@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 Darwin's finches are an example of allopatric speciation. Morphological and genetic studies have shown they all originated from one ancestor, but have certain morphological or other traits, such as the size and shape of the beak to correspond with their diet, such as insects or certain kinds of seeds. One finch, the Woodpecker Finch, actually knows how to use tools; it can use a cactus spine like a spear to pluck grubs from holes they can't enter.
This video only shows how a group of organisms can change color over time, while remaining the same species. Macro-evolution is changing from one species to another. The video was incorrect in saying macro-evolution has been observed, even if it was possible, modern science hasn't been around long enough to span the required time.
@Snakepliskinist I had to laugh when I saw that you had written ' I live in Kansas, where evolution is illegal' I know what you meant to say, which is that 'teaching evolution in schools is illegal' Thankfully, evolution is still happening, unless Kansas has banned all forms of flora and fauna. That would look pretty desolate
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Listen to this shit "The pattern of the camouflage is much more important than its color, when hiding from these predators. If a zebra is standing still in matching surroundings, a lion may overlook it completely." hahahahaha "a lion MAY overlook it completely" HAR HAR HAR Imagine a lion "overlooking" a zebra! HAR HAR HAR
« but it cant explain how an animal transform into a totally another »
1. Evolution is not "transformation".
2. It *can* explain how the remote descendants of an organism can be totally unlike that organism.
« there is a limit to mutation »
The only limits we know of are limits that determine how much offspring can diverge genetically *in a given amount of time*. There are no absolute limits to such divergence.
There's no such law in genetics. If you have to resort to pulling stuff out of your ass in order to defend your religious beliefs, you have to ask yourself whether your religious beliefs are worth having.
@JackSShit Regression towards the mean has absolutely nothing to do with evolution (besides neutral mutations). When a population is experiencing an environmental pressure the environment is causing the mean to shift. In this video you will notice that the rectangles adjust to the color of the environment with some outliers (dark rectangles in a light environment), regression towards the mean basically says that if you choose another individual they will almost certainly be lighter.
Using Sexual selection humans have managed to create many species of dogs, How is this possible if the bible claims that God made all creatures when "he" (Why an omnipresent deity has a gender is still beyond me!) created the earth. But there we have them, over 300 + species of dogs, all descended from wolves, yet we've managed to change them USING sexual selection. But according to creationists sexual selection doesn't exist! How is this possible?
@Dadgumdumbox Dog breeding isn't sexual selection you ignorant uneducated moron. How do you even find your way to the fucking breakfast table? AND besides FIDO doesn't give a shit what LADY looks like.
@Dumbox "I'd just like to ask creationists" Give it up you stupid asshole. You evotards are the dumbest morons on the planet. How do you nitwits even get dressed in the morning?
@Dahudrox "But according to creationists sexual selection doesn't exist! How is this possible?" Dog breeding isn't done by sexual selection you idiot. Do you know anything about evolution? Look up sexual selection dummass. Oh and besides that fido doesn't give a shit what Lady looks like.
If the earth is 6000 yrs old, how did light from millions of light years away reach us already.
Btw... God can't stretch light as this would cause the light to dissipate. Did God add extra light as "he" was stretching it?
Does God have a penis? ...I mean, he IS a he!! ...I don't get it! If he does, Is there a Miss/ Ms/ Mrs God? also, what is the purpose of God having a gender, is God able to reproduce?
See a great lecture called: story of life origins: the obvious version
Gives a fresh look at the development of life, from the point of view of the developers of THING: an autonomous nano-machines complex, designed to auto clone itself out of molecules and energy that it gathers from its ambient.
Basic systems are described, including a quality control system named EVO1.
Suggests: if we put aside our preconditioning , and look just at the hard evidence, this becomes the OBVIOUS story of LIFE
Creationists need to go back to their illuminated manuscripts, because they obviously can't hack it in the modern world. Evolution is iron clad. It's driven by survival, the parameters for which don't need to be determined by anything or anyone (the rules can just exist as is, intrinsic to the environment). Surviving and propagating ensures amplification of the beneficial mutation against those that aren't. Stacked up over time, this will change populations towards a 'fit' profile.
cdk007 doesn't really know how evolution works. It's all smoke and mirrors as you see in this vid. He doesn't know what he's talking about. BUT so far I have never talked to an evolutionist who DID know how evolution works and if you question them they don't know which theory of evolution they believe in.
@cdk007 Have we met before? Well I'm Jack Shit and it's so nice to meet you. Now you don't have to go around telling your friends that you don't know Jack Shit. hahahahaha but I guess telling them you know Jack Shit isn't going to help much is it? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR you're fucked aren't ya?
@cdk007 You must have nightmares about evolution. Your camouflage theory which this vid is based on is blown completely out of the water with Zebras. hahahahahahahahaha think about it dummass. They painted prison uniforms with black and white stripes so they could easily be seen in any environment.
You need to go back to school and study creationism. hahahahahaaa
@JackSShit think about it again. lions don't see colors. White and black stripes of zebras look like high growing grass to them. Not a bad camouflage if you ask me. but I'm sure since you've demonstrably thought this argument through that well you're probably right with everything else right?.
@Hunne0815 I didn't ask you ya lambrain asshole. Ever see a black and white movie? Did you notice in that black and white movie that the prisoners in the black and white stripes were NOT invisible genis? No they weren't and you're a dummass. That's why I didn't ask you. Besides oh brainless one, zebras don't hide from lions (remember scent?) they outrun them ya ninny. Now wake your stupid evotarded ass up and join the real world.
@JackSShit Zebras = vertical stripes in an environment full of long vertically standing grass , prison uniform = horizontal stripes with no natural analog. Are you this stupid in real life? Did you ride the short bus?
@psychologicalshock You're funny. You evotards will come up with the most outrageous bullshit to keep from stepping on the toes of your fantasy of evolution.
"To humans, a zebra's stripes stick out like a sore thumb, so it's hard to imagine that the stripes act as camouflage. Zoologists believe stripes offer zebras protection from predators in a couple of different ways."
NOTICE: "zoologists believe" HAR HAR HAR they don't fucking know. They haven't even been out there to see.
@JackSShit It doesn't really sound like you know anything about the subject, just sounds like you're a religious moron. When you have a constant pattern, movement is more difficult to identify, considering that a lion has to spot a zebra from quite a distance away the fact that the pattern is constant and consistent with it's surroundings is all that matters in its effectiveness. That and your prisoner comparison is really stupid, might as well disregard anything else you say
@psychologicalshit "It doesn't really sound like you know anything about the subject" You dont' know enough to know whether I do or not. You just pulled the religious card which tells me that you're down to nothing for an argument. "When you have a constant pattern, movement is more difficult to identify" Did you really just say that? Do you know anything about camoflage? Ever hunted? Probably not. You're an indoor nerd who tries to tell the rest of us what the outdoors is like.
@psychologicalshock "considering that a lion has to spot a zebra from quite a distance away the fact that the pattern is constant and consistent with it's surroundings is all that matters in its effectiveness" This really fucking hilarious. You were never in the military and never hunted. I call tell that from your idiot explanations.
@psychologicalshit "your prisoner comparison is really stupid" THANKS FOR MAKING AN ASS OF YOURSELF. "might as well disregard anything else you say" You may as well, nothing is going to sink into your thick nerk-like brain. You're willfully ignorant and defend ANYTHING scientists say no matter how fucking moronic.
@psychologicalshock I didn't ride the shortbus, but I saw you on it as you went by dummass. "zoologists believe" hahahahahahahaha that's really choice. They haven't even talked to any hunters or hunting guides. hahahaha What idiots.
@psychoshit "To humans, a zebra's stripes stick out like a sore thumb" WELL no shit. Tell me something morom, have you ever seen a black and white movie where we are now on the same visual level as a lion? hahahahahahahhaa How fucking old are you? 19? You sound like it. You've never done shit in your miserable life have you? You've never done a man's work either have you? You're little faggot with a big ass mouth.
Creationists have no real arguments against evolution, they can only say things like "oh it's just a guess, not a fact", or attacking abiogenesis/big bang, which bear no relevance to the validity of evolution theory
@Casshyr Evolution is not true because mutations never order anything in the genome and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered by the genome so there is no mechanism for evolution to happen.
Insertions order nothing unless they are already compatible and compatible information will not change the genome into something else.
Duplications are already in the genome and do nothing to change the species.
Evolution is a disgrace to science because it is fantasy.
@JungleJargon yea but wtf is "order"? You're speaking in a manner that is very bizarre to biologists, and not to mention ambiguous. Define this first plz.
Lol at the graphics at fact #2. How can children come from a single parent... I'm still watching the rest though. But please correct this stupid mistake.
@Jandeman030 That is true, but it's to say the least not the most common method. In that sense, there are lots of things which are just based on the 0,1% (unfounded guess) of the mean, otherwise called the exceptions which have no business when explaining something like this. Maybe in hindsight my comment was a bit too quickly made though and could have been formulated better.
@joostul It's stupid alright but it's not a mistake. Evotards think that all species started with a virgin birth. It's a little hypocritical don't you think?
@MrArpas123 your second question is sort of about abiogenesis not evolution. Abiogenesis is not very well understood right now(but one day, like past mysteries, it might be). No honest scientist will rule out the possibility of a god creating it all, but there is a lack of evidence for it.
We do know that the building blocks of life can form naturally and that a complete cell isnt required for life to start. Just having a self replicating molecule is the foundation of genes.
@MrArpas123 Its true that carbon dating only works in the range of thousands of years. Thats why the age of old fossils is determined by methods such as Argon dating and measuring the age of the surrounding rocks(e.g volcanic rocks). This method allows billions of years to be measured(billions can be verified in other ways).
