Macro never happened so micro is all you have you want someone to tell you the limitations instead show me where macro happened prove what you are saying you know what you can't all you can show is micro and say macro and micro are the same just add time more nonsense.
According to creationists one cat kind pair evovled into lions, Hyenas cougars, housecats, all within a few generations ( since depictions of lions and housecats occur in Egpytian art ca. 2000 BC). After that nothing. You'd think the burden of proof would be on them to show the responsible mechanism. But somehow it never turns out that way.
This is a very good question and it looks like that 4.5 years later not one creotard has been able to answer your question.
The irony is that, according to their flood myth, the number of "microevolution" mutations required would exceed anything proposed by traditional biology. In other words Genesis necessitates super evolution. Also if therewas a limitation then it should be possible for a tiger to produce a lion and vice versa. As usual creotradery self destructs.
how do we get from a cell to anything other then a modifed cell or group of cells when evolution can only modify what is already there? inculding the hereditary history and informatinon in that organism? makes no sense
@kalin666; I was going to respond to your request until the end of your video changed my mind. Such immature displays don't win you any points pal. I would suggest if you want someone to respond to your question you grow up & act like a mature adult, not some petulant child.
You need an explanation of Micro and Macro evolution dude. Search MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution and then click the first video with the uploader's name being CDK007 Watch that and stop having such a closed mind on the topic.
wow, you're like 60 years behind . . . . . and just lazy, a simple trip to the library can clear this one up. Now stop worshiping the god of the gaps and read the bible.
Yes! You can find plenty of bias propiganda on the topic of evolution to indoctrinate your self with down at your local library!! where a sound observable science such as micro evolution and adaptation is bastardized and perverted into an angry, atheistic, pseudo religion called Macro Evolution!!.
Does natural selection affect the type of mutation in genes at all? And if it does, how exactly? I think natural selection only leaves good mutations alive and species with bad mutations die off, am I correct? But the mutation itself is completely random? Then how exactly can an eyeball mutate randomly? And where does the whole progress even get the idea that any specie or kind should be able to see? It doesnt make sence.
Whether a G T C or A gets turned into something else during copying is a random error, though there is a predictable rate over time (X errors in so many generations) and natural selection is what happens to the recipients of those errors (they have babies or die b4 they can). Eyes get brought up a lot, there are a few different kinds of "eyes" in animals (crustaceans, insects, mammals, mollusks all have different eyes) that arose independent of each other, different solutions to same problem.
the theory of evolution is sound whether or not there are "limitations" to it, you dipshit. If it even mutated/evolved ONE TIME, then evolution would be fact. Which it is. Dipshit. They should not only be teaching evolution as a fact, we as a species should be focusing our combined energies towards the future, sculpting a great species, instead of one that is beset with disease and enslaved by factories and religions.
you know your right they shouldent teach evolution as a fact but should as a theoty but if this pisses you off think about kids who have to go to sunday school or are brought up religous that is much worse than teaching evolution.
The Bible uses "kind", not "species". Not every species would have fit in the Ark, anyway. You're arguing the man (a common logical fallacy when debating) by using the fact that most people are ignorant of science and the Bible (on both sides of the argument), but cherry-picking the ignorance of those on the "other" side. In addition you're choosing a false representation of what the Bible actually says happened and thus also arguing a straw man (another bad debating tactic).
well i mentioned genesis, so i guess i opened up the torah for discussion, but religious texts don't have anything to do with my question anyway. It's purely a chemistry question.
"micro" vs. "macro" evolution is moronic in the utmost. People who say "micro" exists but not "macro" seem to be missing the logic screaming out at them: "macro" evolution IS SIMPLY "MICRO" EVOLUTION OVER A ****MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME****
I have a question,what Reasonable accurance event or act would have to take place in order for you or any evolutionist to question the possibility of evolution on a macro scale?if there is any.
I'm not quite sure, considering the variation we've seen in breeding domesticated animals (great danes and chihuahuas won't interbreed). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, short of god coming down and saying he did it, I can't think of what new evidence would be sufficient that didn't contradict already confirmed evidence.
wow you really have a lot of faith in evolution to hold onto it so dearly. And let me add, even if god would come down and tell you he made it all..i am 100% sure you would attribute it a hallucination or go as far as saying that it was some sort of alien life form... so clearly all these "discussions" don't really help anyone because no one here is really open to changing their belief system
The evidence is overwelming??? What in the fossil record would support that, I wonder.
Lets see, they've found neanderthals and a buch of other "pre-humans"... but what have they found in between. If we macro evolved, then there should be a steady fossil record showing so. there isn't!! If we macro evolved, then we'd expect to find the fossil record reporting that and it doesn't. Will you please explain the cambrian explosian to me??
There is continuity . . . and paleontologists find more every day . . . who told you there wasn't? The Cambrian Explosion is an example of increased animal diversity after an extinction event, similar but less interesting examples happened after the Permian mass extinction and the Cretaceous mass extinction (dinosaur killer). And these "explosions" still take a million or so years, it's not a literal explosion.
You act like you know what you're talking about! Maybe you should read something from scientists on the other side of the issue and you wouldn't be so convinced. The whole evolutionary theory is full of inconsistancies. You've obviously only been hearing one side of the story-- that is no way to get facts.
judging by your name, i'm assuming that macro evolution is rather essetial to yours.
if we are going to be scientific about things, you should go with scientific reasoning. The developement of (for example) an eye makes absolutely no sense according to your theory. Think about it.
the eye has been done to death, incremental stages have been identified and there have been a few eyes develop independently from each other, spider eyes and our eyes and octopus eyes are not related.
Conservative estimates say that modern eyes have evolved inependantly at least 40 times, and probably more like 60 times. The sweedish study showed that, remarkably, a fully functioning camera eye (like ours) can evolve from light sensitive cells in lesd than half a million years. That is a tiny amount of geological time. (All of this is covered in 'climbing mount improbable' - Dawkins)
'What in the fossil record would support that, I wonder.'
This classic argument must either be founded on ignorance or dishonesty because it is simply not true. We have THOUSANDS of 'transitional fossils' and if you dont believe me then just read the scientific literature.
...too much to ask, OK then. Read relevant chapters in any Dawkins pop-science books.
...still too much, right. Just watch any of the many youtube vids on the subject. Ken Miller devotes 20 mins to the subject.
The answer to your question, which is what are the limits to mutation right? Well my answer is the limits exist in the mutation process itself. There are limits to mutations which can occur in an organism, and each different mutation has their own limits. Why is this not an answer? And I gave an example of a limit to the deletion mutation.
Let me paraphrase your answer and maybe you'll see why it's insufficient.
"The limits exist."
Here's an example of a sufficient answer: This specific chemical prevents DNA from mutating past a certain point thru chemical processes A B and C as demonstrated in this experiment published in this journal . . .
So your asking the question and formating the answer as you want and giving the rules to what answers are acceptable.I don't think its fair. But i will answer it the way you want which i don't believe changes much. From what i have learned there are no known limits as to how base sequences can be arranged. but can i ask what this proves?
I also believe that there are limits to how DNA and bases can be arranged in order to produce a living organism. I do not believe that it will be possible, after all the genomes of animals have been mapped etc,to create mixtures of animals just by arranging their bases in different order. I think there are limits to what species can be produced or created but these limits have not identified them yet.
Sorry if i didn't phrase my thoughts properly. when deletion occurs there are borders to what the outcome of the Dna is in deletion a part of the gene is lost and therefor in that specific mutation there is only a loss of information and new information is not gotten. So there is no chance for a flower with that mutation for example to gain an extra unique appendage that it didn't have before.There is a limit for this type of mutation as to what information can be gained or lost.
The limits of DNA mutations is inherent upon the chromosomes in which the mutations are taking place. That means that natural mutations such as deletion and duplication for example, are limited by the type and amount of information which exists in the particular species.
@csouca there are limits to what a specific individual can mutate but the only limit in a population is the ability to breed. A population can exhibit a range of mutation that would be lethal if suddenly introduced to an individual. If a daughter population is separated from the parent population the concentration of these mutations can make the daughter population incapable of breeding with the parent population after a few generations of separation as has been observed in fruit flies ^_^
First there are billions of people who believe the ID theory, not only christians and it seems like you are attacking christians alone. Anyways the answer to your question is there are no limitations to how your dna can be "organized" or mutated. But that does not mean that all Cells with dna produce a working viable species capable of reproduction or even survival.I don't think any one doubts that mutations occur, i think they just doubt that beneficial mutations on a macro scale can occur.
In order to BE a scientific theory ID needs to have a disprovable hypothesis. It doesn't. The population of Egypt once thought that the moon and Sun were literally the eyes of a god. They were wrong. You are wrong. ID is the last desperate gasp of scared little Christians who understand that science has proved the Universe NEEDS no creator.
Debating with Micha is an excercise in futility. If he REALLY belives that the world is only 6-10,000 years old t he is beyond deluded and any comment he makes is irrelevent.6000 years?That's several thousand years AFTER the agricultural revolution! Never mind evolution, ever heard of GEOLOGY? Oh yeah, the worlds geologists, paleolinguists, paleotologists anthroplogists, all wrong, but Micha, Micha is right. Fuck the Neolithic period,history of the world , Eden - Jesus- Reagan now.
So one must assume that you conducted YOUR PHd in Geology? I'd really like to read your scientific papers on how accretion works. Your aroggance and ignorance knows no bounds.Without having studied a subject you claim it to be garbage based on the ramblings of a two thousand year old document written by bronze age ignorami.
dude, you're hot. but ya know.. i don't know why God and evolution have to be exclusive. I know many christians who believe that God, being infinite in his wisdom, created evolution. while i am not christian, at least there are a few that have a -slightly- open mind.
Ok, scratch the bible then, it's gone. Now, where does the concept of the abrahamic god come from? Or all we all hindu now? Come to think of it, given the influence of the roman empire in europe, we'd probably believe in the pantheon of gods on olympus.
kalin, you're right. i'm not defending christianity. i'm not christian. but many christians refuse to accept evolution because they think evolution and god are exclusive. i'm saying they don't have to be. i respect a christian who accepts evolution a lot more than one who doesn't.
how can a christian except evolution it is completely contradictory to what we beleif and if evolution were true it means the bible is wrong which is not true
that sounds like an unjustified modification of the text. If god was real, his text should be perfect. If it's not perfect, the best explanation for it's existence is "some crap some person made up". And then it should be discarded.
kalin, some would argue, of course that the bible has been modified by human beings and blah blah. again, i'm not defending christianity but isn't an open minded christian better than a closed minded one?
I would have to think so, as long as there was no limiting to changing one's mind given the appropriate evidence. I have to think the majority of moderates would change their mind given more knowledge in scientific fields, or else it's a testament to the irrationality of our species.
kalin, i agree. after all, both my husband and i turned from christianity only when we learned more about it. but never under estimate the ability of religious people to fool themselves.
Lets suppose for a sec that you are right. IF evolution would be true, how is that evidence that A God does not exist? OR does it in any way prove the big bang theory? and that a God had no part in the beginnings of the universe? There are plenty of religious people who believe in Evolution. Maybe instead of trying to use insults in discussions you should try using logic or reason, I'm sure that would help your case much more than just blurting out offensive statements
Evolution does not disprove the exsitence of God, that is why it is odd that some Christians get so upset about it. I do not belive i blrted out anything, let alone offensive statements. Evolution only proves that their is no NEED for a god. If he exsists, and i belive he does not, then clearly he has attempted to hide his role in creation, hence the lack of evidence
"They are afraid of evolution, pure and simple. It leads to a purely secular way of thinking and that threatens their belief in Bronze age sky gods". thats offensive, just in case you weren't sure.. Evolution proves nothing about a God, it just gives a possible explain to the existence of life on earth. It does not explain any other dilemma's posed through philosophy or theology. Not to mention even its explanations are not written in stone and are constantly re-evaluated and changed.
The theory is written in stone, it's fact. Expressing an opinion as to why some Christians reject Evolution could hardly be described as offensive. Darwinism DOES threaten some Christians, the Christian God is a concept conjured up in the Bronze Age and yes i think that fear is one of a number of factors that motivates the rejection of a theory that 99.9% of the worlds scientists accept as the trut
The limit for any mutation algorithm, or any sequence of 'quantifiable values' that mutates at a varying or constant rate, does not exist! However, once the physical limitations of our Earth prevent DNA (or life in general) from, well, evolving; we will have to re-examine our definition of 'evolution'.
If the environment leads to stagnation, or steady state stability, that does not mean that the term evolution requires redefining. It would merely be an example of a special case within a system.
I don't know if the creationists are actually going to listen to you, but at least it's worth a try. There are probably still some thinking people left in religion, and maybe there's hope of them being freed. (The unthinking, I'm afraid, are hopeless!)
creationists are hard core christians (like the ones holding signs saying thank god for dead soldiers) and it's unlikely that they'll listen to any kind of reasoning ever.
Kalin666.On the subject of evolution, if abiogenesis is not proven, then there's nothing proven to base evolution on. Both rely on random occurences to add constructed, beneficial information. Both of which defy the mathematical odds and the second law of thermodynamics. You know, the one about entropy.
nope, all energy in the solar system comes from the sun which is a gravity powered fusion reactor, none of the laws are violated. Evolution in a Darwinian sense can be applied only to living organisms in an ecosystem, but Evolution in a broader sense can be used to describe any system where change occurs generationaly. Abiogensis would arise given an organic chemical system, at least in theory, more study is needed.
If evolution were true, it would be the exact opposite of entropy, where random, mindless occrences produce increasing complexity, order and useable energy. Also a problem for abiogenisis.
No, and neither does evolution, both are NOT entropic. Entropy wasn't the topic of my video anyway. I was asking for the limiting factor of the mutation of DNA that prevents speciation over time. That limiting factor would be the distinction between Micro and Macro. So, where is it?
A random, mindless, chance, increase of order and complexity would violate the law of entropy. The limiting factors preventing the capability of DNA to create species over time (without intelligent influence) would be: the mathematical probability, the time available, given these odds, the evidence of the fossil record, the law of entropy, and what we currently observe in nature- variation within species.
Law of entropy . . . when you burn hydrogen to make water, that is not entopic. What law of entropy? You really don't know what you're talking about. That last comment was like word salad.
Entropy, in layman's terms: Every system, left on it's own, always tends to move from order to disorder, it's energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, for work, ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work. P.S., I think the last comment was very straight forward.
hence the conflict. Unless either of us have a life changing revelation, we won't budge from our postitions. I think mine is grounded in science and logic, you think I'm a servent of Satan and am trying to deceive you. Know this though, your arguments are hollow to the objective observer.
I think the objective observer would see that these arguments are based in science and logic. Not once have I based an argument on anything else. And, it would certainly be a strange evolutionist who served Satan.
Kalin666, these are just a few and are short, because of the 500 character response limit. There's much more. You should look into it, as I have looked into evolution, and have been surprised. I used to accept it.
Hey, kalin666, I feel I should appologize to you for that last question. I did not mean to send you off on a research project. My opinion on these "evidences" is kind of lengthy but I think in many cases, that the evidence is found to fit the model of what the evolutionist "knows" to be true. Mistakes and outright fraud have occured.
Yes, but those are the exceptions and are very few. However, people who have a problem with evolution latch on to these cases and try to pass them off as the norm.
