Evolution is not directional, there is no distinction of micro/macro anymore, and this video is employing a fallacy known as confirmation bias. It's completely ignoring the fact that information can be and is added.
wow..... this guy actually proves there are no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the wild because they would have to compete with the parent bacteria......Guess we are wasting our time totally developing new antibiotics...... WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
@luisgarcia28 said: "no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the wild" You must not have understood the point of the clip. The point is that adaptation and genetic change DO occur, but such change involves the LOSS of information - not the gain of it. This therefore is NOT a case of evolution. But doesn't it disturb you that it is commonly touted as if it is? You had better do some more homework regarding creation science - there are problems with "evolution" - like the second law of thermodynamics.
@alyosha24601 Let's see.....Reading and knowing what you are talking about are essential to arguing any point. Insertions and amplifications are 2 types of mutations in which information is not lost but increased. So you are WRONG about that. Just look it up. Bacteria actually evolve in the wild to do incredible things, by gaining information through mutations. Case in point the nylon digesting bacteria, a type of Flavobacterium. Through frame shift mutation it gained information and
@alyosha24601 developed a 12 step process to digest nylon (a man made product, with a known date of invention). Although frame shift can involve loss of information that is not ALWAYS the case. Now calling creationism a SCIENCE....well that is just plainly offensive. Science requires measurable and reproducible evidence to make up a group of hypotheses that can be tested with experiments. If they pass this test a theory can be put forward. I stress the measurable and reproducible part.
@alyosha24601 When a creationist mentions thermodynamics it means he does not know what he is talking about. I can bet you don't know the first or the third. The thermodynamic argument is old, dumb and wrong. But maybe you can explain thermodynamics to this large audience.
@blublu451 I had one class in thermodynamics in 1985. Chapter six of my textbook stated that evolution was mathematically impossible based on the mathematics of the second law. Of course such a book could not be sold today, but it was right in my textbook. Entropy is an observable mathematical law. Evolution is a fiction based on a sacrosanct naturalistic worldview. What we observe today is rapid DNA degeneration, 100% discrete taxonomy, and extinctions. Evolution does not occur today, or ever.
@alyosha24601 Let me understand the argument....1) You took in 1985 a class in thermodynamics with wrong information given in a textbook. 2) Entropy is an observable mathematical law. 3) Therefore evolution is a fiction and has never occurred. ????????????????? The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an ISOLATED system always increases or remains constant. Earth is not an isolated system. Get your facts straight. Maybe you will understand a book on thermodynamics today.
@blublu451 Yes, I know about the isolated system. Fine for a heated pressure vessel, etc. In a biological system however the degree of organization is so high that no input from outside is going to raise it. You can't just hit DNA with heat and expect complexity to grow. The missing element is information. It's not just matter and energy. You have to explain the unbelievable complexity. You also have to explain irreducible complexity. This level of complexity only declines, never grows.
@alyosha24601 Wow again you amaze me.......What are we talking about? Abiogenesis, evolution, Irreducible complexity, energy conservation in biological systems........I'm lost. Irreducible complexity MEANS something is too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection. You clearly do not understand even the BASIC premise. Irreducible complexity has been disproven in EVERY example ever.
@blublu451 "Proven"? You use a scientific word but with a religious conviction. Tell me how an eye can develop in steps. The complexity of an eye is mind-boggling. How would random chance produce a device that is 1000 times more complex than a camera, along with the software in the brain as well. Man can't even come close to producing these things now, but you say they came about by spontaneous generation plus time? How would natural selection favor a partly developed eye? Evolution = religion.
@blublu451 "Proven"? You use a scientific word but with a religious conviction. Tell me how an eye can develop in steps. The complexity of an eye is mind-boggling. How would random chance produce a device that is 1000 times more complex than a camera, along with the software in the brain as well. Man can't even come close to producing these things now, but you say they came about by spontaneous generation plus time? How would natural selection favor a partly developed eye? Evolution = religion.
@alyosha24601 You really should read more. The eye was the first to be tackled, and if you just Google "irreducible complexity" you will find the eye mentioned in the vast majority of articles and the mechanisms explained as how it is possible by entirely natural means. It is by far more implausible that a sky god exists than the natural selection that we see every day is the explanation for the eye. Read more. Other examples are flagella which have also a simpler functional counterpart.
@alyosha24601 Go to things as simple as Wikipedia. Don't swallow the Kool-Aid you are being fed. Religion=Bullshit. And try sticking to one premise to argue. You do tend to ramble all over the place. State a premise you want to argue first then you will not get lost in the way with multisyllabic words. And you can make arguments for or against some concrete statement.
@blublu451 Good point on the argument/logic. I think you are right. I'm frustrated though by your lack of scientific commentary. I don't want to go watch some evolutionary priest somewhere, I've seen enough of them in debates. What frustrates me is so paradoxical: Creationists seem to prefer to discuss science, and evolutionists, like yourself, talk philosophy. I don't want to talk about a sky-God, I want to hear science supporting evolution, and I can't find the beef! Thanks for ze commentary.
@blublu451 Or rather it was never demonstrated to begin with., no debunking of it is even necessary. Despite it being easy meat for the odd novice biologist or mathematician to write a paper on.
Moreover since the wedge document was first published in 1998 (13 years ago) not a single creationist has ever demonstrated how, if or why is occurs. Not a single paper or experiment, not a single test, not even a way it could be tested was suggested.
@MumblingMickey Look, I'm not a biologist, my field is astronomy, so please forgive me all these details. Nevertheless, evolution has so many problems I think most anyone can put the lie to it. We see DNA degenerating today. We've discovered that humans will not even be able to reproduce in 100,000 years because the male DNA is unwinding. Damage is accumulating. How is it that we observe this today, but the evolutionary priests claim we evolved from some Australopithecus they made up?
How does that stop you from reading a biology book before claiming core principles of biology are all wrong and then also trying to explain how these core principles can be applied to problems and result in a solution that finds its way into solid products?
@alyosha24601 also did you know that before Franklin presented her basic crystalline structure for the structure of nucleotides (DNA) creationists insisted it would never be found cos God did it, or that this was not the way life worked cos God did it, or that it was a lie and god did it.
So you'll forgive me given the 200 odd books I have on biology if I take your insistence 'its all a lie' with a pinch of salt, since I've applied the same principles to inorganic molecules...and you haven't
@alyosha24601 Australopithecus by the way is not an animal we have a single example of... since it was first discovered many examples have been uncovered.... and since they are solid physical objects it's be pretty hard to insist the contents of someones head which was made up...suddenly became a physical object.
Nobody actually suggested that Australopithecus was a direct ancestor in a linear fashion. Even though all key points match...and I doubt you even understand what a 'key point' is.
@MumblingMickey See my "Funny Ape Man" video and have a look at the mathematics of a transition from ape to man. I don't buy lottery tickets because I know I won't win, but evolutionists seem to believe 1 chance in 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,
@alyosha24601 Well you math is crap...we know that much is a definite...
As it turns out biologists and chemists claim the odds of evolution occurring are in fact at a ratio of 1:1 ... in other words not in any way governed by probability.... you were just old there is some degree of chance and chose to believe that too!
But you failed to consider that domestic pigs, sheep, dogs, horses, all kids of crops...are selective evolution.
@MumblingMickey Bunk. That's just selection - it's destroying information, not creating it. Or, are you saying all domestic dogs have evolved by random chance in the last 400 years? Even Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim that much change! That would be what we call "Spontaneous Generation"! My Youtube video "DNA Degeneration: Why your kids will be mutants!" by Dr Sanford devastates your 1:1 notion. Mutations are overwhelming. Try it. Thanks for polite and interesting commentary!
@alyosha24601 Again you're ignoring directly observed processes that increase functional information, for instance the production of entirely new organs I referred to yesterday.
'Or, are you saying all domestic dogs have evolved by random chance in the last 400 years'
Strawman, domestic dogs were produced by artificial selection, not natural selection.
1. where did i mention 400 years? (the only mention of it is your comment and now this one)
2. where did I mention random chance? (a ratio of 1:1 is not random, and theres no chance involved)
This is the problem here ... you are not reading what I'm typing are you?
I'm typing one thing... and you are putting it through some crazy filter that interprets what I'm stating as exactly the opposite... then you answer as if I said all sorts of things...
@alyosha24601 So in reply... my answer is I literally have no idea what you are talking about!
You're obviously simply determined to insist that evolution has something to do with random chance ...despite the fact that no evolutionary biologist agrees, I certainly don't agree, neither do you.
so whats next?
Here maybe evolutionists say that evolution only happens when we sleep at night?
I don't get it? Why are you insisting on stating things everyone agrees is nonsense...even you?
@MumblingMickey To go from some ape to a human in 2 million years is 6%!! of the genome. That takes over a thousand perfect base pair mutations every generation for over 100,000 generations (in a row!) and find a mate with the same. 80% of mutations are recessive, 99.99999% are harmful, of which most can't be selected out because they are so small - like rust. So, you really believe this fairy tale? I think you should stop mocking and deal with this math. Evolution is quack science - a religion.
you pulled that from your ass... and its immediately countered by observation. Not mention its also coutered by basic math.... and since humans do in fact have immunity to diseases they didn't have just 50 years ago...its also an incredible stupid statement.
So heres the question... where the fuck did you get that figure?
1. To go from ape to human? which ape? Humans are apes... that's how we are classified.
2.99.99999% of mutations are not harmful. Where are you getting this ludicrous nonsense? I want you to supply me with a source for that please... thank you!
3. This experiment is done.with real genes day in, day out. In fact bacteria don't even get the advantage of sexual reproduction... they are stuck to cloning themselves. Hasn't harmed them.
Look if you understood what evolution was and then disagreed we might get somewhere.
The things you mooted here will be equally laughed at by any biologist.
You were told all sorts of nonsense about what evolution was and you chose to accept it without seeing if it was an accurate appraisal, or laughable rubbish. And what you were told is laughable rubbish!
It'd be like saying 'don't believe gardeners because they say all shrubs have feathers and that's nonsense'
@MumblingMickey I'm interested in hearing what a biologist would say about creationism, in case you'd like to inform me. What I almost always get here though (except for one geologist) is insults, broad claims, appeals to authority. In YEARS of listening to debates I have never heard the main creationist claims dismantled from a scientific perspective. This has confirmed to me that "evolution" cannot be defended except through insult. I'm always here listening, but evolutionists tell me nothing.
@alyosha24601 I'm not a biologist (yet) I'm a physicist... the only reason I have an interest in biology is due to my job.... and the only way in this world to expand on that in 2012... is to go back to college...again... and get qualification in biology... specifically biotechnology.
An appeal to authority is not fallacious when that authority knows that your claim is demonstrably inaccurate...
Okay then give it a shot.. Give me a claim made by creationists. For example you 99.99999% claim.
@MumblingMickey You want a claim? How can evolution be responsible for sexual reproduction? Do change from asexual to sexual reproduction requires millions of simultaneous, perfectly complementary, dominant mutations. Then the new, sexed organisms must survive and find each other - ALL IN ONE GENERATION. It takes a nearly insane evolutionary religious devotion to believe that actually happened! (Sometimes evolutionists claim it even happened through cannibalism!!!)
@alyosha24601 Well rather than take that up with me... would you say this might have crossed a biologists mind at some point? Would you think they might have addressed it...
Well why don't you go look up what they say, how a biologist explains that... then pick a hole in it.
For sure they explain it... its not like it was left hanging...
In fact on the subject of things that are 'left hanging' most universities insist that students tackle a subject that has hitherto not been addressed sufficiently by science in their thesis.
The result is that to get a degree or a phd in any classical science one has to complete a thesis which is unique... new knowledge must be added to the body of knowledge.
So your question is answered... assuming you know where to look. (hint: it won't be on AIG)
@alyosha24601 Also you do realise that not only does there need to be a progression from asexual reproduction to sexual... but in some cases (where the environment is not consistent with having two sexes) there must also be a regression from two sexes to one...
Either that... or that species might become extinct. Now the fact is in most cases that exactly what happens... extinction, but in a small set of cases sexually reproducing population can revert back to asexual reproduction.
@alyosha24601 And in other cases sexually reproducing populations are in fact BOTH sexes themselves.. or at least they have the ability to swap back and forward between the two... Salmon do this... after mating male salmon can in fact change sex to female... they can then be inseminated by males and then make their merry way back to their spawning ground where they lay their eggs and die.
the males that impregnated them might even have been born female!
@alyosha24601 Next you have a clear hangup about fallacy... fallacious statements can still be valid... they just aren't supported by that specific claim.
If I told you my friend a baker once informed me that yeast is not a plant nor is it an animal and he knew that since yeast is used in baking.
It's still a fallacious claim to authority though...even if in this case its correct.
However a pastor telling you 99.999% of mutations are deleterious... well lets ask them for their source first.
@alyosha24601 So what John Stanforsd is saying basically (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is no way I could take say something like a Hippo and set out to deliberately selectively brred it until I had hippos say a foot high that were white with tiny teeth and a bushy tail?
that would be impossible according to him... because its too subtle... yes?
Obviously if I had a hippo a foot tall that was white (we'll throw in furry as well) with a bushy tail and tiny teeth ...well it might be a lot off things ...but since we already have hippos we'd need to come up with a new name ofr it... lets call it a 'Mundo' for the sake of argument.
@alyosha24601 Also BTW... the idea that genes are deteriorating at a faster rate than new genetic code is being added was in fact first promoted in the 1950's.
In fact mathematically it was indeed demonstrated that if what we knew about genes in the 1950's was correct...then genetic information would slowly deteriorate.
However there is a very slight problem with continuing to argue that point in 2012 (54 years later)
@MumblingMickey I'll give you a clue... the scientist that proposed the idea was both a mathematician and a biologist (so very well qualified).. and his tests were carried out on Drosophila (a staple of the biology laboratory)
Now heres two questions that will explain to you why Thomas Morgan was both right, and incredibly wrong...
1. How many genes are there in a fruit fly?
2. How many genes did Thomas Morgan think there were?
Answer both of those...and you'll have your answer.
In fact not only was Morgan a good scientist but a Nobel Laureate..(Nobel prize in physiology 1933).
The funny thing about this is you wouldn't sit there and try to tell me that powered flight is impossible would you?
Yet in 1895... 7 years before the wright brother flew at kittyhawk Lord Kelvin the leading physicist of the era stated that heavier than air powered flight was simply impossible.
What would you say to him if he said that in say 1995? Would you think he was a fool?
@alyosha24601 There is also a very great problem with Sanfords idea.Which is this...
We didn't have absolute demonstration he is wrong.
Excluding the issues of contamination, we actually do have a full genome sequence for organisms who are still extant today that died a very, very long time ago..ancient DNA samples,
In generations we are talking about 10k or more... no degradation or genetic load issues. Ergo Sanford can say it should effect our DNA... but the fact is it just doesn't.
@alyosha24601 Wedge document (google 'wedge strategy') is basically an outline by the creationist movement as to how they would gain political advancement for their nonsense... it outlines how to gain funding and try to move creationism into schools and removes several sciences such as biology, physics, etc.
I can do better than just deal with the mathematics of mutation, since it has already been done.
@MumblingMickey The wedge strategy document also tells us that these idiots actually believe their own nonsense since they outlined they would carry out research to demonstrate ID.
However after first coming up with the idea in the 90's until now they haven't even mentioned how it could be tested, let alone actually done so.
And the reason they haven't done so is because (as they now accept themselves) it can't be tested. However since then its been demonstrated to be nonsense.
CONT. However whats absolutely amazing is that the creationist movement, whilst admitting themselves they can't demonstrate a single premise still march ahead trying to force this crap into education.
By the same logic we should be teaching shamanism instead of immunology to doctors!.
Real science goes through a very rigid process to enter the education above all it must demonstrate 'application'. The ' we just want it to be taught cos we just do' is not part of that process.
@alyosha24601 "Fine for a heated pressure vessel, etc. In a biological system however the degree of organization is so high that no input from outside is going to raise it. "
That's total nonsense... complexity has nothing to do with the transfer of heat and energy... which you would know if you knew anything about it. Next....this might come as a surprise to you...but you yourself managed to grow in complexity from a single cell.
@alyosha24601 "Entropy is an observable mathematical law. Evolution is a fiction based on a sacrosanct naturalistic worldview."
Yeah I'm sure George Price would be bemused to see you assert evolution is not explained mathematically. However since evolution is in fact also an observable AND mathematical law then we needn't bother with that.
The text book explaining all that to you is Mathematical Biology by J.D.Murrey. Be sure to read it before typing nonsense like that again.
@luisgarcia28 No, you didn't understand his point. He's saying the parent bacteria would predominate in the absence of those drugs. So of course we need to develop them, the resistant bacteria will not be as hardy in other ways. I think you need to watch this video again and think it through.
there is a confusion being made here, I suspect deliberately.
The original strain is pretty well suited to environment A
When the drug is introduced to the evnironment the bacteria slowly adapt to become suited to this new environment (environment B)
When the drug is removed, ofcourse the old bacteria out compete, they are tailored to this environment. If being resistant to the drug made you better suited to environment A aswell, the bacteria would probably already be mutated in that way.
@SPACKlick Yes, you've got it, but the two environments are not equal. The point is that although the mutation allows the "adapted" variety to survive in the altered environment, it can only just survive. Information has been lost and the mutant is less healthy than the parent. This is evolutionary regression. There is no new information, the "adapted" variety is now dependent on the drug for its survival. Thanks for commenting rather than insulting; you are a genius.
@alyosha24601 Information has not necessarily been lost. The new strain is not "less healthy" than the old strain the are just adapted to a different environment.
EXAMPLE: Bacteria from ponds in norwa is collected and grown. slowly the environment it is grown in has its temperature raised to sahara-eaque temperatures, the bacteria adapts to form new strain B which massively outcompetes at those temperatures. Strain B cannot even slightly compete at low temperatures, which bacteria is healthier?
@SPACKlick There is no mutation here. This whole process is just natural selection - a change in the balance of varieties already there hidden in the genome. Natural selection is always touted as "proof" for evolution. Talk about deliberate confusion! Everyone agrees natural selection occurs, but NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN CREATED preceding a shift. This is not "evolution", it is quality control and nothing more. Evolution is a modern creation myth; it is not backed by scientific observation.
@alyosha24601 Mutations are what allow adaptation within natural selection beyond the bounds of current variation. Evolution has been observed, tested and shown to occur. We have a pretty good understanding of the mechanisms. don't be blinded by creotards.
@SPACKlick Variation has been shown to occur. No evolution has ever been shown to occur. Fruit flies have been zapped for years, so many failed attempts were made to find a positive mutation/new information from it that one evolutionist concluded: "The fruit fly has evolved as far as it can go!" I'll give him this - he was faithful to his religious conviction! Aggressive evolutionists like Dawkins are actually mad or bitter at God. Their emotions reveal the issue is deeper than just science.
More nonsense since reading the new bacteria genome would tell you that there very well IS mutation in the DNA... it's definitely different. How else would it be able to survive a new environment?
Reading your comments is like a tirade of comedy from the 1870's.... If it isn't too much of a problem would you try to catch up on discovery in the last 140 years. You'll be insisting DNA hasn't been discovered yet and never will next!
Y'know I can guarantee not a single creationist would assume if you put population of terriers in the wild they would magically (micro-evolve) back into a grey wolf.
These organisms didn't revert back to the parent strain, they just lost the previously adopted trait. ie. the organisms with the new trait had a costly add on, which others did not, and were out competed.... reintroduce the drug, or another one and they will react again. But their genome is being altered all the time.
Evolution is not directional, there is no distinction of micro/macro anymore, and this video is employing a fallacy known as confirmation bias. It's completely ignoring the fact that information can be and is added.
refuted here /watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
wow..... this guy actually proves there are no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the wild because they would have to compete with the parent bacteria......Guess we are wasting our time totally developing new antibiotics...... WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
luisgarcia28 1 year ago
@luisgarcia28 said: "no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the wild" You must not have understood the point of the clip. The point is that adaptation and genetic change DO occur, but such change involves the LOSS of information - not the gain of it. This therefore is NOT a case of evolution. But doesn't it disturb you that it is commonly touted as if it is? You had better do some more homework regarding creation science - there are problems with "evolution" - like the second law of thermodynamics.
alyosha24601 7 months ago
@alyosha24601 Let's see.....Reading and knowing what you are talking about are essential to arguing any point. Insertions and amplifications are 2 types of mutations in which information is not lost but increased. So you are WRONG about that. Just look it up. Bacteria actually evolve in the wild to do incredible things, by gaining information through mutations. Case in point the nylon digesting bacteria, a type of Flavobacterium. Through frame shift mutation it gained information and
blublu451 7 months ago
@alyosha24601 developed a 12 step process to digest nylon (a man made product, with a known date of invention). Although frame shift can involve loss of information that is not ALWAYS the case. Now calling creationism a SCIENCE....well that is just plainly offensive. Science requires measurable and reproducible evidence to make up a group of hypotheses that can be tested with experiments. If they pass this test a theory can be put forward. I stress the measurable and reproducible part.
blublu451 7 months ago
@alyosha24601 When a creationist mentions thermodynamics it means he does not know what he is talking about. I can bet you don't know the first or the third. The thermodynamic argument is old, dumb and wrong. But maybe you can explain thermodynamics to this large audience.
blublu451 7 months ago
@blublu451 I had one class in thermodynamics in 1985. Chapter six of my textbook stated that evolution was mathematically impossible based on the mathematics of the second law. Of course such a book could not be sold today, but it was right in my textbook. Entropy is an observable mathematical law. Evolution is a fiction based on a sacrosanct naturalistic worldview. What we observe today is rapid DNA degeneration, 100% discrete taxonomy, and extinctions. Evolution does not occur today, or ever.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 Let me understand the argument....1) You took in 1985 a class in thermodynamics with wrong information given in a textbook. 2) Entropy is an observable mathematical law. 3) Therefore evolution is a fiction and has never occurred. ????????????????? The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an ISOLATED system always increases or remains constant. Earth is not an isolated system. Get your facts straight. Maybe you will understand a book on thermodynamics today.
blublu451 6 months ago
@blublu451 Yes, I know about the isolated system. Fine for a heated pressure vessel, etc. In a biological system however the degree of organization is so high that no input from outside is going to raise it. You can't just hit DNA with heat and expect complexity to grow. The missing element is information. It's not just matter and energy. You have to explain the unbelievable complexity. You also have to explain irreducible complexity. This level of complexity only declines, never grows.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 Wow again you amaze me.......What are we talking about? Abiogenesis, evolution, Irreducible complexity, energy conservation in biological systems........I'm lost. Irreducible complexity MEANS something is too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection. You clearly do not understand even the BASIC premise. Irreducible complexity has been disproven in EVERY example ever.
blublu451 5 months ago
@blublu451 "Proven"? You use a scientific word but with a religious conviction. Tell me how an eye can develop in steps. The complexity of an eye is mind-boggling. How would random chance produce a device that is 1000 times more complex than a camera, along with the software in the brain as well. Man can't even come close to producing these things now, but you say they came about by spontaneous generation plus time? How would natural selection favor a partly developed eye? Evolution = religion.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@blublu451 "Proven"? You use a scientific word but with a religious conviction. Tell me how an eye can develop in steps. The complexity of an eye is mind-boggling. How would random chance produce a device that is 1000 times more complex than a camera, along with the software in the brain as well. Man can't even come close to producing these things now, but you say they came about by spontaneous generation plus time? How would natural selection favor a partly developed eye? Evolution = religion.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 You really should read more. The eye was the first to be tackled, and if you just Google "irreducible complexity" you will find the eye mentioned in the vast majority of articles and the mechanisms explained as how it is possible by entirely natural means. It is by far more implausible that a sky god exists than the natural selection that we see every day is the explanation for the eye. Read more. Other examples are flagella which have also a simpler functional counterpart.
blublu451 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 Go to things as simple as Wikipedia. Don't swallow the Kool-Aid you are being fed. Religion=Bullshit. And try sticking to one premise to argue. You do tend to ramble all over the place. State a premise you want to argue first then you will not get lost in the way with multisyllabic words. And you can make arguments for or against some concrete statement.
blublu451 5 months ago
@blublu451 Good point on the argument/logic. I think you are right. I'm frustrated though by your lack of scientific commentary. I don't want to go watch some evolutionary priest somewhere, I've seen enough of them in debates. What frustrates me is so paradoxical: Creationists seem to prefer to discuss science, and evolutionists, like yourself, talk philosophy. I don't want to talk about a sky-God, I want to hear science supporting evolution, and I can't find the beef! Thanks for ze commentary.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@blublu451 Or rather it was never demonstrated to begin with., no debunking of it is even necessary. Despite it being easy meat for the odd novice biologist or mathematician to write a paper on.
Moreover since the wedge document was first published in 1998 (13 years ago) not a single creationist has ever demonstrated how, if or why is occurs. Not a single paper or experiment, not a single test, not even a way it could be tested was suggested.
So its not even a hypothesis...
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey Look, I'm not a biologist, my field is astronomy, so please forgive me all these details. Nevertheless, evolution has so many problems I think most anyone can put the lie to it. We see DNA degenerating today. We've discovered that humans will not even be able to reproduce in 100,000 years because the male DNA is unwinding. Damage is accumulating. How is it that we observe this today, but the evolutionary priests claim we evolved from some Australopithecus they made up?
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 "Look, I'm not a biologist,"
How does that stop you from reading a biology book before claiming core principles of biology are all wrong and then also trying to explain how these core principles can be applied to problems and result in a solution that finds its way into solid products?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 also did you know that before Franklin presented her basic crystalline structure for the structure of nucleotides (DNA) creationists insisted it would never be found cos God did it, or that this was not the way life worked cos God did it, or that it was a lie and god did it.
So you'll forgive me given the 200 odd books I have on biology if I take your insistence 'its all a lie' with a pinch of salt, since I've applied the same principles to inorganic molecules...and you haven't
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 Australopithecus by the way is not an animal we have a single example of... since it was first discovered many examples have been uncovered.... and since they are solid physical objects it's be pretty hard to insist the contents of someones head which was made up...suddenly became a physical object.
Nobody actually suggested that Australopithecus was a direct ancestor in a linear fashion. Even though all key points match...and I doubt you even understand what a 'key point' is.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey See my "Funny Ape Man" video and have a look at the mathematics of a transition from ape to man. I don't buy lottery tickets because I know I won't win, but evolutionists seem to believe 1 chance in 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 is great odds!
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 Given that humans are apes, the odds are 1:1
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 Well you math is crap...we know that much is a definite...
As it turns out biologists and chemists claim the odds of evolution occurring are in fact at a ratio of 1:1 ... in other words not in any way governed by probability.... you were just old there is some degree of chance and chose to believe that too!
But you failed to consider that domestic pigs, sheep, dogs, horses, all kids of crops...are selective evolution.
Think about that the next time you see a horse!
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
@MumblingMickey Bunk. That's just selection - it's destroying information, not creating it. Or, are you saying all domestic dogs have evolved by random chance in the last 400 years? Even Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim that much change! That would be what we call "Spontaneous Generation"! My Youtube video "DNA Degeneration: Why your kids will be mutants!" by Dr Sanford devastates your 1:1 notion. Mutations are overwhelming. Try it. Thanks for polite and interesting commentary!
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 Again you're ignoring directly observed processes that increase functional information, for instance the production of entirely new organs I referred to yesterday.
'Or, are you saying all domestic dogs have evolved by random chance in the last 400 years'
Strawman, domestic dogs were produced by artificial selection, not natural selection.
CreationistsLOST 3 months ago
@alyosha24601
1. where did i mention 400 years? (the only mention of it is your comment and now this one)
2. where did I mention random chance? (a ratio of 1:1 is not random, and theres no chance involved)
This is the problem here ... you are not reading what I'm typing are you?
I'm typing one thing... and you are putting it through some crazy filter that interprets what I'm stating as exactly the opposite... then you answer as if I said all sorts of things...
Why is that?
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@alyosha24601 So in reply... my answer is I literally have no idea what you are talking about!
You're obviously simply determined to insist that evolution has something to do with random chance ...despite the fact that no evolutionary biologist agrees, I certainly don't agree, neither do you.
so whats next?
Here maybe evolutionists say that evolution only happens when we sleep at night?
I don't get it? Why are you insisting on stating things everyone agrees is nonsense...even you?
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey To go from some ape to a human in 2 million years is 6%!! of the genome. That takes over a thousand perfect base pair mutations every generation for over 100,000 generations (in a row!) and find a mate with the same. 80% of mutations are recessive, 99.99999% are harmful, of which most can't be selected out because they are so small - like rust. So, you really believe this fairy tale? I think you should stop mocking and deal with this math. Evolution is quack science - a religion.
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 erm... humans are still apes.... it didn't take 2 million years for us to become apes...we still are.
next...please just take the rest of your nonsense in that comment and run it through Prices Theorem... you'll find you are massively out.
And yes I do indeed believe math explains things.... what sort of a dumb question is that?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 "99.99999% are harmful,"
you pulled that from your ass... and its immediately countered by observation. Not mention its also coutered by basic math.... and since humans do in fact have immunity to diseases they didn't have just 50 years ago...its also an incredible stupid statement.
So heres the question... where the fuck did you get that figure?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@alyosha24601
1. To go from ape to human? which ape? Humans are apes... that's how we are classified.
2.99.99999% of mutations are not harmful. Where are you getting this ludicrous nonsense? I want you to supply me with a source for that please... thank you!
3. This experiment is done.with real genes day in, day out. In fact bacteria don't even get the advantage of sexual reproduction... they are stuck to cloning themselves. Hasn't harmed them.
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@alyosha24601
Look if you understood what evolution was and then disagreed we might get somewhere.
The things you mooted here will be equally laughed at by any biologist.
You were told all sorts of nonsense about what evolution was and you chose to accept it without seeing if it was an accurate appraisal, or laughable rubbish. And what you were told is laughable rubbish!
It'd be like saying 'don't believe gardeners because they say all shrubs have feathers and that's nonsense'
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey I'm interested in hearing what a biologist would say about creationism, in case you'd like to inform me. What I almost always get here though (except for one geologist) is insults, broad claims, appeals to authority. In YEARS of listening to debates I have never heard the main creationist claims dismantled from a scientific perspective. This has confirmed to me that "evolution" cannot be defended except through insult. I'm always here listening, but evolutionists tell me nothing.
alyosha24601 2 months ago
@alyosha24601 I'm not a biologist (yet) I'm a physicist... the only reason I have an interest in biology is due to my job.... and the only way in this world to expand on that in 2012... is to go back to college...again... and get qualification in biology... specifically biotechnology.
An appeal to authority is not fallacious when that authority knows that your claim is demonstrably inaccurate...
Okay then give it a shot.. Give me a claim made by creationists. For example you 99.99999% claim.
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey You want a claim? How can evolution be responsible for sexual reproduction? Do change from asexual to sexual reproduction requires millions of simultaneous, perfectly complementary, dominant mutations. Then the new, sexed organisms must survive and find each other - ALL IN ONE GENERATION. It takes a nearly insane evolutionary religious devotion to believe that actually happened! (Sometimes evolutionists claim it even happened through cannibalism!!!)
alyosha24601 4 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 Well rather than take that up with me... would you say this might have crossed a biologists mind at some point? Would you think they might have addressed it...
Well why don't you go look up what they say, how a biologist explains that... then pick a hole in it.
For sure they explain it... its not like it was left hanging...
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
In fact on the subject of things that are 'left hanging' most universities insist that students tackle a subject that has hitherto not been addressed sufficiently by science in their thesis.
The result is that to get a degree or a phd in any classical science one has to complete a thesis which is unique... new knowledge must be added to the body of knowledge.
So your question is answered... assuming you know where to look. (hint: it won't be on AIG)
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 Also you do realise that not only does there need to be a progression from asexual reproduction to sexual... but in some cases (where the environment is not consistent with having two sexes) there must also be a regression from two sexes to one...
Either that... or that species might become extinct. Now the fact is in most cases that exactly what happens... extinction, but in a small set of cases sexually reproducing population can revert back to asexual reproduction.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 And in other cases sexually reproducing populations are in fact BOTH sexes themselves.. or at least they have the ability to swap back and forward between the two... Salmon do this... after mating male salmon can in fact change sex to female... they can then be inseminated by males and then make their merry way back to their spawning ground where they lay their eggs and die.
the males that impregnated them might even have been born female!
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 Next you have a clear hangup about fallacy... fallacious statements can still be valid... they just aren't supported by that specific claim.
If I told you my friend a baker once informed me that yeast is not a plant nor is it an animal and he knew that since yeast is used in baking.
It's still a fallacious claim to authority though...even if in this case its correct.
However a pastor telling you 99.999% of mutations are deleterious... well lets ask them for their source first.
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey See my "DNA Degeneration: Why your Kids will be Mutants" for a good source. He's a world expert in plant selection. Do you dare?
alyosha24601 4 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 So what John Stanforsd is saying basically (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is no way I could take say something like a Hippo and set out to deliberately selectively brred it until I had hippos say a foot high that were white with tiny teeth and a bushy tail?
that would be impossible according to him... because its too subtle... yes?
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
Obviously if I had a hippo a foot tall that was white (we'll throw in furry as well) with a bushy tail and tiny teeth ...well it might be a lot off things ...but since we already have hippos we'd need to come up with a new name ofr it... lets call it a 'Mundo' for the sake of argument.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 Also BTW... the idea that genes are deteriorating at a faster rate than new genetic code is being added was in fact first promoted in the 1950's.
In fact mathematically it was indeed demonstrated that if what we knew about genes in the 1950's was correct...then genetic information would slowly deteriorate.
However there is a very slight problem with continuing to argue that point in 2012 (54 years later)
Can you guess what that might be?
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey I'll give you a clue... the scientist that proposed the idea was both a mathematician and a biologist (so very well qualified).. and his tests were carried out on Drosophila (a staple of the biology laboratory)
Now heres two questions that will explain to you why Thomas Morgan was both right, and incredibly wrong...
1. How many genes are there in a fruit fly?
2. How many genes did Thomas Morgan think there were?
Answer both of those...and you'll have your answer.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
In fact not only was Morgan a good scientist but a Nobel Laureate..(Nobel prize in physiology 1933).
The funny thing about this is you wouldn't sit there and try to tell me that powered flight is impossible would you?
Yet in 1895... 7 years before the wright brother flew at kittyhawk Lord Kelvin the leading physicist of the era stated that heavier than air powered flight was simply impossible.
What would you say to him if he said that in say 1995? Would you think he was a fool?
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 There is also a very great problem with Sanfords idea.Which is this...
We didn't have absolute demonstration he is wrong.
Excluding the issues of contamination, we actually do have a full genome sequence for organisms who are still extant today that died a very, very long time ago..ancient DNA samples,
In generations we are talking about 10k or more... no degradation or genetic load issues. Ergo Sanford can say it should effect our DNA... but the fact is it just doesn't.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 He wouldn't be the first though, as I pointed out Morgan said the same and demonstrated it mathematically.
But Morgan was demonstrated to be wrong when we invented genome sequencing. He actually had an excuse for his error (no way of corroborating it).
Sanford has none.
Sanford is like Lord Kelvin, but insisting aircraft are impossible to a fellow passanger on a flight.
He is right about one thing though, the human genome in Caucasians is stochastic. Which means only one thing.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey Please sum up the wedge document for me. I am not familiar with it. (Then deal with the mathematics of mutation)
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 Wedge document (google 'wedge strategy') is basically an outline by the creationist movement as to how they would gain political advancement for their nonsense... it outlines how to gain funding and try to move creationism into schools and removes several sciences such as biology, physics, etc.
I can do better than just deal with the mathematics of mutation, since it has already been done.
see price equation.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey The wedge strategy document also tells us that these idiots actually believe their own nonsense since they outlined they would carry out research to demonstrate ID.
However after first coming up with the idea in the 90's until now they haven't even mentioned how it could be tested, let alone actually done so.
And the reason they haven't done so is because (as they now accept themselves) it can't be tested. However since then its been demonstrated to be nonsense.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
CONT. However whats absolutely amazing is that the creationist movement, whilst admitting themselves they can't demonstrate a single premise still march ahead trying to force this crap into education.
By the same logic we should be teaching shamanism instead of immunology to doctors!.
Real science goes through a very rigid process to enter the education above all it must demonstrate 'application'. The ' we just want it to be taught cos we just do' is not part of that process.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 "Fine for a heated pressure vessel, etc. In a biological system however the degree of organization is so high that no input from outside is going to raise it. "
That's total nonsense... complexity has nothing to do with the transfer of heat and energy... which you would know if you knew anything about it. Next....this might come as a surprise to you...but you yourself managed to grow in complexity from a single cell.
What total and utter nonsense.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alyosha24601 "Entropy is an observable mathematical law. Evolution is a fiction based on a sacrosanct naturalistic worldview."
Yeah I'm sure George Price would be bemused to see you assert evolution is not explained mathematically. However since evolution is in fact also an observable AND mathematical law then we needn't bother with that.
The text book explaining all that to you is Mathematical Biology by J.D.Murrey. Be sure to read it before typing nonsense like that again.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@luisgarcia28 No, you didn't understand his point. He's saying the parent bacteria would predominate in the absence of those drugs. So of course we need to develop them, the resistant bacteria will not be as hardy in other ways. I think you need to watch this video again and think it through.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
there is a confusion being made here, I suspect deliberately.
The original strain is pretty well suited to environment A
When the drug is introduced to the evnironment the bacteria slowly adapt to become suited to this new environment (environment B)
When the drug is removed, ofcourse the old bacteria out compete, they are tailored to this environment. If being resistant to the drug made you better suited to environment A aswell, the bacteria would probably already be mutated in that way.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Yes, you've got it, but the two environments are not equal. The point is that although the mutation allows the "adapted" variety to survive in the altered environment, it can only just survive. Information has been lost and the mutant is less healthy than the parent. This is evolutionary regression. There is no new information, the "adapted" variety is now dependent on the drug for its survival. Thanks for commenting rather than insulting; you are a genius.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Information has not necessarily been lost. The new strain is not "less healthy" than the old strain the are just adapted to a different environment.
EXAMPLE: Bacteria from ponds in norwa is collected and grown. slowly the environment it is grown in has its temperature raised to sahara-eaque temperatures, the bacteria adapts to form new strain B which massively outcompetes at those temperatures. Strain B cannot even slightly compete at low temperatures, which bacteria is healthier?
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@alyosha24601
If we carried out a sequencing of the genome for those organisms in the video...
Lets say we sequence the microbe before the drug was introduced.... and then we took another sequence after it 'reverted' back ...
Do you think both of those genomes would be the same? Would the second sequence have any differences from the first?
BTW, you can actually find out what the answer to that is. And I gotta say, you won't like it...
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@SPACKlick There is no mutation here. This whole process is just natural selection - a change in the balance of varieties already there hidden in the genome. Natural selection is always touted as "proof" for evolution. Talk about deliberate confusion! Everyone agrees natural selection occurs, but NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN CREATED preceding a shift. This is not "evolution", it is quality control and nothing more. Evolution is a modern creation myth; it is not backed by scientific observation.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Mutations are what allow adaptation within natural selection beyond the bounds of current variation. Evolution has been observed, tested and shown to occur. We have a pretty good understanding of the mechanisms. don't be blinded by creotards.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Variation has been shown to occur. No evolution has ever been shown to occur. Fruit flies have been zapped for years, so many failed attempts were made to find a positive mutation/new information from it that one evolutionist concluded: "The fruit fly has evolved as far as it can go!" I'll give him this - he was faithful to his religious conviction! Aggressive evolutionists like Dawkins are actually mad or bitter at God. Their emotions reveal the issue is deeper than just science.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 "There is no mutation here. "
More nonsense since reading the new bacteria genome would tell you that there very well IS mutation in the DNA... it's definitely different. How else would it be able to survive a new environment?
Reading your comments is like a tirade of comedy from the 1870's.... If it isn't too much of a problem would you try to catch up on discovery in the last 140 years. You'll be insisting DNA hasn't been discovered yet and never will next!
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@SPACKlick
Y'know I can guarantee not a single creationist would assume if you put population of terriers in the wild they would magically (micro-evolve) back into a grey wolf.
These organisms didn't revert back to the parent strain, they just lost the previously adopted trait. ie. the organisms with the new trait had a costly add on, which others did not, and were out competed.... reintroduce the drug, or another one and they will react again. But their genome is being altered all the time.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago