Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps (1-9)

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE; If you see no reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like personal insults, name calling and refusal to debate by evading Qs asked. If anyone wishes to make the same points in his or her own way I will be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I debate only with those who are civil & objective and actually debate.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady From the looks of it all they did was point out that you weren't aware that it wasn't chromosome count that's used as evidence in regards to chromosome 2.

You seem to think anyone who refutes you is being unwilling to have a civil debate.

[LoricaLady]

@ABriefHistoryOfTime It is about count. The fusion of the chromosomes makes a superficial numbermatch with chimps. We aren't even said by evolutionists to be related to chimps so that is another thing that doesn't really make sense. However, I will ask you the same Qs I asked the previous poster. Since about 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome, then why isn't it the Fallacy of the Single Cause to say that the 1 Miller focuses on comes from apes. If not 1, whynot both? Cont

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady No it's not about the count, to further insist it is simply showcases your ignorance of homology. It's the fact that our chromosome 2 is highly homologous to two chimp chromosomes, that means very similar by the way. You have a horrific understanding of the fallacy of the single cause as well. Science is an empirical and inductive process, this means the causes with evidential support get attention over the ones without, IE telomeric fusion.

[LoricaLady]

@ABriefHistoryOfTime Cont. Why isn't it the Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison to say that the count is everything when the contents of the chromosomes of the two animals is not the same? The previous poster also said this vid uses the scientific method. As I asked him, doesn't the scientific method require an experiment? What experiment was done here? Instead you have is the usual evo logical fallacy of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Speculation presented as evidence is pseudo science.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady 'the contents of the chromosomes of the two animals is not the same'

Outright fabrication. Our chromosome 2 is highly homologous to chimp chromosomes 12 and 13. In historical science, such as this, its a prediction-confirmation format with experimentation being indirect but applicable, for instance the fusions which you keep mentioning.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Now, are you ever going to stop dodging?

How was calling creationism invisible magic a strawman?

How many terrestrial organisms were present in the Cambrian?

[nuclearthunder50]

This guy seems smart, but doesn't know that the Upper Peninsula is a part of Michigan. Everybody's always worrying about science education, but Social Studies Education is really where our system flops because it's not part of standardized testing - ACT or SAT. C'mon folks, lets learn some geography at least.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Oops. I see that 2/9 is not available, so I will go to 3/9 if not Expelled, as has sometimes happened.

[LoricaLady]

9:04 Origin of Species is recommended to the students. However it does not meet the aforementioned criterion of "Science is built around theories which are strongly supported by factual evidence..." Darwin showed 0 evidence for any origin of species. He showed 0 evidence - since there is 0 - that finches ever were or ever will be anything but finches. He showed 0 evidence that seasonal beak changes are going to lead to finches climbing his "Tree of Life" to be nonfinches. Cont.. on 2-9.

[jebus6kryst]

It is obvious that you have never read The Origins of Species. I wonder, could you even define evolution in a biological context?

[LoricaLady]

@jebus6kryst Instead of using the presuming omniscience logical fallacy (& I read it as a teen ager) kindly tell me where I was wrong in what I have said. Where & how does Darwin show any origin of species? How does he demonstrate that finches ever were or ever will be anything but finches? How does he show that beak changes in species leads to genus change & climbs up his "Tree"? Show any evidence for his Tree from any place using logic & science & not logical fallacies & speculation.

[jebus6kryst]

So you are not going to define evolution in a biological context? Furthermore, what chapter in Darwin's book covers the finches?

After those two questions are answered we can move on.

[LoricaLady]

@jebus6kryst There are various definitions given for evo. The most common one says that it is change over time leading to increasing complexity, and most evolutionists, as Miller demonstrates in this vid, believes that evolution means change over time beyond that of speciation - as seen in fish to lizards etc. Asking me what chapter talks about finches is totally irrelevant and a major strawman logical fallacy. Are you going to answer my Qs or just keep dodging them. Show your evidence.

[jebus6kryst]

You cannot even define evolution properly yet somehow think you can argue against it. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies is a population over time. I find it amazing how creationists can never properly define it.

The reason I was asking about the finches is that anyone who has read the book, knows that Darwin did not talk about the finches in any detail. Most of his evidence in his book came from breeding pigeons.

[LoricaLady]

@jebus6kryst There is no evidence in his book that pigeons were or ever will be anything but pigeons. There is no evidence in his book for anything. It is just armchair speculation that actually flies in the face of the fossil record.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady Also, you've posted mountains of fallacy so don't get all worked up if I don't get around to correcting it all at once.

[jebus6kryst]

Seeing as how you did not know either of these basics, why should I waste any more time on you? However, drop me a message if you would like to continue this because discussion on the comments section of videos is very annoying. Otherwise, I leave you with the last word.

Have a nice day. :)

[LoricaLady]

@jebus6kryst Translation: You can't A my Qs (don't feel badly, no one can since all of evo,is a fable based on logical fallacies & dataless armchair speculations posing as evidence) and so you are just going to doge them. No, I will not drop you a personal message. I am on a mission to help folk in general learn what it took me a long time to learn, so they can out of the evo matrix. Have a truth-filled and logical life. :-)

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady jebus raised a pretty valid point there, you seemed unwilling (unable) to even attempt to define the concept you're arguing against.

[LoricaLady]

8:06 "Science is built around theories which are strongly supported by factual evidence..." Yet as I plan to show (again if not Expelled) the evidence that will be given is not evidence at all, but logical fallacies and speculations piled on top of one another and rpesented as if they are evidence. 9:04 "Without evolution biology is just stamp collecting." No, biology existed since ancient times. Mendell gave us the laws of genetics with evolution totally excluded.

Evo does 0 useful. Cont.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

(2) The healing process must be checked (stopped). The substance that stops the healing process is Amygdalin, sometimes referred to as vitamin B17. (Laetrile is the pharmaceutical rendering of naturally-occurring Amygdalin as refined from apricot kernels.) Hydrocyanic acid-rich Amygdalin is found in 1,200 types of fruit seeds, grasses, leaves, etc.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

(1) Smoking cigarettes DOES NOT cause cancer. Cigarette-smoke damages the respiratory system. The damage done to respiratory tissue requires the production of healing cells known as trophoblasts. Trophoblasts, pre-embryonic cells, & healing cells are indistinguishable.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

["This is the scientific reality that the seeds of all common fruits (except citrus) contain vitamin B17, an anti-cancer vitamin. If we ingest proper quantities of these vitamins, either in the pure form or through ingesting the nitrilosidic foods, we will be able to prevent cancer just as surely as we are able to prevent scurvy by the use of vitamin C or pernicious anemia by the use of vitamin B12." — Ernest Krebs, Jr.]

[IconsOfTeleplay]

@LoricaLady : Adaptations are observable, as are extinctions & Medellin principles. Darwinian (more aptly: Sumerian) evolution is conjectural (and wildly so as it's based on extrapolations to the nth degree). Here Mankind stands in century 2 of the simian-worshiping, pro-eugenics religion of the liberally-tattooed, functionally-illiterate masses of community college "educated" 20-something-know-nothings.

[LoricaLady]

@IconsOfTeleplay Well now don't be too hard on those 20 something folk. I used to believe in evo as a 20 something. I was far from illiterate & had no tatoos! (Still don't! lol.) People have been bombarded with evo from primary school & heard it pushed constantly in the mainstream media. It takes time to see through the smoke & mirrors. Some won't, some don't want to (maybe the same group), but some will.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady Given that you didn't even understand that it was homology, not chromosome count, that is used as evidence regarding chromosome 2, you don't appear to be in a position to claim you ever actually understood evolution.

'Mendell gave us the laws of genetics with evolution totally excluded.'

Mendell was actually describing evolution, whether he used the specific word or not. He detailed the process of heredity and changes in heritable traits, AKA evolution.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

Radiation causes radiation-sickness yet it is extremely profitable for physicians in ineffectually treating the chronic metabolic disease known as cancer.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

Darwin preached eugenics. His orthodoxy entails it, ingratiates it, and requires congregants to further its aims.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.

[LoricaLady]

7:11 Here we see the common evo logical fallacy of equivocation thru the use of the word "science". Evolution, which is based on speculations about origins that can never be tested, observed or repeated, is presented just like the sciences of ecology, biochemistry, aerodynamics, medicine, etc. which are all testable, observable & repeatable. 8:00 Mller's proposed sticker change would only further obscure those crucial differences, differences which many people do not realize exist. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Most people watching a presentation like this are not going to be analyzing it critically, looking for logical fallacies, contradictions, etc. It all flies by so fast. And there is the scientist, the "expert", so they just kind of sit back and let him do the thinking for them. Why stress and strain by carefully analyzing what's being said or do any background checking on the other side of the issues? If that many people believe it, it must be true anyway. Right? Rhetorical Q.

[LoricaLady]

5:03 Notice this quote. Miller tries to defend evo by saying that evolution is a theory "that explains" many things. Explaining & giving evidence are 2 very different things & that is where anti evolutiionists see problems. Just because someone has an "explanation" that doesn't mean it's valid. Further the sticker mentions "origin of living things." Evo theory doesn't even "explain" life's origins, & all it's had to say on that so far is not just evidenceless but anti scientific. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. So there is another thing characteristically seen in evo think: pure dataless, foundationless, evidenceless theory presented as if it is the Gawd's truth. Before someone tells me "Evolutioin doesn't deal with abiogenesis," b.s. Darwin mentioned it in his letters. Miller & Urey tried to prove it. Evolutionists have held workshops on it in recent times. Primal pond isn't being found in

the fairy tale section of children's books (as it should be) but in books about ebolution. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cnt. In that same Colbert clip Colbert talks about the primal pond as if it is absolutely scientific fact - as can be observed in children's science books about evolution in librarires, places like Nova & often in the mainstream media. There was a chance for real science to be upheld. Colbert & the audience should have been told "There is 0 evidence for any primal pond. Life always comes from life. That is why there is the LAW of biogenesis."  But his comment was allowed to slide by. cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:28 Friends, 2 contradictory statements cannot both be true. That is the 1st law of logic, via a pagan, Aristotle. I saw a YT clip of Miller on the Colbert Show saying that, as a RC, he believes Yeshua, aka Jesus, "created all that is, seen & unseen." Yet he holds workshops called The Collapse of Intelligent Design. So...Yeshua was stooopid when He created time, space, matter, energy, all that is seen & unseen? Folks, this is the kind of dbl talk & dbl think consistent in evo thought. Cnt

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Unfortunately I (and others) get followed around YT by evo (particularly Miller's) guard dogs who keep posting me tho they know they are on ignore. One of them, DNAunion, started fillibustering a string with dozens of pages of cut & paste references to evo lit articles so that it was next to impossible to find anyone's replies or for anyone to see there is another point of view. I hope that doesn't happen here. There is another, scientific, side. If not Expelled, I'll show it. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

A lot of this vid is self promo & propaganda techniques. I will skip the self promo parts but will go thru the rest bit by bit to show another point of view based on rules of logic & scientific analysis. (If I don't get Expelled as sometimes happens.) I will not discuss religion as it turns into a strawman logical fallacy too often & is not really the topic of this vid. I put those who use personal insults & name calling etc. on ignore & debate only with the civil & objective. Cont.

[stephenfs03]

Everything is in constant flux. Ideologies die hard but are eventually undermined by contradictory reality. Both camps uncritically give mysticism to their theoretical predispositions. The existence of a divine creator thus far is a mental construct. Science differs in the way that it can be verified, and is rooted in the evolution of tangible material existence. Unfogged by ideology these theories can progress in light of its falsification against reality (dialectics).

[yahyajapan]

I don't agree with you.

You are spamming whole internet with evolution lies. You are telling the same lie everywhere, maybe with slightly different words but the same lie. I think you evolution-worshipers are real spammers.

[anselmo666666]

In order for you to call evolution a lie, you need to show that it is false. There are millions upon millions of facts you need to disprove. Start some coffee.

[AussiePolitics]

@yahyajapan you know what? next time you go to the doctors do the world a favour when asking the doctor to treat your infection with the original antibiotics. because you dont believe that bacteria can evolve and need constantly changing drugs to combat them. because that is what evolution is: change in order to survive

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Yes, bacteria change. But evo assumes there are no limits on that change and evidence does not bear that out, in fact the opposite.  Guess what? All those bacteria are still bacteria. Gazillions of bacteria are multiplying at staggering rates and every last one of them stays a bacteria. Ditto amoeba & all life forms where you can see rapid generational changes. We are seeing no evolution. We are seeing no climb up Darwin's Tree. We are told to believe that on faith, not data.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady right you expect a change that took billions of years to happen under a microscrope in 5 minutes? what utter rubbish. do you know what we CAN see however? bacteria EVOLVING new genes, such as the ability to metabolise cytric acid amongst a certain strain over thousands of generations. tell me if god made us why do we still have circular DNA in our mitochondria? why is it that chickens still have the deactivated genes for teeth if they did not evolve.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics It's easy to say "It took billions of years", provide 0 evidence for that and then say, Gee sorry, I can't provide any evidence. Have faith!" If there is 0 evidence there is no science. If "billions of years ago" and speculation are presented as if they are actual data then you have pseudo science. I avoid Diety. It's just a strawman. If chickens genes' for teeth were deactivated that would be loss of info, not the increased info that leads to "Tree"cllimbs, i.e. devolution.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady yep another fallacy. you think that loss of information is not evolution? again you demonstrate your complete ignorance claiming that evolution is about going UP and increasing complexity. "leads to "Tree"cllimbs" again you keep insisting on something that evolution has nothing to do with. you think evolution is about more complexity which shows how little you understand. oh and by the way, the genes for teeth in birds are STILL there, they have not been 'lost'

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics You are dodging the issue of the Tree Climb & showing me 0 evidence for it whatsoever. Evolutionists say lizards led to birds, apes led to people, etc. just as Darwin's Tree did. Deal with it. To give me an ex.. of loss of information instead, of devolution, is a strawman. Show me any evidence whatsoever that speciation, mutations, natural selection lead to climbs up the "Tree." And if you can't do that don't say creationists don't understand the issues.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "don't say creationists don't understand the issues" its pretty damn clear when you keep insisting that evolution HAS to be about increasing complexity, and more genetic information being increased. it can go BOTH WAYS. I have provided evidence of new species evolving, I have told you that we can test evolutionary relationships between species with genetics. tell me, if we can tell who your great x100 grandfather was then we can determine common ancestors if we go back far enough

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics You provided evidence that there is such a things as speciation which I already knew. You have provided no evidence that speciation leads to the so called Tree of Life climbs. In fact you seem to be wanting to distance yourself from that concept though Miller is embracing it. My great great grandfather was a human being. How does that show any climb up from the so called Tree of Life. I'm the same species as him even. "We can determine common ancestors". Not by fossils.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady the exact same genetic evidence that can show relations between humans going back thousands of generations can ALSO be used to find the common ancestor of species. we can work out how related two species are based on their genes. we can work out how long ago they lived. we can even find transitional fossils from that time with traits of BOTH modern species. that is how we know evolution is true.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady my beef with your tree of life definition is that you still cling to the fallacy that it involves 'climbing' and increased complexity. i completely proved your definition of evolution totally and utterly wrong and yet you still have the ignorant view that it states species have to 'climb' and become more complex.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady oh and by the way I see you like the second law of thermodynamics argument by Thomas Kindell. yet another creationist who does not understand physics as well. complexity can increase in a system I'm afraid.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics You have said 0 to demonstrate that Kindell was wrong, just made some vague & incompletre statements that really don't say much. I think I know what you are trying to say, tho, because the vid debunks it at the end.. I'm afraid that Kindell is a strawman anyway. I want to stick with what the vid talks about and your comments about the "Tree". & any evidence that anything beyond speciation is going on or how speciation could turn fish into lizards, lizards into birds, etc.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady actually I stated basic physics which you would understand if you knew anything about science. while in the universe as a whole there is a trend towards entropy in a system with an energy source it can become increasingly complex. that man's argument is so embarrassingly bad I bet he just read a simple definition and twisted it to his views. and you just lapped it up.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Once again - bringing up Kindell is a strawman. Stick with the issues in the vid and what we have currently been discussing and plz provide answers to the Qs. which I have asked you regarding them.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady how is Kindell a straw man? he is so laughably wrong about basic physics yet you favourite his video as though he's caused a blow to evolution. tell me do you just believe whatever crap creationists say so long as it conforms to your views? oh and I'm still waiting for you to back up your definition "change over time leading to increased complexity". if you do not even understand the definition on wonder you have no understanding of this topic.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics You say, "another fallacy." What fallacy? I'm into logical fallacies. Which one do you feel I have violated when I say that loss of info is not evo when the standard defintion for evo (thi it admittedly gets changed all the time) is change over time leading to increased complexity? Loss of the ability to have teeth, even if the genes are still there, is not increased complexity. It is loss of complexity. It is showing no "Tree" climb. Again, it's devoution, not evoluiotn.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "change over time leading to increased complexity" WHAT BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK STATES THIS? you have no understanding of this issue if you think that is what evolution is about. come on, cite a genuine scientific reference for your definition. put up or shut up because you have just stated in plain english something so laughable wrong only a creationist could say it.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "change over time leading to increased complexity" at last it really is finally out, you stated plainly a 'definition' which is so laughably wrong and so pathetically creationist. you obviously have only been getting your 'information' from creationists if that is the extent of your knowledge.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "faith, not data." LOL please science unlike religion is based on hard data and facts. just because you invent what you want to believe about evolution does not make that true. "no climb up Darwin's Tree" congratulations you just confirmed that you have no understanding of evolution with an ignorant comment. if you think that evolution is about going 'up' an evolution tree go back to high school.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics I don't see any science in your post, just attacks on moi. I believe in this very vid series Miller advises his students to read Origin of Species - which by the way never shows any origins of species whatsoever. Let's see, what's in that book? Lawzy me, the Darwin Tree. So, then, you think Darwin s Tree was wrong & fish didn't turn into salamanders, lizards into birds, apes into men? That's what evo says has happened. Why are you acting like it's not sayng that?

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady oh I see, so you really think that evolutionary biology has not changed or discovered anything since Darwin? His book was his HYPOTHESIS based on the evidence he had available to him at the time, since then genetics and the fossil record have provided immense amounts of evidence. no you said that for bacteria today there was "no climb up Darwin's Tree." that demonstrates how little you understand of evolution if you think everything HAS to become more complex

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Actually evo "biology" has had 0 new to say since Darwin. It has simply added on more speculations presented in the same way Darwin presented his "info", as if it is a done deal, actual fact. The fossil record provides no evidence whatsoever for evo. All they have are fossils that have minor similarities & the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy presented as evidence. No one can paternity test a fossil. Yes, true "evo" requires increased complexity. Cont

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady right if you think genetics, further fossil discoveries and thousands of observations of new species evolving have nothing to do with evolution over the past few hundred years then you are completely wrong. we have many, many transitional fossils showing species that are mid-way between two major groups. we have fossils of organisms with both the traits of birds AND dinosaurs. we ALSO know for a fact that birds STILL have the deactivated genes for teeth.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Google Colin Patterson, famous paleontologist who said "There is not 1 water tight case for a transitiona form" & that such statements "are not science as they cannot be put to the test." He's not the only evolutionist to get honest. If you are going to holler "quote mine" you must show that he either denied that statement or show how it is out of context. How does a minor similarity in ambulocetus show it's progeny led to whales? It doesn't. To say so is pseudo science.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "quote mine" no I said you have no understanding of evolution if you think that it is about organisms becoming more complex and having to drastically change. YOU are making a claim about what evolution says so please provide a modern scientific source that backs your claim up. we have a whole STRING of whales showing the gradual loss of their hind legs and evolution into modern organisms

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics There is no such thing as a string of whales with gradual loss of hind legs. 1st, the bones that are seen & called "vestigial legs" by evolutionists are observed to be used for supporting their massive weights in mating. The so called string of whales shows animals that had some minor similarities here & there to whales & those are few & far between. There is of course 0 way to know if their progeny was ever significantly different than the fossils. Show me a partial blow hole.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady within the past 20 years we have found numerous transitional fossils of whales.. we can see the inner ear of the organisms as it gradually changed and became more and more adapted to the aquatic environment. we can also see the blowhole SHIFTING further and further along the back.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady do you want an easy example of speciation - where one species turns into another one? try plants, poloyploidy FREQUENTLY results in new species. Epilobium angustifolium a type of fireweek doubled its chromosome count which was incompatible with the original species. there you go, a SIMPLE example of evolution. another is the faeroe island house mouse, which in just 250 years of being brought to the island is now INCOMPATIBLE with the original species on the mainland

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Neither speciation nor natural selection, for that matter, are examples of evolution, though people have been taught that is true. There are, for ex., over 200 species of bees. However, every last one of them is still a bee. Speciation happens every day apparently. It's observable, testable & repeatable. Climbs up "The Tree" are not observed. Show me something beyond speciation that is proof positive the life form is doing what Darwin's illustration & evo lit say happen.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "Neither speciation nor natural selection, for that matter, are examples of evolution" right coming from someone who thinks that evolution is a tree species are supposed to be going up. actually when something turns into a new species due to natural selection THAT IS EVOLUTION. if you think the occurrence of new species is not evolution then you are a typical creationist who has no understanding of this issue.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics "If you think the occurence of new species is not evolutioni..." If you think you can keep dodging how speciation leads to "Tree" Climbs, changes beyond speciation, you are the one who doesn't understand what evoltution is. Without the so called climbs up the Tree of Life you don't have any evolution & lizard to bird, ape to man is shown to be false. And there is 0 evidence for anything beyond speciation. Faith, not evidence, says the climb keeps going & going. It doesn't.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady ok I will try again: tell me according to evolution do you think that this magical 'tree' you keep talking about means species are supposed to get more and more complex and change immensely? if you say yes to this then you have no understanding of evolution. AGAIN I SAY, yes some species have become more complex and changed in the past, but to assume that means that evolution is going 'up' is absurd.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics I'm not the 1 talking about the "magical tree" tho I certainly think it is purely magical. Why do you keep trying to act like its not supported by evo theory? It certainly is. How could a fish turn into a salamander wi/o changes far beyond those of speciation? Remember even with speciation fish stay fish, birds stay birds, apes stay apes, etc. etc. Give me a definiton from evolutionary literature that says loss of information is evolution. I'd like to see your source.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim that evolution states "change over time leading to increased complexity". there are numerous transitional fossils showing fish gradually changing over time to develop fin bones and limbs. Panderichthys is one example of a transitional fossil. "loss of information is evolution" evolution is about change in species, it does not have to be the loss or gain of information.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Show me something from evolutionary lit that says that loss of genetic info & complexity is evolution. Cite your source. Show me how you know that Pandeichthys ever produced any progeny significantly different from itself in anyway and isn't just another one of innumerable extinct fossils that was slightly different in some ways from other life forms around it - typical of all life forms since each has its slightly different niche. Show how speciation leads to "Tree" climbs.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady well birds retaining the gene for teeth for teeth but having it deactivated is part of evolution. REFERENCE your source that claims that evolution is about creatures having to become more complex. or did you make it up? oh and btw the vulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb are the same as tetrapods yet these limbs in Pandeichthys had fins still on them.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Tell what is testable & repeatable & observable, to show that Panderichthyrs ever had any progeny significantly different from itself and isn't just another extinct life form with slightly different characteristics due to its slightly different niche in the world's biosystem? There iis 0 such evidence. There is just the logical fallacies, as usal of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause & pure, blilnd speculation abt the bird's offpsring.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady except then there was Sauripterus which had fins with 8 fingers attached in a way virtually identical to the earliest amphibians. Hynerpeton had more advanced legs and pelvic girdle which shows both and aquatic and terrestrial lifestyle. there are DOZENS of fossils each showing more and more transitions between fish and amphibians. furthermore they were not living at random times and places, they are DESCENDANTS which become more and more like amphibians. its not random times.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics "There are dozens of fossils" which no one can ever show produced any progeny significantly different from themselves and which have only superficial similarities to their so called "proven descendants". There are BILLIONS of nautiloids in the Grand Canyon alone. Guess what? Show just 1 anywhere that has an incomplete spiral or tentacles that are "evolvving" not quite finished. And btw there is no fossil showing a blowhole"moving" only complete nostril sets on all fossils.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady wow yet again you state another fallacy. you really believe evolution states that there are 'half' evolved organisms? what a stupid thing to say. EVERY species is a full species, it is only in HIND SIGHT that we apply the term transitional to fossils that have traits of a modern creature and traits of a primitive one. acting like evolution claims species are half and half again shows how little you know.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady so get again I ask: you claimed evolution states it is "change over time leading to increased complexity" if this is your definition provide a scientific source to back this up. or did you just believe what other creationists told you???

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Google Evolution And Natural Selection at globalchange. Oh lookie. There is that Tree of Life again. Gee, that sure likes like increased complexity over time. It sure likes like change beyond speciation. Far beyond. Your turn. I asked for you to give me a defintion thru evolutionary literature showing how decrease in complexity, loss of info, is being defined as evolution. Don't give another strawman plz, including comments about how creationists don't understand science.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady you cite a random website and act like it proves ANYTHING? I said a scientific source. anyone can set up a website. got any biology books in your house? I doubt it. shall I quote the person dictionary of biology? " the development of new types of living organisms from pre-existing types by the accumulation of genetic differences over long periods of time." your definition was laughably wrong and simplistic.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics I cited Ken Miller, in this vid series, telling students to read Origin of Species & saying "It is a great book!:" It has the Tree of Life in it. Gee, do you think Miller thinks its a great book, but doesn't buy into the whole Tree thing which underlies the whole theme of the book? I don' theeenk so. Talking about Kendall is a strawman because I never mentioned it, this vid series never mentions it, and I have asked you some hard Qs which you have been avoiding w strawmen..

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady the tree of life is a visual representation of the different species showing common ancestors. it has nothing to do with evolution claiming species have to become more complex and 'climb it'. you could not even come up with the definition of evolution, you used a pathetically obvious creationist one.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics "The tree of life...has 0 to do with evolution claiming species have to become more complex...." Instead of constantly insulting creationists and acting as if we are all stupid, why don't you instead answer some Qs I have been pressing you for. Of course a fish would have to go beyond its species in order to turn into a lizard & fish to lizard is part of the tree. I ask you for maybe the 4th time, what evidence there is that this has happened besides dataless speculation?

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "Instead of constantly insulting creationists" well you are the ones who understand so little about evolution you think it has to be about becoming more complex. ask yourself why i think creationists are stupid when people like you cannot even give the correct definition of what evolution is. I just provided multiple transitional forms between fish and amphibian. genetics tells us exactly how related a species is and NO transitions occur before they should in time.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics "Why I think creationists are stupid." I have this rule. I spend my limited time on those who are civl & objective. It also helps to spend time with one who doesn't give a bunch of strawmen. I hope you learn what real science is and that it can never be based on logical fallacies & speculation presented as data. I hope you learn what evo is really saying and what real science says. But you are now on ignore for me.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady you arrogant fool you are the one who was patronisingly claiming to learn to think for myself. its a waste of time debating with people like yourself anyway. if you are too ignorant to even know what the definition of evolution is and then when I state it to arrogantly ignore it shows a special kind of mentality. oh and by the way, you can see the nostrils in whale transitional fossils moving towards the back of the head. again you invented your own facts.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady so yes, its no wonder I become frustrated debating non-scientific creationists who INVENT their own definitions of evolution and act as though a website they read it on makes it a fact. I proved you completely and utterly wrong. tell me, how can I hope to have an intelligent conversation with a creationist about evolution when you people are too damn stupid to understand what the basic definition is???

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "the development of new types of living organisms from pre-existing types by the accumulation of genetic differences over long periods of time" again I state the definition of evolution. tell me where is it that it says species have to become more complex? oh wait it DOES NOT. that was just rubbish you invented or had fed to you by creationists.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Are you familiar with Coelacanth? Not long ago it was hailed as a wonderful ex. of a transtional fossil, one that was making its move to land. Did they have any evidence for that? Of course not. They just said things like "characteristics of...similar homology" & lots of the public bought it. Then ;ovomg Coelacanth's were found. Basically just your usual fish. Gee, all those wonderful peer reviews telling people that they had evidence for evo, too. Start to use YOUR mind.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady I find it amusing you tell me to use my mind when you just got your info about Coelacanth from a creationist source. you show your ignorance again my referring to it. the modern Coelacanth is from an entirely DIFFERENT family from the fossilised ones we have. the current living one - Latimeria chalumnae - has no fossil record so it is not a 'living fossil'.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Do your research. The Coelacanth that was found alive was considered to have been extinct for 10s of millions of years. This is not just on creation websites.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady as I said, the one they found was of a completely DIFFERENT family to the one they had considered a transitional fossil. yes they had thought all of them were dead but the modern species Latimeria chalumnae that is living today is not the one in the fossil records scientists were writing about. next time check your creationist sources when they say that the fossils have been found alive.

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics You check out your own sources because I can't do your work for you and because I suspect they are strawmen. While you are at it, don't forget that I asked you to cite a source from evo lit that says loss of information is considered to be evolution. I have given you 2 sources, including Miller himself, showing that the Tree of Life is part of evolutionary dogma. But you should have know it already - and if you believe evo, why aren't you backing it up? Rhetorical Q.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady wait so you will not even back up your own incorrect definition of evolution??? I provided a REAL scientific definition proving you wrong. tell me where is it that is says that an organism has to become more complex to have 'evolved" oh wait it DOES NOT. you are too ignorant to even understand the definition of evolution. you're just another ignorant creationist. stick to church at least people there believe whatever crap you make up.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady tell me, do you even know what the definition of a species is? reproductive isolation MARKS species. speciation has been frequently obvserved and documented, we know for a fact that new species evolve. we can also tell from the fossil record the ancestors of species and GENETICS provides evidence of relation between species. I suggest you go read a book if you think speciation is not evolution.

[AussiePolitics]

@LoricaLady "just attacks on moi" well when you write ignorant comments about bacteria have to 'climb' some imaginary tree then you just confirm you understand nothing on this issue. let me educate you: evolution is NOT a ladder or tree species are trying to climb, as though the theory claims we HAVE to become more complex. evolution is about SURVIVING. if an organism is perfectly adapted for survival like bacteria have been tell me what selective pressures are on it to extensively change?

[LoricaLady]

@AussiePolitics Cont. In answer to your last Q. I have already acknowledged that change occurs thru speciation and also thru natural selection. For ex. bacteria change. But, again, they stay bacteria. Mendelll told all about genetic changes, tho unlike Darwin who relied on armchair speculation & casual observation, Mendell dealt with what was carefully observed, tested, repeated and documented. Finches into non finches has no evidence whatsoever. Beak change does not lead to nonfinches.

[TheSlowThinker]

Very informative lecture!

I'd recommend anyone with questions concerning evolution to see what Ken Miller has to say. Very knowledgeable and pleasant fellow!

[flyingscience]

Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.

"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"

[kzsteele]

ken miller is clearly one of the best. very knowledgeable and charismatic, two traits that are difficult to find in any one speaker.

[themadlolscientist]

Ken Miller is great. "Finding Darwin's God" is a terrific book!

[Erech01]

ken miller did the exact same thing i would have donexD i never like giving people what they want in these matters:P stopping people from getting a strong foothold in a debate gives them a chancexD

[ndjarnag]

-awesome!

-thanks for the upload

[19995700]

I can't believe that this is till a a major issue is the States. "board of education" muppets actually removing evolution from the curriculum?! Man that's f@#king scary.

[AshNekoBoy]

i know someone please save us!

[Manofest]

Dr. Ken Miller is so eloquent. I wish there were more of his lectures/debates.

[NellaMad1]

Excellent talk