I do have a problem with evolution because evolutionists talk as though it's a fact, when it is not proven. They just revised the descent of man from apes,yet again, on 8-7-09. Homo habilis and Homo erectus are now thought to have co-existed. Before yesterday, to disagree would mean your a religious nut.
um . . . no. Evolution is a fact even if the exact details of the operations of natural selection are not yet known. We find new stuff out every day and then theories are edited . . . that's called science.
Responce to "Evolution is a fact". "The likelyhood that the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. It is big enough to bury the whole theory of evolution..."Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasignhe, Evolution from Space.
that's "abiogenesis" (life from non-life), not evolution. I also find it highly suspect to calculate a probability on an event whose mechanics are as of yet unknown.
You're right, that is abiogenesis. But, on that subject, though the mechanics are not known, a layman can get a sense of the problem when exposed to the complexity of the "simple single cell". Hoyle and Wickramasignhe don't believe in a Creator, and they're not laymen. The odds drove them to space.
You are wrong about this. The previous position was held by scientists based on the currently available data. As the data improves the theory is refined. Do you discard Newton due to Einstein?
Disagreeing with the entire evidence based theory because it contradicts an ancient book does make you a religious nut.
yeah, like the guy said, it's never been observed. science is based on what can be observed an tested, you are pissed off because you can't defend the logic. don't burst a blood vessel over it though, who knows what we will discover in the future, but for now it looks like macroevolution is just a homoerotic fantasy of darwinian evolutionists
it's all a matter of what you want to believe. I know you get pissed at creationists, but there are holes in evolution theory, and there are other ways to interpret things that also makes plenty of sense
I'm not aware of any other ways of interpreting the evidence. For something to make 'plenty of sense' its going to have to be scientific, testable and be backed up buy a lot of evidence. (No, before you even say it, ID doesn't tick any of these boxes)
Also, i dont really understand people saying there are lots of 'holes' in evolution. There really aren't you know. It is a scientific theory on the same level as atomic theory, the theory of plate techtonics and the theory of relativity.
and the number of holes being filled is getting greater everday. fossils of an animal halfway between whales and their fox-like ancestors were discovered in the indus river valley, complete with an inner ear halfway between land animal and water animal. AND the reason why we have 2 less chromosomes than our ape cousins has been found, 2 chromosomes merged into one, we know which ones and where. It looks like a train with 2 cabooses in the middle and one of the engines is turned off.
cruelfate, of course macro evolution hasn't been observed personally because it takes generations upon generations, but there is evidence in the LOGIC that micro evolution leads to macro evolution and we have fossil records to indicate such.
What are the limits of 0's and 1's, as a basis, for a computer program? None. Yet, do you believe that Windows Vista could write itself by random chance? You know what mutations cause 99.99% of the time. Disfigurement and/or death. Usually, death.
Chance? Where is their chance? Molecular structure is controlled by the fundamental forces of physics (primarily the electroweak force). I see no room for chance here. And anyway, if most mutations lead to death, why would a creator design a system with an inherent flaw of such horrible magnitude? That's either inept or malicious. Personally, I'll take the blind and goalless system controlled by physics, it's a lot less cruel.
So you agree that chance doesn't work. The fundamental forces of physics could arrange molecules in any configuation. Why are they in the correct one(s)? Mutations, are the flaw. They Do lead to death.
"physics could arrange molecules in any configuration" - this is incorrect, only certain arrangements are possible and some are more likely than others. As for mutations leading to death, not all do. A mutation need only be not harmful to arise in a population, beneficial mutations are rarities which is why it takes a long long time for substantial change to occur. And you still haven't addressed the ONE question in my video.
There is no law that says only certain arrangements are possible, but if you don't have certain arrangements, you won't have life. If the one question is about the limitations of DNA to form different species, I don't think there is any. But, dogs are dogs, and the evidence for transitional forms is scant
As I said, I don't think there is any limit in the DNA to form species, but we have the species that we have. Some survive, some go extinct, never to return. If your asking why when a dog breeds with a cat you won't get a cog or a dat, I don't know. I'm not a biologist.
I'm asking how come speciation can't occur given the mechanics of DNA. Yeah, I'm not a biologist either, but I know when a concept makes sense and is verified by objective data.
I think that if we had the capability, we could stack molecules together and make a 12 legged flying frog. I just donn't see transitional forms in the fossil record.
Well you're not a paleontologist . . . so you wouldn't see them every day. However, a trip to a natural science museum will solve that problem. Yes they do exist, and they do reflect light, so you can see them. Hell, if you were a student of paleontology you'd be able to touch them too.
I think your idea of the process is a bit misconstrued. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every individual is an example of variation, every species ( though the distinction here is a bit arbitrary) is in a constant state of transition. Nothing is static when it comes to biology and every generation is different. You are more different from your grandfather then your father etc etc.
Yes, but since the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record shows stasis. The different species are there, intact. The predicted abundant transitional forms have not been found.
A response to, "This is just plainly false". "Stasis, as palpable and observable in virtually all cases". Stephen J. Gould and Niles Elderdge, "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes to Age," Nature, Vol. 366, Nov.18, 1993, p.223.
I am not a creationist, however im having trouble comprehending how the original DNA strand was created. since as far as I know Darwin evolution and Natural selection can only take place once an organism already exists to pass on its genes to the next generation
DNA, RNA, proteins and amino acids all have one thing in common, they are all organic molecules. As such, they will form given the right circumstances (the right ingredients plus energy). Any self-replicating molecule would tend to be more prevalent given time.
micah, i went to the site and watched the thing about mammoths. what's that supposed to convince me of? because there was -A- flood? that doesn't prove that there was a worldwide flood and doesn't support creationism at all. in fact, most creationists think the world is only 6,000 years old so it's kind of a bad video for many creationists.
i do beleif the world is only 6-10 thousand years old and also dude why dident you watch like "the danger of evolution" or somthing els or one of his debates
micah, how many did you expect me to watch? the mammoth thing was just crap.. speculation and fantastical leaps with NO evidence... why would i watch more crap?
no you do not understand, in order for you to emulate the bible you would need over 4000 yrs. of recorded history inside a culture of people(hebrew/jews) written by many people. not to mention prophesies. then you would need your prophesies to come true through a savior then you would need to have at least 12 people to follow your story and die for it. still you would need 2007 yrs. and millions more to be persecuted and killed for then you might have a small point.
All I need is for some one else to BELIEVE that it is true, I don't need it to actually happen. You believe the bible is true because you trust the people who told you it was. I think those people are mistaken.
Dude could you make any more assumptions from your fallacious ancient & outdated text. None of the assumptions you have made can or have been proven to be true. Why argue from such a weak stance. Its like getting behind a castle made of sticks, the cannons are just gonna tear it to shreds.
That is . . . irrelevant and unhelpful. Let me demonstrate. "In this book here, I have written some shit that I made up, that thou shall read it and be mystified with it's vagueness and not think about how little sense it makes." (The Book of Kalin, chapter 12, verse 42)
humans are not computers and binary is just a way of representing symbols through combinations of 1 & 0. If someone had enough time on their hands they could write out instructions on how to build a computer using only binary code to write it. Although I am not sure what relevance this "1 and 0" has to evolutionary theory.
neurons are binary, logically anyway. Fired and not fired are the 2 states. And though we're not as good at arithmetic as computers are, we are technically biological machines.
machines don't feel or have emotions, whatever they may be: happiness/anxiety/anger/love/hatred. Also machines don't perform irrational actions which are an effect of emotions. Computers & machines simply do what they are told to do. People for centuries have compared humans to whatever the latest technological advancement is. It used to be we were like switchboards now they might say we're like complex computers. But its still missing that component that makes us human.
Aah I still say we aren't machines @ all. Theres still a big difference b/w the mechanical & the biological. There may be similarities but I would argue that they're still 2 seperate entities. We have still yet to create strong A.I. If we were machines we would have programs that could duplicate the emotions & reactions of humans. The turing test was debunked by John Searle in the 80's so mimicking humans doesn't quite cut it.
Its not illogical & you're creating a strawman, you should know better then that. Its not the complexity of the machine but the functions it can perform. Humans being an organic living, growing, mutating, & thinking entity would qualify it to be something other than a machine. In order for us to be machines we would need to be cold, emotionless & unevolving. For a machine to mimick us it must have self-awareness and emotion. Neither side has been demonstrated yet.
Well then I would concede to your argument, but like I said strong A.I. has yet to be created, & emotions, well they're not even close. Theres more to being human than mimicking our language. A machine doens't understand language, its just running a program that recognizes symbols & gives automated responses. It misses the point of language, communication & syntax. Instead it just gives preprogrammed responses. I would suggest you look into John Searle & the chinese room argument.
Dude . . . Data from Star Trek, Transformers . . . surely merely science fiction now, but there's no reason why the function of our biological computer could not be replicated using another medium. Understanding of neuroscience, not philosophy or psychology, will lead to true AI.
HAHAHA you remind me of my professors TA who argued for strong AI. He was a bit of a trekkie & used Data as an ex. but was a funny TA.
When you state our brain is like a biological computer I think a good point my professor made. For centuries people have compared the brain/mind, to the latest technological advances. It used to be our minds were like water mills, then it became phone switchboards, & now its computers.
Progress of humans ability to be innovative & creative, yes. But good argument for AI, no. You might as well just say its like a switchboard or watermill b/c they both commit the same fallacy as saying its like a computer. Comparing the biological with that of the mechanical is the same fallacy that is made by creationists/theists who use the teleological arguement from design, or the watchmaker arguement. They forget to factor in the biological components
I'm not saying that AI wouldn't be something really cool to create, because the implications of it would be phenomonal. But something that has the potential to be so ground shattering must be looked at critically and constructively. Trying to transfer the mind/soul/brain whatever to another medium, i.e. hardware computer, completely misses the point of factoring in the biological component of being human.
Does it miss the point? And I wasn't talking about transferring, I was talking about creating new. And you said soul, are you using the term poetically or mystically?
Transfer, or create a new one you know what I mean. We can split hairs all day. As for the mentioning of the soul, I just used that b/c different people refer to our conciousness differently, call it the mind/soul/brain/conciousness whatever. I didn't mean it poetically or mystically. I watched this ted talk last night & thought you would enjoy it b/c its talking about the same stuff, maybe clear up what I'm trying to say
My points pretty much are his points, he's just got the background and expertise which I'm obviously lacking due to age/education. Brains and computers aren't really my subject of study, but they do intrigue me. But he makes the same argument that I'm trying to make, which is that the brain really isn't like the popular belief, being some super computer. One of his most important points I think was about the definition of intelligence and being able to make predictions.
But seriously, do you see a necessary distinction between the biological and mechanical in terms of function? Is there something "mysterious" or "magical" about the human brain that we won't be able to replicate in other mediums?
Thats a good idea lets put faith into God, who no one has ever seen/touched/talked to or we could discard faith for something thats constantly tested & if something new is discovered its amended to better fit current knowledge instead of just staying with the same argument after its been critiqued & debunked several times by the most intelligent individuals in time, you know that thing you don't want to put your faith in. At least time can be recorded.
The limit is in the dna sequence.itself. Dna is like a library of books in that species. the body of one speices can not retreave information from another speices library, because they do not have the same books. I hope you get the anology
I understand your analogy, but is an inaccurate portrayal of the behavior of DNA in that ALL DNA shares the same source material, GATC. Any link in the cha
Macro never happened so micro is all you have you want someone to tell you the limitations instead show me where macro happened prove what you are saying you know what you can't all you can show is micro and say macro and micro are the same just add time more nonsense.
glendaweil 6 months ago
According to creationists one cat kind pair evovled into lions, Hyenas cougars, housecats, all within a few generations ( since depictions of lions and housecats occur in Egpytian art ca. 2000 BC). After that nothing. You'd think the burden of proof would be on them to show the responsible mechanism. But somehow it never turns out that way.
HConstantine 7 months ago
This is a very good question and it looks like that 4.5 years later not one creotard has been able to answer your question.
The irony is that, according to their flood myth, the number of "microevolution" mutations required would exceed anything proposed by traditional biology. In other words Genesis necessitates super evolution. Also if therewas a limitation then it should be possible for a tiger to produce a lion and vice versa. As usual creotradery self destructs.
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
how do we get from a cell to anything other then a modifed cell or group of cells when evolution can only modify what is already there? inculding the hereditary history and informatinon in that organism? makes no sense
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 it looks like you just answered your own question
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666; I was going to respond to your request until the end of your video changed my mind. Such immature displays don't win you any points pal. I would suggest if you want someone to respond to your question you grow up & act like a mature adult, not some petulant child.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
You need an explanation of Micro and Macro evolution dude. Search MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution and then click the first video with the uploader's name being CDK007 Watch that and stop having such a closed mind on the topic.
bftjosh 1 year ago
I've been presenting this exact same question to creationist youtubers. They never respond back...
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
sorry dude! Bacterial Flagellum Motors don't evolve!!
cursedcreation 2 years ago
wow, you're like 60 years behind . . . . . and just lazy, a simple trip to the library can clear this one up. Now stop worshiping the god of the gaps and read the bible.
kalin666 2 years ago
Yes! You can find plenty of bias propiganda on the topic of evolution to indoctrinate your self with down at your local library!! where a sound observable science such as micro evolution and adaptation is bastardized and perverted into an angry, atheistic, pseudo religion called Macro Evolution!!.
malthusia 2 years ago
how old is the earth?
kalin666 2 years ago
Let me just ask something here fast.
Does natural selection affect the type of mutation in genes at all? And if it does, how exactly? I think natural selection only leaves good mutations alive and species with bad mutations die off, am I correct? But the mutation itself is completely random? Then how exactly can an eyeball mutate randomly? And where does the whole progress even get the idea that any specie or kind should be able to see? It doesnt make sence.
Nacluw 3 years ago
Whether a G T C or A gets turned into something else during copying is a random error, though there is a predictable rate over time (X errors in so many generations) and natural selection is what happens to the recipients of those errors (they have babies or die b4 they can). Eyes get brought up a lot, there are a few different kinds of "eyes" in animals (crustaceans, insects, mammals, mollusks all have different eyes) that arose independent of each other, different solutions to same problem.
kalin666 3 years ago
your an abortion
ruderitalin 3 years ago
that's "you're an abortion"
"you're" is the conjunction of "you" and "are", "your" is the possessive form of "you".
You're a big dummy.
Is that your malfunctioning brain?
See the difference? :)
kalin666 3 years ago
penis
ruderitalin 3 years ago
Are you really 25 years old?
okkima 3 years ago
I'm 28
kalin666 3 years ago
the end of it was the best xD
if you find it, so be it.
if not, then stfu!
darris321 4 years ago
you pretentious, big-word throwing, mindless tit.
windchild81 4 years ago
who are you yelling at?
kalin666 4 years ago
the theory of evolution is sound whether or not there are "limitations" to it, you dipshit. If it even mutated/evolved ONE TIME, then evolution would be fact. Which it is. Dipshit. They should not only be teaching evolution as a fact, we as a species should be focusing our combined energies towards the future, sculpting a great species, instead of one that is beset with disease and enslaved by factories and religions.
windchild81 4 years ago
you know your right they shouldent teach evolution as a fact but should as a theoty but if this pisses you off think about kids who have to go to sunday school or are brought up religous that is much worse than teaching evolution.
awesomebastard 4 years ago
The Bible uses "kind", not "species". Not every species would have fit in the Ark, anyway. You're arguing the man (a common logical fallacy when debating) by using the fact that most people are ignorant of science and the Bible (on both sides of the argument), but cherry-picking the ignorance of those on the "other" side. In addition you're choosing a false representation of what the Bible actually says happened and thus also arguing a straw man (another bad debating tactic).
