The same logic that claims vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian. DonExodus2 is a two-faced hypocrite and a liar. May he and his AGW cultist buddies at the IPCC be exposed for the lying frauds that they are.
DonExodus2's faith in AGW isn't shaken when scientists sue the IPCC to force them to remove their names from the IPCC reports. DonExodus2 then outright lies and claims conservatives denied the effects of smoking. Most conservative arguments against smoking bans are based on individual freedom even if the person is doing something that adversely affect their health. All of this is done solely to invoke the sleazy tactic of guilt by association.
@TheZooCrew Don't tell me to cite my source, especially when you didn't cite any of the crap you're spewing. Cite your sources then complain about others not doing the same. IOW: lead by example
"Most conservative arguments against smoking bans are based on individual freedom even if the person is doing something that adversely affect their health."
While ignoring the vast amount of evidence provided by international scientific and health groups that smoking adversely affects the health of non-smokers.
DonExodus2 complains that the material released by the Discovery Institute either reference individuals who were not experts in the field of science covered in the material and that the few actual authorities in biology references had their names published against their will and knowledge. Yet DonExodus2 doesn't bat an eye when the IPCC does the exact same dishonest tactics. No mention that much of the 'scientific' literature in the IPCC reports were produced by environmental advocacy groups.
I don't know why you Christians come on youtube to argue about what educate people in each subject can easily show you if you go to a university. Your all just on here to feel a sense of accomplishment. "If these youtube kids cant answer my questions about "insert subject" than the only answer is god!!!" This world saddens me!
This is why I maintain that the vast majority of YouTube creationists are mentally ill. It's not healthy to be so insecure and so paranoid that only compulsive lying and clinging to whatever convenient unanswered question is present keeps one's mind at ease.
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
The ozone layer depletion is evidence enough for me about climate change. The emissions of CFCs is causing this planet to heat up. Anyone who doesn't believe that is an idiot.
I remember learming about the thoery of evolution in school and thinking wow that makes sense, did that case study on the peppered moth during the industrial revolution. I also remember going to church listening to the various preachers and thinking wow this sounds contrived. I am baffled by how one would think you could teach creationism, surely it has to be indoctrinated? perhaps begin the teaching in kindergarten or first years of primary school, do that, and your basically brainwashing kids.
Certainly some sort of evolution exists.. Species change over time. But it cannot be driven by random mutation. I have no idea how it works but it doesn't work like Darwin described it.
As for global warming due to CO2, it's a scam. Go to the country and check the temperature. If it's in the normal range for the date there's no crisis. If and when the temperature exceeds the record high for the date you can start to worry a little. Till then be skeptic, be very sceptic.
Clearly you did not watch this video and have little to no experience with any science whatsoever.
"I have no idea how it works but it doesn't work like Darwin described it."
What, because you say so? In fact, evolution doesn't work exactly how Darwin described it, but he got the concept right and science doesn't assert that Darwin was right about everything.
@Txsray I'll admit that it's been a few years since I was last in a Biology class, but the mutation, which itself is the wrong word, is not random. There are reasons for the changes, be it climate change or a new predator/prey comes into the ecosystem. And this is exactly Darwin said evolution would work.
As for your global warming argument doesn't work the way you state either. The average temperature rises over time, not suddenly like you are suggesting.
@Txsray The phenomenon is "global" warming and not "regional" warming. Some areas will not see uniformly increasing temperatures. For instance, the polar regions have the biggest increase. Those higher temperatures evaporate more of the polar ice and put moisture in the air which can lead to lower temperatures in certain parts of the world.
If you take temperatures from all over the world, the trend is increasing temperature...and it's in correlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As far as I can tell, the so-called scientific community that is publicly visible consists of academics and political pseudo-scientists, who are substantially agreed when they are paid to be, or when it is politically expedient.
(Imagine a grandma, climbing stairs, dragging a Buick.)
Among real scientists, agreement itself is unscientific, almost unheard-of, and totally unnecessary. (Imagine a demonic skater with hair on fire, shredding the handrails.)
@950horsepower The ones you see in the media, yes maybe your right. Thats why when you want to look up a real scientific perspective you go to university, and read valid science journal articles.
@Oddessuss Yeah, that was almost true once. I used to keep a room at the Carlton, half block from Sather gate. So I practically lived on the UCB campus. I did most of my technical research there. An experience that would have been a waste of time had I not known who to believe, and who not to. Even Berkeley is too corrupt now to trust their data. Maybe there's more honest academics somewhere overseas but I not real hopeful.
@950horsepower Hmmmm if you can't trust to some degree the mechanisms of the scientific method ... you can't trust anything. Referring not to public opinions of science, and not even how the funding works which I know is biased, but the articles that do get in are tested thoroughly and can be dimissed by any academic in the world if incorrect.
@Oddessuss In an honest world, that might work. But its really a system that has a lot of its foundations in non-reality, or pure fantasy. So, you are right, one cannot trust anything. Academics start off acting like they own it, so they are dead in the water going in. I don't know what they think science is, but that sure isn't it. They can leave their titles and their egos at home.
For a lot of people, academia is where science begins. It is not however, where it leads.
@950horsepower Seriously, your distrust of scientific inquiry is absolute. You do realise that the scientific method allows you to read and test any journla articles, and if you think them wrong, you can go and try and disprove them. Any article that is written if it is in error, wouldn't last for very long, and the vast majority of time wouldn't make it through the vigorous peer review and scrutiny. ALl I have to say on the issue.
A professor in Texas came to me sarcastically claiming he was going to get the peace prize if he could prove my technology works. I said they already did that 10 years ago in 12 countries, look it up. He made no bones about his intention to do everything in his power to prove it false. I saw his experiment. It was a joke. He demanded my help. lmao What sheer gall.
The proposed solutions of the climate change scam involve greater consolidations of power in the government’s hands to solve these fake problems – the solutions being carbon taxes that get paid directly to private bankers, rules, regulations and laws that only megalithic corporations can afford to comply with thus shutting out competition, and a laundry list of other non-effectual solutions that only empower the very corporations that have caused real, verifiable environmental damage.
first off does this guy know that not all scientist believe in evolution, need to, or want/should believe it. Again another person mixing up evolution with science and biology. And please tell me he knows car pollution doesn't actually cause global warming as that propaganda is getting old.
It doesn't matter if some scientists reject evolution. The evidence supports evolution. There has yet to be a sound claim of the contrary. Until there is one, there is no reason doubt it, besides blind dogma.
@Pernic10us no it wasn't a question and you seem smart. Can you give me these evidences you speak of?If not please don't be like most youtuber accounts and say evidence without showing it. I'm just saying you have to show evidence of evolution instead of attacking the opposition first and if you can i respect you for that sir.
That debate has been played many times over, and in a manner that is quite a bit more eloquent than I would be able to repeat. The evidence has been presented, if you choose not to accept it, so be it. My comment was referring to the fact that a theory or established fact does not rely on a completely unanimous scientific community. By mentioning, or even quoting, this minor sect does not give your argument any weight. Your protest is worthless without supporting evidence.
@Pernic10us Your protest is worthless without supporting evidence. Exactly because you also said "The evidence supports evolution." when that is just plain ignorant opinion. If YOU will not show evidence,then don't be a troll.
How can anyone observe the vast complexity of DNA bio-software and conclude that it is the product of anything but design. The equivalent is finding a DVD with a billion lines-of-code bootable operating system on it and concuding that it was just a happy accident of random scratches on the media.
By NOT understanding anything about it. If someone doesn't understand how it can come about naturally, and the different steps involved, then it isn't surprising someone already holding the pre conceived notion that there is some kind of mystical intelligence in the universe could come to this completely false conclusion.
Further if that person is also intellectually dishonest and lazy, they will not look into it in any more depth or detail.
How is this so hard to understand? Evolution and Global Warming are both loaded terms. I don't think anyone really completely denies them. What about scientist who say that global warming is only fluctuation, as opposed to this dramatic global catastrophe that Gore would have you believe. Are those still global warming advocates? Obviously not.
-
Both of these ideas have yet to be defined in practical terms. They're both broad concepts and consist more of predictions than present realities.
Each time when I see the guy, dressed as the devil within your opening scene I wonder how similar he looks to Matt Dilahunty of the Atheist Experience.
Questioning global warming is legit, in that the causes are man made CO2 & not natural or simple land use cause, or GW just a swing in the climate. Whining about Evolution like that pseudo intellectual pig like Anne Coulter or the like minded phonies in the Discovery Institute is more akin to Holocaust Denial
What about those of us who are Atheist and are waiting for someone to create a predictive model for the AGW hypothesis before incorporating it into the set of our current beliefs? Logical skepticism requires that popular belief among scientists (or anybody, really) not be a factor in an assessment of the truth value of a claim....anybody can make a hypothesis. Theory comes from the ability to predict from a model.
It's not that I have not woken up, it is that you have not caught up yet. keep trying though. True you will never be as smart as me, but that doesn't mean you can't still learn.
That was a good natured jab - and you resort to insults - how DARE you!!!
Look , all I'm getting at is: we do not call those who think the Earth is flat "dissenting" geographers, or those who think astrology holds some significance in our lives "dissenting" astronomers, nor do we call those who claim the Holocaust never happened "dissenting" historians - what we call them is WRONG.
Do you honestly think that all of the evidence we have found in support of common ancestry based on molecular biology is just circumstantial? Just look into the geneological trees that have been developed based on ERV's and other "marker genes" and see how they not only almost perfectly corroborate established phylogenic trees, but show chains of ancestry that cannot be explained by other "creation" hypotheses, while matching exactly what we would expect if evolution were true.
