@dekippiesip No, Ken Miller has missed the forest for the trees. He can't see beyond his (religious) naturalistic presupposition. And if this were the only issue, I might consider it. Unfortunately the problem of irreducible complexity applies to every complex natural system. Half-made organs and systems are of no use. No one installs a broken part in their car, then expects it to fix itself. That's evolutionary religious faith!
@alyosha24601 Mate, well said. Ken Miller missed the forest for the trees alright. The whole point of irreducible complexity is that taking ONE part away leaves it useless or with a heap of useless parts at best. But Ken Miller doesn't just take away one part he takes away 40! That right there is why he's argument is totally flawed. Shows us something with only ONE of the parts removed, then you have an argument. But no evolutionist will pick up on that.
@ian9toes Actually even Behe recognizes that Miller's argument regarding the type three secretory system is apt, the only way he tries to weasel out of it is by saying 'but it doesn't serve function as a flagellum. That's the point, different parts serve different function. Either way, irreducible complexity is not valid argumentation, it's an argument from ignorance.
@scientific These are just empty words. You need to address the problem of irreducible complexity as a whole. How can a non-working half formed system convey a survival advantage in order to benefit from natural selection? It can't. And that is why there are no transitional specimens in the fossil record. (Sorry, I have blocked you because I believe you have created another account in order to pester me. If I'm wrong, sorry.)
@alyosha24601 There is no problem of irreducible complexity, it's a complete argument from incredulity No one literate in any form of biology is claim that there were ever half formed non-working systems. It's called modular evolution, this means new functions are derived from existing parts.
The fact that you keep deleting these refutations of your ignorance shows that you realize you're wrong. That's a good place to start.
@DrEvolutionQuest Stop name calling and answer these: How did the Big Bang create matter, energy, time, and volume from nothing? and How did the first living cell arise, the chance of which is 1 in a number followed by 300,000 zeros? (there are 10 to the 80th particles in the universe) and How did evolution produce a binary species (sexual reproduction) in one generation? When the quack evolution religion can answer these questions with science rather than speculation, that's when I'll listen.
@DrEvolutionQuest Says: "LOL, you are a moron. I sincerely hope you don't breed. ;-) " Your insult is not a scientific argument, so I am forced to ask, "Who's the moron?" Go to your mommy and learn some manners, then come back to me and learn some science. Your evolution religion is quack science.
LOL I found it so funny how everyone who doesn't like the idea of the video aromatically attacks God instead of proving their ideology right or wrong. YOU CAN'T DUMBASSES XD The video says "THIS COULD NOT BE AROUND UNLESS IT WAS CREATED ALL AT THE SAME TIME." The model of Evolution takes to long and the theory of the speed of light slowing down and the amount of stars in the sky disprove it alone :B
@so1idw0lf Yes, why does an evolutionist attack God at all?Why would a supposed "atheist" care to attack creationism at all?It's because his "science" is actually scientism - a religion.I have popped seven of these clips onto Youtube.95% of the commentary is philosophical, insulting, or religious. Almost nobody leaves scientific commentary. Once again, comments like "This is unscientific" or "Scientists don't believe this" or "This isn't true" are not in themselves scientific - they're religious
@ThomasWinkworth said 7 months ago: "So what does this machine need in order to survive?" The point of the video is to use the Bacterial Flagellum as an example. Darwinian evolution is impossible for a number of reasons, but the point here is "irreducible complexity". The point is that you cannot evolve into a complex mechanism by small increments when the WHOLE mechanism must be working perfectly in order to convey any survival advantage. What good is a half wing? Evolution is quack science.
@alyosha24601 yeah i think at the time i was just confused to how the flagellum even got it's energy etc
i suppose they will just the high improbability down to chance once again... it's stupid because since when was high improbability ever scientific? science doesn't deal with absolute truth, so when they turn around and say "it's possible that it could have come about by chance" it's completely irrelevant to science. science deals with the most probable, not the most improbable
@ptango101 Science observes today that damaging mutations continue to overwhelm the quality control of natural selection by a ratio of 50:1 - or more. The contribution of positive mutations is less than 1 per million - it has never even been observed. All species' genomes are undergoing catastrophic genetic entropy - extinction is the inevitable result and exactly what we observe today. Evolutionists believe in their religious dogma because they resent the idea of God, not because of science.
@alyosha No. God doesn't factor in. I don't believe in your god. To make a statement like that is ridiculous. You might as well be talking about Krishna for all I care. The thing is that the mutations do happen. Take nylonase for example. This is a brand new enzyme that is modern day specific.
Nothing you have to say has any basis in science. Your whole story is based on a bronze age religious text that was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th/21st century
@alyosha24601 Where did you get that information about "less than 1 per million"? and if thats the case have you ever calculated how long it would take at that rate to evolve successfully? Not 10,000 years no. But billions of years ought to be ample time for evolution to run its course when most, but not all, mutations are harmful to the host
@Johnf85 It's not ample. Billions of years isn't nearly enough (see my channel "Staggering Mathematical Probability of Just One Protein by Chance!" Even then, the rates run totally the other way. Sure, you could get a monkey to type a sentence from Shakespeare if you waited a billion years, but in that time the other, correct sentences, would all be destroyed many times over. Evolution is quack science. See my "DNA Degeneration: Lopsided Mutation Rates Invalidate "Evolution"". Cheers!
@gregrutz You mock: OMG ! It is complex, I don't understand it, so gawn dun it ! I could just as easily reply, "Duh! The science supports creation. We can't ever believe in that though so lets make up some evolution story! In 15 billion years hydrogen morphed into people by itself!" It was Christians who built our technological world. I'm not ashamed of it nor allergic to God as you seem to be. Got any Bible questions you want answered? If you knew its contents, you might not mock so freely.
@gregrutz Greetings again, reply: 1) Science does not use gods: no, that's the problem. If the science leads to a non-naturalistic conclusion, we should be free to consider it. Sure, I'm a creationist, but science is truth too. But if by DEFINITION only you rule out God, you may be making a mistake. 4) most biologist accept god, all of them accept evolution. Not so.5) These rules are for the Jew. 5c:Out of context: Bible is absolutely anti-slavery. 5d: Not "subservient", that's a feminist word
@gregrutz If those four verses from the Jewish law constitute your only impression of the Bible, it's no wonder you think it's goofy.But listen, you're an atheiest who accepts science right?Why don't you try a scientific experiment? Bring a personal problem to God, and ask him to intervene.This experiment will be valid IF you are willing to completely change in case you see a miraculous result. If you just want to see a trick however, don't expect a thing. Why don't you quit speculating and ask?
Nice propaganda video with lots of disinformation.
