech01]

agree, in my opinion, he has taken over for dawkins, since dawkins has gone to philosophy:/ ken miller definatly knows his stuff.

[bshieldsbb01]

Personally I think Dawkins has become the Scientist Creationists Love. He's allowed himself to be dragged into a Battleground of their choosing; the rift between Science and religion. Say what you want about religion, fundies are not indicative of the majority of theists.

Miller is famously a Catholic, which in of itself shows this is a non-factor; on top of that this guy knows his Shit!

[Erech01]

yeah, i think dawkins has let himself get abit far, he is just what creationists want now, they can say 'look, hes an atheist and he says evolution goes aganst religion'

[Entertainmentwf]

well Dawkins is doing what us scientists are scared to do and I admire Dawkins for it. If I could without getting murdered by bible punchers I would do the very same and I was a fluent catholic till science showed me how the world really works.

[BeachofDreams]

Well, there are Catholic beliefs that cannot be substantiated by, or at least reconciled with, biological facts. For instance, the Catholic teaching that sex is "meant" for reproduction, when modern evolutionary biology shows that sex both works against and for the purposes of reproduction: it is the only way for sexual organisms to reproduce, but on the other hand, why go to the lengths of finding a mate only to pass on HALF your genes?

[AugmentedMinor]

Yea, Catholics are taught to believe evolution. They see "The Creation" as when God created the soul, not the materialistic body.

[aquatix]

Very interesting, thanks. I wonder if they put similar stickers on the bible?

[hardcorevnf]

lol good comment

[ericv00]

This Bible contains material on religion. Religion is a belief system, not a fact, regarding the ways in which people conduct themselves. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

There ya go!

[MankindAscendant]

"There ya go!"

ROFL...

[Erech01]

i would like to see a 'warning: this book contains unbelievable stories' sticker on it:P

[chris3443]

Please connect this serious together via repsonses, it's hard to find the next segment otherwise. Thanks!!