Besides- I've come to the conclusion that the level of denial you and others like you here on YouTube demonstrate each and every time you open your yaps (so to speak) can readily be explained by the idea that most of you are somehow connected to the "Discovery" (quotes are a derision) Institute acting as moles, spreading their propaganda and outright LIES in an attempt to demonstrate how there is still a controversy. - THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY!!!
OK Steve ole boy. if your position was sound no scientist would dissent. The FACT is scientists are abandoning gradualism in INCREASING numbers. When you consider that all dissenters must study on their own and reject the position of power held by the established hypothesis, it is amazing that any dissent. What I say comes from my head and my reading. I do read creationist writings but not exclusively. in any case, dirt did not come alive and change into everything by accident.
@mejc2 1) Did you actually watchDonExodus' video? There is your answer regarding dissent - same one I gave you when we talked previously
2) Accident! - Accident? Really?
Who exactly on the side of evolution said that it was al by accident? Exactly NONE that I am aware of. We claim natural selection - absolutely NOT accidental (again, as I stated before), just as covalent bonds are the root cause for molecular structures produced from atoms - not accidents.
@mejc2 But what I'm saying is: just as two atoms sometimes just happen "bump" into one another and then due to laws of chemistry combine to form a larger molecule (a process not entirely accidental, nor wholly law or process based), evolution's random variance (caused by simple copying error), coupled with selection's distilling effect is not an entirely chance process either, (and again, nor is it entirely law driven).
We do not observe copying errors writing genetic code to create new tissue, organs or body plans. What we do observe is organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment already programed into their genetic code. Now that we understand computer coding and we are beginning to find new function for more and more of the human genome, it is becoming more and more clear that copying errors cannot write this immensely sophisticated specialized code.
@mejc2 Look into research by Richard Lenki et. al. at Michigan State University done on E. coli bacteria, where the goal was to reproduce the multi-generational conditions necessary to demonstrate evolution (and more to the point, the power of natural selection) in action. They demonstrated the evolution of a biochemical pathway which allowed the bacteria to digest the citrate present alongside the already metabolizable glucose (an advancement requiring two separate mutations to accomplish).
what's your point? Are you saying that if bacteria can adapt to their environment, then they can eventually become everything known to man? No one argues that organisms can adapt. we all know this and can observe it. Can they change into a new creature with new body parts and plans? There is no known mechanism to accomplish this and there is no evidence in the fossil record that it ever happened.
@mejc2 Wow, all you do is demonstrate just how ignorant of current evolutionary theory you are. Genes ARE everything, they are the true units of evolutionary change - not body parts. Devolopmental biology is key here - a tiny change in a gene can make all the difference in how long a command such as: "make this appendage grow" will remain active, or even whether or not it will be active - as compared to an ancestor's who's command instruction was active (the cause for vestigial structures).
Again, you people with the "No fossil evidence" claim, do you think if you keep chanting it to yourselves it'll somehow make it true? We've discussed this before, you and I, what would constitute a "transitional form" for you? Something like a merlizard? Maybe you don't understand this, but a cross between two contemporary species would count as a falsification of Darwinian theory - as the intermediate between those two species would be the common ANCESTOR of both.
@steveb0503 It is pointless to ask what would constitute a "transitional form" as once you find form "B" between form "A" & "C" they will require you to find the transitional form between "A" & "B" and the form between "B" & "C" and you will find yourself in the infinite loop of having to provide a "transitional form" between all transitional forms, without acknowledging that 1) not all bones become fossils and ...
@steveb0503 (cont) 2) to speak analogically, if you have a puzzle that is missing ten pieces and once put together it seems the completed puzzle would be a picture of the White House, the puzzle WILL NOT magically become a picture of the Taj Mahal once those ten pieces are found (if they are ever found).
Bottom line is, because of how fossilization works, we will most probably never find EVERY transitional form, but we can present enough of them to show that we came from great apes.
I understand how the whole thing works, as I have studied it extensively - which is something I try to point out to those who would deny facts: If you do not accept the evidence for evolution, then you do not understand them or what they show.
@steveb0503 Yeah, sorry about that, wasn't geared towards you, merely a reply to what you had posted.
Saying talking to a creationist is like talking to a brick wall is insulting to the brick wall... No matter how much evidence is shown, they will always refuse to believe. The only upside is, more and more young people are getting a clue and those crazy bastards are dying off. Shame I will never see the day...
@Secundinius You're right - most of them will never change their mind, but I have made a few of them cease and desist in their proselytizing when they realize I have more answers than they have questions (I can only hope this occasionally influences a fence-sitting witness).
I remain hopeful that I WILL see the day - at least the day the tide BEGINS to turn.
I can demonstrate how you are in fact a dishonest person and anyone accepting anything you say as truthful even from your perspective should do so with a grain of salt. You stated in our last exchange that you were "an old man" and "owned an electronic security company for twenty years", and yet when I looked at your profile here on You Tube, you had listed your age as 27! What gives?
Make no mistake - the truth in the evolutionism/creationism debate will out. We have logic, reason, observations, and evidence on our side - you got what? dogma? Good luck there! It's plainly unreasonable to hold a permanently unchangeable belief that's preserved by sheer force of ignorance. I guess time will tell who's smarter.
There is no scientific proof that either atheists or socialists have ever hurt anyone. All torture & injustice is due to extreme fanatical nationalism: the Chinese, the North Koreans, Soviets, Peru - and religion: Saudi Arabia, Iran. Atheists are still silenced & bullied & terrorized in the United States & in Iran & Saudi Arabia.
@duck24x The Communist, as in Marxist Leninists Maoist et al have racked up an impressive body count. But I will make the distinction between them and the democratic socialist nanny staters of Western Europe. The Soviets didn't kill people based just on nationality
@jakefree24 There were various "factions" of socialists, communists, Trotskyists etc in Lenin's time, in Russia, who competed for power - often violently. So, I am glad to see you don't see them all as one homogeneous group. e.g. The so-called "liberal" communists of Romania, e.g, and also Stalin's Russia, outlawed abortion in order to increase population size. But most communists now support right to choose abortion.
@duck24x But they all basically sucked and created miserable poverty stricken prison camp societies where the population, happiness, & lifespan declined (still are)
@jakefree24 So do fascist & capitalist countries. So, it makes infinitely more sense to question your political-economic theories of cause-and-effect than to question the far-more-proven theory of anthropogenic global warming. In neither case can one set up a laboratory experiment to make testable predictive, varying one variable at a time. But in the case of GW, we do have known conservation laws to plug into computers.
@jakefree24 However, the one thing that is absolutely NEVER NEVER EVER pointed out by ANYONE (besides me) when they criticize (critique) Marxism, Trotskyism, etc is that - whatever form of it holds power - whatever the LAWS they imposed - e.g. outlawing private corporations - WAS THE LAW and therefore MUST BE OBEYED, the same way pro-American folks shove down everyone's throat that "unfair laws such as great inequalities in wealth are still the law & must be obeyed."
7:00 - An 'impression' of a divided scientific community? Are you trying to say that all scientist agree with each other? Are you a straw man? Are you really arguing for the points that you are making, or are you just presenting weak ones for people to pick apart? I'm not sure that I believe in evolution or not, but this discussion did nothing for me.
@bradley535 No one says that all scientists are totally in lockstep. Yet the Discovery Institute is leveraging that concept in a dishonest way by suggesting that anyone who doesn't accept current Evolutionary Theories en toto automatically supports ID or worse.
2:50 - Dr. Fitzler's first reply isn't posted... I wonder why that is. Perhaps because he does not agree in the idea of evolution being the cause of life on Earth, as you would try to have us believe. Post his initial reply so we can see what HIS words were, not yours.
1:50 - Ummm, look at the title. It doesn't claim that these scientists say that evolution is impossible, it just says that they are skeptical and that careful exploration into it should be encouraged. Also, in that list you post it shows that most of them ARE in fact bioligists as their specialized field of study. If you are going to make a point don't disprove yourself, let others do that.
People don't know that what global warming does is not make hotter days, but make the weather more weird and extreme: winters are colder, summers are hotter, rain seasons are more raini, dry seasons are drier...
It's the same as how the people don't know that what comes out of nuclear power plants' cooling towers is not deadly radioactive vapor, but just water steam.
But in most of the cases is not denialism, but unwillingness to look around, mostly because of comfort reasons
nope you have it exactly BACKWARDS global warming makes it wetter and more temperate hurricanes are made when cold air meets hot air...the bigger the temp difference the stronger the hurricane. and the temp differnce would be less as the cold air would be warmer and the warm air would be cooler due to all the extra moisture in the air. ykou just described to a T a global COOLING scenario. read about the ice ages
@markbotv3 WRONG about hurricanes...you Hovindian IDiot. They form in the tropics for starters and SECOND they are affected by the effects of the earth's spin on groups of thunderstorms......EPIC FAIL , so quit defending the polluters. If you show UTTER IGNORANCE of how weather works, do not claim to know otherwise. FYI, the clash of cold dry air and warm moist air over the US, especially in the plains yields T-storms & tornadoes! EPIC FAIL!
@EduEnYT Exactly, and what the Hovindist tards fail to reallize is that if ENOUGH polar ice melts to affect the atlantic conveyor, well we are SCREWED. Add enough fresh water and the Gulf Stream shuts down...kind of ironic that global warming, if it melts enough ice can trigger another Ice Age...freaking DF rightwing loons......
ya thats a "theory" ive heard it too. but it is being debunked. again i point to seatle. it isnt being affected by the gulf stream and its temperate just like england. look at human history. their were anatomically correct homo sapiens during the ice age...but no civilization. then the ice started melting and civilization started and has progressed ON PAR with the melt. the more the melt the more civilization. its a scientific fact look it up
@markbotv3 Seattle is on the West coast you IDiot and it is affected by THE PACIFIC CONVEYOR, Not the gulf Stream....part of the results of the end of the Ice age created the Sahara Desert...AGAIN EPIC FAIL
@biancademonet I live in Aberdeen, Scotland, 57deg North. You can go a thousand miles north of here and not see an iceberg.
The Titanic was 41deg North when she found her Iceberg, south of St. Tropez, south of Madrid. People have no idea of what the Atlantic Conveyor means, and how delicate it is.
Really? Because here in Canada, statistics show that our summers and seasons in general are all getting colder. Global warming is flawed. They first said "Oh no, the earth is getting hotter!" and then scientist proved that wrong and now they're saying "well! *cough* actually it's more climate change then global warming! summers are getting hotter and winter's colder!" But like I said, Canada has been getting colder INCLUDING summer.
@HiLRoYpwns Well to be fair scientists have ALWAYS called it climate change, that's why the IPCC which was founded in 1988 is not called the IPGW. Global Warming is a media term, climate change is a scientific one.
You see, you just don't understand the science. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction. there is no evidence of gradualism. Hence, punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism is not observed in the real world and not observed in the fossil record. However, you hang on to your dogma. You are a deluded automaton. You cannot think for yourself. As real scientists abandon this hypothesis, you cling to it. Too bad for you .
how about the fossil record that in NO WAY supports gradualism. It actually begins and ends with complex creatures. there is no example of anything slowly morphing into anything else, ever. Also, carbon 14 had been found in dinosaur bones, and soft tissue from dinosaur bones, absolutely proving that they cannot be anywhere near 65 million years old.
@mejc2 I would suggest you get your information from websites NOT related to religion. You ever heard of fossilized bacteria liked cyanobacteria? or coccolithophores? or microfossils in general? or answers in genesis does not possess such information?!
On bones topic, dino bones cant be dated by C14 method since they DONT HAVE C14 in them! I know there were bones blind dated to 16 thousand years, but people tend to forget that the bone was covered in preservative. Conveniently forget!
@mejc2 and what soft tissue you are talking about?! the one described in a paper by Schweitzer? I know a lot of those speculations that there were blood vessels found and what not. But do you know what that tissue is exactly?! I suggest you read the paper, not the blog of a creationist!
Schweitzer's find was many years ago. there have been many many others. I believe a Swiss team recently carbon dated soft tissue to 25000 years. There is no fossil evidence of gradualism. You love to say that I am chanting a mantra. However, it is you that are chanting the mantra. Science shows the fossils were complex at the lower levels and complex at the top. NO gradual increase in complexity is observed. You need quadrillions of changes. the fossil record produces NONE.
@mejc2 are you ignoring microbial fossils on purpose? stop regurgitating same arguments over and over. There are fossilized bacteria dated over 3.5 billion years, up to primate fossils. Which part dont you understand!
On another point - scientists DONT USE C14 to date anything concerning dinosaurs! Its so hard to understand such basics?
Have you also heard of bacterial biofilms? Try researching that!
@mejc2 1. Dont play on semantics. You perfectly well know that bacteria is less complex then current life forms and thats what I meant.
2. No one claims that bacteria produced trilobites. It was merely an example of more simple life form.
3. Yes, we know soft tissue cant survive that long. But it did. Instead of putting god of the gaps in it, they are trying to find out WHY tissue survived.
Whats your explanation? That dinos lived 4000 years ago?
1. complex bacteria in the precambrian and every known Phyla in the Cambrian. That is what science shows us. NO GRADUALISM! This refutes Darwinian predictions.
2. Listen to yourself "Yes, we know soft tissue cant survive that long. But it did." You KNOW it CAN'T but you insist it did, despite the C14 testing proving to you that it is not possible for it to be 65 million years old.
3. Cellular biology tells us the fossils are recent C14 tests show the same. You reject the science!
@mejc2 omg.. are you ignoring it on purpose. No one uses C14 to date fossils? NOBODY! Soft tissue example is not a rule, its an exception! There is no conclusive research done on this topic. To speculate that it proves dinosaurs are younger the conventionally stated is intellectual dishonesty.
Oldest animal fossils date back to Precambrian and are sponge like creatures. But you dont even have to go that far. Take human evolution, at least few...
@mejc2 ...last steps - habilis -> ergaster -> erectus -> heidelbergensis -> neanderthalensis -> sapiens. If thats not gradual change I dont know what is. If you know species differentiation go even further back in human evolution. And thats human evolution alone, there are many examples of different animals. But lets assume for the sake of argument its all false - what is your explanation for life and diversity of it?
1,"most researchers see too little difference between ergaster and erectus to form the basis of a species of the former,"
2 Erectus "now some question its place in human evolution"
3. Neanderthals are still hotly debated. However, most probably were humans.
quotes are from archaeology info dot com.
quadrillions of imagined steps from bacteria to humans and you bring four questionable, debated, cohabitants as empirical evidence of evolution? sheesh !!
@mejc2 so what? doubts or debates dont undermine the fact that these fossils are perfect example of gradual changes. No matter how you categorize them. And it doesnt just end on human. Look at changes of other species, wales for example!
So what? that is your response to science that refutes your beloved evolutionism?
1. You produce no evidence, only invented stories.
2. you reject science that refutes those invented stories.
3. You want to know what I think? As if, if you could prove me wrong, it would make evolutionism right!
I think the science refutes evolutionism and it is time to look to archaeological and historical documents to explain the past. Not make up creation stories about mutations creating stuff
"I think the science refutes evolutionism and it is time to look to archaeological and historical documents to explain the past."
There's no such thing as evolutionism and it's a lie to suggest that science doesn't support evolution. What you think doesn't matter; it's why you think it. You only think science refutes evolution because you're required to say that by your dogmatic religious beliefs.
"complex bacteria in the precambrian and every known Phyla in the Cambrian. "
Wrong. What does "complex bacteria" even mean? We start with single-celled organisms for a very, very long time, then get multicellular organisms later in the Precambrian. Only 11 of 34 phyla appear in the Cambrian, and the "explosion" took 10 million years. We absolutely see gradualism; you're just lying.
Carbon-14 dating has a 50,000-year limit, which is why it's not used to date fossils. Fail.
Actually the fossil record not showing gradualism is not my idea. If you don't like that you should call Harvard and tell them to print a retraction of the most famous evolutionist to come from there school. Steven Gould. If you think the fossils show gradualism, you are arguing with Harvard not me.
1: Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. Your argument fails.
2: Gould accepted the evidence for evolution in it's entirety. People like you take his statements out of context instead of actually doing any research to actually discover something yourselves. that's a breech of your precious 9th commandment.
1. I am not appealing to authority. I am looking at the data produced by scientists around the world. There is no data to support gradualism. Appealing to authority is your job. You accept it without data.
2. Gould went through the trouble of creating a new hypothesis because the data did not support gradualism. Read a little and you will learn something. look up cladogenesis.
2) Gould created punctuated equilibrium to supplement the theory. You're making a hasty generalization fallacy by applying the lack of transitional forms found for small, isolated populations to the entire fossil record. Of course, you're doing this on purpose so you can rationalize your lazy ignorance.
1. I look at enough data to convince me that there is no mechanism that can create the genetic information needed to create new body plans, organs, or systems.
2. Supplement the theory? Are you implying that there is adequate evidence to support gradualism but Gould just developed a little something extra? you are being misleading. Gould rejected gradualism
"t there is no mechanism that can create the genetic information needed to create new body plans, organs, or systems."
DNA is a molecule with certain chemical properties, which makes it behave in certain ways within its environment. Yes, DNA is a very complicated, self-replicating molecule, but it contains as much information as a water-molecule has information about that it should lead to water to freeze when it reaches 0 degrees centigrade.
DNA is not self-replicating. Alone, DNA does absolutely nothing. It's entirely dependent on enzymes and RNA. This actually strengthens your point...DNA does not contain "information" in a classical sense; it's more like a jig or a mold.
The modern evolutionary synthesis involves a blend of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. It's like how general relativity didn't erase Newtonian equations, it merely added terms.
Gould didn't notice that evolution takes place in spurts. He stated that most evolution takes place in spurts. there is a difference between discovering that something happened and stating that something happened. Organisms appear abruptly with no precursors int the fossil record. Gould assumed that they evolved rapidly and left no fossil traces. It is at best a hypothesis with no mechanism to create the genetic information needed to create organs, systems, or body plans.
"there's only DNA that gets reproduced with errors. The "information" is purely in the human mind. "
errors have never been observed to create any new organ, system, or body plan. Errors have been observed to cause decrease in function, sickness, and death. Increasing complexity in organisms is not observed, genetic entropy is observed. Evolution by mutation and natural selection exists purely in the human mind.
"errors have never been observed to create any new organ, system, or body plan. "
One word: nylonase.
"Errors have been observed to cause decrease in function, sickness, and death."
Actually, most mutations are neutral
"Increasing complexity in organisms is not observed"
Complexity is a human construct. There is no such thing in nature. All we see are alterations of existing features, which can can lead to features we might call "complex".
Don't bother. He uses the "organs, systems, body plans" schtick purely to move his own goal posts. Watch; he'll either deny the existence of nylonase or claim it's not an organ, system, or body plan.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Nylonase? you might have missed the memo. However, nylonase already had a digestive SYSTEM in place. No new organ, system or body plan was created by mutation. Complexity is a word we use to describe the empirical reality of order. Although the concept of complexity is our simple attempt to describe the grandeur of design in nature, the existence of it is not a human construct. Alterations which CAN lead? Speculation, not observation. No observation, no mechanism, no science
LOL right and with the MASSIVE amounts of evidence, your best example is nylonase which is no example at all.