And as a side note you said somewhere that beneficial mutations don't happen. You should look up the Lenski experiments where bacteria evolved a new protein so they could digest citric acid. This protein is "irreducible complex" because it requires two mutations and one doesnt do anything. Yet it still evolved.
@BlindfoldedPoet I'm not familiar with the Lenski experiments - I'll look into it. If they are legitimate, they are the first documented new information produced by any mutation ever, so I anticipate it's just another headline which will be quietly discredited later. I say, if evolution were real, it would happen all the time. Yet history shows us that fewer and fewer species exist every day - so where is your "evolution"? It's a religious fairy tale.
It is actually not the first. But tell me this, is it not logical that when you have a species of moth, most of them being white and some black. That those that are black will be eaten more than those that are white if the tree is white?
Now the tree turns black (because of industry) is it not logical that the allele frequency will shift to being black? Because they have higher chances of not being eaten?
@BlindfoldedPoet Regarding the moths - of course it is logical. No one disputes that species adapt a bit like this, but looky! You've been tricked. This is not evolution it is devolution. No new information has been created. The balance in numbers has shifted. It has shifted back again recently, just as Darwin's finch beaks have. There is no known case of new genetic material being created ANYWHERE and it should happen every day in nature. Evolution is a religion; it is not based on observation.
@alyosha24601 ; Evolution in organisms with a very short lifespan has been proven, How can you expect visible change in organisms with a 80 year lifespan ? This is insanity !!
@lizazoon Only thing that is proven is what evolutionists call "microevolution". Those are the minor variations within species that occur through natural selection. They are minor changes, shifting expression between information that is already there. Why can't the priests of evolution produce a positive mutation? Because you don't machine gun a library to produce a new work of Shakespeare - you need Shakespeare to do it. Evolution is quack science.
@gregrutz Why can't the priests of evolution produce a positive mutation?
THEY HAVE OBSERVED A POSITVE MUTATION. Frankly, I don't believe it. I think it will be another headline that is quietly rescinded later. If the evolution pipe dream were true, we really should observe hundreds of such useful mutations in our labs. (And of course, anything that destroys or swaps information can't be counted - a qualifying mutation must create code. Fat chance!)
"of course it is logical" Thanks for agreeing evolution is logical.
Now, The balance in numbers has shifted. You must mean, allele frequencies have changed this is called Evolution. You just stated Evolution is true thanks again.
Now about the new information, there are plenty of experiments that show new information being added to the genomes of species. Again the Lenski experiment is the best one since it has produced multiple gains in information.
@BlindfoldedPoet You say "Now, The balance in numbers has shifted. You must mean, allele frequencies have changed this is called Evolution. You just stated Evolution is true thanks again." The change in frequency between already existing alleles is often claimed as proof of evolution. You just did it. Yet this is just variation. No new information is created, in fact information is lost. This is deceitful, phony science. Evolution is a religion based on naturalism, not experimental science.
@alyosha24601 Variation is new information dummy. Any change or increase in variation is new information. Evolution is science and science does not use the supernatural, magic or voodoo.
What do religious IDiots even know what religion is?
@gregrutz You say: "Variation IS new information" Not so. A dog breeder just shuffles the cards that are already there to produce new breeds. This is not evolution; this is variation. I'll believe in the evolution fairy-tale when, for instance, a dog develops an infrared eye. That information isn't there yet so such a feature would be observable evolution. But, no new info is EVER added. Please do not call me "dummy" or "religious idiot", nor suggest I practice voodoo. Stick to the science.
@alyosha24601 Variation is part of evolution, it is needed for natural selection to work on. Turning a wolf into many dogs proves the variation is there, thank you.
.
''Stick to the science''
''evolutionary activists atheists don't really not believe in God. ''
@gregrutz You say: Variation is part of evolution, it is needed for natural selection to work on. Turning a wolf into many dogs proves the variation is there, thank you. I totally agree, but the process of choosing the best silver dollar in a bag can go on for eons - it will never produce a gold coin, much less a hot dog.
You can stop trying to convince this guy... I tried but he refuses to look at evidence and will just ignore it all together. He has not the faintest idea what information means and how it impacts biological systems nor does he have a proper understanding of genomes and just general genetics.
This guy is beyond reason and ready for full ridicule.
I already gave you an example of new information being added to the genomes of E. Coli.
Why do you keep saying it doesnt happen?
Also the definition of Evolution is "Change in allele frequencies by natural selection" So yes the variation is actually proof of Evolution since that is what evolution means. This is not deceitfull you just have a wrong view of Evolution and what states.
@BlindfoldedPoet You say: The definition of Evolution is "Change in allele frequencies by natural selection" So yes the variation is actually proof of Evolution since that is what evolution means. This is not deceitfull you just have a wrong view of Evolution and what states. REPLY: If that were the definition of evolution I'd agree with you totally. Variation occurs with every generation - every generation arranges and recycles the same genetic information. But there is no new information.
Let me ask you this there are 2 sequences of DNA which one has more information?
Sequence A: TACACACCCAAGACC
Sequence B: TACACACCCAAGGCC
Lets say A, then to go from a to b is a loss in information, but vice versa is a gain in information, don't you agree? These mutations occur both ways, so what ever you pick one includes information gain.
Let me ask you this there are 2 sequences of DNA which one has more information?
Sequence A: "To be, or not to be, that is the question"
Sequence B: "To be, or not to be, thg7 qs the question"
These sequences are not random, they carry real information. Mutations do NOT occur both ways, sequence B is a typical mutation - a damaged code. There exists no example of a modern mutation improving a DNA code.
@gregrutz You say:How about dinosaurs with feathers?Any change in genetic materal is NEW genetic materal.New like, sickle cell anemia, MS, CP, or diabetes? Well, maybe you're right! Damaged cells are "new DNA"!Regarding "To be, or not to be, thg7 qs the question"?I don't think Shakespeare would be known today if he wrote like that. Let's see new USEFUL genetic material. Man himself can't even invent it now, much less the random flip of a coin through a destructive cosmic ray. Evolution=religion
@gregrutz You say: Read a Science book dummy, If you are that stupid that you can't tell the difference between religion and reality. Since you think I am such a stupid religious dummy, let me ask you: What have you got against God? Why are you allergic to God? You won't win that battle. And look, I'm not your enemy, but I'm telling you these scientists that peddle evolution do so for religious reasons. The science supports creation. (By the way, I teach science/math (high school level))
@alyosha24601 'What have you got against God?" WHICH GOD? Allah?
''Why are you allergic to God?'' DO YOU RALLY THINK I COULD GET GERMS FROM HIM?
''peddle evolution do so for religious reasons.'' SCIENCE DOES NOT USE GODS OR RELIGIONS.
