@gregrutz In general use the terms dinosauria and reptilila are the inclusive scientific terms whereas the terms dinosaur and reptiles is understood in a historical and traditional sense. Once again you have been caught playing semantics. That would be like me telling you that you do not understand English as the word 'dummy' is chiefly a slang North American term (Oxford Dict.) - however I would be playing semantics as well because I knew what you meant.
Something out of nothing -> wrong, we dont know what was before
Matter - Antimatter asymetry -> so when the higgs is found, you're gonna pick the next "not yet fully understood and proven" problem to insert in that video?
2. Thermodynamics -> applies to a closed system, eg. entire universe. Stars are open
Pop 3 stars -> where the first stars, only consisting of hydrogen and some helium. They had to be giant, thus had a short live span. Finding one today would be _a problem_ for the theory
Homogeneous star distribution -> strange use of that word.. there are gians, there are dwarfs. The giants have lots of heavy elements, they have a short live span. Dwarfs can be very old, have less heavy elements. Star clusters outside the galaxy, where starformation stopped long ago, are full of them. Star forming regions in our galaxy are full of dwarfs with lots of heavy elements.
No decreasing maturity -> Simply wrong. Search for images.
Suns angular momentum -> Don't know about these problems. I won't pretend I know better, I'm fine with not knowing everything just yet.
Planets / Solar system formation -> only in the last 20 years is this a focus, the scientists themselfes have no problem admitting it's not very well understood yet.
Cell has to be fully functional on first try -> Wrong. We can actually evolve some of those things in the lab, but I'm more a space guy, I don't really understand this stuff
@argh523 Another interesting article detailing old stars in galaxies 11 billion light years away. Stellar Birth Control In The Early Universe. ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2006). Given the 'unfortunate observational evidence' of old stars in the early universe an argument is made that says large galaxies must somehow 'suppress'' young stars. Once you have a paradigm it is hard to leave it.
@argh523 Higgs boson is becoming increasingly elusive (recent CERN data - just google)
Second law thermodynamics can be applied to open systems (another story)...however our whole ordered universe apparently came from the chaos of the big bang. Undirected energy does not increase order in systems that are not designed to use that energy.
Our telescopes can apparently look 3 billion years in the past - and still no Pop 3 stars.
@alstoq 3bil lightyears.. Got a picture? Not from a galaxie, from _a star_
Doesn't matter anyway.. we know stars that are 10bil years old, and they're pop2, not 3.
Here's the thing: back when there where no stars at all, when the universe just consisted of gas, hydrogen and helium, it was still pretty hot. A cloud of gas can only collaps onto itself to form a star if 1. it's heavy inoff 2. it's so cold that the temperatur/pressure is to weak to counter the gravitational force.
@alstoq Now putting this together: if the gas is hot, the star that is forming has to be pretty heavy (a lot heavier than any star we've ever seen). And the more massive the star, the faster the fusion, the shorter it's lifespan.
That's why no astronomer has a problem with the fact we never found one. It's not unthinkable there are some old stars with no heavy elements at all, but it would be a big surprise to find one, and would do more to question the current understanding than support it..
@alstoq Higgs: If it's not found, we still learned something ;) But the actual point was: How is not explaining this or that thing a reason to dissmiss an idea (not higgs, big bang), when it explains _so much stuff_ we couldn't otherwise. Besides, the matter-antimatter problem is a question raised by the theory itself, not something we didn't understand before. Thats how it works, all answers raise new questions, and from time to time, someone puts the pieces together in a better way.
@argh523 You may be interested in second law of thermodynamics as it applies to open systems - Granville Sewell’s “A Second Look at the Second Law” (Applied Mathematics Letters, June 2011)
Pointing out gaps in our knowledge and appealing to incredulity doesn't do much.
If we don't understand something (like the suns spin or the gas giants) should we just rely on 'god did it?' as an answer, or should we keep searching?
If we did used 'god did it' from the start we'd believe god creates lightning and earthquakes because we didn't understand them.
We are young yet. I expect a lot of the questions you present will be sufficiently answered within our lifetimes.
@MythicalManMoth Sometimes 1 + 1 will never equal 3 no matter how much knowledge you have. Just because you don't fully understand something (ie God) doesn't mean that you should endlessly search for 'scientific proof' that something came from nothing, or that impossible improbabilities might one day become probable. If we used 'science did it' for everything, even if it goes against common sense and our current understanding then we may miss an even bigger truth. :)
@SadeofDarkness I don't have the same philosophical problem. My God has no beginning and no end - he was always there and is outside space-time. He knows the end from the beginning. I don't have the philosophical problem of origin for in my belief system there was no origin.
@alstoq Please tell me where does 1 + 1 = 3 in any scientific paper. And please tell how in the world would God in ANY religion would amount to a better explanation. Also, it's not "science did it", it's "science explains it"!
Common sense is being logical and reasonable enough to understand our world without having the pretentious belief that we know better because a book was written a couple thousand years ago! If there is a lie that we can push aside in our current society, it's religion...
@tankusfred Many scientific papers claim '1+1=3'; ie: they claim theory as fact, they claim unobserved processes as being observed, and they claim science explains it when it doesn't. Drug companies are particular good at using corrupt and biased science in the marketing and selling of drugs through rigged 'scientific' trials. We all have our biases....I agree. Science has been used as propoganda in every generation and ours is not immune. As such it becomes dogma and religion.
@alstoq Drug companies do not try to explain or research any fields of study. They barely make dubious medicine with outrageous side-effects. There is a difference between theories and proven theories. If anyone claims a theory as fact, they're wrong. Right now the difference would be as follow : the big bang is a theory and evolution is a theory made fact by applied and observed proof. Fighting on this video is giving power to this stupid thought and religious folks all around.
@tankusfred Observed proof...? Are you trying to pull my leg (or my fin). Explain to me one observed / applied proof that makes evolution theory fact?
@alstoq For an observed fact, the easiest would be that all of the evolution genetic tree being produced right now, and that same genetic tree over-lapse geological finds and events perfectly.
For applied proof, the easiest and most prominent would be modern medicine, we would have been to a staggering slow pace in advancement for now 30 years if it wouldn't be for evolution being taken into account. But for more precise experiment, just check out the fish experiment at evolution in the lab.
@tankusfred Thank you for your reply... but it isn't very specific and therefore difficult to argue with. I can give you countless 'out-of-place' fossils of which you will have multiple reasons why those particular fossils are 'out-of-place'. The trade secret of paleantology is that there is no clearly delineated line of evolution within fossils. Organisms appear abruptly in a fully developed state and disappear just as abruptly.
@tankusfred Your fish experiment in the lab does not prove evolution.... all it proves is natural selection. You started off with a combination of small, medium, and large sized fish.... and you end up with either small, medium or large sized fish depending on what you selected for. You do not understand evolution or what creationists actually believe. Creationists believe in rapid change within species. Eg; all dogs are formed from one pair of dogs 4000 yrs ago.....
@tankusfred In fact the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, used similar experiments (pea plants instead of fish) to argue against evolution. Despite multiple generations his pea plants remained pea plants and would only change up to a certain limit despite continued selection. Once that limit had been reached it would not change any further. This is known as genetic stasis.
@alstoq Any experiment is to show that the basis on evolution works. The problem with Mendel's work and his debunking is that we do not understand the genetic response to a particular artificial selection AND it only affects visual or chemical changes. For the fish experiment, we only select one characteristic (size) among many. Fish behavior, resistance to certain predators/parasite, different hormones growth or elongated environment change cannot be reproduced in the lab. reply 1/2
@alstoq Mendel's plea was also biased and pushed by religious convictions. At the time it was valid, not anymore. For the weird fossils and the out of place ones (like the vertical whale) were all debunked also. I'm glad that you do not blindly follow a religion to make your basis on why evolution wouldn't stand grounds. But you need to search one step further and check if anything against evolution brought by any groups at all is either legit or is still up to date. reply 2/2
@tankusfred I agree Mendel's plea was biased, and so is mine.... and so is yours. However his argument then is just as valid as it is now because the experiments demonstrate the same thing. You can make a fish population smaller by selection and then it gets to a wall where it will not get any smaller.... no matter what you do. The word...debunked...doesn't actually mean anything to me...I need proof not belief. Maybe u should see my video Antibiotics and Evolution to see up to date info..
@alstoq The only thing I believe in is that scientific procedures tells the truth... it is literally my only assumption in the matter. The only opinion I presented was the fact I was happy that you didn't follow religion blindly, everything else was fact. Therefore I'm not biased in my thinking...
@tankusfred I live in a world of scientific 'evidence' called medicine. Unfortunately the evidence changes frequently depending on who does the trials (experiments) and how they are interpreted. And they are doing trials on things they can actually observe.... not things they can't observe such as macro-evolution and stellar evolution. Science requires observation and repetition. This is not possible with evolution and therefore requires belief and ... bias.
@alstoq ....but you will say that experiments that demonstrate microevolution can be expanded to a belief in macroevolution. However you will have great difficulty in demonstrating just ONE concrete example of microevolution. Virtually all adaptive mutuations are due to mutations that either reduce information within the genome or are information neutral. This is the exact opposite of what macroevolution requires.
@gregrutz An adaptive mutation is a mutation that leads to adaptation within an environment. The large majority of adaptive mutations cause loss of complex information. My video antibiotics and evolution may help you understand what I mean by this.
@alstoq What evolution needs is variation in species. That which survives is that with variation. Which promotes variation. So what has more information, a big wolf or a small wolf.
Dogs are not evolution in a natural way but they prove a wolf can evolve to be as small as a toy poodle or as large as a great dane. The genes [DNA mutations you call them] are already there.
It is not micro because they are still dogs. Apes make apes, that is why humans are still apes. Still mammals, still...
@gregrutz Variation can be due to recombination, preprogrammed DNA algorithms, and sometimes by mutation. Highly selected breeds are less hardy and are less disease tolerant then the average mongrel. That is because selection reduces genetic variability. The original dog had more information (including genes) then all its distant progeny. The wolf (not as selected) is closer to the original dog. Selection led to gene deletion in many breeds. Those breeds have lost those genes forever..
@alstoq Dogs did not come from Evolution, they are man made, not form Natural Selection.
They do prove ''variation is species', a necessary componant of evolution. So Darwin did not need to know about ''recombination, preprogrammed DNA algorithms, and mutation''. He just had to show variation exists in nature for Natural Selection to work.
@gregrutz I see you neither understand my argument or are interested in learning about it. Variation and natural selection are clearly documented and reproducible in scientific experiments. Increase of information by random process within DNA (ie: mutations leading to information gain) which are essential for cell to man evolution remains unproven. The variation you are talking about is not related to complex information gain but information neutral or by information loss mechanisms.
This is what happens when you educate yourself via fringe sources. Mutations leading to new information are known to occur. Frame shift mutations and gene duplication can produce completely new genetic information. Remember, the information is actually the sequence of nucleotide pairs. If random mutations lead to a new sequence, then new information, and thus, new traits are produced.
@itzahazylife Depends on your definition of information. If you duplicate the same gene multiple times you have more information but not specific complex information. This is clear in language. The phrase ANG ANG ANG ANG ANG doesn't mean much despite how many times you repeat it although it is more information. However TOM AND SAM SAT actually has increased complex information. The gene duplicate is then subject to the same degradative processes as the original.
@itzahazylife Of course frameshifting has been shown to be used in organisms in a pre-programmed way. Hep B uses this technique to produce four different enzymes from overlapping DNA. The more we know about DNA the more we realise we don't know about how the DNA is pre-programmed to change via design through promoters, inhibitors and transposable elements (ERV's / LINEs / SINEs). What used to be known as JUNK DNA (Evolutionary term) is now becomming more vital then the actual genes.
Nylonase was an entirely new gene that a certain strain of bacteria developed to digest nylon. An entirely new gene evolved. You are proven wrong. Please correct your false beliefs so you can progress in your education of science.
@itzahazylife My usual argument with nylonase follow these lines. One can get de-novo nylonase in pseudomonas in 9 days (this suggests that there is a designed process in place to deal with different food sources rather then an evolutionary one which should take much longer). Despite multiple experimentation on non-nylonase psuedomonas the nylonase gene always develops on the same places on plasmids (also suggesting a preprogrammed designed step).
@itzahazylife I am not sure where I got the information that nylonase was a degenerate enzyme... however I would not be surprised if one day it is found.
@itzahazylife Also interesting that psuedomonas was discovered in 1872 and has shown no directional evolutionary change. This is the equivalent of tens of millions of human years.
@itzahazylife More technical in regard to the production of nylonase only on plasmids: There seems to be a special mechanism that recombines parts of the genes in the plasmids in a way that is non-random. This is shown by the absence of stop codons, which would be generated if the variation were random.
@gregrutz That old chestnut.... Nylon degradation is due to mutations that lead to degradation at the binding site of an enzyme reducing specificity and therefore reducing complex information into simple information. This is a mutation that causes loss of complex information and not the type of mutation that evolution requires. In fact you can get nylon naive psuedomonas to break down nylon within 9 days. If that confuses you please refer to my video antibiotics and evolution.
@alstoq What kind of mutation DOES evolution require. It has been going on for several billion years, maybe you can't show us what mutations are needed to make the varity of life we find on earth.
@gregrutz From a microbiological perspective what you need to demonstrate is the formation of a completely new enzyme or structural protein. It cannot be just a degraded version of an enzyme / protein that already exists. You need to demonstrate more specific task-orientated and complex information production by chance and selection. Young earth Creationists believe in rapid change within boundaries. eg: all current dogs stem from one dog 4000yrs ago. We have no problem with change per se.
@gregrutz I hope you included that over time dinosaurs will never become birds.. however I suspect you're just playing semantics. Mutations that lead to degradation of information; for example a loss of specificity (nylon degradation), a loss of binding capacity (many antibiotic resistance mechanisms) are not the type of mutations that will lead to evolution. If so, that first cell must have had bountless unused complex information in it to create all life as we know it by degradation.
@alstoq While you may be able to get a wolf to breed the size of a toy poodle. You will never be able to get a toy poodle to breed the size of a great dane as those genes have now been deleted out of that breed.
@alstoq Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. In humans, ERVs occupy about 1% of the genome. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. Proof of common ancestory.
@gregrutz Another chestnut.... ERV's happen to be essential for human reproduction. They also act as promoters, and allow transcription at alternative starting points. They aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome. Those ERV's are not junk DNA (an evolutionary term as there is more and more DNA that is becoming non-junk)... they are essential. They were designed from the beginning and therefore are also used in other mammals for the same functions.
@alstoq In fact everything about ERV's scream design... They insert into the same locations for specific functions within the genome. They are not accidental insertions into anywhere along the genome as the 'evolutionist' would have you believe.
@alstoq I don't care what ERVs do, they are used as markes. Just like DNA is used to ID people in court. The pattern of ERV prove evoultion. We have the same ones a chimps.
@gregrutz Does that mean that because an ape has one head they are therefore related to every known mammal through evolution. Your argument makes no sense. ERV insertion is meant to be random - however it has been shown to be very specific and absolutely necessary for human reproductive genes. The ERV's were created for specific purpose, just like eyes and ears. And just like eyes and ears they don't prove evolution.
You also don't understand ERV's. ERV's insert themselves into about only 1% of the genome. All descendants will have the ERV in the same exact location as the ancestor who was the original possessor of the ERV. And what do ya know? Chimps and humans share 16 ERV insertion sites, which all happen to be in the exact same chromosomal locations. This is almost 100% proof that chimps and humans both branched off from a single common ancestor.
@itzahazylife ERV's have shown to be essential in vital processes within the human and other animals. This includes embryo development and according to Conley (Bioinformatics - 2008) are involved in the transcription of 20% of the human genome. They are therefore not accidental insertions of retroviruses but specifically designed for the normal function of the DNA. There are therefore not JUNK DNA and are required by all mammals.
@tankusfred Many scientific papers claim '1+1=3'; ie: they claim theory as fact, they claim unobserved processes as being observed, and they claim science explains it when it doesn't. Drug companies are particular good at using corrupt and biased science in the marketing and selling of drugs through rigged 'scientific' trials. We all have our biases....I agree. Science has been used as propoganda in every generation and ours is not immune. As such it becomes dogma and religion.
We can easily demonstrate that if we spread dust around in space it would attract and form a ball (all we need is the law of gravity). Given that, if you believe that star formation violates the law of thermodynamics then it must mean you think the law of thermodynamics is wrong.
I suggest that your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong instead :P
@MythicalManMoth Good point. I'll need to refine that argument a little :). I guess the idea I'm trying to get across is that our universe has a wonderful symmetry and order associated with it - and this formed from what was seemingly chaos....this is explained away in abstract terms but I do believe it is a problem with the big bang theory. Massive amounts of unordered energy has never been shown to lead to an increase in order in a system that is not designed to order that energy.
I don't feel comfortable patting people on the back as I know it's a sign of psychopathy, when in the wrong hands, but here I go. Simply brilliant and beyond clever. Thanks. I heard you loud and clear.
Wonderful video...wonderful!
MuchTooLearnUSH 1 month ago
Phylogenetic taxonomy places Aves in the dinosaur clade Theropoda.[4]
Wikipedia
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz I refer to my previous comment.
alstoq 3 months ago
''I hope you included that over time dinosaurs will never become birds.. ''
BIRDS ARE DINOSAURS, DUMMY.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz In general use the terms dinosauria and reptilila are the inclusive scientific terms whereas the terms dinosaur and reptiles is understood in a historical and traditional sense. Once again you have been caught playing semantics. That would be like me telling you that you do not understand English as the word 'dummy' is chiefly a slang North American term (Oxford Dict.) - however I would be playing semantics as well because I knew what you meant.
alstoq 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hard to explain because you are stupid
hopokuk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FACEPALM... close this channel and go back to school..
gskowal 4 months ago
Silly Christian fool, it's a pity because you sound as though you have some ability to actually think.
DialecticKaos 5 months ago
@DialecticKaos Hey I'll take that as a compliment.
alstoq 5 months ago
Something out of nothing -> wrong, we dont know what was before
Matter - Antimatter asymetry -> so when the higgs is found, you're gonna pick the next "not yet fully understood and proven" problem to insert in that video?
2. Thermodynamics -> applies to a closed system, eg. entire universe. Stars are open
Pop 3 stars -> where the first stars, only consisting of hydrogen and some helium. They had to be giant, thus had a short live span. Finding one today would be _a problem_ for the theory
argh523 5 months ago
@argh523 [cont]
Homogeneous star distribution -> strange use of that word.. there are gians, there are dwarfs. The giants have lots of heavy elements, they have a short live span. Dwarfs can be very old, have less heavy elements. Star clusters outside the galaxy, where starformation stopped long ago, are full of them. Star forming regions in our galaxy are full of dwarfs with lots of heavy elements.
No decreasing maturity -> Simply wrong. Search for images.
argh523 5 months ago
@argh523
Suns angular momentum -> Don't know about these problems. I won't pretend I know better, I'm fine with not knowing everything just yet.
Planets / Solar system formation -> only in the last 20 years is this a focus, the scientists themselfes have no problem admitting it's not very well understood yet.
Cell has to be fully functional on first try -> Wrong. We can actually evolve some of those things in the lab, but I'm more a space guy, I don't really understand this stuff
argh523 5 months ago
@argh523 Look up the Francis Filament. A long string of mature age galaxies 10.8 billion light years away.
alstoq 4 months ago
@argh523 Another interesting article detailing old stars in galaxies 11 billion light years away. Stellar Birth Control In The Early Universe. ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2006). Given the 'unfortunate observational evidence' of old stars in the early universe an argument is made that says large galaxies must somehow 'suppress'' young stars. Once you have a paradigm it is hard to leave it.
alstoq 4 months ago
@argh523 Higgs boson is becoming increasingly elusive (recent CERN data - just google)
Second law thermodynamics can be applied to open systems (another story)...however our whole ordered universe apparently came from the chaos of the big bang. Undirected energy does not increase order in systems that are not designed to use that energy.
Our telescopes can apparently look 3 billion years in the past - and still no Pop 3 stars.
alstoq 5 months ago
@alstoq 3bil lightyears.. Got a picture? Not from a galaxie, from _a star_
Doesn't matter anyway.. we know stars that are 10bil years old, and they're pop2, not 3.
Here's the thing: back when there where no stars at all, when the universe just consisted of gas, hydrogen and helium, it was still pretty hot. A cloud of gas can only collaps onto itself to form a star if 1. it's heavy inoff 2. it's so cold that the temperatur/pressure is to weak to counter the gravitational force.
argh523 5 months ago
@alstoq Now putting this together: if the gas is hot, the star that is forming has to be pretty heavy (a lot heavier than any star we've ever seen). And the more massive the star, the faster the fusion, the shorter it's lifespan.
That's why no astronomer has a problem with the fact we never found one. It's not unthinkable there are some old stars with no heavy elements at all, but it would be a big surprise to find one, and would do more to question the current understanding than support it..
argh523 5 months ago
@alstoq Higgs: If it's not found, we still learned something ;) But the actual point was: How is not explaining this or that thing a reason to dissmiss an idea (not higgs, big bang), when it explains _so much stuff_ we couldn't otherwise. Besides, the matter-antimatter problem is a question raised by the theory itself, not something we didn't understand before. Thats how it works, all answers raise new questions, and from time to time, someone puts the pieces together in a better way.
argh523 5 months ago
@argh523 You may be interested in second law of thermodynamics as it applies to open systems - Granville Sewell’s “A Second Look at the Second Law” (Applied Mathematics Letters, June 2011)
alstoq 4 months ago
troll
nevascurded 5 months ago
Pointing out gaps in our knowledge and appealing to incredulity doesn't do much.
If we don't understand something (like the suns spin or the gas giants) should we just rely on 'god did it?' as an answer, or should we keep searching?
If we did used 'god did it' from the start we'd believe god creates lightning and earthquakes because we didn't understand them.
We are young yet. I expect a lot of the questions you present will be sufficiently answered within our lifetimes.
MythicalManMoth 5 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Sometimes 1 + 1 will never equal 3 no matter how much knowledge you have. Just because you don't fully understand something (ie God) doesn't mean that you should endlessly search for 'scientific proof' that something came from nothing, or that impossible improbabilities might one day become probable. If we used 'science did it' for everything, even if it goes against common sense and our current understanding then we may miss an even bigger truth. :)
alstoq 5 months ago
@alstoq that makes no sense, something comes from nothing?
so say god did it, where did god come from. If you follow your own logic, you destroy your own answer to the universal origin.
SadeofDarkness 5 months ago
@SadeofDarkness I don't have the same philosophical problem. My God has no beginning and no end - he was always there and is outside space-time. He knows the end from the beginning. I don't have the philosophical problem of origin for in my belief system there was no origin.
alstoq 5 months ago
@alstoq Please tell me where does 1 + 1 = 3 in any scientific paper. And please tell how in the world would God in ANY religion would amount to a better explanation. Also, it's not "science did it", it's "science explains it"!
Common sense is being logical and reasonable enough to understand our world without having the pretentious belief that we know better because a book was written a couple thousand years ago! If there is a lie that we can push aside in our current society, it's religion...
tankusfred 5 months ago
@tankusfred Many scientific papers claim '1+1=3'; ie: they claim theory as fact, they claim unobserved processes as being observed, and they claim science explains it when it doesn't. Drug companies are particular good at using corrupt and biased science in the marketing and selling of drugs through rigged 'scientific' trials. We all have our biases....I agree. Science has been used as propoganda in every generation and ours is not immune. As such it becomes dogma and religion.
alstoq 5 months ago
@alstoq Drug companies do not try to explain or research any fields of study. They barely make dubious medicine with outrageous side-effects. There is a difference between theories and proven theories. If anyone claims a theory as fact, they're wrong. Right now the difference would be as follow : the big bang is a theory and evolution is a theory made fact by applied and observed proof. Fighting on this video is giving power to this stupid thought and religious folks all around.
tankusfred 5 months ago
@tankusfred Observed proof...? Are you trying to pull my leg (or my fin). Explain to me one observed / applied proof that makes evolution theory fact?
alstoq 4 months ago
@alstoq For an observed fact, the easiest would be that all of the evolution genetic tree being produced right now, and that same genetic tree over-lapse geological finds and events perfectly.
For applied proof, the easiest and most prominent would be modern medicine, we would have been to a staggering slow pace in advancement for now 30 years if it wouldn't be for evolution being taken into account. But for more precise experiment, just check out the fish experiment at evolution in the lab.
tankusfred 4 months ago
@tankusfred Thank you for your reply... but it isn't very specific and therefore difficult to argue with. I can give you countless 'out-of-place' fossils of which you will have multiple reasons why those particular fossils are 'out-of-place'. The trade secret of paleantology is that there is no clearly delineated line of evolution within fossils. Organisms appear abruptly in a fully developed state and disappear just as abruptly.
alstoq 4 months ago
@tankusfred Your fish experiment in the lab does not prove evolution.... all it proves is natural selection. You started off with a combination of small, medium, and large sized fish.... and you end up with either small, medium or large sized fish depending on what you selected for. You do not understand evolution or what creationists actually believe. Creationists believe in rapid change within species. Eg; all dogs are formed from one pair of dogs 4000 yrs ago.....
alstoq 4 months ago
@tankusfred In fact the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, used similar experiments (pea plants instead of fish) to argue against evolution. Despite multiple generations his pea plants remained pea plants and would only change up to a certain limit despite continued selection. Once that limit had been reached it would not change any further. This is known as genetic stasis.
alstoq 4 months ago
@alstoq Any experiment is to show that the basis on evolution works. The problem with Mendel's work and his debunking is that we do not understand the genetic response to a particular artificial selection AND it only affects visual or chemical changes. For the fish experiment, we only select one characteristic (size) among many. Fish behavior, resistance to certain predators/parasite, different hormones growth or elongated environment change cannot be reproduced in the lab. reply 1/2
tankusfred 4 months ago
@alstoq Mendel's plea was also biased and pushed by religious convictions. At the time it was valid, not anymore. For the weird fossils and the out of place ones (like the vertical whale) were all debunked also. I'm glad that you do not blindly follow a religion to make your basis on why evolution wouldn't stand grounds. But you need to search one step further and check if anything against evolution brought by any groups at all is either legit or is still up to date. reply 2/2
tankusfred 4 months ago
@tankusfred I agree Mendel's plea was biased, and so is mine.... and so is yours. However his argument then is just as valid as it is now because the experiments demonstrate the same thing. You can make a fish population smaller by selection and then it gets to a wall where it will not get any smaller.... no matter what you do. The word...debunked...doesn't actually mean anything to me...I need proof not belief. Maybe u should see my video Antibiotics and Evolution to see up to date info..
alstoq 4 months ago
@alstoq The only thing I believe in is that scientific procedures tells the truth... it is literally my only assumption in the matter. The only opinion I presented was the fact I was happy that you didn't follow religion blindly, everything else was fact. Therefore I'm not biased in my thinking...
tankusfred 4 months ago
@tankusfred I live in a world of scientific 'evidence' called medicine. Unfortunately the evidence changes frequently depending on who does the trials (experiments) and how they are interpreted. And they are doing trials on things they can actually observe.... not things they can't observe such as macro-evolution and stellar evolution. Science requires observation and repetition. This is not possible with evolution and therefore requires belief and ... bias.
alstoq 4 months ago
@alstoq ....but you will say that experiments that demonstrate microevolution can be expanded to a belief in macroevolution. However you will have great difficulty in demonstrating just ONE concrete example of microevolution. Virtually all adaptive mutuations are due to mutations that either reduce information within the genome or are information neutral. This is the exact opposite of what macroevolution requires.
alstoq 4 months ago
@alstoq ''adaptive mutuations'' ?!? What are you talking about? Funny how Darwin did not know about mutations and still showed how evolution works.
The fossil racord clearly show macro evolution.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz An adaptive mutation is a mutation that leads to adaptation within an environment. The large majority of adaptive mutations cause loss of complex information. My video antibiotics and evolution may help you understand what I mean by this.
alstoq 4 months ago
@alstoq Adaptation is caused by Natural Selection, not mutations. Things adapt by most things dying off.
ANY mutation causes more information [old plus new/changed = more] and variation in species.
Remember, breeding populations evolve, not just one persons DNA by mutation.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@alstoq What evolution needs is variation in species. That which survives is that with variation. Which promotes variation. So what has more information, a big wolf or a small wolf.
Dogs are not evolution in a natural way but they prove a wolf can evolve to be as small as a toy poodle or as large as a great dane. The genes [DNA mutations you call them] are already there.
It is not micro because they are still dogs. Apes make apes, that is why humans are still apes. Still mammals, still...
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Variation can be due to recombination, preprogrammed DNA algorithms, and sometimes by mutation. Highly selected breeds are less hardy and are less disease tolerant then the average mongrel. That is because selection reduces genetic variability. The original dog had more information (including genes) then all its distant progeny. The wolf (not as selected) is closer to the original dog. Selection led to gene deletion in many breeds. Those breeds have lost those genes forever..
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq Dogs did not come from Evolution, they are man made, not form Natural Selection.
They do prove ''variation is species', a necessary componant of evolution. So Darwin did not need to know about ''recombination, preprogrammed DNA algorithms, and mutation''. He just had to show variation exists in nature for Natural Selection to work.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz .... everyone believes in natural selection .....
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq So glad you believe in the driving force of evolution discovered by Darwin.
Needed for Evolution:
1. Variation in species, proven with dogs
2. Natural Selection
That's 2, this is fun, shall we keep going?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz I see you neither understand my argument or are interested in learning about it. Variation and natural selection are clearly documented and reproducible in scientific experiments. Increase of information by random process within DNA (ie: mutations leading to information gain) which are essential for cell to man evolution remains unproven. The variation you are talking about is not related to complex information gain but information neutral or by information loss mechanisms.
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq
This is what happens when you educate yourself via fringe sources. Mutations leading to new information are known to occur. Frame shift mutations and gene duplication can produce completely new genetic information. Remember, the information is actually the sequence of nucleotide pairs. If random mutations lead to a new sequence, then new information, and thus, new traits are produced.
itzahazylife 1 month ago
@itzahazylife Depends on your definition of information. If you duplicate the same gene multiple times you have more information but not specific complex information. This is clear in language. The phrase ANG ANG ANG ANG ANG doesn't mean much despite how many times you repeat it although it is more information. However TOM AND SAM SAT actually has increased complex information. The gene duplicate is then subject to the same degradative processes as the original.
alstoq 1 month ago
@itzahazylife Of course frameshifting has been shown to be used in organisms in a pre-programmed way. Hep B uses this technique to produce four different enzymes from overlapping DNA. The more we know about DNA the more we realise we don't know about how the DNA is pre-programmed to change via design through promoters, inhibitors and transposable elements (ERV's / LINEs / SINEs). What used to be known as JUNK DNA (Evolutionary term) is now becomming more vital then the actual genes.
alstoq 1 month ago
@alstoq
Nylonase was an entirely new gene that a certain strain of bacteria developed to digest nylon. An entirely new gene evolved. You are proven wrong. Please correct your false beliefs so you can progress in your education of science.
itzahazylife 1 month ago
@itzahazylife My usual argument with nylonase follow these lines. One can get de-novo nylonase in pseudomonas in 9 days (this suggests that there is a designed process in place to deal with different food sources rather then an evolutionary one which should take much longer). Despite multiple experimentation on non-nylonase psuedomonas the nylonase gene always develops on the same places on plasmids (also suggesting a preprogrammed designed step).
alstoq 1 month ago
@itzahazylife I am not sure where I got the information that nylonase was a degenerate enzyme... however I would not be surprised if one day it is found.
alstoq 1 month ago
@itzahazylife Also interesting that psuedomonas was discovered in 1872 and has shown no directional evolutionary change. This is the equivalent of tens of millions of human years.
alstoq 1 month ago
@itzahazylife More technical in regard to the production of nylonase only on plasmids: There seems to be a special mechanism that recombines parts of the genes in the plasmids in a way that is non-random. This is shown by the absence of stop codons, which would be generated if the variation were random.
alstoq 1 month ago
@alstoq Actually evolution has been observed in labs and reproduced decades ago.
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
IRFAN D. PRIJAMBADA, SEIJI NEGORO,* TETSUYA YOMO, AND ITARU URABE
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan
Received 7 November 1994/Accepted 8 February 1995
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz That old chestnut.... Nylon degradation is due to mutations that lead to degradation at the binding site of an enzyme reducing specificity and therefore reducing complex information into simple information. This is a mutation that causes loss of complex information and not the type of mutation that evolution requires. In fact you can get nylon naive psuedomonas to break down nylon within 9 days. If that confuses you please refer to my video antibiotics and evolution.
alstoq 4 months ago
@alstoq What kind of mutation DOES evolution require. It has been going on for several billion years, maybe you can't show us what mutations are needed to make the varity of life we find on earth.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz From a microbiological perspective what you need to demonstrate is the formation of a completely new enzyme or structural protein. It cannot be just a degraded version of an enzyme / protein that already exists. You need to demonstrate more specific task-orientated and complex information production by chance and selection. Young earth Creationists believe in rapid change within boundaries. eg: all current dogs stem from one dog 4000yrs ago. We have no problem with change per se.
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq ''within boundaries'' Why do you make up boundries?
Watch the video on my home page to see why evolution says dogs make dogs, and alway will.
Evolution is change. Every mutation creates a ''completely new enzyme or structural protein'' Most don't work, I will give you that.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz I hope you included that over time dinosaurs will never become birds.. however I suspect you're just playing semantics. Mutations that lead to degradation of information; for example a loss of specificity (nylon degradation), a loss of binding capacity (many antibiotic resistance mechanisms) are not the type of mutations that will lead to evolution. If so, that first cell must have had bountless unused complex information in it to create all life as we know it by degradation.
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq While you may be able to get a wolf to breed the size of a toy poodle. You will never be able to get a toy poodle to breed the size of a great dane as those genes have now been deleted out of that breed.
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. In humans, ERVs occupy about 1% of the genome. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. Proof of common ancestory.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Another chestnut.... ERV's happen to be essential for human reproduction. They also act as promoters, and allow transcription at alternative starting points. They aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome. Those ERV's are not junk DNA (an evolutionary term as there is more and more DNA that is becoming non-junk)... they are essential. They were designed from the beginning and therefore are also used in other mammals for the same functions.
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq In fact everything about ERV's scream design... They insert into the same locations for specific functions within the genome. They are not accidental insertions into anywhere along the genome as the 'evolutionist' would have you believe.
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq I don't care what ERVs do, they are used as markes. Just like DNA is used to ID people in court. The pattern of ERV prove evoultion. We have the same ones a chimps.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Does that mean that because an ape has one head they are therefore related to every known mammal through evolution. Your argument makes no sense. ERV insertion is meant to be random - however it has been shown to be very specific and absolutely necessary for human reproductive genes. The ERV's were created for specific purpose, just like eyes and ears. And just like eyes and ears they don't prove evolution.
alstoq 3 months ago
@alstoq
You also don't understand ERV's. ERV's insert themselves into about only 1% of the genome. All descendants will have the ERV in the same exact location as the ancestor who was the original possessor of the ERV. And what do ya know? Chimps and humans share 16 ERV insertion sites, which all happen to be in the exact same chromosomal locations. This is almost 100% proof that chimps and humans both branched off from a single common ancestor.
itzahazylife 1 month ago
@itzahazylife ERV's have shown to be essential in vital processes within the human and other animals. This includes embryo development and according to Conley (Bioinformatics - 2008) are involved in the transcription of 20% of the human genome. They are therefore not accidental insertions of retroviruses but specifically designed for the normal function of the DNA. There are therefore not JUNK DNA and are required by all mammals.
alstoq 1 month ago
@tankusfred Many scientific papers claim '1+1=3'; ie: they claim theory as fact, they claim unobserved processes as being observed, and they claim science explains it when it doesn't. Drug companies are particular good at using corrupt and biased science in the marketing and selling of drugs through rigged 'scientific' trials. We all have our biases....I agree. Science has been used as propoganda in every generation and ours is not immune. As such it becomes dogma and religion.
alstoq 5 months ago
We can easily demonstrate that if we spread dust around in space it would attract and form a ball (all we need is the law of gravity). Given that, if you believe that star formation violates the law of thermodynamics then it must mean you think the law of thermodynamics is wrong.
I suggest that your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong instead :P
MythicalManMoth 5 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Good point. I'll need to refine that argument a little :). I guess the idea I'm trying to get across is that our universe has a wonderful symmetry and order associated with it - and this formed from what was seemingly chaos....this is explained away in abstract terms but I do believe it is a problem with the big bang theory. Massive amounts of unordered energy has never been shown to lead to an increase in order in a system that is not designed to order that energy.
alstoq 5 months ago
Atheism is not a religion, it's lack of a religion.
billthecat666 5 months ago
@billthecat666 how many times can you say that, don't you understand creationists are idiots and they will never understand what you're saying?
4FunPlayin 5 months ago
I don't feel comfortable patting people on the back as I know it's a sign of psychopathy, when in the wrong hands, but here I go. Simply brilliant and beyond clever. Thanks. I heard you loud and clear.
bebengry 5 months ago
@bebengry Thanks....
alstoq 5 months ago