Being that you believe that the quadrillions of novel organs systems and body plans that ever existed at any time on the planet were created by mutations filtered by natural selection, name one that for sure was created that way. Not speculated but for sure.
No, you blatantly ignore the appearance of a new feature since it undermines your position.
"LOL right and with the MASSIVE amounts of evidence, your best example is nylonase which is no example at all."
No, nylonase is a good example of a new feature arising in a short enough time frame to see it happen in real time. That's what you asked for, and that's what you got.
I told you...he builds his shifting goalposts into his very definitions. All he did was deny that nylonase fits the criteria that he laid out and that's all he'll ever do. This is why definitions are always laid out before any serious debate gets started and it's why creationists tend to avoid defining their own terms. They need to be able to adjust their definitions once they are inevitably proven wrong.
In the end, his definitions will catch up to him and he'll basically be demanding that you show that something like the digestive system appeared through a single mutation, which isn't predicted by evolution. His position is already a straw man and his demands are dishonest in and of themselves. Don't waste your time.
I guess you just drew a blank on that one. Despite the massive evidence.
Well then my claim is that mutations cause sickness, loss of function, disease, and death. Observable, testable, repeatable, in other words, SCIENCE.
Please don't insult science, the investigation of the glorious universe that we exist in, with your improbable, impossible, silly, hypotheses of how we got here.
I am the only one who brought any evidence up. You on the other hand believe in ideas not science.You are the one that is saying that mutations created every organ, system, and body plan ever on the entire planet. Quadrillions! So where is your evidence. When was it tested? When was it observed? When was it repeated?
You must at least show that it can happen before you claim that it did happen. Mutations cause loss of function, sickness, disease, and death. That is reality.
"mutations created every organ, system, and body plan ever on the entire planet "
Evolution is a mindless process, so it doesn't literally create anything. But yes, all the variety of life we see on earth today is the result of billions of years of evolution. Demonstrably so.
"So where is your evidence."
It's right there in the genes of every living organism on earth.
You're lying again. I presented several peer-reviewed articles concerning evolution of novel features such as nylonase, nutritive milk, cryptocianin, and antibiotic resistance. You have either ignored them or claimed they don't fit your fallacious criteria.
It's being tested every day, in thousands of laboratories and in the field. Evolutionary theory is as watertight as a scientific theory can ever get.
"When was it observed? When was it repeated?"
Repeat studies show that ERVs in our genome match the same ERVs at matching position in the genome of chimpanzees. Explain that without common descent.
"Evolutionary theory is as watertight as a scientific theory can ever get."
fine, name one organ, system, or body plan that was for sure created by mutation, filtered by natural selection. One shouldn't be that hard.
I asked when was it observed or repeated.
and you give nonsense speculations about ERV's . I am not saying that studying ERV's is nonsense. However, using them as an example of mutations filtered by natural selection creating anything at all is nonsense.
I've already explained to you that nylonase is not an example of organ system or body plan. Bacteria adapt to food sources that's what they do.
NO. You are assuming they are an example of common descent. There is ongoing research and no one is really sure how they arise. One retrovirus was recently shown to be the result of recombination. However, even if I had no answer what ever, that doesn't make your assumption correct. There is no mechanism to support your claims.
"I've already explained to you that nylonase is not an example of organ system or body plan. "
So far you haven't given a proper reason why it wouldn't qualify as a new feature. Until you do, I will keep on bringing it up as an example.
"NO. You are assuming they are an example of common descent"
So give a better explanation as to why the same ERVs appear at the exact same location in the genomes of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes. I'm curious.
I really wonder who he thinks he's fooling. He asks a question, gets the answer, and then REJECTS the answer, even though it's clearly the right one. Does he really think anybody falls for this kind of horseplay?
@mejc2 look up the Lenski experiments too. He observed e.coli mutate 2 letters in the genome to create the ability to process citrate not just glucose and water.
Adaptation to new food sources does not constitute a new organ system or body plan. Also These E-coli celebrated their 50,000th generation in Feb 2010. No new body parts, systems, or body plans. There is no mechanism to create the genetic information needed to create new organs systems or body plans. According to the evolutionary story it happened quadrillions of times. No mechanism and no fossil evidence pretty much nails the coffin closed on this story. Can we please move on.
@mejc2 no this is the evidence lmao, he has the bacteria still in his lab. Whether you accept that as a sufficient answer or not is of your own discourse, not the educated ones in the field. There is no belief, it is non bias information.There were 2 documented mutations that together created this ability. This is new information in the genome from mutation whether you like it or not. Read the conservapedia page, you sound just like these christians that have already been dealt with.
The same logic that claims vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian. DonExodus2 is a two-faced hypocrite and a liar. May he and his AGW cultist buddies at the IPCC be exposed for the lying frauds that they are.
CrossoverManiac 4 months ago
@CrossoverManiac
= The same logic that claims vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian. =
Well, I'm glad we all agree on that! :)
mphello 3 months ago
DonExodus2's faith in AGW isn't shaken when scientists sue the IPCC to force them to remove their names from the IPCC reports. DonExodus2 then outright lies and claims conservatives denied the effects of smoking. Most conservative arguments against smoking bans are based on individual freedom even if the person is doing something that adversely affect their health. All of this is done solely to invoke the sleazy tactic of guilt by association.
CrossoverManiac 4 months ago
@CrossoverManiac
"DonExodus2 then outright lies and claims conservatives denied the effects of smoking."
He has documents to back him up, dick.
"when scientists sue the IPCC to force them to remove their names from the IPCC reports."
Citation? Also, 97% of climatologists accept AGW, so it's not the same situation.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew Don't tell me to cite my source, especially when you didn't cite any of the crap you're spewing. Cite your sources then complain about others not doing the same. IOW: lead by example
CrossoverManiac 4 months ago
@CrossoverManiac
[skepticalscience(dot)com(slash)global(dash)warming(dash)scientific(dash)consensus(dot)htm]
[reuters(dot)com(slash)article(slash)2010(slash)11(slash)26(slash)us(dash)smoking(dash)passive(dash)deaths(dash)idUSTRE6AP00D20101126]
[selections(dot)rockefeller(dot)edu(slash)cms(slash)science(dash)and(dash)society(slash)frederick(dash)seitz(dot)html]
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrossoverManiac
"Most conservative arguments against smoking bans are based on individual freedom even if the person is doing something that adversely affect their health."
While ignoring the vast amount of evidence provided by international scientific and health groups that smoking adversely affects the health of non-smokers.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
DonExodus2 complains that the material released by the Discovery Institute either reference individuals who were not experts in the field of science covered in the material and that the few actual authorities in biology references had their names published against their will and knowledge. Yet DonExodus2 doesn't bat an eye when the IPCC does the exact same dishonest tactics. No mention that much of the 'scientific' literature in the IPCC reports were produced by environmental advocacy groups.
CrossoverManiac 4 months ago
Real grunt work, bravo. SS
sailingsolar 4 months ago
I don't know why you Christians come on youtube to argue about what educate people in each subject can easily show you if you go to a university. Your all just on here to feel a sense of accomplishment. "If these youtube kids cant answer my questions about "insert subject" than the only answer is god!!!" This world saddens me!
ThorTheOdinSon 4 months ago 2
@ThorTheOdinSon
This is why I maintain that the vast majority of YouTube creationists are mentally ill. It's not healthy to be so insecure and so paranoid that only compulsive lying and clinging to whatever convenient unanswered question is present keeps one's mind at ease.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago 2
@TheZooCrew agreed
ThorTheOdinSon 4 months ago
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
howardsway782 6 months ago
imo every fossil is a transitional fossil
movcrit 6 months ago
The ozone layer depletion is evidence enough for me about climate change. The emissions of CFCs is causing this planet to heat up. Anyone who doesn't believe that is an idiot.
ProtestantsRUs 6 months ago
I remember learming about the thoery of evolution in school and thinking wow that makes sense, did that case study on the peppered moth during the industrial revolution. I also remember going to church listening to the various preachers and thinking wow this sounds contrived. I am baffled by how one would think you could teach creationism, surely it has to be indoctrinated? perhaps begin the teaching in kindergarten or first years of primary school, do that, and your basically brainwashing kids.
BraniusBalki 6 months ago
Certainly some sort of evolution exists.. Species change over time. But it cannot be driven by random mutation. I have no idea how it works but it doesn't work like Darwin described it.
As for global warming due to CO2, it's a scam. Go to the country and check the temperature. If it's in the normal range for the date there's no crisis. If and when the temperature exceeds the record high for the date you can start to worry a little. Till then be skeptic, be very sceptic.
Txsray 7 months ago
@Txsray
Clearly you did not watch this video and have little to no experience with any science whatsoever.
"I have no idea how it works but it doesn't work like Darwin described it."
What, because you say so? In fact, evolution doesn't work exactly how Darwin described it, but he got the concept right and science doesn't assert that Darwin was right about everything.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@Txsray I'll admit that it's been a few years since I was last in a Biology class, but the mutation, which itself is the wrong word, is not random. There are reasons for the changes, be it climate change or a new predator/prey comes into the ecosystem. And this is exactly Darwin said evolution would work.
As for your global warming argument doesn't work the way you state either. The average temperature rises over time, not suddenly like you are suggesting.
