Dembski isn't refuting evolution just some of the mechanisims within the theory that supposidly drive it. And even then he's not advocating a supernatural, lightning bolt weilding diety.
All sort of people, especially evolution-proclaimers have their mouth's wide open in that field - not having done scientific reasearch on that at all. That's arrogance. That's blindness.
Of course evolution happened. But there are also are pattern's of intelligence in living creatures and throughout the universe.
What this discussion boils down to are two opposite axiomatic points of faith - is there anything supernatural? Does mind come out of matter or vice versa? Stop being arrogant, peeps!
@GsliMaIiy "Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John." written by whome.! The gospels are anly based on hearsay and are anonamous.!
@GsliMaIiy "(Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.!"
OK have done.
CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.),LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.)
These people weren't born until 100 years after the alleged events. God did not preserve her word very well, or , more likely it was made up hearsay.! ( what decade was jesus born,!
@GsliMaIiy "Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies" he never became a king and lead his people to slavery, that is why his own religion rejected messianic claims. Many of these fullfilments were asserted after the fact. If you say he was born in Bethlehem? When?
1. And how many prophecies did he not fulfill, that were left behind and forgotten because he didn't reach those standards?
2. So? I can say "I AM" as well. Does that make me God? And that is only in one of four books. Why are there four accounts of Jesus' life? Why isn't there just one?
3. We not saying that Jesus couldn't have lived. Sure, he could've been a real person. That doesn't mean that he was the son of God.
@GsliMaIiy 333 prophecies, read the case for christ, by Lee Stroble an Agnostic turn christian by the overwhelming secular evidence from non christian and greek historian with non bias historical recording, Look to all you non believers, it is ok...no judgement here but consider that you have drawn a conclusion based on your already made up mind.....former Agnostic
Yes it would take a shorter time for a sweep if the human population was smaller (say 10,000 individuals), but it would still probably take many thousands of years for one mutation to sweep through the population. To get 100 million mutations in 5 million years, you would have to sweep 20 mutations through the entire population EVERY YEAR! That’s not possible.
They say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor about 5 million years ago, but there are at least 100 million mutations that separate human DNA from chimp DNA. How could you get 100 million mutations to sweep through the whole human population in only 5 million years? Seems like it might take 5 million years just to sweep one mutation through the human population. (CONT)
@ozredneck22 Where do you get the "100 million mutations" number from? I suspect that you made that up and the rest of your argument is based on that assumption. Even one single mutation can have a very profound affect on physiology. Your conclusion of impossibility is much like the topic of this video. The argument from ignorance: since you can't figure out how it was done, it must be impossible, and therefore done by God.
@coolgreyoneabby The 3-4% difference between chimp and human DNA @ 3000000000 base pairs. the conclusion of impossibility comes from Haldane's dilemma, which no evolutionists have yet solved. Based on known mutation rates and population sizes, you cannot get the change that the theory of evolution demands.
God created seperate creatures in the beginning and that is what the "evidence" demonstrates.
@ozredneck22 Looking up "Haldane's Dilemma" revealed: "He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one." It also said that when recalculated with these corrections that the "cost" goes away. Wiki. Also, mutations can also take place in "clumps" that do not need 1 by 1 DNA base pairs mutations, but modified genes that go as groups.
Let’s suppose that today I acquire a beneficial mutation that can be passed on to my children. How long would it take for the beneficial mutation to sweep through the whole human race? Think about it, this mutation would have to be SO beneficial, that MY descendants will out compete the descendants of everyone else in the world, so that eventually everyone in the world is one of MY descendants. How many years would that take? And that is to add ONE beneficial mutation to the human genome (CONT)
it is improbable if a SPECIFIC outcome is targeted, but if ANY outcome is then the chance of it appearing is 100%, and evolution does not have a goal, that it produced us is random chance , but if the probability outcomes had taken a different set of pathways to now, then we would not have been here to see it
@whitesquirrel7 "it is improbable if a SPECIFIC outcome is targeted, but if ANY outcome is then the chance of it appearing is 100%, and evolution does not have a goal," my point exactly with the cards, take 6 random cards and it will be a huge prrobability of getting them, but they are rejected if not a good hand.
How did bacteria or whatever the VERY FIRST organisms ever on earth learn how to reproduce? How did they know they needed to do that to keep their species alive? They don't have brains they can't think about it and because they are the first they cannot evolve to do this which means they started out reproducing yet how did they know to do this? It just doesn't make sense to me
@Starscream2040 "FALLACY, so he says when you accuse someone who disagrees with you, to have an ulterior motive."
The only people that deny evolution are hard line theist. Evolution contridicts what they have been brainwashed to believe.
"
"Statistically, the evolution is impossible."Evolution ( by domestic selection) has rendered us with most of the food we eat, our pets, and racing animals. Take a pack of cards and draw any 10 . Do you know what the odds of getting what you just did are.?
@Starscream2040 "I don't play cards, but it depends on the number of "10s" and the total number of cards" no just any 10 cards from a normal pack of cards.. The odds of what you have done is in the billions I think.!
@Starscream2040 Pick 10 cards out of a pack of ordinay playing cards. The odds of what you have just done is 57,407,703,889,536,000 :1 with 11 its 2,411,123,563,360,510,000 :1 now with all atoms all over the planet combinging every millisecond, these are short odds.!
What is your point? That the probability of getting an specific group of 10 cards is very small, but it's easy just because I took them?
Do you have some sort of step by step program of construction of the cell, the organs, ... and the whole body? what are the probabilities of something doing all those steps once and again and again until the result is what we see around?
@Starscream2040 "until the result is what we see around?" that is the point you miss. You are goal seeking. Most species are extinct. Yes you do a very improbable thing, if it is sustainable it can improve otherwise the hand stacks.
@Starscream2040 " I think we should calculate the probabilities of what we already see." we see AND use evolution everwhere.
"With every step towards the construction of an organisms, the numbers of evolution not happening are bigger " but selection only allows those traits to go forward that allow the organism to breed. Hence you build on what works. There is no goal to say make a fish to start with.
If it doesnt bother you, tell me a little more about your point of view of "goals", I really want to understand your point of view. (Even if it's a little difficult for me because of the language)
@SOAS007 btw evolution and religion can exist together, things for sure evolve, but the extent at which things evolve in my opinion is exaggerated, and people like to speculate a lot instead of trying to determine through observation...making a face from a skull is one method of speculation and trying to fit skulls into the so called "Puzzle" is another speculation with no observed evidence.
@AGLEB87 "btw evolution and religion can exist together," you are right. Most of christianity is not in denial about evolution. Its only the bible literalists. And reading the bible literaly proves it is a man made superstion.
"making a face from a skull is one method of speculation " Yup, but nothing to do with evolution.
first 18 seconds - faded figure on train tracks. I think "who could be stupid enough to walk on train tracts". Camera focuses and I see William Demski. Of COURSE!
@Nikondeweb. Its not like saying "how did that person win the lottery". That happens all the time. You do realize that around 1500 people a year win at least $1million in America. An average of 3-4 a day. Evolution occurs through mutation. 99.9% of mutations are either neutral or harmful to the species. If evolution did occur then we would all be deformed. This is when you say natural selection kicks in. Why would it even have a motive? There is no proof of evolution, only adaptation.
1. You are suggesting that .1% of mutations are beneficial. Even if that were true (its much higher in reality) that is enough, indeed more than enough just as any amount more than 0% is.
2. Natural selection has no 'motive', its merely logic. Species ill equipped to survive die out and those better equipped to survive pass on their stronger genes.
3. Evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt and is a synonym for adaptation
@ProcInc Your source reflects the mutation rate of bacteria. Anyone who has studied genetics would know that bacteria has a completely different mutation rate than humans. In fact, every living organism is has a different mutation rate. Im sorry but your numbers do not apply to this conversation. Nowhere did I abuse any scientific terms.
Would you gamble if you only had a .1% chance of winning? No, of course not. You would lose every time
@lycanthropy2010 can you please source the research that shows that humans have a lower beneficial mutation rate?
Because we are sexually reproducing life forms we actually would have a higher count of beneficial mutations that are selectable due to the sharing of genetic diversity. Bacteria and other nonsexual life forms evolve at a slower rate per generation (but have more generations in any given time)
Your 'gamble' jibe is a total non sequiter, you have yet to justify your .1 percent
@ProcInc "But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences." *H.J. Mullet, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35." How's that for justification?
You honestly can't tell the difference between an article on radiation damage to genetic material and one on the functionality of naturally occurring mutations?
Quote mining, the last refuge of the unscrupulous camp that is creationism..
@ProcInc Plain and simple, if there was enough evidence to prove the theory of evolution then there would be no nationwide debates, articles, arguments etc. The majority of people believe the earth is round due to a true overwhelming amount of proof, yet evolution has not been able to succeed as well in the proof department. There is a reason for this. Lack of evidence.
@lycanthropy2010 "if there was enough evidence to prove the theory of evolution then there would be no nationwide debates, articles, arguments etc. "
There isnt. Outside of political and religious denialists there is no criticism of evolution, especially within the scientific community.
On creationists deny evolution (no matter what else they want to call themselves) and that is the same group that contains flat earthers and geocentrists
@ProcInc The only reason people deny evolution is because of ignorance of it (like you demonstrate). Religious agenda (as you have) and a lack of interest in the practise of science. Evolution is such an exemplary poster boy for science that of course the antiscience rabble is going to want to debate it.
They even have sworn written testaments to this bias.
@ProcInc People (like myself) deny evolution due to the lack of evidence and explanation thereof. I asked you to explain co-evolution. You couldnt. I asked you how the first cell evolved. You didnt know. You see how well your precious theory holds up? You've proven to me that you cannot contain your emotional love affair with evolution. Instead of having a scientific debate, you start to clump people into categories. You get too defensive and I will not waste my time with people like you.
Evolution is the only theory that accounts for anything we see in biology and it explains it all.
You never asked me to explain co-evolution (I could if you like or you could...you know...look it up) nor how the first cell evolved and if I couldn't give a satisfactory answer I could still give a better supported answer than any opponent of evolution has ever offered.
The only scientific debate on evolution is how it happens. There has never been a legitimate scientific challenge
the proportion of donated pairs is always 50% from the female and 50% from the male, which sets are chosen is random , but it is alwasy 50% from each
and only those that live long enought to produce viable offspring themselves are selected for
all the rest are discarded, so it is not totally random selection, but the result of an interplay of random forces producing a result. Dembski's model only works if the roll of the dice is done in isolation
Don't forget about DNA----> what every advocate of Intelligent design fails to recognize is the scientific community embrace of Darwin was fostered by the discovery of DNA. DNA offers so much proof for evolution b/c of its and the predictable sequences homology holds true throughout all living organism, for every gene NOT ONE EXCEPTION
@kaben1979 I think I mentioned gentecis. Wanted it to be 3 G's :-)) Yup it all fits with what we obserbe. Intelligent design... tell that to my dodgy knees.!! :-)
I wouldn't bet on that idea (that there are no exceptions to sequence homology). It has been realized within the last decade of so that different characters (genes, RNA, etc.) within the same organisms (including higher organisms) quite often lie on different phylogenetic trees. That's an example of an exception.
While possible evolutionary explanations exist (LGT, chimerism etc.) it can also be explained as an artefact of ID. So evidence for CD is mostly compatible with ID.
Fraud/L-i-e-s: 1)Archaeoraptor-2000- Bird fossil with dinosaur tail glued on. 2)Nebraska Man-1922-Wild Pig’s tooth. 3)Piltdown Man-modern human skull with jawbone of an orangutan g-l-u-e-d on…4)Rhodesia Man-1921- human skull with features identical to modern blacks [Amazing: finding a fossil of a black guy in Africa]. 5)Ernst Haeckel-1860- Fraudulent “Drawings” of developing ebryos. In 1875 his University held a trial & fired him. 6) etc..
@GsliMaIiy Your examples only show how science is a self correcting mechanism. None of the examples given were exposed by creationists, but rather other scientists who realized some pieces did not fit. These are also exaggerated to make the creationist position look more solid than it really is. Yes there were some mistakes among literally thousands of fossils. Cherry picking a few mistakes that were corrected by science does not add one ounce of evidence for creation.
@stazandjeve "where does the sequence information of dna
originate?
" anthis this not within the scope of the theory of evolution. Similarly Where carbon atoms , or iron atoms originate is not withing the theory of gravity..
@SOAS007 "EVERY fossil ever found fits geologicaly with evolution.
EVERY living thing on this planet fits, geographicically with evoluition.
EVERY think we now know of genetics fits with evolution. NOT ONE EXCEPTION.
not one thing out of place'
Clueless to the enth degree you are. Dont any of the evolutionists study?
EVERY prediction evolution has made has been falsified many times over. Molecular biology is on the threshold of completely falsifying the theory. The Altenberg 16 know this
@lycanthropy2010 Actually, a biologist at my university has allegedly figured out how life arose on earth. Guess what? Turns out god didn't do it. Look him up. Dr. James McInerney from NUI Maynooth. Also, let's just say evolution is wrong for the sake of argument. Tell me how ID works.
@ThePresident001 I just looked up your professor. He's not the first professor to proclaim this, nor are his ideas anything fresh. Think about it. If he truly did figure out how life arose on earth, he would be everywhere: magazines, books, movies, he would be discussed in college class rooms. This is not happening, and he has no proof at all to back up his outdated ideas. “These two primitive single cell life forms came together in an event that essentially allowed nature to grow big.” Wow!
@lycanthropy2010 Actually, he's cancelled all his lectures here for 4 weeks to attend different conferences around the world! So deny what you want because soon you'll be denying the FACT of godless abiogenseis with the Fact OF EVOLUTION. Just one more delusion for you to engage with!
@ProcInc Wow! I think you need to step out of your little box and truly realize the evolution debate that takes place outside of politics, and religion. I cant believe you have the tendency to just label and clump people like that. You are insulting. I could have people email you that dont believe in god nor evolution. But why waste my time?
@lycanthropy2010 "the evolution debate that takes place outside of politics, and religion"
Name one occasion that hasn't been merely a debate over how it happens...
Its easy enough to clump people together because the shoe fits. Whether or not they claim to believe in gods is irrelevent since Raelianism is a religion too and Perrenian Senapathy is an absolute crackpot.
You disbelieve in evolution because of ignorance and religious bias, don't try to pass the buck to 'other people'
@lycanthropy2010 "The majority of people believe the earth is round due to a true overwhelming amount of proof, yet " replace eathe is round with evolution. The only people that say that evolution is not true are those with a religious agenda. A kinda flat earth society.
@ProcInc Dont you realize that the theory of evolution is crumbling? There is no solid proof for it at all. You believe that over time a single cell sprout the complexities of life? There are too many gaps in the fossil record. Evolutionists take skulls from extinct apes and say that this is where man derived from. There are no transitional fossils to prove this. In the entire documented history of man, are there any reports of humans evolving? No. We have always been the same.
@lycanthropy2010 "There are no transitional fossils to prove this."
There are more than enough. It is impossible to deny that honestly
" are there any reports of humans evolving?"
Yes. We haven't been changing into hamsters or anythig if thats what you mean but novel traits have been benefiting larger and larger groups of humans such as tetrachromatic vision, immunity to HIV and various other heritable advantages.
@ProcInc tetrachromatic vision has nothing to do with evolution. This is something that mainly women are just born with and always have been. Just another difference between man and women. That was a horrible example. Roots of AIDS immunity extend back for centuries. This does not make a species evolve into another species. I suppose you are using this to back up natural selection, but this falls short. Another really bad example. Also, its not survival of the fittest, but the smartest.
@lycanthropy2010 Wrong again. Those are all examples of beneficial mutations, that's why I mentioned them. Not to back up natural selection (ther are over 1500 experiments backing that up) nor speciation. We know of the mechanisms that change one species into another and have recorded several examples of speciation .
Its survival of the most adaptable. Don't try to correct one fallacy with another.
@ProcInc Scientists dont believe in the supernatural, but it is hypocritical of them to believe that something simple turned into something so complex that we cant even explain. That is supernatural. Do scientists know why the properties of a cell work? Of course not. They just know that it does work. This is why you cant take individual pieces of a cell, and stick them together in hopes that it will work. Does evolution explain this? Hell no!
Lol I love the irony of this. Everything about biology that we have explained has either supported or relied on evolution. Everything that evolution has not explained has not been able to be explained by anything else!
And this is meant to be an argument AGAINST evolution?
Evolution is the only thing that accounts for anything in biology and it does so extraordinarily, what alternative has matched it?
@ProcInc That is where you are wrong...again. Evolution is not needed at all to explain the fundamentals of biology. In fact, there is usually only one or two chapters in biology text books that discuss evolution. You need evolution to explain thermodynamics? Nope! The Krebs Cycle? Nope! Glycolysis? Nope! These are stand alone processes that dont need evolution dependence. Hmm...Doesn't look like you need it!
@lycanthropy2010 they actually can explain how one cell that can make copies of itself can become more complex, it is not supernatural. and there are no missing links between man and ancient ancestors. you got homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithecus, and so on. that right there is evidence of evolution. and of course in recorded history men havent evoloved because evolution takes MILLIONS OF YEARS. you really have no idea what you're talking about
@ihmen Are you kidding me? You obviously dont know the other side to the story. Scientists have always had a hard time linking these so called "ancestors" with modern humans. Mainly due to the lack of discovery for intermediates in the fossil record. There are hundreds of extinct apes and whenever they find a skull that resembles a human they quickly say its related, only to find out later that it is just another extinct ape.
@ihmen Since evolution takes "millions of years" there is nothing to test or observe. That is not science. You still have not explained how the first cell evolved, nor can you. Scientists cannot explain this, especially since only cells can give rise to new cells. You also cannot explain co-evolution & why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction. There are only just dozens of theories. This is when evolution starts to crumble.
@lycanthropy2010 okay you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution, they're two seperate theories. we have observed micro evolution in a lab and the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. if macro evolution did occur we would expect to find things. like fossils, dormant genes, vestigial limbs and organs. and guess what, we found them. and the reason why organisms stopped reproducing asexually is because it gives a species a higher chance to survive because it mixes the genes
@ProcInc Fact of the matter is, there are a thousand more reasons why evolution cannot and did not occur than why and how it may have. The theory of evolution does not hold its self up anymore and is outdated. Its a fact that only cells can give rise to new cells. Ok then. How did that first cell evolve? Truth is, you nor anyone else can explain that. Don't you see the holes in your precious theory? Open your eyes a little wider and you will see there is so much more than Darwin's idea. -Peace
@lycanthropy2010 Lol the actual fact of the matter is that you are merely attempting to argue from ignorance (I am currently wearing a relevent T shirt to your position: "I see you're playing stupid, looks like you're winning too"). Every argument that entire well funded organisations have attempted to front against evolution has failed.
The article you cited is entirely irrelevent to anything mentioned. HJ Muller was an exemplary researcher into gentic evidence for evolution
@ProcInc "Every argument that entire well funded organisations have attempted to front against evolution has failed." More like the other way around! Due to the significant lack of proof for the theory of evolution, there have been numerous scientists claiming they have discovered the "missing link" when in actuality they are a hoax. You know this. The fact that there have been dozens of missing link hoaxes says it all.
"Its not like saying "how did that person win the lottery". That happens all the time. " That's exactly the point
Beneficial mutations etc happen all the time and yet you try to deny it happens due to retrospective probability. Its an entirely nonsensical argument.
The amount of dishonesty that needs to be injected into arguments against evolution is so unabashadly enormous that we not only have an intellectual compulsion but a moral obligation to address and reject your antiscience agenda
@ProcInc Im sorry, but .1% of beneficial mutations would not be enough to bring forth the complexities of life we see today. Natural selection comes after adaptation. It is not a synonym. And when adaptation does occur, the species remains the same, so no evolution takes place. It's condescending on your end to accuse me have having an anti science agenda when in fact I respect the subject as I am currently majoring in it. Shame on you for being so defensive and belittling.
@lycanthropy2010 "fact I respect the subject as I am currently majoring in it."
and use the term 'only a theory'.
"beneficial mutations would not be enough to bring forth the complexities of life we see today. " broccoli, cauliflower, Kohl rabbi, were all evolved from a wild , weedy cabbage in a very short space of time.
@lycanthropy2010 "That is called genetic engineering, " I seriously worry about your science classes.! genetics didn't exist until a few years ago. It is EVOLUTION by domestic selection. genetic engineering is quite different.!
@lycanthropy2010 "Evolution occurs through mutation. 99.9% of mutations are either neutral or harmful to the species" If they are hanmful enoough to stop us reproducing then those mutations cannot be carried forward.! Life born with so serious a defect doesn't get to pass on those mutations .Simples.!
@SOAS007 I'm beginning to wonder about your experience in biology. When mutations do occur hey are usually repaired and corrected. When its not corrected it can lead to a harmful mutation or no change will occur. It is definitely not harmful enough to stop life as a whole reproducing. This is another complex feature organisms possess and is another reason why macro evolution cannot occur. Even Darwin himself knew evolution was just a theory. Relax my boy.
@lycanthropy2010 " Even Darwin himself knew evolution was just a theory" ha ha. thats an oxymoran , bit like religious tollerance. It betrays your understanding of the word 'theory'. If you don't even know what a scientific theory is , do you think you are qualified to not accept its findings.
@lycanthropy2010 "Let me rephrase so you can understand. Darwin knew that he couldn't PROVE macro evolution." It worries me that you claim to 'major' in science. The highest form is theory, where all evidence fits it and ecen though it is falsifiable , no evidence does. 'macro evolution is' ...? micro evolution. many times simple.! This can be demonstrated. What more do you need.!
1.I believe in evolution, but it almost seems as if a higher being might sometimes tinker with things.
2. Creating evolution, would not be beyond the means of a 'god'.
3. We see selection everytime we breed a new plant, dog, cat, or see a new drug resistant super bug, though this is 'unnatural' selection, but the process is the same......
Its like saying how did that 1 person win the lottery? They did because of the countless others that didn’t win. How has earth got life, because billions of other planets don’t. Earth underwent natural selection.
Life didn't evolve by chance.. why is do creationists always present that as an evolutionist's factoid? Evolution happened out of necessity, not by chance. E.g., dodo birds couldn't fly, they went extinct. Flying helped birds get food, escape danger, etc. Cougars needed to be fast so they could catch gazelles, so they ran and ran and ran and passed the trait to their young. Now all cougars are fast. Make sense? I'm almost out of room here.
@cheesycont if a dodo could fly away, do you think it would have been so easy for them to go extinct? That is my point. And yeah.. I was just using that as an example. You can easily replace cougar with any of the big cats. :)
@neltod ur missing the point its a bad example -we killied out the dodo's thats not natural selection -the moa bird of australia would be a better choice of words im just tryin to help ur argument
@cheesycont No, I get it.. I just don't really care. Plus, I didn't say natural selection. Plus, I asked a question, that you ignored. Whatever. Words are just words, the principal of my model is valid.
@cheesycont Seriously, if you are going to try to talk about evolution at least educate yourself so you don't look like a moron. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, it is NOT evolution. Saying natural selection is evolution is like saying that a fuel injection system is a car.
@SOAS007 Natural selection gives the thumbs up or the thumbs down on variation. Variations with the thumbs up leads to evolution if it spreads through out the species
Associated Press 6:20 p.m. PT, Tues., Dec . 20, 2005
A federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching intelligent design in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
These diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.
@StraightOuttaDC So the fact that early in the biological history of Earth, there were more diverse bauplans, and as the ages past only a few were capable of diversifying and adapting successfully is somehow evidence that they were created? This only strengthens the claims of evolution as the continuity is what you would expect. a random new bauplan with no ancestral lineage suddenly appearing would be in favor of Creation, not evolution.
It is a common Creationist trick to pretend that Abiogenesis suggests that proteins were formed from some sort of chemical 'bingo ball', with amino acids being mixed randomly one by one, and then 'tested' against modern proteins.
This, of course, is rhetorical nonsense. Of all the many theories of abiogenesis, not one of them suggests this kind of protein generation. Dembski completely ignores proteinoidal growth, and the possibility of precursor steps.
Yet ANOTHER theory to prop up Darwinism? This is getting ridiculous.
Either come up with REAL proof (and this doesn't mean find a bone fragment then draw some monkey/man hybrid only to have it proven false like the other forgeries before it) or simply admit that we don't fucking know the origin of human beings.
This shit is so full of holes that debating it is almost useless. If anyone is using a trick, it's Darwinist.
Who mentioned Darwinism? I'm talking about the Origin of Life, not the process which accounts for the variety of life. It's a common Creationist mistake to mix these two up, but let me describe these: the Theory of Evolution addresses the patterns found in comparisons of different life forms on earth, and describes the history of life on earth after life started. Abiogenesis is not the same thing: it addresses the formation of the first life itself.
From what I've read there is some good evidence for each step of the suggested path to abiogenesis (simple chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> protocell ). However, I'll be the first to say that there's not near enough evidence to graduate Abiogenesis to the level of 'Theory'... for one, scientists would need to decide between the protein-first hypothesis and the RNA-first hypothesis.
You could have just said that we don't know whether the Chicken or the Egg came first and spared us all the diatribe. That's essentially what you just said.
@StraightOuttaDC. No, that is a gross oversimplification of what he said. You took years of significant research, many peer-reviewed publications, and pretended they were some sort of guessing game.
@StraightOuttaDC. No, that is a gross oversimplification of what he said. You took years of significant research, many peer-reviewed publications, and pretended they were some sort of guessing game.
I take it from your comment that you don't know what the protein-first or RNA-first hypothesis actually say.
The difference between these two models and the "Chicken and Egg" riddle is that each of these models has substantial evidence and research to back it up. A brief review of any serious textbook on the subject can explain the findings to you, but in the meantime you make a mockery of Sidney Fox's and Cech and Altman's work (which won the latter pair a Nobel Prize).
@StraightOuttaDC. So nested hierarchies are a trick? Genetics is a trick, as is comparative biology, atavisms, retroviruses, observed examples of speciation, and human chromosomal fusion? Why don't you look at the one hundred fifty years of evidence that has not one single refutation before you ignorantly claim there is no evidence.
@StraightOuttaDC How was this in anyway a trick? It's statistical interpretation. Dembski pretends that life must to be the way it is today, no other possibilities. This is a false assumption of teleology. Are atavisms a trick, human chromosomal fusion, retroviruses, accurate nested hierarchies, 150 years of the fossil record not being refuted, all tricks?
"I've now become convinced that he's just an idiot who's able to throw around mathematical jargon without understanding it." Well said for someone who calls the very things he doesnt understand jargon, and some how claims to know others dont understand either by some magical sudden understanding of the "..um ..uh ...stupid jargon". Thanks for showing just what tool you are.
@CrownIdeas. That life had to be as we see it is now. They impose a teleology, that humanity for existence has to exist, then try to back calculate the odds of humanity evolving. The assumption that the history of life on this planet has some purpose in bringing forth the current state of living things is a ridiculous assumption.
@karmiolz What is so ridiculous about assuming we exist as we do now. You are making truth statements with nothing to back them up. We assume it has purpose becaused the philosophical ascertion of first causes. It is perfectly logical to assume purpose in things that at least appear to be existing in a functional state. I would say it is more logical that chimpanzee's evolved from humans than humans from chimpanzees. From what we can observe things always head in a downward direction.
@CrownIdeas. No we see weather patterns of increased complexity daily. Your assumption that humanity has to exist is completely without proof. Humans do not have to exist anymore than lions have to exist. They simply do exist. It is also not perfectly logical to assign agency to matter. If a rock rolls down a hill, is it because the rock intended to, or because of the natural forces at work.
Is explanation only reinforces Dembski's arguement. Cards only contain one value and there is 52 of them. And yet where did those cards come from? We get variations of sequences when we shuffle them but do we really get new information? And what if someone pockets all the face cards? Will we a millions shuffles from now get a royal flush?
You've made an ascertion with no explanation. Is not the debate on how it all works... Miller made a simple analogy. And I used the analogy to rebut his conclusion. Is it a bad analagy that Miller used to begin with? Yes, to support his point of view it is.
If your none face cards slowly morphed into face cards with each shuffle, like how natural selection picks the best mutants, you would easily get a royal flush. Yes, it was a bad analogy and that is why I told you good try.
mutation are a reshuffling or loss of information. If the data in the dna a code becomes too currupted the creature won't live. Yu kan reed thes dspite da spelin erors rite? Well too many errors and no more code. Or maybe too many missing letters. Or in this case too many missing face cards and no royal flush. A selection process like natural selection needs something to select.
I'll concide I myself do not know the process here. But if your statement is correct, how do you explain new information that bacteria have which alows them to eat nylon.
They probably always had the ability too eat nylon even before nylon was developed. They have found bacteria in ice that is suppose to be thousands of years old that is resistant to antibiotics. You know there was a time when crows didn't eat road kill. But now that there isn't as many corn feilds they eat whatever they can I suppose. This is kinda anectotal but I think it applies. There is also a lion raised in captivity that has never eaten meat.
Actually they didn't, it resulted from something called gene shift. It creates new genes from old ones. Also, antibiotics were around before humans. It's called fungi. Crows have always eaten dead animals, it's just a new way the animals die. A lion that hasn't eaten meat doesn't matter, the nutrients are all thats important to the lion.
Actually thats not all together true.. Some antibiotics were developed from mold like penecillin but there are today most likely synthesized anti-biotic completely produced in a lab just like nylon is man-made.
Don't you think nylon is also similar to naturally occuring fabrics or compounds? Do You think man came up with something completely unique from nature? By the way Alexander Fleming(the discoverier of Penicillin realized right away that bactieria became resistance when u used too little or took penicillin too short of a time. It is pure natural selection. Selecting out the bacteria without resistance. But apparently that resistance was in the population all along. thats why u take em 10 days
The whole nylon eating bacteria was repeated in laboratory but with a different bacteria, this time on the Pseudomonas and it also developted a way to digest nylon based materials (when no other source of food was around) except without using the nylonase but a whole different way. Those Pseudomonas were grown in lab to make sure they never came into contact with nylon.
Also, nylon is man made, there are no similar materials found in nature.
Actually Neo-darwinist are what moderm evolutionary scientist call themselves. I believe Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins would call themselves Neo-Darwin... They still believe in evolution but realize Charle's theory was a little too simple. So new mechanisms and theories have been proposed besides slow gradual natural selection. For instance Gould's punctuated equilibrium. Your vulgar launguage shows your ignorance as much as the rest of your statement.
I was just having a little fun with yeah, I know all about Dawkins, and Gould kid. What new mechanismsm and theories have been proposed besides natural selection. Your makeing thinks up, or have been totally misinformed. Sorry for the langauge didn't know words hurt you kid. I can't believe you fell for that I.E. scam. how much money did Hovind make off you, before he got locked up. LOL. Im sorry I have to be rude its the only thing you freaks know.
Are you serious? I have to tell you what your sides position is? Well Ok. How about mutation caused by endogenous retro viruses. This is one of the newest mechanisms proposed. And punctuated equilibrium is the theory that under certain circumstances organisms must be able to evolve very quickly. Gould came to that conclusion because so called complex organism all of a sudden appear in the so called fossil record fully formed. Who is making stuff up? Would you even know if someone was?
I WAS a theistic evolutionist if there's such thing as an evolutionist. The bible drove me from theism. I might become a buddhist though that changes nothing..
ironically, creationists are even more evidence attesting that there is no god...
hempartist420 4 months ago
Dembski isn't refuting evolution just some of the mechanisims within the theory that supposidly drive it. And even then he's not advocating a supernatural, lightning bolt weilding diety.
RTyp06 4 months ago
All sort of people, especially evolution-proclaimers have their mouth's wide open in that field - not having done scientific reasearch on that at all. That's arrogance. That's blindness.
Of course evolution happened. But there are also are pattern's of intelligence in living creatures and throughout the universe.
What this discussion boils down to are two opposite axiomatic points of faith - is there anything supernatural? Does mind come out of matter or vice versa? Stop being arrogant, peeps!
Torrriate 6 months ago
How The First Cell Was Formed
mediatheek . thinkquest . nl /~ll125/en/life-2.htm
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
Oh, evolution is still denied? I thought we accepted that decades ago.
Religious people? Oh, I see.
Solatee 7 months ago
...but it's not random.
thrillzonevideos 7 months ago
Jesus Christ Is God
1. Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Micah 5:2; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
Ex: “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy "Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John." written by whome.! The gospels are anly based on hearsay and are anonamous.!
SOAS007 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy "Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament." some of which was written in the 13th century.!
SOAS007 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy "(Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.!"
OK have done.
CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.),LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.)
These people weren't born until 100 years after the alleged events. God did not preserve her word very well, or , more likely it was made up hearsay.! ( what decade was jesus born,!
SOAS007 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy "Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies" he never became a king and lead his people to slavery, that is why his own religion rejected messianic claims. Many of these fullfilments were asserted after the fact. If you say he was born in Bethlehem? When?
SOAS007 9 months ago
@GsliMaIiy The topic here is intelligent design, not if Jesus is God or not.
This video topic: We have evidence that intelligent design claims are not substantiated.
You: Jesus is LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!.
Us; Excuse me, but we are discussing an different topic here. The fixated religious zealot meeting is across the street.
coolgreyoneabby 9 months ago
@GsliMaIiy
1. And how many prophecies did he not fulfill, that were left behind and forgotten because he didn't reach those standards?
2. So? I can say "I AM" as well. Does that make me God? And that is only in one of four books. Why are there four accounts of Jesus' life? Why isn't there just one?
3. We not saying that Jesus couldn't have lived. Sure, he could've been a real person. That doesn't mean that he was the son of God.
AuraHero 9 months ago
@GsliMaIiy 333 prophecies, read the case for christ, by Lee Stroble an Agnostic turn christian by the overwhelming secular evidence from non christian and greek historian with non bias historical recording, Look to all you non believers, it is ok...no judgement here but consider that you have drawn a conclusion based on your already made up mind.....former Agnostic
stazandjeve 9 months ago
@GsliMaliy i was agreeing with you btw...lol
stazandjeve 9 months ago
@stazandjeve the christian church has historically been masters of revisionism. How many times have these prophecies been re-written?
qualityrkc 6 months ago
Yes it would take a shorter time for a sweep if the human population was smaller (say 10,000 individuals), but it would still probably take many thousands of years for one mutation to sweep through the population. To get 100 million mutations in 5 million years, you would have to sweep 20 mutations through the entire population EVERY YEAR! That’s not possible.
ozredneck22 10 months ago
They say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor about 5 million years ago, but there are at least 100 million mutations that separate human DNA from chimp DNA. How could you get 100 million mutations to sweep through the whole human population in only 5 million years? Seems like it might take 5 million years just to sweep one mutation through the human population. (CONT)
ozredneck22 10 months ago
@ozredneck22 Where do you get the "100 million mutations" number from? I suspect that you made that up and the rest of your argument is based on that assumption. Even one single mutation can have a very profound affect on physiology. Your conclusion of impossibility is much like the topic of this video. The argument from ignorance: since you can't figure out how it was done, it must be impossible, and therefore done by God.
coolgreyoneabby 9 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby The 3-4% difference between chimp and human DNA @ 3000000000 base pairs. the conclusion of impossibility comes from Haldane's dilemma, which no evolutionists have yet solved. Based on known mutation rates and population sizes, you cannot get the change that the theory of evolution demands.
God created seperate creatures in the beginning and that is what the "evidence" demonstrates.
ozredneck22 9 months ago
@ozredneck22 Looking up "Haldane's Dilemma" revealed: "He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one." It also said that when recalculated with these corrections that the "cost" goes away. Wiki. Also, mutations can also take place in "clumps" that do not need 1 by 1 DNA base pairs mutations, but modified genes that go as groups.
coolgreyoneabby 9 months ago
Let’s suppose that today I acquire a beneficial mutation that can be passed on to my children. How long would it take for the beneficial mutation to sweep through the whole human race? Think about it, this mutation would have to be SO beneficial, that MY descendants will out compete the descendants of everyone else in the world, so that eventually everyone in the world is one of MY descendants. How many years would that take? And that is to add ONE beneficial mutation to the human genome (CONT)
ozredneck22 10 months ago
they really cant get it
it is improbable if a SPECIFIC outcome is targeted, but if ANY outcome is then the chance of it appearing is 100%, and evolution does not have a goal, that it produced us is random chance , but if the probability outcomes had taken a different set of pathways to now, then we would not have been here to see it
moreover evolution is not random
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
@whitesquirrel7 "it is improbable if a SPECIFIC outcome is targeted, but if ANY outcome is then the chance of it appearing is 100%, and evolution does not have a goal," my point exactly with the cards, take 6 random cards and it will be a huge prrobability of getting them, but they are rejected if not a good hand.
SOAS007 1 year ago
Umm he didn't disprove anything he simply cast doubt on the way this gentleman was calculating the odds.
robdmccoy 1 year ago
How did bacteria or whatever the VERY FIRST organisms ever on earth learn how to reproduce? How did they know they needed to do that to keep their species alive? They don't have brains they can't think about it and because they are the first they cannot evolve to do this which means they started out reproducing yet how did they know to do this? It just doesn't make sense to me
metallica4169 1 year ago
Denying evolution is like denying the earth orbits the sun. And the motivation for this seems to correlate with religious supwerstitions.
SOAS007 1 year ago 10
@SOAS007
FALACIA, asi se le dice cuando acusas a alguien que no esta de acuerdo contigo, de tener un motivo oculto.
Estadisticamente, la evolucion es imposible.
Starscream2040 1 year ago
@Starscream2040 "FALLACY, so he says when you accuse someone who disagrees with you, to have an ulterior motive."
The only people that deny evolution are hard line theist. Evolution contridicts what they have been brainwashed to believe.
"
"Statistically, the evolution is impossible."Evolution ( by domestic selection) has rendered us with most of the food we eat, our pets, and racing animals. Take a pack of cards and draw any 10 . Do you know what the odds of getting what you just did are.?
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007
I don't play cards, but it depends on the number of "10s" and the total number of cards
Starscream2040 1 year ago
@Starscream2040 "I don't play cards, but it depends on the number of "10s" and the total number of cards" no just any 10 cards from a normal pack of cards.. The odds of what you have done is in the billions I think.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@Starscream2040 Pick 10 cards out of a pack of ordinay playing cards. The odds of what you have just done is 57,407,703,889,536,000 :1 with 11 its 2,411,123,563,360,510,000 :1 now with all atoms all over the planet combinging every millisecond, these are short odds.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007
What is your point? That the probability of getting an specific group of 10 cards is very small, but it's easy just because I took them?
Do you have some sort of step by step program of construction of the cell, the organs, ... and the whole body? what are the probabilities of something doing all those steps once and again and again until the result is what we see around?
Starscream2040 1 year ago
@Starscream2040 "until the result is what we see around?" that is the point you miss. You are goal seeking. Most species are extinct. Yes you do a very improbable thing, if it is sustainable it can improve otherwise the hand stacks.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007
I have to, because I think we should calculate the probabilities of what we already see.
A deck of cards is a very small number yet there are a big number of possible combinations of 10's
With every step towards the construction of an organisms, the numbers of evolution not happening are bigger and bigger and bigger and Bigger
Starscream2040 1 year ago
@Starscream2040 " I think we should calculate the probabilities of what we already see." we see AND use evolution everwhere.
"With every step towards the construction of an organisms, the numbers of evolution not happening are bigger " but selection only allows those traits to go forward that allow the organism to breed. Hence you build on what works. There is no goal to say make a fish to start with.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007
If it doesnt bother you, tell me a little more about your point of view of "goals", I really want to understand your point of view. (Even if it's a little difficult for me because of the language)
Starscream2040 1 year ago
@SOAS007 btw evolution and religion can exist together, things for sure evolve, but the extent at which things evolve in my opinion is exaggerated, and people like to speculate a lot instead of trying to determine through observation...making a face from a skull is one method of speculation and trying to fit skulls into the so called "Puzzle" is another speculation with no observed evidence.
AGLEB87 11 months ago
@AGLEB87 "btw evolution and religion can exist together," you are right. Most of christianity is not in denial about evolution. Its only the bible literalists. And reading the bible literaly proves it is a man made superstion.
"making a face from a skull is one method of speculation " Yup, but nothing to do with evolution.
SOAS007 11 months ago
first 18 seconds - faded figure on train tracks. I think "who could be stupid enough to walk on train tracts". Camera focuses and I see William Demski. Of COURSE!
phantomspellchecker 1 year ago
Comment removed
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@Nikondeweb. Its not like saying "how did that person win the lottery". That happens all the time. You do realize that around 1500 people a year win at least $1million in America. An average of 3-4 a day. Evolution occurs through mutation. 99.9% of mutations are either neutral or harmful to the species. If evolution did occur then we would all be deformed. This is when you say natural selection kicks in. Why would it even have a motive? There is no proof of evolution, only adaptation.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 Creationists are so exhasperatingly silly.
1. You are suggesting that .1% of mutations are beneficial. Even if that were true (its much higher in reality) that is enough, indeed more than enough just as any amount more than 0% is.
2. Natural selection has no 'motive', its merely logic. Species ill equipped to survive die out and those better equipped to survive pass on their stronger genes.
3. Evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt and is a synonym for adaptation
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Your source reflects the mutation rate of bacteria. Anyone who has studied genetics would know that bacteria has a completely different mutation rate than humans. In fact, every living organism is has a different mutation rate. Im sorry but your numbers do not apply to this conversation. Nowhere did I abuse any scientific terms.
Would you gamble if you only had a .1% chance of winning? No, of course not. You would lose every time
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 can you please source the research that shows that humans have a lower beneficial mutation rate?
Because we are sexually reproducing life forms we actually would have a higher count of beneficial mutations that are selectable due to the sharing of genetic diversity. Bacteria and other nonsexual life forms evolve at a slower rate per generation (but have more generations in any given time)
Your 'gamble' jibe is a total non sequiter, you have yet to justify your .1 percent
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences." *H.J. Mullet, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35." How's that for justification?
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 "How's that for justification?"
You honestly can't tell the difference between an article on radiation damage to genetic material and one on the functionality of naturally occurring mutations?
Quote mining, the last refuge of the unscrupulous camp that is creationism..
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Plain and simple, if there was enough evidence to prove the theory of evolution then there would be no nationwide debates, articles, arguments etc. The majority of people believe the earth is round due to a true overwhelming amount of proof, yet evolution has not been able to succeed as well in the proof department. There is a reason for this. Lack of evidence.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 "if there was enough evidence to prove the theory of evolution then there would be no nationwide debates, articles, arguments etc. "
There isnt. Outside of political and religious denialists there is no criticism of evolution, especially within the scientific community.
On creationists deny evolution (no matter what else they want to call themselves) and that is the same group that contains flat earthers and geocentrists
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc The only reason people deny evolution is because of ignorance of it (like you demonstrate). Religious agenda (as you have) and a lack of interest in the practise of science. Evolution is such an exemplary poster boy for science that of course the antiscience rabble is going to want to debate it.
They even have sworn written testaments to this bias.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc People (like myself) deny evolution due to the lack of evidence and explanation thereof. I asked you to explain co-evolution. You couldnt. I asked you how the first cell evolved. You didnt know. You see how well your precious theory holds up? You've proven to me that you cannot contain your emotional love affair with evolution. Instead of having a scientific debate, you start to clump people into categories. You get too defensive and I will not waste my time with people like you.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
Evolution is the only theory that accounts for anything we see in biology and it explains it all.
You never asked me to explain co-evolution (I could if you like or you could...you know...look it up) nor how the first cell evolved and if I couldn't give a satisfactory answer I could still give a better supported answer than any opponent of evolution has ever offered.
The only scientific debate on evolution is how it happens. There has never been a legitimate scientific challenge
ProcInc 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 "People (like myself) deny evolution due to the lack of evidence and explanation thereof"
EVERY fossil ever found fits geologicaly with evolution.
EVERY living thing on this planet fits, geographicically with evoluition.
EVERY think we now know of genetics fits with evolution. NOT ONE EXCEPTION.
not one thing out of place.
SOAS007 1 year ago 6
@SOAS007 Evolution is not random because
the proportion of donated pairs is always 50% from the female and 50% from the male, which sets are chosen is random , but it is alwasy 50% from each
and only those that live long enought to produce viable offspring themselves are selected for
all the rest are discarded, so it is not totally random selection, but the result of an interplay of random forces producing a result. Dembski's model only works if the roll of the dice is done in isolation
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
@SOAS007
Don't forget about DNA----> what every advocate of Intelligent design fails to recognize is the scientific community embrace of Darwin was fostered by the discovery of DNA. DNA offers so much proof for evolution b/c of its and the predictable sequences homology holds true throughout all living organism, for every gene NOT ONE EXCEPTION
kaben1979 11 months ago
@kaben1979 I think I mentioned gentecis. Wanted it to be 3 G's :-)) Yup it all fits with what we obserbe. Intelligent design... tell that to my dodgy knees.!! :-)
SOAS007 11 months ago
@kaben1979
I wouldn't bet on that idea (that there are no exceptions to sequence homology). It has been realized within the last decade of so that different characters (genes, RNA, etc.) within the same organisms (including higher organisms) quite often lie on different phylogenetic trees. That's an example of an exception.
While possible evolutionary explanations exist (LGT, chimerism etc.) it can also be explained as an artefact of ID. So evidence for CD is mostly compatible with ID.
tubewatch59 11 months ago
Comment removed
kaben1979 11 months ago
@SOAS007 "not one thing out of place...
Fraud/L-i-e-s: 1)Archaeoraptor-2000- Bird fossil with dinosaur tail glued on. 2)Nebraska Man-1922-Wild Pig’s tooth. 3)Piltdown Man-modern human skull with jawbone of an orangutan g-l-u-e-d on…4)Rhodesia Man-1921- human skull with features identical to modern blacks [Amazing: finding a fossil of a black guy in Africa]. 5)Ernst Haeckel-1860- Fraudulent “Drawings” of developing ebryos. In 1875 his University held a trial & fired him. 6) etc..
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy Hoaxs have no bearing on evidence.
SOAS007 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy Your examples only show how science is a self correcting mechanism. None of the examples given were exposed by creationists, but rather other scientists who realized some pieces did not fit. These are also exaggerated to make the creationist position look more solid than it really is. Yes there were some mistakes among literally thousands of fossils. Cherry picking a few mistakes that were corrected by science does not add one ounce of evidence for creation.
coolgreyoneabby 9 months ago
@SOAS007 wrong! where does the sequence information of dna
originate?
stazandjeve 9 months ago
@stazandjeve "where does the sequence information of dna
originate?
" anthis this not within the scope of the theory of evolution. Similarly Where carbon atoms , or iron atoms originate is not withing the theory of gravity..
SOAS007 9 months ago
@stazandjeve "where does the sequence information of dna
originate?
" this not within the scope of the theory of evolution. Similarly Where carbon atoms , or iron atoms originate is not withing the theory of gravity..
SOAS007 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SOAS007 "EVERY fossil ever found fits geologicaly with evolution.
EVERY living thing on this planet fits, geographicically with evoluition.
EVERY think we now know of genetics fits with evolution. NOT ONE EXCEPTION.
not one thing out of place'
Clueless to the enth degree you are. Dont any of the evolutionists study?
EVERY prediction evolution has made has been falsified many times over. Molecular biology is on the threshold of completely falsifying the theory. The Altenberg 16 know this
toobsucker 7 months ago
@lycanthropy2010 Actually, a biologist at my university has allegedly figured out how life arose on earth. Guess what? Turns out god didn't do it. Look him up. Dr. James McInerney from NUI Maynooth. Also, let's just say evolution is wrong for the sake of argument. Tell me how ID works.
ThePresident001 1 year ago
@ThePresident001 I just looked up your professor. He's not the first professor to proclaim this, nor are his ideas anything fresh. Think about it. If he truly did figure out how life arose on earth, he would be everywhere: magazines, books, movies, he would be discussed in college class rooms. This is not happening, and he has no proof at all to back up his outdated ideas. “These two primitive single cell life forms came together in an event that essentially allowed nature to grow big.” Wow!
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 Actually, he's cancelled all his lectures here for 4 weeks to attend different conferences around the world! So deny what you want because soon you'll be denying the FACT of godless abiogenseis with the Fact OF EVOLUTION. Just one more delusion for you to engage with!
ThePresident001 1 year ago
@ProcInc Wow! I think you need to step out of your little box and truly realize the evolution debate that takes place outside of politics, and religion. I cant believe you have the tendency to just label and clump people like that. You are insulting. I could have people email you that dont believe in god nor evolution. But why waste my time?
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lycanthropy2010 "the evolution debate that takes place outside of politics, and religion"
Name one occasion that hasn't been merely a debate over how it happens...
Its easy enough to clump people together because the shoe fits. Whether or not they claim to believe in gods is irrelevent since Raelianism is a religion too and Perrenian Senapathy is an absolute crackpot.
You disbelieve in evolution because of ignorance and religious bias, don't try to pass the buck to 'other people'
ProcInc 1 year ago 5
@lycanthropy2010 "The majority of people believe the earth is round due to a true overwhelming amount of proof, yet " replace eathe is round with evolution. The only people that say that evolution is not true are those with a religious agenda. A kinda flat earth society.
SOAS007 10 months ago
@ProcInc Dont you realize that the theory of evolution is crumbling? There is no solid proof for it at all. You believe that over time a single cell sprout the complexities of life? There are too many gaps in the fossil record. Evolutionists take skulls from extinct apes and say that this is where man derived from. There are no transitional fossils to prove this. In the entire documented history of man, are there any reports of humans evolving? No. We have always been the same.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 "There are no transitional fossils to prove this."
There are more than enough. It is impossible to deny that honestly
" are there any reports of humans evolving?"
Yes. We haven't been changing into hamsters or anythig if thats what you mean but novel traits have been benefiting larger and larger groups of humans such as tetrachromatic vision, immunity to HIV and various other heritable advantages.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc tetrachromatic vision has nothing to do with evolution. This is something that mainly women are just born with and always have been. Just another difference between man and women. That was a horrible example. Roots of AIDS immunity extend back for centuries. This does not make a species evolve into another species. I suppose you are using this to back up natural selection, but this falls short. Another really bad example. Also, its not survival of the fittest, but the smartest.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 Wrong again. Those are all examples of beneficial mutations, that's why I mentioned them. Not to back up natural selection (ther are over 1500 experiments backing that up) nor speciation. We know of the mechanisms that change one species into another and have recorded several examples of speciation .
Its survival of the most adaptable. Don't try to correct one fallacy with another.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Scientists dont believe in the supernatural, but it is hypocritical of them to believe that something simple turned into something so complex that we cant even explain. That is supernatural. Do scientists know why the properties of a cell work? Of course not. They just know that it does work. This is why you cant take individual pieces of a cell, and stick them together in hopes that it will work. Does evolution explain this? Hell no!
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
"you nor anyone else can explain that."
Lol I love the irony of this. Everything about biology that we have explained has either supported or relied on evolution. Everything that evolution has not explained has not been able to be explained by anything else!
And this is meant to be an argument AGAINST evolution?
Evolution is the only thing that accounts for anything in biology and it does so extraordinarily, what alternative has matched it?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc That is where you are wrong...again. Evolution is not needed at all to explain the fundamentals of biology. In fact, there is usually only one or two chapters in biology text books that discuss evolution. You need evolution to explain thermodynamics? Nope! The Krebs Cycle? Nope! Glycolysis? Nope! These are stand alone processes that dont need evolution dependence. Hmm...Doesn't look like you need it!
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 they actually can explain how one cell that can make copies of itself can become more complex, it is not supernatural. and there are no missing links between man and ancient ancestors. you got homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithecus, and so on. that right there is evidence of evolution. and of course in recorded history men havent evoloved because evolution takes MILLIONS OF YEARS. you really have no idea what you're talking about
ihmen 1 year ago
@ihmen Are you kidding me? You obviously dont know the other side to the story. Scientists have always had a hard time linking these so called "ancestors" with modern humans. Mainly due to the lack of discovery for intermediates in the fossil record. There are hundreds of extinct apes and whenever they find a skull that resembles a human they quickly say its related, only to find out later that it is just another extinct ape.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@ihmen Since evolution takes "millions of years" there is nothing to test or observe. That is not science. You still have not explained how the first cell evolved, nor can you. Scientists cannot explain this, especially since only cells can give rise to new cells. You also cannot explain co-evolution & why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction. There are only just dozens of theories. This is when evolution starts to crumble.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 okay you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution, they're two seperate theories. we have observed micro evolution in a lab and the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. if macro evolution did occur we would expect to find things. like fossils, dormant genes, vestigial limbs and organs. and guess what, we found them. and the reason why organisms stopped reproducing asexually is because it gives a species a higher chance to survive because it mixes the genes
ihmen 1 year ago
@ProcInc Fact of the matter is, there are a thousand more reasons why evolution cannot and did not occur than why and how it may have. The theory of evolution does not hold its self up anymore and is outdated. Its a fact that only cells can give rise to new cells. Ok then. How did that first cell evolve? Truth is, you nor anyone else can explain that. Don't you see the holes in your precious theory? Open your eyes a little wider and you will see there is so much more than Darwin's idea. -Peace
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 Lol the actual fact of the matter is that you are merely attempting to argue from ignorance (I am currently wearing a relevent T shirt to your position: "I see you're playing stupid, looks like you're winning too"). Every argument that entire well funded organisations have attempted to front against evolution has failed.
The article you cited is entirely irrelevent to anything mentioned. HJ Muller was an exemplary researcher into gentic evidence for evolution
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "Every argument that entire well funded organisations have attempted to front against evolution has failed." More like the other way around! Due to the significant lack of proof for the theory of evolution, there have been numerous scientists claiming they have discovered the "missing link" when in actuality they are a hoax. You know this. The fact that there have been dozens of missing link hoaxes says it all.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
"Its not like saying "how did that person win the lottery". That happens all the time. " That's exactly the point
Beneficial mutations etc happen all the time and yet you try to deny it happens due to retrospective probability. Its an entirely nonsensical argument.
The amount of dishonesty that needs to be injected into arguments against evolution is so unabashadly enormous that we not only have an intellectual compulsion but a moral obligation to address and reject your antiscience agenda
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Im sorry, but .1% of beneficial mutations would not be enough to bring forth the complexities of life we see today. Natural selection comes after adaptation. It is not a synonym. And when adaptation does occur, the species remains the same, so no evolution takes place. It's condescending on your end to accuse me have having an anti science agenda when in fact I respect the subject as I am currently majoring in it. Shame on you for being so defensive and belittling.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 "fact I respect the subject as I am currently majoring in it."
and use the term 'only a theory'.
"beneficial mutations would not be enough to bring forth the complexities of life we see today. " broccoli, cauliflower, Kohl rabbi, were all evolved from a wild , weedy cabbage in a very short space of time.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 That is called genetic engineering, not evolution.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lycanthropy2010 "That is called genetic engineering, " I seriously worry about your science classes.! genetics didn't exist until a few years ago. It is EVOLUTION by domestic selection. genetic engineering is quite different.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010
1. 0.1% is more than enough, any number more than zero would be
2. The actual percentage is far far more than 0.1%. It is in fact one in 150 newly arising mutations and 10% of functional mutations (Perfeito, 2007)
3. Adaptation itself must come from beneficial mutations, you must have blinded yourself to that when you used the word "adaptation"
4. Selective abuse and misuse of scientific terms is far from respect of the subject.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Comment removed
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 "Evolution occurs through mutation. 99.9% of mutations are either neutral or harmful to the species" If they are hanmful enoough to stop us reproducing then those mutations cannot be carried forward.! Life born with so serious a defect doesn't get to pass on those mutations .Simples.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 I'm beginning to wonder about your experience in biology. When mutations do occur hey are usually repaired and corrected. When its not corrected it can lead to a harmful mutation or no change will occur. It is definitely not harmful enough to stop life as a whole reproducing. This is another complex feature organisms possess and is another reason why macro evolution cannot occur. Even Darwin himself knew evolution was just a theory. Relax my boy.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 " Even Darwin himself knew evolution was just a theory" ha ha. thats an oxymoran , bit like religious tollerance. It betrays your understanding of the word 'theory'. If you don't even know what a scientific theory is , do you think you are qualified to not accept its findings.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 Hhmm.. Let me rephrase so you can understand. Darwin knew that he couldn't PROVE macro evolution.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lycanthropy2010 "Let me rephrase so you can understand. Darwin knew that he couldn't PROVE macro evolution." It worries me that you claim to 'major' in science. The highest form is theory, where all evidence fits it and ecen though it is falsifiable , no evidence does. 'macro evolution is' ...? micro evolution. many times simple.! This can be demonstrated. What more do you need.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
1.I believe in evolution, but it almost seems as if a higher being might sometimes tinker with things.
2. Creating evolution, would not be beyond the means of a 'god'.
3. We see selection everytime we breed a new plant, dog, cat, or see a new drug resistant super bug, though this is 'unnatural' selection, but the process is the same......
luveraaab 1 year ago
@luveraaab ".I believe in evolution" Faith is not required, because there is evidence.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@luveraaab "Creating evolution, would not be beyond the means of a 'god'." no but not necessary, then you have to discover where the god came from.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@luveraaab "though this is 'unnatural' selection, but the process is the same...... " True. Evolution exists in domestic selection. Same process.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
Its like saying how did that 1 person win the lottery? They did because of the countless others that didn’t win. How has earth got life, because billions of other planets don’t. Earth underwent natural selection.
Nickondeweb 1 year ago
Religious/Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents = IDIOTS
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
Life didn't evolve by chance.. why is do creationists always present that as an evolutionist's factoid? Evolution happened out of necessity, not by chance. E.g., dodo birds couldn't fly, they went extinct. Flying helped birds get food, escape danger, etc. Cougars needed to be fast so they could catch gazelles, so they ran and ran and ran and passed the trait to their young. Now all cougars are fast. Make sense? I'm almost out of room here.
neltod 1 year ago
@neltod im on ur side but we killed off the dodo's man and cougars are in america gazelles are in africa
cheesycont 1 year ago
@cheesycont if a dodo could fly away, do you think it would have been so easy for them to go extinct? That is my point. And yeah.. I was just using that as an example. You can easily replace cougar with any of the big cats. :)
neltod 1 year ago
@neltod ur missing the point its a bad example -we killied out the dodo's thats not natural selection -the moa bird of australia would be a better choice of words im just tryin to help ur argument
cheesycont 1 year ago
@cheesycont No, I get it.. I just don't really care. Plus, I didn't say natural selection. Plus, I asked a question, that you ignored. Whatever. Words are just words, the principal of my model is valid.
neltod 1 year ago
@neltod EVELUTION IS NATURAL SELECTION!!!!!!!!!
cheesycont 1 year ago
@cheesycont they are related, but quite different. In natural selection, favorable traits are passed. In evolution, genes are changed altogether.
neltod 1 year ago
@neltod u just described natural selection twice or evolution twice but im done tryin to educate u good day
cheesycont 1 year ago
@cheesycont Seriously, if you are going to try to talk about evolution at least educate yourself so you don't look like a moron. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, it is NOT evolution. Saying natural selection is evolution is like saying that a fuel injection system is a car.
cujagu 1 year ago
@cujagu that was disscused a week ago I've moved on
cheesycont 1 year ago
@cheesycont "EVELUTION IS NATURAL SELECTION!!!!!!!!! "
domestic seletion is also part of evolution. You perhaps need to read about Evilution :-)))
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 it was discused a week ago I've moved on
cheesycont 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cheesycont "it was discused a week ago I've moved on " from that I will assume you have read about evilution, and now no longer dny the evidence.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@cheesycont evolution is simply change in biological organisms, thats it
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@SOAS007 Natural selection gives the thumbs up or the thumbs down on variation. Variations with the thumbs up leads to evolution if it spreads through out the species
luveraaab 1 year ago
Associated Press 6:20 p.m. PT, Tues., Dec . 20, 2005
A federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching intelligent design in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
These diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.
StraightOuttaDC 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC So the fact that early in the biological history of Earth, there were more diverse bauplans, and as the ages past only a few were capable of diversifying and adapting successfully is somehow evidence that they were created? This only strengthens the claims of evolution as the continuity is what you would expect. a random new bauplan with no ancestral lineage suddenly appearing would be in favor of Creation, not evolution.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC Subtle and slow changes which over time alter a species is exactly what evolution predicts.
karmiolz 1 year ago
It is a common Creationist trick to pretend that Abiogenesis suggests that proteins were formed from some sort of chemical 'bingo ball', with amino acids being mixed randomly one by one, and then 'tested' against modern proteins.
This, of course, is rhetorical nonsense. Of all the many theories of abiogenesis, not one of them suggests this kind of protein generation. Dembski completely ignores proteinoidal growth, and the possibility of precursor steps.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
Yet ANOTHER theory to prop up Darwinism? This is getting ridiculous.
Either come up with REAL proof (and this doesn't mean find a bone fragment then draw some monkey/man hybrid only to have it proven false like the other forgeries before it) or simply admit that we don't fucking know the origin of human beings.
This shit is so full of holes that debating it is almost useless. If anyone is using a trick, it's Darwinist.
StraightOuttaDC 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC
Who mentioned Darwinism? I'm talking about the Origin of Life, not the process which accounts for the variety of life. It's a common Creationist mistake to mix these two up, but let me describe these: the Theory of Evolution addresses the patterns found in comparisons of different life forms on earth, and describes the history of life on earth after life started. Abiogenesis is not the same thing: it addresses the formation of the first life itself.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
Is there any evidence of Abiogenesis, or jut more conjecture and hypothetical arguments?
StraightOuttaDC 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC
From what I've read there is some good evidence for each step of the suggested path to abiogenesis (simple chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> protocell ). However, I'll be the first to say that there's not near enough evidence to graduate Abiogenesis to the level of 'Theory'... for one, scientists would need to decide between the protein-first hypothesis and the RNA-first hypothesis.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
You could have just said that we don't know whether the Chicken or the Egg came first and spared us all the diatribe. That's essentially what you just said.
StraightOuttaDC 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC. No, that is a gross oversimplification of what he said. You took years of significant research, many peer-reviewed publications, and pretended they were some sort of guessing game.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC. No, that is a gross oversimplification of what he said. You took years of significant research, many peer-reviewed publications, and pretended they were some sort of guessing game.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC
I take it from your comment that you don't know what the protein-first or RNA-first hypothesis actually say.
The difference between these two models and the "Chicken and Egg" riddle is that each of these models has substantial evidence and research to back it up. A brief review of any serious textbook on the subject can explain the findings to you, but in the meantime you make a mockery of Sidney Fox's and Cech and Altman's work (which won the latter pair a Nobel Prize).
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC. So nested hierarchies are a trick? Genetics is a trick, as is comparative biology, atavisms, retroviruses, observed examples of speciation, and human chromosomal fusion? Why don't you look at the one hundred fifty years of evidence that has not one single refutation before you ignorantly claim there is no evidence.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@StraightOuttaDC How was this in anyway a trick? It's statistical interpretation. Dembski pretends that life must to be the way it is today, no other possibilities. This is a false assumption of teleology. Are atavisms a trick, human chromosomal fusion, retroviruses, accurate nested hierarchies, 150 years of the fossil record not being refuted, all tricks?
karmiolz 1 year ago
"I've now become convinced that he's just an idiot who's able to throw around mathematical jargon without understanding it." Well said for someone who calls the very things he doesnt understand jargon, and some how claims to know others dont understand either by some magical sudden understanding of the "..um ..uh ...stupid jargon". Thanks for showing just what tool you are.
Acuraintegraman1 1 year ago
@Acuraintegraman1
The creationist mathematicians typically introduce lots of silly assumptions into their calculations, i.e. garbage in = garbage out.
robocong7420 1 year ago
@robocong7420 Like what assumptions?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas. That life had to be as we see it is now. They impose a teleology, that humanity for existence has to exist, then try to back calculate the odds of humanity evolving. The assumption that the history of life on this planet has some purpose in bringing forth the current state of living things is a ridiculous assumption.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@karmiolz What is so ridiculous about assuming we exist as we do now. You are making truth statements with nothing to back them up. We assume it has purpose becaused the philosophical ascertion of first causes. It is perfectly logical to assume purpose in things that at least appear to be existing in a functional state. I would say it is more logical that chimpanzee's evolved from humans than humans from chimpanzees. From what we can observe things always head in a downward direction.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas. No we see weather patterns of increased complexity daily. Your assumption that humanity has to exist is completely without proof. Humans do not have to exist anymore than lions have to exist. They simply do exist. It is also not perfectly logical to assign agency to matter. If a rock rolls down a hill, is it because the rock intended to, or because of the natural forces at work.
karmiolz 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas
assumptions like, high improbability = impossibility (which is completely wrong).
That a random string of events cannot occur in a specific order and cannot lead to a specific outcome.
and that chance occurrences are impossible and must have been predetermined by something.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@Acuraintegraman1
The creationist mathematicians typically introduce lots of silly assumptions into their calculations, i.e. garbage in = garbage out.
robocong7420 1 year ago
Is explanation only reinforces Dembski's arguement. Cards only contain one value and there is 52 of them. And yet where did those cards come from? We get variations of sequences when we shuffle them but do we really get new information? And what if someone pockets all the face cards? Will we a millions shuffles from now get a royal flush?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
That's not how it works. Good try though.
G11EM2 1 year ago
You've made an ascertion with no explanation. Is not the debate on how it all works... Miller made a simple analogy. And I used the analogy to rebut his conclusion. Is it a bad analagy that Miller used to begin with? Yes, to support his point of view it is.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
If your none face cards slowly morphed into face cards with each shuffle, like how natural selection picks the best mutants, you would easily get a royal flush. Yes, it was a bad analogy and that is why I told you good try.
G11EM2 1 year ago
mutation are a reshuffling or loss of information. If the data in the dna a code becomes too currupted the creature won't live. Yu kan reed thes dspite da spelin erors rite? Well too many errors and no more code. Or maybe too many missing letters. Or in this case too many missing face cards and no royal flush. A selection process like natural selection needs something to select.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
I'll concide I myself do not know the process here. But if your statement is correct, how do you explain new information that bacteria have which alows them to eat nylon.
G11EM2 1 year ago
They probably always had the ability too eat nylon even before nylon was developed. They have found bacteria in ice that is suppose to be thousands of years old that is resistant to antibiotics. You know there was a time when crows didn't eat road kill. But now that there isn't as many corn feilds they eat whatever they can I suppose. This is kinda anectotal but I think it applies. There is also a lion raised in captivity that has never eaten meat.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
Actually they didn't, it resulted from something called gene shift. It creates new genes from old ones. Also, antibiotics were around before humans. It's called fungi. Crows have always eaten dead animals, it's just a new way the animals die. A lion that hasn't eaten meat doesn't matter, the nutrients are all thats important to the lion.
G11EM2 1 year ago
Actually thats not all together true.. Some antibiotics were developed from mold like penecillin but there are today most likely synthesized anti-biotic completely produced in a lab just like nylon is man-made.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
Still based off of how mold works to do the same job, resistance to mold helps them be resistant to many medicenes man has made.
G11EM2 1 year ago
Don't you think nylon is also similar to naturally occuring fabrics or compounds? Do You think man came up with something completely unique from nature? By the way Alexander Fleming(the discoverier of Penicillin realized right away that bactieria became resistance when u used too little or took penicillin too short of a time. It is pure natural selection. Selecting out the bacteria without resistance. But apparently that resistance was in the population all along. thats why u take em 10 days
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas
The whole nylon eating bacteria was repeated in laboratory but with a different bacteria, this time on the Pseudomonas and it also developted a way to digest nylon based materials (when no other source of food was around) except without using the nylonase but a whole different way. Those Pseudomonas were grown in lab to make sure they never came into contact with nylon.
Also, nylon is man made, there are no similar materials found in nature.
Atharkas 1 year ago
Thank god, another sane human being. You take over from here. I'm getting bored of this creationist.
G11EM2 1 year ago
Alas they seem to be getting everywhere now.
Atharkas 1 year ago
Yes they are.
G11EM2 1 year ago
Thats because neo-darwinism makes less and less sense.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
What in your god's name are you talking about?
G11EM2 1 year ago
what the fuck is neo darwinism did you make that term up, very clever..(really thats the best you crazies got)
emcce69 1 year ago
Actually Neo-darwinist are what moderm evolutionary scientist call themselves. I believe Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins would call themselves Neo-Darwin... They still believe in evolution but realize Charle's theory was a little too simple. So new mechanisms and theories have been proposed besides slow gradual natural selection. For instance Gould's punctuated equilibrium. Your vulgar launguage shows your ignorance as much as the rest of your statement.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
I was just having a little fun with yeah, I know all about Dawkins, and Gould kid. What new mechanismsm and theories have been proposed besides natural selection. Your makeing thinks up, or have been totally misinformed. Sorry for the langauge didn't know words hurt you kid. I can't believe you fell for that I.E. scam. how much money did Hovind make off you, before he got locked up. LOL. Im sorry I have to be rude its the only thing you freaks know.
emcce69 1 year ago
Are you serious? I have to tell you what your sides position is? Well Ok. How about mutation caused by endogenous retro viruses. This is one of the newest mechanisms proposed. And punctuated equilibrium is the theory that under certain circumstances organisms must be able to evolve very quickly. Gould came to that conclusion because so called complex organism all of a sudden appear in the so called fossil record fully formed. Who is making stuff up? Would you even know if someone was?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas
Intelligent design = religion wishing it could be science.
robocong7420 1 year ago 2
What god are you thanking. Don't you deny there is a God who created the universe? Or are you a theistic evolutionist?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
I WAS a theistic evolutionist if there's such thing as an evolutionist. The bible drove me from theism. I might become a buddhist though that changes nothing..
G11EM2 1 year ago