ERV's are found in all mammals & countless vertebrates. They play an extremely important role in mammalian embryology. Females mammals activate & produce massive amounts of ERV's during pregnancy to protect fetus from the mothers immunity response system. They also produce many of the needed Vfusion proteins during this stage. JUNK DNA is an outdated concept. Recent discoveries have shed new light on the role of this so called Junk DNA which ERV's are a part of. Just a little correction.
ouch, you're debating Scotzbhoy...I wish you luck...seriously, I tried debating him for a while, but he's just too ignorant. after like 1-2 months of debating, I finally ended the debate, when he said "there are no crimes in Africa".
really, I hope you get through to him, because I lost all faith in him when he said that.
well, if you need any help, we've got a little club on an atheist channel: FactVsReligion. we're with a couple of atheists waiting for theists and their ridiculous claims, ready to debunk them.
so if you have troubles answerring his BS, just drop by and we'll race to reply first and best ;-)
still, we're willing to help. theism is not our biggest problem, it's fundamentalist theism that's our biggest problem. so you can come and ask questions even if you're a christian. hell, I used to be one myself.
I notice that you keep telling people that out of context. I meant to make a video about it in case anyone believed you when you didn't tell them the extent of the conversation. I don't suppose you tell them the stupid comments you made in that debate? If not, I would be happy to inform people.
I commented, yes, but "stupid" is subjective. you claim my comments were stupid and yours were the truth, while I claim otherwise. however, if we look at the real truth, the objective truth, the absolutely, undenyable, scientificly approved truth, then I was right and you weren't.
why? I used science, you used god. science is real, god is not.
I could go on for ages, but as I said, I stopped "debating" you when you claimed there's no crime in Africa.
I'll make a video putting the 'Africa has no crimes' thing in context.
So you were right and I wasn't? Let's examine some of the claims you made which I was refering to in my previous comment. You claimed that the USA is a less developed country. You claimed that Africa has a much higher crime rate than the UK and USA. You claimed that a lack of sanitation made us more resistant to disease. You also listed UV, infa red, gamma rays etc as colours in the EM spectrum.
- US is less developped than other first world countries, mainly like western Europe.
- indeed, I claim Africa generally has a higher crime rate than UK or US.
- I did not claim lack of sanitation makes us more resistant to diseases, I said not washing yourself too much and going outdoors a lot does.
- the visible light may contain the named colours, but the EM spectrum contains the rest aswell. if you were talking about the visible EM spectrum, I would've agreed, however, you didn't.
NO! The USA is probablythe most developed country in the world!
NO! Africa (the third world countries, which are the ones we were discussing) has particularly LOW crime rates, particularly compared with the US and UK.
Not washing= lack of sanitation. Hygene is essential to not catching diseases. Spending lots of time outdoors makes you more likely to catch disease.
the USA is less developed than western European countries. (lots of graphics for that)
Africa has most murders, rapes, theft, etc. than anywhere else.
you fail to see the point, again. I said not washing TOO MUCH. people like to shower daily and wash several times a day. this is bad for the skin and your health. although hygiene is good, too much of it is bad. spending lots of time outdoors in proper conditions, makes you harder to the elements, making you more resistent to diseases.
- US is one of the first world countries, but not the most developed one of the world.
- third world countries have far more crimes than first world countries. need I send you proof?
- wrong, if you wash too often, you are far open to diseases and more likely to catch one. being outdoors regularly, hardens your body and makes you more resistance to a common cold, for example.
I cannot believe I'm still arguing with you about this. The USA is almost undoubtedly the MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. And the buildings are CERTAINLY not ALL made of WOOD, as you also claimed.
Do you not think third world countries have more to worry about than raping each other?
That is just foolish. When we wash, we rid ourselves of a lot of germs. Germs cause illnesses. When we are outside, there are even more germs, because it is not clean.
