Why do most of the vides 'debunking' science have comments and/or ratings Disabled? I'm guessing these guys KNOW that their assertions can Not withstand scrutiny. Any other suggestions why this is so?
For those unaware, Casey Luskin has already smashed this dishonest attack against the scientific revolution of Intelligent Design in his article, "Responding to the Youtube Challenge to Discovery Institute: Does Any Critic Out There Understand Intelligent Design? Anyone? ...Anyone?"
The link to said article is here: goo.gl\DBEsJ
My challenge to design-deniers: Why is it that every single argument you can muster against design theory must rely on flagrant dishonesty and attacks against science?
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches, after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
@ThevanGoghBlues I feel your frustration....but stop being so reasonable. When reason and superstition collide - superstition will always win out, it's the nature of the beast. Thus arguing with creationists is simply flogging a dead horse.
@ThevanGoghBlues Ok, sorry, your comments are a little hard to read so I wasn't quite sure who you were arguing against. Try reading some of the creationist posts and you'll see what I mean, sorry about that.,
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
one could also argue that evolution is a part of the ancient astronaut theory. I'm not getting in to that though. I'm just saying that drug companies are some of the lead researchers in this area.
It's pathetic how they pretend they're following science when their entire method is based on "This is our conclusion, lets try to make as much evidence fit into only this conclusion and not consider any other possibilities".
So, I can't just say "nyah nyah I'm right and you're wrong because the Bible says so" anymore? That hardly seems fair. It's worked so well for so long.
~I love how Meyer claims there are "reams and reams" of digital code stored inside DNA---since DNA and RNA are not digital, what the hell is this code? Answer...there isn't any---he is actually referring to the structure itself, which again is not digital. Hopeless...
All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..moron atheists !!
@5tonyvvvv Oh here is Mr Ignoramus Tony again spouting his nonsense!!! See the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry...Tom Cech et al formed RNA from chemical constituents NH2 CH H3PO4 COOH and then watched it replicate. They also observed that it could rejoin after being cut. Too bad, bozo. Exposed again...
@pontecanis Your a fuckin moron.. If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, and they still would have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell.
@pontecanis The instability of cytosine and ribose seriously cripples the RNA first proposal. What kills it is that getting the code sequence is impossible..digital code must be perfect in order to have a usable self replicating cycle...I dont know your chemistry background..but I am not sure if you know magnitude of this problem.
@pontecanis LOL..RNA has been copied using templates and bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying.. you..Please tell me the next step lets what you make next lets say you thousands of pairs of RNA..You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA molecules floating around is life?..LOL
@pontecanis RNA is not spontaneously arising you moron, they use templates and bases from living cells.to start it....also RNA is useless you cant do anything with it..you think it will grow int o a cell..LOL..you people make no sense!!!
@pontecanis LOL..Its all being copied using Bases and Templates..LOL..you a re Moron ..and I am laughing to hard right now..all of this stuff is precisely measured..using just the right temperatures..digital code is being copied and rearranged..DNA oligonucleotides..are being copied. .synthesizing machines!!!..are doing all the work...You are telling lies..and you have no clue what your saying..you do not know biochemistry at all..
@pontecanis The arrangement of the nucleotides in order to produce not only self replication, but genetically relevant information was not demonstrated in the experiment. So when you say that the RNA arose spontaneously, that is a dubious claim. Like I said, they dried and hydrated the material to make the nucleotides stick together. The experiment simply shows that it is plausible, given that the conditions were simulated correctly, that nucleotides could form and link together.
@pontecanis You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes to make a cell..the paradox is..In order for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this.
@5tonyvvvv 1st off, thimblemind, RNA and DNA are not digital.2nd-- For energy, try cyclic photophosphorylation...
6H2O+6CO2 +(sunlight)-> C6H12O6+6O2 {1 sugar+ 6 Oxygen molecules} Usually seen in the simplest cells e.g.cyanobacteria. This reaction occurs in the open ocean all the time. It is the formula Exxon -Mobil used in their energy-from-algae commercial. You really are an ignoramus!!
@pontecanis LOL...Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube.
@pontecanis ,you are going against well established laws..louis pasteur..proved it wrong in the time of Darwin..stanley miller proved it impossible because of Homochirality.and with Toxic tar and unusable amino acids .and all we are doing today is copying information like what Venter did..
@pontecanis Life is not arising,..its being copied dummy..to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..it would be easier to build the space shuttle discovery..with your bare hands while riding a unicycle
@Bereitwilligkeit Unless it's too complicated for us to understand (by that I mean it seems random), then it shows how wonderful creative, smart, and mysterious our benevolent creator is*.
Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, this is not a gene but a clone sequence of about 140 thousand base pairs. It contains part of the 5' end of a novel gene, and an entire pseudogene.
The intergenic sequences are often fairly unique, because they are unconstrained by evolutionary purifying selection.
This sequence fails to have an identified functional mapping, so far as I can tell.
@C0nc0rdance - Actually, it is listed as a gene in the Ensembl genome database as a protein coding gene 1,885 base pairs long and codes for a protein chain of 107 amino acids. More info below:
So, you are pointing out that the gene AL645730 is derived from a clone based sequence vector? Isn't that a rather standard procedure when dealing with cDNA assays? Yes indeed, it is a clone-based gene. How is that relevant?
What I had originally posted was [Human] Gene: AL645730.1 (ENSG00000227839) @ 1: 50,459,990-50,461,874 which you said was a pseudogene. Are you saying now that it is'nt a pseudogene?
@ProcInc Um, geocentrism came from Greek philosophy (as did spontaneoug generation). I don't know even 1 creationist geocentrist or any who call heliocentrists evolutionists. That's utter fiction. Even wikipedia states that one of top 50 common myths is that middle ages people were geocentrists.
I have studied evolution/darwinism/atheism for many 100s of hours and know them well.
Send me the Aronra link & I'll check it out. But, on homology, watch this one: watch?v=pMVBFJCqFXc
@Thunderf00t A) Homology is not testable evidence of Darwin's claim.
B) It fails as evidence for evolution: “structures as obviously homologous as the vertebrate alimentary canal are formed from quite different embryological sites in different vertebrate classes. The alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity in the sharks, from the floor in the lamprey, from roof&floor in frogs,&from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, in birds and reptiles.”
Thunderfoot I hope your listening. You should do better research before you post your videos and embarrass yourself. Stephen C Meyer is not the president of the Discovery Institute. These type of tactics do nothing to solidify your credibility. The video was posted over a year ago. There is no excuse for you not correcting yourself.
@benthemiester There is no "president" of the DI. Chapman is the founder and Meyer is the director. The message is still clear. You wouldnt harp on this specification, that does not exist, if it wasnt for your agenda. Let's see some "discovering". Until then, kindly stfu. Thankyou sir.
@SkullVodka What message? The person is asking for proof of an orphan gene. Its a non falsifiable challenge. This proves nothing. We are now just rediscovering what genes are. The gene centered view is being tossed on its head as we speak. Were still trying to figure out how genes work and how their regulated. Epigenetics is the new paradigm. If he wants to prove IDers wrong all he has to do is show how life can come about through natural processes and game over. Its very simple.
@benthemiester Well, quite frankly, the challenge is fair enough. And I wonder about the DI's complete lack of "discovering" a damn thing. My point was mainly to get off of the semantics. This is clearly the position of the DI, whether delivered by the "president", the "admiral", or the "grand wizard" of the Discovery Institue.
@SkullVodka Do you understand what the challenge is? Please tell me why an orphan gene would prove anything and why does it have to be non homologous. He also assumes that a designer would have to use a new gene for every different organism and that homology is an exact science but it is not, especially when it comes to cross species analysis. All you have to do is punch in the words "phylogenetic tree building problematic" & you will find tons of data. Don't believe me try it for yourself.
@SkullVodka What do you mean by semantics. Are you saying not to concern my self with accurate details because that would make more sense. However if someone cant get their details straight then this shows a lack of credibility on their fact gathering.
@benthemiester i really dont think proving life can be created through natural processes will shut these guys up
if scientists did create some RNA or even DNA or any form of self replicating form of life they will start another endless debate saying you cant prove that it happened that way because you werent there.
@oneadamtwelve86 If scientist created life from scratch then it would provide evidence that an intelligent agent is needed. If scientist were able to create life through OOL simulations it would at least provide evidence that this could happen through natural processes. (A very big if) Any counter arguments and debates would be irrelevant. If scientist could do this they wouldn't let counter arguments get in the way. Good luck man.
@benthemiester of course counter arguments would be irrelevent just like all these morons arguments against evolution that have been debunked by scientists time and time again, yet they still repeat the same lies in their ignorance to their ignorant followers.
these guys are not interested in evidence, they are interested in their fairy tales. their "counter arguments" have never gotten in the way of science, they have blocked science education to some poor kids, sadly
@oneadamtwelve86 There is a list of over 800 scientist, some very prominent and even some who are atheist who are also critical of the theory, so much so they were willing to put their careers on the line by signing and publicly stating their dissent from the theory that you think is sound. I have posted a video showing that even the EVO DEVO'S are now calling for an extended synthesis. You have been brainwashed. The modern synthesis is dead, everyone knows it except for the side liners.
@benthemiester i suggest you watch this video and let me know what you think. i hope the link works.
watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM this doesnt exactly prove that your list is crap, but it proves that the creation institute are liars along with every other creationist lobby.
ill let you watch and get back to me if you want
if the link doesnt work just copy and paste these words in youtube search:
list of scientists rejecting evolution- do they really
He say's many people were angry yet he doesn't name any of them because he knows someone would check. Don has said in the past that all science confirms evolution, but when given a list which includes the earth sciences he disqualifies non biologist but the list has grown 8 fold since Dons critic. All you have to do is look at the current list. Only 1 signer has asked to be taken off. Don has harassed & bombarded them with Emails. Don has remained silent since I pointed this out to him.
@benthemiester so what are these scientists critics of the theory of evolution? any biologist works with and studies evolution every day. i know there is certainly many different opinions on any number of different topics in a theory, but i dont think its possible for a biologist to not "believe" in the theory of evolution.
that would be like a chemist not "believing" in atomic theory.
or me an electrician not "believing" in electrical theory
@oneadamtwelve86 There is a difference between empirical testable theories & historical non testable theories like a eukaryote to man hypothesis which is what the modern synth is. The list is entitled "Dissent from Darwinism" and it is the Darwinian synthesis that is taught. It is based on inference and extrapolations. No one argues that change through time doesn't occur in nature. What is argued is that random mutations and NS can produce these changes. The fossil record does not show this.
@oneadamtwelve86 Pasteur gave us the principles of biology. Mendel gave us the principles of genetics, both creationist one was a monk. Darwin gave us Pan Genesis. Ever heard of Pan Genesis? look it up. Natural selection is valid on micro scales, know one disputes this. Random mutations (errors in DNA duplication) do not produce new genetic info, at best only re arranges pre existing info. People are looking into epigenetic factors now but its still a mystery. I have posted vid "Will the Real ..
@oneadamtwelve86 If your really want to know where the field is going I suggest you watch my video entitled Will the Real Theory Of Evolution please stand up. There is information in there that even many college professors have not heard of yet. Others are in denial, but the extended synth is real. Natural selection is still relevant in change but not the main mechanism once thought. Epigenetics, self origination & gene plasticity. This a threat to Darwinism as taught for last 80 years.
@benthemiester i did watch about 15 minutes of your video, maybe ill watch the rest,
just how you portray it and the fact that u actually like the discovery institute, it really looks to me like the creationists newest ploy after ID failed in court
@oneadamtwelve86 The lawsuit was not filed by the DI, it was filed by the the ALCU and the NCSE and Eugenie Scott was an adviser. The same Scott who opposes the extended synth because her career has been built on Darwinism. If you listen to the rest of interview. Newman criticizes his own colleagues on Dover not the DI. He says it gives the impression that Darwinism is the key to evolution and that people are being asked to believe in things that aren't true. The theory is dying a slow death.
@benthemiester i am familiar with eugenie scott. ill watch your video when i get time.
one thing i cant help but disagree with you on is your claim that mutations cant add new genetic informaiton, this claim has been used over and over but it has to be wrong
the easiest way to show this is gene duplication, if you think there is a set number of base pairs for genome it is wrong. the genome does grow.
at least thats what i think your inferring by "no new information"
Gene duplication is an old paradigm concerning new info. Epigenetics deals more with gene plasticity & the gene regulation apparent in many non protein coding regions of genome once thought of as junk. If I give you a book and then tell you I'm going to give give you new information by giving you an exact copy of same book, am I really giving you new information? The modern synth is 80 years old and out dated. Please cite source that proves the genome grows. Ill be waiting.
@benthemiester my understanding of gene duplication is, the gene copies itself creating more DNA, that new gene is free to mutate in any way it wants in future generations, it is not locked in to performing the task the original gene performs, it may activate some new funcion later.
ill look into giving you a source, i dont see how u could say this isnt adding to the genome. if you accept it at least.
@oneadamtwelve86 CONT.. you say that, protist "just kept adding DNA but still filling their niche as an amoeba so they remained amoebas" Then why do humans have to change if as you say, they grow their genome? This sound more Lamarckian than Darwin.
Why does one grow genetic information and stay the same while another grows little and changes? The truth is no one knows. You don't have the answer, nor do the Altenberg 16. Lets be honest and admit this instead of hand waiving and winging it.
@oneadamtwelve86 Judge Jones is making tons of money on speaking fees. Scott has built her entire career on advocating Darwinism. Do you think the Nas and the NCSE are going to admit they were wrong? Keep dreaming buddy.
@oneadamtwelve86 You can be a very successful biologist and not believe in the theory of evolution. Next time you meet a biologist ask him how long he was required to study evolutionary theory. People are not going to wast their tuition money on a subject that doesn't pertain to modern biology. There are many great Doctors and surgeons that don't believe in the theory. The founders of modern science were mostly creationist and gave us some of the most fundamental principles and laws of science.
@oneadamtwelve86 "any biologist works with and studies evolution every day"
Please give me an example. Are you under the impression that most biologist are busy studying evolution daily. Do you know how small the study of EVO DEVO = EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT BIOLOGY is compared to the vast study of biology as a whole??
@benthemiester im really just talking about all the facts that make up the theory of evolution. like the fact that genes are inherited, and vary in populations.
yes if you are studying genes in reproducing organisms, then u are studying evolution
@oneadamtwelve86 The only problem is that epigenetics is even less known than Darwinism whiich it will soon be replacing in a few years. That should tell you something about how little we really know. Encode has changed everything. Francis Collins said because of Encode we are going to have to rethink everything we thought we knew about the genome. Others are just now starting to admit the position were in. How do you tell the public you were wrong when careers have been built on this theory?
@benthemiester i think your under the spell creationists want you to believe that scientists can never admit that they are wrong.
science doesnt work like religion, when new evidence proposes new theories or changes existing ones its not a bad thing, thats how science progresses. nobodys career is on the line. scientist maticulously test everything and constantly prove each other wrong, anytime an idea is shown to be wrong, then it just means that now they are right. at least for now
@oneadamtwelve86 Please tell me the names of any of the plaintiffs including scientist and science advisers from Dover fiasco who will admit they were wrong. Even Newman said they were wrong and he is not a an ID advocate. He still believes someday we will find the answers but at least he is honest enough to admit how little we know.
@benthemiester i wasnt aware of that, but i dont see why that matters, gene duplication is also responsible for adding new information to the genome, something that you said is impossible.
@oneadamtwelve86 If you look at recent studies on gene duplication and epigenetic factors, they are not definitive, many are tentative. Many studies show conflicting phylogenetic trees. Have you ever wondered why an amoeba which is supposed to be a much simpler organism than man can halve more genetic information than humans by orders of magnitude. C value paradox is a reality and there is no way to determine complexity genetically. I never used the word impossible. I'm speaking of evidence.
@benthemiester i know amoebas have more DNA, Ive never seen any problem with it, they have probably just been evolving for a long time and just kept adding DNA but still filling their niche as an amoeba so they remained amoebas.
its the creationist who tries to claim that new information cant be added to try and discredit evolution, we both know that more DNA doesnt mean anything, a lot of plants have way more DNA than us. so why is it even an argument in the first place?
@oneadamtwelve86 "we both know that more DNA doesn't mean anything"
Then why were you trying to tell me that the genome grows in regards to evolution?
Apparently the people who discovered and are working on C value paradox
(T Ryan Gregory and the likes) don't agree or else there would be no enigma or paradox. I think not being able to distinguish complexity on the genetic level is something to seriously consider since we teach that things go from simple to complex.
@benthemiester the only reason i mentioned anything about the genome getting bigger is because you said it cant add information which is a common lie repeated from creationists no matter how many times it is proven false.
the "complexity" of an individual is determined by the genome but the more DNA a cell has doesnt necessarily mean its going to be bigger or more complex.
but obviously its the genes that build the organism.
so will u at least admit that it is a creationist lie?
@oneadamtwelve86 "the only reason i mentioned anything about the genome getting bigger is because you said it cant add"
The reason has more little to do with the fact that you said it. Don't back peddle now.
Can you also please explain the origin of specified digital code in our genome? I'm sure you know it takes DNA to make genes but it takes protein based genes to make DNA and RNA. What came first the chicken or the egg? The RNA hypothesis hasn't been very fruitful.
@oneadamtwelve86 "the complexity of an individual is determined by the genome"
Please cite your source. I cited my source that says. "At the center of the C-value enigma is the observation that genome size does not correlate with organismal complexity" ..........
@oneadamtwelve86 "its the DNA that makes the organism what it is."
I'm pretty sure that goes without saying but how can you distinguish genetic complexity? Do you just assume that your more important because your human?
Without eukaryote bacteria living in our intestines we wouldn't be able to survive. Bacteria can live without humans. We cant live without bacteria. Bacteria can self engineer themselves. ( J. Shapiro bacteria genetic self engineering). Can u cite anything that backs u up?
@benthemiester what do you mean back me up? i dont really worry about words like complexity, its vague, im not assuming im more important than anything, i mean who's to say whats more complex, a rose or a tomato. who cares, just about every living thing is pretty complex.
im not sure if your trying to make a point or what
@oneadamtwelve86 You have made several statements such as "the complexity of an individual is determined by the genome" U said "the genome can grow" but then go on to say, "but the more DNA a cell has doesnt necessarily mean its going to be bigger or more complex" The theory says eukaryote's evolved from simpler prokaryote's and that life went from simple to complex, but how do you determine complexity? Now your saying..... who cares? why worry? It seems your critical analysis is absent.
@benthemiester your misinterpreting my statements "the complexity of an individual is determined by the genome" is just a statement of fact, like you agreed it goes without saying, the DNA makes it what it is
"the genome can grow" i only said that to point out your statement as false. because it is, im not sure if you are acknowledging that or not "but the more DNA a cell has doesnt necessarily mean its going to be bigger or more complex" that is just another statement of fact.
u asked me:Then why were you trying to tell me that the genome grows in regards to evolution?
i replied: the only reason i mentioned anything about the genome getting bigger is because you said it cant add information which is a common lie repeated from creationists no matter how many times it is proven false. then u quoted my reply and responded: The reason has more little to do with the fact that you said it
@oneadamtwelve86 Please quote me correctly as I have done U. I said it is possible that a very rare mutation can give an animal a functional advantage. E.G. A group of wolves gaining a functional advantage during an ice age because all the short haired wolves start to die off & the only other wolves left to breed with are predominately long haired, after generations all wolves in the pack will have gained a funct. advant. by loosing the genetic info for short hair. Everything come with a price.
@benthemiester i dont know where i misquoted you but if i did it wasnt intentional.
this is the statement of yours i didnt like Random mutations (errors in DNA duplication) do not produce new genetic info, at best only re arranges pre existing info.
and you asked me why i said it, thats why i told u why i said it
that is the reason i pointed to gene duplication, and that is the only reason i ever mentioned anything about the genome growing because it looks like ur saying it cant.
@oneadamtwelve86 cont...The Chinese who have one of the best preserved Cambrian fossil record put the initial radiation event as little as 3 millions years, some believe in even less. One Chinese observer got some flak for saying he was witnessing genesis. Its been referred to by many as biology's Big Bang.
@benthemiester and no i wasnt back peddling i was answering your question, and i dont know how many times i have to keep answering you before you understand
the reason i said anything about the genome growing, and gene duplication, was to point out that your statement waayyyy back was not true.
im not trying to get u to admit it, i dont even care but it seems you are trying to take random statements from me and imply that i meant something else
@oneadamtwelve86 If you believe that the genome grows, cite your evidence. I don't care why you said it, and it doesn't matter. Please cite empirical evidence that the genome grows. Do you know that mutations are errors in the duplicating process? How do we get from prokaryotes to humans? Where is all this empirical evidence? All studies I have read use words like may have, could have, should have, maybe, perhaps, possibly. Where is the empirical evidence. Your ignoring the hard questions.
@benthemiester ok you can type in gene duplication to google, you will find the wikipedia article, there is ten sources listed for that article
yes i know that mutations are errors in the duplication process.
How do we get from prokaryotes to humans? do you really expect an answer to that? the empiracal evidence to piece together phylogenetic trees comes partly from the fossil record watching how our ancestors changed through over the history of life on earth
@oneadamtwelve86 sorry that post is jumbled up its supposed to read:
that is the reason i pointed to gene duplication, and that is the only reason i ever mentioned anything about the genome growing because it looks like ur saying it cant.
and you asked me why i said it, thats why i told u why i said it
@oneadamtwelve86 The problem with the fossil record is that we don't see change through intermediates. We see animals appearing abruptly and long periods of stasis with very minor changes through speciation and with no known transitions of major types. The Cambrian is a perfect example of multicellular phyla appearing globally in orders of magnitude with no known ancestors..............
@benthemiester so im trying to figure out what you think took place. are you saying that all the fossils arent ancestors to each other? that basically every organism that is very similar but not the same as other ones in different periods of time is a completely different and new one that formed by itself all over again?
@oneadamtwelve86 It really is not so important what I say or think, its what the fossil record shows. J Gould a hardcore evolutionist said the same thirty years ago. The current notion is that fossils are hard to come by therefore incomplete but this is not true we have billions of fossils some as small as grains of rice & some as big as buses. How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? No one knows. Some have theories but there not very fruitful. Sometimes its OK to say we just don't know yet.
@oneadamtwelve86 What I am saying is that if they are ancestral there is no way to determine it without great leaps of imagination. Darwin said there should be a universe of transitional fossils. He said himself this was one of the biggest problems with his theory. There are some who claim a series of whale transitions or archeopteryx and maybe a half dozen more but when you read the literature there is no consensus and their all disputed and not agreed on. Type in problems with fossil record.
@benthemiester if they arent ancestral than are you saying they went extinct? and then a few million years later a bunch of simiar animals sprung out of nowhere, and so on through the history of the earth?
@oneadamtwelve86 I didn't create the fossil record but it indicates exactly that. Abrupt appearance followed by long stasis with limited change (speciation) & then mass extinction. There are more radiation events than the Cambrian. The abrupt appearance of Dinosaurs & mammal radiation periods. What evolutionist call gaps are really inconsistencies with the theory, this has been known for over a 100 years but its never discussed in class rooms. If you are critical of the theory you can be sued.
@oneadamtwelve86 I don't want to be accused of quote mining & even though J Gould said thirty years ago the Darwinian synthesis was essentially dead. I have to be honest and tell you he believed away to explain the absents of transitional was through his hypothesis of "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is still not excepted by a majority although many do. The problem is, it raises more questions than answers. Its very close to the "Hopeful monster theory" in my opinion. Research the 2 mentioned.
@benthemiester I've been interested to read many of your ideas. You seem to be very well informed and very calm also in your reasoning. I'll be contacting you soon with some questions and may even ask you what you think of some things I've written on this issue of creation vs. evolution.
@dotoree Sure I'm always willing to reason, even though I've been called everything in the book for being critical, but I think all theories should be looked at critically.
@benthemiester If there is one thing you have shown about your crusading denial of evolution is that the last thing you are willing to do is reason. You are not being criticical you are merely doing what the crdesign proponentists are doing and that is pretend to be something they are not.
You are not looking at evolution critically yu are doing everything you can to deny it despite it being accepted by those who take the due process of critical analysis seriously
@ProcInc cont...Massimo Pigliucci, Stuart Newman & 15 others of the Altenberg 16 summit have proposed the same relaxing of these assumptions based on current data and are trying to extending a new proposed synthesis as an extension of current synthesis which is limited, in spite of what you have been indoctrinated into beleiving. There are many other people to numerous to mention that also challenge the current synthesis. You may not like it but its true.
They SHOULD be extending syntheses, more data means the theory can be extended. Phycisists do it, chemists do it but when biologists suggest you immediately think that evolution, one of the strongest and most rigiousously tested theories in science today is crumbling around itself?
This is the sign of good science and a testament as to ID is not science in any way shape or form.
Honesty and ability to progress is a testament to everything you and the Dishonesty Institute are not
@ProcInc I don't think you get it. What you call "one of the strongest and most rigiousously tested theories in science today" Is now being challenged. This is why Piglicucci has called for the relaxing of the assumptions made by the current theory. This is why Newman calls Dover a mistake on the part of those who have associated the current Darwinian theory with evolution when this may not be the case. This why the gene centered view is being challenged.......
@ProcInc If the theory were correct more data should be confirming it, not changing its structural foundation. Theories are confirmed by their powers of prediction concerning new data. If a theory does not have this principle it has to be discarded for on that does. Unfortunately the extended synthesis is based on epigenetics and even less is known about epigenetics than the current Darwinian theory. This is a testament to how new data has rocked the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm.
@benthemiester More data is confirming it. There are additions and little to nothing being taken away from it. Gravity is being far more radically uprooted than even the most tenuous aspects of evolution but the common ancestry all living things and diversity through reproduction with variation is beyond challenge now. Religious nuts and pseudoscientists have tried and all have failed.
The *foundations* of evolution have not been rocked, that is a wholly dishonest statement
@ProcInc I don't think I have been dishonest by mentioning the names of the men who are challenging the current Darwinian paradigm. The list of dissenters has grown 8 fold in the last 9 years & many are atheist, agnostic & secular Jews. Some are very prominent. I did not make up this list of 800 and growing, nor did I make up the Altenberg 16 summit. I would bet that up until I told you, you probably never even heard of the new extended synthesis based on epigenetics as opposed to Darwinism.
Nevertheless, many of them are very prominent lawyers, medical doctors, mathematicians, and so on. Very few of them have actually ever published any papers related to evolutionary biology.
Which is yet to produce anything more tangible than "perhaps variation and selection is not all there is." Which, by the way, isn't all there is to evolutionary theory either.
@benthemiester The Current Darwinian paradigm or evolution?
Of course I knew about the new extended synthesis. In a video of mine over a year old I briefly discuss and cover. While much has been added to the evolutionary synthesis little or nothing has been taken away. That's why its 'extended'
@ProcInc The modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis ...The Darwinian synthesis is the current modern synthesis of evolution. I find it odd that your even asking a high school grade questions like this. I hate to keep repeating myself
@benthemiester "The modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis"
What's your point? The extended synthesis still features all of the aspects of the neo-darwinian synthesis and merely adds more to it.
The only legitimate criticism of the darwinian synthesis is that it is a relative oversimplification.
It was rhetorical question pointing out evolution itself is not being challenged
@benthemiester And as you notice any changes that occur in evolutionary theory (which are relatively few and far between compared most other active scientists) only a more refined of evolutionary theory can challenge it and afterwards the theory is a stronger and more accurate version.
Evolution itself has no challenging theory and no data contradicts the fundamental foundations of evolution.
@ProcInc I've been very specific in the things that are being challenged. These are the foundations of evolutionary theory. If your interested in discussing general philosophy then maybe I'm not the person to converse with. I am more interested in point by point detail and so far you have ignored the more detailed points I have made. We have discovered new ways of describing the phenomena of gravitational theory but Newtons formulations remains unchanged and are still used to day in mechanics.
Newton's formulations are descriptive rather than explanatory. Newton did not publish any explanatory model for gravity. Moreover, his formulations were found to be inconsistent (to a degree) with actual observations, and supplanted by generalizations following from Einstein's relativity theory.
« I've been very specific in the things that are being challenged »
However that may be, there is still no challenging explanatory framefork for evolutionary theory. No testable explanatory model has been put forth that is able to take over the role of evolutionary theory in explaining biological diversity, nested hierarchies, and so on.
@XGralgrathor I was speaking of physics of mechanics not quantum physics. I stand by my words that we still use Newtonian physics in our every day to day lives building planes, houses, roller coasters etc. Gen Relativity explains gravity on a quantum level. They don't contradict each other, they compliment each other.
@benthemiester Just answer the simple question. Has evolution itself described as common descent and descent with modification accounting for biodiversity been challenged fundamentally or is the mechanism being refined?
And is the refined mechanism a better version of evolution or Yahweh the mystery designer?
Because to challenge evolution with a refined version is far for complimentary than Einstein was to Newtonian mechanics
« Gen Relativity explains gravity on a quantum level »
No, not really. In fact, quantum mechanics is almost completely outside the scope of relativity theory. There is a competing framework of quantum gravity which may evenatually add to or even supplant relativity theory in this respect.
« Newtonian physics in our every day to day lives »
Sure, Newton's descriptive formulae of observations are accurate enough for everyday purposes - however, they are still *inconsistent* with actual observations. What is it Americans say? "Close, but no sigar."
You actually think that Newtonian physics has not been overturned? Perhaps you haven't heard of a little thing called special relativity, kind of a big deal in 20th century physics.
Anyway you have not been specific, you have been misleading. Its a very simple issue of you pretending that the challenge to "This is how things evolved" to "things evolved"
@ProcInc "Evolution itself has no challenging theory and no data contradicts the fundamental foundations of evolution" This the problem, no competing theory.
If simpler life gradually evolved to complex life,
then why are these men refuting gradualism as J Gould did 30 years ago? If gradualism is true how do you explain the Cambrian explosion. Please give me a detailed answer void of philosophy. Where did the ancestors of the Cambrian phyla come from? and where is the evidence?
Gradualism is not being refuted. Saltation is, by both the classical model of evolution as well as the punctuated equilibrium model. All that is being refuted is that evolution works at a uniform rate. In stead, PE suggests a varying rate.
@XGralgrathor Its interesting that Darwinist are always saying all scientist believe in the theory, but when its pointed out that many don't, all of a sudden their not qualified. The fact is most scientist in general have not written papers on evolutionary theory. I never said there wasn't life before Cambrian radiation event. We had prokaryotes and later Ediacaran fauna that goes extinct millions of years before event, but no one knows what the ancestors of this explosion in life came from.
« when its pointed out that many don't, all of a sudden their not qualified »
You don't go to a dermatologist for an opinion on lymph node cancer, and you don't go to a medical doctor for an opinion on mechanisms of genetic variability. Is it really that hard to understand this?
I did not ask you whether you thought any pre-Cambrian fossils had been found. My suggestion was that you spend some time finding out *what* fossils specifically had been dated before the Cambrian, and *what* these fossils suggested *specifically*.
@benthemiester "then why are these men refuting gradualism as J Gould did 30 years ago?"
Lol you are but one of many who misunderstands punctuated equilibrium. PE is visible only in the context of geological time. Its merely the observation from both fossil forms and breeding excercises that the rate of change is in flux in relation to climate stability and size of the population. How does punctuated equilibrium challenge evolution? It strengthens it
@ProcInc PE is a hypothesis not a fact, if it were, we should have been able to observe it through the history of man since it is supposed to happen rapidly. Darwin and Dawkin's believe that gradualism is the only thing that makes sense. I was reading about Gould before you were born. I know what PE is. The hopeful monster theory is very similar but PE sound nicer. It actually raises more questions than answers and not all except it.
@ProcInc Before I got into the first minute of your video I couldn't help but notice some problems. You said life began to experiment but offer no proof, only assumptions. You say life began to diversify but you don't even know what the ancestors are to these Cambrian phyla, its just assumed. (bad science) Life did diversify after the Cambrian explosion but you made it sound like a clear transition from pre Cambrian life. This is very misleading.......
@benthemiester "You said life began to experiment but offer no proof, only assumptions." The fossil forms themselves are experimentations, their outlandish body plans are very unspecialised.
And it is a clear transition and diversification from precambrian life. As Xgralgathor said you would do well to look into what Precambrian fossils have been found
@ProcInc I have. You keep generalizing and cannot name even one confirmed ancestor to any of them. If you look at my threads I have named them and have been very specific. Even Dawkin's admits that there are no known ancestors of the complex Cambrian phyla. If you know of one then please cite your evidence. Jy chen naming institute of paleontology a geology States that Darwin's tree of life is upside down.
Zhou qui gin senior research fellow Changing Fauna agrees,
@ProcInc This what the encyclopedia Wikipedia has to say.....Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Ill will be waiting for you to cite your source that it has been overturned. Please no semantics or word games. Just cite your source.
You are ignoring the fact that, while Newton's formulae are accurate enough for everyday purposes, they *are* inconsistent with observations, while generalizations from Einstein's RT are consistent with these same observations. This is fact, plain and simple. Newton was wrong. He wasn't wrong enough for it to matter in every day applications, but he was still wrong.
@XGralgrathor "You don't go to a dermatologist for an opinion on lymph node cancer, and you don't go to a medical doctor for an opinion on mechanisms of genetic variability. Is it really that hard to understand this?"
What are you talking about? I was speaking of the Dissent from Darwin list which is filled with scientist & scholars. There are many geneticist, biologist, biochemist and many others in the earth sciences fields. I don't believe there are any lawyers on the list.
@XGralgrathor If according to you the only ones who qualify to speak on this subject are evolutionary development biologist (evo devos) who write papers on evolution, then that excludes 99.8 percent of the broader scientific community, and since only a fraction of those papers are actually based on testable data. This means the theory is even more flimsy than most think. I think you shot your own theory in the foot.
« according to you the only ones who qualify to speak on this subject are evolutionary development biologist »
Actually, "evo devo" is a particular branch of evolutionary science, focusing on embriological development in light of what we know of genetics and evolution. Gene regulatory networks, HOX genes and so on.
« according to you the only ones who qualify to speak on this subject are evolutionary development biologist »
But, back to the point: no, I'm not excluding anybody because of their profession or background. I'd be okay with any person who's proven to have the necessary expertise, whether he or she has a diploma or not. Fact is, I can't tell whether a lawyer or mathematician has the necessary expertise. But a publication track record in related fields is a good measuring rod for expertise.
From pre-existing organisms that were already complex and multicellular, No one has been able to make an association between Cambrian phyla & ediacara biota which goes extinct millions of years before Cambrian event. So please tell me who were these ancestors of Cambrian phyla? & how did you come to this conclusion? If your point is that complex life started from the beginning then I agree but this is not consistent with the simple to complex paradigm that makes up the theory.
« No one has been able to make an association between Cambrian phyla & ediacara biota »
That's not entirely true. There are associations, but they are controversial. It is indeed true that at this time there seems to be little material suggesting any specific ancestral relationships between known forms before and after the advent of the Cambrian.
« but this is not consistent with the simple to complex paradigm that makes up the theory. »
On the contrary, *that* is not the problem. pre-Cambrian fossils show that life was somewhat less complex before the advent of the new bodyplans in the Cambrian. The problem is this: we cannot establish any distinct phylogenies linking the Cambrian phyla to pre-existing lifeforms. At least, not with any kind of certitude.
This what the encyclopedia says. General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915. It is the current description of gravitation in modern physics.
@XGralgrathor cont... It generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
@benthemiester "If gradualism is true how do you explain the Cambrian explosion."
two things wrong with this. Gradualism is not something I support in the context of invariable rate in change, a minority of evolutionary biologists do.
secondly the Cambrian explosion took 5-30 million years.
The Cambrian Explosion can only be explained by evolution, no other explanation has been formulated. I made a video on the Cambrian Explosion if you want a detailed answer
@ProcInc There's no way of knowing how long the initial radiation event took. The Chinese are saying as little as 3 MY. One Chinese observer used the word genesis. In the geological time scale even 20 million years is a blink of an eye. This radiation event caused an explosion of multicellular complex creatures globally on orders of several magnitudes. This is one of Darwin's biggest obstacles and even he understood this. There seems to be a lack of critical thinking and a lot of hand waiving.
« This radiation event caused an explosion of multicellular complex creatures »
From pre-existing organisms that were already complex and multicellular, yes. The fossil evidence showing that such life already existed before the Cambrian "explosion" is undeniable. What is surprising about the Cambrian "explosion" is how many new *variations* it produced.
@XGralgrathor I have cited my sources. Yet you and your friend say Newtons universal law has been overturned yet you cite no source. I challenge you also, and with out word games or semantics to cite any encyclopedia that states that Newtons law of gravity has been over turned. Again no semantics.
« Yet you and your friend say Newtons universal law has been overturned yet you cite no source »
It seems to me to be common knowledge that Newton's formula does not accurately describe the apparent motion of various celestial bodies. I'm not saying that Newton's formulae aren't useful anymore: they are. But they're also incorrect. The thing is, their incorrectness under non-relativistic circumstances is too small to notice. Which is why they're still widely used.
@XGralgrathor "Actually, "evo devo" is a particular branch of evolutionary science"
Yes I know, maybe you didn't read the thread carefully. Again evo devos who have published work make up only a very small fraction of scientist. This is something Darwinist never admit. That's why I brought up how hypocritical it was to say that all scientist believe in evolution. If a lay person who researches can understand the arguments and evidence or lack of, then scholars with PHD'S can also understand.
And therefore in themselves not sufficient base for comparison. For a valid comparison, you'd have to include *all* scientists who publish papers related to evolutionary theory, all evolutionary biologists, palaeontologists, palaeobiologists, and so on; not just evo-devo's.
Why do most of the vides 'debunking' science have comments and/or ratings Disabled? I'm guessing these guys KNOW that their assertions can Not withstand scrutiny. Any other suggestions why this is so?
jimbocidman 1 week ago
If I'm intelligently designed, why do I have an appendix and a tailbone?
ChipArgyle 2 weeks ago
For those unaware, Casey Luskin has already smashed this dishonest attack against the scientific revolution of Intelligent Design in his article, "Responding to the Youtube Challenge to Discovery Institute: Does Any Critic Out There Understand Intelligent Design? Anyone? ...Anyone?"
The link to said article is here: goo.gl\DBEsJ
My challenge to design-deniers: Why is it that every single argument you can muster against design theory must rely on flagrant dishonesty and attacks against science?
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
Blue Genes?
Mr. Green Genes?
Waltham1892 2 months ago
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches, after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
amarugarcia 3 months ago
I believe C0nc0rdence lost the the Discovery Institute with all that genetic jargon.
fdasherv 4 months ago
@ThevanGoghBlues I feel your frustration....but stop being so reasonable. When reason and superstition collide - superstition will always win out, it's the nature of the beast. Thus arguing with creationists is simply flogging a dead horse.
masala505 4 months ago
@ThevanGoghBlues Ok, sorry, your comments are a little hard to read so I wasn't quite sure who you were arguing against. Try reading some of the creationist posts and you'll see what I mean, sorry about that.,
Darkstar1484 4 months ago
@ThevanGoghBlues Am I to take it that you're of the belief that humanity was poofed into existence by a mystical sky daddy?
Darkstar1484 4 months ago in playlist Skepticism and Freethought
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Lol,You think Drug companies are
Honest?
NOw your bringing a Profit based Institution into a Meta-Physical Argument?
iwanttocrashmybike 6 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike
i think you need to research the relevancy of drug companies to this subject.
chadd990 5 months ago
@chadd990 Actually one could more easily argue Evolution is part of ID,I suggest this channel for the Hypothesis of a Actual Physicist:
dfpolis
iwanttocrashmybike 5 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike
one could also argue that evolution is a part of the ancient astronaut theory. I'm not getting in to that though. I'm just saying that drug companies are some of the lead researchers in this area.
chadd990 5 months ago
@chadd990 Oh Conspiracy Theory in the Evolution vs ID theory's,well why not.
Have you heard of Monsanto?-I have a video if your interested.
iwanttocrashmybike 5 months ago
Its 2011 and were stiillll waiitttting mmmmhhhhh!
Exli3r 8 months ago
I love the title of the video.
It's pathetic how they pretend they're following science when their entire method is based on "This is our conclusion, lets try to make as much evidence fit into only this conclusion and not consider any other possibilities".
Krazed2Kraze 8 months ago 2
So, I can't just say "nyah nyah I'm right and you're wrong because the Bible says so" anymore? That hardly seems fair. It's worked so well for so long.
dlbattle100 9 months ago
they're ugly
NE0Nwhip 11 months ago
~I love how Meyer claims there are "reams and reams" of digital code stored inside DNA---since DNA and RNA are not digital, what the hell is this code? Answer...there isn't any---he is actually referring to the structure itself, which again is not digital. Hopeless...
pontecanis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Trusted Naughty women dating site mworld5.info
ilenejyty 1 year ago
All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..moron atheists !!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Oh here is Mr Ignoramus Tony again spouting his nonsense!!! See the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry...Tom Cech et al formed RNA from chemical constituents NH2 CH H3PO4 COOH and then watched it replicate. They also observed that it could rejoin after being cut. Too bad, bozo. Exposed again...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis Your a fuckin moron.. If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, and they still would have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@pontecanis The instability of cytosine and ribose seriously cripples the RNA first proposal. What kills it is that getting the code sequence is impossible..digital code must be perfect in order to have a usable self replicating cycle...I dont know your chemistry background..but I am not sure if you know magnitude of this problem.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@pontecanis LOL..RNA has been copied using templates and bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying.. you..Please tell me the next step lets what you make next lets say you thousands of pairs of RNA..You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA molecules floating around is life?..LOL
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pontecanis RNA is not spontaneously arising you moron, they use templates and bases from living cells.to start it....also RNA is useless you cant do anything with it..you think it will grow int o a cell..LOL..you people make no sense!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pontecanis LOL..Its all being copied using Bases and Templates..LOL..you a re Moron ..and I am laughing to hard right now..all of this stuff is precisely measured..using just the right temperatures..digital code is being copied and rearranged..DNA oligonucleotides..are being copied. .synthesizing machines!!!..are doing all the work...You are telling lies..and you have no clue what your saying..you do not know biochemistry at all..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@pontecanis The arrangement of the nucleotides in order to produce not only self replication, but genetically relevant information was not demonstrated in the experiment. So when you say that the RNA arose spontaneously, that is a dubious claim. Like I said, they dried and hydrated the material to make the nucleotides stick together. The experiment simply shows that it is plausible, given that the conditions were simulated correctly, that nucleotides could form and link together.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@pontecanis You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes to make a cell..the paradox is..In order for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv 1st off, thimblemind, RNA and DNA are not digital.2nd-- For energy, try cyclic photophosphorylation...
6H2O+6CO2 +(sunlight)-> C6H12O6+6O2 {1 sugar+ 6 Oxygen molecules} Usually seen in the simplest cells e.g.cyanobacteria. This reaction occurs in the open ocean all the time. It is the formula Exxon -Mobil used in their energy-from-algae commercial. You really are an ignoramus!!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis LOL...Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pontecanis ,you are going against well established laws..louis pasteur..proved it wrong in the time of Darwin..stanley miller proved it impossible because of Homochirality.and with Toxic tar and unusable amino acids .and all we are doing today is copying information like what Venter did..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pontecanis Life is not arising,..its being copied dummy..to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..it would be easier to build the space shuttle discovery..with your bare hands while riding a unicycle
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
So what? Could not any sequence be used as well as proof of a common designer?
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Unless it's too complicated for us to understand (by that I mean it seems random), then it shows how wonderful creative, smart, and mysterious our benevolent creator is*.
* I am being entirely factitious.
cdog4100 1 year ago
@cdog4100
Facetious? Is that something like flatulence?
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cdog4100 and you just proved that you most propably failed math...
Darusdei 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Please test these genes:
Gene Simmons
Gene Hackman
Gene Kelly
Gene Wilder
sleazybtd 1 year ago 52
@sleazybtd
Best comment on Youtube ever!
LiveTheWild 1 year ago
@sleazybtd Why did I lol so hard?
ArentWeSpecial 6 months ago
Here is an interesting gene which you might consider.
Gene: AL645730.1 (ENSG00000227839)
Location Chromosome 1: 50,459,990-50,461,874 forward strand.
hugenex2000 1 year ago 2
@hugenex2000
Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, this is not a gene but a clone sequence of about 140 thousand base pairs. It contains part of the 5' end of a novel gene, and an entire pseudogene.
The intergenic sequences are often fairly unique, because they are unconstrained by evolutionary purifying selection.
This sequence fails to have an identified functional mapping, so far as I can tell.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance - Actually, it is listed as a gene in the Ensembl genome database as a protein coding gene 1,885 base pairs long and codes for a protein chain of 107 amino acids. More info below:
Transcript Name: AL645730.1-201
Transcript ID: ENST00000448346
Length (bp)" 1885
Protein ID: ENSP00000401471
Length (aa): 107
Biotype: Protein coding
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
Okay, found it. You are citing the clone, not the gene with AL645730.
AF119917_24 is a new gene, induced from fetal liver. It has high homology to:
human serine protease cluster (64%)
human zinc finger protein 365 (63%)
There are also matches in chimpanzee, orangutan, macaque, baboon of >50%.
In other words, this sequence demonstrates that this gene is related to genes in all other primates. It appears to be a gene fusion, though.
Repeat my BLAST with "DN8K41PT01N"
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance
So, you are pointing out that the gene AL645730 is derived from a clone based sequence vector? Isn't that a rather standard procedure when dealing with cDNA assays? Yes indeed, it is a clone-based gene. How is that relevant?
What I had originally posted was [Human] Gene: AL645730.1 (ENSG00000227839) @ 1: 50,459,990-50,461,874 which you said was a pseudogene. Are you saying now that it is'nt a pseudogene?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc Um, geocentrism came from Greek philosophy (as did spontaneoug generation). I don't know even 1 creationist geocentrist or any who call heliocentrists evolutionists. That's utter fiction. Even wikipedia states that one of top 50 common myths is that middle ages people were geocentrists.
I have studied evolution/darwinism/atheism for many 100s of hours and know them well.
Send me the Aronra link & I'll check it out. But, on homology, watch this one: watch?v=pMVBFJCqFXc
dotoree 1 year ago
@Thunderf00t A) Homology is not testable evidence of Darwin's claim.
B) It fails as evidence for evolution: “structures as obviously homologous as the vertebrate alimentary canal are formed from quite different embryological sites in different vertebrate classes. The alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity in the sharks, from the floor in the lamprey, from roof&floor in frogs,&from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, in birds and reptiles.”
dotoree 1 year ago
Thunderfoot I hope your listening. You should do better research before you post your videos and embarrass yourself. Stephen C Meyer is not the president of the Discovery Institute. These type of tactics do nothing to solidify your credibility. The video was posted over a year ago. There is no excuse for you not correcting yourself.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester There is no "president" of the DI. Chapman is the founder and Meyer is the director. The message is still clear. You wouldnt harp on this specification, that does not exist, if it wasnt for your agenda. Let's see some "discovering". Until then, kindly stfu. Thankyou sir.
SkullVodka 1 year ago
@SkullVodka What message? The person is asking for proof of an orphan gene. Its a non falsifiable challenge. This proves nothing. We are now just rediscovering what genes are. The gene centered view is being tossed on its head as we speak. Were still trying to figure out how genes work and how their regulated. Epigenetics is the new paradigm. If he wants to prove IDers wrong all he has to do is show how life can come about through natural processes and game over. Its very simple.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Well, quite frankly, the challenge is fair enough. And I wonder about the DI's complete lack of "discovering" a damn thing. My point was mainly to get off of the semantics. This is clearly the position of the DI, whether delivered by the "president", the "admiral", or the "grand wizard" of the Discovery Institue.
SkullVodka 1 year ago
@SkullVodka Do you understand what the challenge is? Please tell me why an orphan gene would prove anything and why does it have to be non homologous. He also assumes that a designer would have to use a new gene for every different organism and that homology is an exact science but it is not, especially when it comes to cross species analysis. All you have to do is punch in the words "phylogenetic tree building problematic" & you will find tons of data. Don't believe me try it for yourself.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@SkullVodka What do you mean by semantics. Are you saying not to concern my self with accurate details because that would make more sense. However if someone cant get their details straight then this shows a lack of credibility on their fact gathering.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i really dont think proving life can be created through natural processes will shut these guys up
if scientists did create some RNA or even DNA or any form of self replicating form of life they will start another endless debate saying you cant prove that it happened that way because you werent there.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 If scientist created life from scratch then it would provide evidence that an intelligent agent is needed. If scientist were able to create life through OOL simulations it would at least provide evidence that this could happen through natural processes. (A very big if) Any counter arguments and debates would be irrelevant. If scientist could do this they wouldn't let counter arguments get in the way. Good luck man.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester of course counter arguments would be irrelevent just like all these morons arguments against evolution that have been debunked by scientists time and time again, yet they still repeat the same lies in their ignorance to their ignorant followers.
these guys are not interested in evidence, they are interested in their fairy tales. their "counter arguments" have never gotten in the way of science, they have blocked science education to some poor kids, sadly
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 There is a list of over 800 scientist, some very prominent and even some who are atheist who are also critical of the theory, so much so they were willing to put their careers on the line by signing and publicly stating their dissent from the theory that you think is sound. I have posted a video showing that even the EVO DEVO'S are now calling for an extended synthesis. You have been brainwashed. The modern synthesis is dead, everyone knows it except for the side liners.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i suggest you watch this video and let me know what you think. i hope the link works.
watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM this doesnt exactly prove that your list is crap, but it proves that the creation institute are liars along with every other creationist lobby.
ill let you watch and get back to me if you want
if the link doesnt work just copy and paste these words in youtube search:
list of scientists rejecting evolution- do they really
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 Your not talking about Don are you? Ill check it and see.
benthemiester 1 year ago
He say's many people were angry yet he doesn't name any of them because he knows someone would check. Don has said in the past that all science confirms evolution, but when given a list which includes the earth sciences he disqualifies non biologist but the list has grown 8 fold since Dons critic. All you have to do is look at the current list. Only 1 signer has asked to be taken off. Don has harassed & bombarded them with Emails. Don has remained silent since I pointed this out to him.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester so what are these scientists critics of the theory of evolution? any biologist works with and studies evolution every day. i know there is certainly many different opinions on any number of different topics in a theory, but i dont think its possible for a biologist to not "believe" in the theory of evolution.
that would be like a chemist not "believing" in atomic theory.
or me an electrician not "believing" in electrical theory
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 There is a difference between empirical testable theories & historical non testable theories like a eukaryote to man hypothesis which is what the modern synth is. The list is entitled "Dissent from Darwinism" and it is the Darwinian synthesis that is taught. It is based on inference and extrapolations. No one argues that change through time doesn't occur in nature. What is argued is that random mutations and NS can produce these changes. The fossil record does not show this.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester so what is the other process besides natural selection, or genetic drift. that replaces natural salection?
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 Pasteur gave us the principles of biology. Mendel gave us the principles of genetics, both creationist one was a monk. Darwin gave us Pan Genesis. Ever heard of Pan Genesis? look it up. Natural selection is valid on micro scales, know one disputes this. Random mutations (errors in DNA duplication) do not produce new genetic info, at best only re arranges pre existing info. People are looking into epigenetic factors now but its still a mystery. I have posted vid "Will the Real ..
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 If your really want to know where the field is going I suggest you watch my video entitled Will the Real Theory Of Evolution please stand up. There is information in there that even many college professors have not heard of yet. Others are in denial, but the extended synth is real. Natural selection is still relevant in change but not the main mechanism once thought. Epigenetics, self origination & gene plasticity. This a threat to Darwinism as taught for last 80 years.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i did watch about 15 minutes of your video, maybe ill watch the rest,
just how you portray it and the fact that u actually like the discovery institute, it really looks to me like the creationists newest ploy after ID failed in court
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 The lawsuit was not filed by the DI, it was filed by the the ALCU and the NCSE and Eugenie Scott was an adviser. The same Scott who opposes the extended synth because her career has been built on Darwinism. If you listen to the rest of interview. Newman criticizes his own colleagues on Dover not the DI. He says it gives the impression that Darwinism is the key to evolution and that people are being asked to believe in things that aren't true. The theory is dying a slow death.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i am familiar with eugenie scott. ill watch your video when i get time.
one thing i cant help but disagree with you on is your claim that mutations cant add new genetic informaiton, this claim has been used over and over but it has to be wrong
the easiest way to show this is gene duplication, if you think there is a set number of base pairs for genome it is wrong. the genome does grow.
at least thats what i think your inferring by "no new information"
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86
Gene duplication is an old paradigm concerning new info. Epigenetics deals more with gene plasticity & the gene regulation apparent in many non protein coding regions of genome once thought of as junk. If I give you a book and then tell you I'm going to give give you new information by giving you an exact copy of same book, am I really giving you new information? The modern synth is 80 years old and out dated. Please cite source that proves the genome grows. Ill be waiting.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester my understanding of gene duplication is, the gene copies itself creating more DNA, that new gene is free to mutate in any way it wants in future generations, it is not locked in to performing the task the original gene performs, it may activate some new funcion later.
ill look into giving you a source, i dont see how u could say this isnt adding to the genome. if you accept it at least.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 CONT.. you say that, protist "just kept adding DNA but still filling their niche as an amoeba so they remained amoebas" Then why do humans have to change if as you say, they grow their genome? This sound more Lamarckian than Darwin.
Why does one grow genetic information and stay the same while another grows little and changes? The truth is no one knows. You don't have the answer, nor do the Altenberg 16. Lets be honest and admit this instead of hand waiving and winging it.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 Judge Jones is making tons of money on speaking fees. Scott has built her entire career on advocating Darwinism. Do you think the Nas and the NCSE are going to admit they were wrong? Keep dreaming buddy.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 You can be a very successful biologist and not believe in the theory of evolution. Next time you meet a biologist ask him how long he was required to study evolutionary theory. People are not going to wast their tuition money on a subject that doesn't pertain to modern biology. There are many great Doctors and surgeons that don't believe in the theory. The founders of modern science were mostly creationist and gave us some of the most fundamental principles and laws of science.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 "any biologist works with and studies evolution every day"
Please give me an example. Are you under the impression that most biologist are busy studying evolution daily. Do you know how small the study of EVO DEVO = EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT BIOLOGY is compared to the vast study of biology as a whole??
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester im really just talking about all the facts that make up the theory of evolution. like the fact that genes are inherited, and vary in populations.
yes if you are studying genes in reproducing organisms, then u are studying evolution
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 The only problem is that epigenetics is even less known than Darwinism whiich it will soon be replacing in a few years. That should tell you something about how little we really know. Encode has changed everything. Francis Collins said because of Encode we are going to have to rethink everything we thought we knew about the genome. Others are just now starting to admit the position were in. How do you tell the public you were wrong when careers have been built on this theory?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i think your under the spell creationists want you to believe that scientists can never admit that they are wrong.
science doesnt work like religion, when new evidence proposes new theories or changes existing ones its not a bad thing, thats how science progresses. nobodys career is on the line. scientist maticulously test everything and constantly prove each other wrong, anytime an idea is shown to be wrong, then it just means that now they are right. at least for now
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 Please tell me the names of any of the plaintiffs including scientist and science advisers from Dover fiasco who will admit they were wrong. Even Newman said they were wrong and he is not a an ID advocate. He still believes someday we will find the answers but at least he is honest enough to admit how little we know.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 Do you know that gene duplication is responsible for down syndrome?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i wasnt aware of that, but i dont see why that matters, gene duplication is also responsible for adding new information to the genome, something that you said is impossible.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 If you look at recent studies on gene duplication and epigenetic factors, they are not definitive, many are tentative. Many studies show conflicting phylogenetic trees. Have you ever wondered why an amoeba which is supposed to be a much simpler organism than man can halve more genetic information than humans by orders of magnitude. C value paradox is a reality and there is no way to determine complexity genetically. I never used the word impossible. I'm speaking of evidence.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i know amoebas have more DNA, Ive never seen any problem with it, they have probably just been evolving for a long time and just kept adding DNA but still filling their niche as an amoeba so they remained amoebas.
its the creationist who tries to claim that new information cant be added to try and discredit evolution, we both know that more DNA doesnt mean anything, a lot of plants have way more DNA than us. so why is it even an argument in the first place?
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 "we both know that more DNA doesn't mean anything"
Then why were you trying to tell me that the genome grows in regards to evolution?
Apparently the people who discovered and are working on C value paradox
(T Ryan Gregory and the likes) don't agree or else there would be no enigma or paradox. I think not being able to distinguish complexity on the genetic level is something to seriously consider since we teach that things go from simple to complex.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester the only reason i mentioned anything about the genome getting bigger is because you said it cant add information which is a common lie repeated from creationists no matter how many times it is proven false.
the "complexity" of an individual is determined by the genome but the more DNA a cell has doesnt necessarily mean its going to be bigger or more complex.
but obviously its the genes that build the organism.
so will u at least admit that it is a creationist lie?
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 "the only reason i mentioned anything about the genome getting bigger is because you said it cant add"
The reason has more little to do with the fact that you said it. Don't back peddle now.
Can you also please explain the origin of specified digital code in our genome? I'm sure you know it takes DNA to make genes but it takes protein based genes to make DNA and RNA. What came first the chicken or the egg? The RNA hypothesis hasn't been very fruitful.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 "the complexity of an individual is determined by the genome"
Please cite your source. I cited my source that says. "At the center of the C-value enigma is the observation that genome size does not correlate with organismal complexity" ..........
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester your not understanding what i said, i agree the genome SIZE is not proportianate to the complexity,
i was just stating that it is the DNA that makes the organism complex, its the DNA that makes the organism what it is.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 "its the DNA that makes the organism what it is."
I'm pretty sure that goes without saying but how can you distinguish genetic complexity? Do you just assume that your more important because your human?
Without eukaryote bacteria living in our intestines we wouldn't be able to survive. Bacteria can live without humans. We cant live without bacteria. Bacteria can self engineer themselves. ( J. Shapiro bacteria genetic self engineering). Can u cite anything that backs u up?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester what do you mean back me up? i dont really worry about words like complexity, its vague, im not assuming im more important than anything, i mean who's to say whats more complex, a rose or a tomato. who cares, just about every living thing is pretty complex.
im not sure if your trying to make a point or what
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 You have made several statements such as "the complexity of an individual is determined by the genome" U said "the genome can grow" but then go on to say, "but the more DNA a cell has doesnt necessarily mean its going to be bigger or more complex" The theory says eukaryote's evolved from simpler prokaryote's and that life went from simple to complex, but how do you determine complexity? Now your saying..... who cares? why worry? It seems your critical analysis is absent.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester your misinterpreting my statements "the complexity of an individual is determined by the genome" is just a statement of fact, like you agreed it goes without saying, the DNA makes it what it is
"the genome can grow" i only said that to point out your statement as false. because it is, im not sure if you are acknowledging that or not "but the more DNA a cell has doesnt necessarily mean its going to be bigger or more complex" that is just another statement of fact.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@benthemiester let me try to clear this up
u asked me:Then why were you trying to tell me that the genome grows in regards to evolution?
i replied: the only reason i mentioned anything about the genome getting bigger is because you said it cant add information which is a common lie repeated from creationists no matter how many times it is proven false. then u quoted my reply and responded: The reason has more little to do with the fact that you said it
which i dont even understand
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 Please quote me correctly as I have done U. I said it is possible that a very rare mutation can give an animal a functional advantage. E.G. A group of wolves gaining a functional advantage during an ice age because all the short haired wolves start to die off & the only other wolves left to breed with are predominately long haired, after generations all wolves in the pack will have gained a funct. advant. by loosing the genetic info for short hair. Everything come with a price.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester i dont know where i misquoted you but if i did it wasnt intentional.
this is the statement of yours i didnt like Random mutations (errors in DNA duplication) do not produce new genetic info, at best only re arranges pre existing info.
and you asked me why i said it, thats why i told u why i said it
that is the reason i pointed to gene duplication, and that is the only reason i ever mentioned anything about the genome growing because it looks like ur saying it cant.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 cont...The Chinese who have one of the best preserved Cambrian fossil record put the initial radiation event as little as 3 millions years, some believe in even less. One Chinese observer got some flak for saying he was witnessing genesis. Its been referred to by many as biology's Big Bang.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester and no i wasnt back peddling i was answering your question, and i dont know how many times i have to keep answering you before you understand
the reason i said anything about the genome growing, and gene duplication, was to point out that your statement waayyyy back was not true.
im not trying to get u to admit it, i dont even care but it seems you are trying to take random statements from me and imply that i meant something else
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 If you believe that the genome grows, cite your evidence. I don't care why you said it, and it doesn't matter. Please cite empirical evidence that the genome grows. Do you know that mutations are errors in the duplicating process? How do we get from prokaryotes to humans? Where is all this empirical evidence? All studies I have read use words like may have, could have, should have, maybe, perhaps, possibly. Where is the empirical evidence. Your ignoring the hard questions.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester ok you can type in gene duplication to google, you will find the wikipedia article, there is ten sources listed for that article
yes i know that mutations are errors in the duplication process.
How do we get from prokaryotes to humans? do you really expect an answer to that? the empiracal evidence to piece together phylogenetic trees comes partly from the fossil record watching how our ancestors changed through over the history of life on earth
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 sorry that post is jumbled up its supposed to read:
that is the reason i pointed to gene duplication, and that is the only reason i ever mentioned anything about the genome growing because it looks like ur saying it cant.
and you asked me why i said it, thats why i told u why i said it
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 The problem with the fossil record is that we don't see change through intermediates. We see animals appearing abruptly and long periods of stasis with very minor changes through speciation and with no known transitions of major types. The Cambrian is a perfect example of multicellular phyla appearing globally in orders of magnitude with no known ancestors..............
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester so im trying to figure out what you think took place. are you saying that all the fossils arent ancestors to each other? that basically every organism that is very similar but not the same as other ones in different periods of time is a completely different and new one that formed by itself all over again?
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 It really is not so important what I say or think, its what the fossil record shows. J Gould a hardcore evolutionist said the same thirty years ago. The current notion is that fossils are hard to come by therefore incomplete but this is not true we have billions of fossils some as small as grains of rice & some as big as buses. How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? No one knows. Some have theories but there not very fruitful. Sometimes its OK to say we just don't know yet.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 What I am saying is that if they are ancestral there is no way to determine it without great leaps of imagination. Darwin said there should be a universe of transitional fossils. He said himself this was one of the biggest problems with his theory. There are some who claim a series of whale transitions or archeopteryx and maybe a half dozen more but when you read the literature there is no consensus and their all disputed and not agreed on. Type in problems with fossil record.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester if they arent ancestral than are you saying they went extinct? and then a few million years later a bunch of simiar animals sprung out of nowhere, and so on through the history of the earth?
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 I didn't create the fossil record but it indicates exactly that. Abrupt appearance followed by long stasis with limited change (speciation) & then mass extinction. There are more radiation events than the Cambrian. The abrupt appearance of Dinosaurs & mammal radiation periods. What evolutionist call gaps are really inconsistencies with the theory, this has been known for over a 100 years but its never discussed in class rooms. If you are critical of the theory you can be sued.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 I don't want to be accused of quote mining & even though J Gould said thirty years ago the Darwinian synthesis was essentially dead. I have to be honest and tell you he believed away to explain the absents of transitional was through his hypothesis of "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is still not excepted by a majority although many do. The problem is, it raises more questions than answers. Its very close to the "Hopeful monster theory" in my opinion. Research the 2 mentioned.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I've been interested to read many of your ideas. You seem to be very well informed and very calm also in your reasoning. I'll be contacting you soon with some questions and may even ask you what you think of some things I've written on this issue of creation vs. evolution.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Sure I'm always willing to reason, even though I've been called everything in the book for being critical, but I think all theories should be looked at critically.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester If there is one thing you have shown about your crusading denial of evolution is that the last thing you are willing to do is reason. You are not being criticical you are merely doing what the crdesign proponentists are doing and that is pretend to be something they are not.
You are not looking at evolution critically yu are doing everything you can to deny it despite it being accepted by those who take the due process of critical analysis seriously
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc cont...Massimo Pigliucci, Stuart Newman & 15 others of the Altenberg 16 summit have proposed the same relaxing of these assumptions based on current data and are trying to extending a new proposed synthesis as an extension of current synthesis which is limited, in spite of what you have been indoctrinated into beleiving. There are many other people to numerous to mention that also challenge the current synthesis. You may not like it but its true.
benthemiester 1 year ago
They SHOULD be extending syntheses, more data means the theory can be extended. Phycisists do it, chemists do it but when biologists suggest you immediately think that evolution, one of the strongest and most rigiousously tested theories in science today is crumbling around itself?
This is the sign of good science and a testament as to ID is not science in any way shape or form.
Honesty and ability to progress is a testament to everything you and the Dishonesty Institute are not
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I don't think you get it. What you call "one of the strongest and most rigiousously tested theories in science today" Is now being challenged. This is why Piglicucci has called for the relaxing of the assumptions made by the current theory. This is why Newman calls Dover a mistake on the part of those who have associated the current Darwinian theory with evolution when this may not be the case. This why the gene centered view is being challenged.......
benthemiester 1 year ago
@ProcInc If the theory were correct more data should be confirming it, not changing its structural foundation. Theories are confirmed by their powers of prediction concerning new data. If a theory does not have this principle it has to be discarded for on that does. Unfortunately the extended synthesis is based on epigenetics and even less is known about epigenetics than the current Darwinian theory. This is a testament to how new data has rocked the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester More data is confirming it. There are additions and little to nothing being taken away from it. Gravity is being far more radically uprooted than even the most tenuous aspects of evolution but the common ancestry all living things and diversity through reproduction with variation is beyond challenge now. Religious nuts and pseudoscientists have tried and all have failed.
The *foundations* of evolution have not been rocked, that is a wholly dishonest statement
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I don't think I have been dishonest by mentioning the names of the men who are challenging the current Darwinian paradigm. The list of dissenters has grown 8 fold in the last 9 years & many are atheist, agnostic & secular Jews. Some are very prominent. I did not make up this list of 800 and growing, nor did I make up the Altenberg 16 summit. I would bet that up until I told you, you probably never even heard of the new extended synthesis based on epigenetics as opposed to Darwinism.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« Some are very prominent. »
Nevertheless, many of them are very prominent lawyers, medical doctors, mathematicians, and so on. Very few of them have actually ever published any papers related to evolutionary biology.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« Altenberg 16 summit »
Which is yet to produce anything more tangible than "perhaps variation and selection is not all there is." Which, by the way, isn't all there is to evolutionary theory either.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@benthemiester The Current Darwinian paradigm or evolution?
Of course I knew about the new extended synthesis. In a video of mine over a year old I briefly discuss and cover. While much has been added to the evolutionary synthesis little or nothing has been taken away. That's why its 'extended'
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc The modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis ...The Darwinian synthesis is the current modern synthesis of evolution. I find it odd that your even asking a high school grade questions like this. I hate to keep repeating myself
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "The modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis"
What's your point? The extended synthesis still features all of the aspects of the neo-darwinian synthesis and merely adds more to it.
The only legitimate criticism of the darwinian synthesis is that it is a relative oversimplification.
It was rhetorical question pointing out evolution itself is not being challenged
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester And as you notice any changes that occur in evolutionary theory (which are relatively few and far between compared most other active scientists) only a more refined of evolutionary theory can challenge it and afterwards the theory is a stronger and more accurate version.
Evolution itself has no challenging theory and no data contradicts the fundamental foundations of evolution.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I've been very specific in the things that are being challenged. These are the foundations of evolutionary theory. If your interested in discussing general philosophy then maybe I'm not the person to converse with. I am more interested in point by point detail and so far you have ignored the more detailed points I have made. We have discovered new ways of describing the phenomena of gravitational theory but Newtons formulations remains unchanged and are still used to day in mechanics.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« Newtons formulations remains unchanged »
Newton's formulations are descriptive rather than explanatory. Newton did not publish any explanatory model for gravity. Moreover, his formulations were found to be inconsistent (to a degree) with actual observations, and supplanted by generalizations following from Einstein's relativity theory.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« I've been very specific in the things that are being challenged »
However that may be, there is still no challenging explanatory framefork for evolutionary theory. No testable explanatory model has been put forth that is able to take over the role of evolutionary theory in explaining biological diversity, nested hierarchies, and so on.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor I was speaking of physics of mechanics not quantum physics. I stand by my words that we still use Newtonian physics in our every day to day lives building planes, houses, roller coasters etc. Gen Relativity explains gravity on a quantum level. They don't contradict each other, they compliment each other.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Just answer the simple question. Has evolution itself described as common descent and descent with modification accounting for biodiversity been challenged fundamentally or is the mechanism being refined?
And is the refined mechanism a better version of evolution or Yahweh the mystery designer?
Because to challenge evolution with a refined version is far for complimentary than Einstein was to Newtonian mechanics
ProcInc 1 year ago
« Gen Relativity explains gravity on a quantum level »
No, not really. In fact, quantum mechanics is almost completely outside the scope of relativity theory. There is a competing framework of quantum gravity which may evenatually add to or even supplant relativity theory in this respect.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« Newtonian physics in our every day to day lives »
Sure, Newton's descriptive formulae of observations are accurate enough for everyday purposes - however, they are still *inconsistent* with actual observations. What is it Americans say? "Close, but no sigar."
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@benthemiester Haha you're kidding right?
You actually think that Newtonian physics has not been overturned? Perhaps you haven't heard of a little thing called special relativity, kind of a big deal in 20th century physics.
Anyway you have not been specific, you have been misleading. Its a very simple issue of you pretending that the challenge to "This is how things evolved" to "things evolved"
And macroevolution is testable, and verified
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Evolution itself has no challenging theory and no data contradicts the fundamental foundations of evolution" This the problem, no competing theory.
If simpler life gradually evolved to complex life,
then why are these men refuting gradualism as J Gould did 30 years ago? If gradualism is true how do you explain the Cambrian explosion. Please give me a detailed answer void of philosophy. Where did the ancestors of the Cambrian phyla come from? and where is the evidence?
benthemiester 1 year ago
« then why are these men refuting gradualism »
Gradualism is not being refuted. Saltation is, by both the classical model of evolution as well as the punctuated equilibrium model. All that is being refuted is that evolution works at a uniform rate. In stead, PE suggests a varying rate.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« and where is the evidence? »
Perhaps you should take some time to learn what pre-Cambrian fossils have been found so far, and what they suggest.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor Its interesting that Darwinist are always saying all scientist believe in the theory, but when its pointed out that many don't, all of a sudden their not qualified. The fact is most scientist in general have not written papers on evolutionary theory. I never said there wasn't life before Cambrian radiation event. We had prokaryotes and later Ediacaran fauna that goes extinct millions of years before event, but no one knows what the ancestors of this explosion in life came from.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« when its pointed out that many don't, all of a sudden their not qualified »
You don't go to a dermatologist for an opinion on lymph node cancer, and you don't go to a medical doctor for an opinion on mechanisms of genetic variability. Is it really that hard to understand this?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« I never said there wasn't life »
I did not ask you whether you thought any pre-Cambrian fossils had been found. My suggestion was that you spend some time finding out *what* fossils specifically had been dated before the Cambrian, and *what* these fossils suggested *specifically*.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@benthemiester "then why are these men refuting gradualism as J Gould did 30 years ago?"
Lol you are but one of many who misunderstands punctuated equilibrium. PE is visible only in the context of geological time. Its merely the observation from both fossil forms and breeding excercises that the rate of change is in flux in relation to climate stability and size of the population. How does punctuated equilibrium challenge evolution? It strengthens it
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc PE is a hypothesis not a fact, if it were, we should have been able to observe it through the history of man since it is supposed to happen rapidly. Darwin and Dawkin's believe that gradualism is the only thing that makes sense. I was reading about Gould before you were born. I know what PE is. The hopeful monster theory is very similar but PE sound nicer. It actually raises more questions than answers and not all except it.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« PE is a hypothesis not a fact »
Duh.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@ProcInc Before I got into the first minute of your video I couldn't help but notice some problems. You said life began to experiment but offer no proof, only assumptions. You say life began to diversify but you don't even know what the ancestors are to these Cambrian phyla, its just assumed. (bad science) Life did diversify after the Cambrian explosion but you made it sound like a clear transition from pre Cambrian life. This is very misleading.......
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "You said life began to experiment but offer no proof, only assumptions." The fossil forms themselves are experimentations, their outlandish body plans are very unspecialised.
And it is a clear transition and diversification from precambrian life. As Xgralgathor said you would do well to look into what Precambrian fossils have been found
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I have. You keep generalizing and cannot name even one confirmed ancestor to any of them. If you look at my threads I have named them and have been very specific. Even Dawkin's admits that there are no known ancestors of the complex Cambrian phyla. If you know of one then please cite your evidence. Jy chen naming institute of paleontology a geology States that Darwin's tree of life is upside down.
Zhou qui gin senior research fellow Changing Fauna agrees,
benthemiester 1 year ago
@ProcInc This what the encyclopedia Wikipedia has to say.....Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Ill will be waiting for you to cite your source that it has been overturned. Please no semantics or word games. Just cite your source.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« it has been overturned »
You are ignoring the fact that, while Newton's formulae are accurate enough for everyday purposes, they *are* inconsistent with observations, while generalizations from Einstein's RT are consistent with these same observations. This is fact, plain and simple. Newton was wrong. He wasn't wrong enough for it to matter in every day applications, but he was still wrong.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "You don't go to a dermatologist for an opinion on lymph node cancer, and you don't go to a medical doctor for an opinion on mechanisms of genetic variability. Is it really that hard to understand this?"
What are you talking about? I was speaking of the Dissent from Darwin list which is filled with scientist & scholars. There are many geneticist, biologist, biochemist and many others in the earth sciences fields. I don't believe there are any lawyers on the list.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« I was speaking of the Dissent from Darwin list which is filled with scientist & scholars »
Like I said: many of which are mathematicians, lawyers and medical doctors. Yes, there are lawyers in there.
« There are many geneticist, biologist, biochemist and many others in the earth sciences fields. »
Yes, there are. But relatively few of those on the list have ever published on a matter related to evolutionary sciences.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor If according to you the only ones who qualify to speak on this subject are evolutionary development biologist (evo devos) who write papers on evolution, then that excludes 99.8 percent of the broader scientific community, and since only a fraction of those papers are actually based on testable data. This means the theory is even more flimsy than most think. I think you shot your own theory in the foot.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« according to you the only ones who qualify to speak on this subject are evolutionary development biologist »
Actually, "evo devo" is a particular branch of evolutionary science, focusing on embriological development in light of what we know of genetics and evolution. Gene regulatory networks, HOX genes and so on.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« according to you the only ones who qualify to speak on this subject are evolutionary development biologist »
But, back to the point: no, I'm not excluding anybody because of their profession or background. I'd be okay with any person who's proven to have the necessary expertise, whether he or she has a diploma or not. Fact is, I can't tell whether a lawyer or mathematician has the necessary expertise. But a publication track record in related fields is a good measuring rod for expertise.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
From pre-existing organisms that were already complex and multicellular, No one has been able to make an association between Cambrian phyla & ediacara biota which goes extinct millions of years before Cambrian event. So please tell me who were these ancestors of Cambrian phyla? & how did you come to this conclusion? If your point is that complex life started from the beginning then I agree but this is not consistent with the simple to complex paradigm that makes up the theory.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« No one has been able to make an association between Cambrian phyla & ediacara biota »
That's not entirely true. There are associations, but they are controversial. It is indeed true that at this time there seems to be little material suggesting any specific ancestral relationships between known forms before and after the advent of the Cambrian.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« but this is not consistent with the simple to complex paradigm that makes up the theory. »
On the contrary, *that* is not the problem. pre-Cambrian fossils show that life was somewhat less complex before the advent of the new bodyplans in the Cambrian. The problem is this: we cannot establish any distinct phylogenies linking the Cambrian phyla to pre-existing lifeforms. At least, not with any kind of certitude.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor « it has been overturned »
This what the encyclopedia says. General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915. It is the current description of gravitation in modern physics.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor cont... It generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "If gradualism is true how do you explain the Cambrian explosion."
two things wrong with this. Gradualism is not something I support in the context of invariable rate in change, a minority of evolutionary biologists do.
secondly the Cambrian explosion took 5-30 million years.
The Cambrian Explosion can only be explained by evolution, no other explanation has been formulated. I made a video on the Cambrian Explosion if you want a detailed answer
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc There's no way of knowing how long the initial radiation event took. The Chinese are saying as little as 3 MY. One Chinese observer used the word genesis. In the geological time scale even 20 million years is a blink of an eye. This radiation event caused an explosion of multicellular complex creatures globally on orders of several magnitudes. This is one of Darwin's biggest obstacles and even he understood this. There seems to be a lack of critical thinking and a lot of hand waiving.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« This radiation event caused an explosion of multicellular complex creatures »
From pre-existing organisms that were already complex and multicellular, yes. The fossil evidence showing that such life already existed before the Cambrian "explosion" is undeniable. What is surprising about the Cambrian "explosion" is how many new *variations* it produced.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor I have cited my sources. Yet you and your friend say Newtons universal law has been overturned yet you cite no source. I challenge you also, and with out word games or semantics to cite any encyclopedia that states that Newtons law of gravity has been over turned. Again no semantics.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« Yet you and your friend say Newtons universal law has been overturned yet you cite no source »
It seems to me to be common knowledge that Newton's formula does not accurately describe the apparent motion of various celestial bodies. I'm not saying that Newton's formulae aren't useful anymore: they are. But they're also incorrect. The thing is, their incorrectness under non-relativistic circumstances is too small to notice. Which is why they're still widely used.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "Actually, "evo devo" is a particular branch of evolutionary science"
Yes I know, maybe you didn't read the thread carefully. Again evo devos who have published work make up only a very small fraction of scientist. This is something Darwinist never admit. That's why I brought up how hypocritical it was to say that all scientist believe in evolution. If a lay person who researches can understand the arguments and evidence or lack of, then scholars with PHD'S can also understand.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« Again evo devos who have published work make up only a very small fraction of scientist »
More pertinently, they're only a very small fraction of scientists dealing with matters related to evolution.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor Again evo devos who have published work make up only a very small fraction of scientist »
More pertinently, they're only a very small fraction of scientists dealing with matters related to evolution.
Yes yes and yes. We agree.
benthemiester 1 year ago
« We agree. »
And therefore in themselves not sufficient base for comparison. For a valid comparison, you'd have to include *all* scientists who publish papers related to evolutionary theory, all evolutionary biologists, palaeontologists, palaeobiologists, and so on; not just evo-devo's.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago