Mirror Evolution : The Ultimate Disproof

[jesse8857]

I don't want to start 100 arguments with the science foundation [sic], but everyone must know that his whole crux of the argument "debunking this video" was the fact that Sanford didn't publish in peer review. This is an outright lie - he has published dozens of articles in top secular journals, and he meticulously documents his information in his book from other peer reviewed papers (even though his caliber is such that this is not needed). That's all I have to say.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 No, the crux of my argumentation is that 1: You made up mutation rates out of nothing (the actual research has shown the harmful mutation rate in humans is about 3 out of 125) and 2: The paper you cited was in regards to mutation rates due to radiation, which has nothing to do with anything.

Whether he's published works is irrelevant, he hasn't published on genetic entropy because it's not science.

[Orenotter]

There was a woman who could barely walk with braces due to severe abuse. Her skin was covered in scars and her muscle tissue had huge gouges. She received a miraculous healing. She no longer needs braces, her scars are gone and her muscles filled in, all over the course of hours. I know that God the creator is real because things like this happen every day. You prove to me that my friend was never healed and I'll consider evolution.

[odinata]

@Orenotter

How about you prove that supernatural beings cured your friend.

And by the way, no one cares if you don't believe the scientific facts.

Science will be just fine without you....

[IoEstasCedonta]

Taken as written, there's no reason we should have survived six thousand years...

[grexory]

TheScienceFoundation wins.

As a layman, i've watched a few of Jesse8857's videos, then promptly did some research, all of the points raised in these videos are subsequently razed upon looking at the facts, which are available to all.

Creationist propaganda, don't be fooled by it.

[jesse8857]

@grexory "all of the points raised in these videos are subsequently razed upon looking at the facts" No, by looking on the false interpretation of the facts from evolutionists.

[grexory]

@jesse8857

If you are in fact right, and the evidence you're claiming is testable, verifiable and correct there's a nobel prize and front cover of Time magazine waiting, not 137 views and more dislikes than likes, on youtube.

I know that if the fact of Evolution was falsifiable and I could prove it, I wouldn't be posting propaganda videos on youtube, I'd be taking on the scientific community and claiming my awards, research money and fame!

Get with the program - put up, or shut up.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 No, by looking at the actual data as opposed to trying to claim that a paper on radiation induced mutations is relevant when talking about mutation rates in general.

[KennyTew2]

Look at this man, he is made completely of straw. He has no genitals and therefore can not reproduce. Without reproduction evolution could not occur, therefore evolution is false.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 6:18 Lol at the reference on that page "taken from an expert on the subject" while citing a non reviewed novel, when he couldn't even manage to calculate the percentage of harmful mutations within 96%

And so the ultimate willful ignorance of genetics on the part of creationists cannot be stopped, even if you explain it along with the visual assistance of 'pictures for the bigger words'

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 5:18 You can't even try to make a 'point' here without completely contradicting yourself. You're saying that 'We should be extinct because natural selection can't drive selective pressure to the point of us going extinct'

@ 5:50 You're still citing a completely made up number of harmful mutations from a guy that couldn't even get it published.

@ 6:07 "It would be like a boat full of holes" No at most it would be more like a boat with partitions and holes filling some of them.

[jesse8857]

@TheScienceFoundation @6.18 According to you he couldn't calculate the mutation rate...that's because you deny the undeniable fact that there are no truly neutral mutations!

TheScienceFoundation. wow, should have named it ThePseudoScienceFoundation. Because that's all I get from you.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 6:18 No, he couldn't calculate it because he seemed to be starting from the presumption that there is a default genomic setting being acted upon by mutations

Given that you think Sanford presents valid arguments and that articles on radiation damage are relevant when talking about point mutations, I could see why you would think real science is pseudo-science.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 4;45 "we consider them all bad" You're either the dimmest person I've ever met or the most dishonest. The title of the article you cited is "How RADIATION changes the genetic constitution"

@ 5:00 Of course beneficial mutations are selectable, they confer an advantage. Life is still here and does not hinge on your ignorance of genetics. You're ignorant of the fact that there was no 'perfect genome' to begin with, that a general mutation is not destroying anything.

[jesse8857]

@TheScienceFoundation @5.00 " Of course beneficial mutations are selectable" They would be if they were big anough. The ones that are actually helpfull are much too small to be selected as shown by Kimmura and Sanford.

@5.18 No, I'm saying that if selection were taken into account, it would have to kill the species anyway in order to try to get rid of the bad mutations.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 4:14 "Almost all harmful" Did you not even notice the title of the article you cited? "effective *neutral* mutations" You can't even cite a legitimate source without contradicting yourself.

@ 4:30 This is part of the model of punctuated equilibrium. Changes accrue more rapidly in smaller populations. Also, again, notice that he was unable to actually get this published.

[jesse8857]

@TheScienceFoundation @4.30 So what? Did you miss the point? Beneficials cannot be kept - no matter what time extent is applied, and harmfuls cannot be ridden.

@4.45 "How RADIATION changes the genetic constitution" Does this mean he is talking about radiation when explaining that good ones are so rare...? This quote is not needed at all to prop up our position either.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 4:30 I got the point, you're as ignorant in genetics as any other field of biology. Beneficial mutations are passed on at a higher frequency because they increase survivability

4:45 It's a paper discussing the effect of radiation on genetic mutation. Does it really have to be explained how this doesn't apply to inherent genetic mutation?

5:00 I'm guessing you're not aware of what selected for means.

5:18 No, it wouldn't, mutations are absorbed by pseudogenes.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 3:02 1: No, the harmful mutation rate is around 1.9% 2: Most mutations are neutral

In case you haven't noticed you're pretty much solely citing a non peer reviewed novel at this point.

@ 3:22 "no realistic method" Selection, duplication and alternate frame reading are powerful mechanisms

"found to be truly functional is rapidly increasing" No it's not, transcription does not denote function.

@ 4:00 No, the 'enormous rates' have already been shown to be wrong.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 1:56 Everything there is demonstrably wrong (likely deception) as has been explained

@ 2:15 Quoting a paper on mutations before the structure of DNA was even discovered, heh

It's either dishonest or ignorant to call them 'misspellings' because DNA does not necessitate external translation, it's a one direction expression medium.

@ 3:00 "a rate of .5" Except that it wouldn't There are thousands of species that breed hundreds of times faster than we do, with no signs of genetic entropy.

[jesse8857]

@TheScienceFoundation @ 3.00 And what are their mutation rates? This rate of 0.5 applies to humans - you're simply trying to be delusional.

@ "Most mutations are neutral" Outright lie. DY DEFINTION, a nucleotide cannot be neutral.

@"non peer reviewed novel at this point." It is not a novel, and it wsa written by a high profile geneticist. Certainly worth citing.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 3:00 Primates don't have even near the highest mutations rate to generation rate ratio pnas(.)org/content/99/2/803.lo­ng

Not a lie, it's an actual understanding of what nucleotides are and what they do.

It's a novel and it's not peer reviewed. If you notice his actual peer reviewed work doesn't significantly support the claims in his non-reviewed book.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 1:16 This coming from Sanford who still pushes genetic entropy. Most of the human genome is comprised of pseudo-genes which can absorb mutations without effect, making them neutral.

@ 1:38 1: All nucleotides carry information, they're distinguishing characteristics themselves. 2 : They're beneficial by absorbing mutations which would otherwise have to affect expressed and translating parts of the genome.

Also notice these quotes come from his novel, not his peer reviewed work.

[jesse8857]

@TheScienceFoundation @1.16 "which can absorb mutations without effect, making them neutral." Sanford says in the vid that even if nucleotides contain absolutely no information, they are still harmful for a number of reasons. pseudogenes don't help.

@1.56 Assertion.

@2.15 But scientists today still accept this figure. Even if it were changed from .5 to 2 of 5, it wouldn't matter in the slightest since we are accumulating 600-6000 (100-300 being unselectable)

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 1:16 You're still pasting Sanford's word as if it were gospel. The pseudogenes help for the very fact that they absorb mutation

1:56 No, everything at that point in the video had already been explained to be wrong.

2:15 It matters because of your erroneous implication that the mutations are destroying something. As if there were some sort of original perfect genome which is being degraded.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 0:54 "the best estimates say" 1: Did you not even notice the paper was on asexual populations? 2: You're resorting to more outright lying, the paper says "the probability that a beneficial mutation transiently achieves polymorphic frequency (> or = 1%)" so apparently you were just hoping no one would go to the trouble of reading or understanding it

@ "vast majority are neutral... this is false' No, it's not. Only roughly 3 in 125 mutations in humans are harmful

[jesse8857]

@TheScienceFoundation @0.54 Actually, I was mainly taking the information from Sanford who says that essentially ALL beneficial mutations are unselectable - making them not beneficial in effect. He gives much information on this.

@ "Only roughly 3 in 125 mutations in humans are harmful" No, only 3 are present in the phenotype. The rest are unselectable - though still harmful.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ 0:15 "only plausible mechanism" And right out of the gate with sheer ignorance as usual. Mutation is *a* mechanism of evolution, there are also processes such as selection, duplication, genetic drift etc.

@ 0:28 "not one beneficial information adding mutation" Outright fabrication /watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU Also, the video mentioned is refuted here ; /watch?v=6Yn8ofwQ-tk

@ 0:50 "a good portion" This is ignoring the fact that selection is non-random.

[jesse8857]

@TheScienceFoundation 0.15 Selection does not create anything - only in conjunction with mutation can it supposedly do so. duplication genetic drift ARE mutations!!

0.28 Again, EvolutionDismantled has debunked this complete baloney which you refer to. Refuted? None of your supposed "refutations" hold up to any simple examination!

0.50 Yes, but essentially all the beneficials are near-neutrals (cannot be selected)!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 0:15 Not supposedly, it's been demonstrated that duplication and mutation can increase functional information.

0:28 No he hasn't he didn't even know what a stop codon was

0:50 Yes, they can be selected, they confer an advantage.

0:54 There's your problem. You copied and pasted fallacy from Sanford without checking it so it immediately becomes your fallacy.

No, only three period 'Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304. '