WeaponGuy 4 years ago
did I mention the bible at all? I asked a specific question to a specific group of creationists.
kalin666 4 years ago
well i mentioned genesis, so i guess i opened up the torah for discussion, but religious texts don't have anything to do with my question anyway. It's purely a chemistry question.
kalin666 4 years ago
"micro" vs. "macro" evolution is moronic in the utmost. People who say "micro" exists but not "macro" seem to be missing the logic screaming out at them: "macro" evolution IS SIMPLY "MICRO" EVOLUTION OVER A ****MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME****
I hear your anger, kalin.
BryanAJParry 4 years ago
I have a question,what Reasonable accurance event or act would have to take place in order for you or any evolutionist to question the possibility of evolution on a macro scale?if there is any.
csouca 4 years ago
I'm not quite sure, considering the variation we've seen in breeding domesticated animals (great danes and chihuahuas won't interbreed). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, short of god coming down and saying he did it, I can't think of what new evidence would be sufficient that didn't contradict already confirmed evidence.
kalin666 4 years ago
wow you really have a lot of faith in evolution to hold onto it so dearly. And let me add, even if god would come down and tell you he made it all..i am 100% sure you would attribute it a hallucination or go as far as saying that it was some sort of alien life form... so clearly all these "discussions" don't really help anyone because no one here is really open to changing their belief system
csouca 4 years ago
The evidence is overwelming??? What in the fossil record would support that, I wonder.
Lets see, they've found neanderthals and a buch of other "pre-humans"... but what have they found in between. If we macro evolved, then there should be a steady fossil record showing so. there isn't!! If we macro evolved, then we'd expect to find the fossil record reporting that and it doesn't. Will you please explain the cambrian explosian to me??
mikeveritas 4 years ago
There is continuity . . . and paleontologists find more every day . . . who told you there wasn't? The Cambrian Explosion is an example of increased animal diversity after an extinction event, similar but less interesting examples happened after the Permian mass extinction and the Cretaceous mass extinction (dinosaur killer). And these "explosions" still take a million or so years, it's not a literal explosion.
kalin666 4 years ago
You act like you know what you're talking about! Maybe you should read something from scientists on the other side of the issue and you wouldn't be so convinced. The whole evolutionary theory is full of inconsistancies. You've obviously only been hearing one side of the story-- that is no way to get facts.
mikeveritas 4 years ago
indeed not, I have read both sides and went with the one that
1) makes the most sense
2) has the most evidence
I suggest you do the same
kalin666 4 years ago
I have
I still think otherwise
mikeveritas 4 years ago
you sure? you sound emotionally invested in your position. Could the problem be that the scientific view point contradicts your religious beliefs?
kalin666 4 years ago
judging by your name, i'm assuming that macro evolution is rather essetial to yours.
if we are going to be scientific about things, you should go with scientific reasoning. The developement of (for example) an eye makes absolutely no sense according to your theory. Think about it.
mikeveritas 4 years ago
I don't have enuff space to refute you. Jsut read "The Blind Watchmaker" **with an open mind**, ffs.
BryanAJParry 4 years ago
"The developement of (for example) an eye makes absolutely no sense according to your theory."
It makes perfect sense if you actually know what the theory says, and since you obviously don't, I'm not suprised at your ignorant claims.
As Bryan said, watch Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker".
AngelZlayer 4 years ago
the eye has been done to death, incremental stages have been identified and there have been a few eyes develop independently from each other, spider eyes and our eyes and octopus eyes are not related.
kalin666 4 years ago
Conservative estimates say that modern eyes have evolved inependantly at least 40 times, and probably more like 60 times. The sweedish study showed that, remarkably, a fully functioning camera eye (like ours) can evolve from light sensitive cells in lesd than half a million years. That is a tiny amount of geological time. (All of this is covered in 'climbing mount improbable' - Dawkins)
trin1721 3 years ago
'What in the fossil record would support that, I wonder.'
This classic argument must either be founded on ignorance or dishonesty because it is simply not true. We have THOUSANDS of 'transitional fossils' and if you dont believe me then just read the scientific literature.
...too much to ask, OK then. Read relevant chapters in any Dawkins pop-science books.
...still too much, right. Just watch any of the many youtube vids on the subject. Ken Miller devotes 20 mins to the subject.
trin1721 3 years ago
The answer to your question, which is what are the limits to mutation right? Well my answer is the limits exist in the mutation process itself. There are limits to mutations which can occur in an organism, and each different mutation has their own limits. Why is this not an answer? And I gave an example of a limit to the deletion mutation.
csouca 4 years ago
Let me paraphrase your answer and maybe you'll see why it's insufficient.
"The limits exist."
Here's an example of a sufficient answer: This specific chemical prevents DNA from mutating past a certain point thru chemical processes A B and C as demonstrated in this experiment published in this journal . . .
kalin666 4 years ago
So your asking the question and formating the answer as you want and giving the rules to what answers are acceptable.I don't think its fair. But i will answer it the way you want which i don't believe changes much. From what i have learned there are no known limits as to how base sequences can be arranged. but can i ask what this proves?
csouca 4 years ago
that only time is needed for speciation to occur
kalin666 4 years ago
I also believe that there are limits to how DNA and bases can be arranged in order to produce a living organism. I do not believe that it will be possible, after all the genomes of animals have been mapped etc,to create mixtures of animals just by arranging their bases in different order. I think there are limits to what species can be produced or created but these limits have not identified them yet.
csouca 4 years ago
Sorry if i didn't phrase my thoughts properly. when deletion occurs there are borders to what the outcome of the Dna is in deletion a part of the gene is lost and therefor in that specific mutation there is only a loss of information and new information is not gotten. So there is no chance for a flower with that mutation for example to gain an extra unique appendage that it didn't have before.There is a limit for this type of mutation as to what information can be gained or lost.
csouca 4 years ago
so . . . . nope, still didn't answer the question
kalin666 4 years ago
The limits of DNA mutations is inherent upon the chromosomes in which the mutations are taking place. That means that natural mutations such as deletion and duplication for example, are limited by the type and amount of information which exists in the particular species.
csouca 4 years ago
describe the physical properties of the limits inherent to chromosomes please
kalin666 4 years ago
@csouca there are limits to what a specific individual can mutate but the only limit in a population is the ability to breed. A population can exhibit a range of mutation that would be lethal if suddenly introduced to an individual. If a daughter population is separated from the parent population the concentration of these mutations can make the daughter population incapable of breeding with the parent population after a few generations of separation as has been observed in fruit flies ^_^
PinkProgram 7 months ago
First there are billions of people who believe the ID theory, not only christians and it seems like you are attacking christians alone. Anyways the answer to your question is there are no limitations to how your dna can be "organized" or mutated. But that does not mean that all Cells with dna produce a working viable species capable of reproduction or even survival.I don't think any one doubts that mutations occur, i think they just doubt that beneficial mutations on a macro scale can occur.
csouca 4 years ago
which is why I asked for the limiting factor . . . .
fail!