HimesInu 7 months ago
@Txsray The phenomenon is "global" warming and not "regional" warming. Some areas will not see uniformly increasing temperatures. For instance, the polar regions have the biggest increase. Those higher temperatures evaporate more of the polar ice and put moisture in the air which can lead to lower temperatures in certain parts of the world.
If you take temperatures from all over the world, the trend is increasing temperature...and it's in correlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
logsdonj 6 months ago
--> Book to read: "Climate Cover Up; the crusade to deny global warming" by James Hoggan.
xander55577 7 months ago
As far as I can tell, the so-called scientific community that is publicly visible consists of academics and political pseudo-scientists, who are substantially agreed when they are paid to be, or when it is politically expedient.
(Imagine a grandma, climbing stairs, dragging a Buick.)
Among real scientists, agreement itself is unscientific, almost unheard-of, and totally unnecessary. (Imagine a demonic skater with hair on fire, shredding the handrails.)
Neither group cares, nor should they.
950horsepower 9 months ago
@950horsepower The ones you see in the media, yes maybe your right. Thats why when you want to look up a real scientific perspective you go to university, and read valid science journal articles.
Oddessuss 9 months ago
@Oddessuss Yeah, that was almost true once. I used to keep a room at the Carlton, half block from Sather gate. So I practically lived on the UCB campus. I did most of my technical research there. An experience that would have been a waste of time had I not known who to believe, and who not to. Even Berkeley is too corrupt now to trust their data. Maybe there's more honest academics somewhere overseas but I not real hopeful.
I better buy a Buick.
950horsepower 9 months ago
@950horsepower
"I better buy a Buick."
Or get a brain. That works, too.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew lmao
950horsepower 8 months ago
@950horsepower Hmmmm if you can't trust to some degree the mechanisms of the scientific method ... you can't trust anything. Referring not to public opinions of science, and not even how the funding works which I know is biased, but the articles that do get in are tested thoroughly and can be dimissed by any academic in the world if incorrect.
Oddessuss 8 months ago
@Oddessuss In an honest world, that might work. But its really a system that has a lot of its foundations in non-reality, or pure fantasy. So, you are right, one cannot trust anything. Academics start off acting like they own it, so they are dead in the water going in. I don't know what they think science is, but that sure isn't it. They can leave their titles and their egos at home.
For a lot of people, academia is where science begins. It is not however, where it leads.
950horsepower 8 months ago
@950horsepower Seriously, your distrust of scientific inquiry is absolute. You do realise that the scientific method allows you to read and test any journla articles, and if you think them wrong, you can go and try and disprove them. Any article that is written if it is in error, wouldn't last for very long, and the vast majority of time wouldn't make it through the vigorous peer review and scrutiny. ALl I have to say on the issue.
Oddessuss 8 months ago
A professor in Texas came to me sarcastically claiming he was going to get the peace prize if he could prove my technology works. I said they already did that 10 years ago in 12 countries, look it up. He made no bones about his intention to do everything in his power to prove it false. I saw his experiment. It was a joke. He demanded my help. lmao What sheer gall.
950horsepower 8 months ago
@950horsepower
Making up stories about your "accomplishments" is dishonesty, which isn't an argument.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
The proposed solutions of the climate change scam involve greater consolidations of power in the government’s hands to solve these fake problems – the solutions being carbon taxes that get paid directly to private bankers, rules, regulations and laws that only megalithic corporations can afford to comply with thus shutting out competition, and a laundry list of other non-effectual solutions that only empower the very corporations that have caused real, verifiable environmental damage.
ezeeskank 10 months ago
donexodus, I don't know who you are, but I wish there were thousands, millions of you, doing what you do. thank you.
terrywoodinc 11 months ago
If Fox says it, then it ain't true.
Rupert Murdock is war profiteering scum sucker.
O'Reilly is a lying corporate shill.
Beck is a raving lunatic.
All those tarted blonds on Fox are stupid bimbos.
Coulter is a evil lying cunt.
Anyone who believes Fox has a dysfunctional brain.
(There... just had to get that off my chest so my head doesn't explode. I feel better now.) ;-)
OldSchoolSkill 11 months ago 7
@OldSchoolSkill lol
thesparitan 11 months ago
@OldSchoolSkill, you summed that up nicely.
DarkMatter2525 10 months ago
@OldSchoolSkill i have had to do the same many times, lol
ThorTheOdinSon 4 months ago
I love your videos donexodus - I have special needs but I always understand your videos as they are so well presented. Thank you for all that you do.
bagospannerz 1 year ago
Good video, and I love the new banner next to the subscribe button.
Venaloid 1 year ago
first off does this guy know that not all scientist believe in evolution, need to, or want/should believe it. Again another person mixing up evolution with science and biology. And please tell me he knows car pollution doesn't actually cause global warming as that propaganda is getting old.
lifecon1 1 year ago
@lifecon1
Was this a question?
It doesn't matter if some scientists reject evolution. The evidence supports evolution. There has yet to be a sound claim of the contrary. Until there is one, there is no reason doubt it, besides blind dogma.
Pernic10us 1 year ago
@Pernic10us no it wasn't a question and you seem smart. Can you give me these evidences you speak of?If not please don't be like most youtuber accounts and say evidence without showing it. I'm just saying you have to show evidence of evolution instead of attacking the opposition first and if you can i respect you for that sir.
lifecon1 1 year ago
@lifecon1
That debate has been played many times over, and in a manner that is quite a bit more eloquent than I would be able to repeat. The evidence has been presented, if you choose not to accept it, so be it. My comment was referring to the fact that a theory or established fact does not rely on a completely unanimous scientific community. By mentioning, or even quoting, this minor sect does not give your argument any weight. Your protest is worthless without supporting evidence.
Pernic10us 1 year ago
@Pernic10us Your protest is worthless without supporting evidence. Exactly because you also said "The evidence supports evolution." when that is just plain ignorant opinion. If YOU will not show evidence,then don't be a troll.
lifecon1 1 year ago
@lifecon1 you are funny too!
eleminatus 8 months ago
How can anyone observe the vast complexity of DNA bio-software and conclude that it is the product of anything but design. The equivalent is finding a DVD with a billion lines-of-code bootable operating system on it and concuding that it was just a happy accident of random scratches on the media.
ticarot 1 year ago
@ticarot
Easily.
By NOT understanding anything about it. If someone doesn't understand how it can come about naturally, and the different steps involved, then it isn't surprising someone already holding the pre conceived notion that there is some kind of mystical intelligence in the universe could come to this completely false conclusion.
Further if that person is also intellectually dishonest and lazy, they will not look into it in any more depth or detail.
It's just an argument from ignorance.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
Wait - your second name is Gray? I didn't know that, i was under the impression that your second name was Exodus.
procritic09 1 year ago
How is this so hard to understand? Evolution and Global Warming are both loaded terms. I don't think anyone really completely denies them. What about scientist who say that global warming is only fluctuation, as opposed to this dramatic global catastrophe that Gore would have you believe. Are those still global warming advocates? Obviously not.
-
Both of these ideas have yet to be defined in practical terms. They're both broad concepts and consist more of predictions than present realities.
knowwaie 1 year ago
Each time when I see the guy, dressed as the devil within your opening scene I wonder how similar he looks to Matt Dilahunty of the Atheist Experience.
GendPzTrSchmidt 1 year ago
Questioning global warming is legit, in that the causes are man made CO2 & not natural or simple land use cause, or GW just a swing in the climate. Whining about Evolution like that pseudo intellectual pig like Anne Coulter or the like minded phonies in the Discovery Institute is more akin to Holocaust Denial
jakefree24 1 year ago 2
What about those of us who are Atheist and are waiting for someone to create a predictive model for the AGW hypothesis before incorporating it into the set of our current beliefs? Logical skepticism requires that popular belief among scientists (or anybody, really) not be a factor in an assessment of the truth value of a claim....anybody can make a hypothesis. Theory comes from the ability to predict from a model.
jcantlie 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The list has grown to almost 1,000 scientists. If what you say is true, the list should be shrinking.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 So, you SILL haven't woken up eh?
Pity....
steveb0503 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@steveb0503
It's not that I have not woken up, it is that you have not caught up yet. keep trying though. True you will never be as smart as me, but that doesn't mean you can't still learn.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 You little shit....
That was a good natured jab - and you resort to insults - how DARE you!!!
Look , all I'm getting at is: we do not call those who think the Earth is flat "dissenting" geographers, or those who think astrology holds some significance in our lives "dissenting" astronomers, nor do we call those who claim the Holocaust never happened "dissenting" historians - what we call them is WRONG.
steveb0503 1 year ago 4
@mejc2 Cont.
Do you honestly think that all of the evidence we have found in support of common ancestry based on molecular biology is just circumstantial? Just look into the geneological trees that have been developed based on ERV's and other "marker genes" and see how they not only almost perfectly corroborate established phylogenic trees, but show chains of ancestry that cannot be explained by other "creation" hypotheses, while matching exactly what we would expect if evolution were true.
steveb0503 1 year ago 4
@mejc2 Cont.
Besides- I've come to the conclusion that the level of denial you and others like you here on YouTube demonstrate each and every time you open your yaps (so to speak) can readily be explained by the idea that most of you are somehow connected to the "Discovery" (quotes are a derision) Institute acting as moles, spreading their propaganda and outright LIES in an attempt to demonstrate how there is still a controversy. - THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY!!!
steveb0503 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@steveb0503
OK Steve ole boy. if your position was sound no scientist would dissent. The FACT is scientists are abandoning gradualism in INCREASING numbers. When you consider that all dissenters must study on their own and reject the position of power held by the established hypothesis, it is amazing that any dissent. What I say comes from my head and my reading. I do read creationist writings but not exclusively. in any case, dirt did not come alive and change into everything by accident.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 1) Did you actually watchDonExodus' video? There is your answer regarding dissent - same one I gave you when we talked previously
2) Accident! - Accident? Really?
Who exactly on the side of evolution said that it was al by accident? Exactly NONE that I am aware of. We claim natural selection - absolutely NOT accidental (again, as I stated before), just as covalent bonds are the root cause for molecular structures produced from atoms - not accidents.
steveb0503 1 year ago 2
@steveb0503 Cont.
Unfortunately, I don't have time for this now, as I have prior social obligations and do not wish to be thought an ass.
Later.
steveb0503 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@steveb0503
Natural selection is only the filter. It is not the cause. The cause is pure random, accidental mutation.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 But what I'm saying is: just as two atoms sometimes just happen "bump" into one another and then due to laws of chemistry combine to form a larger molecule (a process not entirely accidental, nor wholly law or process based), evolution's random variance (caused by simple copying error), coupled with selection's distilling effect is not an entirely chance process either, (and again, nor is it entirely law driven).
steveb0503 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@steveb0503
We do not observe copying errors writing genetic code to create new tissue, organs or body plans. What we do observe is organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment already programed into their genetic code. Now that we understand computer coding and we are beginning to find new function for more and more of the human genome, it is becoming more and more clear that copying errors cannot write this immensely sophisticated specialized code.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Look into research by Richard Lenki et. al. at Michigan State University done on E. coli bacteria, where the goal was to reproduce the multi-generational conditions necessary to demonstrate evolution (and more to the point, the power of natural selection) in action. They demonstrated the evolution of a biochemical pathway which allowed the bacteria to digest the citrate present alongside the already metabolizable glucose (an advancement requiring two separate mutations to accomplish).
steveb0503 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@steveb0503
what's your point? Are you saying that if bacteria can adapt to their environment, then they can eventually become everything known to man? No one argues that organisms can adapt. we all know this and can observe it. Can they change into a new creature with new body parts and plans? There is no known mechanism to accomplish this and there is no evidence in the fossil record that it ever happened.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Wow, all you do is demonstrate just how ignorant of current evolutionary theory you are. Genes ARE everything, they are the true units of evolutionary change - not body parts. Devolopmental biology is key here - a tiny change in a gene can make all the difference in how long a command such as: "make this appendage grow" will remain active, or even whether or not it will be active - as compared to an ancestor's who's command instruction was active (the cause for vestigial structures).
steveb0503 1 year ago 9
@mejc2 Cont.
Again, you people with the "No fossil evidence" claim, do you think if you keep chanting it to yourselves it'll somehow make it true? We've discussed this before, you and I, what would constitute a "transitional form" for you? Something like a merlizard? Maybe you don't understand this, but a cross between two contemporary species would count as a falsification of Darwinian theory - as the intermediate between those two species would be the common ANCESTOR of both.
steveb0503 1 year ago 21
@steveb0503 It is pointless to ask what would constitute a "transitional form" as once you find form "B" between form "A" & "C" they will require you to find the transitional form between "A" & "B" and the form between "B" & "C" and you will find yourself in the infinite loop of having to provide a "transitional form" between all transitional forms, without acknowledging that 1) not all bones become fossils and ...
Secundinius 11 months ago
@steveb0503 (cont) 2) to speak analogically, if you have a puzzle that is missing ten pieces and once put together it seems the completed puzzle would be a picture of the White House, the puzzle WILL NOT magically become a picture of the Taj Mahal once those ten pieces are found (if they are ever found).
Bottom line is, because of how fossilization works, we will most probably never find EVERY transitional form, but we can present enough of them to show that we came from great apes.
Secundinius 11 months ago
@Secundinius Preaching to the choir brother...
I understand how the whole thing works, as I have studied it extensively - which is something I try to point out to those who would deny facts: If you do not accept the evidence for evolution, then you do not understand them or what they show.
steveb0503 11 months ago
@steveb0503 Yeah, sorry about that, wasn't geared towards you, merely a reply to what you had posted.
Saying talking to a creationist is like talking to a brick wall is insulting to the brick wall... No matter how much evidence is shown, they will always refuse to believe. The only upside is, more and more young people are getting a clue and those crazy bastards are dying off. Shame I will never see the day...
Secundinius 11 months ago
@Secundinius You're right - most of them will never change their mind, but I have made a few of them cease and desist in their proselytizing when they realize I have more answers than they have questions (I can only hope this occasionally influences a fence-sitting witness).
I remain hopeful that I WILL see the day - at least the day the tide BEGINS to turn.
steveb0503 11 months ago
Comment removed
steveb0503 1 year ago
@mejc2 Cont.
I can demonstrate how you are in fact a dishonest person and anyone accepting anything you say as truthful even from your perspective should do so with a grain of salt. You stated in our last exchange that you were "an old man" and "owned an electronic security company for twenty years", and yet when I looked at your profile here on You Tube, you had listed your age as 27! What gives?
steveb0503 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@steveb0503
This account belongs to one of my children.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Whatever - convenient excuse.....
steveb0503 1 year ago
@mejc2 Cont.
Make no mistake - the truth in the evolutionism/creationism debate will out. We have logic, reason, observations, and evidence on our side - you got what? dogma? Good luck there! It's plainly unreasonable to hold a permanently unchangeable belief that's preserved by sheer force of ignorance. I guess time will tell who's smarter.
steveb0503 1 year ago
There is no scientific proof that either atheists or socialists have ever hurt anyone. All torture & injustice is due to extreme fanatical nationalism: the Chinese, the North Koreans, Soviets, Peru - and religion: Saudi Arabia, Iran. Atheists are still silenced & bullied & terrorized in the United States & in Iran & Saudi Arabia.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x The Communist, as in Marxist Leninists Maoist et al have racked up an impressive body count. But I will make the distinction between them and the democratic socialist nanny staters of Western Europe. The Soviets didn't kill people based just on nationality
jakefree24 1 year ago
@jakefree24 There were various "factions" of socialists, communists, Trotskyists etc in Lenin's time, in Russia, who competed for power - often violently. So, I am glad to see you don't see them all as one homogeneous group. e.g. The so-called "liberal" communists of Romania, e.g, and also Stalin's Russia, outlawed abortion in order to increase population size. But most communists now support right to choose abortion.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x But they all basically sucked and created miserable poverty stricken prison camp societies where the population, happiness, & lifespan declined (still are)
jakefree24 1 year ago
@jakefree24 So do fascist & capitalist countries. So, it makes infinitely more sense to question your political-economic theories of cause-and-effect than to question the far-more-proven theory of anthropogenic global warming. In neither case can one set up a laboratory experiment to make testable predictive, varying one variable at a time. But in the case of GW, we do have known conservation laws to plug into computers.
duck24x 1 year ago
@jakefree24 However, the one thing that is absolutely NEVER NEVER EVER pointed out by ANYONE (besides me) when they criticize (critique) Marxism, Trotskyism, etc is that - whatever form of it holds power - whatever the LAWS they imposed - e.g. outlawing private corporations - WAS THE LAW and therefore MUST BE OBEYED, the same way pro-American folks shove down everyone's throat that "unfair laws such as great inequalities in wealth are still the law & must be obeyed."
duck24x 1 year ago
Sorry, everything double posted.
bradley535 1 year ago
Comment removed
bradley535 1 year ago
Comment removed
bradley535 1 year ago
Comment removed
bradley535 1 year ago
Comment removed
bradley535 1 year ago
7:00 - An 'impression' of a divided scientific community? Are you trying to say that all scientist agree with each other? Are you a straw man? Are you really arguing for the points that you are making, or are you just presenting weak ones for people to pick apart? I'm not sure that I believe in evolution or not, but this discussion did nothing for me.
bradley535 1 year ago
@bradley535 No one says that all scientists are totally in lockstep. Yet the Discovery Institute is leveraging that concept in a dishonest way by suggesting that anyone who doesn't accept current Evolutionary Theories en toto automatically supports ID or worse.
jakefree24 1 year ago
2:50 - Dr. Fitzler's first reply isn't posted... I wonder why that is. Perhaps because he does not agree in the idea of evolution being the cause of life on Earth, as you would try to have us believe. Post his initial reply so we can see what HIS words were, not yours.
bradley535 1 year ago
2:10 - Read the whole e-mail. Once again, you have gone out of your way to discredit your own point.
bradley535 1 year ago
1:50 - Ummm, look at the title. It doesn't claim that these scientists say that evolution is impossible, it just says that they are skeptical and that careful exploration into it should be encouraged. Also, in that list you post it shows that most of them ARE in fact bioligists as their specialized field of study. If you are going to make a point don't disprove yourself, let others do that.
bradley535 1 year ago
People don't know that what global warming does is not make hotter days, but make the weather more weird and extreme: winters are colder, summers are hotter, rain seasons are more raini, dry seasons are drier...
It's the same as how the people don't know that what comes out of nuclear power plants' cooling towers is not deadly radioactive vapor, but just water steam.
But in most of the cases is not denialism, but unwillingness to look around, mostly because of comfort reasons
EduEnYT 1 year ago 24
nope you have it exactly BACKWARDS global warming makes it wetter and more temperate hurricanes are made when cold air meets hot air...the bigger the temp difference the stronger the hurricane. and the temp differnce would be less as the cold air would be warmer and the warm air would be cooler due to all the extra moisture in the air. ykou just described to a T a global COOLING scenario. read about the ice ages
markbotv3 1 year ago
@markbotv3 WRONG about hurricanes...you Hovindian IDiot. They form in the tropics for starters and SECOND they are affected by the effects of the earth's spin on groups of thunderstorms......EPIC FAIL , so quit defending the polluters. If you show UTTER IGNORANCE of how weather works, do not claim to know otherwise. FYI, the clash of cold dry air and warm moist air over the US, especially in the plains yields T-storms & tornadoes! EPIC FAIL!
biancademonet 1 year ago
@EduEnYT Exactly, and what the Hovindist tards fail to reallize is that if ENOUGH polar ice melts to affect the atlantic conveyor, well we are SCREWED. Add enough fresh water and the Gulf Stream shuts down...kind of ironic that global warming, if it melts enough ice can trigger another Ice Age...freaking DF rightwing loons......
biancademonet 1 year ago
ya thats a "theory" ive heard it too. but it is being debunked. again i point to seatle. it isnt being affected by the gulf stream and its temperate just like england. look at human history. their were anatomically correct homo sapiens during the ice age...but no civilization. then the ice started melting and civilization started and has progressed ON PAR with the melt. the more the melt the more civilization. its a scientific fact look it up
markbotv3 1 year ago
@markbotv3 Seattle is on the West coast you IDiot and it is affected by THE PACIFIC CONVEYOR, Not the gulf Stream....part of the results of the end of the Ice age created the Sahara Desert...AGAIN EPIC FAIL
biancademonet 1 year ago
and that is exactly my point it not part of the saline conveyor and is still temperate
markbotv3 1 year ago
@biancademonet I live in Aberdeen, Scotland, 57deg North. You can go a thousand miles north of here and not see an iceberg.
The Titanic was 41deg North when she found her Iceberg, south of St. Tropez, south of Madrid. People have no idea of what the Atlantic Conveyor means, and how delicate it is.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@EduEnYT
Really? Because here in Canada, statistics show that our summers and seasons in general are all getting colder. Global warming is flawed. They first said "Oh no, the earth is getting hotter!" and then scientist proved that wrong and now they're saying "well! *cough* actually it's more climate change then global warming! summers are getting hotter and winter's colder!" But like I said, Canada has been getting colder INCLUDING summer.
HiLRoYpwns 1 year ago
@HiLRoYpwns If that were the case, please explain why the NW passage is open for the first time... ever..
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@HiLRoYpwns Well to be fair scientists have ALWAYS called it climate change, that's why the IPCC which was founded in 1988 is not called the IPGW. Global Warming is a media term, climate change is a scientific one.
Beelzeboogie 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@EduEnYT
You see, you just don't understand the science. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction. there is no evidence of gradualism. Hence, punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism is not observed in the real world and not observed in the fossil record. However, you hang on to your dogma. You are a deluded automaton. You cannot think for yourself. As real scientists abandon this hypothesis, you cling to it. Too bad for you .
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 you are funny!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus
Wow. The truth is funny? The scientific facts refute the fairy tale of gradualism. How you have determined that to be funny is really strange.
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 scientific facts huh? Would be delightful to see some!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus
oooookaaaay,
how about the fossil record that in NO WAY supports gradualism. It actually begins and ends with complex creatures. there is no example of anything slowly morphing into anything else, ever. Also, carbon 14 had been found in dinosaur bones, and soft tissue from dinosaur bones, absolutely proving that they cannot be anywhere near 65 million years old.
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 I would suggest you get your information from websites NOT related to religion. You ever heard of fossilized bacteria liked cyanobacteria? or coccolithophores? or microfossils in general? or answers in genesis does not possess such information?!
On bones topic, dino bones cant be dated by C14 method since they DONT HAVE C14 in them! I know there were bones blind dated to 16 thousand years, but people tend to forget that the bone was covered in preservative. Conveniently forget!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@mejc2 and what soft tissue you are talking about?! the one described in a paper by Schweitzer? I know a lot of those speculations that there were blood vessels found and what not. But do you know what that tissue is exactly?! I suggest you read the paper, not the blog of a creationist!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus
Schweitzer's find was many years ago. there have been many many others. I believe a Swiss team recently carbon dated soft tissue to 25000 years. There is no fossil evidence of gradualism. You love to say that I am chanting a mantra. However, it is you that are chanting the mantra. Science shows the fossils were complex at the lower levels and complex at the top. NO gradual increase in complexity is observed. You need quadrillions of changes. the fossil record produces NONE.
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 are you ignoring microbial fossils on purpose? stop regurgitating same arguments over and over. There are fossilized bacteria dated over 3.5 billion years, up to primate fossils. Which part dont you understand!
On another point - scientists DONT USE C14 to date anything concerning dinosaurs! Its so hard to understand such basics?
Have you also heard of bacterial biofilms? Try researching that!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus 1. if you think bacteria are simple, you do not understand any cellular biology.
2. the jump from bacteria to trilobite is in no way a gradual progression and there is no mechanism to provide the increased genetic information.
3. Because we know that soft tissue cannot survive 65 million years, C14 dating is used.
Lindgren, J. et al. 2011. Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE. 6 (4): e19445.
4.They are not idiots, they know biofilm from original tissue
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 1. Dont play on semantics. You perfectly well know that bacteria is less complex then current life forms and thats what I meant.
2. No one claims that bacteria produced trilobites. It was merely an example of more simple life form.
3. Yes, we know soft tissue cant survive that long. But it did. Instead of putting god of the gaps in it, they are trying to find out WHY tissue survived.
Whats your explanation? That dinos lived 4000 years ago?
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus
1. complex bacteria in the precambrian and every known Phyla in the Cambrian. That is what science shows us. NO GRADUALISM! This refutes Darwinian predictions.
2. Listen to yourself "Yes, we know soft tissue cant survive that long. But it did." You KNOW it CAN'T but you insist it did, despite the C14 testing proving to you that it is not possible for it to be 65 million years old.
3. Cellular biology tells us the fossils are recent C14 tests show the same. You reject the science!
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 omg.. are you ignoring it on purpose. No one uses C14 to date fossils? NOBODY! Soft tissue example is not a rule, its an exception! There is no conclusive research done on this topic. To speculate that it proves dinosaurs are younger the conventionally stated is intellectual dishonesty.
Oldest animal fossils date back to Precambrian and are sponge like creatures. But you dont even have to go that far. Take human evolution, at least few...
eleminatus 8 months ago
@mejc2 ...last steps - habilis -> ergaster -> erectus -> heidelbergensis -> neanderthalensis -> sapiens. If thats not gradual change I dont know what is. If you know species differentiation go even further back in human evolution. And thats human evolution alone, there are many examples of different animals. But lets assume for the sake of argument its all false - what is your explanation for life and diversity of it?
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus
1,"most researchers see too little difference between ergaster and erectus to form the basis of a species of the former,"
2 Erectus "now some question its place in human evolution"
3. Neanderthals are still hotly debated. However, most probably were humans.
quotes are from archaeology info dot com.
quadrillions of imagined steps from bacteria to humans and you bring four questionable, debated, cohabitants as empirical evidence of evolution? sheesh !!
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 so what? doubts or debates dont undermine the fact that these fossils are perfect example of gradual changes. No matter how you categorize them. And it doesnt just end on human. Look at changes of other species, wales for example!
You still havent answered my question.
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus
So what? that is your response to science that refutes your beloved evolutionism?
1. You produce no evidence, only invented stories.
2. you reject science that refutes those invented stories.
3. You want to know what I think? As if, if you could prove me wrong, it would make evolutionism right!
I think the science refutes evolutionism and it is time to look to archaeological and historical documents to explain the past. Not make up creation stories about mutations creating stuff
mejc2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 you are a talented creationist. Give me one single piece of evidence that refutes evolution.
eleminatus 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2
"I think the science refutes evolutionism and it is time to look to archaeological and historical documents to explain the past."
There's no such thing as evolutionism and it's a lie to suggest that science doesn't support evolution. What you think doesn't matter; it's why you think it. You only think science refutes evolution because you're required to say that by your dogmatic religious beliefs.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2
"complex bacteria in the precambrian and every known Phyla in the Cambrian. "
Wrong. What does "complex bacteria" even mean? We start with single-celled organisms for a very, very long time, then get multicellular organisms later in the Precambrian. Only 11 of 34 phyla appear in the Cambrian, and the "explosion" took 10 million years. We absolutely see gradualism; you're just lying.
Carbon-14 dating has a 50,000-year limit, which is why it's not used to date fossils. Fail.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@mejc2
Wrong on all counts.The discovery institute even says one shouldn't use the "no transitional form" argument anymore.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Actually the fossil record not showing gradualism is not my idea. If you don't like that you should call Harvard and tell them to print a retraction of the most famous evolutionist to come from there school. Steven Gould. If you think the fossils show gradualism, you are arguing with Harvard not me.
mejc2 5 months ago
@mejc2
1: Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. Your argument fails.
2: Gould accepted the evidence for evolution in it's entirety. People like you take his statements out of context instead of actually doing any research to actually discover something yourselves. that's a breech of your precious 9th commandment.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
1. I am not appealing to authority. I am looking at the data produced by scientists around the world. There is no data to support gradualism. Appealing to authority is your job. You accept it without data.
2. Gould went through the trouble of creating a new hypothesis because the data did not support gradualism. Read a little and you will learn something. look up cladogenesis.
mejc2 5 months ago
@mejc2
1) You're clearly not looking at any data.
2) Gould created punctuated equilibrium to supplement the theory. You're making a hasty generalization fallacy by applying the lack of transitional forms found for small, isolated populations to the entire fossil record. Of course, you're doing this on purpose so you can rationalize your lazy ignorance.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew
1. I look at enough data to convince me that there is no mechanism that can create the genetic information needed to create new body plans, organs, or systems.
2. Supplement the theory? Are you implying that there is adequate evidence to support gradualism but Gould just developed a little something extra? you are being misleading. Gould rejected gradualism
mejc2 5 months ago
@mejc2
"t there is no mechanism that can create the genetic information needed to create new body plans, organs, or systems."
DNA is a molecule with certain chemical properties, which makes it behave in certain ways within its environment. Yes, DNA is a very complicated, self-replicating molecule, but it contains as much information as a water-molecule has information about that it should lead to water to freeze when it reaches 0 degrees centigrade.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@mejc2
"Gould rejected gradualism"
No. There is evidence for gradual evolution, but Gould found that most evolution takes place in spurts.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Not to detract from your main points, but:
DNA is not self-replicating. Alone, DNA does absolutely nothing. It's entirely dependent on enzymes and RNA. This actually strengthens your point...DNA does not contain "information" in a classical sense; it's more like a jig or a mold.
The modern evolutionary synthesis involves a blend of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. It's like how general relativity didn't erase Newtonian equations, it merely added terms.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Gould didn't notice that evolution takes place in spurts. He stated that most evolution takes place in spurts. there is a difference between discovering that something happened and stating that something happened. Organisms appear abruptly with no precursors int the fossil record. Gould assumed that they evolved rapidly and left no fossil traces. It is at best a hypothesis with no mechanism to create the genetic information needed to create organs, systems, or body plans.
mejc2 5 months ago
@mejc2
"Organisms appear abruptly with no precursors int the fossil record. "
No. It's just that evolution tends to go rather slowly, until populations are geographically separated.
"Gould assumed that they evolved rapidly and left no fossil traces"
They DO leave fossil traces. That's how we can determine what happened.
"create the genetic information"
There's no such thing. In essence, there's only DNA that gets reproduced with errors. The "information" is purely in the human mind.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"there's only DNA that gets reproduced with errors. The "information" is purely in the human mind. "
errors have never been observed to create any new organ, system, or body plan. Errors have been observed to cause decrease in function, sickness, and death. Increasing complexity in organisms is not observed, genetic entropy is observed. Evolution by mutation and natural selection exists purely in the human mind.
mejc2 5 months ago
@mejc2
"errors have never been observed to create any new organ, system, or body plan. "
One word: nylonase.
"Errors have been observed to cause decrease in function, sickness, and death."
Actually, most mutations are neutral
"Increasing complexity in organisms is not observed"
Complexity is a human construct. There is no such thing in nature. All we see are alterations of existing features, which can can lead to features we might call "complex".
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Don't bother. He uses the "organs, systems, body plans" schtick purely to move his own goal posts. Watch; he'll either deny the existence of nylonase or claim it's not an organ, system, or body plan.
You have a way with concise words, BTW.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Nylonase? you might have missed the memo. However, nylonase already had a digestive SYSTEM in place. No new organ, system or body plan was created by mutation. Complexity is a word we use to describe the empirical reality of order. Although the concept of complexity is our simple attempt to describe the grandeur of design in nature, the existence of it is not a human construct. Alterations which CAN lead? Speculation, not observation. No observation, no mechanism, no science
mejc2 5 months ago
@mejc2
". No new organ, system or body plan was created by mutation."
That screeching sound you hear, ladies and gentlemen, is the shifting of goalposts.
"Complexity is a word we use to describe the empirical reality of order."
Indeed, in which WE describe it. It's still something we make up in our minds after the observation of it.
"Speculation"
No. There's massive amounts of evidence of it, your denial notwithstanding.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Not shifting the goal post. Just stating facts.
"There's massive amounts of evidence of it"
LOL right and with the MASSIVE amounts of evidence, your best example is nylonase which is no example at all.
Being that you believe that the quadrillions of novel organs systems and body plans that ever existed at any time on the planet were created by mutations filtered by natural selection, name one that for sure was created that way. Not speculated but for sure.
mejc2 5 months ago
@mejc2
"Not shifting the goal post. Just stating facts."
No, you blatantly ignore the appearance of a new feature since it undermines your position.
"LOL right and with the MASSIVE amounts of evidence, your best example is nylonase which is no example at all."
No, nylonase is a good example of a new feature arising in a short enough time frame to see it happen in real time. That's what you asked for, and that's what you got.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I told you...he builds his shifting goalposts into his very definitions. All he did was deny that nylonase fits the criteria that he laid out and that's all he'll ever do. This is why definitions are always laid out before any serious debate gets started and it's why creationists tend to avoid defining their own terms. They need to be able to adjust their definitions once they are inevitably proven wrong.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
In the end, his definitions will catch up to him and he'll basically be demanding that you show that something like the digestive system appeared through a single mutation, which isn't predicted by evolution. His position is already a straw man and his demands are dishonest in and of themselves. Don't waste your time.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I guess you just drew a blank on that one. Despite the massive evidence.
Well then my claim is that mutations cause sickness, loss of function, disease, and death. Observable, testable, repeatable, in other words, SCIENCE.
Please don't insult science, the investigation of the glorious universe that we exist in, with your improbable, impossible, silly, hypotheses of how we got here.
mejc2 4 months ago
@mejc2
"I guess you just drew a blank on that one."
Actually, the first version had some scrambled text, but Youtube doesn't let you edit your comments. My answer is on here.
"Observable, testable, repeatable, in other words, SCIENCE."
Evolution is all that and then some.
"Please don't insult science"
Says the one who simply ignores scientific evidence by putting his hands over his ears and going "LALALAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I am the only one who brought any evidence up. You on the other hand believe in ideas not science.You are the one that is saying that mutations created every organ, system, and body plan ever on the entire planet. Quadrillions! So where is your evidence. When was it tested? When was it observed? When was it repeated?
You must at least show that it can happen before you claim that it did happen. Mutations cause loss of function, sickness, disease, and death. That is reality.
mejc2 4 months ago
@mejc2
"I am the only one who brought any evidence up. "
Where?
"mutations created every organ, system, and body plan ever on the entire planet "
Evolution is a mindless process, so it doesn't literally create anything. But yes, all the variety of life we see on earth today is the result of billions of years of evolution. Demonstrably so.
"So where is your evidence."
It's right there in the genes of every living organism on earth.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@mejc2
You're lying again. I presented several peer-reviewed articles concerning evolution of novel features such as nylonase, nutritive milk, cryptocianin, and antibiotic resistance. You have either ignored them or claimed they don't fit your fallacious criteria.
Have you ever seen an electron?
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@mejc2
"When was it tested? When was it observed?"
It's being tested every day, in thousands of laboratories and in the field. Evolutionary theory is as watertight as a scientific theory can ever get.
"When was it observed? When was it repeated?"
Repeat studies show that ERVs in our genome match the same ERVs at matching position in the genome of chimpanzees. Explain that without common descent.
"You must at least show that it can happen "
We have seen it happen in real time.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Evolutionary theory is as watertight as a scientific theory can ever get."
fine, name one organ, system, or body plan that was for sure created by mutation, filtered by natural selection. One shouldn't be that hard.
I asked when was it observed or repeated.
and you give nonsense speculations about ERV's . I am not saying that studying ERV's is nonsense. However, using them as an example of mutations filtered by natural selection creating anything at all is nonsense.
mejc2 4 months ago
@mejc2
"name one organ, system, or body plan that was for sure created by mutation, "
Nylonase.
"I asked when was it observed or repeated."
In 1975.
"using them as an example of mutations filtered by natural selection "
Nobody uses ERVs as such. But they are evidence of common descent. Unless you have a better explanation.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I've already explained to you that nylonase is not an example of organ system or body plan. Bacteria adapt to food sources that's what they do.
NO. You are assuming they are an example of common descent. There is ongoing research and no one is really sure how they arise. One retrovirus was recently shown to be the result of recombination. However, even if I had no answer what ever, that doesn't make your assumption correct. There is no mechanism to support your claims.
mejc2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2
"I've already explained to you that nylonase is not an example of organ system or body plan. "
So far you haven't given a proper reason why it wouldn't qualify as a new feature. Until you do, I will keep on bringing it up as an example.
"NO. You are assuming they are an example of common descent"
So give a better explanation as to why the same ERVs appear at the exact same location in the genomes of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes. I'm curious.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Did I call it or did I call it?
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheZooCrew
"Did I call it or did I call it?"
I really wonder who he thinks he's fooling. He asks a question, gets the answer, and then REJECTS the answer, even though it's clearly the right one. Does he really think anybody falls for this kind of horseplay?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@mejc2 look up the Lenski experiments too. He observed e.coli mutate 2 letters in the genome to create the ability to process citrate not just glucose and water.
ThorTheOdinSon 4 months ago
@ThorTheOdinSon
Adaptation to new food sources does not constitute a new organ system or body plan. Also These E-coli celebrated their 50,000th generation in Feb 2010. No new body parts, systems, or body plans. There is no mechanism to create the genetic information needed to create new organs systems or body plans. According to the evolutionary story it happened quadrillions of times. No mechanism and no fossil evidence pretty much nails the coffin closed on this story. Can we please move on.
mejc2 4 months ago
@mejc2 Well a majority of micro biologists disagree with you. So yes i agree lets move on.
ThorTheOdinSon 4 months ago
@ThorTheOdinSon
Right no evidence just belief.
mejc2 4 months ago
@mejc2 no this is the evidence lmao, he has the bacteria still in his lab. Whether you accept that as a sufficient answer or not is of your own discourse, not the educated ones in the field. There is no belief, it is non bias information.There were 2 documented mutations that together created this ability. This is new information in the genome from mutation whether you like it or not. Read the conservapedia page, you sound just like these christians that have already been dealt with.
ThorTheOdinSon 4 months ago