OH, now that I read the stump of Penicillin, now it is clear. Why would I be interest to listen to the conflict of Bible of man and woman, when I could be a dying patient of brain injury where the penicillin begin to cause trouble to my healing process? lol.
@shanedk ok, I quit. I was merely drawn by the spiderman costume. You know, in Brucelee movie, the american police inspecter jumped up the building like a spider when Brucelee was angry about some pissed off things that actually dont bother the americans. Well, I am that Chink. Kinda have a fancy to find out the truth about Black Widows and their mutation bite. Just that. SOrry to bother. I beg to be quiet.
@icemindreallife WEll, bruce Lee started destroying furnitures when he talked about corruption with the American police inspector. And the American police officer ran away from BruceLee up until they reach the building tower, and the Police officer with a gun tucked in his shirt just jumped up the column like a spider. I seen from youtube how Brandon Lee died after the crowbar video he took. In the same video, he did the spiderman stunt, and just died after that.
@icemindreallife They all died from arguements that americans used the black widow to explain back to the questioners. black widows, mystery equal to the eunuch in China since before christ.
The discovery of the hour glass of a black widow venomous spider, everything about the gene spiritual journey, is stored inside the brain of today's scientists who study the cells. But, to pass there is the story to listen. Just listen to it. Everyone just listen to it. Listen how the creationists do their shet. Ok, I should listen too. But lets get on the next topic. Erm. Too hastily plus you destroyed all our mood to teach. SOrry! Sorry! I am out, for real.
This is final evidence, hear me! According to the scientific proof of DNA today, humans did not evolve in the last decade. How could a 1925 human brain be defect or inferior from today's brain? So, the defect is a stubborness. OK enough said, I must get out of this topic now. And the 0 AD or 0 BC bible got the whole history going by according to the Before CHrist way, and how could religoin be wrong to science? I mean, when Caucasians will be laughing at Creationists
If classroom never teach the truth about Creationists, then nobody will know humans ever protested against science. It is just very inconsiderate of me (ME< ICEMINDREAL LIFE__} to have forgotten this single history, to think Creationist refers to some kind of parellel dimension organisation that is concurrent with todays standards. Sorry from m,e.
Creationists is the Evil force that drags you into the ABYSS, to keep you away from finding the truth, stop you from using that Microscope. HAHAHAHAHAAHA! I am still evil! HAHA, It is just me! HAHA
Humans can clearly disagree with one opinion. But to disagree with a fact, is the joke. I do not know what the knowledge or fact is about, and clearly Creationists are to be disagreed with. Because they clearly spreading lies about the truth. And maybe after I see all the evidence, I will admit that Creationists are really the monsters in Alice wonderland.
Then I look into "What's wrong in the Creationists Argument", and I paused the first slate to read it. Then I think, If the venom gland is an evollution, that is not mutation, then it adds into the original strand, so the rest of the protein that is produced from that point onwards is different. ANd how does this manifest after one DNA ADGC is added into the gland sector? clearly it manifest in the skin color, making it colorful. But isn.t it now the case where the rest of the information is dif
So, I just cast aside the black sheep, and let the youtube do their stuff. And all that begins from me, shall end with me, and the stupid strand of mutation is removed. And then, I start saving my opinions from people who clearly will disagree with my stupid thoughts.
O H MY GOD! A black widow got its Hourglass design from Reputation of eating up her boy friend. That was my stupid comment. Bye, I forgot Creationist shirt. Cause, I am not so attentive to the boy girl relationship problems in the world. ANd too crazy to smear my own defects into the minds of youtubers. This I shall cease to comment for 1 year at aleast.
To prove my coherence. FIrst, I do not know DNA=> RNA=> Protein.
Simple fact ehhhh?
Then, this is just basic, cause the truth is in the information. Adding up of information. The blue print in the sea where the essence just managed a head, and probably some tentacles liked fin or fingers. I dont know. Then just look at that sequence called DNA information.
Now am I coherent asking for answers? Or do I become Creationists Protagonists? Protagonists as in Cancer Tumour Infected??? EH?
BTW, I do not really know how small the DNA is,.like ten to the power of six or twelve. . . I am so lame to question the stupidity of creationists, and I thank every genie that exist for whatever scientists are able to teach people after ignoring the creationists, ok enough from me.
I am considered coherent in the questions I ask, the jokes I fail to see, and I have an IQ that believes the Renaissance has something to do with a 1925 human behavior, and thus I exit the humble quest to seek GOD, because god is could possibly mean BUDDHA in my race, my species or category of my homo sapiens genome, and I think GOD means BUDDHA for me. Amitabha.
Anyway, I shall now stop commenting and stop being curious, because I clearly do not want to despise a renaissance human, that begs to differ from the religion. Just because I am not caucasian, does not mean I can clearly see where the joke is. But, I can do my part of enjoying the show by hacking for lesser knowledge. I can clearly just behave coherently, unlike the creationists, and just be peacefully harmless without science as foundation to being ok. Bye bye, have fun.
Then, after I look at the pondering of a MUTATION to an EVOLUTION. I just found out that the venom gland is a perfect example of why. Fist of all, a mutation is in the cancer or the kind of taboo birth defects humans dont usually talk about. The mutation, a real mutation is like a missing information or some information that has a defect in it, like Sarin nerve gas breaking the genes into pieces. So, when Venom turns protein into weapons, then mutation is differed from evolution in a strangecase
So, I deduce from your sharing, that the DNA information on a BLUEPRINT looks somewhat like 123456789. Then, the DNA information that differs from the BLUEPRINT shows astonishing exhilirating 1234a56789 with the a as its venom glands. Then the astonishing exhilirating DNA information of a different species will look like 123456b789. ANd so, the creationists all die of heart disorder because they refuse to use the microscope. This is so much insult I can give for now.
So what the facepalm gonna say about this is: SO, you scientists use the microscope to see the activites in the DNA strands. ANd you Scientists just used the microscope, and then you saw that the genetic sequence has similarities in its RNA and DNA sector, the similarities soon pointed out clearly the adding of a wing, a hand, a leg, a venom gland. And clearly from microscope, you see the bits that was added into the BLUEPRINT. HAHa, creationists just deny their right to use microscope.
Couldn't stomach more than the first couple of minutes. This idiot doesn't seem to realize that if the female voice had been edited in, Dawkins would have been shown to be thinking about it for not only 19 seconds but closer to 30. Doesn't help his argument. And the female was the actual interviewer. The male was dubbed in for the final shot. Standard procedure. And you can see that it was fairly and honestly edited in at the correct spot since the 2 videos are in sync.
@bestvalue Stop with the lame excuses. It was 100% DISHONEST EDITING. And you are among the lowest intellectually dishonest scum of the Earth for defending it--just like all of the other creationists out there.
The question is EASY to answer, and even to show examples USING MATH. Is that what you "couldn't stomach," the idea that your hateful, bigoted, and primitive pillar of lies was about to be shown for what it absolutely is?
@shanedk The video makes it very clear that the editing was honest and that Dawkins is a liar. And there are no examples of new information being generated by random mutations. The nylonase argument has been refuted:
@shanedk I didn't know you had a book. I would seriously like to read it. Can you give me a link to it? (I have one too on the evidence against evolution from peer-reviewed journals. I was on international TV for an hour about it and the programs are here on YouTube.)
