the entire National Academy of Sciences (amongst the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological origin) are all a part of the Evolution Conspiracy ..this vid is absurd bordering on farcical.. and this evolution denial movement is a tragic joke on the youth in the US who actually need an unfettered education.
the entire National Academy of Sciences (amongst the overwhelming ...
Has there ever been a case in the history of science where the majority of scientists "accepted" or went a long with a theory only to find out that they were in error?
Of course there has. What makes you so sure that this time is any different?
is it because your belief system is rooted in this bogus theory? Can you point to anything that is in error in this video? Please elaborate.
@owensphil The 1953 Miller Urey experiment (which is about Abiogenesis not evolution, we can stick to the "mud to man" premise regarding evolutions validity) .. Wells is deceitful as there has been more that 80 peer reviewed related research projects since. Abiogenesis is a very new and exciting field of study, great strides have been made far too much has been discovered for it to be dismissed. The MU 1953 was just a start.
@owensphil Well's deceitfully (the best description of his behavior) picks up on objections from research (decades old when there is literally thousands of new projects that provide further elaborate proofs).The big question is why bother nitpicking against a large and successful (as in useful and applicable) theory? Is there other science which is objectionable? Well's articles (on his DI funded "research") are poorly received (little or no merit). He is a man on a mission.. to lie for jesus.
@owensphil The greater majority of scientists "accept" evolution because it works.. literally.. Evolution is the well established foundation to all life sciences.. without it whole fields of biology, genetics to ecology can't exist.. Further to.. fields of research in medicine and biotechnology can (and do) depend on it... as does the entire field of Industrial Paleontology (e.g. mining).. Yeah, evolution is accepted.. because it works.
@owensphil The Darwin's tree of life was an early representation of common ancestry.(he was an early theorist remember). the cladogenetic tree, based upon new knowledge, primarily genetics) best represents evolutionary splitting events in a species in which each branch and its smaller branches forms a "clade", an evolutionary mechanism and a process of adaptive evolution. His attack on a text book is misleading and deceitful. (I posted more on Wells elsewhere).
All one needs to understand is that Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method because Macro Evolution cannot be duplicated or predicted, which is the most basic requirement of science.
I fell for the Macro Evolution bullshit just like I fell for the Holocaust Lies and the 9/11 Lies.
I found this on Wiki. Number 5 and 6 are relevant here.
To evaluate the authority's reliability, you must answer to the 6 standards of acceptance: Has the authority been identified? Is their area of expertise legitimate? Does the authority have sufficient expertise in the subject at hand? Is the claim made by the authority within their area(s) of expertise? Is there sufficient agreement among the other experts in the subject? Is the authority significantly biased?
@simpsonmark By who's authority do we base the validity of his authority on? another man with another opinion? Peer Review? Please...... Peer Review is no more or less, being a member of the water buffalo club. It means nothing moe thanyou agree with those with the power an authority to the point where they let you speak your mind...and only because it agrees with their mindset. Completely biased, pointless and of no consequence. what matters is can it tested, repeated and observed
@3gdosrsfs interesting.. do you have issues with all scientific research? or just that research that you find objectionable (supposedly for religious reasons..)
Its stunning, there is a PHD Biologist in this video (brilliant man by the way) clearly stating for everyone.....how and why the religion of evolutionism is false, and yet brainwashed evo-zealots (like some YT users leaving comments below) cant comprehend the pro-science/anti-evo nonsense that is being eloquently spoken above.
Evolutionism = making stupid people feel smart for over 150 years
@DisprovingEvolution you are still hanging around? wow.. you denial is indeed an issue..if you habitually state the idiotic and the unfounded (and ignore volumes of research) and practical uses of a particular theory that (in particular) grinds against your religious belief.. that constitutes denial .. the good news is ... it is probably treatable...
@gregrutz Wells is not much of an authority.. of anything... he did get a PhD.. with the express mission to destroy "Darwinism" a driven SOB he is... authoritative.. (even as a fallacy) he is not...
Evolutionist dogma and brainwashing has turned the children of the industrialized world into a bunch of ignorant sheep that lack critical thinking skills and genuine scientific understanding.
Darwin, who didnt even have a degree in Biology was a Freemason that purposely corrupted society with his long term propaganda of unobserved naturalistic creation and absurdity.
Essentially he believed in divine nature. "Nature did it" is not a coherent scientific argument. Such hypocrisy.
@buffboynick Religion has turned the children into a bunch of ignorant sheep that lack critical thinking skills and genuine scientific understanding.
Darwin studied in the ministry and believe God made everything but also that animals and plants evolved over time.
How does a rock know which way to fall? "Nature [a force of nature, gravity] did it" is a perfectly good answer.
Why is it that disiples for Darwin always try and claim that people who disagree with the bogus theory of evolution don't understand it? I find that more times than not it is they who don't know the science behind their own belief.
There is nothing to "understand" about evolution, that's like saying "you dont understand flat eart theory"
No one should make an effort to understand evo-RELIGION because its NOT science.
Also, there are no "dinosaurs" with feathers. Archaeopteryx was proven to be a BIRD by Chinese scientists. Try to keep up with REAL science there "evo-believer"
Also, UNLIKE DARWIN (who had no degree in Biology). Dr. Wells is a PHD-level Biologist.
@evoTARDSareINSANE The fact that you think it is a religion show how uneducated you are and that you don't understand it and have never seen the evidence supporting evolution.
Chinese scientist have found more than 20 dinosaur fossils with feathers. Birds don't have teeth, these do.
@gregrutz ignore evoTARDSareINSANE, he has several identities.. and wears a tinfoil hat while posting (to shield his brain from such influences as electromagnetic fields and free masonry)..
@evoTARDSareINSANE and the better than one hundred thousand scientists (of every kind) that have validated his findings in peer reviewed research since Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"? Please write a position paper explaining why evolution is not science.. and Wells took his second PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology UC Berkeley, (the first was in Religious Studies Yale, 1985) with the sole purpose of "debunking evolution". (cont)
You do realize that there are THOUSANDS of Biologists and Geneticists that do NOT believe in the MYTH of evolution right?
Dr. Jonanthan Wells, Dr. Paul Nelson, Dr. Rick Oliver, Dr. David Menton, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Ann Gauger, Dr. Ian Macreadie, Dr. Gordon C. Mills, and MANY MANY more.
Your incoherent argument is irrelevant because many atheists got degrees in Biology just to confirm their pre-conceived "beliefs" in the evolution MYTH__FACT
@evoTARDSareINSANE and none of these thousands of august researchers (why did you have to add Behe? anyway) has put up an formal (as is published) peer reviewed argument that is cohesive and compelling enough to have made any discernible impact. I suppose that this is where your conspiracy theory kicks in.. scientific theories are accepted because they work (can be applied) and predict.. (and your alternative is?)
Actually Link 10 on my channel has all the PEER-Reviewed Scientific Journals supporting ID and refuting the mindless religion of evolutionism
Journals from Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Gordon C. Mills, and Dr. Michael Behe. Behe is a "theistic evolutionist" which means he thinks God is guiding evolution. As listed on his Wikipedia page, Behe is an ID supporter (just not as strict as the others listed)
@evoTARDSareINSANE got schooled, actually quite a bit (I teach) . (you are one obsessed SOB, that is for sure).. nice list.. you are kidding (right?) do you actually know how much research supports evolution? The "discovery" list is infamous and does not need further debunking.. playing youtube tag with the intellectually dishonest (i.e. creationists) is like playing chess with the proverbial pigeon..
@evoTARDSareINSANE Mr Tsk Tsk, you are a betting man.. after all you chose 1 of over 3000 gods to assure your way to heaven (lets call him/her/it the Designer God.. he actually has a logo..no?) Let's wager that if I can identify any modern product or services that is or was dependent upon the theory of evolution that you would stop using that product of service.. (we can make this consequential even.. that would make it worth while..) how about it?
@daNDayati instead of insulting him, why not use fact and clear science( not speculation, thoery and hope) to prove otherwise. I'll tell you why.....you can't
because there is no evolutionary theory that can be tested, repeated and observed.
if there were, you would have presented that instead of your ad hom attacks and insults which is the only form of rebutle any arm chair scientist like you can ever hope to present because you do not have ANY science what so ever to help you out.
@3gdosrsfs I am not an arm chair scientist, more an office user.. how about clear economics? evolution is used in an industrial setting to predict outcome and corporations and people of considerable responsibility invest into these processes. The research is well founded and the outcome can (and is) indeed be repeated successfully. Society benefits (and so do you).. but let's make this consequential.. (we can even do a fact check).. these expenditures are on public record. evolution works.
@evoTARDSareINSANE If you are game for the consequential wager... we can set the rules.. and make the wager interesting... (Like one of the two of us doing a youtube acknowledgement that we were wrong) .. come on... versus the gratuitous crap you are spewing.. make it worthwhile...