- sorry, it isn't. western European countries are better. we have less crimes, for example. also, I know not all buildings there are made of wood, I said MOST are made of wood. that's why they keep getting blown away by hurricanes, for example.
yeah, they also have hunger, wars, religions, diseases, etc. still, more crimes happen there than here.
correction: not all bacteria cause diseases. in fact, when we wash, we destroy our oily protective layer on our skin. outside, we get tougher.
most US buildings are made of wood. not all, ofcourse, but most.
if crimes were lower in Africa, there would be no raping, killing, stealing, etc. you obviously lie. AFRICA HAS LOTS OF CRIMES, FAR HIGHER THAN HERE! MOST AREN'T EVEN RECORDED BECAUSE OF THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS!
not all bacteria cause diseases. simply look at your intestants. the oily layer of the skin protects us from most bacteria. if you wash, that layer is gone and needs 3 hours to be fully restored. so don't wash too much.
Crime rates are LOW in third world countries! The only violent crime that occurs in these countries is assult! In Ghana, for example, in 1997, there were 2.7 murders out of 100,000. That is the general trend.
again, corrupt government and bad administration. this is why you need a skeptical mind. you need to analyse the data you get. you need to ask "can I trust this data?" and if you THINK LOGICALLY, you know you can't.
you have much to learn, which is very obvious. the world is not like it is in your fantasy, Scotty.
The light discussion: I mentioned how Cdk007 didn't know how many colours there were in the EM spectrum. You asked me if I knew. I said yes, and listed them. You then said that I was wrong, and that there were others such as infa red, UV, x-ray and gamma. This seems to me like you were indicating that IF, UV, x-ray and gamma were colours.
again, you were speaking about the EM spectrum, not just visible light. just because we don't see the other colours, doesn't mean they aren't there. infraRED, ultraVIOLET. these are the closest to the visable spectrum and because they're most viewable compared to the others, we named the colours.
so again: you mentioned the entire EM spectrum, not just the visible part and just because we don't see the colours with the naked eye, doesn't mean they don't have colours. (even if it's only grey)
No, the discussion was about COLOURS. The visible light part of the spectrum is the only part we can see, hence these are the only colours. That's what the discussion was about; not the entire spectrum.
no, those are the only colours WE CAN SEE. birds for example have an other part.
or lets take moths. mots can see ultraviolet light. if it didn't have a colour, they wouldn't see it. we don't see ultraviolet light ourselves, so we think there are no colours, but if there were no colours, moths wouldn't see them either.
Give me some time. My computer crashed. We have no proof that moths can see UV, firstly. Secondly, moths do not studys this stuff. The colours are called 'visible light' in the spectrum because it's the only part WE can see. Finally, being able to see other parts does not necessarily mean they are colours. For example, we have cameras that can detect infa red radiation, and the areas with lots of it show up coloured, but that doesn't mean that is the colour. It means the camera colours the area.
actually, there IS proof that moths see UV. scientists tested it. and not with moths alone, btw. second: what part of the visible light doesn't have any color? is there anything we don't consider a color? third, the camera colours it, so that we could see it. what's the point in a camera that sees infrared if it doesn't "translate" it so that we can see it?
Are you a moth? Are any of the scientists who tested them moths? Then it's not proven that they see UV. When did I say that any part of visible light had no colour? Yes, cameras colour it, because it HAS NO COLOUR. None of this changes the fact that you stated that IR, UV, x-ray and gamma were ALL COLOURS in the EM spectrum.
omFSM, you're stupid...scientists can make a strip of UV light on a wall, for example, and moths will be attracted to it. this can only happen if they can actually see it. also, we know that all the light we see, has a color. therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the rest of the EM-spectrum also has colors, which are just not within our viewable field. although "gamma" might not be a color, gammarays CAN have a color. (which is very likely)
tell me, if moths couldn't see UV, then howcome they fly towards it, even if you move it? blind people or even regular people won't see it and won't move towards it.
my claim is based on actual facts and is well supported. your claim is not. you simply say "I can't see it, therefore it has no colors", while I prove you wrong.
I said the US is less developed than western European countries. also, you thought there's no crime in Africa. stupid.
Here's something else for you to chew on. Have you ever worn white clothes to a disco? You know how they glow? That's because of the UV light. Exactly the same principle with these moths which you haven't given me sources for.
Saying "they might have colours which we can't see" is not disproving me.
Oh lok, taking my crime in Africa thing out of context again. What is it with atheists and taking things out of context to discredit them?
are you now saying you can see UV light, scotty? don't change your claim or atleast admit your loss. and look it up, I don't like doing your homework.
what is it with theists thinking they're always right, despite the fact that all evidence points in the opposite direction?
No, you can't see it. It illuminates. I'm not going to find your sources for you. You know about these, presumably you read it somewhere, so it should be easy to simply tell me where.
ERV's are found in all mammals & countless vertebrates. They play an extremely important role in mammalian embryology. Females mammals activate & produce massive amounts of ERV's during pregnancy to protect fetus from the mothers immunity response system. They also produce many of the needed Vfusion proteins during this stage. JUNK DNA is an outdated concept. Recent discoveries have shed new light on the role of this so called Junk DNA which ERV's are a part of. Just a little correction.
benthemiester 1 year ago
wow.... unionkid?????? defending evolution? Wownever expected that. :)
Knowntje 3 years ago
ouch, you're debating Scotzbhoy...I wish you luck...seriously, I tried debating him for a while, but he's just too ignorant. after like 1-2 months of debating, I finally ended the debate, when he said "there are no crimes in Africa".
really, I hope you get through to him, because I lost all faith in him when he said that.
here's a vid response to one of his vids:
watch?v=WN9Mpw-l0EY
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
Thanks for the tips dude, but I'll give it my best shot. And, I will check out that link for you.
truthforrealtruth 3 years ago
well, if you need any help, we've got a little club on an atheist channel: FactVsReligion. we're with a couple of atheists waiting for theists and their ridiculous claims, ready to debunk them.
so if you have troubles answerring his BS, just drop by and we'll race to reply first and best ;-)
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
Lolz, Sorry dude.. I am a Christian who believes in evolution.
truthforrealtruth 3 years ago
still, we're willing to help. theism is not our biggest problem, it's fundamentalist theism that's our biggest problem. so you can come and ask questions even if you're a christian. hell, I used to be one myself.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
Well, I can see where that would go in a hurry. I can already imagine a bunch of atheists trying to convert me. Thanks, but, no thanks.
truthforrealtruth 3 years ago
then don't mention you're a theist :/ I'm one of those atheists and I'm not trying to convert you, am I?
the fact that you don't deny science is enough for me.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
I'll think about it.
truthforrealtruth 3 years ago
I notice that you keep telling people that out of context. I meant to make a video about it in case anyone believed you when you didn't tell them the extent of the conversation. I don't suppose you tell them the stupid comments you made in that debate? If not, I would be happy to inform people.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
I commented, yes, but "stupid" is subjective. you claim my comments were stupid and yours were the truth, while I claim otherwise. however, if we look at the real truth, the objective truth, the absolutely, undenyable, scientificly approved truth, then I was right and you weren't.
why? I used science, you used god. science is real, god is not.
I could go on for ages, but as I said, I stopped "debating" you when you claimed there's no crime in Africa.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
I'll make a video putting the 'Africa has no crimes' thing in context.
So you were right and I wasn't? Let's examine some of the claims you made which I was refering to in my previous comment. You claimed that the USA is a less developed country. You claimed that Africa has a much higher crime rate than the UK and USA. You claimed that a lack of sanitation made us more resistant to disease. You also listed UV, infa red, gamma rays etc as colours in the EM spectrum.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
- US is less developped than other first world countries, mainly like western Europe.
- indeed, I claim Africa generally has a higher crime rate than UK or US.
- I did not claim lack of sanitation makes us more resistant to diseases, I said not washing yourself too much and going outdoors a lot does.
- the visible light may contain the named colours, but the EM spectrum contains the rest aswell. if you were talking about the visible EM spectrum, I would've agreed, however, you didn't.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
NO! The USA is probablythe most developed country in the world!
NO! Africa (the third world countries, which are the ones we were discussing) has particularly LOW crime rates, particularly compared with the US and UK.
Not washing= lack of sanitation. Hygene is essential to not catching diseases. Spending lots of time outdoors makes you more likely to catch disease.
I'll put the rest in a new comment.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
the USA is less developed than western European countries. (lots of graphics for that)
Africa has most murders, rapes, theft, etc. than anywhere else.
you fail to see the point, again. I said not washing TOO MUCH. people like to shower daily and wash several times a day. this is bad for the skin and your health. although hygiene is good, too much of it is bad. spending lots of time outdoors in proper conditions, makes you harder to the elements, making you more resistent to diseases.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
THE USA IS PROBABLY THE MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
Third world countries have far lower crime rates than first world countries.
That's ridiculous. The more you wash, the less likely you are to catch diseases. Spending time outdoors makes you even more seseptable.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
- US is one of the first world countries, but not the most developed one of the world.
- third world countries have far more crimes than first world countries. need I send you proof?
- wrong, if you wash too often, you are far open to diseases and more likely to catch one. being outdoors regularly, hardens your body and makes you more resistance to a common cold, for example.
LEARN STUFF, RETARD!
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
I cannot believe I'm still arguing with you about this. The USA is almost undoubtedly the MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. And the buildings are CERTAINLY not ALL made of WOOD, as you also claimed.
Do you not think third world countries have more to worry about than raping each other?
That is just foolish. When we wash, we rid ourselves of a lot of germs. Germs cause illnesses. When we are outside, there are even more germs, because it is not clean.
Was that simple enough for you?
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
- sorry, it isn't. western European countries are better. we have less crimes, for example. also, I know not all buildings there are made of wood, I said MOST are made of wood. that's why they keep getting blown away by hurricanes, for example.
yeah, they also have hunger, wars, religions, diseases, etc. still, more crimes happen there than here.
correction: not all bacteria cause diseases. in fact, when we wash, we destroy our oily protective layer on our skin. outside, we get tougher.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
You said, "almost all buildings ther [USA] are made of wood, apart from the really important ones." This is simply not true.
No, crime rates are far lower there than here.
Generally, bacteria and other such microbes do cause disease. Good hygene is essential for protecting against such microbes.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
most US buildings are made of wood. not all, ofcourse, but most.
if crimes were lower in Africa, there would be no raping, killing, stealing, etc. you obviously lie. AFRICA HAS LOTS OF CRIMES, FAR HIGHER THAN HERE! MOST AREN'T EVEN RECORDED BECAUSE OF THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS!
not all bacteria cause diseases. simply look at your intestants. the oily layer of the skin protects us from most bacteria. if you wash, that layer is gone and needs 3 hours to be fully restored. so don't wash too much.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
That is either ignorant or a complete lie.
Crime rates are LOW in third world countries! The only violent crime that occurs in these countries is assult! In Ghana, for example, in 1997, there were 2.7 murders out of 100,000. That is the general trend.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
again, corrupt government and bad administration. this is why you need a skeptical mind. you need to analyse the data you get. you need to ask "can I trust this data?" and if you THINK LOGICALLY, you know you can't.
you have much to learn, which is very obvious. the world is not like it is in your fantasy, Scotty.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
The light discussion: I mentioned how Cdk007 didn't know how many colours there were in the EM spectrum. You asked me if I knew. I said yes, and listed them. You then said that I was wrong, and that there were others such as infa red, UV, x-ray and gamma. This seems to me like you were indicating that IF, UV, x-ray and gamma were colours.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
again, you were speaking about the EM spectrum, not just visible light. just because we don't see the other colours, doesn't mean they aren't there. infraRED, ultraVIOLET. these are the closest to the visable spectrum and because they're most viewable compared to the others, we named the colours.
so again: you mentioned the entire EM spectrum, not just the visible part and just because we don't see the colours with the naked eye, doesn't mean they don't have colours. (even if it's only grey)
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
No, the discussion was about COLOURS. The visible light part of the spectrum is the only part we can see, hence these are the only colours. That's what the discussion was about; not the entire spectrum.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
no, those are the only colours WE CAN SEE. birds for example have an other part.
or lets take moths. mots can see ultraviolet light. if it didn't have a colour, they wouldn't see it. we don't see ultraviolet light ourselves, so we think there are no colours, but if there were no colours, moths wouldn't see them either.
clearly, you're wrong. animals prove it.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
no response, scotty?
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
Give me some time. My computer crashed. We have no proof that moths can see UV, firstly. Secondly, moths do not studys this stuff. The colours are called 'visible light' in the spectrum because it's the only part WE can see. Finally, being able to see other parts does not necessarily mean they are colours. For example, we have cameras that can detect infa red radiation, and the areas with lots of it show up coloured, but that doesn't mean that is the colour. It means the camera colours the area.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
actually, there IS proof that moths see UV. scientists tested it. and not with moths alone, btw. second: what part of the visible light doesn't have any color? is there anything we don't consider a color? third, the camera colours it, so that we could see it. what's the point in a camera that sees infrared if it doesn't "translate" it so that we can see it?
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
Are you a moth? Are any of the scientists who tested them moths? Then it's not proven that they see UV. When did I say that any part of visible light had no colour? Yes, cameras colour it, because it HAS NO COLOUR. None of this changes the fact that you stated that IR, UV, x-ray and gamma were ALL COLOURS in the EM spectrum.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
omFSM, you're stupid...scientists can make a strip of UV light on a wall, for example, and moths will be attracted to it. this can only happen if they can actually see it. also, we know that all the light we see, has a color. therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the rest of the EM-spectrum also has colors, which are just not within our viewable field. although "gamma" might not be a color, gammarays CAN have a color. (which is very likely)
sorry kid, you keep proving your stupidity.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
You think moths could only go towards something if they could see it? Why not run that idea past a blind person?
There is no evidence whatsoever that the whole spectrum has colours. It is an idea you're making up to try and account for your silly comments.
I'M stupid? I'm not the one who thought America was a less developed country!
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
tell me, if moths couldn't see UV, then howcome they fly towards it, even if you move it? blind people or even regular people won't see it and won't move towards it.
my claim is based on actual facts and is well supported. your claim is not. you simply say "I can't see it, therefore it has no colors", while I prove you wrong.
I said the US is less developed than western European countries. also, you thought there's no crime in Africa. stupid.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
Here's something else for you to chew on. Have you ever worn white clothes to a disco? You know how they glow? That's because of the UV light. Exactly the same principle with these moths which you haven't given me sources for.
Saying "they might have colours which we can't see" is not disproving me.
Oh lok, taking my crime in Africa thing out of context again. What is it with atheists and taking things out of context to discredit them?
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
are you now saying you can see UV light, scotty? don't change your claim or atleast admit your loss. and look it up, I don't like doing your homework.
what is it with theists thinking they're always right, despite the fact that all evidence points in the opposite direction?
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
No, you can't see it. It illuminates. I'm not going to find your sources for you. You know about these, presumably you read it somewhere, so it should be easy to simply tell me where.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
ofcourse you won't find my sources. you never do your research. I have to do all the research, lazy bum. simply look around.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
So you expect me to find sources for your claims?
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
Scotzbhoy, when should I be expecting your response to be up, uploaded, processed, and online?
truthforrealtruth 3 years ago
watch?v=7rkWeyUURts
see, simply on YouTube, you don't even have to look far.
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
or do I have to lower to your level and explain it better?
PJDesseyn 3 years ago
the claim about lucy's knee was a lie.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Yep, and I noted that, thanks.
truthforrealtruth 3 years ago
He is not even critical of his sources.
Heck he is not even critical to his own ideas.
Heck! He knows soooo little about the subjects he is debating...
Terrencje 3 years ago
I'M CEREAL!
FranzDuckVideos 3 years ago
xD You're great on the camera
FranzDuckVideos 3 years ago
Hey Josh, how are you doing? I'm glad to see you still are doing these videos and discussing these subjects. Lots of info here. Good vlog.
UpDownMostly 3 years ago