Evolution happens at the rate of generations. To see evolution quickly, you gotta look for quickly breeding creatures like microbes. "Nylonase" is proof of germ evolution.
@MrArpas123 Ahh yes good old Hovind. I should warn you he is not a scientist and his work is not accepted by the scientific community. So either he's the next Einstein or he's just wrong(or a fraud. given his tax evasion history, well who knows).
Please check this watch?v=1RnygS7opCA @ 2:54 it explains what I mean.
Chihuahua&Dane can interbreed via artificial methods but naturally... somehow exploding Chihuahuas come to mind, lol. BTW interbreeding dogs&monkeys would actually disprove evolution.
@MrArpas123 "I don't mean seeing different breeds withing species" thats the thing, variation within species is how speciation starts. Without interbreeding they diverge further.
A species is defined as animals that can interbreed or share common features. I think you'd agree that its hard for a Great Dane and Chihuaha to mate. Their still the same species though.
If you want to see a real speciation event in under 250 years google "Faeroe Island mouse"
@MrArpas123 Actually we already have observed it outside the lab. Consider dog breeding for example, its amazing the sizes and shapes of dogs you can get by simply breeding them selectively for many generations. They are all still dogs but some of the dog lineages are very close to becoming different species because they almost cant interbreed naturally anymore. Consider for example a Chihuahua trying to naturally breed with a Great Dane(min. 54 kg's).
@JungleJargon You insist that its ad hominem: wiki definition "ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person holding it" then your own quote "Saying I am stupid does nothing to negate the argument"
Congratulations on pwning yourself champ :) You entertain us all&you made my day :)
See this is one of the reasons why your a idiot, you cant admit self-error.
Im busy now so i'll deal with the brest of your stupidity tomorrow.
@ElysiumLabs You are not understanding what the definition is saying, of course it does not negate the truth by pointing out a supposed negative characteristic of a person. That is the whole point. It says "it is an attempt to negate the truth" It will never do anything to negate the truth (so there is no reason to even try using ad hominem attacks because it does nothing to prove your point.)
The issue is not me that you need to address, the issue is observable evidence that we have a Maker.
@JungleJargon *Claps* you are starting to understand why a ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It tries to tie the truth value of two independent concepts and hopes to prove one statement true by showing another unrelated statement to be true.
Before I address the problems in your other arguments, I have to know if you are ready to admit your mistake? So was it a ad hominem or a insult. Were you wrong?.
If you wont admit error on such a small thing then you wont admit error on bigger issues.
@ElysiumLabs You cannot and do not want to address any of the issues pertaining to creation by a Maker so you keep arguing about something that has nothing to do with the issues like a smoke screen to obscure the fact that you have no evidence for what you believe and you keep changing the subject.
The issue is the observable evidence of the ordered functions hydrogen has inside of us and the over 100 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive micro sediments deposited by the flood.
@JungleJargon "No evidance for what you believe" thats rich comming from you.
Its a question of charachter.
Your a liar, Its a verifiable matter of record that all your pathetic arguments have already been addressed by me and others in the comments to your own videos. No evidance eh? You didnt even understand THIS video.
The fact of the matter is that your dishonest, disingeneous and stupid.
If you cant admit it when your wrong then its a waste of time arguing with you. So admit it already.
@ElysiumLabs You failed again to address any of the issues.
You cannot negate an argument by attacking the person presenting the argument because it proves nothing.
Objects never order any function that works on their own, prove that they do order something. It would also have to be repeatable to confirm they ordered a function.
@JungleJargon You again refused to admit your error. This again proves that your disingenuous and not interested in debate.
Its funny, you keep denying all evidence against your position as if strength of conviction is any indicator of truth. Almost everyone see's through you, your a fool who lies to everyone including yourself.
I will gladly keep pointing this out until you come clean and admit your error.
Your not a scientist and evidently you dont know science. Your a philosopher of sorts
@ElysiumLabs You have to show me something for me to learn something (and it helps if you speak in full sentences so I know what you are talking about).
What error? Pointing what out? What science do I not know?
@JungleJargon "What error? " Have you considered that you might have a psychological disease that makes you block out negative memories? The "ad hominem vs. insult" error, I was very clear on it.
Show you? You mean like the time you asked me to "show" you a rock that went through the whole rock cycle? You actually want to see it with your own eyes before you believe it? Ok then show me your god!
@ElysiumLabs An ad hominem attack is when anyone, rather than addressing the issues, attacks the person presenting the issues. It happens all of the time. By your very poor definition, there never is an ad hominem attack because it never does disprove the argument. Get over it. It does happen to me all the time.
I asked you to show me where the sediments were coming from and you did not have an answer.
The function of hydrogen that proves there is a Maker of all things.
@JungleJargon Tsk tsk. Are you just gonna keep lying to yourself and others forever? If so then this is a pointless debate. If you bothered to learn about ad-hom. then you'd see that what I stated was the STANDARD definition. Furthermore a example of ad-hom. is "your stupid thus your wrong" while "your wrong&stupid" is not. Do you think definitions mean whatever you want them to?
Why do you lie on verifiable matters of record? I told you back then its the rock cycle&you were too lazy to study it
@ElysiumLabs Exactly, if that definition was true, there would never be an example of ad hominem because you can never negate any fact by saying the person is stupid so you are the one who doesn't know what ad hominem is. The issue is not the state of mind of the person, the issue is the fact. That's the whole point of the lable of saying such a thing. It does you no good. It does nothing to prove anything. It is uncalled for and it distracts from the issues being discussed. You are projecting.
@JungleJargon So lets talk philosophy then. Watch out this might hurt.
1. there is no explanation for the properties of hydrogen(ok there are quarks&other more fundamental particles but lets assume you meant the most fundamental particle)
2. you can suppose that a designer made it
3. it doesnt explain the designer though. you simply traded unkowns.
4. it doesnt proove that your god did it, nor does it proove that a single designer did it.
5. since unknowns were traded, it doesnt explain anything
@ElysiumLabs It is not about "properties", it is about the function of hydrogen when it is ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that most of the most common elements were made to have.
Function always has a maker and the ordered functions of hydrogen working inside of us have a very great Maker.
That proves there's only One Maker of all things derived from hydrogen who is all knowing all powerful and able to stretch out the fabric of time space so that it has function
2. "Function always has a maker" argument from ignorance. Consider snowflakes. Things can appear designed for different reasons, so prove that only design can cause orderly systems.
3. "who is all knowing all powerful" no the universe is finite so we cant deduce that its "maker" would be infinite.
4. "proves there's only One Maker" nope it doesnt.
5. you didn't prove its your god
6. you simply traded unknowns with this explanation.
@ElysiumLabs The end result of hydrogen is that it is an essential working part that is ordered inside of life forms which means that it has a Maker because it has function that is ordered and essential to life.
It does not matter that hydrogen is finite, if it has function it has a Maker and the Maker is not made of matter because hydrogen is the origin of all matter. That means that the Maker of hydrogen is not a fabrication of hydrogen and is not finite.
1. Function does not imply a designer. Since functionality can be assigned based on properties. Example, a sharp rock can be perceived to function as a crude knife yet it wasnt designed.
2. You havent shown a function of hydrogen that doesnt arise from its properties.
3. Speculating on what a designer might be made of is irrelevant. You still cant conclude a infinite designer from a finite object.
@ElysiumLabs Hey, you just made an ad hominem attack against my person.
I am not the one who assigned the function of hydrogen. I had nothing to do with the making of the function that hydrogen has working inside of me. You are making things up again.
Hydrogen is ordered to do the work it does inside of us by a preexisting word written in and with the function the elements were made to have and every one of the function requires a maker.
@ElysiumLabs Purpose and function are two different things.
There is one set of constants for one set of elements most of the most common of which are universally interchangeable working parts inside of us only when ordered.
Insults only serve to try to make you not look so bad and they keep you from making the corrections that you need to be making, so you hurt yourself.
Ad hominem is against the person. Anything you say against a person is ad hominem, by definition.
@JungleJargon Oops, I realize that "Evidently you havent been thinking" may be a logical fallacy. I apologize for the mistake and replace it with the insult "I think your a dimwit" instead.
Ad hominem differs from a insult in that one is a logical fallacy and the other isnt. There are 2 definitions for ad-hom on the net, one is wrong since it doesnt lead to a logical fallacy.
If you answer my question then I will prove it to you
"Is a insult always a logical fallacy? yes or no? if no then why?"
@JungleJargon 6. Matter can arise from energy, E=mc2, as proved in particle accelerators. Energy appears to be eternal.
I have provided you with the standard definition, explanation&example of ad-homs("your wrong because your stupid" is a ad-hom "your wrong&stupid" is not). You think all insults are ad-homs.
Your continued refusal to admit error on a trivial issue makes you look like a fool in public and it provides proof for your dishonesty&disingenuousness.
@JungleJargon "Saying im stupid does nothing to negate the argument" Haha! im glad you finally agree that its not a ad-hominem then. See stupid is such a accurate description of you!
*Yawn* same old BS. I guess your too stupid to understand that what you just said is a equivelent to the failed watchmaker argument.
Like I said, evolution stands on mountains of evidance watch "what every crationist must deny"
Bible says the world is flat& solar system is geocentric, do you believe that too?
@ElysiumLabs When does a personal attack negate any argument? It never does and it is sitll an ad hominem attack.
The watchmaker argument is not a failed argument. You just fail to understand that function requires a maker.
The solar system is geocentric from the perspective of earth.
Your existence requires a Maker. Logic and intelligence is not formulated by objects. The objects would have to be designed and ordered to do logic, which they are.
Lying4jesus again are we? Wikipedia says "ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it". So saying that your stupid, is fine as long as its not used to negate your argument. Besides you are, reading the comments for your vids proves it.
As for the rest: your just talking babble again with no citation, no solid evidence & logical flaws. Read&think about "Watchmaker argument" it adequately addresses your argument
@ElysiumLabs That is the point. Saying I am stupid does nothing to negate the argument.
It is evolution that has no evidence of objects ordering anything so it is evolution that is in question not the observable fact that we have a Maker of all of the elements that function inside of us as ordered.
Who is lying now? Christian teaching is a teaching of truth. No one has ever proven Christian teaching false.
We do have a Maker of the functions of most of the most common elements inside of us.
@JungleJargon sorry, you made no sense at all. not in this post nor your video. oh and if its not too much to ask, please provide one shred on incontrovertible evidence to the existence of your god or otherwise kindly stfu.
@ElysiumLabs The essential ordered functions that hydrogen has working inside of us is proof that we have a Maker. It is also evidence that the entire universe has the same Maker who made us from the functions that most of the most common elements have inside of us.
It is not as hard to understand as you think it is.
@JungleJargon Anything a mutation can do, t can undo. That's because every mutation is reversible. Thus, for every mutation that "reduces order," there is an opposite which increases it.
@JungleJargon Your refutations of evolution are a waste of time. Evolution is a fact supported by mountains of incontrovertible data. I suggest you get a education and see a doctor about your learning disorder. The best you can do is argue about abiogenesis as thats not very well understood(yet).
Arguing that atoms have properties and therefore are designed is just a tried&failed watchmaker argument.
It doesn't explain which 'god' did it. Also it has a logical problem, who made god?
@ElysiumLabs The "best" you can do is ad hominem attacks that fail to address any of the issues.
You also fail to understand that the function of hydrogen is the evidence of a Maker of all things and it is the issue that the Bible has been addressing all along about God being the Maker of all things.
The Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made and there is no evidence of any other god or maker.
It is also not my fault that evolution does not hold up to scrutiny, God does.
@JungleJargon You really dont know the difference between a ad-hominem and a insult do you? I suppose your too intellectually lazy to look that up.
So thats your incontrovertible evidence? Word games&lenient interpretations of texts written by primitive people? See thats why no one takes you seriously, you have nothing.
Lol, so in effect your trying to say that god can be infinite with no beginning. So why can't the energy that composes the universe be the same? you undid your own argument.
@ElysiumLabs Whenvever you are attacking me instead of talking about the issues, it is an ad hominem attack.
The universe is all a fabrication that was stretched out. It is all relative and subject to change. The Maker of time space is not made of the fabrication that He made.
The ordered functions of hydrogen is observable evidence of a Maker.
The pioneers of science recognized the existence of their Maker.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that objects ordered your existence.
« The universe is all a fabrication that was stretched out »
Right, like fabric stretched across a dome. In fact, the original text of the bible has the firmament stretched across the dome of the heavens *exactly* like that.
@XGralgrathor It says it was the heavens that were stretched out, not a fabric. No one ever said that the heavens (pl) was a fabric. It is three dimentional.
See if you can find an even weaker argument to make.
@MrGralgrathor Not, behavior, it is function that requires a maker. Objects do not behave, they function when ordered, if their design allows it.
Again, it is not merely ordered structure we are looking at in life forms, it is ordered function. Even ordered structures require a maker for that matter.
No, it doesn't. New function has been observed to evolve naturally, through natural selection. There's no reason to think that the instances of evolution that we haven't observed require a "maker" any more than the instances we have observed.
Notice that you're thinking teleologically: you *assume* that because something does something in a particular fashion, it must have been intended to be thus.
@XGralgrathor It is genome that gets all of the credit for all of the variations just by being there. There is no order coming from mutations and natural selection will only select what the genome made possible.
You are confusing yourslef over the variations that the limited information in the genome makes possible.
There is no such thing as uniform morphological changes ordered by anything in existence. That kind of change does not exist anywhere or anyway. There's no mechanism for evolution.
« it is genome that gets all of the credit for all of the variations just by being there »
Just by being what it is: a molecule composed of many nucleotides that react to one another and to their cellular environment in specific chemical ways.
Don't try and impose your specific brand of chosen ignorance on others in this way, boy.
« There is no order coming from mutations and natural selection »
Yes there is. It is *OBSERVED* how differential reproductive success, acting upon reproductive variation, can introduce environment-specific features into the population gene pool, boy.
« There is no such thing as uniform morphological changes »
I'm not even sure what you mean by "uniform morphological changes". If you want to discuss a subject, boy, then use terminology that makes sense within the context of that subject.
@XGralgrathor Objects only react, they do not behave and it is not about behavior, it is about function of elements when ordered that only happen because of the way the elements are made to function and be ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have.
You need to be using a better word that is not confused with animal behavior that shows intent. Objects have no intent of their own. They can only show intent of their Maker. That's the point.
« The pioneers of science recognized the existence of their Maker. »
No they didn't. They *believed* in the existence of a "creator". Of course, for all their genius, they could not produce any testable model nor evidence to support such a claim.
@XGralgrathor What you don't realize is that there is a lot of reason to believe that we have a Maker.
Intelligence never comes from no intelligence unless you believe in magic or that we have a Maker that ordered our capacity for intelligence. Which one do you believe?
Unless you can get an object to order something on its own, we have a Maker.
« that there is a lot of reason to believe that we have a Maker »
Yes; mainly due to the quirks of human psychology. Little of those reasons actually take the form of independently verifiable observations supporting some testable and falsifiable hypothesis.
@MrGralgrathor Show me another simple ordered function that does not have a maker and it will be enough to disprove the fact that ordered functions require a maker.
« Show me another simple ordered function that does not have a maker »
Biological functions ranging from molecular metabolic pathways to morphological features have been observed to evolve through variation and selection. This is simply observation. There's no reason to think that the instances we haven't observed require magical guidance any more than the instances we have observed.
@XGralgrathor Functions in life forms cannot be used as *another* example of an ordered function that does not have a maker.
It is not about any "guidance" after the initial creation by a very great Maker. It is about a preexisting word that orders the function in life forms. It is about orders and the elements (today) obeying or being ordered by a preexisting word.
« Functions in life forms cannot be used as *another* example of an ordered function that does not have a maker. »
Boy, it is OBSERVED how variation and selection introduce new features into life, at both the morphological and the molecular level. Until *you* show where in this process the invisible hand of your ghostly god comes in to play, stop talking bollocks.
« The burden of proof is on you to prove that objects ordered your existence. »
We can see how the behavioural properties of matter and energy order things ever single second of every single day. So you may consider that proven beyond any conceivable doubt.
Now it is up to you to prove that such behavioural properties require an intelligent creator. Go ahead, we'll be waiting.
@XGralgrathor There is no direct ordering resulting in having function from any object anywhere in the universe.
There is no other god besides our Maker.
You just made a false statement saying objects order function, that you have to back up with evidence.
Why do you even try? Let me see your god order a function. My God ordered every function in every life form there is. He also orders me to tell you truth, He is the only Maker there is who can also remake us again because no one else can.
« There is no direct ordering resulting in having function »
There are causes, and there are effects. And because behavioural properties are mostly non-random, effects will likewise be non-random. Nowhere in this observation is there reason to assume a "maker" god. Any god. Your god, or any other god ever imagined by man.
@MrGralgrathor You are not even considering all of the possible combinations of elements that have no useful structure or function.
Besides the DNA and RNA ordered molecules, life forms consist of twenty specific amino acids and their ordering which has to be exact in order to function when ordered according to a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements composing the ordered molecules were made to have.
Prove to me that objects ever order anything without order.
Yes, we do consider those. You are ignoring principle of natural selection, and you are ignoring the copious evidence available for natural selection occurring today.
@XGralgrathor It is genome that gets all of the credit for all of the variations just by being there. There is no order coming from mutations and natural selection will only select what the genome made possible.
You are confusing yourslef over the variations that the limited information in the genome makes possible.
There is no such thing as uniform morphological changes ordered by anything in existence. That kind of change does not exist anywhere or anyway. There's no mechanism for evolution.
@JungleJargon "Order" refers to "a logical or comprehensible arrangement of separate elements." The base pairs in the genome are anything but ordered. There is little logical or comprehensible about their arrangement.
And, mutations are fully capable of rearranging this seemingly random mess of base-pairs into efficient new biological functions.
@JungleJargon Glad I'm not made of logic, or I'd be an abstraction of a physical phenomenon.
What "information"? Are you aware of what information is? It's defined as the number of bits required to describe a string of symbols from a known alphabet. It is trivial for mutations to increase the maximal information entropy of a genome: simply insert a single base-pair.
Provide a basis for the definition of information other than information theory's, or your assertions are invalidated.
@TaslemGuy Inserting "a single base-pair" (if that is even possible) is not inserting information. It is altering information.
In order for you to have logic, you have to be made from logic. Logic is the measure of intelligence and you cannot have intelligence without thinking.
It takes information to make hydrogen ion pumps and motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP molecules so that we have the energy that we absolutely need to live.
It is not about information, it is about function.
@JungleJargon Insertion mutations, I can assure you, are possible and happen a lot.
Once again, let me telll you: The definition of information is the number of bits required to completely describe a given arbitrary string of symbols.
This is the accepted definition of information, and it is OBVIOUS to anyone who has studied this that inserting an extra symbol will, in almost every case, increase the amount of information in the string.
@TaslemGuy Inserting bits does not increase information when the bits are not ordered.
Objects never ordered anything, mutations never order anything and "natural selection" will only select what has already been ordered by the genome complete with variations so there is no mechanism that would make evolution possible, in the real world.
"It takes information to make hydrogen ion pumps and motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP molecules so that we have the energy that we absolutely need to live."
It does not take "information," which is a measurement, not a thing.
It does, however, take specific sequences of base pairs which need to be translated to certain amino acids. I am well aware of this.
However, there are numerous examples of mutation permitting new functions. Namely, nylonase.
Let's make a few things clear: Before 1900, there was no organism on the planet that broke down nylon, namely because there was no nylon to break down, and they would die.
This specific strain of flavobacterium developed the ability to break down nylon using nylonase, an entirely new protein which demonstrates the ability for evolution to create entirely new cellular functions.
@TaslemGuy Yes, there was an organism that could and did break down nylon, bacteria. It is now 2011 and bacteria breaks down nylon. It didn't take long did it?
It demonstrates that the elements in molecules belong to God and He can break them down if He wants to.
DNA describes the protein production and synchronization in cells. However, it does not determine "everything about who were are." For instance, neurological (and therefore psychological) development is primarily based on environmental stimulus, mostly as a child.
@JungleJargon Okay, that is a fine definition of "order." Now, how is it that evolution prevents this from occurring? In fact, experiments suggest that every functional genome ought to be bridged by single-base-pair differences, based on the statistical likelihood of a genome being functional (able to correctly use ATPase, I believe).
@TaslemGuy Evolution doesn't do anything because it doesn't even exist. It is the genome that orders the variations. The variations are made possible by and limited to existing limited information in the genome.
@JungleJargon Let me repeat this: All functional genomes are connected via single-base-pair changes. This in mind, cumulative mutations are fully capable of transforming any functioning organism into another.
What biological mechanism prevents this from occurring?
@TaslemGuy There are no ordered changes coming from mutations or insertions unless the insertion is already compatible with the genome. You are assuming that there are orderly changes taking place in the genome. Mutations never order anything. What makes you think there is order coming from mutations?
You, in fact, were the one that "failed to address the ordered functions that the elements have inside of us that require a very great Maker."
Why is this so? I have no reason to respond to a claim for which there is no substantiation. Please provide the empirical basis for this claim. Note that an argument of ignorance is not a substantiation of this claim, and if you confuse "argument of ignorance" with ad hominem, well...
@TaslemGuy I am the one that mentioned the ordered functions that the elements have inside of us that require a very great Maker. What are you talking about?
You did not address them or the over 100 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layers of micro sedimentation.
"circus" is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to matters of Biology He is not a student of the science, and he has not synthesized a novel result from facts he has analyzed.
Instead, he is a student of religion, who has decided the facts as he understands them conflict with his feelings, and therefore digs through the science with an amateur's analysis in order to find loopholes...
His detractions are filled with misinformation, because he works backwards from preconceived notions
wow that was a really neat video. i agree that many of the people who are against evolution simply dont understand what it is. a video like this really helps lay it out and makes it more accessible.
It is not a fact that reproducing animals evolve into new creatures over time. A catterpillar"evolves" into a butterfly. But can evolution explain how a caterpillar mutates beautiful wings or why it had to? How is it genetically possible for a blue whale to evolve from a deer like land mammal? Ofcourse with computer animation it is. Why would anyone believe the bones in a whales sexual organs as vestigial?They're not legs? How is that science, not science fiction?
"How is it genetically possible for a blue whale to evolve from a deer like land mammal?"
-- How much time do you have? Here is the challenge: you are expecting us to explain, in only 500 characters, what takes science students 4+ years of hard work and studying to understand. Given that expectation of yours, I can understand why it's easier for you to get "Magic-Man-Dun-It" rather than spending 4 years in college to actually educate yourself. So how much time do you have?
@ozpowermo Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.The imaginary part of the theory of evolution says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection. Conveniently we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slow. pfft!
"What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed..."
-- Oh yeah? Then it should be easy for you to show those limits... please tell us where can we find any such limitation. Exactly what is the limiting factor which says "variation stops here!"
On the subject of "variation within species." You say that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, so I want you to specifically show what is the limiting factor that dictates those limits.
@ozpowermo Common descent, by definition, rejects the idea that life consists of bounded sets which cannot be bridged by inheritance. DNA is a complex sentence of information and meaningful messages do not arise from random processes.In fact the evidence is so strong that it is stated as the First Law of Information which must be violated in order to explain variation.If we cannot create information through natural forces then common descent cannot be explained either.
"Common descent, by definition, rejects the idea that life consists of bounded sets which cannot be bridged by inheritance."
-- Correct, so show the mechanism which prevents one bounded set from diverging into two separate bounded sets. I generally discuss one topic at a time, but: the field of Information Theory has no such thing as "First Law of Information." Define what "information" or "meaningful message" means with respect to DNA...
if you like hot chicks, you believe in evolution, FACT
striker360 1 week ago
@striker360 This is true.
SorryStamin 5 days ago
@transtlantic could you possibly be a little more specific?
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 Darwin's finches are an example of allopatric speciation. Morphological and genetic studies have shown they all originated from one ancestor, but have certain morphological or other traits, such as the size and shape of the beak to correspond with their diet, such as insects or certain kinds of seeds. One finch, the Woodpecker Finch, actually knows how to use tools; it can use a cactus spine like a spear to pluck grubs from holes they can't enter.
bijoukaiba 5 days ago
@transtlantic Give me an example of speciation.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7
Plant speciation.
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
This video only shows how a group of organisms can change color over time, while remaining the same species. Macro-evolution is changing from one species to another. The video was incorrect in saying macro-evolution has been observed, even if it was possible, modern science hasn't been around long enough to span the required time.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7
actually is the exact same thing as micro. Speciation is fact. for example: plant speciation.
Macro evolution is observed all the time, you are just making stuff whenever you present your made up definition that don't even make sense.
Btw...modern science has been around long enough to document hundreds of directly observed instances of speciation.
you retarded uneducated cRetard
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
I live in Kansas, where evolution is illegal. But if you outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve.
Snakepliskinist 2 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist I had to laugh when I saw that you had written ' I live in Kansas, where evolution is illegal' I know what you meant to say, which is that 'teaching evolution in schools is illegal' Thankfully, evolution is still happening, unless Kansas has banned all forms of flora and fauna. That would look pretty desolate
daverigby23 2 weeks ago
It's the 21st century and we STILL have people who doubt evolution? WOW.
dkthg 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 4 weeks ago
Listen to this shit "The pattern of the camouflage is much more important than its color, when hiding from these predators. If a zebra is standing still in matching surroundings, a lion may overlook it completely." hahahahaha "a lion MAY overlook it completely" HAR HAR HAR Imagine a lion "overlooking" a zebra! HAR HAR HAR
JackSShit 1 month ago
What? Has Macro-evolution been observed? I've never heard about that.
argetlam1111 1 month ago
yea its right but it cant explain how an animal transform into a totally another one... there is a limit to mutation
leviterande 1 month ago
« but it cant explain how an animal transform into a totally another »
1. Evolution is not "transformation".
2. It *can* explain how the remote descendants of an organism can be totally unlike that organism.
« there is a limit to mutation »
The only limits we know of are limits that determine how much offspring can diverge genetically *in a given amount of time*. There are no absolute limits to such divergence.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor "There are no absolute limits to such divergence" Dummass, the Law of Reversion to the Average. Look it up moron.
JackSShit 1 month ago
@JackSShit
By the way, I find the enthusiasm with which you use offensive language to show off your self-imposed ignorance boring. You're blacklisted. Bye.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Law of Reversion to the Average »
There's no such law in genetics. If you have to resort to pulling stuff out of your ass in order to defend your religious beliefs, you have to ask yourself whether your religious beliefs are worth having.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@JackSShit Regression towards the mean has absolutely nothing to do with evolution (besides neutral mutations). When a population is experiencing an environmental pressure the environment is causing the mean to shift. In this video you will notice that the rectangles adjust to the color of the environment with some outliers (dark rectangles in a light environment), regression towards the mean basically says that if you choose another individual they will almost certainly be lighter.
psychologicalshock 1 month ago
I'd just like to ask creationists,
Using Sexual selection humans have managed to create many species of dogs, How is this possible if the bible claims that God made all creatures when "he" (Why an omnipresent deity has a gender is still beyond me!) created the earth. But there we have them, over 300 + species of dogs, all descended from wolves, yet we've managed to change them USING sexual selection. But according to creationists sexual selection doesn't exist! How is this possible?
Dahudrox 2 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@Dadgumdumbox Dog breeding isn't sexual selection you ignorant uneducated moron. How do you even find your way to the fucking breakfast table? AND besides FIDO doesn't give a shit what LADY looks like.
GIANT FAIL
JackSShit 1 month ago
@Dumbox "I'd just like to ask creationists" Give it up you stupid asshole. You evotards are the dumbest morons on the planet. How do you nitwits even get dressed in the morning?
JackSShit 1 month ago
@Dahudrox "But according to creationists sexual selection doesn't exist! How is this possible?" Dog breeding isn't done by sexual selection you idiot. Do you know anything about evolution? Look up sexual selection dummass. Oh and besides that fido doesn't give a shit what Lady looks like.
JackSShit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
also,
If the earth is 6000 yrs old, how did light from millions of light years away reach us already.
Btw... God can't stretch light as this would cause the light to dissipate. Did God add extra light as "he" was stretching it?
Does God have a penis? ...I mean, he IS a he!! ...I don't get it! If he does, Is there a Miss/ Ms/ Mrs God? also, what is the purpose of God having a gender, is God able to reproduce?
Dahudrox 2 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
See a great lecture called: story of life origins: the obvious version
Gives a fresh look at the development of life, from the point of view of the developers of THING: an autonomous nano-machines complex, designed to auto clone itself out of molecules and energy that it gathers from its ambient.
Basic systems are described, including a quality control system named EVO1.
Suggests: if we put aside our preconditioning , and look just at the hard evidence, this becomes the OBVIOUS story of LIFE
joflavius 2 months ago
Creationists need to go back to their illuminated manuscripts, because they obviously can't hack it in the modern world. Evolution is iron clad. It's driven by survival, the parameters for which don't need to be determined by anything or anyone (the rules can just exist as is, intrinsic to the environment). Surviving and propagating ensures amplification of the beneficial mutation against those that aren't. Stacked up over time, this will change populations towards a 'fit' profile.
MyBrosRNinjaNFarmer 2 months ago
@MyBrosRNinjaNFarmer YOU obviously don't understand evolution idiot boy.
JackSShit 1 month ago
as simple as this may be, i think it is still too complex for creationist -_-
rickiex 2 months ago
ATTENTION FOLKS PUBLIC NOTICE
cdk007 doesn't really know how evolution works. It's all smoke and mirrors as you see in this vid. He doesn't know what he's talking about. BUT so far I have never talked to an evolutionist who DID know how evolution works and if you question them they don't know which theory of evolution they believe in.
JackSShit 2 months ago
@cdk007 Have we met before? Well I'm Jack Shit and it's so nice to meet you. Now you don't have to go around telling your friends that you don't know Jack Shit. hahahahaha but I guess telling them you know Jack Shit isn't going to help much is it? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR you're fucked aren't ya?
JackSShit 2 months ago
@cdk007 You must have nightmares about evolution. Your camouflage theory which this vid is based on is blown completely out of the water with Zebras. hahahahahahahahaha think about it dummass. They painted prison uniforms with black and white stripes so they could easily be seen in any environment.
You need to go back to school and study creationism. hahahahahaaa
JackSShit 2 months ago
@JackSShit think about it again. lions don't see colors. White and black stripes of zebras look like high growing grass to them. Not a bad camouflage if you ask me. but I'm sure since you've demonstrably thought this argument through that well you're probably right with everything else right?.
Hunne0815 1 month ago
@Hunne0815 I didn't ask you ya lambrain asshole. Ever see a black and white movie? Did you notice in that black and white movie that the prisoners in the black and white stripes were NOT invisible genis? No they weren't and you're a dummass. That's why I didn't ask you. Besides oh brainless one, zebras don't hide from lions (remember scent?) they outrun them ya ninny. Now wake your stupid evotarded ass up and join the real world.
JackSShit 1 month ago
@JackSShit Zebras = vertical stripes in an environment full of long vertically standing grass , prison uniform = horizontal stripes with no natural analog. Are you this stupid in real life? Did you ride the short bus?
psychologicalshock 1 month ago
@psychologicalshock You're funny. You evotards will come up with the most outrageous bullshit to keep from stepping on the toes of your fantasy of evolution.
"To humans, a zebra's stripes stick out like a sore thumb, so it's hard to imagine that the stripes act as camouflage. Zoologists believe stripes offer zebras protection from predators in a couple of different ways."
NOTICE: "zoologists believe" HAR HAR HAR they don't fucking know. They haven't even been out there to see.
JackSShit 1 month ago
@JackSShit It doesn't really sound like you know anything about the subject, just sounds like you're a religious moron. When you have a constant pattern, movement is more difficult to identify, considering that a lion has to spot a zebra from quite a distance away the fact that the pattern is constant and consistent with it's surroundings is all that matters in its effectiveness. That and your prisoner comparison is really stupid, might as well disregard anything else you say
psychologicalshock 1 month ago
@psychologicalshit "It doesn't really sound like you know anything about the subject" You dont' know enough to know whether I do or not. You just pulled the religious card which tells me that you're down to nothing for an argument. "When you have a constant pattern, movement is more difficult to identify" Did you really just say that? Do you know anything about camoflage? Ever hunted? Probably not. You're an indoor nerd who tries to tell the rest of us what the outdoors is like.
FAIL MORON
JackSShit 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psychologicalshock "considering that a lion has to spot a zebra from quite a distance away the fact that the pattern is constant and consistent with it's surroundings is all that matters in its effectiveness" This really fucking hilarious. You were never in the military and never hunted. I call tell that from your idiot explanations.
PWNED
JackSShit 3 weeks ago
@psychologicalshit "your prisoner comparison is really stupid" THANKS FOR MAKING AN ASS OF YOURSELF. "might as well disregard anything else you say" You may as well, nothing is going to sink into your thick nerk-like brain. You're willfully ignorant and defend ANYTHING scientists say no matter how fucking moronic.
EPIC FAIL
JackSShit 3 weeks ago
@psychologicalshock I didn't ride the shortbus, but I saw you on it as you went by dummass. "zoologists believe" hahahahahahahaha that's really choice. They haven't even talked to any hunters or hunting guides. hahahaha What idiots.
JackSShit 1 month ago
@psychoshit "To humans, a zebra's stripes stick out like a sore thumb" WELL no shit. Tell me something morom, have you ever seen a black and white movie where we are now on the same visual level as a lion? hahahahahahahhaa How fucking old are you? 19? You sound like it. You've never done shit in your miserable life have you? You've never done a man's work either have you? You're little faggot with a big ass mouth.
JackSShit 3 weeks ago
@psychoshit, did you do an image search for zebras? Did you notice how many horizontal stripes there were? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Way to go idiot boy! hahahaaa
PWNED
JackSShit 3 weeks ago
0:22 # Fact two: Not (compleetly) true. This is only true for Non sexual reproduction.
2ossy 2 months ago
Creationists have no real arguments against evolution, they can only say things like "oh it's just a guess, not a fact", or attacking abiogenesis/big bang, which bear no relevance to the validity of evolution theory
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Evolution is not true because mutations never order anything in the genome and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered by the genome so there is no mechanism for evolution to happen.
Insertions order nothing unless they are already compatible and compatible information will not change the genome into something else.
Duplications are already in the genome and do nothing to change the species.
Evolution is a disgrace to science because it is fantasy.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon yea but wtf is "order"? You're speaking in a manner that is very bizarre to biologists, and not to mention ambiguous. Define this first plz.
Casshyr 2 months ago
Lol at the graphics at fact #2. How can children come from a single parent... I'm still watching the rest though. But please correct this stupid mistake.
joostul 2 months ago
@joostul not every organism needs two of them to reproduce.
Jandeman030 2 months ago
@Jandeman030 That is true, but it's to say the least not the most common method. In that sense, there are lots of things which are just based on the 0,1% (unfounded guess) of the mean, otherwise called the exceptions which have no business when explaining something like this. Maybe in hindsight my comment was a bit too quickly made though and could have been formulated better.
joostul 2 months ago
@joostul It's stupid alright but it's not a mistake. Evotards think that all species started with a virgin birth. It's a little hypocritical don't you think?
JackSShit 2 months ago
@MrArpas123 your second question is sort of about abiogenesis not evolution. Abiogenesis is not very well understood right now(but one day, like past mysteries, it might be). No honest scientist will rule out the possibility of a god creating it all, but there is a lack of evidence for it.
We do know that the building blocks of life can form naturally and that a complete cell isnt required for life to start. Just having a self replicating molecule is the foundation of genes.
watch?v=yet1xkAv_HY
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@MrArpas123 Its true that carbon dating only works in the range of thousands of years. Thats why the age of old fossils is determined by methods such as Argon dating and measuring the age of the surrounding rocks(e.g volcanic rocks). This method allows billions of years to be measured(billions can be verified in other ways).
Evolution happens at the rate of generations. To see evolution quickly, you gotta look for quickly breeding creatures like microbes. "Nylonase" is proof of germ evolution.
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@MrArpas123 Ahh yes good old Hovind. I should warn you he is not a scientist and his work is not accepted by the scientific community. So either he's the next Einstein or he's just wrong(or a fraud. given his tax evasion history, well who knows).
Please check this watch?v=1RnygS7opCA @ 2:54 it explains what I mean.
Chihuahua&Dane can interbreed via artificial methods but naturally... somehow exploding Chihuahuas come to mind, lol. BTW interbreeding dogs&monkeys would actually disprove evolution.
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@MrArpas123 "I don't mean seeing different breeds withing species" thats the thing, variation within species is how speciation starts. Without interbreeding they diverge further.
A species is defined as animals that can interbreed or share common features. I think you'd agree that its hard for a Great Dane and Chihuaha to mate. Their still the same species though.
If you want to see a real speciation event in under 250 years google "Faeroe Island mouse"
BTW fish and monkeys share some dna, why?
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@MrArpas123 Actually we already have observed it outside the lab. Consider dog breeding for example, its amazing the sizes and shapes of dogs you can get by simply breeding them selectively for many generations. They are all still dogs but some of the dog lineages are very close to becoming different species because they almost cant interbreed naturally anymore. Consider for example a Chihuahua trying to naturally breed with a Great Dane(min. 54 kg's).
Random variation + selection= it works!
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
Someone have the download of a evolution simulator which can see the mating?
adirtuval 3 months ago
@JungleJargon You insist that its ad hominem: wiki definition "ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person holding it" then your own quote "Saying I am stupid does nothing to negate the argument"
Congratulations on pwning yourself champ :) You entertain us all&you made my day :)
See this is one of the reasons why your a idiot, you cant admit self-error.
Im busy now so i'll deal with the brest of your stupidity tomorrow.
ElysiumLabs 3 months ago
@ElysiumLabs You are not understanding what the definition is saying, of course it does not negate the truth by pointing out a supposed negative characteristic of a person. That is the whole point. It says "it is an attempt to negate the truth" It will never do anything to negate the truth (so there is no reason to even try using ad hominem attacks because it does nothing to prove your point.)
The issue is not me that you need to address, the issue is observable evidence that we have a Maker.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon *Claps* you are starting to understand why a ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It tries to tie the truth value of two independent concepts and hopes to prove one statement true by showing another unrelated statement to be true.
Before I address the problems in your other arguments, I have to know if you are ready to admit your mistake? So was it a ad hominem or a insult. Were you wrong?.
If you wont admit error on such a small thing then you wont admit error on bigger issues.
ElysiumLabs 3 months ago
@ElysiumLabs You cannot and do not want to address any of the issues pertaining to creation by a Maker so you keep arguing about something that has nothing to do with the issues like a smoke screen to obscure the fact that you have no evidence for what you believe and you keep changing the subject.
The issue is the observable evidence of the ordered functions hydrogen has inside of us and the over 100 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive micro sediments deposited by the flood.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "No evidance for what you believe" thats rich comming from you.
Its a question of charachter.
Your a liar, Its a verifiable matter of record that all your pathetic arguments have already been addressed by me and others in the comments to your own videos. No evidance eh? You didnt even understand THIS video.
The fact of the matter is that your dishonest, disingeneous and stupid.
If you cant admit it when your wrong then its a waste of time arguing with you. So admit it already.
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs You failed again to address any of the issues.
You cannot negate an argument by attacking the person presenting the argument because it proves nothing.
Objects never order any function that works on their own, prove that they do order something. It would also have to be repeatable to confirm they ordered a function.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon You again refused to admit your error. This again proves that your disingenuous and not interested in debate.
Its funny, you keep denying all evidence against your position as if strength of conviction is any indicator of truth. Almost everyone see's through you, your a fool who lies to everyone including yourself.
I will gladly keep pointing this out until you come clean and admit your error.
Your not a scientist and evidently you dont know science. Your a philosopher of sorts
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs You have to show me something for me to learn something (and it helps if you speak in full sentences so I know what you are talking about).
What error? Pointing what out? What science do I not know?
Objects do not make you what you are.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon "What error? " Have you considered that you might have a psychological disease that makes you block out negative memories? The "ad hominem vs. insult" error, I was very clear on it.
Show you? You mean like the time you asked me to "show" you a rock that went through the whole rock cycle? You actually want to see it with your own eyes before you believe it? Ok then show me your god!
"What science do I not know" geology+evolution.
(Sorry I'll try to write clearer sentences)
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs An ad hominem attack is when anyone, rather than addressing the issues, attacks the person presenting the issues. It happens all of the time. By your very poor definition, there never is an ad hominem attack because it never does disprove the argument. Get over it. It does happen to me all the time.
I asked you to show me where the sediments were coming from and you did not have an answer.
The function of hydrogen that proves there is a Maker of all things.
You proved nothing.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon Tsk tsk. Are you just gonna keep lying to yourself and others forever? If so then this is a pointless debate. If you bothered to learn about ad-hom. then you'd see that what I stated was the STANDARD definition. Furthermore a example of ad-hom. is "your stupid thus your wrong" while "your wrong&stupid" is not. Do you think definitions mean whatever you want them to?
Why do you lie on verifiable matters of record? I told you back then its the rock cycle&you were too lazy to study it
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs Exactly, if that definition was true, there would never be an example of ad hominem because you can never negate any fact by saying the person is stupid so you are the one who doesn't know what ad hominem is. The issue is not the state of mind of the person, the issue is the fact. That's the whole point of the lable of saying such a thing. It does you no good. It does nothing to prove anything. It is uncalled for and it distracts from the issues being discussed. You are projecting.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon So lets talk philosophy then. Watch out this might hurt.
1. there is no explanation for the properties of hydrogen(ok there are quarks&other more fundamental particles but lets assume you meant the most fundamental particle)
2. you can suppose that a designer made it
3. it doesnt explain the designer though. you simply traded unkowns.
4. it doesnt proove that your god did it, nor does it proove that a single designer did it.
5. since unknowns were traded, it doesnt explain anything
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs It is not about "properties", it is about the function of hydrogen when it is ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that most of the most common elements were made to have.
Function always has a maker and the ordered functions of hydrogen working inside of us have a very great Maker.
That proves there's only One Maker of all things derived from hydrogen who is all knowing all powerful and able to stretch out the fabric of time space so that it has function
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
1. By function you mean, laws of physics right ?
2. "Function always has a maker" argument from ignorance. Consider snowflakes. Things can appear designed for different reasons, so prove that only design can cause orderly systems.
3. "who is all knowing all powerful" no the universe is finite so we cant deduce that its "maker" would be infinite.
4. "proves there's only One Maker" nope it doesnt.
5. you didn't prove its your god
6. you simply traded unknowns with this explanation.
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs No, function is not laws of physics.
It is not about "orderly systems", it is about function.
The universe is finite, the Maker of the ordered function of hydrogen is not.
He is the Maker of all matter and as such is not made of the matter that He made.
It does prove One Maker and it proves the Maker is the only God because only our Maker can remake us again.
There is no other true teaching.
There is no other God.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
1. Demonstrate a function of hydrogen which doesnt arise from its properties.
2. You still failed to show that the universes "designer" is infinite. Hydrogen is finite.
3. "It does prove One Maker" unsubstantiated assertion. It can be shown that hydrogen has multiple functions thus multiple designers are possible.
4. "There is no other true teaching"&"There is no other God" a bigoted religious opinion not a substantiated argument
5. You still failed to show that your god did it.
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs The end result of hydrogen is that it is an essential working part that is ordered inside of life forms which means that it has a Maker because it has function that is ordered and essential to life.
It does not matter that hydrogen is finite, if it has function it has a Maker and the Maker is not made of matter because hydrogen is the origin of all matter. That means that the Maker of hydrogen is not a fabrication of hydrogen and is not finite.
Show me another origin of matter.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
1. Function does not imply a designer. Since functionality can be assigned based on properties. Example, a sharp rock can be perceived to function as a crude knife yet it wasnt designed.
2. You havent shown a function of hydrogen that doesnt arise from its properties.
3. Speculating on what a designer might be made of is irrelevant. You still cant conclude a infinite designer from a finite object.
4. Doesnt prove a single designer did it.
5. Doesnt prove that your god did it.
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs Function never exists without a Maker.
A sharp will work like a knife when it is ordered to do so, the same goes for a rock that is thrown.
You haven't been listening. Hyrogen is responsible for the manufacture of ATP molecules that we need to live.
The function of the element from which all matter is derived does prove a Maker that made all matter.
There's no evidence of any other set of universally interchangeable working machine parts, only the set we have from one God.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon Evidently you havent been thinking, its not uncommon of you.
1. "Function never exists without a Maker" Guess who assigned a function to hydrogen based on its properties? You the interpreter did
2. Saying that hydrogen is made specifically for the purpose of building life is a argument from ignorance made after the fact
3. Evidently the "designer" is incompetent for life in the universe is scarce
4. Consider the anthropic principle
5. Hydrogen is composed of smaller particles ...
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs Hey, you just made an ad hominem attack against my person.
I am not the one who assigned the function of hydrogen. I had nothing to do with the making of the function that hydrogen has working inside of me. You are making things up again.
Hydrogen is ordered to do the work it does inside of us by a preexisting word written in and with the function the elements were made to have and every one of the function requires a maker.
It does not matter what hydrogen is composed of.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
6. Hydrogen serves various functions aside from supporting life.
7. Therefore its possible that different designers made its subatomic particles or its different functions.
Thanks for providing evidence for your ignorance. I guess CORRECT definitions dont mean much to you.
Consider this: Is a insult always a logical fallacy? yes or no? if no then why?
What you said about insults is true yet when talking with morons, insults are well deserved and have some benefits.
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs Purpose and function are two different things.
There is one set of constants for one set of elements most of the most common of which are universally interchangeable working parts inside of us only when ordered.
Insults only serve to try to make you not look so bad and they keep you from making the corrections that you need to be making, so you hurt yourself.
Ad hominem is against the person. Anything you say against a person is ad hominem, by definition.
End of story already.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon "You are making things up again" no need, you do that way better than anyone lol
Your argument makes no sense. lets try this
1. are the atoms in a sharp rock arranged into this shape by design or chance ?
2. is it impossible for the universe to have formed via a naturalistic process?
3. if the universe had no life, would it mean that it wasnt designed?
Then some fun
4. you failed to show that the designer is all powerful
5. you failed to show that the designer is your god
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@JungleJargon Oops, I realize that "Evidently you havent been thinking" may be a logical fallacy. I apologize for the mistake and replace it with the insult "I think your a dimwit" instead.
Ad hominem differs from a insult in that one is a logical fallacy and the other isnt. There are 2 definitions for ad-hom on the net, one is wrong since it doesnt lead to a logical fallacy.
If you answer my question then I will prove it to you
"Is a insult always a logical fallacy? yes or no? if no then why?"
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@JungleJargon 6. Matter can arise from energy, E=mc2, as proved in particle accelerators. Energy appears to be eternal.
I have provided you with the standard definition, explanation&example of ad-homs("your wrong because your stupid" is a ad-hom "your wrong&stupid" is not). You think all insults are ad-homs.
Your continued refusal to admit error on a trivial issue makes you look like a fool in public and it provides proof for your dishonesty&disingenuousness.
"you are projecting" the irony!
ElysiumLabs 2 months ago
@ElysiumLabs I already told you that your interpretation of the definition is wrong.
Any personal attack that accompanies or replaces an argument is massive fail.
That is the reason it is given the label of ad hominem (against the person).
If you understand soccer, it is like playing against the person "ad hominem" instead of playing against the ball.
You failed big time so get over it already. I warned you that you were wrong and you just keep at it.
Ad hominem means against the person.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon "Saying im stupid does nothing to negate the argument" Haha! im glad you finally agree that its not a ad-hominem then. See stupid is such a accurate description of you!
*Yawn* same old BS. I guess your too stupid to understand that what you just said is a equivelent to the failed watchmaker argument.
Like I said, evolution stands on mountains of evidance watch "what every crationist must deny"
Bible says the world is flat& solar system is geocentric, do you believe that too?
ElysiumLabs 3 months ago
@ElysiumLabs When does a personal attack negate any argument? It never does and it is sitll an ad hominem attack.
The watchmaker argument is not a failed argument. You just fail to understand that function requires a maker.
The solar system is geocentric from the perspective of earth.
Your existence requires a Maker. Logic and intelligence is not formulated by objects. The objects would have to be designed and ordered to do logic, which they are.
Evolution is a disgrace to science.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon oops, forgot to address my reply to you. read the comment below.
ElysiumLabs 3 months ago
Lying4jesus again are we? Wikipedia says "ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it". So saying that your stupid, is fine as long as its not used to negate your argument. Besides you are, reading the comments for your vids proves it.
As for the rest: your just talking babble again with no citation, no solid evidence & logical flaws. Read&think about "Watchmaker argument" it adequately addresses your argument
ElysiumLabs 3 months ago
@ElysiumLabs That is the point. Saying I am stupid does nothing to negate the argument.
It is evolution that has no evidence of objects ordering anything so it is evolution that is in question not the observable fact that we have a Maker of all of the elements that function inside of us as ordered.
Who is lying now? Christian teaching is a teaching of truth. No one has ever proven Christian teaching false.
We do have a Maker of the functions of most of the most common elements inside of us.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
this has got to be a joke, right? total nonsense
browill9 3 months ago
Evolution really doesn't work because mutations do not order anything.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon sorry, you made no sense at all. not in this post nor your video. oh and if its not too much to ask, please provide one shred on incontrovertible evidence to the existence of your god or otherwise kindly stfu.
ElysiumLabs 4 months ago
@ElysiumLabs The essential ordered functions that hydrogen has working inside of us is proof that we have a Maker. It is also evidence that the entire universe has the same Maker who made us from the functions that most of the most common elements have inside of us.
It is not as hard to understand as you think it is.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon Anything a mutation can do, t can undo. That's because every mutation is reversible. Thus, for every mutation that "reduces order," there is an opposite which increases it.
Moreover, the genome is anything BUT ordered.
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
@TaslemGuy All of our functions are ordered by the genome.
You don't even know what you said.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon Your refutations of evolution are a waste of time. Evolution is a fact supported by mountains of incontrovertible data. I suggest you get a education and see a doctor about your learning disorder. The best you can do is argue about abiogenesis as thats not very well understood(yet).
Arguing that atoms have properties and therefore are designed is just a tried&failed watchmaker argument.
It doesn't explain which 'god' did it. Also it has a logical problem, who made god?
ElysiumLabs 3 months ago
@ElysiumLabs The "best" you can do is ad hominem attacks that fail to address any of the issues.
You also fail to understand that the function of hydrogen is the evidence of a Maker of all things and it is the issue that the Bible has been addressing all along about God being the Maker of all things.
The Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made and there is no evidence of any other god or maker.
It is also not my fault that evolution does not hold up to scrutiny, God does.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon You really dont know the difference between a ad-hominem and a insult do you? I suppose your too intellectually lazy to look that up.
So thats your incontrovertible evidence? Word games&lenient interpretations of texts written by primitive people? See thats why no one takes you seriously, you have nothing.
Lol, so in effect your trying to say that god can be infinite with no beginning. So why can't the energy that composes the universe be the same? you undid your own argument.
ElysiumLabs 3 months ago
@ElysiumLabs Whenvever you are attacking me instead of talking about the issues, it is an ad hominem attack.
The universe is all a fabrication that was stretched out. It is all relative and subject to change. The Maker of time space is not made of the fabrication that He made.
The ordered functions of hydrogen is observable evidence of a Maker.
The pioneers of science recognized the existence of their Maker.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that objects ordered your existence.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon
« The universe is all a fabrication that was stretched out »
Right, like fabric stretched across a dome. In fact, the original text of the bible has the firmament stretched across the dome of the heavens *exactly* like that.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
@XGralgrathor It says it was the heavens that were stretched out, not a fabric. No one ever said that the heavens (pl) was a fabric. It is three dimentional.
See if you can find an even weaker argument to make.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon
« The ordered functions of hydrogen is observable evidence of a Maker. »
No it isn't. It's evidence of some behavioural property of hydrogen.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
@XGralgrathor It is evidence of the *ordered* behavior of hydrogen.
Didn't your teachers tell you to pay attention to detail?
JungleJargon 3 months ago
« It is evidence of the *ordered* behavior of hydrogen »
Yes, behavioural properties result in ordered structure. And?
MrGralgrathor 3 months ago
@MrGralgrathor Not, behavior, it is function that requires a maker. Objects do not behave, they function when ordered, if their design allows it.
Again, it is not merely ordered structure we are looking at in life forms, it is ordered function. Even ordered structures require a maker for that matter.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
« it is function that requires a maker »
No, it doesn't. New function has been observed to evolve naturally, through natural selection. There's no reason to think that the instances of evolution that we haven't observed require a "maker" any more than the instances we have observed.
Notice that you're thinking teleologically: you *assume* that because something does something in a particular fashion, it must have been intended to be thus.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor It is genome that gets all of the credit for all of the variations just by being there. There is no order coming from mutations and natural selection will only select what the genome made possible.
You are confusing yourslef over the variations that the limited information in the genome makes possible.
There is no such thing as uniform morphological changes ordered by anything in existence. That kind of change does not exist anywhere or anyway. There's no mechanism for evolution.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
« it is genome that gets all of the credit for all of the variations just by being there »
Just by being what it is: a molecule composed of many nucleotides that react to one another and to their cellular environment in specific chemical ways.
Don't try and impose your specific brand of chosen ignorance on others in this way, boy.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
« There is no order coming from mutations and natural selection »
Yes there is. It is *OBSERVED* how differential reproductive success, acting upon reproductive variation, can introduce environment-specific features into the population gene pool, boy.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
« There is no such thing as uniform morphological changes »
I'm not even sure what you mean by "uniform morphological changes". If you want to discuss a subject, boy, then use terminology that makes sense within the context of that subject.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
« Objects do not behave »
A brick does not fall when subjected to the gravitational field of a planet?
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor Objects only react, they do not behave and it is not about behavior, it is about function of elements when ordered that only happen because of the way the elements are made to function and be ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have.
You need to be using a better word that is not confused with animal behavior that shows intent. Objects have no intent of their own. They can only show intent of their Maker. That's the point.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
« Objects only react »
In specific ways, according to circumstances and their behavioural properties, yes.
« not confused with animal behavior »
I'm sure a smart boy like you is able to derive from the context of the sentence whether the subject is an animal, vegetable or mineral.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
« The pioneers of science recognized the existence of their Maker. »
No they didn't. They *believed* in the existence of a "creator". Of course, for all their genius, they could not produce any testable model nor evidence to support such a claim.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
@XGralgrathor What you don't realize is that there is a lot of reason to believe that we have a Maker.
Intelligence never comes from no intelligence unless you believe in magic or that we have a Maker that ordered our capacity for intelligence. Which one do you believe?
Unless you can get an object to order something on its own, we have a Maker.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
« that there is a lot of reason to believe that we have a Maker »
Yes; mainly due to the quirks of human psychology. Little of those reasons actually take the form of independently verifiable observations supporting some testable and falsifiable hypothesis.
MrGralgrathor 3 months ago
@MrGralgrathor Show me another simple ordered function that does not have a maker and it will be enough to disprove the fact that ordered functions require a maker.
I am waiting.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
« Show me another simple ordered function that does not have a maker »
Biological functions ranging from molecular metabolic pathways to morphological features have been observed to evolve through variation and selection. This is simply observation. There's no reason to think that the instances we haven't observed require magical guidance any more than the instances we have observed.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor Functions in life forms cannot be used as *another* example of an ordered function that does not have a maker.
It is not about any "guidance" after the initial creation by a very great Maker. It is about a preexisting word that orders the function in life forms. It is about orders and the elements (today) obeying or being ordered by a preexisting word.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
« Functions in life forms cannot be used as *another* example of an ordered function that does not have a maker. »
Boy, it is OBSERVED how variation and selection introduce new features into life, at both the morphological and the molecular level. Until *you* show where in this process the invisible hand of your ghostly god comes in to play, stop talking bollocks.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
« The burden of proof is on you to prove that objects ordered your existence. »
We can see how the behavioural properties of matter and energy order things ever single second of every single day. So you may consider that proven beyond any conceivable doubt.
Now it is up to you to prove that such behavioural properties require an intelligent creator. Go ahead, we'll be waiting.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
@XGralgrathor There is no direct ordering resulting in having function from any object anywhere in the universe.
There is no other god besides our Maker.
You just made a false statement saying objects order function, that you have to back up with evidence.
Why do you even try? Let me see your god order a function. My God ordered every function in every life form there is. He also orders me to tell you truth, He is the only Maker there is who can also remake us again because no one else can.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
« There is no direct ordering resulting in having function »
There are causes, and there are effects. And because behavioural properties are mostly non-random, effects will likewise be non-random. Nowhere in this observation is there reason to assume a "maker" god. Any god. Your god, or any other god ever imagined by man.
MrGralgrathor 3 months ago
@MrGralgrathor You are not even considering all of the possible combinations of elements that have no useful structure or function.
Besides the DNA and RNA ordered molecules, life forms consist of twenty specific amino acids and their ordering which has to be exact in order to function when ordered according to a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements composing the ordered molecules were made to have.
Prove to me that objects ever order anything without order.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
« You are not even considering »
Yes, we do consider those. You are ignoring principle of natural selection, and you are ignoring the copious evidence available for natural selection occurring today.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor It is genome that gets all of the credit for all of the variations just by being there. There is no order coming from mutations and natural selection will only select what the genome made possible.
You are confusing yourslef over the variations that the limited information in the genome makes possible.
There is no such thing as uniform morphological changes ordered by anything in existence. That kind of change does not exist anywhere or anyway. There's no mechanism for evolution.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon "Order" refers to "a logical or comprehensible arrangement of separate elements." The base pairs in the genome are anything but ordered. There is little logical or comprehensible about their arrangement.
And, mutations are fully capable of rearranging this seemingly random mess of base-pairs into efficient new biological functions.
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
@TaslemGuy Your "logic" determined you are not made of logic. Try again.
Anything "rearanged" in the genome is a credit to the genome that was already in place.
Changes to the genome are limited to information already in the genome.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon Glad I'm not made of logic, or I'd be an abstraction of a physical phenomenon.
What "information"? Are you aware of what information is? It's defined as the number of bits required to describe a string of symbols from a known alphabet. It is trivial for mutations to increase the maximal information entropy of a genome: simply insert a single base-pair.
Provide a basis for the definition of information other than information theory's, or your assertions are invalidated.
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
@TaslemGuy Inserting "a single base-pair" (if that is even possible) is not inserting information. It is altering information.
In order for you to have logic, you have to be made from logic. Logic is the measure of intelligence and you cannot have intelligence without thinking.
It takes information to make hydrogen ion pumps and motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP molecules so that we have the energy that we absolutely need to live.
It is not about information, it is about function.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon Insertion mutations, I can assure you, are possible and happen a lot.
Once again, let me telll you: The definition of information is the number of bits required to completely describe a given arbitrary string of symbols.
This is the accepted definition of information, and it is OBVIOUS to anyone who has studied this that inserting an extra symbol will, in almost every case, increase the amount of information in the string.
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
@TaslemGuy Inserting bits does not increase information when the bits are not ordered.
Objects never ordered anything, mutations never order anything and "natural selection" will only select what has already been ordered by the genome complete with variations so there is no mechanism that would make evolution possible, in the real world.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon
"It takes information to make hydrogen ion pumps and motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP molecules so that we have the energy that we absolutely need to live."
It does not take "information," which is a measurement, not a thing.
It does, however, take specific sequences of base pairs which need to be translated to certain amino acids. I am well aware of this.
However, there are numerous examples of mutation permitting new functions. Namely, nylonase.
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
@TaslemGuy Bacteria breaks down substances so it should be no suprise that bacteria would be able to break down nylon.
Everything is a math or measurement. The amounts of measurement and the order of the measurements are information when it orders functions.
DNA does not only order proteins, it orders every measure of what we are.
"However" you changed the subject and failed to address the ordered functions that the elements have inside of us that require a very great Maker.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon
Let's make a few things clear: Before 1900, there was no organism on the planet that broke down nylon, namely because there was no nylon to break down, and they would die.
This specific strain of flavobacterium developed the ability to break down nylon using nylonase, an entirely new protein which demonstrates the ability for evolution to create entirely new cellular functions.
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
@TaslemGuy Yes, there was an organism that could and did break down nylon, bacteria. It is now 2011 and bacteria breaks down nylon. It didn't take long did it?
It demonstrates that the elements in molecules belong to God and He can break them down if He wants to.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
DNA describes the protein production and synchronization in cells. However, it does not determine "everything about who were are." For instance, neurological (and therefore psychological) development is primarily based on environmental stimulus, mostly as a child.
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
@TaslemGuy The format for the development is provided by the platform ordered by DNA.
I thought you were going to tell me something I didn't know about development.
Children are already thinking before they are born.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon So, genetics do not determine everything about who we are, but they do?
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy It is an ordered genome that determines what we are.
(Who we are depends on what we believe, whether it is true or not.)
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon Okay... And what, empirically, is an UNordered genome?
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy A genome that doesn't make a viable life form is one that is not ordered enough.
Function always has to meet the threshold of having enough order for function to exist.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon Okay, that is a fine definition of "order." Now, how is it that evolution prevents this from occurring? In fact, experiments suggest that every functional genome ought to be bridged by single-base-pair differences, based on the statistical likelihood of a genome being functional (able to correctly use ATPase, I believe).
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy Evolution doesn't do anything because it doesn't even exist. It is the genome that orders the variations. The variations are made possible by and limited to existing limited information in the genome.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon Let me repeat this: All functional genomes are connected via single-base-pair changes. This in mind, cumulative mutations are fully capable of transforming any functioning organism into another.
What biological mechanism prevents this from occurring?
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy There are no ordered changes coming from mutations or insertions unless the insertion is already compatible with the genome. You are assuming that there are orderly changes taking place in the genome. Mutations never order anything. What makes you think there is order coming from mutations?
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon Okay, let me make this clear:
A genome is defined as ordered when it is functional, correct?
"A genome that doesn't make a viable life form is one that is not ordered enough."
So, any mutation which forms a viable life form is one that is ordered, correct?
So why isn't the mutation which create nylonase considered "producing order?"
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy Just because the genome is still viable doesn't mean that mutations are ordered.
It is the genome that was already ordered that made nylonase posible. If the genome was not there and viable, nylonase would not be possible.
It is an example of a possible alteration because a limited viable genome is there in place. It is not evidence of changes that are not possible.
You need many more thousands of possible changes that do not even exist for it to change into something else.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon I did not "change the subject."
You, in fact, were the one that "failed to address the ordered functions that the elements have inside of us that require a very great Maker."
Why is this so? I have no reason to respond to a claim for which there is no substantiation. Please provide the empirical basis for this claim. Note that an argument of ignorance is not a substantiation of this claim, and if you confuse "argument of ignorance" with ad hominem, well...
TaslemGuy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TaslemGuy I am the one that mentioned the ordered functions that the elements have inside of us that require a very great Maker. What are you talking about?
You did not address them or the over 100 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layers of micro sedimentation.
So are you going to address the issues or not?
JungleJargon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"circus" is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to matters of Biology He is not a student of the science, and he has not synthesized a novel result from facts he has analyzed.
Instead, he is a student of religion, who has decided the facts as he understands them conflict with his feelings, and therefore digs through the science with an amateur's analysis in order to find loopholes...
His detractions are filled with misinformation, because he works backwards from preconceived notions
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Environmental noise runs natural selection, not fitness. Sorry, you lose."
Circusfreak asserts here that all members of a population pass on their heritable traits with an equal probability.
Again his facts don't resemble the reality.....
odinata 4 months ago
wow that was a really neat video. i agree that many of the people who are against evolution simply dont understand what it is. a video like this really helps lay it out and makes it more accessible.
keeper253x 4 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This video can be classified as "death by powerpoint". arg. I'm not really sure you are making your point to the people you intend to make it to.
fcsuper 4 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
It is not a fact that reproducing animals evolve into new creatures over time. A catterpillar"evolves" into a butterfly. But can evolution explain how a caterpillar mutates beautiful wings or why it had to? How is it genetically possible for a blue whale to evolve from a deer like land mammal? Ofcourse with computer animation it is. Why would anyone believe the bones in a whales sexual organs as vestigial?They're not legs? How is that science, not science fiction?
jiminiflix 5 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@jiminiflix
"How is it genetically possible for a blue whale to evolve from a deer like land mammal?"
-- How much time do you have? Here is the challenge: you are expecting us to explain, in only 500 characters, what takes science students 4+ years of hard work and studying to understand. Given that expectation of yours, I can understand why it's easier for you to get "Magic-Man-Dun-It" rather than spending 4 years in college to actually educate yourself. So how much time do you have?
ozpowermo 5 months ago
@ozpowermo Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.The imaginary part of the theory of evolution says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection. Conveniently we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slow. pfft!
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix So when do you thinkg a variation stops?
It does not. That is what evolution is. There difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is the time it needs, the amount of generations.
Macro evolution has been observerd in the Lenski experiment. It occurred after about 40000 generations.
Using 25 years for one generation means, 1 million years for the next human "kind".
The oldest fossilised bacteria found is 3.5 billion years old, time for thousands of macro evolutions ;)
M0rdH0rst 4 months ago
@jiminiflix
"What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed..."
-- Oh yeah? Then it should be easy for you to show those limits... please tell us where can we find any such limitation. Exactly what is the limiting factor which says "variation stops here!"
ozpowermo 4 months ago
@ozpowermo Well on what subject?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix
On the subject of "variation within species." You say that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, so I want you to specifically show what is the limiting factor that dictates those limits.
ozpowermo 4 months ago
@ozpowermo Common descent, by definition, rejects the idea that life consists of bounded sets which cannot be bridged by inheritance. DNA is a complex sentence of information and meaningful messages do not arise from random processes.In fact the evidence is so strong that it is stated as the First Law of Information which must be violated in order to explain variation.If we cannot create information through natural forces then common descent cannot be explained either.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix
"Common descent, by definition, rejects the idea that life consists of bounded sets which cannot be bridged by inheritance."
-- Correct, so show the mechanism which prevents one bounded set from diverging into two separate bounded sets. I generally discuss one topic at a time, but: the field of Information Theory has no such thing as "First Law of Information." Define what "information" or "meaningful message" means with respect to DNA...
ozpowermo 4 months ago