Respond to this video... “Father’s [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.” –Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
Did he really bring up Heackel's embryos? *facepalm* That hasn't been taught in biology textbooks for decades and every biologist spurns it due to the dishonesty of Haeckel. We don't use it for evidence...get that through your skull. Using that as evidence against evolution is known as "playing pretend"
@owensphil You're cute. 3 points. 1: Yes Haeckel was dishonest and his conclusions are inaccurate. However, Haeckel is an important figure in biology. Just as Freud is in psychology. No one today believes Freud, but he is an important figure to learn about. Same with Haeckel
2: His drawings can still be used as a teaching aid to learn about embryos, NOT his conclusions. Even his most strident critic Michael Richardson, agrees.
3. You clearly just went to Discovery(.)org. Get your own conclusions
@owensphil Haeckel is basically the William James of Biology. He discovered and named thousands of species and coined the terms ecology and stem cell. Plus his embryos are so infamous that they require being known about
Since you're going to discuss Hackel and his embryos, it makes sense to combine Haeckel and the learning of embryos. Psych does the same with Freud. Plus, as Richardson agrees "Haeckel was generally right" in his depiction of embryos especially considering the technology he had.
Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003), pg. 100:
Only after complaints to the Texas State Board of Education about this reuse of Haeckel's inaccurate drawings did the publisher eventually agree to remove them from this textbook
William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999), pg. 583: Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001), pg. 372: Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 223:
. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 283:
Wiki him up, this guy also has a PH.D for religious studies and he's an advocate for Intelligent Design and grew up as a Protestant Christian.. So much for credibility. Anyone can step into a classroom and earn degrees/PH.Ds but these are only qualifications. Your credibility as a scientist is a direct result from your reputation. What a biased interview, this video could even be named as 'Intelligent design interview'.
So?? His PH.D in molecular and cell boiolgy is what´s relevant here. Do you think Berkly cared about any of the nonsense you mentioned when awarding him his PH.D?
> Anyone can step into a classroom and earn degrees/PH.Ds
Really? Any of us ? In molecular and cell biology? I´m sure after reading your post people will run out in droves to pick one up. What´s your Ph.D in by the way?
Why don't you instead, considering you seem to believe it so completely. Go on, give us the predictions. While you are at it, why don't you rigorously define the term evolution. No sneaky stuff.
You should familiarize yourself with the concept of "conflict of interest."
...Particularly as it applies to Wells, who's gone on-record to say he is a Christian first, scientist second. He could have all the credentials in the world, but they mean little when one gives priority to their own theology.
@owensphil And what Universities did he teach at? And even better how many papers did he get published? And even better, what was his motivation for attending university in the first place? This is well know and it betrays the integrity of everything this hack writes.
This guy doesn't even know what the fuck evolution is. He is a disgrace to having a PhD in molecular biology degree. Honestly how the fuck did he get a PhD being a fraud all his life
" He doesn't accept his own science. That is his problem"
Biology is not all about evolution. Science would be just fine without the bogus theory of evolution.
Millions of scientists accept the theory of evolution but not because they can demonstrate it to be true but rather because that is what they were trained to accept.
@owensphil Biology is majorly about evolution. Why do you think there are so many proponents for evolution? Its people who have taken higher level genetics classes and bio classes. Hence richard dawkin's degree. "Evolutionary biology". Based around evolutionary science in genetics, fruit flies, rats, humans, genomes of animals and how they relate to their children and to their ancestors. Its blantantly obvious that genetic change over time contributes to change in traits.
@owensphil If you want some clearcut examples, think of bacteria that learn to live through antibacterial medicines. These bacteria have natural mutations in their genetics that code for blocking chemicals that kill them. Have you noticed that humans are different? Black White? Big nose, small nose and that these traits are inherited? Think about the differences of people if they lived on different continents over millions of years. We'd probably not be able to breed with each other anymore
@owensphil Do you notice that there was no teacup dogs back in the day and that we've actually bred them to be smaller and smaller? That's EVOLUTION. Right in our faces over hundreds of years of generations... It takes hundreds of thousands of years to have new species that aren't breedable of course due to genetic mutations and differences. We call animals that cannot breed different species to put it in a simple way. Biology is almost all based on evolution. one field not would be physiology
@owensphil That is why he is a failure. Look up "mutation" on wikipedia. You'll get the run down. People that are uneducated tend to trust holy books rather than actual evidence. REGARDLESS of their religion. That goes for all of the 4300 religions. including yours
@owensphil 1) You tell us then what biology really ís all about? Oh right, the bearded guy with the lightning bolts...
2)It's the other way round: the theory of evolution is just fine with or without bogus scientists. There are thousands of islamic scientists who won't accept evolution because their faith tells otherwise. Who cares?
3) A scientific education is about being trained to think, not to accept. You have a very grim and degrading view on the capabilities of the human mind.
@owensphil It's not what you know, it's what you can test in the lab.
The central principles of intelligent design don't lend themselves to experimental test.
Furthermore, note that he received his second Ph.D at the behest of Sun Myung Moon with the aim of "destroying Darwinism." He could have all the credentials in the world, but this presents an undeniable conflict of interest with his advocacy.
... bilayers formed from GPAT and LPAAT acyl transferases, phosphatase and choline phosphotransferase), it's dependent on mechanisms that are entirely different to Darwinian evolution.
Thus for Darwinian evolution to be proved, it doesn't matter AT ALL what the origin of life was. Even if an invisible magic man in the sky made life by waving his magic wand, it doesn't effect Darwinian evolution (aka "evolution" as everyone understands it) in any way shape or form.
1. Abiogenesis, which is what is being studied in the Miller-Urey experiment, has absolutely *nothing* to do with the theory of evolution and Darwinism. All evolution is saying is: "change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits." The origin of life is irrelevant to this mechanism.
Also embryology is one of the greatest arguments for Darwinism, I mean the human embryo has a fucking tail and looks like a dog embryo for god's sake.
God I hate people like you who know absolutely nothing yet are so militant in their beliefs.
Evolution "is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits." It is zero, nothing, nada, kaputka, nein, to do with the origin of life.
You are talking to a Dr in biology here. If you bother to go to university and learn the subject you will learn this on your first day. In fact I learned it in grade 10.
Nick Matzke has a fine summary of progress in research into abiogenesis. He chastises those people who try to argue that abiogenesis is independent of evolution, or that you can get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution. It is! I've said it myself, and I really wish people would stop trying weasel out of that question by punting it off to some other discipline.
This is like trying to teach a brick wall astro-physics, the brick wall just wants to be a brick.
I am completely wasting my precious time trying to teach a very very very very very very VERY basic fact of modern biology to a crazy evangelical who thinks he knows more about the topic than a PhD graduate in the subject.
Have you EVER studied biology? Have you EVER even been to university?!
Why are you talking about a subject you have NO idea about?!?!
For some reason you seem to be stuck on STUPID or you're just being willfuly IGNORANT. I've mentioned CHEMICAL EVOLUTION several times now and each time you avoid it like the plague. Is it because you know it has everything to do with the origin of life? Let's suppose though we start with your GIVEN that somehow we just have life. The precusor to this would either have to involve design or evolution. You just can't just shut your eyes and repeat abiogenesis. THINK!
I just told you that chemical evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. It is a term used to describe the generation of oligonucleotides and complex organic molecules, not life-forms. Get it through your head.
99% of scientists don't even use the term "chemical evolution", that's just something you're pulled up from wikipedia, for the exact fact that IDIOTS liker yourself get confused.
@SuperAntiZionist (cont) Scientific interest in cellular evolution started to pick up once the universal phylogenetic tree, the framework within which the problem had to be addressed, was determined . But it was not until microbial genomics arrived on the scene that biologists could actually do much about the problem of cellular evolution." (Carl Woese, 2002)
"The evolution of modern cells is arguably the most challenging and important problem the field of Biology has ever faced. In Darwin's day the problem could hardly be imagined. For much of the 20th century it was intractable. In any case, the problem lay buried in the catch-all rubric "origin of life"---where, because it is a biological not a (bio)chemical problem, it was effectively ignored.
Thus abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are completely separate branches of science. The theory of Darwinian evolution (widely known as "evolutionary theory) doesn't lay ANY claim what-so-ever to the origin of life; it's ENTIRELY mutually exclusive to what-ever that might entail.
You can play as many semantic word games as you want, you can even claim that "inorganic non-living planets evolve", but all you're doing by that is needlessly compounding your own confusion!
99% of scientists don't even use the term "chemical evolution", that's just something you're pulled up from wikipedia"
Dean Kenyon – Professor of Biology at San Francisco State university, on of the leading chemical evolutionary theorist in the world. He wrote “Biochemical Predestination - which became the best selling text on the theory of chemical evolution for 20 years.
I will give you a task to do: go to Wikipedia, and type in "chemical evolution".
You will see this come up:
"Chemical evolution may refer to:
Nucleosynthesis:
Abiogenesis:
Molecular evolution:"
See, not even WIKIPEDIA fucking uses that word. WHY? Because uneducated dim-bats like yourself will get confused and think it has something to do with Darwinian evolution, which of course it doesn't!
"I will give you a task to do: go to Wikipedia, and type in "chemical evolution"."
Again, you're an idiot! I posted this already to show that abiogenesis is part of chemical evolution. Seriously you can't be this dumb!
"has something to do with Darwinian evolution, which of course it doesn't!"
Fool we all can see that now you're specifying Darwinian evolution as oppose to just evolution which is what you were intially claiming. Did you even finish high school?
Once again you clearly do not understand what Darwinian evolution is; for Darwinian evolution (which normal people & scientists equate 'evolution' to mean) to even work, you need environmental mechanisms like natural selection, genetic drift, co-evolution, gene flow, etc.
What you are calling "chemical evolution" (abiogenesis) is only the formation of complex organic matter (cell walls made of cellulose, microfilaments made of polymerization of actin, phospho-lipid (cont'd)
"It is zero, nothing, nada, kaputka, nein, to do with the origin of life."
"You are talking to a Dr in biology here. If you bother to go to university and learn the subject you will learn this on your first day. In fact I learned it in grade 10."
Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers (born March 9, 1957) is an American biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM)
Looks like this guy didn't learn it in grade 10 either.
"As if evolution and evolutionary theory were not already confusing enough, many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. It's a Myth that Abiogenesis is the Same as Evolution" - About . com.
"Abiogenesis is not the same as biological evolution and it certainly isn't the same as "Darwinian evolution."" - Uni. Toronto Biomed Department.
Cells are the smallest unit of life, many species are uni-cellular; "the evolution of cells" is talking about Darwinian evolution, not abiogenesis!
See this is why I'm wasting my time here, you DON'T even understand what Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis ARE!
Abiogenesis is the formation of organic material capable of life from inorganic molecules, NOT the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits.
"Cells are the smallest unit of life, many species are uni-cellular; "the evolution of cells" is talking about Darwinian evolution, not abiogenesis!"
As well as the evolution of DNA within the cell and all of the other components?
Exactly then where does chemical evolution (abiogenesis) stop and Biological/Darwininian evolution begin?
I've come to the realization that you indeed have absolutely NO concern what-so-ever what about learning science or what the truth is, your only concern is trying to construe facts about Darwinism to try and justify a Bronze-Age fairytale to yourself.
I will no longer be replying to you other than copy-paste, since it's clear you are not here to learn, but rather pester and waste my precious time.
"Survival of the fittest" as a mechanism of natural selection is no longer working on populations, because we now live under systems of law and order.
And despite what you may think, "fitness" does not mean brute strength, but rather what allowed humans to dominate is co-operation, intelligence and empathy, for example.
Oh so you are a fan of Kent Hovind? How did I guess....!
I could tell you were because your total lack of knowledge about science coupled with an insistence that you actually know something is one of the symptoms of watching Kent Hovind and actually taking him seriously..
"Oh so you are a fan of Kent Hovind? How did I guess....!"
Everything that Hovind says may not be correct but a lot is. Most things that evolutionists say are incorrect yet you have no problem with that. Instead of banking on Hovind negative reputation amongst Darwinian sheep, why not point out anything that he says that you have a problem with? With all the errors Hovinid may make, I'm willing to bet his scientific knowledge far exeeds yours.
"See this is why I'm wasting my time here, you DON'T even understand what Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis ARE!"
You're very careful now not to simply say evolution. At least your learning.
"Abiogenesis is the formation of organic material capable of life from inorganic molecules, NOT the change over time in the proportion of individual....."
No one is arguing that. However, evolution i.e Chemical evolution DOES deal with the origin of life.
"The beginning of life is NOT the subject of evolution, THAT'S abiogenesis. Not knowing how life started is as important to evolution as not knowing how matter was created is to newtonian physics." - Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Arizona State University Origins Project.
Nick Matzke has a fine summary of progress in research into abiogenesis. He chastises those people who try to argue that abiogenesis is independent of evolution, or that you can get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution. It is! I've said it myself, and I really wish people would stop trying weasel out of that question by punting it off to some other discipline.
So I suggest you bother (at least) to buy a textbook off Amazon and read it before going online and arguing with people about it! Surely that is logical, even to you?
Many people falsely believe that evolution if a simple topic and that you don't need any reading or education on the subject to have an opinion on it, but nothing could be further from the truth. It takes at least a couple of years of study to grasp the basics fully, and a life-time to perfect your knowledge of it.
I'm a tutor and former lecturer which shows you know absolutely nothing about my life or education. I haven't been a "student" for 7 years! Although as they say: "you're a student for life", especially if you're in the field I'm in.
Who is this "Karl" person, and why do you have such a fascination with him??
Chemical Evolution: Origin Of Life Proceedings of First Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life Trieste, Italy October 1992 Edited by Professor Cyril Ponnamperuma and Professor Julian Chela-Flores You would think they'd consult you first eh?
Re: "The Planetary Biology Program is chartered to investigate the origin and evolution of life."
I want you to read that sentence carefully, word by word. Notice that they say "origin and evolution of life", not just "evolution of life"; they are two completely separate mechanisms.
"Notice that they say "origin and evolution of life", not just "evolution of life"; they are two completely separate mechanisms."
Just as with micro evolution amd macroevolution. Yet I'm sure you'd want to argue that microevolution leads to macroevolution. When they discuss the evolution of DNA and the evolution of the cell, they're still talking about evolution. So your origina claim that abiogenesis/chemical evolution is indepent of evolution is clearly debunked!
Hahhaah, I just looked up that "Dean Kenyon – Professor of Biology at San Francisco State university" and found out that he is a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST!!!
Of course a young earth creationist is going to bloody use terms that try to detract from the true understanding of evolution.
"The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology." - talkorigins . org
@owensphil I will quote this again because you clearly are struggling to wrap your head around this simple concept, which even a grade 2 year old would be able to deal with:
"The beginning of life is NOT the subject of evolution, THAT'S abiogenesis. Not knowing how life started is as important to evolution as not knowing how matter was created is to newtonian physics." - Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Arizona State University Origins Project.
"Biological evolution and abiogenesis are distinct branches of science." - Barend Vlaardingerbroek, 'Abiogenesis in Upper Secondary Biology Curricula,' Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(3), 432-435.
"because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed, regardless of its origin."
"Biological evolution and abiogenesis are distinct branches of science."
The term abiogenesis simply means getting life from non-life and is used both for spontaneous generation and for chemical evolution. Abiogenesis forms part of organic and chemical evolution.
Look these two terms up "organic evolution" "chemical evolution" and see what you come up with.
See if the origin of life is mention in explaining the two concepts.
Before you post another stupid copy-and-paste about a subject you have no idea of, do these things first:
1. E-mail a professor at a university and ask: "Is abiogenesis evolution?" and "is Darwinism the same as Lamarckism," and you will get the EXACT same answer as I have given you, and the prof will probably also call you a moron & tell you to read a book.
2. Actually read a book on Darwinism, evolution, and Lamerkism.
3. Enrol at university and LEARN, so you won't talk rubbish.
That second quote was from by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D; 'The Scientific Case for Common Descent'.
"the beginning of life is not the subject of evolution, thats abiogenesis. Not knowing how life started is as important to evolution as not knowing how matter was created is to newtonian physics." - Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Arizona State University Origins Project.
Now are you beginning to understand why your claim that "evolution is abiogenesis" is retarded!?
If life on earth has not evolved from a common ancestor, why does radio dating show an old age measuring fossils of simple organisms and a "younger" age for more complex ones?
The fossil evidence does not show this tree pattern? Major groups of animals appeared much at the same time? Proof? examples?
Archaeopterix: Birds have switched off genes for teeth and scales
The beaks ocillate back and forth and don't go anywhere?
Wells is a biologist with 2 degrees, but he doesn't do any science to prove his opinions. He takes outdated examples and expects us to think this invalidates all evolution. Only one without a science background would fall for his faulty arguments. Haeckel hasn't been in textbooks in the way Wells implies for over 30 years. Peppered moth staged pictures doesn't invalidate moths resting on soot covered walls. Fruit flies being modified was not done to try to make new species, only gene function.
@owensphil - "Wrong again, do you ever know what you're talking about before just making dumb false claims?"
What science has Wells done recently? He has no recent citations in PubMed.
"document aand elaborate"
The moths landed on buildings: the original paper says as much. The soot covered walls hid the dark moths. Besides, this is only a variation within a species, so it is not a theory that creationists deny, anyway.
@owensphil - "Besides as a rule professors, and scientists must publish."
Books written for the general public are not considered academic publications. The are included in published works, but by no means do they have the same academic credibility as a peer-reviewed article in a major science journal. That should be obvious, but since you do not work in science, you may not be aware of that fact.
One way of distinguishing these books from those published by more commercial houses is to search Publishers' Catalogues online. Frequently, major publishing houses will provide separate names for their scholarly publishing operations and will provide a statement of their publishing philosophy somewhere on their Web site.
Do you understand now or should I instruct you on the matter further?
@owensphil - "will provide separate names for their scholarly publishing operations ... or should I instruct you on the matter further?"
You'll instruct me? This still does not involve peer-review. Journal articles are refereed (ie peer-reviewed), books are edited. The process is different. The author of a popular science book may have a colleague critique their book prior to publication. Peer-review is an anonymous process; the author never knows who or how many reviewed their article.
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
Now pay attention!
Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.
@owensphil - "The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists."
LOL, you just don't give up. Can you show me a reference for that? Simon & Schuster do not have a peer-review team. Who peer-reviewed it?
"...several prominent biochemists and biological scientists."
Any of them not connected to the Discovery Institute? You just make this stuff up, don't you?
"LOL, you just don't give up. Can you show me a reference for that? Simon & Schuster do not have a peer-review team. Who peer-reviewed it?"
Read again, slower this time.
THOUGH this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press,(pause, pause, pause,) the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists
Okay, but read: "Darwin's Black Box" on Wikipedia under "Peer review controversy". I would point you to the transcript of the Dover trial, but it is hard to find, & Wikipedia gives more information. Behe, like most creationists who dabble in science, is a liar. Again, I ask: "Who peer-reviewed it?"
"Who peer-reviewed it?" "Any of them not connected to the Discovery Institute?"
You mean as opposed to anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor who have a known bias against anything that goes against the bogus theory of evolution? Is your point, that these reviewers are known to be non - biased. We know that's a lie. Is your point that these anonymous reviewers have higher scientific degrees? That'd be another lie.
@owensphil - "Is your point that these anonymous reviewers have higher scientific degrees?"
No, I just could not think why anyone would peer-review "Darwin's Black Box". It has no empirical evidence for the hypotheses it makes. Any honest peer-reviewer would reject it on this alone; not because it is written by a creationist, but because it does not prove what it says. There is no conspiracy against Intelligent Design. ID refutes itself by being dishonest. Checkmate, buddy.
@owensphil - "Kenneth Miller would disagree with you on that."
Quote mining, again. Doesn't context mean anything to you?
This is a waste of my time. When you start saying that it was peer-reviewed, and use rejection as proof of this, really shows me how dishonest creationists can be. This should be a real blow to the credibility of the contents of the book. Somehow, you seem to think that adverse publicity is a good thing. That is just incredible.
Comment removed
daNDayati 2 months ago
the entire National Academy of Sciences (amongst the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological origin) are all a part of the Evolution Conspiracy ..this vid is absurd bordering on farcical.. and this evolution denial movement is a tragic joke on the youth in the US who actually need an unfettered education.
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati
the entire National Academy of Sciences (amongst the overwhelming ...
Has there ever been a case in the history of science where the majority of scientists "accepted" or went a long with a theory only to find out that they were in error?
Of course there has. What makes you so sure that this time is any different?
is it because your belief system is rooted in this bogus theory? Can you point to anything that is in error in this video? Please elaborate.
owensphil 2 months ago
Comment removed
daNDayati 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil The 1953 Miller Urey experiment (which is about Abiogenesis not evolution, we can stick to the "mud to man" premise regarding evolutions validity) .. Wells is deceitful as there has been more that 80 peer reviewed related research projects since. Abiogenesis is a very new and exciting field of study, great strides have been made far too much has been discovered for it to be dismissed. The MU 1953 was just a start.
daNDayati 2 months ago
@owensphil Well's deceitfully (the best description of his behavior) picks up on objections from research (decades old when there is literally thousands of new projects that provide further elaborate proofs).The big question is why bother nitpicking against a large and successful (as in useful and applicable) theory? Is there other science which is objectionable? Well's articles (on his DI funded "research") are poorly received (little or no merit). He is a man on a mission.. to lie for jesus.
daNDayati 2 months ago
@owensphil The greater majority of scientists "accept" evolution because it works.. literally.. Evolution is the well established foundation to all life sciences.. without it whole fields of biology, genetics to ecology can't exist.. Further to.. fields of research in medicine and biotechnology can (and do) depend on it... as does the entire field of Industrial Paleontology (e.g. mining).. Yeah, evolution is accepted.. because it works.
daNDayati 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil The Darwin's tree of life was an early representation of common ancestry.(he was an early theorist remember). the cladogenetic tree, based upon new knowledge, primarily genetics) best represents evolutionary splitting events in a species in which each branch and its smaller branches forms a "clade", an evolutionary mechanism and a process of adaptive evolution. His attack on a text book is misleading and deceitful. (I posted more on Wells elsewhere).
daNDayati 2 months ago
All one needs to understand is that Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method because Macro Evolution cannot be duplicated or predicted, which is the most basic requirement of science.
I fell for the Macro Evolution bullshit just like I fell for the Holocaust Lies and the 9/11 Lies.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
the fruit fly with the extra wings is a dead end but not all fruit flies. The fruit fly is not a finished product.
simpsonmark 2 months ago
Is this man really saying that we are not animals?
simpsonmark 2 months ago
So what if the fruit fly with extra wings is an evolutionary dead end. Many mutations are not beneficial.
simpsonmark 2 months ago
Is the authority significantly biased? Well, is he?
simpsonmark 2 months ago
I found this on Wiki. Number 5 and 6 are relevant here.
To evaluate the authority's reliability, you must answer to the 6 standards of acceptance: Has the authority been identified? Is their area of expertise legitimate? Does the authority have sufficient expertise in the subject at hand? Is the claim made by the authority within their area(s) of expertise? Is there sufficient agreement among the other experts in the subject? Is the authority significantly biased?
simpsonmark 2 months ago
@simpsonmark By who's authority do we base the validity of his authority on? another man with another opinion? Peer Review? Please...... Peer Review is no more or less, being a member of the water buffalo club. It means nothing moe thanyou agree with those with the power an authority to the point where they let you speak your mind...and only because it agrees with their mindset. Completely biased, pointless and of no consequence. what matters is can it tested, repeated and observed
3gdosrsfs 2 months ago
@3gdosrsfs interesting.. do you have issues with all scientific research? or just that research that you find objectionable (supposedly for religious reasons..)
daNDayati 2 months ago
Disliked
drowninginferno 3 months ago
Its stunning, there is a PHD Biologist in this video (brilliant man by the way) clearly stating for everyone.....how and why the religion of evolutionism is false, and yet brainwashed evo-zealots (like some YT users leaving comments below) cant comprehend the pro-science/anti-evo nonsense that is being eloquently spoken above.
Evolutionism = making stupid people feel smart for over 150 years
DisprovingEvolution 3 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution you are still hanging around? wow.. you denial is indeed an issue..if you habitually state the idiotic and the unfounded (and ignore volumes of research) and practical uses of a particular theory that (in particular) grinds against your religious belief.. that constitutes denial .. the good news is ... it is probably treatable...
daNDayati 2 months ago
Wells has a degree, blah blah blah....Argument from Authority.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Wells is not much of an authority.. of anything... he did get a PhD.. with the express mission to destroy "Darwinism" a driven SOB he is... authoritative.. (even as a fallacy) he is not...
daNDayati 3 months ago
Evolutionist dogma and brainwashing has turned the children of the industrialized world into a bunch of ignorant sheep that lack critical thinking skills and genuine scientific understanding.
Darwin, who didnt even have a degree in Biology was a Freemason that purposely corrupted society with his long term propaganda of unobserved naturalistic creation and absurdity.
Essentially he believed in divine nature. "Nature did it" is not a coherent scientific argument. Such hypocrisy.
buffboynick 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick Religion has turned the children into a bunch of ignorant sheep that lack critical thinking skills and genuine scientific understanding.
Darwin studied in the ministry and believe God made everything but also that animals and plants evolved over time.
How does a rock know which way to fall? "Nature [a force of nature, gravity] did it" is a perfectly good answer.
gregrutz 3 months ago
Evolutionism is such nonsense. Good to see biologists like Wells that actually support REAL science and not Darwinian nonsense.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE You don't understand evolution, how can you say it is nonsense.? Explain dinosaurs with feathers.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz
>You don't understand evolution,
Why is it that disiples for Darwin always try and claim that people who disagree with the bogus theory of evolution don't understand it? I find that more times than not it is they who don't know the science behind their own belief.
owensphil 3 months ago
@owensphil IF you understood the evidence for evolution you would not call it a ''belief''
IF creationists understood evolution they would not attack it with so many strawman arguments
:random chance, math, 2nd Law, mutations, micro evolution, why are there still monkeys?
Just explain feathers on dinosaurs 80 million years ago, what is your theory?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz
and you dont understand intelligent design
There is nothing to "understand" about evolution, that's like saying "you dont understand flat eart theory"
No one should make an effort to understand evo-RELIGION because its NOT science.
Also, there are no "dinosaurs" with feathers. Archaeopteryx was proven to be a BIRD by Chinese scientists. Try to keep up with REAL science there "evo-believer"
Also, UNLIKE DARWIN (who had no degree in Biology). Dr. Wells is a PHD-level Biologist.
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evoTARDSareINSANE The fact that you think it is a religion show how uneducated you are and that you don't understand it and have never seen the evidence supporting evolution.
Chinese scientist have found more than 20 dinosaur fossils with feathers. Birds don't have teeth, these do.
Darwin is famous, Wells lost in court.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz ignore evoTARDSareINSANE, he has several identities.. and wears a tinfoil hat while posting (to shield his brain from such influences as electromagnetic fields and free masonry)..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE and the better than one hundred thousand scientists (of every kind) that have validated his findings in peer reviewed research since Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"? Please write a position paper explaining why evolution is not science.. and Wells took his second PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology UC Berkeley, (the first was in Religious Studies Yale, 1985) with the sole purpose of "debunking evolution". (cont)
daNDayati 3 months ago
@daNDayati
You do realize that there are THOUSANDS of Biologists and Geneticists that do NOT believe in the MYTH of evolution right?
Dr. Jonanthan Wells, Dr. Paul Nelson, Dr. Rick Oliver, Dr. David Menton, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Ann Gauger, Dr. Ian Macreadie, Dr. Gordon C. Mills, and MANY MANY more.
Your incoherent argument is irrelevant because many atheists got degrees in Biology just to confirm their pre-conceived "beliefs" in the evolution MYTH__FACT
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE and none of these thousands of august researchers (why did you have to add Behe? anyway) has put up an formal (as is published) peer reviewed argument that is cohesive and compelling enough to have made any discernible impact. I suppose that this is where your conspiracy theory kicks in.. scientific theories are accepted because they work (can be applied) and predict.. (and your alternative is?)
daNDayati 3 months ago
@daNDayati
Actually Link 10 on my channel has all the PEER-Reviewed Scientific Journals supporting ID and refuting the mindless religion of evolutionism
Journals from Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Gordon C. Mills, and Dr. Michael Behe. Behe is a "theistic evolutionist" which means he thinks God is guiding evolution. As listed on his Wikipedia page, Behe is an ID supporter (just not as strict as the others listed)
You got schooled again ;)
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 months ago
Comment removed
daNDayati 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evoTARDSareINSANE got schooled, actually quite a bit (I teach) . (you are one obsessed SOB, that is for sure).. nice list.. you are kidding (right?) do you actually know how much research supports evolution? The "discovery" list is infamous and does not need further debunking.. playing youtube tag with the intellectually dishonest (i.e. creationists) is like playing chess with the proverbial pigeon..
daNDayati 3 months ago
@daNDayati
Look at the little evo-boy "cherry pick" the scientists he listens too.
What's the matter, did you get a butthurt when I exposed your argument from ignorance on peer reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design?
Keep believing in your mythical ape-men shared ancestors, I'll stick with real science and current observation of design in nature.
In the near future, your little evo-religion will be looked back on as "Flat Earth Theory". Now go play with your GameBoy.
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Mr Tsk Tsk, you are a betting man.. after all you chose 1 of over 3000 gods to assure your way to heaven (lets call him/her/it the Designer God.. he actually has a logo..no?) Let's wager that if I can identify any modern product or services that is or was dependent upon the theory of evolution that you would stop using that product of service.. (we can make this consequential even.. that would make it worth while..) how about it?
daNDayati 3 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE and citing the GameBoy? wow is that telling... do you get out much do you..... (recluse?)
daNDayati 3 months ago
@daNDayati instead of insulting him, why not use fact and clear science( not speculation, thoery and hope) to prove otherwise. I'll tell you why.....you can't
because there is no evolutionary theory that can be tested, repeated and observed.
if there were, you would have presented that instead of your ad hom attacks and insults which is the only form of rebutle any arm chair scientist like you can ever hope to present because you do not have ANY science what so ever to help you out.
3gdosrsfs 2 months ago
@3gdosrsfs I am not an arm chair scientist, more an office user.. how about clear economics? evolution is used in an industrial setting to predict outcome and corporations and people of considerable responsibility invest into these processes. The research is well founded and the outcome can (and is) indeed be repeated successfully. Society benefits (and so do you).. but let's make this consequential.. (we can even do a fact check).. these expenditures are on public record. evolution works.
daNDayati 2 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE If you are game for the consequential wager... we can set the rules.. and make the wager interesting... (Like one of the two of us doing a youtube acknowledgement that we were wrong) .. come on... versus the gratuitous crap you are spewing.. make it worthwhile...
daNDayati 3 months ago
Respond to this video... “Father’s [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.” –Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
daNDayati 3 months ago
Did he really bring up Heackel's embryos? *facepalm* That hasn't been taught in biology textbooks for decades and every biologist spurns it due to the dishonesty of Haeckel. We don't use it for evidence...get that through your skull. Using that as evidence against evolution is known as "playing pretend"
Kruezoraxe 6 months ago
@Kruezoraxe
Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999) Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)
These versions obscures the differences between the earliest stages of embryos as egregiously as Haeckel’s original drawings did.
Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)
Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)
owensphil 6 months ago
@owensphil You're cute. 3 points. 1: Yes Haeckel was dishonest and his conclusions are inaccurate. However, Haeckel is an important figure in biology. Just as Freud is in psychology. No one today believes Freud, but he is an important figure to learn about. Same with Haeckel
2: His drawings can still be used as a teaching aid to learn about embryos, NOT his conclusions. Even his most strident critic Michael Richardson, agrees.
3. You clearly just went to Discovery(.)org. Get your own conclusions
Kruezoraxe 6 months ago
@Kruezoraxe
> However, Haeckel is an important figure in biology
How so? Your response is obviously lacking here.
>His drawings can still be used as a teaching aid to learn about embryos
Again, how so? Why use his drawings at all. Please explain.
> You clearly just went to Discovery(.)org. Get your own conclusions I agree with their conclusions. Why must mine be different? Please explain.
owensphil 6 months ago
@owensphil Haeckel is basically the William James of Biology. He discovered and named thousands of species and coined the terms ecology and stem cell. Plus his embryos are so infamous that they require being known about
Since you're going to discuss Hackel and his embryos, it makes sense to combine Haeckel and the learning of embryos. Psych does the same with Freud. Plus, as Richardson agrees "Haeckel was generally right" in his depiction of embryos especially considering the technology he had.
Kruezoraxe 6 months ago
@owensphil Just to make the point again. His CONCLUSIONS were inaccurate about recapitulation theory. His conclusions aren't taught.
You know, I'm bored. I have things to do. Bye.
Kruezoraxe 6 months ago
@Kruezoraxe
His conclusions are that human embryos provide clues to our evolutionary history and evidence for Darwin’s theory. Same as Haeckel
owensphil 6 months ago
Responder a este vídeo...
Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003), pg. 100:
Only after complaints to the Texas State Board of Education about this reuse of Haeckel's inaccurate drawings did the publisher eventually agree to remove them from this textbook
owensphil 6 months ago
Responder a este vídeo...
William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999), pg. 583: Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001), pg. 372: Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 223:
. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 283:
owensphil 6 months ago
Wiki him up, this guy also has a PH.D for religious studies and he's an advocate for Intelligent Design and grew up as a Protestant Christian.. So much for credibility. Anyone can step into a classroom and earn degrees/PH.Ds but these are only qualifications. Your credibility as a scientist is a direct result from your reputation. What a biased interview, this video could even be named as 'Intelligent design interview'.
teddyspin 6 months ago
@teddyspin
> this guy also has a PH.D for religious studies
So?? His PH.D in molecular and cell boiolgy is what´s relevant here. Do you think Berkly cared about any of the nonsense you mentioned when awarding him his PH.D?
> Anyone can step into a classroom and earn degrees/PH.Ds
Really? Any of us ? In molecular and cell biology? I´m sure after reading your post people will run out in droves to pick one up. What´s your Ph.D in by the way?
owensphil 6 months ago
Hmm, he probably needs to try and explain the successful predictions evolution has made.
maskofsan1ty 11 months ago
@maskofsan1ty
Why don't you instead, considering you seem to believe it so completely. Go on, give us the predictions. While you are at it, why don't you rigorously define the term evolution. No sneaky stuff.
circusOFprecision 8 months ago
And what Universities did he teach at? And even better how many papers did he get published?¨
Read the screen ¨what was his motivation for attending university in the first place¨
Irrelevant to his knowledge and expertise
¨This is well know and it betrays the integrity of everything this hack writes.¨
The same dumb argument can be made for evolutionists who are atheists.
owensphil 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil "The same dumb argument can be made for evolutionists who are atheists."
Put up or shut up. Name one atheist who undertook an area of education with the express intent of undermining it. Name one.
"Wells wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon,and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism"
And thats why he got into Biology. And you know it. Hes NO scientist.
csadler 11 months ago
Wells: A moonie and an AIDS denier. That says it all...
csadler 11 months ago
@csadler
¨A moonie and an AIDS denier. That says it all.¨
Not according to the Berkley where he got his PH.D from nor to the universities that hired him as a science professort.
owensphil 11 months ago
@owensphil
You should familiarize yourself with the concept of "conflict of interest."
...Particularly as it applies to Wells, who's gone on-record to say he is a Christian first, scientist second. He could have all the credentials in the world, but they mean little when one gives priority to their own theology.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@owensphil And what Universities did he teach at? And even better how many papers did he get published? And even better, what was his motivation for attending university in the first place? This is well know and it betrays the integrity of everything this hack writes.
csadler 11 months ago
This guy doesn't even know what the fuck evolution is. He is a disgrace to having a PhD in molecular biology degree. Honestly how the fuck did he get a PhD being a fraud all his life
iliveon 1 year ago
@iliveon
Maybe it's you who doesn't know what evolution is.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil Nope I am a bio major and it is what interest me. I understand it better than this guy and that is a shame
iliveon 1 year ago
@iliveon
"Nope I am a bio major"
So you're just an undergrad. What exactly do you think you know that he doesn't. Please be specific.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil He likely does know more than me about biology. He doesn't accept his own science. That is his problem. This guy is 1 in a million.
iliveon 1 year ago
@iliveon
" He doesn't accept his own science. That is his problem"
Biology is not all about evolution. Science would be just fine without the bogus theory of evolution.
Millions of scientists accept the theory of evolution but not because they can demonstrate it to be true but rather because that is what they were trained to accept.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil Biology is majorly about evolution. Why do you think there are so many proponents for evolution? Its people who have taken higher level genetics classes and bio classes. Hence richard dawkin's degree. "Evolutionary biology". Based around evolutionary science in genetics, fruit flies, rats, humans, genomes of animals and how they relate to their children and to their ancestors. Its blantantly obvious that genetic change over time contributes to change in traits.
iliveon 1 year ago
@owensphil If you want some clearcut examples, think of bacteria that learn to live through antibacterial medicines. These bacteria have natural mutations in their genetics that code for blocking chemicals that kill them. Have you noticed that humans are different? Black White? Big nose, small nose and that these traits are inherited? Think about the differences of people if they lived on different continents over millions of years. We'd probably not be able to breed with each other anymore
iliveon 1 year ago
@owensphil Do you notice that there was no teacup dogs back in the day and that we've actually bred them to be smaller and smaller? That's EVOLUTION. Right in our faces over hundreds of years of generations... It takes hundreds of thousands of years to have new species that aren't breedable of course due to genetic mutations and differences. We call animals that cannot breed different species to put it in a simple way. Biology is almost all based on evolution. one field not would be physiology
iliveon 1 year ago
@owensphil That is why he is a failure. Look up "mutation" on wikipedia. You'll get the run down. People that are uneducated tend to trust holy books rather than actual evidence. REGARDLESS of their religion. That goes for all of the 4300 religions. including yours
iliveon 1 year ago
@owensphil 1) You tell us then what biology really ís all about? Oh right, the bearded guy with the lightning bolts...
2)It's the other way round: the theory of evolution is just fine with or without bogus scientists. There are thousands of islamic scientists who won't accept evolution because their faith tells otherwise. Who cares?
3) A scientific education is about being trained to think, not to accept. You have a very grim and degrading view on the capabilities of the human mind.
szametha 1 year ago
@owensphil It's not what you know, it's what you can test in the lab.
The central principles of intelligent design don't lend themselves to experimental test.
Furthermore, note that he received his second Ph.D at the behest of Sun Myung Moon with the aim of "destroying Darwinism." He could have all the credentials in the world, but this presents an undeniable conflict of interest with his advocacy.
SevenSixTwoNato 1 year ago
@iliveon apparently you don't need to know evolution to get a phd in biology.
SikhiArt 1 year ago
@owensphil
(cont'd)
... bilayers formed from GPAT and LPAAT acyl transferases, phosphatase and choline phosphotransferase), it's dependent on mechanisms that are entirely different to Darwinian evolution.
Thus for Darwinian evolution to be proved, it doesn't matter AT ALL what the origin of life was. Even if an invisible magic man in the sky made life by waving his magic wand, it doesn't effect Darwinian evolution (aka "evolution" as everyone understands it) in any way shape or form.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
1. Abiogenesis, which is what is being studied in the Miller-Urey experiment, has absolutely *nothing* to do with the theory of evolution and Darwinism. All evolution is saying is: "change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits." The origin of life is irrelevant to this mechanism.
Also embryology is one of the greatest arguments for Darwinism, I mean the human embryo has a fucking tail and looks like a dog embryo for god's sake.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"Abiogenesis, which is what is being studied in the Miller-Urey experiment, has absolutely *nothing* to do with the theory of evolution"
Then you're at odd s with all of the evolutionists that say that it does.
Look up chemical and organic evolution.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
God I hate people like you who know absolutely nothing yet are so militant in their beliefs.
Evolution "is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits." It is zero, nothing, nada, kaputka, nein, to do with the origin of life.
You are talking to a Dr in biology here. If you bother to go to university and learn the subject you will learn this on your first day. In fact I learned it in grade 10.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
Posted on: July 5, 2008 12:46 PM, by PZ Myers
Nick Matzke has a fine summary of progress in research into abiogenesis. He chastises those people who try to argue that abiogenesis is independent of evolution, or that you can get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution. It is! I've said it myself, and I really wish people would stop trying weasel out of that question by punting it off to some other discipline.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
You posted a link to someones post on a random blog as a scientific argument?! lol.
Btw Nick Matzke is arguing that evolution "explains" abiogenesis, not that evolution IS abiogenesis!
So double-fail there.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"You posted a link to someones post on a random blog as a scientific argument?"
totally irreleavant to what was stated and who stated it.
"Btw Nick Matzke is arguing that evolution "explains" abiogenesis, not that evolution IS abiogenesis!"
it's quite clear that what is stated is that abiogenisis is part of evolution. Your clarifications are not necessary.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
This is like trying to teach a brick wall astro-physics, the brick wall just wants to be a brick.
I am completely wasting my precious time trying to teach a very very very very very very VERY basic fact of modern biology to a crazy evangelical who thinks he knows more about the topic than a PhD graduate in the subject.
Have you EVER studied biology? Have you EVER even been to university?!
Why are you talking about a subject you have NO idea about?!?!
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
For some reason you seem to be stuck on STUPID or you're just being willfuly IGNORANT. I've mentioned CHEMICAL EVOLUTION several times now and each time you avoid it like the plague. Is it because you know it has everything to do with the origin of life? Let's suppose though we start with your GIVEN that somehow we just have life. The precusor to this would either have to involve design or evolution. You just can't just shut your eyes and repeat abiogenesis. THINK!
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
I just told you that chemical evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. It is a term used to describe the generation of oligonucleotides and complex organic molecules, not life-forms. Get it through your head.
99% of scientists don't even use the term "chemical evolution", that's just something you're pulled up from wikipedia, for the exact fact that IDIOTS liker yourself get confused.
Now stop talking to me you dumb fuck!
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist (cont) Scientific interest in cellular evolution started to pick up once the universal phylogenetic tree, the framework within which the problem had to be addressed, was determined . But it was not until microbial genomics arrived on the scene that biologists could actually do much about the problem of cellular evolution." (Carl Woese, 2002)
owensphil 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"The evolution of modern cells is arguably the most challenging and important problem the field of Biology has ever faced. In Darwin's day the problem could hardly be imagined. For much of the 20th century it was intractable. In any case, the problem lay buried in the catch-all rubric "origin of life"---where, because it is a biological not a (bio)chemical problem, it was effectively ignored.
owensphil 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
Woese, CR (2002). "On the evolution of cells". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99 (13): 8742–7.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Thus abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are completely separate branches of science. The theory of Darwinian evolution (widely known as "evolutionary theory) doesn't lay ANY claim what-so-ever to the origin of life; it's ENTIRELY mutually exclusive to what-ever that might entail.
You can play as many semantic word games as you want, you can even claim that "inorganic non-living planets evolve", but all you're doing by that is needlessly compounding your own confusion!
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
99% of scientists don't even use the term "chemical evolution", that's just something you're pulled up from wikipedia"
Dean Kenyon – Professor of Biology at San Francisco State university, on of the leading chemical evolutionary theorist in the world. He wrote “Biochemical Predestination - which became the best selling text on the theory of chemical evolution for 20 years.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Jesus Christ you just won't give up will you?!
I will give you a task to do: go to Wikipedia, and type in "chemical evolution".
You will see this come up:
"Chemical evolution may refer to:
Nucleosynthesis:
Abiogenesis:
Molecular evolution:"
See, not even WIKIPEDIA fucking uses that word. WHY? Because uneducated dim-bats like yourself will get confused and think it has something to do with Darwinian evolution, which of course it doesn't!
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"I will give you a task to do: go to Wikipedia, and type in "chemical evolution"."
Again, you're an idiot! I posted this already to show that abiogenesis is part of chemical evolution. Seriously you can't be this dumb!
"has something to do with Darwinian evolution, which of course it doesn't!"
Fool we all can see that now you're specifying Darwinian evolution as oppose to just evolution which is what you were intially claiming. Did you even finish high school?
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Once again you clearly do not understand what Darwinian evolution is; for Darwinian evolution (which normal people & scientists equate 'evolution' to mean) to even work, you need environmental mechanisms like natural selection, genetic drift, co-evolution, gene flow, etc.
What you are calling "chemical evolution" (abiogenesis) is only the formation of complex organic matter (cell walls made of cellulose, microfilaments made of polymerization of actin, phospho-lipid (cont'd)
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"You posted a link to someones post on a random blog as a scientific argument?"
Category: Evolution
Posted on: July 5, 2008 12:46 PM, by PZ Myers
Breaking it down.... Breaking it down. Now see who that someone is? Take your time. Now let's look again at what he posted.
owensphil 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"It is zero, nothing, nada, kaputka, nein, to do with the origin of life."
"You are talking to a Dr in biology here. If you bother to go to university and learn the subject you will learn this on your first day. In fact I learned it in grade 10."
Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers (born March 9, 1957) is an American biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM)
Looks like this guy didn't learn it in grade 10 either.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
"You are talking to a Dr in biology here."
Well keep publishing here maybe the rest of the scientific community will stumble accross your posts!
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
"As if evolution and evolutionary theory were not already confusing enough, many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. It's a Myth that Abiogenesis is the Same as Evolution" - About . com.
"Abiogenesis is not the same as biological evolution and it certainly isn't the same as "Darwinian evolution."" - Uni. Toronto Biomed Department.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@owensphil
I looked up "Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers" and I'm not sure what the point was...
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
I looked up "Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers" and I'm not sure what the point was..
You posted a link to someones post on a random blog as a scientific argument?
Duh... that someone was PZ Meyers
owensphil 1 year ago
Re: "On the evolution of cells".
Cells are the smallest unit of life, many species are uni-cellular; "the evolution of cells" is talking about Darwinian evolution, not abiogenesis!
See this is why I'm wasting my time here, you DON'T even understand what Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis ARE!
Abiogenesis is the formation of organic material capable of life from inorganic molecules, NOT the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"Cells are the smallest unit of life, many species are uni-cellular; "the evolution of cells" is talking about Darwinian evolution, not abiogenesis!"
As well as the evolution of DNA within the cell and all of the other components?
Exactly then where does chemical evolution (abiogenesis) stop and Biological/Darwininian evolution begin?
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
I've come to the realization that you indeed have absolutely NO concern what-so-ever what about learning science or what the truth is, your only concern is trying to construe facts about Darwinism to try and justify a Bronze-Age fairytale to yourself.
I will no longer be replying to you other than copy-paste, since it's clear you are not here to learn, but rather pester and waste my precious time.
Get a life and good riddance you idiot.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"justify a Bronze-Age fairytale" that would be the bogus theory of evolution.
"since it's clear you are not here to learn, but rather pester and waste my precious time."
What a joke! (LOL) Like anybody could seriously learn from you. Get your facts straight, study then when you're ready come back.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Actually no the theory of evolution was proposed in 1858CE.
The genesis superstition that you hold above modern science is as old as 1600BCE.
FAIL.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@owensphil
I think you should go and watch some Kent Hovind, he is sort of on the same level of scientific rigor as yourself..... (lolz)
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist Evolution is survival of the fittest, it is still going on today even in the human world..
con2477 1 year ago
@con2477
No.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist Yes it is, any where there is war, like Israel and Palestine, survival of the fittest in its purest form.
con2477 1 year ago
@con2477
"Survival of the fittest" as a mechanism of natural selection is no longer working on populations, because we now live under systems of law and order.
And despite what you may think, "fitness" does not mean brute strength, but rather what allowed humans to dominate is co-operation, intelligence and empathy, for example.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"I think you should go and watch some Kent Hovind, he is sort of on the same level of scientific rigor as yourself"
If only you knew half of what he does.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Oh so you are a fan of Kent Hovind? How did I guess....!
I could tell you were because your total lack of knowledge about science coupled with an insistence that you actually know something is one of the symptoms of watching Kent Hovind and actually taking him seriously..
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"Oh so you are a fan of Kent Hovind? How did I guess....!"
Everything that Hovind says may not be correct but a lot is. Most things that evolutionists say are incorrect yet you have no problem with that. Instead of banking on Hovind negative reputation amongst Darwinian sheep, why not point out anything that he says that you have a problem with? With all the errors Hovinid may make, I'm willing to bet his scientific knowledge far exeeds yours.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Go and watch some Hovind videos then about Dragons living with Adam and eve....
It's apropos for your level of intelligent.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"Go and watch some Hovind videos then about Dragons living with Adam and eve.... "
Right after I watch some bogus evolutionists's videos about a land mammal for no reason taking to the water and turning into a whale.
owensphil 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"See this is why I'm wasting my time here, you DON'T even understand what Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis ARE!"
You're very careful now not to simply say evolution. At least your learning.
"Abiogenesis is the formation of organic material capable of life from inorganic molecules, NOT the change over time in the proportion of individual....."
No one is arguing that. However, evolution i.e Chemical evolution DOES deal with the origin of life.
owensphil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil
"The beginning of life is NOT the subject of evolution, THAT'S abiogenesis. Not knowing how life started is as important to evolution as not knowing how matter was created is to newtonian physics." - Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Arizona State University Origins Project.
GET AN EDUCATION.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"I looked up "Paul Zachary .."
Nick Matzke has a fine summary of progress in research into abiogenesis. He chastises those people who try to argue that abiogenesis is independent of evolution, or that you can get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution. It is! I've said it myself, and I really wish people would stop trying weasel out of that question by punting it off to some other discipline.
- PZ Meyers
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
So I suggest you bother (at least) to buy a textbook off Amazon and read it before going online and arguing with people about it! Surely that is logical, even to you?
Many people falsely believe that evolution if a simple topic and that you don't need any reading or education on the subject to have an opinion on it, but nothing could be further from the truth. It takes at least a couple of years of study to grasp the basics fully, and a life-time to perfect your knowledge of it.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist Imagine being lectured to by a student, thats what SuperAntiZionist (karlkarlkarl1234) is.
con2477 1 year ago
@con2477
I'm a tutor and former lecturer which shows you know absolutely nothing about my life or education. I haven't been a "student" for 7 years! Although as they say: "you're a student for life", especially if you're in the field I'm in.
Who is this "Karl" person, and why do you have such a fascination with him??
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"I'm a tutor and former lecturer"
I certainly hope your novice services were free of charge.
owensphil 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
Chemical Evolution: Origin Of Life Proceedings of First Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life Trieste, Italy October 1992 Edited by Professor Cyril Ponnamperuma and Professor Julian Chela-Flores You would think they'd consult you first eh?
owensphil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil
Re: "Chemical Evolution: Origin Of Life Proceedings of First Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life Trieste."
There's no way of looking that paper, and no chance that you have ever seen it either, since it costs 201.00 € to purchase.
FAIL.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
NASA's Planetary Biology Program
The Planetary Biology Program is chartered to investigate the origin and evolution of life.
Phases in the emergence of life...
1. Evolution of the Cosmos
2. The Prebiotic Earth
3. The Early Evolution of Life
4. Evolution of Advanced Life
5. The Future
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
Re: "The Planetary Biology Program is chartered to investigate the origin and evolution of life."
I want you to read that sentence carefully, word by word. Notice that they say "origin and evolution of life", not just "evolution of life"; they are two completely separate mechanisms.
Thus you owned yourself right there.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"Notice that they say "origin and evolution of life", not just "evolution of life"; they are two completely separate mechanisms."
Just as with micro evolution amd macroevolution. Yet I'm sure you'd want to argue that microevolution leads to macroevolution. When they discuss the evolution of DNA and the evolution of the cell, they're still talking about evolution. So your origina claim that abiogenesis/chemical evolution is indepent of evolution is clearly debunked!
owensphil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil
Hahhaah, I just looked up that "Dean Kenyon – Professor of Biology at San Francisco State university" and found out that he is a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST!!!
Of course a young earth creationist is going to bloody use terms that try to detract from the true understanding of evolution.
You fail so bloody hard it's not even funny!
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@owensphil
"The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology." - talkorigins . org
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution"
How life came ti exist is what organic evolution is. Plain and simple. look the the word up for Christ sake.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil I will quote this again because you clearly are struggling to wrap your head around this simple concept, which even a grade 2 year old would be able to deal with:
"The beginning of life is NOT the subject of evolution, THAT'S abiogenesis. Not knowing how life started is as important to evolution as not knowing how matter was created is to newtonian physics." - Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Arizona State University Origins Project.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
Responder a este vídeo...
"talkorigins . org"
lol you've got to be kidding
owensphil 1 year ago
This guy tends to misinterpret and misquote imo
chocomilk1989 1 year ago
@chocomilk1989
"This guy tends to misinterpret and misquote imo"r exampl
For example?
owensphil 1 year ago
"Biological evolution and abiogenesis are distinct branches of science." - Barend Vlaardingerbroek, 'Abiogenesis in Upper Secondary Biology Curricula,' Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(3), 432-435.
"because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed, regardless of its origin."
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist
"Biological evolution and abiogenesis are distinct branches of science."
The term abiogenesis simply means getting life from non-life and is used both for spontaneous generation and for chemical evolution. Abiogenesis forms part of organic and chemical evolution.
Look these two terms up "organic evolution" "chemical evolution" and see what you come up with.
See if the origin of life is mention in explaining the two concepts.
owensphil 1 year ago
Before you post another stupid copy-and-paste about a subject you have no idea of, do these things first:
1. E-mail a professor at a university and ask: "Is abiogenesis evolution?" and "is Darwinism the same as Lamarckism," and you will get the EXACT same answer as I have given you, and the prof will probably also call you a moron & tell you to read a book.
2. Actually read a book on Darwinism, evolution, and Lamerkism.
3. Enrol at university and LEARN, so you won't talk rubbish.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@owensphil
That second quote was from by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D; 'The Scientific Case for Common Descent'.
"the beginning of life is not the subject of evolution, thats abiogenesis. Not knowing how life started is as important to evolution as not knowing how matter was created is to newtonian physics." - Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Arizona State University Origins Project.
Now are you beginning to understand why your claim that "evolution is abiogenesis" is retarded!?
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
If life on earth has not evolved from a common ancestor, why does radio dating show an old age measuring fossils of simple organisms and a "younger" age for more complex ones?
The fossil evidence does not show this tree pattern? Major groups of animals appeared much at the same time? Proof? examples?
Archaeopterix: Birds have switched off genes for teeth and scales
The beaks ocillate back and forth and don't go anywhere?
Wait until the environment changes.
flamifer1 1 year ago
@flamifer1
There are several fossils in the Cambrian that are less complex then living organism today.
owensphil 1 year ago
Wells is a biologist with 2 degrees, but he doesn't do any science to prove his opinions. He takes outdated examples and expects us to think this invalidates all evolution. Only one without a science background would fall for his faulty arguments. Haeckel hasn't been in textbooks in the way Wells implies for over 30 years. Peppered moth staged pictures doesn't invalidate moths resting on soot covered walls. Fruit flies being modified was not done to try to make new species, only gene function.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
"Wells is a biologist with 2 degrees, but he doesn't do any science to prove his opinions.""
Wrong again, do you ever know what you're talking about before just making dumb false claims?
Haeckel hasn't been in textbooks in the way Wells implies for over 30 years"
Wrong again
"Peppered moth staged pictures doesn't invalidate moths resting on soot covered walls. "
document aand elaborate
"Fruit flies being modified was not done to....
They got no where with fruit flies
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "Wrong again, do you ever know what you're talking about before just making dumb false claims?"
What science has Wells done recently? He has no recent citations in PubMed.
"document aand elaborate"
The moths landed on buildings: the original paper says as much. The soot covered walls hid the dark moths. Besides, this is only a variation within a species, so it is not a theory that creationists deny, anyway.
" They got no where with fruit flies"
They learned what genes did what.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
"What science has Wells done recently"
Well he's a biology professor. I'd say biology.
Most recently he is co-author with William Dembski of The Design of Life (FTE, 2008)
Dr. Wells is currently working on a book criticizing the over-emphasis on genes in biology and medicine.
You failed to provide the documentation regarding moths.
Evolutionists were hoping for a lot more than finding out what the genes of fruit flies did.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "Most recently he is co-author with William Dembski of The Design of Life (FTE, 2008)"
It is a not scientific peer-reviewed article, but a book for the general public, as are all of Dawkins books.
"You failed to provide the documentation regarding moths"
Here is an updated study from the US showing melanism changes due to pollution:
Grant BS, Wiseman LL. Recent history of melanism in American peppered moths. J Hered. 2002 Mar-Apr;93(2):86-90.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
books are peer- reviewed as well. Besides as a rule professors, and scientists must publish.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "books are peer- reviewed as well."
No, they're not. Who would pay for it?
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
Books are peer- reviewed as well
Types of peer-reviewed literature
- Journals
- Disertations
- Academic books
lib washington edu
You strike out here too. You're on a roll
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "Besides as a rule professors, and scientists must publish."
Books written for the general public are not considered academic publications. The are included in published works, but by no means do they have the same academic credibility as a peer-reviewed article in a major science journal. That should be obvious, but since you do not work in science, you may not be aware of that fact.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
One way of distinguishing these books from those published by more commercial houses is to search Publishers' Catalogues online. Frequently, major publishing houses will provide separate names for their scholarly publishing operations and will provide a statement of their publishing philosophy somewhere on their Web site.
Do you understand now or should I instruct you on the matter further?
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "will provide separate names for their scholarly publishing operations ... or should I instruct you on the matter further?"
You'll instruct me? This still does not involve peer-review. Journal articles are refereed (ie peer-reviewed), books are edited. The process is different. The author of a popular science book may have a colleague critique their book prior to publication. Peer-review is an anonymous process; the author never knows who or how many reviewed their article.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
Now pay attention!
Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists."
LOL, you just don't give up. Can you show me a reference for that? Simon & Schuster do not have a peer-review team. Who peer-reviewed it?
"...several prominent biochemists and biological scientists."
Any of them not connected to the Discovery Institute? You just make this stuff up, don't you?
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
"LOL, you just don't give up. Can you show me a reference for that? Simon & Schuster do not have a peer-review team. Who peer-reviewed it?"
Read again, slower this time.
THOUGH this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press,(pause, pause, pause,) the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "Read again, slower this time."
Okay, but read: "Darwin's Black Box" on Wikipedia under "Peer review controversy". I would point you to the transcript of the Dover trial, but it is hard to find, & Wikipedia gives more information. Behe, like most creationists who dabble in science, is a liar. Again, I ask: "Who peer-reviewed it?"
Really, really sad, dude.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
"Who peer-reviewed it?" "Any of them not connected to the Discovery Institute?"
You mean as opposed to anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor who have a known bias against anything that goes against the bogus theory of evolution? Is your point, that these reviewers are known to be non - biased. We know that's a lie. Is your point that these anonymous reviewers have higher scientific degrees? That'd be another lie.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "Is your point that these anonymous reviewers have higher scientific degrees?"
No, I just could not think why anyone would peer-review "Darwin's Black Box". It has no empirical evidence for the hypotheses it makes. Any honest peer-reviewer would reject it on this alone; not because it is written by a creationist, but because it does not prove what it says. There is no conspiracy against Intelligent Design. ID refutes itself by being dishonest. Checkmate, buddy.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
"It has no empirical evidence for the hypotheses"
Kenneth Miller would disagree with you on that. Watch my video where the two are debating the topic.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil - "Kenneth Miller would disagree with you on that."
Quote mining, again. Doesn't context mean anything to you?
This is a waste of my time. When you start saying that it was peer-reviewed, and use rejection as proof of this, really shows me how dishonest creationists can be. This should be a real blow to the credibility of the contents of the book. Somehow, you seem to think that adverse publicity is a good thing. That is just incredible.
No, really, we're done here.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
"Quote mining, again. Doesn't context mean anything to you?"
(LOL) Darwinian sheep crying "quote mining" when there was no quote even posted!!!
A DEBATE IS NOT A QUOTE !! How clueless can one be. Again, watch my video DEBATE between Miller and Behe.
owensphil 1 year ago