MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution (cdk007 Mirror)

[theot58]

The distinction this video makes about Micro and Macro evolution as that OF THE SPEAKER and does NOT accurately represent the view of creationists.

Macro Evolution claims as a fact that a Lion and a banana had a common ancestor. Further more this is claimed to be a "fact" However the scientific method asserts that is something is not observable, repeatable and measureable then it is outside science.

This is nonsense dressed in scientific jargon.

[TheVancouverVloggity]

@theot58 wow.... first of all, seeing as you're a creationist, can you prove as a "fact" that god is real? just answer this, with REAL facts, not the supposed "facts" in this video. dumass

[theot58]

@TheVancouverVloggity With all due respect, you are asking a silly question. Proving God is irrelevant to the issue at hand. My point is that we deceive our young people by teaching Evolution as a fact when in reality the scientific evidence supporting it is woefully deficient.

Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research said

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.

It is useless."

[TheVancouverVloggity]

@theot58 its actually not, because if you think evolution is a myth, and you consider yourself as a creationist, then you must believe in god. if you believe in god, and you still don't consider evolution to be a fact, which it is, then you have to prove that a god exists, to make your point. if you can't prove what you believe, and you feel the need to disprove facts, instead of proving your own points and beliefs, then you are a hypocrite. and you still avoided my question.

[TheVancouverVloggity]

@TheVancouverVloggity you also didn't provide ANY evidence of evolution being false, you just quoted a professor who has in fact been outed as an irrational thinker, who doesn't believe things that were proved to him in front of his own EYES. even if what he said was rational, you just quoted a line he said, without any evidence of what he said being true, its ilke the freakin bible with you people. you say someone said something was true, and completely buy it, without any evidence -

[TheVancouverVloggity]

@TheVancouverVloggity or proof on that person, or object's behalf. i could say that theres a giant purple unicorn flying around in space, but that doesn't make it true. the burden of proof lies on the POSITIVE side, aka the person who believes in the object.

[theot58]

@TheVancouverVloggity If you believe that Darwinian/Macro evolution is a "fact", then you probably believe in easter bunny.

Do a youtube search for "Kansas school board hearings" and listen to the evidence of real scientists present real evidence which debunks the Evolutionary genie.

[TheVancouverVloggity]

@theot58 wow....that is just sad. the person right THERE ^^^ proved macro evolution to you. just because you couldn't get the facts through your think skull, into that tiny walnut of yours, doesn't make it not true. and you're going to ask me to listen to scientists arguing to get rid of evolution from KANSAS???? the state that rejects evolution the most out of every state in the United States???? really??? so the fact that over 98% of scientists, especially biologists, believe in evolution

[TheVancouverVloggity]

@TheVancouverVloggity , the people who discovered and invented amazing things in our world, from the universe, to medicine, to day to day objects, such as electricity, cars, lightbulbs, and artificial respiratory machines, which keep people who suffer from diseases such as lung cancer, pneumonia, asthma, and bronchitis, makes evolution completely false right? just pathetic, man, just pathetic... and you STILL haven't answered my question. prove god exists, and you'll convert me RIGHT now

[theot58]

@TheVancouverVloggity You are very confused.

1) I love science, I am an Electrical engineer. The problem is that science has been corrupted to support the fairytale of Darwinian/Macro evolution.

2) Science is NOT a popularity contests, it does not matter how may biologist BELIEVE in evolution - it does not make it any less true of false. The question is what does the evidence say. Macro Evolution has not been observed, is not reproducible in the lab, it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 Has been corrupted? extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It doesn't appear that you are familiar with the definition of empirical evidence.

And yes, it actually does matter how many believe in a theory because the belief of the general scientific consensus is what gets published in text books and taught in schools.

"Macro Evolution has not been observed, is not reproducible in the lab, it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" NO NO NO NO NO NO NO...

[TooTuffShuff]

I have observed macroevolution... in a lab.... my freshman year of college with bacteria... at Marshall University... in my intro to DNA cloning class.

You claim to be an engineer, which someone of bigotry at your level, i seriously doubt you are. But if you were an engineer, you would know that the 2nd law of TD only applies to closed systems... earth is not a closed system. it is constantly receiving energy from the sun, constantly allowing energy in. typical fundy apologetics. you lose again

[theot58]

@TooTuffShuff Who put the boundary on the system around the earth? I say put the boundary such that the sun is included. So what do you say now?

We observe system degrading if left on their own. Your garden, house, body etc all degrade with time if left unattended - yet Darwinism asserts the opposite; that from basic chemicals the prevailing world has come into existence WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? I don't think so.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 put the boundary around the sun. it's still an open system. just ask the question, can matter and energy get in or out of these boundaries. if yes, then it's an open system. you clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. you obviously haven't thought about this in detail or you just regurgitate common apologist arguments that have been debunked a million times. you spreading your poorly thought out disinformation sets back society and keeps it from moving forward.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 put the boundary around the sun. it's still an open system. just ask the question, can matter and energy get in or out of these boundaries. if yes, then it's an open system. you clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. you obviously haven't thought about this in detail or you just regurgitate common apologist arguments that have been debunked a million times. you spreading your poorly thought out disinformation sets back society and keeps it from moving forward.

[theot58]

@TooTuffShuff Your boundary arguement is fundamentally flawed. You assert that just because energy can enter that the 2nd law of thermodynamics no longer holds - this is utter bull. If that is the case then you might as well through out that law.

The core problem with Darwinian/Macro evolution is that make the absurd assertion that an obviously designed system "made itself". That is it has come into existence WITHOUT the involvement of a designer. This is poor science.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 the whole universe to the best of science's knowledge is that it is a closed system. there are open systems within the closed system. 2LoT works just fine.

what designed system? and how is it obviously designed? where does the mechanism of macroevolution say that it made itself? stop making strawman arguments.

science doesnt assume anything. science follows the evidence to a conclusion. not start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence for it like religions do.

[TooTuffShuff]

Your argument would also apply equally well to known, normal reproduction within a species. If the earth could only become more disordered or more "worn down", it would not be possible for populations of life forms to grow and flourish. In fact, every time a cell copies or repairs its own DNA, it creates more information, at least in the obvious sense of producing a longer string of nucleotides. The second law of thermodynamics must allow the creation of ordered systems, or else it would not be

[theot58]

@TooTuffShuff Your assertion "In fact, every time a cell copies or repairs its own DNA, it creates more information" is totally incorrect.

Copying an existind design does NOT increase information. There are NO new body parts of functioning systems. It cannot create new lifeforms.

Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 NO, it's actually twice as much information as before. DNA replicates to twice as much DNA as before. If the 2LoT was to be correct, the system can only become more "unorganized" or strive for uquilibrium. The exact same can be said for a sperm fertilizing and egg and making a fetus, also that fetus developing into a fully grown human being.

1 DNA strand replicating = 2 DNA strands, 2 DNA strands replicating = 4 DNA strands. It's twice as much information every time.

[theot58]

@TooTuffShuff If you think that copying one DNA molecule creates NEW information and NEW life forms; then I don't think our discussion can go any further.

I leave you with one final quote:

Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission said:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever!

In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

[Akira625]

@theot58 Funny how this "Newton Tahmisian" person is only mentioned in creationist websites.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 I dont think our discussion can go any further if you dont start acknowledging my points. i have proven you wrong in every response and you fail to mention anything about changing your opinions or anything of the sort, like any humble person would do in a debate.

Replicating a DNA takes little molecules that were once not information, combines them and makes it into "information". But obviously, no person that knows anything about evolution would say that the replication of one single

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 I dont think our discussion can go any further if you dont start acknowledging my points. i have proven you wrong in every response and you fail to mention anything about changing your opinions or anything of the sort, like any humble person would do in a debate.

Replicating a DNA takes little molecules that were once not information, combines them and makes it into "information".

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 But obviously, no person that knows anything about evolution would say that the replication of one single strand of DNA creates a new species. It usually takes many many many significant changes to the genome for speciation to occur.

also, when DNA replicates, errors can occur such as the wrong base pair being added, which would be an example of a mutation. that new information is no longer the same as the original information and will not work the same function as the old info.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 I can give you a million quotes from more credible sources. Quotes are useless in debate for the most part. that's called "an appeal to authority".

Adam Shuff, creationist propaganda control, 5th year Sr student, Ohio University, 2 quarters from a bachelors degree with over 200 credit hours said:

"people that aren't reasonable can't be reasoned with" and "people that dont acknowledge when you debunk their uneducated claim aren't worth debating because they are bigots and close minded"

[theot58]

@TooTuffShuff Now you are being down right silly.

All I am asking you to do is to appy the scientific method and skeptically examine the Darwinian/Macro evolution dogma you have believed.

What is the evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution?

And please don't tell me there is "mountains of evidence" - tell me WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 I have, many times. It's logged in my bio lab journals. I gave you the example of "Chlorella vulgaris to Coelosphaerium". it's recorded and documented.

i am a skeptic and a free thinker, and all hypothesis and theories deserve to be criticized. evolution has been for over a 150 years and has stood the test of time. charles darwin would shit his pants if he knew of DNA and genetic drift and mutations and other fossil discoveries the only help reconfirm the theory.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 digest a material that never existed before the modern era. In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The information in the genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment. It is not created, but rather gathered from the environment through research, by trial and error, as mutating organisms either reproduce or fail.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58, You clearly have no idea how evolution or it's mechanisms work. you are a troll and a evo basher.

I have heard some clips of the hearings. Nothing there disproves that species change over time. They whole KBoE hearings were about how life originated, (abiogenesis), not how life changes over time(evolution). Hey, how did that turn out by the way? How is the intelligent design coming along in the classrooms? oh, oh, oh that's right, it's not. i was mistaken.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58, "real, credible scientists", you aren't talking about the same SCIENTISTS that use the SCIENTIFIC method. the scientists you are talking about shouldnt even be called scientists. their label is a misnomer. real credible scientists use the scientific method, the same method that has brought about 99% of the technology we use today. modern medicine, tv, computer, electricity, etc. I've heard all of the counter arguments. they ALL have been debunked at least a 1000 times

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 I think I understand now what you mean by new information. it's important that we not be vague with or descriptions. you should say new genetic information compared to the original. New information is regularly generated in evolution like when a mutation or a gene duplication arises. Dramatic examples of entirely new, unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently

[TooTuffShuff]

possible for new, young, healthy organisms to be descended from older organisms. In order to argue that the second law prevents evolution, one must demonstrate that even though known harmful and harmless mutations in normal reproduction occur, beneficial mutations could never occur. This seems to be a hopeless task because there is no fundamental difference in physics or in the theory of evolution, between harmful and beneficial mutations, and because beneficial mutations have been observed.

[TooTuffShuff]

You also make the god of the gaps argument which is one of the most common logical fallacies in all of apologetics, which also has been debunked a million times. it's also an argument from ignorance, and i also have a feeling we are about to get into the watchmaker argument. i'm not your search monkey. go to ironchariots wiki or just wikipedia and look these fallacies up.

[theot58]

@TooTuffShuff "I have observed macro evolution .. in the lab"

Can you please elaborate. What kind of animal did you observed turning into another kind of animal?

This I would love to see

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 Chlorella vulgaris to Coelosphaerium. google it ignorant ass.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 HAHAHA, 90% of the National Academy of sciences are atheistic, and 100% accept evolution (that species genetics change over time) as a fact. 98% accept that evolution occurs by darwinian means. natural selection, mutation, genetic drift... etc...

there is no deception, only your agenda to spread disinformation and promote your faith.

[TooTuffShuff]

@theot58 Macro evolution doesn't claim anything. The evidence points to all life on earth having a common ancestor.

The Scientific Method doesn't assert that macroevolution isn't observable. What number is that step in the scientific method?

Macroevolution is observable. This video even points out some of the macroevolution that we have observed.