Sorry, couldn't help myself but you spent a paragraph not answering the question, so cmon, you asked for it.
kalin666 4 years ago
In order to BE a scientific theory ID needs to have a disprovable hypothesis. It doesn't. The population of Egypt once thought that the moon and Sun were literally the eyes of a god. They were wrong. You are wrong. ID is the last desperate gasp of scared little Christians who understand that science has proved the Universe NEEDS no creator.
ubermoomin 4 years ago
Debating with Micha is an excercise in futility. If he REALLY belives that the world is only 6-10,000 years old t he is beyond deluded and any comment he makes is irrelevent.6000 years?That's several thousand years AFTER the agricultural revolution! Never mind evolution, ever heard of GEOLOGY? Oh yeah, the worlds geologists, paleolinguists, paleotologists anthroplogists, all wrong, but Micha, Micha is right. Fuck the Neolithic period,history of the world , Eden - Jesus- Reagan now.
ubermoomin 4 years ago
yes i have heard of geology and the whole rock layer crap and carbon dating theories are a laugh there complete garbage lol
micah22222 4 years ago
So one must assume that you conducted YOUR PHd in Geology? I'd really like to read your scientific papers on how accretion works. Your aroggance and ignorance knows no bounds.Without having studied a subject you claim it to be garbage based on the ramblings of a two thousand year old document written by bronze age ignorami.
ubermoomin 4 years ago
dude, you're hot. but ya know.. i don't know why God and evolution have to be exclusive. I know many christians who believe that God, being infinite in his wisdom, created evolution. while i am not christian, at least there are a few that have a -slightly- open mind.
hlkolaya 4 years ago
If god was real, I'd expect the account of history in his book to be accurate.
kalin666 4 years ago
kalin, i completely agree that the bible is messed up royally, but who says God has to adhere to the bible? who says he even dictated it?
hlkolaya 4 years ago
Ok, scratch the bible then, it's gone. Now, where does the concept of the abrahamic god come from? Or all we all hindu now? Come to think of it, given the influence of the roman empire in europe, we'd probably believe in the pantheon of gods on olympus.
kalin666 4 years ago
kalin, you're right. i'm not defending christianity. i'm not christian. but many christians refuse to accept evolution because they think evolution and god are exclusive. i'm saying they don't have to be. i respect a christian who accepts evolution a lot more than one who doesn't.
hlkolaya 4 years ago
how can a christian except evolution it is completely contradictory to what we beleif and if evolution were true it means the bible is wrong which is not true
micah22222 4 years ago
micah, many christians don't believe the bible to be absolutely literal... in that case, evolution has no contradiction to christianity.
hlkolaya 4 years ago
that sounds like an unjustified modification of the text. If god was real, his text should be perfect. If it's not perfect, the best explanation for it's existence is "some crap some person made up". And then it should be discarded.
kalin666 4 years ago
kalin, some would argue, of course that the bible has been modified by human beings and blah blah. again, i'm not defending christianity but isn't an open minded christian better than a closed minded one?
hlkolaya 4 years ago
I would have to think so, as long as there was no limiting to changing one's mind given the appropriate evidence. I have to think the majority of moderates would change their mind given more knowledge in scientific fields, or else it's a testament to the irrationality of our species.
kalin666 4 years ago
kalin, i agree. after all, both my husband and i turned from christianity only when we learned more about it. but never under estimate the ability of religious people to fool themselves.
hlkolaya 4 years ago
They are afraid of evolution, pure and simple. It leads to a purely secular way of thinking and that threatens their belief in Bronze age sky gods
ubermoomin 4 years ago
Lets suppose for a sec that you are right. IF evolution would be true, how is that evidence that A God does not exist? OR does it in any way prove the big bang theory? and that a God had no part in the beginnings of the universe? There are plenty of religious people who believe in Evolution. Maybe instead of trying to use insults in discussions you should try using logic or reason, I'm sure that would help your case much more than just blurting out offensive statements
csouca 4 years ago
Evolution does not disprove the exsitence of God, that is why it is odd that some Christians get so upset about it. I do not belive i blrted out anything, let alone offensive statements. Evolution only proves that their is no NEED for a god. If he exsists, and i belive he does not, then clearly he has attempted to hide his role in creation, hence the lack of evidence
ubermoomin 4 years ago
"They are afraid of evolution, pure and simple. It leads to a purely secular way of thinking and that threatens their belief in Bronze age sky gods". thats offensive, just in case you weren't sure.. Evolution proves nothing about a God, it just gives a possible explain to the existence of life on earth. It does not explain any other dilemma's posed through philosophy or theology. Not to mention even its explanations are not written in stone and are constantly re-evaluated and changed.
csouca 4 years ago
The theory is written in stone, it's fact. Expressing an opinion as to why some Christians reject Evolution could hardly be described as offensive. Darwinism DOES threaten some Christians, the Christian God is a concept conjured up in the Bronze Age and yes i think that fear is one of a number of factors that motivates the rejection of a theory that 99.9% of the worlds scientists accept as the trut
ubermoomin 4 years ago
The limit for any mutation algorithm, or any sequence of 'quantifiable values' that mutates at a varying or constant rate, does not exist! However, once the physical limitations of our Earth prevent DNA (or life in general) from, well, evolving; we will have to re-examine our definition of 'evolution'.
rbgy 4 years ago
If the environment leads to stagnation, or steady state stability, that does not mean that the term evolution requires redefining. It would merely be an example of a special case within a system.
kalin666 4 years ago
I don't know if the creationists are actually going to listen to you, but at least it's worth a try. There are probably still some thinking people left in religion, and maybe there's hope of them being freed. (The unthinking, I'm afraid, are hopeless!)
TheMathGuy 4 years ago
true true, this video actually got more atheist attention than anything else
kalin666 4 years ago
creationists are hard core christians (like the ones holding signs saying thank god for dead soldiers) and it's unlikely that they'll listen to any kind of reasoning ever.
hlkolaya 4 years ago
thanks for sensoring me, scared someone might think like me?
cruelfate45 4 years ago
I don't censor
kalin666 4 years ago
(Slowly going through your vids) Kick ass vid 5/5
phaexus 4 years ago
wow, you're hot.
patnmax 4 years ago
You're not the first gay guy to say that, am I sending out signals?
kalin666 4 years ago
Kalin666.On the subject of evolution, if abiogenesis is not proven, then there's nothing proven to base evolution on. Both rely on random occurences to add constructed, beneficial information. Both of which defy the mathematical odds and the second law of thermodynamics. You know, the one about entropy.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
nope, all energy in the solar system comes from the sun which is a gravity powered fusion reactor, none of the laws are violated. Evolution in a Darwinian sense can be applied only to living organisms in an ecosystem, but Evolution in a broader sense can be used to describe any system where change occurs generationaly. Abiogensis would arise given an organic chemical system, at least in theory, more study is needed.
kalin666 4 years ago
If evolution were true, it would be the exact opposite of entropy, where random, mindless occrences produce increasing complexity, order and useable energy. Also a problem for abiogenisis.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
It does go against entropy, but so does combustion. Do you beleive in fire?
kalin666 4 years ago
Fire disobeys the laws of physics?
dbviewer5 4 years ago
No, and neither does evolution, both are NOT entropic. Entropy wasn't the topic of my video anyway. I was asking for the limiting factor of the mutation of DNA that prevents speciation over time. That limiting factor would be the distinction between Micro and Macro. So, where is it?
kalin666 4 years ago
A random, mindless, chance, increase of order and complexity would violate the law of entropy. The limiting factors preventing the capability of DNA to create species over time (without intelligent influence) would be: the mathematical probability, the time available, given these odds, the evidence of the fossil record, the law of entropy, and what we currently observe in nature- variation within species.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
Law of entropy . . . when you burn hydrogen to make water, that is not entopic. What law of entropy? You really don't know what you're talking about. That last comment was like word salad.
kalin666 4 years ago
Entropy, in layman's terms: Every system, left on it's own, always tends to move from order to disorder, it's energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, for work, ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work. P.S., I think the last comment was very straight forward.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
everything you listed does not lead to the conclusion that you reached
kalin666 4 years ago
I think that's exactly where it leads.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
hence the conflict. Unless either of us have a life changing revelation, we won't budge from our postitions. I think mine is grounded in science and logic, you think I'm a servent of Satan and am trying to deceive you. Know this though, your arguments are hollow to the objective observer.
kalin666 4 years ago
I think the objective observer would see that these arguments are based in science and logic. Not once have I based an argument on anything else. And, it would certainly be a strange evolutionist who served Satan.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
Kalin666, these are just a few and are short, because of the 500 character response limit. There's much more. You should look into it, as I have looked into evolution, and have been surprised. I used to accept it.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
Hey, kalin666, I feel I should appologize to you for that last question. I did not mean to send you off on a research project. My opinion on these "evidences" is kind of lengthy but I think in many cases, that the evidence is found to fit the model of what the evolutionist "knows" to be true. Mistakes and outright fraud have occured.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
Yes, but those are the exceptions and are very few. However, people who have a problem with evolution latch on to these cases and try to pass them off as the norm.
kalin666 4 years ago
I do have a problem with evolution because evolutionists talk as though it's a fact, when it is not proven. They just revised the descent of man from apes,yet again, on 8-7-09. Homo habilis and Homo erectus are now thought to have co-existed. Before yesterday, to disagree would mean your a religious nut.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
um . . . no. Evolution is a fact even if the exact details of the operations of natural selection are not yet known. We find new stuff out every day and then theories are edited . . . that's called science.
kalin666 4 years ago
Responce to "Evolution is a fact". "The likelyhood that the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. It is big enough to bury the whole theory of evolution..."Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasignhe, Evolution from Space.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
that's "abiogenesis" (life from non-life), not evolution. I also find it highly suspect to calculate a probability on an event whose mechanics are as of yet unknown.
kalin666 4 years ago
You're right, that is abiogenesis. But, on that subject, though the mechanics are not known, a layman can get a sense of the problem when exposed to the complexity of the "simple single cell". Hoyle and Wickramasignhe don't believe in a Creator, and they're not laymen. The odds drove them to space.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
You are wrong about this. The previous position was held by scientists based on the currently available data. As the data improves the theory is refined. Do you discard Newton due to Einstein?
Disagreeing with the entire evidence based theory because it contradicts an ancient book does make you a religious nut.
McMonster65 4 years ago
I don't disagree with the evidence, I just disagree with the interpretation.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
You have an alternative theory?
kalin666 4 years ago
yeah, like the guy said, it's never been observed. science is based on what can be observed an tested, you are pissed off because you can't defend the logic. don't burst a blood vessel over it though, who knows what we will discover in the future, but for now it looks like macroevolution is just a homoerotic fantasy of darwinian evolutionists
cruelfate45 4 years ago
homo erotic? That's quite a jump! Are you sure you're approaching the subject impartially?
kalin666 4 years ago
it's all a matter of what you want to believe. I know you get pissed at creationists, but there are holes in evolution theory, and there are other ways to interpret things that also makes plenty of sense
cruelfate45 4 years ago
I'm not aware of any other ways of interpreting the evidence. For something to make 'plenty of sense' its going to have to be scientific, testable and be backed up buy a lot of evidence. (No, before you even say it, ID doesn't tick any of these boxes)
Also, i dont really understand people saying there are lots of 'holes' in evolution. There really aren't you know. It is a scientific theory on the same level as atomic theory, the theory of plate techtonics and the theory of relativity.
trin1721 3 years ago
and the number of holes being filled is getting greater everday. fossils of an animal halfway between whales and their fox-like ancestors were discovered in the indus river valley, complete with an inner ear halfway between land animal and water animal. AND the reason why we have 2 less chromosomes than our ape cousins has been found, 2 chromosomes merged into one, we know which ones and where. It looks like a train with 2 cabooses in the middle and one of the engines is turned off.
kalin666 3 years ago
check out youtube vids on ken miller (cell biologist at Brown) if its evidence you're after.
trin1721 3 years ago
cruelfate, of course macro evolution hasn't been observed personally because it takes generations upon generations, but there is evidence in the LOGIC that micro evolution leads to macro evolution and we have fossil records to indicate such.
hlkolaya 4 years ago
What are the limits of 0's and 1's, as a basis, for a computer program? None. Yet, do you believe that Windows Vista could write itself by random chance? You know what mutations cause 99.99% of the time. Disfigurement and/or death. Usually, death.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
Chance? Where is their chance? Molecular structure is controlled by the fundamental forces of physics (primarily the electroweak force). I see no room for chance here. And anyway, if most mutations lead to death, why would a creator design a system with an inherent flaw of such horrible magnitude? That's either inept or malicious. Personally, I'll take the blind and goalless system controlled by physics, it's a lot less cruel.
kalin666 4 years ago
So you agree that chance doesn't work. The fundamental forces of physics could arrange molecules in any configuation. Why are they in the correct one(s)? Mutations, are the flaw. They Do lead to death.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
"physics could arrange molecules in any configuration" - this is incorrect, only certain arrangements are possible and some are more likely than others. As for mutations leading to death, not all do. A mutation need only be not harmful to arise in a population, beneficial mutations are rarities which is why it takes a long long time for substantial change to occur. And you still haven't addressed the ONE question in my video.
kalin666 4 years ago
There is no law that says only certain arrangements are possible, but if you don't have certain arrangements, you won't have life. If the one question is about the limitations of DNA to form different species, I don't think there is any. But, dogs are dogs, and the evidence for transitional forms is scant
dbviewer5 4 years ago
so where is the limit that prevents speciation? I don't see jesus standing there with a stop sign.
kalin666 4 years ago
As I said, I don't think there is any limit in the DNA to form species, but we have the species that we have. Some survive, some go extinct, never to return. If your asking why when a dog breeds with a cat you won't get a cog or a dat, I don't know. I'm not a biologist.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
I'm asking how come speciation can't occur given the mechanics of DNA. Yeah, I'm not a biologist either, but I know when a concept makes sense and is verified by objective data.
kalin666 4 years ago
I think that if we had the capability, we could stack molecules together and make a 12 legged flying frog. I just donn't see transitional forms in the fossil record.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
Well you're not a paleontologist . . . so you wouldn't see them every day. However, a trip to a natural science museum will solve that problem. Yes they do exist, and they do reflect light, so you can see them. Hell, if you were a student of paleontology you'd be able to touch them too.
kalin666 4 years ago
What are they? What are their names?
dbviewer5 4 years ago
I think your idea of the process is a bit misconstrued. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every individual is an example of variation, every species ( though the distinction here is a bit arbitrary) is in a constant state of transition. Nothing is static when it comes to biology and every generation is different. You are more different from your grandfather then your father etc etc.
kalin666 4 years ago
Yes, but since the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record shows stasis. The different species are there, intact. The predicted abundant transitional forms have not been found.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
this is just plainly false
kalin666 4 years ago
A response to, "This is just plainly false". "Stasis, as palpable and observable in virtually all cases". Stephen J. Gould and Niles Elderdge, "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes to Age," Nature, Vol. 366, Nov.18, 1993, p.223.
dbviewer5 4 years ago
I am not a creationist, however im having trouble comprehending how the original DNA strand was created. since as far as I know Darwin evolution and Natural selection can only take place once an organism already exists to pass on its genes to the next generation
993365 4 years ago
DNA, RNA, proteins and amino acids all have one thing in common, they are all organic molecules. As such, they will form given the right circumstances (the right ingredients plus energy). Any self-replicating molecule would tend to be more prevalent given time.
kalin666 4 years ago
dude go to drdino dot com watch some of his videos then you will see the flaw in your logic
micah22222 4 years ago
Oh man, that site was funny, thanks for the address. Is Kent Hovind out of prison yet? That guy cracks me up.
kalin666 4 years ago
micah, i went to the site and watched the thing about mammoths. what's that supposed to convince me of? because there was -A- flood? that doesn't prove that there was a worldwide flood and doesn't support creationism at all. in fact, most creationists think the world is only 6,000 years old so it's kind of a bad video for many creationists.
hlkolaya 4 years ago
i do beleif the world is only 6-10 thousand years old and also dude why dident you watch like "the danger of evolution" or somthing els or one of his debates
micah22222 4 years ago
micah, how many did you expect me to watch? the mammoth thing was just crap.. speculation and fantastical leaps with NO evidence... why would i watch more crap?
hlkolaya 4 years ago
no you do not understand, in order for you to emulate the bible you would need over 4000 yrs. of recorded history inside a culture of people(hebrew/jews) written by many people. not to mention prophesies. then you would need your prophesies to come true through a savior then you would need to have at least 12 people to follow your story and die for it. still you would need 2007 yrs. and millions more to be persecuted and killed for then you might have a small point.
God bless
tedted33 4 years ago
All I need is for some one else to BELIEVE that it is true, I don't need it to actually happen. You believe the bible is true because you trust the people who told you it was. I think those people are mistaken.
kalin666 4 years ago
Dude could you make any more assumptions from your fallacious ancient & outdated text. None of the assumptions you have made can or have been proven to be true. Why argue from such a weak stance. Its like getting behind a castle made of sticks, the cannons are just gonna tear it to shreds.
shonkey 4 years ago
'But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day,' (2 Peter 3:8).
God bless
tedted33 4 years ago
That is . . . irrelevant and unhelpful. Let me demonstrate. "In this book here, I have written some shit that I made up, that thou shall read it and be mystified with it's vagueness and not think about how little sense it makes." (The Book of Kalin, chapter 12, verse 42)
kalin666 4 years ago
well you can not build a computer if you are resticted to 1 and o.
God bless
tedted33 4 years ago
That comment is meaningless, what are you trying to say?
kalin666 4 years ago
humans are not computers and binary is just a way of representing symbols through combinations of 1 & 0. If someone had enough time on their hands they could write out instructions on how to build a computer using only binary code to write it. Although I am not sure what relevance this "1 and 0" has to evolutionary theory.
shonkey 4 years ago
neurons are binary, logically anyway. Fired and not fired are the 2 states. And though we're not as good at arithmetic as computers are, we are technically biological machines.
kalin666 4 years ago
machines don't feel or have emotions, whatever they may be: happiness/anxiety/anger/love/hatred. Also machines don't perform irrational actions which are an effect of emotions. Computers & machines simply do what they are told to do. People for centuries have compared humans to whatever the latest technological advancement is. It used to be we were like switchboards now they might say we're like complex computers. But its still missing that component that makes us human.
shonkey 4 years ago
Yeah, but we're getting closer. Oh, we're "feeling" emotional machines, not thinking machines.
kalin666 4 years ago
Aah I still say we aren't machines @ all. Theres still a big difference b/w the mechanical & the biological. There may be similarities but I would argue that they're still 2 seperate entities. We have still yet to create strong A.I. If we were machines we would have programs that could duplicate the emotions & reactions of humans. The turing test was debunked by John Searle in the 80's so mimicking humans doesn't quite cut it.
shonkey 4 years ago
So we're not machines because we haven't been smart enough to make machines as complex as us? That's . . . . . . illogical.
kalin666 4 years ago
Its not illogical & you're creating a strawman, you should know better then that. Its not the complexity of the machine but the functions it can perform. Humans being an organic living, growing, mutating, & thinking entity would qualify it to be something other than a machine. In order for us to be machines we would need to be cold, emotionless & unevolving. For a machine to mimick us it must have self-awareness and emotion. Neither side has been demonstrated yet.
shonkey 4 years ago
"For a machine to mimick us it must have self-awareness and emotion. Neither side has been demonstrated yet."
And when those things are demonstrated, what then?
kalin666 4 years ago
Well then I would concede to your argument, but like I said strong A.I. has yet to be created, & emotions, well they're not even close. Theres more to being human than mimicking our language. A machine doens't understand language, its just running a program that recognizes symbols & gives automated responses. It misses the point of language, communication & syntax. Instead it just gives preprogrammed responses. I would suggest you look into John Searle & the chinese room argument.
shonkey 4 years ago
Dude . . . Data from Star Trek, Transformers . . . surely merely science fiction now, but there's no reason why the function of our biological computer could not be replicated using another medium. Understanding of neuroscience, not philosophy or psychology, will lead to true AI.
kalin666 4 years ago
HAHAHA you remind me of my professors TA who argued for strong AI. He was a bit of a trekkie & used Data as an ex. but was a funny TA.
When you state our brain is like a biological computer I think a good point my professor made. For centuries people have compared the brain/mind, to the latest technological advances. It used to be our minds were like water mills, then it became phone switchboards, & now its computers.
shonkey 4 years ago
YES! That's called progress.
kalin666 4 years ago
Progress of humans ability to be innovative & creative, yes. But good argument for AI, no. You might as well just say its like a switchboard or watermill b/c they both commit the same fallacy as saying its like a computer. Comparing the biological with that of the mechanical is the same fallacy that is made by creationists/theists who use the teleological arguement from design, or the watchmaker arguement. They forget to factor in the biological components
shonkey 4 years ago
I'm not saying that AI wouldn't be something really cool to create, because the implications of it would be phenomonal. But something that has the potential to be so ground shattering must be looked at critically and constructively. Trying to transfer the mind/soul/brain whatever to another medium, i.e. hardware computer, completely misses the point of factoring in the biological component of being human.
shonkey 4 years ago
Does it miss the point? And I wasn't talking about transferring, I was talking about creating new. And you said soul, are you using the term poetically or mystically?
kalin666 4 years ago
Transfer, or create a new one you know what I mean. We can split hairs all day. As for the mentioning of the soul, I just used that b/c different people refer to our conciousness differently, call it the mind/soul/brain/conciousness whatever. I didn't mean it poetically or mystically. I watched this ted talk last night & thought you would enjoy it b/c its talking about the same stuff, maybe clear up what I'm trying to say
ted*com/index*php/talks/view/id/125
shonkey 4 years ago
YES! Very enlightening! If you're points are his points, then we are in agreement. Replicate the function of the brain in silicon, it can be done!
kalin666 4 years ago
My points pretty much are his points, he's just got the background and expertise which I'm obviously lacking due to age/education. Brains and computers aren't really my subject of study, but they do intrigue me. But he makes the same argument that I'm trying to make, which is that the brain really isn't like the popular belief, being some super computer. One of his most important points I think was about the definition of intelligence and being able to make predictions.
shonkey 4 years ago
But seriously, do you see a necessary distinction between the biological and mechanical in terms of function? Is there something "mysterious" or "magical" about the human brain that we won't be able to replicate in other mediums?
kalin666 4 years ago
Ok you base your faith on time and I will put my faith in God who stands outside of Time.
God bless
tedted33 4 years ago
Where in the bible does it describe Yahwei as existing outside of space-time?
kalin666 4 years ago
Thats a good idea lets put faith into God, who no one has ever seen/touched/talked to or we could discard faith for something thats constantly tested & if something new is discovered its amended to better fit current knowledge instead of just staying with the same argument after its been critiqued & debunked several times by the most intelligent individuals in time, you know that thing you don't want to put your faith in. At least time can be recorded.
shonkey 4 years ago
The limit is in the dna sequence.itself. Dna is like a library of books in that species. the body of one speices can not retreave information from another speices library, because they do not have the same books. I hope you get the anology
God bless
tedted33 4 years ago
I understand your analogy, but is an inaccurate portrayal of the behavior of DNA in that ALL DNA shares the same source material, GATC. Any link in the cha