@NUTCASE71733 "Peer-review" meaning the mainstream science journals. Of course they still accept common ancestry (which reveals their bias). I disagree with your premise that "creationists ... have no real standards for evaluating proper science" (ignoring the fact that by the use of the words "real" and "proper" you commit the "no true scotsman" fallacy). Also, the peer-review system is good but doesn't work as efficiently as you might think and is largely a myth according to some scientists.
@shanedk Sweet. Thanks. Just by your title, I would agree. Evolution IS scientific. It's falsifiable. It makes predictions. The problem is, it gets it's predictions wrong so it changes it's predictions to pretend they were right all along (see "junk" DNA, and punctuated equilibrium for two classic examples).
@thkaal1 This is common knowledge. It's genetic recombination. It's the consequence of error correcting coding programmed in the dna, manipulated through manmade added intelligence. After you take the nylonase away the bacteria dies off, so it proves the exact opposite of evolution, which is a lie from the pit of hell. True and honest scientist acknowledge degeneration and genetic entropy!
So, yall wanna do battle with Evolutionists and Creationists because both of them are completely wrong? Go to God aint Floatin on Youtube, where i have defeated the fuck out of atheism, and be sure to click those little numbers at the bottom, those are pages where you can go back and see what people have said in the past.
LOL - Get your facts straight - Not more information or extra information but NEW information. Operational science clearly shows that natural selection and mutation does not add NEW information. Science it works, shame your faith in evolutionism blinds you to the facts.
@GordyJosie "Not more information or extra information but NEW information."
This WAS new information.
"Operational science clearly shows that natural selection and mutation does not add NEW information."
What the fuck is "operational science"? We've OBSERVED new information! If your "operational science" goes against direct observation, then so much for it!
@GordyJosie Did christ wear a nylon tunic, have you completely missed the point? Bacteria mutates to defend it's existance against Penicillins that is a known fact, with that NEW information Vancomycin was created, just an example you fuck wit!
For rule #5 to apply, it has to be libel and thus has to be false. I have said nothing false here, but you are free to do so against others, it seems. So you have a double standard that you also cling to in silencing opposition. So either you do not understand the term "libel" or you are a hypocrite. Which is it?
@xAquinasx "And so by your own definition, I have not done so to you."
Total lie! DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU: "It is hilarious how you hate a God that you don't believe in, and you hate those that believe in Him. If He does not exist, then what are you worried about? How ridiculous is that? And now you are going to delete posts. Typical scared behavior. Good luck with that."
Math is very good at working out probabilities but irrelevant in this case to proving that something actually happened. And you proved nothing about me lying about what Lewontin said; he made is absolutely clear as to what he was saying, that anything, including believing absurdities is better than believing in God. And what exactly is their other than design and randomness. There is no false dichotomy, unless you are invoking random design and then you are being absolutely ridiculous.
It is hilarious how you hate a God that you don't believe in, and you hate those that believe in Him. If He does not exist, then what are you worried about? How ridiculous is that? And now you are going to delete posts. Typical scared behavior. Good luck with that.
@xAquinasx You don't pwn math with LIES. The people at creation.com--like ALL CREATIONISTS--ARE LIARS.
NONE of their six points match what happened. This was NOT a transposition, NOT a result of recombination (except perhaps in the initial duplication of the NON-NYLON-DIGESTING GENE), this WAS in Flavobacteria (check the source), the new genes DO NOT LACK STOP CODONS (check the video), there IS an ancestral gene (ditto), and how they think lab replication REFUTES the data is beyond me!
@shanedk Wow, look at the angry misotheistic evolutionist rage. All creationists are liars, huh? Well, let's see what Richard Lewontin, a world leader in evolution says: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." This basically explains it all. You take a lie over truth solely to remove God.
@xAquinasx No, you just committed another common creationist LIE known as a "quote-mine." The next sentence after the common quote-mine is, "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Here's the WHOLE ESSAY: drjbloomDOTcom/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
@shanedk You are avoiding what I presented with the quote. A leading evolutionist biologist admitted that they must believe in anything but God, no matter how absurd it is what they come up with to counter Him. You agree with this patent ignorance? This certainly isn't truth seeking at all. They only want to prop up their crutch called evolution even if it is absurd. And what Lewis Beck said only reinforces what Lewontin said. You say miracles are false but you believe in the randomness. lol?
@xAquinasx And then he GAVE THE REASON FOR IT. You keep ignoring that reason and make it look like some kind of biased presupposition WHEN IT ISN'T. He even gives examples like:
"[Isaac Newton] was therefore forced, although reluctantly, to assume that God intervened from time to time to set things right again. It remained for Laplace, a century later, to produce a mechanics that predicted the stability of the planetary orbits, allowing him the hauteur of his famous reply to Napoleon."
@shanedk "make it look like some kind of biased presupposition" Everyone has a priori suppositions in science, evolutionists or creationist, they all do. Lewontin just left it out for people to see so that there was no confusion that they hate God more than they love science. But you seem to want to cover up what Lewontin said as if you are afraid of it. Amazing admission on your part.
"No, LIAR, stop strawmanning. NO ONE thinks the universe is random. Give it up." So then, you believe that it was designed. But then, you say that that is ridiculous also. Or is it the pseudointelligent evolution Force that is neither design nor randomness? And you call creationists liars and morons? lol?
@shanedk You call me "immoral" when evolution makes no allowances for morals. They cannot arise out of evolution, and yet, you throw it around because evolutionists want their cake and to eat it, too. In fact, there is no such thing as immorality in an evolutionist worldview because there is no absolute truth, to them. Morals are not materialistic and therefore cannot be real. You bandy the word liar around a lot but for something to be false, you must have truth and you deny absolute truth.
@xAquinasx "You call me "immoral" when evolution makes no allowances for morals. "
Gravity makes no allowance for morals. Relativity makes no allowance for morals. Cosmology makes no allowance for morals. This is yet another dishonest attempt at an ad hominem that is so typical of desperate creationists.
@shanedk So you prove what I said then call me dishonest for saying it. Evolution makes no allowances for non-materialistic things, like morals, just as other materialistic forces. And you say that I am engaging in an ad hominim attack when all you have done is engage in name calling without disproving what I have said other than calling me a liar; the clear definition of it. I think you should get what you think about the world in order first, because clearly you yourself are unclear about it.
@shanedk ad hominem is attacking the person and not what they are presenting. Therefore, you were engaging in ad hominem in your person attacks. I was sure that you knew its definition before you used the term. And tying it to morals is not what I was doing first but something that YOU did. YOU called me "immoral" thus using a term that has no meaning in the materialistic universe that you subscribe to as true. You made a claim and tried to prove biology with probability mathematics and failed.
You need to prove that information was actually added and this was not simply a mutation where information was degraded that also resulted in its ability to consume nylon. Until you can prove that, this prove is worthless and nothing but misotheistic grabbing at straws.
@no2religions If someone 'loves' to bare false witness on anything, then they are not followers of Jesus, as He taught us to uphold God's laws e.g do not bear false witness. Best wishes.
@CatD66 Oh? What about 2 Thessalonians 2:11? 1 Kings 22:21-22? 2 Kings 8:10? James 2:25? There are LOTS of places where people lie for God and he says it's okay.
@CatD66 You'd think so, wouldn't you. That's why I used the term. Secular people like myself generally call it lying. On youtube anyway, there is a very common practice of what has been dubbed "lying for Jesus". I'm an atheist and I'm still a better christian than 1/2 the people we run up against who call them selves christians.
@no2religions For reasons you mention I am loathe to call myself a christian. Its become a dirty word as many/most who go by the name are NOT following Jesus. I say Im a follower of Jesus so as not to be lumped in with the imposters. Ive never heard of lying for Jesus. Its truly shocking but not surprising considering the delusional stuff 'christians' get up to in these days. Jesus said you would now His followers by their fruits- actions. What did you make of the video response?
It is rubbish from the get-go. There is no such things as a bacteria engineering its own dna. He just talks non-sense. A mutation means change, period. Why is irrelevant.
Moreover, dna isn't "information" in the way he thinks. It's is just a chemical. The terms like "information" "language" and "code" are used to make genetics easier to explain, but that is all.
@no2religions "Information" in the phonebook refers to something else external to the phone book. DNA doesn't do anything like that. Just like a fizzing glass of soda doesn't have "information" in it about forming bubbles, dna doesn't have information in it about forming proteins. It's just a reaction that goes along according to chemical principals. The terms "code" and "information" are just used as explanation tools.
I love this visualisation, it'll change your life: watch?v=4PKjF7OumYo
Good video, a bit harsh on the poor Christians but they started it. I wonder how many of those "11% fewer Christians" went to Atheism and how many went to something even WORSE! Like Islam or Scientology or Mormonism....
Nice explanation of Nylonase. I have to point out though that pwnage can't be self referential. You have to just pwn someone. You can't say that your pwning them while your doing it. That depwnifies the pwnage. its a rule.
If you look for the article "Five classic examples of gene evolution" in New Scientist, the 5th example is this nylonase adaptation. It seems that the frame shift hypothesis mentioned here has been dropped in favour of one that involved 2 point mutations "to change the beta-lactamase binding site to one capable of binding the nylon by-product."
@shanedk I think the New Scientist article doesn't take a stand, but quote the 2-mutation finder as saying ""I believe that the above two hypotheses can be excluded", i.e. the phase shift one and some other non specified "rather complicated and special mechanism". This article gives the impression that there have been multiple theories, not necessarily still accepted. You should read it yourself, I have it open now.
@TheGoldenCrocoduck Firstly the big bang is cosmology not Evolution, 2nd I was asking if you were the guy who stated in one of Aronra's videos that the big bang was an explosion of nothing, 3rd by your inability to form a basic sentence correctly it's obvious that if you aren't the guy who made that claim you're just another creationist moron incapable of rational or logical thought. You should grow up.
@markaurelius61 Genes code for proteins. This new gene made a new protein in the cell. That cell then made an enzyme, and it's the enzyme that digests the nylon products. No turning on or off, no transporting. It makes the protein.
@shanedk So what is the role of this new protein that the phase shift generated? You seem to be saying that it's another gene that codes for some enzyme that actually digests the nylon.
@shanedk I always understood that an enzyme was a form of protein, so I would have thought the protein makes enzyme step is wrong. Do you have a reference for this?
« If you think we derived from Apes, can you show me the link between Apes and us? »
1. We *are* apes.
2. There's not just "a" link; there are numerous forms that are morphologically intermediate between the basal type and extant modern apes such as us.
@XGralgrathor You can basically say that all transitional "humans" are from the Australopithecus and Homo genera, they won't listen. The only thing they will listen to is themselves, or in a more extreme case, their pastors.
@TheGoldenCrocoduck Ida wasn't the most recent common ancestor of modern apes, Ida was the common ancestor of wet and dry nosed primates and no, she was not a lemur. AronRa explains that as well.
@shanedk I remember some controversy over the count of characteristics used but as far as I was aware, the morphological distribution still put Ida ancestral to haplorrhines and strepsirrhines
@shanedk Do you have a link I could check out? The only recent significant article I can find is one from nature that further defends Ida as an ancestor.
You say that on a video explaining exactly how it's not.
'therefore if it's taken out of nylon it would revert back to what it was before'
Well it's not really 'revert' as evolution is not directional, but that's how evolution works, certain traits are favored in certain environments, not all environments.
Assuming that Festus is an eukaryotic lifeform, no it won't. Evolutionary theory teaches that life does not jump clades. Humans are eukaryotic lifeforms because we descended from eukaryotes, just like humans are mammals because we descended from mammals, and humans are apes because we descended from apes. Species that emerge from a clade don't just stop being part of that clade.
@sgentlemanjack112 And if anyone had actually said that, you might have some kind of point. But they didn't. Caseagainstfaith said there was information contained in a grain of sand. You said it was idiotic. I said it wasn't, because what he said (i.e., the stuff inside a grain of sand) was a perfectly valid example, because sand and other things I mentioned do, in fact, contain information.
YOU are the one that's wrong. And like all creationists, you're too pathetic to admit it.
@sgentlemanjack112 No, it's not. It's a perfectly valid example of information in nature. Every grain of sand, every raindrop, every molecule, every atom contains information.
@sgentlemanjack112 Well, I guess I'm dumber than a rhesus monkey, because you're going to have to explain it to me: WHAT is the flaw in that statement?
This video is a joke. Nothing new occurred here at all. But hey, it makes sense coming from someone who defends a guy like Dawkins, a man who believes life came to earth on the backs of crystals. I think i'll go and chew on some nylon for a few years and test it out. Your pathetic way of expressing yourself speaks well for evolutionists.
@willhelmfred05 "This video is a joke. Nothing new occurred here at all."
Except, of course, for the OVER TWO THOUSAND BITS of new information that were DIRECTLY OBSERVED. But the ONLY response you pathetic creationists have to this is, "Is not! Is not! Is not!"
"a guy like Dawkins, a man who believes life came to earth on the backs of crystals."
Dawkins NEVER said this, and such lies are NOT allowed on my channel. First warning.
@willhelmfred05 "I think i'll go and chew on some nylon for a few years and test it out."
Evolution works on populations, not individuals, idiot. If you don't even know that, then you don't know the first thing about how evolution works or even what it is.
your silly video deserves little comment whatsoever. But if you simply watch the video response attached to your own video, the guy does a decent job on his own. No increase in genome info.. simply borrowing from another internal system.
THE BIGGER question of course is the existence in information at all in matter.
@sgentlemanjack112 Except that his pack of lies was seriously debunked. I SHOWED the increase in information and I CALCULATED the amount of information created. You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!
And EVERYTHING system has information about itself. How could it not?
Do you even know what the scientific definition of information IS?
@westsd4lyphe No, that's not IN ANY WAY the scientific definition of information. So you're FAR too ignorant to make informed opinions on the subject.
The scientific definition of information is "the reduction in the amount of uncertainty of the state of a system." That's IT. Nothing says it has to be ordered, sequential, or based on symbols. You fail ALL THREE WAYS. (Oh, and DNA is only one of those three: sequential.)
@shanedk scientific explanation? how about the English one?: an ordered sequence of symbols communicated. sounds like DNA to me. Also sounds 'purpose' built with intention, but it doesn't sound random. DNA doesn't just carry information, it carries out instructions. This is active and apart from just information storage. Look how did the bible speak of the big bang thousands of years before the telescope was invented? I am not a 'creationist' but I do think God somehow created everything
@sgentlemanjack112Your comment made me realize something, information cannot be seen or touched, only the aftermath of it can be... sound familiar? Information is an abstract concept not a concrete object so you are right, science points to intelligent design because the info in DNA is actually instruction that are executed to transform an abstract idea into a concrete physical form. Instructions come before the physical formation so where did the instructions come from?Science sides with logic
Yes, it can. We see photons, and photons carry information.
The photons sent to us from SN1987A give us a LOT of information about that supernova and how it happened. Where did those "instructions" come from? From no intelligent being--they're just a reaction from the supernova itself. But they greatly decreased our uncertainty about it, and therefore they absolutely ARE information.
@westsd4lyphe Its funny you use the term logic. Logic is a "standard of reasoning"...But Why would there be a standard of reasoning in a chance universe. If your worldview is true you cannot apply logic at all.
As for information:
In science It has at least 5 levels of definition. These level are statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.(purpose or result)
If all five levels are found in an unknown system, we can say it contains information.
OH, now that I read the stump of Penicillin, now it is clear. Why would I be interest to listen to the conflict of Bible of man and woman, when I could be a dying patient of brain injury where the penicillin begin to cause trouble to my healing process? lol.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
@icemindreallife What are you blathering on about?
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk ok, I quit. I was merely drawn by the spiderman costume. You know, in Brucelee movie, the american police inspecter jumped up the building like a spider when Brucelee was angry about some pissed off things that actually dont bother the americans. Well, I am that Chink. Kinda have a fancy to find out the truth about Black Widows and their mutation bite. Just that. SOrry to bother. I beg to be quiet.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
@icemindreallife WEll, bruce Lee started destroying furnitures when he talked about corruption with the American police inspector. And the American police officer ran away from BruceLee up until they reach the building tower, and the Police officer with a gun tucked in his shirt just jumped up the column like a spider. I seen from youtube how Brandon Lee died after the crowbar video he took. In the same video, he did the spiderman stunt, and just died after that.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
@icemindreallife They all died from arguements that americans used the black widow to explain back to the questioners. black widows, mystery equal to the eunuch in China since before christ.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
@icemindreallife Thanks, all those posts were relevant to nylon eating bacteria somehow.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
The discovery of the hour glass of a black widow venomous spider, everything about the gene spiritual journey, is stored inside the brain of today's scientists who study the cells. But, to pass there is the story to listen. Just listen to it. Everyone just listen to it. Listen how the creationists do their shet. Ok, I should listen too. But lets get on the next topic. Erm. Too hastily plus you destroyed all our mood to teach. SOrry! Sorry! I am out, for real.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
Final Proof for not laughing
This is final evidence, hear me! According to the scientific proof of DNA today, humans did not evolve in the last decade. How could a 1925 human brain be defect or inferior from today's brain? So, the defect is a stubborness. OK enough said, I must get out of this topic now. And the 0 AD or 0 BC bible got the whole history going by according to the Before CHrist way, and how could religoin be wrong to science? I mean, when Caucasians will be laughing at Creationists
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
If classroom never teach the truth about Creationists, then nobody will know humans ever protested against science. It is just very inconsiderate of me (ME< ICEMINDREAL LIFE__} to have forgotten this single history, to think Creationist refers to some kind of parellel dimension organisation that is concurrent with todays standards. Sorry from m,e.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
Creationists is the Evil force that drags you into the ABYSS, to keep you away from finding the truth, stop you from using that Microscope. HAHAHAHAHAAHA! I am still evil! HAHA, It is just me! HAHA
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
Humans can clearly disagree with one opinion. But to disagree with a fact, is the joke. I do not know what the knowledge or fact is about, and clearly Creationists are to be disagreed with. Because they clearly spreading lies about the truth. And maybe after I see all the evidence, I will admit that Creationists are really the monsters in Alice wonderland.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
Then I look into "What's wrong in the Creationists Argument", and I paused the first slate to read it. Then I think, If the venom gland is an evollution, that is not mutation, then it adds into the original strand, so the rest of the protein that is produced from that point onwards is different. ANd how does this manifest after one DNA ADGC is added into the gland sector? clearly it manifest in the skin color, making it colorful. But isn.t it now the case where the rest of the information is dif
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
So, I just cast aside the black sheep, and let the youtube do their stuff. And all that begins from me, shall end with me, and the stupid strand of mutation is removed. And then, I start saving my opinions from people who clearly will disagree with my stupid thoughts.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
O H MY GOD! A black widow got its Hourglass design from Reputation of eating up her boy friend. That was my stupid comment. Bye, I forgot Creationist shirt. Cause, I am not so attentive to the boy girl relationship problems in the world. ANd too crazy to smear my own defects into the minds of youtubers. This I shall cease to comment for 1 year at aleast.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
Protagonists is clearly a mutation. Mutation in that the language pattern is a form of defect.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
To prove my coherence. FIrst, I do not know DNA=> RNA=> Protein.
Simple fact ehhhh?
Then, this is just basic, cause the truth is in the information. Adding up of information. The blue print in the sea where the essence just managed a head, and probably some tentacles liked fin or fingers. I dont know. Then just look at that sequence called DNA information.
Now am I coherent asking for answers? Or do I become Creationists Protagonists? Protagonists as in Cancer Tumour Infected??? EH?
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
BTW, I do not really know how small the DNA is,.like ten to the power of six or twelve. . . I am so lame to question the stupidity of creationists, and I thank every genie that exist for whatever scientists are able to teach people after ignoring the creationists, ok enough from me.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
I am considered coherent in the questions I ask, the jokes I fail to see, and I have an IQ that believes the Renaissance has something to do with a 1925 human behavior, and thus I exit the humble quest to seek GOD, because god is could possibly mean BUDDHA in my race, my species or category of my homo sapiens genome, and I think GOD means BUDDHA for me. Amitabha.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
Anyway, I shall now stop commenting and stop being curious, because I clearly do not want to despise a renaissance human, that begs to differ from the religion. Just because I am not caucasian, does not mean I can clearly see where the joke is. But, I can do my part of enjoying the show by hacking for lesser knowledge. I can clearly just behave coherently, unlike the creationists, and just be peacefully harmless without science as foundation to being ok. Bye bye, have fun.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
Then, after I look at the pondering of a MUTATION to an EVOLUTION. I just found out that the venom gland is a perfect example of why. Fist of all, a mutation is in the cancer or the kind of taboo birth defects humans dont usually talk about. The mutation, a real mutation is like a missing information or some information that has a defect in it, like Sarin nerve gas breaking the genes into pieces. So, when Venom turns protein into weapons, then mutation is differed from evolution in a strangecase
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
So, I deduce from your sharing, that the DNA information on a BLUEPRINT looks somewhat like 123456789. Then, the DNA information that differs from the BLUEPRINT shows astonishing exhilirating 1234a56789 with the a as its venom glands. Then the astonishing exhilirating DNA information of a different species will look like 123456b789. ANd so, the creationists all die of heart disorder because they refuse to use the microscope. This is so much insult I can give for now.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
So what the facepalm gonna say about this is: SO, you scientists use the microscope to see the activites in the DNA strands. ANd you Scientists just used the microscope, and then you saw that the genetic sequence has similarities in its RNA and DNA sector, the similarities soon pointed out clearly the adding of a wing, a hand, a leg, a venom gland. And clearly from microscope, you see the bits that was added into the BLUEPRINT. HAHa, creationists just deny their right to use microscope.
icemindreallife 2 weeks ago
5/5 stars.
XanatharEye 2 weeks ago
i think you're slamming the wrong group of people if you're just now getting into the real meat of it.
XanatharEye 2 weeks ago
We do not live in a snowglobe!
cjdragon1988 2 months ago
Couldn't stomach more than the first couple of minutes. This idiot doesn't seem to realize that if the female voice had been edited in, Dawkins would have been shown to be thinking about it for not only 19 seconds but closer to 30. Doesn't help his argument. And the female was the actual interviewer. The male was dubbed in for the final shot. Standard procedure. And you can see that it was fairly and honestly edited in at the correct spot since the 2 videos are in sync.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue Stop with the lame excuses. It was 100% DISHONEST EDITING. And you are among the lowest intellectually dishonest scum of the Earth for defending it--just like all of the other creationists out there.
The question is EASY to answer, and even to show examples USING MATH. Is that what you "couldn't stomach," the idea that your hateful, bigoted, and primitive pillar of lies was about to be shown for what it absolutely is?
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk The editing was honest. Dawkins is a liar. The question is unanswerable. Case closed.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue I ANSWERED it, LIAR. RIGHT IN THIS VIDEO!!!
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk The video makes it very clear that the editing was honest and that Dawkins is a liar. And there are no examples of new information being generated by random mutations. The nylonase argument has been refuted:
megaupload . com / ?d=SQ362L1I
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "And there are no examples of new information being generated by random mutations."
I GAVE an example IN THE VIDEO!!! And I have several more in my book.
Nylonase has NOT been refuted, only LIED ABOUT.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk I didn't know you had a book. I would seriously like to read it. Can you give me a link to it? (I have one too on the evidence against evolution from peer-reviewed journals. I was on international TV for an hour about it and the programs are here on YouTube.)
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue
By peer review do you mean reviewed by the entire scientific community? Or by creationists who have no real standards for evaluating proper science?
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 "Peer-review" meaning the mainstream science journals. Of course they still accept common ancestry (which reveals their bias). I disagree with your premise that "creationists ... have no real standards for evaluating proper science" (ignoring the fact that by the use of the words "real" and "proper" you commit the "no true scotsman" fallacy). Also, the peer-review system is good but doesn't work as efficiently as you might think and is largely a myth according to some scientists.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue ""Peer-review" meaning the mainstream science journals."
Then you should be able to give references here.
shanedk 3 months ago
@bestvalue
you are a fucking idiot. No further need to explain it, you are an idiot. The fact you use the ol
' "IT'S A CONSPIRACY" card is enough to show your true colors. you have no intrest in upholding truth, you have an agenda.
NUTCASE71733 2 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 I never mentioned a conspiracy and my only agenda is TRUTH.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue Search for "How Evolution Is Scientific" on Amazon or Lulu.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Sweet. Thanks. Just by your title, I would agree. Evolution IS scientific. It's falsifiable. It makes predictions. The problem is, it gets it's predictions wrong so it changes it's predictions to pretend they were right all along (see "junk" DNA, and punctuated equilibrium for two classic examples).
bestvalue 3 months ago
The close-ups make this video awesome.
HubbellKent 4 months ago
Great video nylon is a perfect example kudos my friend!
kukynphunt 4 months ago
@thkaal1 This is common knowledge. It's genetic recombination. It's the consequence of error correcting coding programmed in the dna, manipulated through manmade added intelligence. After you take the nylonase away the bacteria dies off, so it proves the exact opposite of evolution, which is a lie from the pit of hell. True and honest scientist acknowledge degeneration and genetic entropy!
Ramohog 4 months ago
@Ramohog WRONG. There was NO HUMAN INTELLIGENCE involved ANYWHERE in the process.
shanedk 4 months ago
Comment removed
Ramohog 4 months ago
Comment removed
Ramohog 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk Who made nylon?
Ramohog 4 months ago
@Ramohog Just some trivia. The guy who invented nylon named it after NY for New York and LON for London - the 2 cities where he invented it.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@toddieoneal I take the challenge, defeat the fuck out of me
pochopaz7381 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, yall wanna do battle with Evolutionists and Creationists because both of them are completely wrong? Go to God aint Floatin on Youtube, where i have defeated the fuck out of atheism, and be sure to click those little numbers at the bottom, those are pages where you can go back and see what people have said in the past.
toddieoneal 5 months ago
LOL - Get your facts straight - Not more information or extra information but NEW information. Operational science clearly shows that natural selection and mutation does not add NEW information. Science it works, shame your faith in evolutionism blinds you to the facts.
GordyJosie 6 months ago
@GordyJosie "Not more information or extra information but NEW information."
This WAS new information.
"Operational science clearly shows that natural selection and mutation does not add NEW information."
What the fuck is "operational science"? We've OBSERVED new information! If your "operational science" goes against direct observation, then so much for it!
shanedk 6 months ago 2
@GordyJosie Did christ wear a nylon tunic, have you completely missed the point? Bacteria mutates to defend it's existance against Penicillins that is a known fact, with that NEW information Vancomycin was created, just an example you fuck wit!
kukynphunt 4 months ago
xAquinasx has been blocked for repeated false accusations.
shanedk 6 months ago
For rule #5 to apply, it has to be libel and thus has to be false. I have said nothing false here, but you are free to do so against others, it seems. So you have a double standard that you also cling to in silencing opposition. So either you do not understand the term "libel" or you are a hypocrite. Which is it?
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx It absolutely IS false. And YOU KNOW IT.
shanedk 6 months ago
@xAquinasx Oh, and you've already been warned once about false accusations, so this is your second. And your post was deleted.
NO MORE ACCUSING PEOPLE OF CRIMES.
shanedk 6 months ago
@xAquinasx "And so by your own definition, I have not done so to you."
Total lie! DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU: "It is hilarious how you hate a God that you don't believe in, and you hate those that believe in Him. If He does not exist, then what are you worried about? How ridiculous is that? And now you are going to delete posts. Typical scared behavior. Good luck with that."
CLASSIC ad hominem attack.
shanedk 6 months ago
Math is very good at working out probabilities but irrelevant in this case to proving that something actually happened. And you proved nothing about me lying about what Lewontin said; he made is absolutely clear as to what he was saying, that anything, including believing absurdities is better than believing in God. And what exactly is their other than design and randomness. There is no false dichotomy, unless you are invoking random design and then you are being absolutely ridiculous.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx No, the DIRECT OBSERVATIONS prove that it happened. The math shows us clearly HOW MUCH INFORMATION WAS CREATED.
shanedk 6 months ago
It is hilarious how you hate a God that you don't believe in, and you hate those that believe in Him. If He does not exist, then what are you worried about? How ridiculous is that? And now you are going to delete posts. Typical scared behavior. Good luck with that.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx Since you've already been corrected on this, you are now in violation of Rule #5. Your post was deleted, and this is your first warning.
shanedk 6 months ago
creation.com/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste
"Pwnage" itself is pwned.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx You don't pwn math with LIES. The people at creation.com--like ALL CREATIONISTS--ARE LIARS.
NONE of their six points match what happened. This was NOT a transposition, NOT a result of recombination (except perhaps in the initial duplication of the NON-NYLON-DIGESTING GENE), this WAS in Flavobacteria (check the source), the new genes DO NOT LACK STOP CODONS (check the video), there IS an ancestral gene (ditto), and how they think lab replication REFUTES the data is beyond me!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Wow, look at the angry misotheistic evolutionist rage. All creationists are liars, huh? Well, let's see what Richard Lewontin, a world leader in evolution says: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." This basically explains it all. You take a lie over truth solely to remove God.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx No, you just committed another common creationist LIE known as a "quote-mine." The next sentence after the common quote-mine is, "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Here's the WHOLE ESSAY: drjbloomDOTcom/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk You are avoiding what I presented with the quote. A leading evolutionist biologist admitted that they must believe in anything but God, no matter how absurd it is what they come up with to counter Him. You agree with this patent ignorance? This certainly isn't truth seeking at all. They only want to prop up their crutch called evolution even if it is absurd. And what Lewis Beck said only reinforces what Lewontin said. You say miracles are false but you believe in the randomness. lol?
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx And then he GAVE THE REASON FOR IT. You keep ignoring that reason and make it look like some kind of biased presupposition WHEN IT ISN'T. He even gives examples like:
"[Isaac Newton] was therefore forced, although reluctantly, to assume that God intervened from time to time to set things right again. It remained for Laplace, a century later, to produce a mechanics that predicted the stability of the planetary orbits, allowing him the hauteur of his famous reply to Napoleon."
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk "make it look like some kind of biased presupposition" Everyone has a priori suppositions in science, evolutionists or creationist, they all do. Lewontin just left it out for people to see so that there was no confusion that they hate God more than they love science. But you seem to want to cover up what Lewontin said as if you are afraid of it. Amazing admission on your part.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx No, I PROVED that you LIED about what he was saying. DEAL with it.
shanedk 6 months ago
@xAquinasx "You say miracles are false but you believe in the randomness. lol?"
No, LIAR, stop strawmanning. NO ONE thinks the universe is random. Give it up.
shanedk 6 months ago
"No, LIAR, stop strawmanning. NO ONE thinks the universe is random. Give it up." So then, you believe that it was designed. But then, you say that that is ridiculous also. Or is it the pseudointelligent evolution Force that is neither design nor randomness? And you call creationists liars and morons? lol?
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx "So then, you believe that it was designed."
False dichotomy. You immoral creationist nutjob LIARS ALWAYS resort to that incredibly dishonest tactic.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk You call me "immoral" when evolution makes no allowances for morals. They cannot arise out of evolution, and yet, you throw it around because evolutionists want their cake and to eat it, too. In fact, there is no such thing as immorality in an evolutionist worldview because there is no absolute truth, to them. Morals are not materialistic and therefore cannot be real. You bandy the word liar around a lot but for something to be false, you must have truth and you deny absolute truth.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx "You call me "immoral" when evolution makes no allowances for morals. "
Gravity makes no allowance for morals. Relativity makes no allowance for morals. Cosmology makes no allowance for morals. This is yet another dishonest attempt at an ad hominem that is so typical of desperate creationists.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk So you prove what I said then call me dishonest for saying it. Evolution makes no allowances for non-materialistic things, like morals, just as other materialistic forces. And you say that I am engaging in an ad hominim attack when all you have done is engage in name calling without disproving what I have said other than calling me a liar; the clear definition of it. I think you should get what you think about the world in order first, because clearly you yourself are unclear about it.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx "So you prove what I said then call me dishonest for saying it."
Your dishonesty was trying to tie it to personal moral codes. You KNOW that's wrong; you KNOW that's invalid.
And name-calling is NOT an ad-hominem attack; ad-hominem is what YOU'VE been doing.
"without disproving what I have said"
Shifting Burden Fallacy. YOU made the claim; it's up to YOU to PROVE IT.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk ad hominem is attacking the person and not what they are presenting. Therefore, you were engaging in ad hominem in your person attacks. I was sure that you knew its definition before you used the term. And tying it to morals is not what I was doing first but something that YOU did. YOU called me "immoral" thus using a term that has no meaning in the materialistic universe that you subscribe to as true. You made a claim and tried to prove biology with probability mathematics and failed.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx "ad hominem is attacking the person and not what they are presenting."
WRONG. Ad hominem is USING an attack on the person AS A MEANS of attacking what they are presenting.
And since I've been attacking what you're presenting left and right, your bogus definition STILL doesn't have me committing an ad hominem.
shanedk 6 months ago
@xAquinasx Still waiting on you to refute the math.
shanedk 6 months ago
@xAquinasx Now, can you refute the math in the video or not?
shanedk 6 months ago
You need to prove that information was actually added and this was not simply a mutation where information was degraded that also resulted in its ability to consume nylon. Until you can prove that, this prove is worthless and nothing but misotheistic grabbing at straws.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx Did you not watch the video? I showed EXACTLY how much information was created and how it was created!
shanedk 6 months ago
Mutations has never once been shown to increase information. It ALWAYS decreases it.
xAquinasx 6 months ago
@xAquinasx Then how come it INCREASED it in this case? WATCH THE VIDEO! Is that REALLY so much to ask?
shanedk 6 months ago
PWNAGE
MrrGrave 6 months ago
Nylonase is adaptation. It is still a digestion gene and probably has corrupted the overall system slightly causing the whole system to weaken.
Ramohog 8 months ago
@Ramohog Evidence or STFU.
shanedk 8 months ago
I got myself i nice pastrami, bacon with peppers and nylonase in the fridge...mmm, cant wait for dinner....
grendelee 9 months ago
Still just as epic a pwnage as it was 2 years ago.
gimmethegepgun 9 months ago
Christians LOVE to bare false witness against science and atheism.
no2religions 9 months ago 12
@no2religions If someone 'loves' to bare false witness on anything, then they are not followers of Jesus, as He taught us to uphold God's laws e.g do not bear false witness. Best wishes.
CatD66 2 weeks ago
@CatD66 Except that all he has to do is troll the Bible for one of the numerous exceptions.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where it says it's ok to bare false witness or break any of God's laws.
CatD66 2 weeks ago
@CatD66 Oh? What about 2 Thessalonians 2:11? 1 Kings 22:21-22? 2 Kings 8:10? James 2:25? There are LOTS of places where people lie for God and he says it's okay.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk I'll message you with some points about these examples as I'll no doubt go over the word limit.
CatD66 2 weeks ago
@CatD66 You'd think so, wouldn't you. That's why I used the term. Secular people like myself generally call it lying. On youtube anyway, there is a very common practice of what has been dubbed "lying for Jesus". I'm an atheist and I'm still a better christian than 1/2 the people we run up against who call them selves christians.
no2religions 2 weeks ago
@no2religions For reasons you mention I am loathe to call myself a christian. Its become a dirty word as many/most who go by the name are NOT following Jesus. I say Im a follower of Jesus so as not to be lumped in with the imposters. Ive never heard of lying for Jesus. Its truly shocking but not surprising considering the delusional stuff 'christians' get up to in these days. Jesus said you would now His followers by their fruits- actions. What did you make of the video response?
CatD66 2 weeks ago
@CatD66 The response to this video?
It is rubbish from the get-go. There is no such things as a bacteria engineering its own dna. He just talks non-sense. A mutation means change, period. Why is irrelevant.
Moreover, dna isn't "information" in the way he thinks. It's is just a chemical. The terms like "information" "language" and "code" are used to make genetics easier to explain, but that is all.
no2religions 2 weeks ago
@no2religions "Information" in the phonebook refers to something else external to the phone book. DNA doesn't do anything like that. Just like a fizzing glass of soda doesn't have "information" in it about forming bubbles, dna doesn't have information in it about forming proteins. It's just a reaction that goes along according to chemical principals. The terms "code" and "information" are just used as explanation tools.
I love this visualisation, it'll change your life: watch?v=4PKjF7OumYo
no2religions 2 weeks ago
Good video, a bit harsh on the poor Christians but they started it. I wonder how many of those "11% fewer Christians" went to Atheism and how many went to something even WORSE! Like Islam or Scientology or Mormonism....
warren52nz 10 months ago
the whole videos was GAY, until u said, SCIENCE IT WORKS BITCHES, I want an alarm clock for that or sumthin'
sonicsoul0 10 months ago
statistical physics tells us that the Earth's entropy in the Sun-Earth-space system can decrease - the rest is just details :) nice vid btw.
bocckoka 10 months ago
Nice explanation of Nylonase. I have to point out though that pwnage can't be self referential. You have to just pwn someone. You can't say that your pwning them while your doing it. That depwnifies the pwnage. its a rule.
estragon9 10 months ago
"to REALLY pwn those creationist asses" ... I... think I love you. ;D... no seriously... you are awesome.... Subscribed.
fr3d420 10 months ago
Science, it works bitches! LOL
hypercub 11 months ago 40
If you look for the article "Five classic examples of gene evolution" in New Scientist, the 5th example is this nylonase adaptation. It seems that the frame shift hypothesis mentioned here has been dropped in favour of one that involved 2 point mutations "to change the beta-lactamase binding site to one capable of binding the nylon by-product."
markaurelius61 11 months ago
@markaurelius61 Was it dropped, or was it a different example? Nylonase has evolved more than once.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk I think the New Scientist article doesn't take a stand, but quote the 2-mutation finder as saying ""I believe that the above two hypotheses can be excluded", i.e. the phase shift one and some other non specified "rather complicated and special mechanism". This article gives the impression that there have been multiple theories, not necessarily still accepted. You should read it yourself, I have it open now.
markaurelius61 11 months ago
2:23
you bet they want to do that!
Evilanious 11 months ago
You want some nylonase with that pwnage?
FHomeBrew 11 months ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck Firstly the big bang is cosmology not Evolution, 2nd I was asking if you were the guy who stated in one of Aronra's videos that the big bang was an explosion of nothing, 3rd by your inability to form a basic sentence correctly it's obvious that if you aren't the guy who made that claim you're just another creationist moron incapable of rational or logical thought. You should grow up.
ronocko 11 months ago
@ronocko Don't push the Poe.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk I've fed the troll haven't I, brb taking my punishment of 20 goatsi's
ronocko 11 months ago
How does this new gene get turned on (and off) and then transported to the right place to digest the nylon?
markaurelius61 11 months ago
@markaurelius61 Um...it doesn't. it doesn't have to. Do you know ANYTHING about how genes work?
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Please enlighten me.
markaurelius61 11 months ago
@markaurelius61 Genes code for proteins. This new gene made a new protein in the cell. That cell then made an enzyme, and it's the enzyme that digests the nylon products. No turning on or off, no transporting. It makes the protein.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk So what is the role of this new protein that the phase shift generated? You seem to be saying that it's another gene that codes for some enzyme that actually digests the nylon.
markaurelius61 11 months ago
@markaurelius61 Are you completely incapable of parsing a simple sentence???
GENE, MAKES, PROTEIN. PROTEIN, MAKES, ENZYME. ENZYME, DOES, DIGESTING.
Get it???
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk I always understood that an enzyme was a form of protein, so I would have thought the protein makes enzyme step is wrong. Do you have a reference for this?
markaurelius61 11 months ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck Haha aren't you the douche who thought that the big bang was an explosion of nothingness?
ronocko 11 months ago
« If you think we derived from Apes, can you show me the link between Apes and us? »
1. We *are* apes.
2. There's not just "a" link; there are numerous forms that are morphologically intermediate between the basal type and extant modern apes such as us.
3. One such form is Australopithecus afarensis.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor You can basically say that all transitional "humans" are from the Australopithecus and Homo genera, they won't listen. The only thing they will listen to is themselves, or in a more extreme case, their pastors.
pythor2 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck I'm calling poe.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
corn pone, lol
salmagnum 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck 'I have debunked his claims'
Name one.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck Ida wasn't the most recent common ancestor of modern apes, Ida was the common ancestor of wet and dry nosed primates and no, she was not a lemur. AronRa explains that as well.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation I thought they revised that, and concluded that Ida was a bit further down the line leading to lemurs and not ours?
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@shanedk I remember some controversy over the count of characteristics used but as far as I was aware, the morphological distribution still put Ida ancestral to haplorrhines and strepsirrhines
Did I miss something?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation This was more recent, like in the last few months or so.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Do you have a link I could check out? The only recent significant article I can find is one from nature that further defends Ida as an ancestor.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@shanedk Nevermind, found it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck AronRa already did so in great detail in the Ida series.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck 'Problem is nylonase is borrowed information'
You say that on a video explaining exactly how it's not.
'therefore if it's taken out of nylon it would revert back to what it was before'
Well it's not really 'revert' as evolution is not directional, but that's how evolution works, certain traits are favored in certain environments, not all environments.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck We didn't evolve from other modern apes, we share a common ancestor.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
« It won't grow up to become Uncle Festus »
Assuming that Festus is an eukaryotic lifeform, no it won't. Evolutionary theory teaches that life does not jump clades. Humans are eukaryotic lifeforms because we descended from eukaryotes, just like humans are mammals because we descended from mammals, and humans are apes because we descended from apes. Species that emerge from a clade don't just stop being part of that clade.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck when did it stop being a bacteria??
and what evidence do you have of organisms of reverse evolving??
thanks....
scottpastry 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck lol i said..... " genes are just part of what makes up nylonase"
and you interpreted that as 'nylonase has no genes" ??? really??
you must be a parody account, because no one can be that silly.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Yeah he's a troll.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck He was saying that nylonase itself is not the sole component of the nylon degrading bacterias genome.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck no new information huh??
so by your logic, the following is the bible.....
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
correct???
and genes are just part of what makes up nylonase, as well as every other organism. nylonase does not make a genome.
nor does nylonase have anything to do with any other organisms genome.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@TheGoldenCrocoduck macro information??
scottpastry 1 year ago
I love this video so much. I had read about nylonase, but the presentation made it much more fun. Thanks!
billy936 1 year ago
How do creationists argue against Science? Without science? It's like Running in Bike Marathon Without a Bike. CREATIONISTS ARE PATHETIC!
flightkiller09 1 year ago
if something CONTAINS information,it cannot BE information itself.
That is liek saying an automobile IS GASOLINE because it contains gasoline.
What an idiotic statement.!
The only way a grain of sand IS information is if it fits all 5 scientific levels of definition.
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.(purpose or result)
a grain of sand is NOT information. Give it up you're wrong. Period. I'm sorry.
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112 And if anyone had actually said that, you might have some kind of point. But they didn't. Caseagainstfaith said there was information contained in a grain of sand. You said it was idiotic. I said it wasn't, because what he said (i.e., the stuff inside a grain of sand) was a perfectly valid example, because sand and other things I mentioned do, in fact, contain information.
YOU are the one that's wrong. And like all creationists, you're too pathetic to admit it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk "the grain of sand has a size, location, composition. And every gust of wind alters it, adding, removing, changing."
yOU ARE GOING TO DEFEND THIS?
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith yawn.......Meh...
i really do mean this with respect...
but that is an idiotic explanation. You are grasping at straws
my friend .
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112 No, it's not. It's a perfectly valid example of information in nature. Every grain of sand, every raindrop, every molecule, every atom contains information.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk do you read your own statements before sending them?/ lol
uhhh ...OK...let me get this straight.. It is an EXAMPLE of information.....because it CONTAINS information...
I don't need to say a word here.. i think even a rhesus monkey understands the flaws in that statement
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112 Well, I guess I'm dumber than a rhesus monkey, because you're going to have to explain it to me: WHAT is the flaw in that statement?
shanedk 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith I will.
shanedk 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith "if I recall, one bit of information cuts your uncertainty in half."
That be correct.
I'm working on a classroom version of this one which will go into it in more detail.
shanedk 1 year ago
This video is a joke. Nothing new occurred here at all. But hey, it makes sense coming from someone who defends a guy like Dawkins, a man who believes life came to earth on the backs of crystals. I think i'll go and chew on some nylon for a few years and test it out. Your pathetic way of expressing yourself speaks well for evolutionists.
willhelmfred05 1 year ago
@willhelmfred05 "This video is a joke. Nothing new occurred here at all."
Except, of course, for the OVER TWO THOUSAND BITS of new information that were DIRECTLY OBSERVED. But the ONLY response you pathetic creationists have to this is, "Is not! Is not! Is not!"
"a guy like Dawkins, a man who believes life came to earth on the backs of crystals."
Dawkins NEVER said this, and such lies are NOT allowed on my channel. First warning.
shanedk 1 year ago
@willhelmfred05 "I think i'll go and chew on some nylon for a few years and test it out."
Evolution works on populations, not individuals, idiot. If you don't even know that, then you don't know the first thing about how evolution works or even what it is.
shanedk 1 year ago
your silly video deserves little comment whatsoever. But if you simply watch the video response attached to your own video, the guy does a decent job on his own. No increase in genome info.. simply borrowing from another internal system.
THE BIGGER question of course is the existence in information at all in matter.
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112 Except that his pack of lies was seriously debunked. I SHOWED the increase in information and I CALCULATED the amount of information created. You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!
And EVERYTHING system has information about itself. How could it not?
Do you even know what the scientific definition of information IS?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk research Dr. Wener Gitt.
BTW its abundently clear information is NON MATERIAL
your scientific materialism is dead.
...im done with this argument b/c you still can't explain WHERE the
information comes from.
keep up that rebillious attitde.... you are the smartest man alive
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112 I know about Gitt, and it's bogosity.
Can you tell me the scientific definition of information or not? If not, you have no business commenting on the matter.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk scientific explanation? how about the English on : an ordered sequence of symbols, communicated. sounds like DNA to me.
westsd4lyphe 1 year ago
@westsd4lyphe No, that's not IN ANY WAY the scientific definition of information. So you're FAR too ignorant to make informed opinions on the subject.
The scientific definition of information is "the reduction in the amount of uncertainty of the state of a system." That's IT. Nothing says it has to be ordered, sequential, or based on symbols. You fail ALL THREE WAYS. (Oh, and DNA is only one of those three: sequential.)
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk scientific explanation? how about the English one?: an ordered sequence of symbols communicated. sounds like DNA to me. Also sounds 'purpose' built with intention, but it doesn't sound random. DNA doesn't just carry information, it carries out instructions. This is active and apart from just information storage. Look how did the bible speak of the big bang thousands of years before the telescope was invented? I am not a 'creationist' but I do think God somehow created everything
westsd4lyphe 1 year ago
@westsd4lyphe "DNA doesn't just carry information, it carries out instructions."
No, it doesn't. It carries chemicals. Just because two chemicals can react together a certain way doesn't make them "instructions."
"how did the bible speak of the big bang thousands of years before the telescope was invented?"
It didn't, liar.
shanedk 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112Your comment made me realize something, information cannot be seen or touched, only the aftermath of it can be... sound familiar? Information is an abstract concept not a concrete object so you are right, science points to intelligent design because the info in DNA is actually instruction that are executed to transform an abstract idea into a concrete physical form. Instructions come before the physical formation so where did the instructions come from?Science sides with logic
westsd4lyphe 1 year ago
@westsd4lyphe "information cannot be seen"
Yes, it can. We see photons, and photons carry information.
The photons sent to us from SN1987A give us a LOT of information about that supernova and how it happened. Where did those "instructions" come from? From no intelligent being--they're just a reaction from the supernova itself. But they greatly decreased our uncertainty about it, and therefore they absolutely ARE information.
shanedk 1 year ago
@westsd4lyphe Its funny you use the term logic. Logic is a "standard of reasoning"...But Why would there be a standard of reasoning in a chance universe. If your worldview is true you cannot apply logic at all.
As for information:
In science It has at least 5 levels of definition. These level are statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.(purpose or result)
If all five levels are found in an unknown system, we can say it contains information.
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
Explain the evolutionary process that causes INFORMATION to arise in matter?
....i Will wait with bated-breath for your answer.
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112 Explained in this very video.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Your Explanation is pathetic.
You are a pseudo-intellectual Sucker.
sgentlemanjack112 1 year ago
@sgentlemanjack112 How is it pathetic? I even calculated how much information was created!
shanedk 1 year ago