''science supports creation'' WHICH RELIGION'S CREATION STORY?
Science has proven the earth is old, there was no global flood and evolution happens. Not only are you a ''stupid religious dummy'' but a poor teacher too.
@gregrutz You say:How about dinosaurs with feathers? Dinos don't have feathers. Birds have feathers because they fly. What good would a bunch of feathers be on T-Rex? By the way, Dino would need a new heart, lungs, new bones, and would have to shed most of his weight - all at once, and find a mate with the same changes, in order to fly.Unless it all happened at once, he's dead. This never happened - it's a modern creation myth designed to avoid the terrifying theological implications of creation
@alyosha24601 Evolution is happening all the time. We are evolving all the time. It`s just that the timescale is not observable. The extinction of species is another indication that evolution is fact. Those least adapt to survive disappear.( Except for modern extinction, which is mostly due to human activity
@lizazoon Timescale not observable? To go from a chimp to a human (DNA 96% the same) in 2 million years takes 600 perfect mutations every generation and finding a mate with the same mutations. We do not observe this today. To believe this actually happened, (when we observe not even one positive mutation today), takes deep religious conviction. Evolution is not science - it's a modern day creation myth - a religion. And, extinction is LOSING information - extinctions support the creation model.
@alyosha24601 And even if evolution were not true, how does that prove creation is right ? How do you prove that god created the whole universe, with it`s billions of galaxies, all millions of light-years apart, in a nano-second, OUT OF NOTHING ? Or that a clump of mud came alive, by blowing over it ?
@lizazoon You say: "And even if evolution were not true, how does that prove creation is right ? How do you prove that god created the whole universe?" I knew a chief in the Navy who had a habit of shaking his fist at God and daring him - as a joke. He did this for years. One day when he was all alone, on a clear day in the AZ desert, a lighting bolt exploded five feet away from him. That chief didn't become a Christian - but I will say he never shook his fist at God anymore! So, shake away!
@gregrutz ''That chief didn't become a Christian '' Why would he? Answer: As a meteorologist, he knew that lightning bolts are ordinarily associated with thunderstorms, not clear blue skies. Is that the answer you wanted? You know, evolutionary activists atheists don't really not believe in God. They are actually at war with him. They are usually bitter / angry with God about something. Darwin was mad because his daughter had died. It is really quite logical.
@gregrutz Large wolf, small wolf. What? I will ignore the insult and say this: It has been the evolutionists, not the creationists, that line up horse fossils small to big and then claim it's proof of evolution. The horses have different rib numbers and other differences,and there are big and small horses today. What a fraud, evolutionary history is full of frauds, deceit, misinformation, and assumption. Evolution is the modern creation myth - a religion.
@gregrutz Human DNA, for instance, contains more information than the Grand Canyon full of encyclopedias. It reproduces and repairs itself. It is more complicated than anything man has ever created. Nothing like this could develop by itself - it is software; it even has a language complete with command prompts, stop orders, and switches. XP or Vista didn't develop by themselves and they are primitive compared to DNA. DNA proves a designer.
@lizazoon You say, "The extinction of species is another indication that evolution is fact. Those least adapt to survive disappear." Listen, use your head: If you are the quality control officer in a car factory, and every botched car you reject, how long will it take you to produce an airplane? When species disappear (and that is ALL science ever observes - thousands of them, gone) this is lost information, nothing is gained. You have been taught a lie; the whole logic is ludicrous. Think!
@gregrutz We have fossils, we have a theory that explains them. TRUE - THE QUESTION IS, IS THE FAR-FETCHED, GOOFY THEORY TRUE? WE ALL POPPED OUT OF NOTHING IN THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION DURING A TINY 50 MILLION 3 1/2 BILLION YEARS AGO. ALL THAT INFORMATION JUST CAME FROM NOWHERE. INTELLIGENT MAN CAN'T PRODUCE ONE LIFE FORM TODAY IN A LAB, EVEN WITH A MODEL, BUT MILLIONS OF SPECIES JUST APPEARED. RIGHT.
You can't prove the theory wrong if you have never studied the evidence. WHO HASN'T STUDIED IT?
@alyosha24601 .-- I say, if evolution were real, it would happen all the time-- Exactly, it happens all the time. It`s all around us.-- Evolution a religious fairy tale-- plain madrassah talk, bible school nonsense.
@lizazoon You reply: I say, if evolution were real, it would happen all the time-- Exactly, it happens all the time. It`s all around us. I say: Have you heard of the science of taxonomy - classification? If evolution were actually happening, this science wouldn't exist. We would all blure into other creatures. With all we know today, isn't it amazing people still believe in evolution?
@gregrutz YOU SAID: With all we know today, evolution has been accepted, there is no debate. REPLY: Am I not debating with you? Lots of scientists don't buy it. Check the ICR website and find a whole organization of PhDs who agree evolution is nonsense. As for me, I trust mathematics, science, and observation. Evolution meets none of the ordinary criteria for proven science. It is a religious philosophy based on unproven naturalism. People find creation distasteful, so they make up nonsense.
In no way does this disprove Darwinian evolution. And by the way to talk of Darwinian 'evolution by chance' is either to be woefully misinformed or deliberately misleading.
@colz22 As usual, your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. We creationists believe in science - not religion!
Does gravity happen by chance? No? are you suggesting god or aliens guided the process?
I hope you understand that there are more reasons then just god,aliens or chance. How about Natural laws? You know those things that govern everything. Like gravity, magnetism and guess what, Evolution by Natural Selection.
@BlindfoldedPoet You say: "You know those things that govern everything. Like gravity, magnetism and guess what, Evolution by Natural Selection." The fine tuning of the laws of the universe work out to one in 10 to the 50th. Was that "chance"? And, natural selection happens, I agree. Ask any pet-breeder. But natural selection removes information, it doesn't create it! Use your head! How can removing the mutant CREATE anything? Natural selection is no evidence for the evolution fairy-tale.
@alyosha24601 Maybe you should learn what evolution is, your straw man arguments are silly. Evolution is a process, natural selection is part of that process. Creatards can't see the big picture.
@gregrutz You say: Evolution is a process, natural selection is part of that process. Creatards can't see the big picture. Those aren't really scientific comments but, I'll try: I see evolution's big picture but I've abandoned it. They taught me in 1972 that spontaneous generation was silly. Then, in 1974 they taught me if you add millions of years spontaneous generation really does work. In 1982 my thermodynamics text proved that evolution is a mathematical impossibility - that I believed.
@alyosha24601 Yes spontaneous generation is silly. Life starting is called Abiogenesis. Darwin wrote, ''Origin of Species'' Not origin of life.
Life on earth gets it energy from the sun, an Open system. If you idea of thermodynamics was true life would be impossible. Lock yourself in a room for a year [closed system] and you will turn to mush.
@ILYIAB I'll have to look at Dover Trail, whatever that is. Otherwise, ICR is alchemy? Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. Us creationists believe in science - not religion!
@ILYIAB Truth is, there are a number of accurate predictions that creationists have made, for instance the magnetic fields of the outer planets were predicted based on creationism five years before Voyager's arrival. Was creationism credited? It can't be - evolution is a religious viewpoint that cannot be challenged. The evolutionary establishment will not allow the publication of creationists' articles, so please don't argue based on "what is widely accepted" - stick to science.
@ILYIAB Your comments are not actually scientific arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration from your "priest" Behe. We creationists believe in science - not religion! Evolutionists, please respond with scientific comments!
@Cataclysm31 Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. Us creationists believe in science - not religion!
@garouHH Your suggestion yields the views of scientists on both sides, but again: Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. Us creationists believe in science - not religion!
The bacterial flagellum is THE canonical example for irreducible complexity. At the same time science has shown that it is *not* irreducibly complex, that sets of its parts *do* have functions that selection can work on. That's not taken on faith, that's researched and shown. Believing in its irreducible complexity in spite of that evidence, *that* is faith, faith in the face of reality saying otherwise. How is *that* scientific?
What good is a stator to a stranded sailor? How can individual pieces of a motor be "reducibly useful"? No one has ever "researched and shown" half the parts in an engine have usefulness. If the evolutionary notion were true, we'd see transitional species, half developed space shuttles, and useful new mutations all around, but what do we actually OBSERVE? Continual occurrences of extinction. Evolution is a religious belief, not a scientific one. (Thanks for commenting: you have been courteous)
Depending on its form it might make a good club or can become a makeshift knife. Just as a few of the flagellums proteins make a good syringe-like injection system and probably quite a few other helpful tools.
> How can individual pieces of a motor be "reducibly useful"? No one has ever "researched and shown" half the parts in an engine have usefulness.
I hope you assume that this part of your comment has been rendered moot by my answer above.
> If the evolutionary notion were true, we'd see transitional species
And we do. Every single lifeform that has both ancestors and descendants is a transitional form. Both the fossil record and the living world are chock-full of smooth transitions.
> half developed space shuttles
Since when do space shuttles reproduce? Although we actually even can see half-developed shuttles like Buran, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo, but that doesn't have to do anything with the theory of evolution.
@garouHH Can you explain to me how the scientific field of taxonomy even exists? Species do not blur one into another, every one is separate, and we see no new species created today. Regarding space shuttle reproduction, you have pointed out yet another fact favoring creationism. Animals are far more complex than shuttles - simple shuttles testify that animals cannot randomly arise from dirt. Thanks for commenting.
@garouHH Smooth transitions? What would a "smooth transition" look like for a motor that requires 17 perfectly working parts to run? Please explain how natural selection would favor an organism with 16 useless parts. Motors aren't built of "knives and clubs" either. Furthermore, no one has observed or produced even one beneficial mutation (that has added, not subtracted, information). Evolution is a naturalist's religious fairy tale, the details will always make it sound silly.
@garouHH Smooth transitions? What would a "smooth transition" look like for a motor that requires 17 perfectly working parts to run? Please explain how natural selection would favor an organism with 16 useless parts. Motors aren't built of "knives and clubs" either. Furthermore, no one has observed or produced even one beneficial mutation (that has added, not subtracted, information). Evolution is a naturalist's religious fairy tale, the details will always make it sound silly.
@alyosha24601 Your suggestion yields the views of scientists on both sides, but again: Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. We creationists believe in science - not religion!
@dekippiesip No, Ken Miller has missed the forest for the trees. He can't see beyond his (religious) naturalistic presupposition. And if this were the only issue, I might consider it. Unfortunately the problem of irreducible complexity applies to every complex natural system. Half-made organs and systems are of no use. No one installs a broken part in their car, then expects it to fix itself. That's evolutionary religious faith!
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 I too, saw Ken Millers vid about this. It tears this explanation to shreds.
truvelocity 2 months ago
@alyosha24601 Mate, well said. Ken Miller missed the forest for the trees alright. The whole point of irreducible complexity is that taking ONE part away leaves it useless or with a heap of useless parts at best. But Ken Miller doesn't just take away one part he takes away 40! That right there is why he's argument is totally flawed. Shows us something with only ONE of the parts removed, then you have an argument. But no evolutionist will pick up on that.
ian9toes 1 month ago
@ian9toes Actually even Behe recognizes that Miller's argument regarding the type three secretory system is apt, the only way he tries to weasel out of it is by saying 'but it doesn't serve function as a flagellum. That's the point, different parts serve different function. Either way, irreducible complexity is not valid argumentation, it's an argument from ignorance.
scientific 1 month ago
@scientific These are just empty words. You need to address the problem of irreducible complexity as a whole. How can a non-working half formed system convey a survival advantage in order to benefit from natural selection? It can't. And that is why there are no transitional specimens in the fossil record. (Sorry, I have blocked you because I believe you have created another account in order to pester me. If I'm wrong, sorry.)
alyosha24601 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alyosha24601 There is no problem of irreducible complexity, it's a complete argument from incredulity No one literate in any form of biology is claim that there were ever half formed non-working systems. It's called modular evolution, this means new functions are derived from existing parts.
The fact that you keep deleting these refutations of your ignorance shows that you realize you're wrong. That's a good place to start.
TheAggressionScale 2 weeks ago
@alyosha24601 Actually irreducible complexity is an argument from incredulity.
scientific 1 month ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Stop name calling and answer these: How did the Big Bang create matter, energy, time, and volume from nothing? and How did the first living cell arise, the chance of which is 1 in a number followed by 300,000 zeros? (there are 10 to the 80th particles in the universe) and How did evolution produce a binary species (sexual reproduction) in one generation? When the quack evolution religion can answer these questions with science rather than speculation, that's when I'll listen.
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Says: "LOL, you are a moron. I sincerely hope you don't breed. ;-) " Your insult is not a scientific argument, so I am forced to ask, "Who's the moron?" Go to your mommy and learn some manners, then come back to me and learn some science. Your evolution religion is quack science.
alyosha24601 4 months ago
LOL I found it so funny how everyone who doesn't like the idea of the video aromatically attacks God instead of proving their ideology right or wrong. YOU CAN'T DUMBASSES XD The video says "THIS COULD NOT BE AROUND UNLESS IT WAS CREATED ALL AT THE SAME TIME." The model of Evolution takes to long and the theory of the speed of light slowing down and the amount of stars in the sky disprove it alone :B
so1idw0lf 7 months ago
@so1idw0lf Yes, why does an evolutionist attack God at all?Why would a supposed "atheist" care to attack creationism at all?It's because his "science" is actually scientism - a religion.I have popped seven of these clips onto Youtube.95% of the commentary is philosophical, insulting, or religious. Almost nobody leaves scientific commentary. Once again, comments like "This is unscientific" or "Scientists don't believe this" or "This isn't true" are not in themselves scientific - they're religious
alyosha24601 7 months ago
So what does this machine need in order to survive?
ThomasWinkworth 1 year ago
@ThomasWinkworth said 7 months ago: "So what does this machine need in order to survive?" The point of the video is to use the Bacterial Flagellum as an example. Darwinian evolution is impossible for a number of reasons, but the point here is "irreducible complexity". The point is that you cannot evolve into a complex mechanism by small increments when the WHOLE mechanism must be working perfectly in order to convey any survival advantage. What good is a half wing? Evolution is quack science.
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 yeah i think at the time i was just confused to how the flagellum even got it's energy etc
i suppose they will just the high improbability down to chance once again... it's stupid because since when was high improbability ever scientific? science doesn't deal with absolute truth, so when they turn around and say "it's possible that it could have come about by chance" it's completely irrelevant to science. science deals with the most probable, not the most improbable
ThomasWinkworth 4 months ago
Comment removed
ptango101 1 year ago
How many times does this icon of creationism need to be debunked? The parts of the flagellum had different functions before they became a flagellum.
watch?v=TfJjc5vej9s
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Science observes today that damaging mutations continue to overwhelm the quality control of natural selection by a ratio of 50:1 - or more. The contribution of positive mutations is less than 1 per million - it has never even been observed. All species' genomes are undergoing catastrophic genetic entropy - extinction is the inevitable result and exactly what we observe today. Evolutionists believe in their religious dogma because they resent the idea of God, not because of science.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha No. God doesn't factor in. I don't believe in your god. To make a statement like that is ridiculous. You might as well be talking about Krishna for all I care. The thing is that the mutations do happen. Take nylonase for example. This is a brand new enzyme that is modern day specific.
Nothing you have to say has any basis in science. Your whole story is based on a bronze age religious text that was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th/21st century
ptango101 1 year ago
Comment removed
ptango101 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Where did you get that information about "less than 1 per million"? and if thats the case have you ever calculated how long it would take at that rate to evolve successfully? Not 10,000 years no. But billions of years ought to be ample time for evolution to run its course when most, but not all, mutations are harmful to the host
Johnf85 1 year ago
@Johnf85 It's not ample. Billions of years isn't nearly enough (see my channel "Staggering Mathematical Probability of Just One Protein by Chance!" Even then, the rates run totally the other way. Sure, you could get a monkey to type a sentence from Shakespeare if you waited a billion years, but in that time the other, correct sentences, would all be destroyed many times over. Evolution is quack science. See my "DNA Degeneration: Lopsided Mutation Rates Invalidate "Evolution"". Cheers!
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 thanks to those damaging mutations we have to put up with people of faith
TypicallyHuman 8 months ago
@TypicallyHuman I just want to point out that your comment has no science - it's just a faith statement. I guess we'll have to put up with it!
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 no don't confuse satire with genuine desire to debate over youtube.
TypicallyHuman 4 months ago
OMG ! It is complex, I don't understand it, so gawn dun it !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You mock: OMG ! It is complex, I don't understand it, so gawn dun it ! I could just as easily reply, "Duh! The science supports creation. We can't ever believe in that though so lets make up some evolution story! In 15 billion years hydrogen morphed into people by itself!" It was Christians who built our technological world. I'm not ashamed of it nor allergic to God as you seem to be. Got any Bible questions you want answered? If you knew its contents, you might not mock so freely.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
You could say science supports creation but then you would go to hell for lying.
1. Science does not use gods.
2. The evidence supports TOE
3. law of nature.
4, most biologist accept god, all of them accept evolution.
5.If you work on a Sabbath, you should be killed [Exodus 31:15]
If your son disobeys you, murder him [Deut 21:18 -21]
Sell your daughter into slavery to pay the bills [Exodus 21:7]
Women are subservient, they must remain silent [1 Tim 2:11-12]
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Greetings again, reply: 1) Science does not use gods: no, that's the problem. If the science leads to a non-naturalistic conclusion, we should be free to consider it. Sure, I'm a creationist, but science is truth too. But if by DEFINITION only you rule out God, you may be making a mistake. 4) most biologist accept god, all of them accept evolution. Not so.5) These rules are for the Jew. 5c:Out of context: Bible is absolutely anti-slavery. 5d: Not "subservient", that's a feminist word
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@gregrutz If those four verses from the Jewish law constitute your only impression of the Bible, it's no wonder you think it's goofy.But listen, you're an atheiest who accepts science right?Why don't you try a scientific experiment? Bring a personal problem to God, and ask him to intervene.This experiment will be valid IF you are willing to completely change in case you see a miraculous result. If you just want to see a trick however, don't expect a thing. Why don't you quit speculating and ask?
alyosha24601 1 year ago
Nice propaganda video with lots of disinformation.
And as a side note you said somewhere that beneficial mutations don't happen. You should look up the Lenski experiments where bacteria evolved a new protein so they could digest citric acid. This protein is "irreducible complex" because it requires two mutations and one doesnt do anything. Yet it still evolved.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet I'm not familiar with the Lenski experiments - I'll look into it. If they are legitimate, they are the first documented new information produced by any mutation ever, so I anticipate it's just another headline which will be quietly discredited later. I say, if evolution were real, it would happen all the time. Yet history shows us that fewer and fewer species exist every day - so where is your "evolution"? It's a religious fairy tale.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601
It is actually not the first. But tell me this, is it not logical that when you have a species of moth, most of them being white and some black. That those that are black will be eaten more than those that are white if the tree is white?
Now the tree turns black (because of industry) is it not logical that the allele frequency will shift to being black? Because they have higher chances of not being eaten?
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet Regarding the moths - of course it is logical. No one disputes that species adapt a bit like this, but looky! You've been tricked. This is not evolution it is devolution. No new information has been created. The balance in numbers has shifted. It has shifted back again recently, just as Darwin's finch beaks have. There is no known case of new genetic material being created ANYWHERE and it should happen every day in nature. Evolution is a religion; it is not based on observation.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 ; Evolution in organisms with a very short lifespan has been proven, How can you expect visible change in organisms with a 80 year lifespan ? This is insanity !!
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Only thing that is proven is what evolutionists call "microevolution". Those are the minor variations within species that occur through natural selection. They are minor changes, shifting expression between information that is already there. Why can't the priests of evolution produce a positive mutation? Because you don't machine gun a library to produce a new work of Shakespeare - you need Shakespeare to do it. Evolution is quack science.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 . Why can't the priests of evolution produce a positive mutation?
THEY HAVE OBSERVED A POSITVE MUTATION.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Why can't the priests of evolution produce a positive mutation?
THEY HAVE OBSERVED A POSITVE MUTATION. Frankly, I don't believe it. I think it will be another headline that is quietly rescinded later. If the evolution pipe dream were true, we really should observe hundreds of such useful mutations in our labs. (And of course, anything that destroys or swaps information can't be counted - a qualifying mutation must create code. Fat chance!)
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 MUTATION? Darwin did not know about mutation and he still showed how evolution works.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 "
"of course it is logical" Thanks for agreeing evolution is logical.
Now, The balance in numbers has shifted. You must mean, allele frequencies have changed this is called Evolution. You just stated Evolution is true thanks again.
Now about the new information, there are plenty of experiments that show new information being added to the genomes of species. Again the Lenski experiment is the best one since it has produced multiple gains in information.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet You say "Now, The balance in numbers has shifted. You must mean, allele frequencies have changed this is called Evolution. You just stated Evolution is true thanks again." The change in frequency between already existing alleles is often claimed as proof of evolution. You just did it. Yet this is just variation. No new information is created, in fact information is lost. This is deceitful, phony science. Evolution is a religion based on naturalism, not experimental science.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Variation is new information dummy. Any change or increase in variation is new information. Evolution is science and science does not use the supernatural, magic or voodoo.
What do religious IDiots even know what religion is?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You say: "Variation IS new information" Not so. A dog breeder just shuffles the cards that are already there to produce new breeds. This is not evolution; this is variation. I'll believe in the evolution fairy-tale when, for instance, a dog develops an infrared eye. That information isn't there yet so such a feature would be observable evolution. But, no new info is EVER added. Please do not call me "dummy" or "religious idiot", nor suggest I practice voodoo. Stick to the science.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Variation is part of evolution, it is needed for natural selection to work on. Turning a wolf into many dogs proves the variation is there, thank you.
.
''Stick to the science''
''evolutionary activists atheists don't really not believe in God. ''
''Check the ICR website''
STICK TO THE SCIENCE
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You say: Variation is part of evolution, it is needed for natural selection to work on. Turning a wolf into many dogs proves the variation is there, thank you. I totally agree, but the process of choosing the best silver dollar in a bag can go on for eons - it will never produce a gold coin, much less a hot dog.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 You don't understand evolution, how can you prove it wrong?
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why humans are still apes.
And all apes are still monkeys.
And all monkeys are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods.
And all tetrapods are still vertebrates.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
You can stop trying to convince this guy... I tried but he refuses to look at evidence and will just ignore it all together. He has not the faintest idea what information means and how it impacts biological systems nor does he have a proper understanding of genomes and just general genetics.
This guy is beyond reason and ready for full ridicule.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet They can't look at the evidence and stay a creationist. They are all brainwashed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alyosha24601
I already gave you an example of new information being added to the genomes of E. Coli.
Why do you keep saying it doesnt happen?
Also the definition of Evolution is "Change in allele frequencies by natural selection" So yes the variation is actually proof of Evolution since that is what evolution means. This is not deceitfull you just have a wrong view of Evolution and what states.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet You say: The definition of Evolution is "Change in allele frequencies by natural selection" So yes the variation is actually proof of Evolution since that is what evolution means. This is not deceitfull you just have a wrong view of Evolution and what states. REPLY: If that were the definition of evolution I'd agree with you totally. Variation occurs with every generation - every generation arranges and recycles the same genetic information. But there is no new information.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Which has more information, a big wolf or a small wolf?
a yellow tulip or a red tulip?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alyosha24601
Let me ask you this there are 2 sequences of DNA which one has more information?
Sequence A: TACACACCCAAGACC
Sequence B: TACACACCCAAGGCC
Lets say A, then to go from a to b is a loss in information, but vice versa is a gain in information, don't you agree? These mutations occur both ways, so what ever you pick one includes information gain.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet Let's look at this a little differently:
Let me ask you this there are 2 sequences of DNA which one has more information?
Sequence A: "To be, or not to be, that is the question"
Sequence B: "To be, or not to be, thg7 qs the question"
These sequences are not random, they carry real information. Mutations do NOT occur both ways, sequence B is a typical mutation - a damaged code. There exists no example of a modern mutation improving a DNA code.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 No, it is not damaged code, it is different code, NEW INFORMATION.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alyosha24601
I already gave you those experiments that show a modern mutation improving DNA.
Now you are just being willfully ignorant and dishonest.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet Yes, you are right. I have to go look at your Lenski whatever. I have not. Sorry; I'm lazy.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 ''no known case of new genetic material being created ANYWHERE ''
How about dinosaurs with feathers? Any change in genetic materal is NEW genetic materal.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You say:How about dinosaurs with feathers?Any change in genetic materal is NEW genetic materal.New like, sickle cell anemia, MS, CP, or diabetes? Well, maybe you're right! Damaged cells are "new DNA"!Regarding "To be, or not to be, thg7 qs the question"?I don't think Shakespeare would be known today if he wrote like that. Let's see new USEFUL genetic material. Man himself can't even invent it now, much less the random flip of a coin through a destructive cosmic ray. Evolution=religion
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Evolution=religion
Read a Science book dummy, If you are that stupid that you can't tell the difference between religion and reality.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You say: Read a Science book dummy, If you are that stupid that you can't tell the difference between religion and reality. Since you think I am such a stupid religious dummy, let me ask you: What have you got against God? Why are you allergic to God? You won't win that battle. And look, I'm not your enemy, but I'm telling you these scientists that peddle evolution do so for religious reasons. The science supports creation. (By the way, I teach science/math (high school level))
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 'What have you got against God?" WHICH GOD? Allah?
''Why are you allergic to God?'' DO YOU RALLY THINK I COULD GET GERMS FROM HIM?
''peddle evolution do so for religious reasons.'' SCIENCE DOES NOT USE GODS OR RELIGIONS.
''science supports creation'' WHICH RELIGION'S CREATION STORY?
Science has proven the earth is old, there was no global flood and evolution happens. Not only are you a ''stupid religious dummy'' but a poor teacher too.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You say:How about dinosaurs with feathers? Dinos don't have feathers. Birds have feathers because they fly. What good would a bunch of feathers be on T-Rex? By the way, Dino would need a new heart, lungs, new bones, and would have to shed most of his weight - all at once, and find a mate with the same changes, in order to fly.Unless it all happened at once, he's dead. This never happened - it's a modern creation myth designed to avoid the terrifying theological implications of creation
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Evolution is happening all the time. We are evolving all the time. It`s just that the timescale is not observable. The extinction of species is another indication that evolution is fact. Those least adapt to survive disappear.( Except for modern extinction, which is mostly due to human activity
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Timescale not observable? To go from a chimp to a human (DNA 96% the same) in 2 million years takes 600 perfect mutations every generation and finding a mate with the same mutations. We do not observe this today. To believe this actually happened, (when we observe not even one positive mutation today), takes deep religious conviction. Evolution is not science - it's a modern day creation myth - a religion. And, extinction is LOSING information - extinctions support the creation model.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 And even if evolution were not true, how does that prove creation is right ? How do you prove that god created the whole universe, with it`s billions of galaxies, all millions of light-years apart, in a nano-second, OUT OF NOTHING ? Or that a clump of mud came alive, by blowing over it ?
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon You say: "And even if evolution were not true, how does that prove creation is right ? How do you prove that god created the whole universe?" I knew a chief in the Navy who had a habit of shaking his fist at God and daring him - as a joke. He did this for years. One day when he was all alone, on a clear day in the AZ desert, a lighting bolt exploded five feet away from him. That chief didn't become a Christian - but I will say he never shook his fist at God anymore! So, shake away!
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 ''That chief didn't become a Christian '' Why would he?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz ''That chief didn't become a Christian '' Why would he? Answer: As a meteorologist, he knew that lightning bolts are ordinarily associated with thunderstorms, not clear blue skies. Is that the answer you wanted? You know, evolutionary activists atheists don't really not believe in God. They are actually at war with him. They are usually bitter / angry with God about something. Darwin was mad because his daughter had died. It is really quite logical.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 '' evolutionary activists atheists don't really not believe in God. ''
WRONG AGAIN
Most Biologist accept God, all of them accept evolution.
Science does not use gods, magic or voodoo. They don't change any experiment.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 '' finding a mate with the same mutations''
You people have such a poor understanding of how evolution works.
What has more information, a large wolf or a small wolf?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Large wolf, small wolf. What? I will ignore the insult and say this: It has been the evolutionists, not the creationists, that line up horse fossils small to big and then claim it's proof of evolution. The horses have different rib numbers and other differences,and there are big and small horses today. What a fraud, evolutionary history is full of frauds, deceit, misinformation, and assumption. Evolution is the modern creation myth - a religion.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 DNA proves evolution happened, the 'myth' has been proven.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Human DNA, for instance, contains more information than the Grand Canyon full of encyclopedias. It reproduces and repairs itself. It is more complicated than anything man has ever created. Nothing like this could develop by itself - it is software; it even has a language complete with command prompts, stop orders, and switches. XP or Vista didn't develop by themselves and they are primitive compared to DNA. DNA proves a designer.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 The nuclear reactions in the center of the sun are complex, I don't understand it, so I worship Ra the Sun God. Your logic.
DNA code and markers [ERVs] show a tree of life, it matches Darwin's tree of life.
DNA is the best proof we have for evolution, Chimps are closer to humans than they are to Gorillas.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@lizazoon You say, "The extinction of species is another indication that evolution is fact. Those least adapt to survive disappear." Listen, use your head: If you are the quality control officer in a car factory, and every botched car you reject, how long will it take you to produce an airplane? When species disappear (and that is ALL science ever observes - thousands of them, gone) this is lost information, nothing is gained. You have been taught a lie; the whole logic is ludicrous. Think!
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 99% of all species are extinct, it is in the fossils record.
We have fossils, we have a theory that explains them.
You can't prove the theory wrong if you have never studied the evidence.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz We have fossils, we have a theory that explains them. TRUE - THE QUESTION IS, IS THE FAR-FETCHED, GOOFY THEORY TRUE? WE ALL POPPED OUT OF NOTHING IN THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION DURING A TINY 50 MILLION 3 1/2 BILLION YEARS AGO. ALL THAT INFORMATION JUST CAME FROM NOWHERE. INTELLIGENT MAN CAN'T PRODUCE ONE LIFE FORM TODAY IN A LAB, EVEN WITH A MODEL, BUT MILLIONS OF SPECIES JUST APPEARED. RIGHT.
You can't prove the theory wrong if you have never studied the evidence. WHO HASN'T STUDIED IT?
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 THE QUESTION IS, IS THE FAR-FETCHED, GOOFY THEORY TRUE?
If it is not right then you will need a better theory to show how evolution works.
WHO HASN'T STUDIED IT?
Crationists, they have never studied the fossils record or geology.
MILLIONS OF SPECIES JUST APPEARED. RIGHT.
No, Wrong. The major PHYLA appeared in the Cambrian Period, everybody had a mom and a day just like today.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 .-- I say, if evolution were real, it would happen all the time-- Exactly, it happens all the time. It`s all around us.-- Evolution a religious fairy tale-- plain madrassah talk, bible school nonsense.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon You reply: I say, if evolution were real, it would happen all the time-- Exactly, it happens all the time. It`s all around us. I say: Have you heard of the science of taxonomy - classification? If evolution were actually happening, this science wouldn't exist. We would all blure into other creatures. With all we know today, isn't it amazing people still believe in evolution?
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 With all we know today, evolution has been accepted, there is no debate.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz YOU SAID: With all we know today, evolution has been accepted, there is no debate. REPLY: Am I not debating with you? Lots of scientists don't buy it. Check the ICR website and find a whole organization of PhDs who agree evolution is nonsense. As for me, I trust mathematics, science, and observation. Evolution meets none of the ordinary criteria for proven science. It is a religious philosophy based on unproven naturalism. People find creation distasteful, so they make up nonsense.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 ICR is not run by scientists, starting with the bible stories and working backwards is not science.
Evolution is a product of Biology, a science.
Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab.
Show me a math formula that ''evolutionists' use and how you proved it wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Who did the graphics? did you give them credit?
bigpchamber 1 year ago
@bigpchamber I gave credit to the producer, yes. Read my excerpt.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
In no way does this disprove Darwinian evolution. And by the way to talk of Darwinian 'evolution by chance' is either to be woefully misinformed or deliberately misleading.
colz22 1 year ago
@colz22 As usual, your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. We creationists believe in science - not religion!
alyosha24601 1 year ago
"Evolution by chance" is misleading? Are you suggesting God or aliens guided the process?
alyosha24601 1 year ago
"Evolution by chance" is misleading? Are you suggesting God or aliens guided the process?
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601
Does gravity happen by chance? No? are you suggesting god or aliens guided the process?
I hope you understand that there are more reasons then just god,aliens or chance. How about Natural laws? You know those things that govern everything. Like gravity, magnetism and guess what, Evolution by Natural Selection.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet You say: "You know those things that govern everything. Like gravity, magnetism and guess what, Evolution by Natural Selection." The fine tuning of the laws of the universe work out to one in 10 to the 50th. Was that "chance"? And, natural selection happens, I agree. Ask any pet-breeder. But natural selection removes information, it doesn't create it! Use your head! How can removing the mutant CREATE anything? Natural selection is no evidence for the evolution fairy-tale.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Maybe you should learn what evolution is, your straw man arguments are silly. Evolution is a process, natural selection is part of that process. Creatards can't see the big picture.
Fine tuning?!? Information!?! LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You say: Evolution is a process, natural selection is part of that process. Creatards can't see the big picture. Those aren't really scientific comments but, I'll try: I see evolution's big picture but I've abandoned it. They taught me in 1972 that spontaneous generation was silly. Then, in 1974 they taught me if you add millions of years spontaneous generation really does work. In 1982 my thermodynamics text proved that evolution is a mathematical impossibility - that I believed.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Yes spontaneous generation is silly. Life starting is called Abiogenesis. Darwin wrote, ''Origin of Species'' Not origin of life.
Life on earth gets it energy from the sun, an Open system. If you idea of thermodynamics was true life would be impossible. Lock yourself in a room for a year [closed system] and you will turn to mush.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 NO, he is suggesting the forces of nature, natural selection.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Read the Dover trail transcripts. Behe agrees that IC is as much science as astrology and alchemy. LOL!
ILYIAB 1 year ago
@ILYIAB I'll have to look at Dover Trail, whatever that is. Otherwise, ICR is alchemy? Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. Us creationists believe in science - not religion!
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Name a single scientific discovery that has it's roots in creationism and is accepted by the scientific community. Please. Just one!
ILYIAB 1 year ago
@ILYIAB
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@ILYIAB Truth is, there are a number of accurate predictions that creationists have made, for instance the magnetic fields of the outer planets were predicted based on creationism five years before Voyager's arrival. Was creationism credited? It can't be - evolution is a religious viewpoint that cannot be challenged. The evolutionary establishment will not allow the publication of creationists' articles, so please don't argue based on "what is widely accepted" - stick to science.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@ILYIAB Your comments are not actually scientific arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration from your "priest" Behe. We creationists believe in science - not religion! Evolutionists, please respond with scientific comments!
alyosha24601 1 year ago
Yes... this is indeed, "a load of horse shit..."
Cataclysm31 2 years ago
@Cataclysm31 Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. Us creationists believe in science - not religion!
alyosha24601 1 year ago
...and lo and behold, all one needs to do to see how wrong these people are is to google "evolution of the bacterial flagellum".
garouHH 2 years ago
@garouHH Your suggestion yields the views of scientists on both sides, but again: Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. Us creationists believe in science - not religion!
alyosha24601 1 year ago
The bacterial flagellum is THE canonical example for irreducible complexity. At the same time science has shown that it is *not* irreducibly complex, that sets of its parts *do* have functions that selection can work on. That's not taken on faith, that's researched and shown. Believing in its irreducible complexity in spite of that evidence, *that* is faith, faith in the face of reality saying otherwise. How is *that* scientific?
garouHH 1 year ago
What good is a stator to a stranded sailor? How can individual pieces of a motor be "reducibly useful"? No one has ever "researched and shown" half the parts in an engine have usefulness. If the evolutionary notion were true, we'd see transitional species, half developed space shuttles, and useful new mutations all around, but what do we actually OBSERVE? Continual occurrences of extinction. Evolution is a religious belief, not a scientific one. (Thanks for commenting: you have been courteous)
alyosha24601 1 year ago
> What good is a stator to a stranded sailor?
Depending on its form it might make a good club or can become a makeshift knife. Just as a few of the flagellums proteins make a good syringe-like injection system and probably quite a few other helpful tools.
> How can individual pieces of a motor be "reducibly useful"? No one has ever "researched and shown" half the parts in an engine have usefulness.
I hope you assume that this part of your comment has been rendered moot by my answer above.
garouHH 1 year ago
> If the evolutionary notion were true, we'd see transitional species
And we do. Every single lifeform that has both ancestors and descendants is a transitional form. Both the fossil record and the living world are chock-full of smooth transitions.
> half developed space shuttles
Since when do space shuttles reproduce? Although we actually even can see half-developed shuttles like Buran, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo, but that doesn't have to do anything with the theory of evolution.
garouHH 1 year ago
> and useful new mutations
...like for instance nylonase, cecal valves in Italian wall lizards and, classically, color adaptations in guppy ponds? Why yes, we do see those.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH Can you explain to me how the scientific field of taxonomy even exists? Species do not blur one into another, every one is separate, and we see no new species created today. Regarding space shuttle reproduction, you have pointed out yet another fact favoring creationism. Animals are far more complex than shuttles - simple shuttles testify that animals cannot randomly arise from dirt. Thanks for commenting.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alyosha24601
> Can you explain to me how the scientific field of taxonomy even exists?
Sure. It's a categorization of species existing at a single point in time. For inclusion of time, use cladistics. Basically, taxonomy is outdated.
> Species do not blur one into another
That's incorrect not only when viewing the progression of species in time, but even at momentary glances. There *are* ring species.
garouHH 1 year ago
@alyosha24601
> we see no new species created today
Now there's a mantra that I have heard about a hundred times too often. Did you even ever bother to google for "speciation"?
> Animals are far more complex than shuttles
...and based on a totally different technology, amino acids. Which, under the right circumstances, *do* assemble by themselves.
garouHH 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Google "Evolving Finches"
New species are being created. Just thought I'd give you the memo.
Karanime 1 year ago
@garouHH Smooth transitions? What would a "smooth transition" look like for a motor that requires 17 perfectly working parts to run? Please explain how natural selection would favor an organism with 16 useless parts. Motors aren't built of "knives and clubs" either. Furthermore, no one has observed or produced even one beneficial mutation (that has added, not subtracted, information). Evolution is a naturalist's religious fairy tale, the details will always make it sound silly.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@garouHH Smooth transitions? What would a "smooth transition" look like for a motor that requires 17 perfectly working parts to run? Please explain how natural selection would favor an organism with 16 useless parts. Motors aren't built of "knives and clubs" either. Furthermore, no one has observed or produced even one beneficial mutation (that has added, not subtracted, information). Evolution is a naturalist's religious fairy tale, the details will always make it sound silly.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
@alyosha24601 Your suggestion yields the views of scientists on both sides, but again: Your comments are not actually arguments refuting the material as much as they are a religious declaration. We creationists believe in science - not religion!
alyosha24601 1 year ago