If that were true, then we'd all be truly screwed by the ~200 mutations each person gets each generation. If most DNA isn't neutral or very nearly so, then we could never handle the mutation load. That's a mathematical fact.
@EvoBiologist: "Not neutral" is not quite the same as "very nearly so". Some parts of the junk DNA has already been proven to mean something in the last decade.
something else: It's quite striking, how a lot of otherwise well-informed guys can't correctly draw the distinction between evolution and genetics.
Other DNA referred to as "junk" is actually completely silent and can be mutated with no effect.
Since Ohno decided to call all non-coding DNA "junk", it's hardly surprising that we found uses for a bunch of it. Nowadays, most serious biologists rarely use the term because of all of the baggage associated with it.
Regardless, my point was that by far, most of our DNA could be mutated without any significant damage to our ability to survive and reproduce - if this were not the case, we'd die.
Because the infrastructure involved in genes, the promoter, activators, splice sites, regulatory elements, are so improbable to just mutate into existence on their own 20,000 times evolution predicts that all genes should fit into a family tree.
And this is what we see with no exceptions anywhere. When we look at lineages we see genes get copied and then mutate to cause changes.This is why genes are said to be members of families.
You are just like every other Evolutionist, you make examples of micro evolution and claim therefore some kind of animal can produce another kind of animal. Which has never been observed. For me to be able to believe in evolution again: I would like an example of increased information in the genome. Some mutation that has produces more complexity. For example eyes to evolve out of nothing or nervous system or something simularly complex.
This video was not intended as an explanation of how novel complex traits arise, or as evidence of common descent. Check out my video on GULOP for some evidence of common ancestry of vertebrates.
As for mutations increasing complexity, the nylonase enzyme evolving in bacteria comes to mind. For even more complex structures like eyes, we have to look at the differences between the transitions in living organisms - mollusks have a great record of eye evolution using a stepwise process.
I am like every other rational person that understands evolution. I love it when Fundies Bring up the word kind. Can you even quantify to me what a kind is? If you can`t, feel free to keep your superstitious mouth shut. Otherwise i am quite interested in what you have to say about the topic. I have never witnessed a creationist ever try to describe it before. Additionally, Drzata Micro evolution and macro evolution ARE the same process, simply over a longer time scale.
Also, The very fact you tell me you ever "believed in" evolution suggests to me that you were never a critical thinker. You shouldn't Simply "believe things" You should have tried to learn how evolution actually operates, Read about the Observed instances of it and in general Educate yourself before simply deciding weather it was true or not. If you understood how Phylogeny and Cladistics works you wouldn't need to believe in evolution, You would simply understand that it occurs.
"I would like an example of increased information in the genome."
Gene duplications. All genes are modified copies of each other with no known exceptions.
"Some mutation that has produces more complexity"
Duplication of hox clusters. This is what is behind the biggest changes in novel traits. What this often entails is a modified copy of one thing being expressed elsewhere. The ribs are copies of each other, and legs and arms are similar(because they are duplicate copies of each other)
A big dog doesn't have "increased information" over a little dog, only different timing on genetic growth switches.
Dogs did have to mutate to evolve from wolves. In order for the differences between dogs and wolves to last through the generations, the physical differences have to be based on genetic differences. Pure bred dogs have gone through many population bottlenecks, meaning most of the changes arose from variation that only came about in inbred populations - new mutations were needed.
As far as the Crusaders being good people, like I said before, nationalism can be used inappropriately just like anything else that can be twisted. It has the potential to apply to every human, every belief or non belief system. You and I are know different.
What exactly does a bunch of previously warring European countries joining together under the banner of the pope in order to conquer Jerusalem have to do with nationalism? What does the slaughter of Jewish towns in Germany during the 1st Crusade have to do with nationalism? I agree that nationalism can be used inappropriately to create dangerous beliefs, but it sounds like you're trying to claim that religion never can. Are you really trying to say that?
Busting balls is my job, i'm proud to be a pain in the ass when it comes to this subject, and I have found that many people have learned from me, as I also have learned from many people who disagreed with me But Im not always such an asshoe. I like to laugh and play. As I said before u seem like a decent smart person or I wouldn't waste my time in debate. Zatoichi/Shintaro and Toshiro Mifune also are my favorites, also glad u liked the Hendrix vid I was a little buzzed when I recorded it.
Yeah, anything with Toshiro Mifune is great, especially his stuff with Akira Kurasawa.
Don't worry, you haven't busted my balls or been an asshole yet, unless you've been intentionally fostering miscommunication in our discussion. I hope that some of what I've said has gotten through and made sense to you. You've been civil so far, and I appreciate that.
Its kind of hard to figure out were your head is because earlier you mentioned the Crusades and witch burnings and said that most of the christian world believed in that, but now you say many members of there faith didn't share their belief.
If you don't believe the meeting should be held secret, then I stand corrected, and maybe assumed to much. A couple of years ago former prime minister of England Tony Blair stated publicly that the 9/11 attacks had nothing more to do with Islam than the Crusades had to with with Christianity. He of all people understands this, as do all world leaders, and they benefit from this finger pointing bullshit that we as citizens sometimes participate in. Most people in general are good.
...Self organizing properties of matter would be an ADDITION to the theory of evolution, and would not actually change the basic premises of evolutionary theory. They would help to explain how certain morphologies were built from genes, and thus affect the field of development more than they would genetic evolution.
I agree, 9/11 and the Crusades were both based on dangerous beliefs held by large numbers of good, sane people. Many members of their faiths didn't share these beliefs.
We can argue the finer points of scientific methodology, however the point remains clear that every thing IDers were saying in terms of the conventional synthesis not being able to account for macro evolutionary innovation was true, as stipulated by the heavy hitters within the scientific pro Darwin community itself. It's not just those crazy dissenters anymore. The new interest in this field has been sparked by dissention, this is always good for science and science will eventually tell.
Actually, no, it would mean that the IDers were absolutely wrong. No intelligence is required, and evolution can handle everything one it's own by simply taking advantage of the physical properties of the chemicals being directed by the evolving genes. No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that these properties aren't important. The only change here is in the emphasis of study.
Again the notion of dangerous ideas and secret meetings is not my bag, why should a scientific meeting like this be secret? Shouldn't science be transparent? Is science only for the high priest of establishment? You seem to have tendency toward right wing ideals, no offense there's nothing wrong with being passionate about your beliefs, but it's not what I would expect. To each his own.
I agree that the idea of a secret meeting is a bit suspicious and counter to the scientific process, which is part of why I don't pay much attention to what supposedly happened at Altenberg.
What have I said that makes you think I support right wing ideals? Could you quote the bits? Most people (myself included) consider me a bit left of moderate left.
I get the feeling that there is some serious miscommunication here, as I don't think a single thing I've said has been properly understood.
I was speaking of your statement on Darwinism not being a moral code and then inserting Charles Darwin's sense of morality which is not what his theory is about. U should pay attention to the implications of altenberg, were talking about a major change in the way biology will be taught. Unfortunately many will have to admit that the science that we taught, and were absolutely sure was accurate for the last few decades, may not have been kosher as once thought. ouch!
I only mentioned that Darwin rejected eugenics because you claimed Hitler used Darwin's writings to support eugenics. I was referring to Darwin's writings, and not to some sort of morality inherent in the theory of evolution.
The verdict isn't in yet on the relative importance of self organizing properties in biology, as you already know if you've read what came out of Altenberg. Regardless, none of it detracts from the importance of genetic evolution, which provides the blueprint for life.
I never used the word insane u did, I believe I said mentally disturbed.There is a big difference, and you should know this, I suggest you do some more research on the meeting of altengerg 16, When 16 of the superstars of modern biology come together to construct a new modern synthesis of self organization as apposed to the selfish gene concept that we have been teaching people for the last 50 years as being the gospel truth is a very big thing.These men believed your paradigm is insufficient.
Whether you use "insane" or "mentally disturbed" to refer to people who kill for their beliefs, my point still stands - I disagree. The many thousands of Crusaders were completely sane, as were most of the MANY others throughout history who killed for their beliefs.
What specifically do you think is so revolutionary that came from the Altenberg 16? How exactly does focusing more attention to self organizing properties in any way damage the basic tenets of the modern theory of evolution?
Again if you believed that your belief in a GodHead could compel you to kill someone, then I think those are more personal issues that I would be concerned about, but those are my own personnel feelings.
Others would say that you are not a true believer if God told you to kill someone and you refused to do so. Who are you to question the will of the Creator? Personally, I wouldn't worship a being that I thought would want me to kill people, but plenty of people believe that God does want them to kill, and worship Him anyway. The Lord works in mysterious ways, you know.
I just read your post on the Crusades and such. In reality truly religious wars are very rare. In fact most people can name WW1 and 2, civil, Independence, Vietnam, ex-cetera, but most cant remember a religious war. Humans will use any type of platform to achieve power, including Racism, Nationalism, Elitism,political parties,but the most effective are Religion and Nationalism there will always be crooks in politics and religion. I doubt you believe your family is ignorant or evil.
No, I don't believe my family is ignorant or evil. What did I say that made you suggest such a thing?
Religious beliefs aren't the only type of beliefs that can be dangerous, and not all religious beliefs are dangerous (far from it). My only point was that some religious beliefs are dangerous, and those are beliefs I will argue against. You suggested that I was like some sort of propagandist dictator simply for making this point, yet you haven't refuted or even disagreed with it.
Any morality I have inserted is specifically my own, and not innate to "Darwinism". I am allowed to make moral arguments completely separate from my advocacy for one specific scientific theory. Is there a specific place where you feel that I conflated evolution and morality? Perhaps I can clarify.
Like I said before, killing and war are unfortunately apart of the human condition from Stalin to Hitler to Alexander the Great and people were slaughtering other people long before Christianity came along.
Agreed, Christianity isn't the only set of beliefs that can lead to slaughter. Also, "beliefs" doesn't just mean religious ones. The Communists, for instance, have held a dogmatic set of irrational beliefs that were often, though not always, atheist.
Apology excepted, but again you seem like a decent person at heart and my only advise to you would be that if you believe its perfectly sane to kill someone for a reward of any kind, then i would strongly suggest you seek counsel with a professional, and this is not a veiled insult. If you believe that it's perfectly sane to kill for reward, you might as well become a hit man, you wont even have to wait for your reward in heaven, and you would even be able to fund your own research.
It is perfectly sane to kill someone if the Being rewarding you is the Ultimate Creator of the Universe, and He wants you to do it. People have been doing it for thousands of years, or have you never heard of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, etc. Do you think all these people (including several popes, kings, and other leaders) were all insane? Of course they weren't insane. One could argue that the beliefs were insane, but certainly most of the Christian world believed them.
...as to killing for money, I could never be a hit man 1) because I believe that killing is wrong except in defense and 2) because any monetary reward I received would not be worth the agony from the guilt I felt.
However, if I actually strongly believed that God wanted me to kill someone, and I strongly believed that God was the ultimate arbitrator of good and evil, then I would feel guilty for NOT killing the person.
As I said, sane people have been doing it for thousands of years.
I was wondering if you were familiar with the Altenberg 16 summit last year which if reported as true, invalidates your current extrapolation of the evidence. Some have referred to it as biology's Woodstock.
1st, the Altenberg summit was only attended by 16 scientists, hardly a Woodstock, even for biology. 2nd, it was a private meeting, so we'll never really know what happened.
The reports I've read say that there was no consensus about the importance of "theory of form". Look, no one who studies genetics is claiming that physics, chemistry, and developmental plasticity don't all play major roles. The key is still that heritable adaptation is genetically based. No paradigm shift here that I see.
He was a neo Darwinst who believed in the writings of Huxley Darwin and Hitler and made no bones about it. Does this mean we outlaw all books that speak of Hitler or Darwin and Huxely, does this mean we outlaw Islam for the acts of a few lunatics. Hitler himself was a fan of Darwins work. You see, the dangerous idea concept can get a little dicy.
1st, all organisms alive today are equally evolved and genetic diversity is advantageous for a species. 2nd, evolution is a scientific theory and not a moral code -just because relativity allows us to build nukes doesn't mean we should nuke people. 3rd, nothing in Darwin's writings suggests Jews are inferior, Jews in Germany have been slaughtered since the 1st Crusade for religious reasons. Hitler twisted science AND religion for his purposes. 4th, I don't believe in censorship or banning books.
If you have ever read the writings of Darwin and his bulldog Huxely u would see that he clearly spoke of certain races as being less evolved. The Decent of Man, which talks about the concept of lower races might be a good place to start off. If Hitler twisted science and religion then I think its safe to assume that Muslims can also twist religion with extremism. There seems to be a lack of a reflective surfaces in the Darwinian paradigm where dual standard seem to be the MO.
If you have ever read the writings of Darwin, then you know that he rejected eugenics as being immoral. Likewise, the Nazi's rejected evolution, banning "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)
I agree that Muslim extremists can twist religion like Hitler did, but that doesn't mean that they are insane for holding these beliefs (nor were all the Nazis).
Personally its really know skin off my back, however I find it very frustrating to try to carry on a scientific conversation when someone else wants to infuse religion into the conversation. When looking at beliefs we have to look at things in there entirety. Believing that there are 72 virgins awaiting u is only dangerous when it applies to a mentally disturbed person, just like the guy who recently killed a black guard while attacking a jewish center because he believed they were less evolved
I don't want to infuse religion into the conversation. I only mentioned gods as an example to make a point about probability not being affected by number of options, because I thought it was a good illustration of the principle. I apologize if you misunderstood and I offended you, as that wasn't my intent.
I disagree with your assessment of beliefs. It is entirely sane behavior to kill people if your belief teaches that you will be eternally rewarded for doing so. The belief is the problem.
One other thing I might add, is that I believe when someone say's that beliefs can be dangerous, that's when my radar usually goes up. A lot of people have believed that, and they didn't go down in history to well.
Are you denying that beliefs can be dangerous? It's demonstrably true that they can be. For instance, the belief that 72 virgins await you in heaven if you kill a bunch of "infidels" - I think we can agree that that is a dangerous belief. Another is the belief that God will cure your child's cancer without any medical treatment. Or how about the belief that we don't need to try to preserve the environment or prevent nuclear holocaust because Armageddon is coming soon. I could go on.
First off ID like to say that I don't wish to try to insult you or your beliefs or non belief systems, but it seems you have some animosity with Christianity in general, by the way I spelled christianity with a small c and spell check wanted to change it to a capital, Ill ignore the second one if it makes you fell better. Hit me back when you want to have a serious conversation.
I appreciate your tact and civility. I don't have any animosity towards Christianity (it's okay to capitalize it) in general. I was a devout Christian for most of my life, and my mom and sister still are. My beef is only with religious beliefs that I find to be dangerous, cruel, unjust, or ones that hold back progress and knowledge. Even in those cases, I don't have any beef with the religion in general, but with the specific belief in question.
I don't know what metaphysical theology has to do with the subject at hand. I really don't care to get into my God is better than your God argument. Tone not capitals was my point, and Ive never tried to proselytize to you or give you a, I once to was an evolutionist argument. I don't believe in violent ignorance either, but unfortunately its part of our human condition, yes atheist do kill each other just as efficiently as Christians do, its unfortunate these talks always end up philosophical.
You sound very reluctant to discuss theology. Why bring it up in the first place? Does it have something to do with my GULOP video? I only bring up religion in that video to contrast creationism and evolution and their ability to explain the data.
You seem to have a short memory. We were discussing science, and it was you that that brought up the God subject not me. I only responded to the veiled insult concerning my beliefs or lack of believes which you know absolutely nothing about since I have never shared them with you. If you want to play dumb thats your business man. As a former christian you should know that calling God, or a persons belief in general miniscule, is an insult to that person. So much for your notion of cruelty.....
Apparently you completely misunderstood me. I never called your belief miniscule. In fact, I was making the opposite point. I was simply using the number of gods as an example to show that in fact, the number of possibilities available has no effect on the likelihood of any one option being true. You can go back and read what I said. I never said the probability of your god existing is miniscule, I simply pointed out that it would be if the number of options had the effect you claimed it did.
I believe the words Haussler used were that other chromosomes could make up for these deletions and that the the information deleted could be so critical that there could be redundancy built in the system, again Rubins provideded another possibility. This gives a two to one ratio among a friendly critique and a critique of person actually involved in the experiment, which I might add, seems to be an honest person. A one in three chance that the tittle actually fits the outcome, interesting.
Just because there are 3 possibilities suggested doesn't make them all equally likely. This is a common logical fallacy. That's like claiming that all the gods ever conceived are equally likely to exist, which would make the probability of your particular god miniscule.
Regardless of the truth, that's a lot of DNA to be able to remove with no ill effects.
I wasn't trying to imply that the c value enigma paradox or whatever you want to call it had anything to do with junk DNA per say. I was speaking of the correlation between higher organisms like mammals and there tendency to have more non coding regions of dna than other organisms with a much higher amount of genomic information. The measly 20k proteins we have compared to things like the primordial protozoa or common onion in which genomes are greater by orders of magnitude.
Actually, the organisms like onions and amoeba that have large genomes are thought to have much more junk DNA than organisms with smaller genomes (and there is strong evidence to support this). That is what explains the size difference - they accumulate junk DNA much faster than they delete it.
Mammals don't have more non-coding regions than onions - quite the opposite.
I'm not closed minded. I'm willing to look at anything scientific, and if I'm not able to understand it Ill have someone I can trust help me out with it, and all will be taken into consideration in my views, which in the light of observable evidence is the only thing we have.
First off I would say the comfort in body and mind in knowing I dont have to be a disfigured human is a plus for the design argument, with out these large non coding regions we might all be dead that's proof of purpose and function alone, and in fact some in biology wonder why were not already extinct, of course there are many of life kingdoms that do just fine with large amounts of functioning dna ala c value paradox, but that's a different story. Could u site this particular truncation study.
You misunderstood my point. Without all these large non-coding regions, we'd have less mutations overall. Having large non-coding regions doesn't reduce the probability of coding regions getting a mutation. Each nucleotide has a % chance of mutation that isn't affected by increasing the total nucleotides.
My point was that the human genome is far too large for natural selection to weed out all the deleterious mutations if all the DNA did something. We'd all be deformed.
As for truncation, there are too many studies to list them all. Deleting regions of DNA is a technique used in all sorts of genetics work to locate regions responsible for certain traits, so as to determine the genetic basis for a particular trait.
NewScientist discusses a case in mice where 2 chunks, 1.6 mill bases and 800,000 bases long were deleted, then the mice were tested in a variety of ways - no effect was found.
The c value paradox isn't a paradox BECAUSE of non-functional DNA.
I read the article, it was very interesting thanks, however I think you misunderstood the content and latched on to the title. The research was inconclusive as stated by Rubins himself, in which he said, if I can paraphrase, that there could be other possibilities due to subtle factors that limit the outcome of the test. Haussler brought up a third possibilty, That these nucleotides could be so vital that the animal replaces these areas of the genome on its own. This stuff is all new to us.
It's true that there are other possible explanations, though you're wrong that replacing the sequences is one of them - the claim was that maybe there are extra copies in other parts of the genome. I pointed out that study because I thought it interesting that such large pieces could be removed with no detectable effect, especially since they contained some bits that are conserved between mice and humans. Regardless, we know that not all DNA is functional.
I understood your point, my point was that we are now starting to recognize method from madness in the genome. However like I said many animals don't have the luxury of large non-coding regions and do just fine. I do know of one study concerning mice and the deletion of a blood clotting gene in which it was reported that the mice were saved from another condition because of the procedure but they left out one part, the mice could not reproduce because they bled to death during the birthing.
Ervs are part of so called junk DNA I have tons of info on the latest research on my old computer when I have time ill access it. If our mothers didn't have ervs we could not exist, again new research has shown that they were not exclusive to primates or random as once thought
Was that directed at me? I wasn't talking about ERVs, but about the pseudogene GULOP. Many (though not all) ERVs have been co-opted as promoters and such. That doesn't change the fact that they are obviously viral in origin.
Instead of having me play guessing games why don't you give me an example of this dishonesty, please refrain from generalizing with the terms like they, be specific. Are you talking about Nelson, Dembski, Behe, Meyers ??
I don't know what you mean by "proven the THINGS about junk dna false" again this new research and understanding of non encoding regions was done by predominantly secular non religious researchers and scientist who are not even religiously affiliated and have nothing to do with ID. What artical were you talking about.
People at the DI can discuss the functions of genes once thought to be functionless until blue in the face. That won't change the fact that most DNA in the human genome is functionless. In viruses, this isn't the case due to the strong selective pressure for short DNA that is rapidly copyable. Have you seen my GULOP video? I'd love to know what you think this broken version of a once functional gene is doing in primates. Even if it had a function, it would be pretty odd without common descent.
Just because we haven't discovered every function doesn't mean there aren't more waiting to be discovered which is happening all the time. According to Francis Collins we only understand about two percent of the human chromosome. The Encode project opened up a universe of unexpected information and insights into under layers of complexity and emergent systems that were previously inconcievable.
Sure, more functions are waiting to be discovered, but that doesn't change the fact that if all our DNA was functional, we'd be horribly deformed from all the unfiltered deleterious mutations. It also doesn't change the results of many studies where large chunks of DNA have been experimentally removed from organisms with no detectable effect,
The discovery institute has chosen their words very carefully, and have repeatedly stated that its not just one thing alone, but an accumulation of evidence that should be considered, & as far as evidence being true or not true, this is a question that deals more with the subjectivity of the observer. Evolutionist have used junk dna as proof for years. The fact that science has proven this paradigm false shouldn't have anything to do with edification of anyone, including Iders or creationist.
You have obviously not read the articles I linked too. I wasn't talking about the one entitled "Hugh Ross' shocking fairy tale."
Again, science has not "proven" the things about 'junk DNA' false that the DI claims. They mischaracterize real research, and are misleading in what they claim articles say, or how they relate to evolution.
You don't need to look to Christians to tell you about the problems with our previous understanding of junk dna, there are plenty of non Christian researchers who would say the same, if you don't know of any, just ask and ill will tell you who they are.
Nobody is denying that some of the DNA that was called 'junk' has been found to have a function. However, the anti-evolutionist line that this is "evidence against 'Neo-Darwinism'" (whatever that is) or somehow a disconfirmation of evolutionary predictions is just not true.
People such as those at the Discovery Institute have a long history of trying to promote these falsehoods, and have shown that they are not to be trusted as a reliable source for information in this area.
I think you have been misinformed. I don't believe Hugh Ross is member or spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, and you haven't stated what your contention is with him, you have only showed someone else s critique of his personal views. You have made accusations of dishonesty about the institute, but offer no examples.
I wasn't talking about Hugh Ross, although Steve Matheson does talk about Reasons To Believe, he is talking about the DI too. The articles I was talking about are called:
Talking trash about "junk DNA": Introduction
Talking trash about "junk DNA": lies about genomic research
Talking trash about "junk DNA": lies about "function" (part I)
Talking trash about "junk DNA": lies about "function" (part II)
There are specific links to the DI site, and some of their misleading articles.
cont..Mendelian genetics has no pathway for the accountability of molecule to man without incorporating non testable hypothesis such as errors in the duplicating as process being a sufficient explanation to account for Large and vast amounts of genetic information even in the simplest of life's domains, actually there is no such thing as simple life, period. These are the questions that need to be answered. No theory can survive stagnant in light of new discoveries.
Sorry man, I don't mean to to be bust your balls because u seem like a sincere fellow, but Junk DNA? We have known for at least a few years that there really is no such thing as junk DNA. In fact a very prominent researcher recently went on record as saying our concept of junk dna is one of the biggest blunders of the century. As far as statistical probabilities can you use a formula to explain the probabilities of chemical life comming into existence. Can u demonstrate PE with a snickers bar.
Mutations occur in every generation, so if all DNA was functional, there would be serious problems for everyone all the time, and we'd all be hideously deformed.
Also, large chunks (100s to 1000s of nucleotides) of DNA have been experimentally removed from organisms with no detectable effect. Certainly as we examine DNA, we will find new functions for some things once thought non-functional, but the majority must be non-functional regardless.
I don't argue that mutations don't exist or that the human genome doesn't provides plenty of headroom. I argue that the term junk or useless this is out dated science. A Darwin of the gaps argument so to say. Francis Collins recently stated that our preconceived ideas of DNA have to reexamined in light of new evidence, such as under layers of complexity within non coding regions of DNA previously thought to be useless, that show great evidence for gene expression and many other emergent systems.
I'm not arguing that all of the DNA that is referred to as "junk DNA" is actually useless. There's plenty of non-coding DNA that serves regulatory and structural functions, but there's also plenty of DNA that does nothing. Personally, I think the term "junk DNA" is a bad one. Think of this, though: even in coding DNA, the 3rd letter of every codon is often redundant.
As I said before, it is impossible for all our DNA to be functional, or else every animal would be horribly mutated.
I understand, I wont accuse u of saying something your not, but for years Darwinist have used Junk DNA as a poster child for evolution, and we now know that the narrative of remnant accumulated junk is inaccurate. In the modern synthesis, origins or the accountability of genetic information is never discussed when attempting to enlighten the general public, and this is only one of many examples of controversy that the establishment doesn't address publicly. Which leads to more misunderstandings.
If you are a Christian might I suggest you look at Quintessence of Dust, a blog by Steve Matheson, an Associate Professor of Biology at Calvin College. He has a whole series of articles there about 'junk DNA' and how anti-evolutionists have misrepresented genomic research.
sfmatheson (dot) blogspot (dot) com/search/label/Junk DNA
The series of articles begins near the bottom with the one entitled "Talking trash about 'junk DNA': Introduction."
I read the artical u sited and it seems to be a crittique on the choice of words that Hugh Ross used that seems to be the authors contention. I know that Gregory Ryan has written a piece on c value parodox that seems to echoe what Ross was saying in terms of the tendency for higher organisms to have less genetic information and its correlation to large noncoding regions of dna especially in mamals, but Im not sure what that has to do with Christianity or my own personel metaphysical beliefs.
I am afraid that i could NEVER do this experiment, mostly because i would eat all those tasty MnM's, and yes i would leave the red to last :)
Kidding aside; I am not sure i quite understand about "junk" DNA. Is it DNA that has been "deactivated"? or maybe you could just recommend a good book to read.
Junk DNA is any DNA that basically doesn't do anything. Some of it is once useful genes or inactive copies of useful genes, some are DNA insertions that never had a function. As we examine DNA more closely, we invariably find DNA thought to be junk DNA that turns out to have a function, however, there is way too much DNA in higher organisms for it all to be maintained by selective pressure, so a large percentage MUST be junk or we would suffer from too many deleterious mutations to survive.
Last time I shaved I got mistaken for a high schooler - I'd rather my college lab students believe that I actually am older than them. Also, my wife would kill me - she LOVES the beard.
This guy is a cyberstalker- Cyber harassment and stalking United States National Crime Prevention Council: Being a victim of cyberstalking can be a common and painful experience. Some who cyberstalk: Spread lies and rumors about victims, Revealing personal information Post mean comments Use info/images without consent Prevent cyberstalking on YouTube: Refuse to post or pass along cyberbullying videos The National Crime Prevention Council
I read John Kramer's argumentation. It is easy to see that he has a major problem to work as a researcher. He seems unable to separate religion from science and ends up in a pitiful mess of nonsense.
Mejc2, try reading something by a real scientist like astronomer George Coyne, jesuit priest and former director of the Vatican Observatory. He points out that science is "neutral with respect to religious thinking" and that trying to use "god of the gaps" as an explanation is a way of cheating.
here's a good idea. Put all of the M&M's in a shoe box lid. shake the lid many times observig the M&M'd each time. When they spell out Marcus is a dope. That can equal one positive mutation. Then have that process repeated millions and millions of times. That is what you are wishing for, so go ahead and try to obtain some impirical evidence. The truth lies some where in the middle of both arguments.
No, when they spell out "Marcus is a dope" then that would be closer to an example of the sort of thing needed for abiogenesis, which requires a random unlikely combination of nucleotides.
After that self-replicating molecule formed, positive mutations would simply be any change that helped increase it's ability to multiply. How about the recent lab evolution of citrate digesting bacteria? Not a positive or big enough mutation?
The truth is where it is. Sometimes one side is wrong.
Wait...so are you a biologist? Because every real biologist, people that study all their lives and devote themselves to the study of how life forms work, has excepted evolution as fact. So what do you know that they dont that makes you think evolution isnt real?
Wait sit in 7 or 8 Evolutionism classes. Get a certificate from an Evolutionist institution, and somehow you think that you are qualified to comment on the origins of life or organisms. OK. I wonder if you will have an evolutionist point of view???? HMMMM!
Lots of people are taught young Earth creationism all their lives, and once they learn about evolution in detail, they almost always accept evolution. You'd think the discovery institute would have more evolutionary biologists - people who've seen the evidence from evolution and don't find it convincing. That's how science progresses, you know? You learn a lot about a subject , then figure out the flaws. Instead, a decent understanding of evolution inevitably leads to acceptance of it.
Evolutionism is appealing to people. If the fairy tale is true then you are the boss. People like being the boss. Actually, all people suffer from the same disease it is the " you're not the boss of me disease" . So evolutionism is very appealing. However, there aren't many facts to support the fairy tale.
Universities that teach the evidence supporting the historical accounts recorded in the Bible have very few that begin accepting Evolutionism. Evolutionists try to indoctrinate everyone.
People find the evidence for a modern history of the universe gained from physics and geology to be pretty convincing as well. You know, science can't just arbitrarily go in whatever direction the person studying it wants it to go. There's an objective reality out there that we test all our hypotheses and theories against. What we're left with is the most likely version so far examined.
I'm still waiting for an alternate explanation for the pattern of GULOP that makes any sense.
You are correct science cannot go in any direction it wants. Evolutionism, however, is a fairy tale. Evolutionism can go in absolutely any direction it wants and dismiss all evidence against it.
You have invented a story about GULOP and reject scientists explanations that don't fit your story. Your story about GULOP is just that, a story, invented in the mind of man to explain an observation.
I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong about evolution. Show me (for example) a rabbit from the Cambrian and evolution collapses. There are countless other ways to destroy the theory if it weren't true.
So you're claiming you have a better explanation than common descent for the pattern of mutations in a non-functional version of a gene that helps make vitamin C? The pattern we see is exactly the same pattern we see when we look at genes to determine parentage and other forms of relatedness.
I'm sorry too. However, I'm sorry for you. You claim billions, upon billions, upon billions, of mutations creating millions of new appendages, body plans, body parts, systems etc. A few of which were beneficial and continued through selection. To prove this steady increase in complexity of organisms billions of times over billions of years, you show me a pattern of a gene that you suppose has LOST function over time. Marcus, rethink your position dude. IT NEVER HAPPENED!
Unfortunately for you, all the evidence is on my side. It DID happen.
Have you seen the new fossil find of the "proto" seal? It looks like a modern seal except it's legs are still partly adapted for land like those of an otter. We keep finding more and more of these transitions just as predicted, and the DNA supports the whole pattern (not to mention the support from anatomy, development, biochemistry, geology, etc.).
I know it's hard for fundamentalists to question the Bible, but good luck.
I saw the find but I missed the tag that said "proto seal". Evolutionists see what they want to see. The story created around the DNA similarities observed is cute. However, it changes every time it is proved wrong.
Evolutionism is appealing I know, but in the long run you will be disappointed.
So your explanation is that God made an animal that looked like a seal, except slightly modified to be more terrestrial as some sort of joke or to test our faith? Same with the pattern of GULOP? God sure could've easily made things appear that they hadn't evolved, but He didn't do that. He has convinced the most brilliant scientists in the world, many of whom have directly studied these phenomena, that evolution has occurred and does occur. As we get more DNA, the story gains more support.
First of all you don't know anything at all about that animal. You don't even know if it ever reproduced a single offspring. All claims are speculation. Second of all YOU claim that God has convinced scientists that evolution has happened. Why does it have to be God that has convinced them. Maybe they convinced themselves or.......?Lastly, the story doesn't gain support you keep changing the story to fit the observations made about God's creation.
...and some speculation is better supported than others.
The evidence convinced the scientists (myself included), and either way you look at it, if God exists, then He's responsible for putting that evidence there in the first place.
Science changes - that's the beauty of it. Evolution has "evolved" since Darwin, which is the sign of a healthy science. However, the core theories of common descent, natural selection, and gradualism have not changed since Darwin.
God doesn't put evidence....you have mistakenly interpreted reality to fit your delusional story that makes you the ultimate authority in your life. You suffer from "you're not the boss of me disease". Your cute little story makes you the boss that is why you like it so much.
Common descent? We do observe descent. However you claim the never observed ascent as reality. Simple organisms ascended into complex superior organisms. It never happened Marcus.
Everything in reality is data, or "evidence" of something - it seems to me and all the best biologists that it is evidence of evolution. Evolution does not deny the existence of God. There are plenty of great Christian (and other theistic) evolutionary biologists.
Evolution is still the best answer, whether or not God exists. If you disagree, start working on developing a research to test your alternative theory. So far all other theories have failed.
The difference is that reality is not subjective, while musical taste is. 150 years, and basically every who has seriously devoted their life to studying evolution has ended up building more and more support for it. That didn't happen in physics - they found new theories to replace the old ones when they found they didn't work. Where's the new theory you propose to replace evolution? It has to explain things better.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with one.
Evolutionists create their own reality. Therefore, it was a fairy tale 150 years ago and is a more elaborate fairy tale today. Every time reality creeps in and smashes part of the fairy tale evolutionists just create a new tale and wait for reality to creep in and change it. Based on imagination. Just like the "proto seal"
Duh gee look bones we never saw before. Wow, maybe webbed feet, we found it near an old lake, Duh maybe this unknown animal turned into a seal. IT'S "PROTO SEAL"
If the "proto seal" were the only evidence for evolution, I'd agree with you, but it's just one tiny piece of the puzzle that is steadily getting fleshed out, in many cases in a very predictable way. We think it had webbed feet, because it's long toes would be pretty clumsy and pointless without webbing, not simply because it lived by water. It also has a lot of features very close to modern seals and no other group, so is within the same taxonomic group.
There is no puzzle being fleshed out. Evolutionists are creating their story around observations. Of course as time goes on the storytellers will make the story fit observations. However, the observation comes first then comes the story, or the story changes.
Soft tissue can in no way last 65 million years. OH wait, what's that, soft tissue in a T Rex Bone? Does that mean this T Rex bone is much younger? NO! it means that soft tissue can last 65 million years. Just make up shit.
Until a black swan was found, swans were defined as being white. As our understanding of reality grows, some predictions are rejected and ideas are fleshed out.
There's no soft tissue in T Rex bone, just the fossilized remains of what used to be soft tissue. It isn't like you can pull out marrow or DNA or anything.
The basics of evolution have not changed at all. Common descent is supported by the data, natural selection is the major driver, and we find more and more evidence of gradualism.
Descent is supported by evidence. However what you support, Ascent, is not. We have such little evidence of gradualism that Gould of Harvard has created a new fairy tale to help imagine why. Your wild dreams of billions of mutations creating new limbs, systems, body plans, etc. is just not supported by the empirical evidence. But then again Evolutionism just needs a good imagination. The more we know about living organisms the more we can see that random mutation causing it is preposterous.
Punctuated equilibrium is just an acknowledgment that evolution doesn't proceed at one rate and that the fossil record is necessarily incomplete.
It's a good thing that evolution doesn't require a lot of new things to develop, unlike creationism, which has every species miraculously and instantaneously get new everything. With evolution, most things are simply modified versions of old things, that's why fish and tetrapods share the same basic body plan. So things gradually evolve once.
"Just make up shit"....wow, I'm surprised I just caught that. Do you use that word in casual conversation with your pastor? With your mother? Or do you save it for when you're REALLY PISSED?
Nice try. Not really.....cursing is not exactly christ-like, now is it? More and more you are destroying your own legitimacy, and I AGAIN thank you for that. You're just pissed because I showed you how stupid you sound.
I am not Christ like. Also, I don't know anyone that is. Cursing is definitely one of the sins that I have trouble with. I'm a tough guy, it just comes out that way.
Kemo was a tough guy 'till Royce got finished with him. Gee, you show all of the qualities of a xtian: Humility, grace,a humble, peaceful demeanor............you're what drives most people away from that religion, Ace. And you're oblivious to it.....
"Er...did you mean Kimbo?''''AhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAHHHHH.....that's worth a million. Grown kids, my ASS. You really ARE 26. I meant what I typed. Kimbo.....what a hoot. About as technical as Kemo, though. Royce- now he's technical. Just not a very good mma fighter. Learned a lot from him over the years. Kimbo.....thanks for the laugh- AGAIN.
"No one has ever demonstrated macroevolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals and man...Furthermore, the changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity."
Every gene duplication or addition of nucleotides is a gain of information and complexity. Macroevolution is a basically meaningless term, and in the sense you mean it, is not predicted to happen over short periods of time.
I've read Kramer at your suggestion, and he's a hack who doesn't understand basic genetics despite his degree.
I do this in tutoring :) I get fabric from the local fabric store that is colorful like the candies. Then I have a few different types of utensils. I have the student try to pick up as many candies as they can in 10 seconds with the utensil (a different one each time.) Then we see which utensil works best and we "change" the environment by putting things under the fabric, like water bottles for mountains and see which candies survive best and in which location :P
We do a similar experiment in the BIOL111 Lab I've TA'd, with black and white beans on a black gravel background. We rebuild the population to 100 each round from the ratios left in the tray. The gravel makes the black beans blend well. You can do the same with the genetic drift example I did. It's interesting if you graph the ratio over time for each group and compare the two types of evolution.
I may try to do an adaptation of that for a future video. Your example sounds very elaborate!
Great videos. You really help me understand evolution better. A little bit of editing could make them more attention span friendly though. Look forward to the next one. Thanx,peace. :)
Thanks - it means a lot to hear from people who have learned something from my amateurish attempts at educational videos. I agree with the editing / attention span issue. I'm trying to balance accuracy and practicality with brevity. Any suggestions as to what to cut out?
I agree. I thought it might go a little quicker than it did. I tried to talk through most of it, to explain a bit, but I could've cut that out and spliced in a clip of me explaining. Cool - thanks again.
you do a great job explaning evolution.
bigchurp 1 year ago
Junk DNA is just DNA that has not yet been understood.
gertomaniac 2 years ago
If that were true, then we'd all be truly screwed by the ~200 mutations each person gets each generation. If most DNA isn't neutral or very nearly so, then we could never handle the mutation load. That's a mathematical fact.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
@EvoBiologist: "Not neutral" is not quite the same as "very nearly so". Some parts of the junk DNA has already been proven to mean something in the last decade.
something else: It's quite striking, how a lot of otherwise well-informed guys can't correctly draw the distinction between evolution and genetics.
gertomaniac 2 years ago
Other DNA referred to as "junk" is actually completely silent and can be mutated with no effect.
Since Ohno decided to call all non-coding DNA "junk", it's hardly surprising that we found uses for a bunch of it. Nowadays, most serious biologists rarely use the term because of all of the baggage associated with it.
Regardless, my point was that by far, most of our DNA could be mutated without any significant damage to our ability to survive and reproduce - if this were not the case, we'd die.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Dude... when the religious rite shows up with torches and a stake.... DON'T get the M&M's out. That just isn't making the case.
SomeStylistGuy 2 years ago
"Mmmm... Selection"
That made my day!
SGresponse 2 years ago
Because the infrastructure involved in genes, the promoter, activators, splice sites, regulatory elements, are so improbable to just mutate into existence on their own 20,000 times evolution predicts that all genes should fit into a family tree.
And this is what we see with no exceptions anywhere. When we look at lineages we see genes get copied and then mutate to cause changes.This is why genes are said to be members of families.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
is it true that some Micro organisms have larger
Genomes than we do?
AcanLord 2 years ago
Amoeba dubia and Amoeba proteus have genomes much larger than ours.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Yes i remember hearing that somewhere, but i wasn't sure weather it was true or not. its quite interesting.
AcanLord 2 years ago
You are just like every other Evolutionist, you make examples of micro evolution and claim therefore some kind of animal can produce another kind of animal. Which has never been observed. For me to be able to believe in evolution again: I would like an example of increased information in the genome. Some mutation that has produces more complexity. For example eyes to evolve out of nothing or nervous system or something simularly complex.
Drzata 2 years ago
This video was not intended as an explanation of how novel complex traits arise, or as evidence of common descent. Check out my video on GULOP for some evidence of common ancestry of vertebrates.
As for mutations increasing complexity, the nylonase enzyme evolving in bacteria comes to mind. For even more complex structures like eyes, we have to look at the differences between the transitions in living organisms - mollusks have a great record of eye evolution using a stepwise process.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I am like every other rational person that understands evolution. I love it when Fundies Bring up the word kind. Can you even quantify to me what a kind is? If you can`t, feel free to keep your superstitious mouth shut. Otherwise i am quite interested in what you have to say about the topic. I have never witnessed a creationist ever try to describe it before. Additionally, Drzata Micro evolution and macro evolution ARE the same process, simply over a longer time scale.
AcanLord 2 years ago
Also, The very fact you tell me you ever "believed in" evolution suggests to me that you were never a critical thinker. You shouldn't Simply "believe things" You should have tried to learn how evolution actually operates, Read about the Observed instances of it and in general Educate yourself before simply deciding weather it was true or not. If you understood how Phylogeny and Cladistics works you wouldn't need to believe in evolution, You would simply understand that it occurs.
AcanLord 2 years ago
Irreducible complexity = fail
AcanLord 2 years ago
"I would like an example of increased information in the genome."
Gene duplications. All genes are modified copies of each other with no known exceptions.
"Some mutation that has produces more complexity"
Duplication of hox clusters. This is what is behind the biggest changes in novel traits. What this often entails is a modified copy of one thing being expressed elsewhere. The ribs are copies of each other, and legs and arms are similar(because they are duplicate copies of each other)
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Does a big dog have 'increased information' over a little dog?
Or does all dogs coming from a wolf show they didn't have to mutate to evolve? Micro evolution is evolution given enough time,
gregrutz 2 years ago
A big dog doesn't have "increased information" over a little dog, only different timing on genetic growth switches.
Dogs did have to mutate to evolve from wolves. In order for the differences between dogs and wolves to last through the generations, the physical differences have to be based on genetic differences. Pure bred dogs have gone through many population bottlenecks, meaning most of the changes arose from variation that only came about in inbred populations - new mutations were needed.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
As far as the Crusaders being good people, like I said before, nationalism can be used inappropriately just like anything else that can be twisted. It has the potential to apply to every human, every belief or non belief system. You and I are know different.
benthemiester 2 years ago
What exactly does a bunch of previously warring European countries joining together under the banner of the pope in order to conquer Jerusalem have to do with nationalism? What does the slaughter of Jewish towns in Germany during the 1st Crusade have to do with nationalism? I agree that nationalism can be used inappropriately to create dangerous beliefs, but it sounds like you're trying to claim that religion never can. Are you really trying to say that?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Busting balls is my job, i'm proud to be a pain in the ass when it comes to this subject, and I have found that many people have learned from me, as I also have learned from many people who disagreed with me But Im not always such an asshoe. I like to laugh and play. As I said before u seem like a decent smart person or I wouldn't waste my time in debate. Zatoichi/Shintaro and Toshiro Mifune also are my favorites, also glad u liked the Hendrix vid I was a little buzzed when I recorded it.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Yeah, anything with Toshiro Mifune is great, especially his stuff with Akira Kurasawa.
Don't worry, you haven't busted my balls or been an asshole yet, unless you've been intentionally fostering miscommunication in our discussion. I hope that some of what I've said has gotten through and made sense to you. You've been civil so far, and I appreciate that.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Its kind of hard to figure out were your head is because earlier you mentioned the Crusades and witch burnings and said that most of the christian world believed in that, but now you say many members of there faith didn't share their belief.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Yes, and both statements are true. Though most of the Christian world went along with these things and saw them as good, many did not.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
If you don't believe the meeting should be held secret, then I stand corrected, and maybe assumed to much. A couple of years ago former prime minister of England Tony Blair stated publicly that the 9/11 attacks had nothing more to do with Islam than the Crusades had to with with Christianity. He of all people understands this, as do all world leaders, and they benefit from this finger pointing bullshit that we as citizens sometimes participate in. Most people in general are good.
benthemiester 2 years ago
...Self organizing properties of matter would be an ADDITION to the theory of evolution, and would not actually change the basic premises of evolutionary theory. They would help to explain how certain morphologies were built from genes, and thus affect the field of development more than they would genetic evolution.
I agree, 9/11 and the Crusades were both based on dangerous beliefs held by large numbers of good, sane people. Many members of their faiths didn't share these beliefs.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
We can argue the finer points of scientific methodology, however the point remains clear that every thing IDers were saying in terms of the conventional synthesis not being able to account for macro evolutionary innovation was true, as stipulated by the heavy hitters within the scientific pro Darwin community itself. It's not just those crazy dissenters anymore. The new interest in this field has been sparked by dissention, this is always good for science and science will eventually tell.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Actually, no, it would mean that the IDers were absolutely wrong. No intelligence is required, and evolution can handle everything one it's own by simply taking advantage of the physical properties of the chemicals being directed by the evolving genes. No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that these properties aren't important. The only change here is in the emphasis of study.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Again the notion of dangerous ideas and secret meetings is not my bag, why should a scientific meeting like this be secret? Shouldn't science be transparent? Is science only for the high priest of establishment? You seem to have tendency toward right wing ideals, no offense there's nothing wrong with being passionate about your beliefs, but it's not what I would expect. To each his own.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I agree that the idea of a secret meeting is a bit suspicious and counter to the scientific process, which is part of why I don't pay much attention to what supposedly happened at Altenberg.
What have I said that makes you think I support right wing ideals? Could you quote the bits? Most people (myself included) consider me a bit left of moderate left.
I get the feeling that there is some serious miscommunication here, as I don't think a single thing I've said has been properly understood.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I was speaking of your statement on Darwinism not being a moral code and then inserting Charles Darwin's sense of morality which is not what his theory is about. U should pay attention to the implications of altenberg, were talking about a major change in the way biology will be taught. Unfortunately many will have to admit that the science that we taught, and were absolutely sure was accurate for the last few decades, may not have been kosher as once thought. ouch!
benthemiester 2 years ago
I only mentioned that Darwin rejected eugenics because you claimed Hitler used Darwin's writings to support eugenics. I was referring to Darwin's writings, and not to some sort of morality inherent in the theory of evolution.
The verdict isn't in yet on the relative importance of self organizing properties in biology, as you already know if you've read what came out of Altenberg. Regardless, none of it detracts from the importance of genetic evolution, which provides the blueprint for life.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I never used the word insane u did, I believe I said mentally disturbed.There is a big difference, and you should know this, I suggest you do some more research on the meeting of altengerg 16, When 16 of the superstars of modern biology come together to construct a new modern synthesis of self organization as apposed to the selfish gene concept that we have been teaching people for the last 50 years as being the gospel truth is a very big thing.These men believed your paradigm is insufficient.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Whether you use "insane" or "mentally disturbed" to refer to people who kill for their beliefs, my point still stands - I disagree. The many thousands of Crusaders were completely sane, as were most of the MANY others throughout history who killed for their beliefs.
What specifically do you think is so revolutionary that came from the Altenberg 16? How exactly does focusing more attention to self organizing properties in any way damage the basic tenets of the modern theory of evolution?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Again if you believed that your belief in a GodHead could compel you to kill someone, then I think those are more personal issues that I would be concerned about, but those are my own personnel feelings.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Others would say that you are not a true believer if God told you to kill someone and you refused to do so. Who are you to question the will of the Creator? Personally, I wouldn't worship a being that I thought would want me to kill people, but plenty of people believe that God does want them to kill, and worship Him anyway. The Lord works in mysterious ways, you know.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I just read your post on the Crusades and such. In reality truly religious wars are very rare. In fact most people can name WW1 and 2, civil, Independence, Vietnam, ex-cetera, but most cant remember a religious war. Humans will use any type of platform to achieve power, including Racism, Nationalism, Elitism,political parties,but the most effective are Religion and Nationalism there will always be crooks in politics and religion. I doubt you believe your family is ignorant or evil.
benthemiester 2 years ago
No, I don't believe my family is ignorant or evil. What did I say that made you suggest such a thing?
Religious beliefs aren't the only type of beliefs that can be dangerous, and not all religious beliefs are dangerous (far from it). My only point was that some religious beliefs are dangerous, and those are beliefs I will argue against. You suggested that I was like some sort of propagandist dictator simply for making this point, yet you haven't refuted or even disagreed with it.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
You cant have it both ways and say Darwinism is not a code of morality and then insert morality when its needed to assert a point.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Any morality I have inserted is specifically my own, and not innate to "Darwinism". I am allowed to make moral arguments completely separate from my advocacy for one specific scientific theory. Is there a specific place where you feel that I conflated evolution and morality? Perhaps I can clarify.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Like I said before, killing and war are unfortunately apart of the human condition from Stalin to Hitler to Alexander the Great and people were slaughtering other people long before Christianity came along.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Agreed, Christianity isn't the only set of beliefs that can lead to slaughter. Also, "beliefs" doesn't just mean religious ones. The Communists, for instance, have held a dogmatic set of irrational beliefs that were often, though not always, atheist.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Apology excepted, but again you seem like a decent person at heart and my only advise to you would be that if you believe its perfectly sane to kill someone for a reward of any kind, then i would strongly suggest you seek counsel with a professional, and this is not a veiled insult. If you believe that it's perfectly sane to kill for reward, you might as well become a hit man, you wont even have to wait for your reward in heaven, and you would even be able to fund your own research.
benthemiester 2 years ago
It is perfectly sane to kill someone if the Being rewarding you is the Ultimate Creator of the Universe, and He wants you to do it. People have been doing it for thousands of years, or have you never heard of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, etc. Do you think all these people (including several popes, kings, and other leaders) were all insane? Of course they weren't insane. One could argue that the beliefs were insane, but certainly most of the Christian world believed them.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
...as to killing for money, I could never be a hit man 1) because I believe that killing is wrong except in defense and 2) because any monetary reward I received would not be worth the agony from the guilt I felt.
However, if I actually strongly believed that God wanted me to kill someone, and I strongly believed that God was the ultimate arbitrator of good and evil, then I would feel guilty for NOT killing the person.
As I said, sane people have been doing it for thousands of years.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I was wondering if you were familiar with the Altenberg 16 summit last year which if reported as true, invalidates your current extrapolation of the evidence. Some have referred to it as biology's Woodstock.
benthemiester 2 years ago
1st, the Altenberg summit was only attended by 16 scientists, hardly a Woodstock, even for biology. 2nd, it was a private meeting, so we'll never really know what happened.
The reports I've read say that there was no consensus about the importance of "theory of form". Look, no one who studies genetics is claiming that physics, chemistry, and developmental plasticity don't all play major roles. The key is still that heritable adaptation is genetically based. No paradigm shift here that I see.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
He was a neo Darwinst who believed in the writings of Huxley Darwin and Hitler and made no bones about it. Does this mean we outlaw all books that speak of Hitler or Darwin and Huxely, does this mean we outlaw Islam for the acts of a few lunatics. Hitler himself was a fan of Darwins work. You see, the dangerous idea concept can get a little dicy.
benthemiester 2 years ago
1st, all organisms alive today are equally evolved and genetic diversity is advantageous for a species. 2nd, evolution is a scientific theory and not a moral code -just because relativity allows us to build nukes doesn't mean we should nuke people. 3rd, nothing in Darwin's writings suggests Jews are inferior, Jews in Germany have been slaughtered since the 1st Crusade for religious reasons. Hitler twisted science AND religion for his purposes. 4th, I don't believe in censorship or banning books.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
If you have ever read the writings of Darwin and his bulldog Huxely u would see that he clearly spoke of certain races as being less evolved. The Decent of Man, which talks about the concept of lower races might be a good place to start off. If Hitler twisted science and religion then I think its safe to assume that Muslims can also twist religion with extremism. There seems to be a lack of a reflective surfaces in the Darwinian paradigm where dual standard seem to be the MO.
benthemiester 2 years ago
If you have ever read the writings of Darwin, then you know that he rejected eugenics as being immoral. Likewise, the Nazi's rejected evolution, banning "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)
I agree that Muslim extremists can twist religion like Hitler did, but that doesn't mean that they are insane for holding these beliefs (nor were all the Nazis).
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Personally its really know skin off my back, however I find it very frustrating to try to carry on a scientific conversation when someone else wants to infuse religion into the conversation. When looking at beliefs we have to look at things in there entirety. Believing that there are 72 virgins awaiting u is only dangerous when it applies to a mentally disturbed person, just like the guy who recently killed a black guard while attacking a jewish center because he believed they were less evolved
benthemiester 2 years ago
I don't want to infuse religion into the conversation. I only mentioned gods as an example to make a point about probability not being affected by number of options, because I thought it was a good illustration of the principle. I apologize if you misunderstood and I offended you, as that wasn't my intent.
I disagree with your assessment of beliefs. It is entirely sane behavior to kill people if your belief teaches that you will be eternally rewarded for doing so. The belief is the problem.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
One other thing I might add, is that I believe when someone say's that beliefs can be dangerous, that's when my radar usually goes up. A lot of people have believed that, and they didn't go down in history to well.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Are you denying that beliefs can be dangerous? It's demonstrably true that they can be. For instance, the belief that 72 virgins await you in heaven if you kill a bunch of "infidels" - I think we can agree that that is a dangerous belief. Another is the belief that God will cure your child's cancer without any medical treatment. Or how about the belief that we don't need to try to preserve the environment or prevent nuclear holocaust because Armageddon is coming soon. I could go on.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
First off ID like to say that I don't wish to try to insult you or your beliefs or non belief systems, but it seems you have some animosity with Christianity in general, by the way I spelled christianity with a small c and spell check wanted to change it to a capital, Ill ignore the second one if it makes you fell better. Hit me back when you want to have a serious conversation.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I appreciate your tact and civility. I don't have any animosity towards Christianity (it's okay to capitalize it) in general. I was a devout Christian for most of my life, and my mom and sister still are. My beef is only with religious beliefs that I find to be dangerous, cruel, unjust, or ones that hold back progress and knowledge. Even in those cases, I don't have any beef with the religion in general, but with the specific belief in question.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I don't know what metaphysical theology has to do with the subject at hand. I really don't care to get into my God is better than your God argument. Tone not capitals was my point, and Ive never tried to proselytize to you or give you a, I once to was an evolutionist argument. I don't believe in violent ignorance either, but unfortunately its part of our human condition, yes atheist do kill each other just as efficiently as Christians do, its unfortunate these talks always end up philosophical.
benthemiester 2 years ago
You sound very reluctant to discuss theology. Why bring it up in the first place? Does it have something to do with my GULOP video? I only bring up religion in that video to contrast creationism and evolution and their ability to explain the data.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
You seem to have a short memory. We were discussing science, and it was you that that brought up the God subject not me. I only responded to the veiled insult concerning my beliefs or lack of believes which you know absolutely nothing about since I have never shared them with you. If you want to play dumb thats your business man. As a former christian you should know that calling God, or a persons belief in general miniscule, is an insult to that person. So much for your notion of cruelty.....
benthemiester 2 years ago
Apparently you completely misunderstood me. I never called your belief miniscule. In fact, I was making the opposite point. I was simply using the number of gods as an example to show that in fact, the number of possibilities available has no effect on the likelihood of any one option being true. You can go back and read what I said. I never said the probability of your god existing is miniscule, I simply pointed out that it would be if the number of options had the effect you claimed it did.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
My other thread didn't post, i don't Know why but i don't have time to right it again, ill check out your video latter again thanks for the info.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I believe the words Haussler used were that other chromosomes could make up for these deletions and that the the information deleted could be so critical that there could be redundancy built in the system, again Rubins provideded another possibility. This gives a two to one ratio among a friendly critique and a critique of person actually involved in the experiment, which I might add, seems to be an honest person. A one in three chance that the tittle actually fits the outcome, interesting.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Just because there are 3 possibilities suggested doesn't make them all equally likely. This is a common logical fallacy. That's like claiming that all the gods ever conceived are equally likely to exist, which would make the probability of your particular god miniscule.
Regardless of the truth, that's a lot of DNA to be able to remove with no ill effects.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I wasn't trying to imply that the c value enigma paradox or whatever you want to call it had anything to do with junk DNA per say. I was speaking of the correlation between higher organisms like mammals and there tendency to have more non coding regions of dna than other organisms with a much higher amount of genomic information. The measly 20k proteins we have compared to things like the primordial protozoa or common onion in which genomes are greater by orders of magnitude.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Actually, the organisms like onions and amoeba that have large genomes are thought to have much more junk DNA than organisms with smaller genomes (and there is strong evidence to support this). That is what explains the size difference - they accumulate junk DNA much faster than they delete it.
Mammals don't have more non-coding regions than onions - quite the opposite.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I'm not closed minded. I'm willing to look at anything scientific, and if I'm not able to understand it Ill have someone I can trust help me out with it, and all will be taken into consideration in my views, which in the light of observable evidence is the only thing we have.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Sounds good to me. If you get the chance, I'd like to know what you think about my GULOP video.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
First off I would say the comfort in body and mind in knowing I dont have to be a disfigured human is a plus for the design argument, with out these large non coding regions we might all be dead that's proof of purpose and function alone, and in fact some in biology wonder why were not already extinct, of course there are many of life kingdoms that do just fine with large amounts of functioning dna ala c value paradox, but that's a different story. Could u site this particular truncation study.
benthemiester 2 years ago
You misunderstood my point. Without all these large non-coding regions, we'd have less mutations overall. Having large non-coding regions doesn't reduce the probability of coding regions getting a mutation. Each nucleotide has a % chance of mutation that isn't affected by increasing the total nucleotides.
My point was that the human genome is far too large for natural selection to weed out all the deleterious mutations if all the DNA did something. We'd all be deformed.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
As for truncation, there are too many studies to list them all. Deleting regions of DNA is a technique used in all sorts of genetics work to locate regions responsible for certain traits, so as to determine the genetic basis for a particular trait.
NewScientist discusses a case in mice where 2 chunks, 1.6 mill bases and 800,000 bases long were deleted, then the mice were tested in a variety of ways - no effect was found.
The c value paradox isn't a paradox BECAUSE of non-functional DNA.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Sorry, the NewScientist article is called "Life goes on without 'vital' DNA".
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I read the article, it was very interesting thanks, however I think you misunderstood the content and latched on to the title. The research was inconclusive as stated by Rubins himself, in which he said, if I can paraphrase, that there could be other possibilities due to subtle factors that limit the outcome of the test. Haussler brought up a third possibilty, That these nucleotides could be so vital that the animal replaces these areas of the genome on its own. This stuff is all new to us.
benthemiester 2 years ago
It's true that there are other possible explanations, though you're wrong that replacing the sequences is one of them - the claim was that maybe there are extra copies in other parts of the genome. I pointed out that study because I thought it interesting that such large pieces could be removed with no detectable effect, especially since they contained some bits that are conserved between mice and humans. Regardless, we know that not all DNA is functional.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I understood your point, my point was that we are now starting to recognize method from madness in the genome. However like I said many animals don't have the luxury of large non-coding regions and do just fine. I do know of one study concerning mice and the deletion of a blood clotting gene in which it was reported that the mice were saved from another condition because of the procedure but they left out one part, the mice could not reproduce because they bled to death during the birthing.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"I understood your point, my point was that we are now starting to recognize method from madness in the genome."
I thought your point was that all DNA is functional, which isn't true.
"However like I said many animals don't have the luxury of large non-coding regions and do just fine."
Yes, I agree completely. Big chunks of those large non-coding regions do absolutely nothing.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Ervs are part of so called junk DNA I have tons of info on the latest research on my old computer when I have time ill access it. If our mothers didn't have ervs we could not exist, again new research has shown that they were not exclusive to primates or random as once thought
benthemiester 2 years ago
Was that directed at me? I wasn't talking about ERVs, but about the pseudogene GULOP. Many (though not all) ERVs have been co-opted as promoters and such. That doesn't change the fact that they are obviously viral in origin.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Instead of having me play guessing games why don't you give me an example of this dishonesty, please refrain from generalizing with the terms like they, be specific. Are you talking about Nelson, Dembski, Behe, Meyers ??
benthemiester 2 years ago
I don't know what you mean by "proven the THINGS about junk dna false" again this new research and understanding of non encoding regions was done by predominantly secular non religious researchers and scientist who are not even religiously affiliated and have nothing to do with ID. What artical were you talking about.
benthemiester 2 years ago
People at the DI can discuss the functions of genes once thought to be functionless until blue in the face. That won't change the fact that most DNA in the human genome is functionless. In viruses, this isn't the case due to the strong selective pressure for short DNA that is rapidly copyable. Have you seen my GULOP video? I'd love to know what you think this broken version of a once functional gene is doing in primates. Even if it had a function, it would be pretty odd without common descent.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Just because we haven't discovered every function doesn't mean there aren't more waiting to be discovered which is happening all the time. According to Francis Collins we only understand about two percent of the human chromosome. The Encode project opened up a universe of unexpected information and insights into under layers of complexity and emergent systems that were previously inconcievable.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Sure, more functions are waiting to be discovered, but that doesn't change the fact that if all our DNA was functional, we'd be horribly deformed from all the unfiltered deleterious mutations. It also doesn't change the results of many studies where large chunks of DNA have been experimentally removed from organisms with no detectable effect,
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
The discovery institute has chosen their words very carefully, and have repeatedly stated that its not just one thing alone, but an accumulation of evidence that should be considered, & as far as evidence being true or not true, this is a question that deals more with the subjectivity of the observer. Evolutionist have used junk dna as proof for years. The fact that science has proven this paradigm false shouldn't have anything to do with edification of anyone, including Iders or creationist.
benthemiester 2 years ago
You have obviously not read the articles I linked too. I wasn't talking about the one entitled "Hugh Ross' shocking fairy tale."
Again, science has not "proven" the things about 'junk DNA' false that the DI claims. They mischaracterize real research, and are misleading in what they claim articles say, or how they relate to evolution.
JT898 2 years ago
You don't need to look to Christians to tell you about the problems with our previous understanding of junk dna, there are plenty of non Christian researchers who would say the same, if you don't know of any, just ask and ill will tell you who they are.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Nobody is denying that some of the DNA that was called 'junk' has been found to have a function. However, the anti-evolutionist line that this is "evidence against 'Neo-Darwinism'" (whatever that is) or somehow a disconfirmation of evolutionary predictions is just not true.
People such as those at the Discovery Institute have a long history of trying to promote these falsehoods, and have shown that they are not to be trusted as a reliable source for information in this area.
JT898 2 years ago
I think you have been misinformed. I don't believe Hugh Ross is member or spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, and you haven't stated what your contention is with him, you have only showed someone else s critique of his personal views. You have made accusations of dishonesty about the institute, but offer no examples.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I wasn't talking about Hugh Ross, although Steve Matheson does talk about Reasons To Believe, he is talking about the DI too. The articles I was talking about are called:
Talking trash about "junk DNA": Introduction
Talking trash about "junk DNA": lies about genomic research
Talking trash about "junk DNA": lies about "function" (part I)
Talking trash about "junk DNA": lies about "function" (part II)
There are specific links to the DI site, and some of their misleading articles.
JT898 2 years ago
By the way, just thought I'd add that he's also one of the Steves in 'Project Steve'.
JT898 2 years ago
cont..Mendelian genetics has no pathway for the accountability of molecule to man without incorporating non testable hypothesis such as errors in the duplicating as process being a sufficient explanation to account for Large and vast amounts of genetic information even in the simplest of life's domains, actually there is no such thing as simple life, period. These are the questions that need to be answered. No theory can survive stagnant in light of new discoveries.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Sorry man, I don't mean to to be bust your balls because u seem like a sincere fellow, but Junk DNA? We have known for at least a few years that there really is no such thing as junk DNA. In fact a very prominent researcher recently went on record as saying our concept of junk dna is one of the biggest blunders of the century. As far as statistical probabilities can you use a formula to explain the probabilities of chemical life comming into existence. Can u demonstrate PE with a snickers bar.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Mutations occur in every generation, so if all DNA was functional, there would be serious problems for everyone all the time, and we'd all be hideously deformed.
Also, large chunks (100s to 1000s of nucleotides) of DNA have been experimentally removed from organisms with no detectable effect. Certainly as we examine DNA, we will find new functions for some things once thought non-functional, but the majority must be non-functional regardless.
To answer your last 2 questions, No and No.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I don't argue that mutations don't exist or that the human genome doesn't provides plenty of headroom. I argue that the term junk or useless this is out dated science. A Darwin of the gaps argument so to say. Francis Collins recently stated that our preconceived ideas of DNA have to reexamined in light of new evidence, such as under layers of complexity within non coding regions of DNA previously thought to be useless, that show great evidence for gene expression and many other emergent systems.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I'm not arguing that all of the DNA that is referred to as "junk DNA" is actually useless. There's plenty of non-coding DNA that serves regulatory and structural functions, but there's also plenty of DNA that does nothing. Personally, I think the term "junk DNA" is a bad one. Think of this, though: even in coding DNA, the 3rd letter of every codon is often redundant.
As I said before, it is impossible for all our DNA to be functional, or else every animal would be horribly mutated.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I understand, I wont accuse u of saying something your not, but for years Darwinist have used Junk DNA as a poster child for evolution, and we now know that the narrative of remnant accumulated junk is inaccurate. In the modern synthesis, origins or the accountability of genetic information is never discussed when attempting to enlighten the general public, and this is only one of many examples of controversy that the establishment doesn't address publicly. Which leads to more misunderstandings.
benthemiester 2 years ago
If you are a Christian might I suggest you look at Quintessence of Dust, a blog by Steve Matheson, an Associate Professor of Biology at Calvin College. He has a whole series of articles there about 'junk DNA' and how anti-evolutionists have misrepresented genomic research.
sfmatheson (dot) blogspot (dot) com/search/label/Junk DNA
The series of articles begins near the bottom with the one entitled "Talking trash about 'junk DNA': Introduction."
JT898 2 years ago
I read the artical u sited and it seems to be a crittique on the choice of words that Hugh Ross used that seems to be the authors contention. I know that Gregory Ryan has written a piece on c value parodox that seems to echoe what Ross was saying in terms of the tendency for higher organisms to have less genetic information and its correlation to large noncoding regions of dna especially in mamals, but Im not sure what that has to do with Christianity or my own personel metaphysical beliefs.
benthemiester 2 years ago
The green ones are the best- just ask Gene Simmons.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
I am afraid that i could NEVER do this experiment, mostly because i would eat all those tasty MnM's, and yes i would leave the red to last :)
Kidding aside; I am not sure i quite understand about "junk" DNA. Is it DNA that has been "deactivated"? or maybe you could just recommend a good book to read.
MultiHal 2 years ago
Junk DNA is any DNA that basically doesn't do anything. Some of it is once useful genes or inactive copies of useful genes, some are DNA insertions that never had a function. As we examine DNA more closely, we invariably find DNA thought to be junk DNA that turns out to have a function, however, there is way too much DNA in higher organisms for it all to be maintained by selective pressure, so a large percentage MUST be junk or we would suffer from too many deleterious mutations to survive.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
there is a thing called a razor that can do quick work of all that facial hair.... :p
continue with the awesome work mister EvoBiologist
DXR13KE 2 years ago
Last time I shaved I got mistaken for a high schooler - I'd rather my college lab students believe that I actually am older than them. Also, my wife would kill me - she LOVES the beard.
Thanks for the kind words.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
By the way, thank you EvoBiologist for providing excellent explanations!
frilans 2 years ago
No problem frilans - thanks for all the kind words.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I read John Kramer's argumentation. It is easy to see that he has a major problem to work as a researcher. He seems unable to separate religion from science and ends up in a pitiful mess of nonsense.
Mejc2, try reading something by a real scientist like astronomer George Coyne, jesuit priest and former director of the Vatican Observatory. He points out that science is "neutral with respect to religious thinking" and that trying to use "god of the gaps" as an explanation is a way of cheating.
frilans 2 years ago
here's a good idea. Put all of the M&M's in a shoe box lid. shake the lid many times observig the M&M'd each time. When they spell out Marcus is a dope. That can equal one positive mutation. Then have that process repeated millions and millions of times. That is what you are wishing for, so go ahead and try to obtain some impirical evidence. The truth lies some where in the middle of both arguments.
mejc2 3 years ago
No, when they spell out "Marcus is a dope" then that would be closer to an example of the sort of thing needed for abiogenesis, which requires a random unlikely combination of nucleotides.
After that self-replicating molecule formed, positive mutations would simply be any change that helped increase it's ability to multiply. How about the recent lab evolution of citrate digesting bacteria? Not a positive or big enough mutation?
The truth is where it is. Sometimes one side is wrong.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
Wait...so are you a biologist? Because every real biologist, people that study all their lives and devote themselves to the study of how life forms work, has excepted evolution as fact. So what do you know that they dont that makes you think evolution isnt real?
zeppelinfreak51 2 years ago
Wait sit in 7 or 8 Evolutionism classes. Get a certificate from an Evolutionist institution, and somehow you think that you are qualified to comment on the origins of life or organisms. OK. I wonder if you will have an evolutionist point of view???? HMMMM!
mejc2 2 years ago
Lots of people are taught young Earth creationism all their lives, and once they learn about evolution in detail, they almost always accept evolution. You'd think the discovery institute would have more evolutionary biologists - people who've seen the evidence from evolution and don't find it convincing. That's how science progresses, you know? You learn a lot about a subject , then figure out the flaws. Instead, a decent understanding of evolution inevitably leads to acceptance of it.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Evolutionism is appealing to people. If the fairy tale is true then you are the boss. People like being the boss. Actually, all people suffer from the same disease it is the " you're not the boss of me disease" . So evolutionism is very appealing. However, there aren't many facts to support the fairy tale.
Universities that teach the evidence supporting the historical accounts recorded in the Bible have very few that begin accepting Evolutionism. Evolutionists try to indoctrinate everyone.
mejc2 2 years ago
People find the evidence for a modern history of the universe gained from physics and geology to be pretty convincing as well. You know, science can't just arbitrarily go in whatever direction the person studying it wants it to go. There's an objective reality out there that we test all our hypotheses and theories against. What we're left with is the most likely version so far examined.
I'm still waiting for an alternate explanation for the pattern of GULOP that makes any sense.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
You are correct science cannot go in any direction it wants. Evolutionism, however, is a fairy tale. Evolutionism can go in absolutely any direction it wants and dismiss all evidence against it.
You have invented a story about GULOP and reject scientists explanations that don't fit your story. Your story about GULOP is just that, a story, invented in the mind of man to explain an observation.
mejc2 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong about evolution. Show me (for example) a rabbit from the Cambrian and evolution collapses. There are countless other ways to destroy the theory if it weren't true.
So you're claiming you have a better explanation than common descent for the pattern of mutations in a non-functional version of a gene that helps make vitamin C? The pattern we see is exactly the same pattern we see when we look at genes to determine parentage and other forms of relatedness.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I'm sorry too. However, I'm sorry for you. You claim billions, upon billions, upon billions, of mutations creating millions of new appendages, body plans, body parts, systems etc. A few of which were beneficial and continued through selection. To prove this steady increase in complexity of organisms billions of times over billions of years, you show me a pattern of a gene that you suppose has LOST function over time. Marcus, rethink your position dude. IT NEVER HAPPENED!
mejc2 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you, all the evidence is on my side. It DID happen.
Have you seen the new fossil find of the "proto" seal? It looks like a modern seal except it's legs are still partly adapted for land like those of an otter. We keep finding more and more of these transitions just as predicted, and the DNA supports the whole pattern (not to mention the support from anatomy, development, biochemistry, geology, etc.).
I know it's hard for fundamentalists to question the Bible, but good luck.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I saw the find but I missed the tag that said "proto seal". Evolutionists see what they want to see. The story created around the DNA similarities observed is cute. However, it changes every time it is proved wrong.
Evolutionism is appealing I know, but in the long run you will be disappointed.
mejc2 2 years ago
So your explanation is that God made an animal that looked like a seal, except slightly modified to be more terrestrial as some sort of joke or to test our faith? Same with the pattern of GULOP? God sure could've easily made things appear that they hadn't evolved, but He didn't do that. He has convinced the most brilliant scientists in the world, many of whom have directly studied these phenomena, that evolution has occurred and does occur. As we get more DNA, the story gains more support.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
First of all you don't know anything at all about that animal. You don't even know if it ever reproduced a single offspring. All claims are speculation. Second of all YOU claim that God has convinced scientists that evolution has happened. Why does it have to be God that has convinced them. Maybe they convinced themselves or.......?Lastly, the story doesn't gain support you keep changing the story to fit the observations made about God's creation.
mejc2 2 years ago
"All claims are speculation."
...and some speculation is better supported than others.
The evidence convinced the scientists (myself included), and either way you look at it, if God exists, then He's responsible for putting that evidence there in the first place.
Science changes - that's the beauty of it. Evolution has "evolved" since Darwin, which is the sign of a healthy science. However, the core theories of common descent, natural selection, and gradualism have not changed since Darwin.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
God doesn't put evidence....you have mistakenly interpreted reality to fit your delusional story that makes you the ultimate authority in your life. You suffer from "you're not the boss of me disease". Your cute little story makes you the boss that is why you like it so much.
Common descent? We do observe descent. However you claim the never observed ascent as reality. Simple organisms ascended into complex superior organisms. It never happened Marcus.
mejc2 2 years ago
Everything in reality is data, or "evidence" of something - it seems to me and all the best biologists that it is evidence of evolution. Evolution does not deny the existence of God. There are plenty of great Christian (and other theistic) evolutionary biologists.
Evolution is still the best answer, whether or not God exists. If you disagree, start working on developing a research to test your alternative theory. So far all other theories have failed.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Oh Really, All the best Evolutionists say that Evolutionism is the best answer. Wow, now I'm impressed.
Hey there are a billion Chinese people that think their music is good. Numbers don't really impress me. You forget who you are talking to.
mejc2 2 years ago
The difference is that reality is not subjective, while musical taste is. 150 years, and basically every who has seriously devoted their life to studying evolution has ended up building more and more support for it. That didn't happen in physics - they found new theories to replace the old ones when they found they didn't work. Where's the new theory you propose to replace evolution? It has to explain things better.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with one.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Evolutionists create their own reality. Therefore, it was a fairy tale 150 years ago and is a more elaborate fairy tale today. Every time reality creeps in and smashes part of the fairy tale evolutionists just create a new tale and wait for reality to creep in and change it. Based on imagination. Just like the "proto seal"
Duh gee look bones we never saw before. Wow, maybe webbed feet, we found it near an old lake, Duh maybe this unknown animal turned into a seal. IT'S "PROTO SEAL"
Science?
mejc2 2 years ago
If the "proto seal" were the only evidence for evolution, I'd agree with you, but it's just one tiny piece of the puzzle that is steadily getting fleshed out, in many cases in a very predictable way. We think it had webbed feet, because it's long toes would be pretty clumsy and pointless without webbing, not simply because it lived by water. It also has a lot of features very close to modern seals and no other group, so is within the same taxonomic group.
Sorry, but reality cannot be changed.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
There is no puzzle being fleshed out. Evolutionists are creating their story around observations. Of course as time goes on the storytellers will make the story fit observations. However, the observation comes first then comes the story, or the story changes.
Soft tissue can in no way last 65 million years. OH wait, what's that, soft tissue in a T Rex Bone? Does that mean this T Rex bone is much younger? NO! it means that soft tissue can last 65 million years. Just make up shit.
SCIENCE?
mejc2 2 years ago
Until a black swan was found, swans were defined as being white. As our understanding of reality grows, some predictions are rejected and ideas are fleshed out.
There's no soft tissue in T Rex bone, just the fossilized remains of what used to be soft tissue. It isn't like you can pull out marrow or DNA or anything.
The basics of evolution have not changed at all. Common descent is supported by the data, natural selection is the major driver, and we find more and more evidence of gradualism.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Descent is supported by evidence. However what you support, Ascent, is not. We have such little evidence of gradualism that Gould of Harvard has created a new fairy tale to help imagine why. Your wild dreams of billions of mutations creating new limbs, systems, body plans, etc. is just not supported by the empirical evidence. But then again Evolutionism just needs a good imagination. The more we know about living organisms the more we can see that random mutation causing it is preposterous.
mejc2 2 years ago
Punctuated equilibrium is just an acknowledgment that evolution doesn't proceed at one rate and that the fossil record is necessarily incomplete.
It's a good thing that evolution doesn't require a lot of new things to develop, unlike creationism, which has every species miraculously and instantaneously get new everything. With evolution, most things are simply modified versions of old things, that's why fish and tetrapods share the same basic body plan. So things gradually evolve once.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"Just make up shit"....wow, I'm surprised I just caught that. Do you use that word in casual conversation with your pastor? With your mother? Or do you save it for when you're REALLY PISSED?
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Dude, you are really slow. You really wanna play but...........I don't think you be a playa.
mejc2 2 years ago
mejc2, I think you're too old and straight-laced to say such gangsta things like that. It just doesn't seem right.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Nice try. Not really.....cursing is not exactly christ-like, now is it? More and more you are destroying your own legitimacy, and I AGAIN thank you for that. You're just pissed because I showed you how stupid you sound.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
I am not Christ like. Also, I don't know anyone that is. Cursing is definitely one of the sins that I have trouble with. I'm a tough guy, it just comes out that way.
mejc2 2 years ago
Kemo was a tough guy 'till Royce got finished with him. Gee, you show all of the qualities of a xtian: Humility, grace,a humble, peaceful demeanor............you're what drives most people away from that religion, Ace. And you're oblivious to it.....
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
ERR.... Do you mean Kimbo?
mejc2 2 years ago
"Er...did you mean Kimbo?''''AhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAHHHHH.....that's worth a million. Grown kids, my ASS. You really ARE 26. I meant what I typed. Kimbo.....what a hoot. About as technical as Kemo, though. Royce- now he's technical. Just not a very good mma fighter. Learned a lot from him over the years. Kimbo.....thanks for the laugh- AGAIN.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Im far more qualified then you, clearly.
zeppelinfreak51 2 years ago
"No one has ever demonstrated macroevolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals and man...Furthermore, the changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity."
DR John K.G. Kramer
mejc2 3 years ago
Every gene duplication or addition of nucleotides is a gain of information and complexity. Macroevolution is a basically meaningless term, and in the sense you mean it, is not predicted to happen over short periods of time.
I've read Kramer at your suggestion, and he's a hack who doesn't understand basic genetics despite his degree.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
I do this in tutoring :) I get fabric from the local fabric store that is colorful like the candies. Then I have a few different types of utensils. I have the student try to pick up as many candies as they can in 10 seconds with the utensil (a different one each time.) Then we see which utensil works best and we "change" the environment by putting things under the fabric, like water bottles for mountains and see which candies survive best and in which location :P
FrogSplatScience 3 years ago
We do a similar experiment in the BIOL111 Lab I've TA'd, with black and white beans on a black gravel background. We rebuild the population to 100 each round from the ratios left in the tray. The gravel makes the black beans blend well. You can do the same with the genetic drift example I did. It's interesting if you graph the ratio over time for each group and compare the two types of evolution.
I may try to do an adaptation of that for a future video. Your example sounds very elaborate!
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
Very good. I wish that everyone accepted reality.
s4stem 3 years ago
Nice video. Its good to see this EASY thing explained easily.
FreeBDesh 3 years ago
Yeah,
Now the trick is to get the right people to watch it.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
They do know its true, its getting them to admit it without cursing.
FreeBDesh 3 years ago
thanks, by the way
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
Great videos. You really help me understand evolution better. A little bit of editing could make them more attention span friendly though. Look forward to the next one. Thanx,peace. :)
woozlbug 3 years ago
Thanks - it means a lot to hear from people who have learned something from my amateurish attempts at educational videos. I agree with the editing / attention span issue. I'm trying to balance accuracy and practicality with brevity. Any suggestions as to what to cut out?
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
Things like watching seperate the M&Ms.
woozlbug 3 years ago
I agree. I thought it might go a little quicker than it did. I tried to talk through most of it, to explain a bit, but I could've cut that out and spliced in a clip of me explaining. Cool - thanks again.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago