All videos that claimed to have successfully debunked the irreducible complexity of eyes NEVER discussed the visual cortex and optic nerves, let alone the other mechanisms to sustain the eyes.
Irreducible Complexity is a fantastic point! Rather than trying to immediately disprove it, with somewhat hazardous results ('most evolutionary biologists agree' is not a proof, and the origin of the eye does not disprove 'irreducible complexity'), Atheists should encourage Creationists to find more proofs to back this up.
You say the eye is not complex. Since your so smart why don't you build a human eye for us. Thats right man can't do this. Maybe you could produce matter from nothing. Thats right man can't do this either. So what can you do? Sin,lie and tell some more lies. I
@jsong1974 Discrediting specified complexity has nothing to do with the eye not being complex. The entire point is that homologies exist on a continuous line from from least complex to human eye complex with no chasm between steps. But thanks for the non sequitur about matter, that's like claiming gravity doesn't exist because you can't explain the Big Bang. By the way,there's a fine line between honest misrepresentation of an argument and blatant misrepresentation(lying). Do well to watch it.
@jsong1974 Yeah but humans have built better than the human eye, see google earth it's pictures from a satellite with such a high resolution you can see individuals from space. Humans like myself are prone to have failing eyes requiring the use of eyeglasses or contacts.
@douchlin656 Back before YouTube have Like/Dislike, they had a 1-5 system and people, Creationist/IDiots, would make bogus accounts and use those accounts to dump low votes on any video they didn't agree with so they wouldn't show up on Featured or Suggested sections of YouTube.
It's not a game, the point is all evidence has pointed to an ID for awhile now. Tell me, how do we even have the capacity to discover elements of evolution if we ourselves are intelligent designers? Read the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an, and side them next to science and you will not only see predictions made thousands of years ago recently discovered today, but also what the content in the bible -really- means. It's said God made us in his image, as in small scale intelligent designers!
@xChillDude What evidence? I'm a biochemist and I would love to hear about this evidence for a flawed concept being true, or even useful. Biological system functions are selected for by an inferred advantage, as such they can display new functionality based on the environment around them. This is a well established fact that is used by professional scientist each and every day. How am I supposed to use incorrect information about a biological systems functionality?
What you're speaking of is called ADAPTATION, not EVOLUTION. Evolution, according to Charles Darwin, takes thousands of years to happen, as well as a change in form altogether.
@xChillDude Adaptation is the PRODUCT of the evolutionary process! Evolution is a PROCESS by which living things adapt! You don't separate the two as if they are completely different. What I'm "speaking of" is genetic differentiation(mutataion) and natural selection: THAT IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about. By change in form, I think you mean to say morphology. That can take several thousands of years, or hours if you are bacteria.
@xChillDude Since adaptation is either a product of new genes being selected for, or the expression of certain genes that already exist, ADAPTATION is EVOLUTION. You need to re-learn the basics of biology, and try reading some of Darwin's books. I'm not being rude, I'm serious. I thought you were going to give me evidence for ID, not try and explain evolution to a PHD-research biochemist:-) Try and understand that I am a BIO-chemist, which means I specialize in biological chemistry.
@chedillychedilly1 i think you should quit and try majoring in basket weaving or something more to your mental level. There has never been witnessed any such thing as "new genes". Even the dumbest bio-chemist would know that genes selected for already existed and their expression does not mean that they are new.
(some one is telling silly lies, I am not a bio-chemist and even I can see that bogus lie a mile away)
@karamarouge I did not say that I was "majoring" in biochemistry. A professional biochemist is someone who GETS PAID to DO biochemistry. There is so much literature on this subject that it is glaringly obvious that you are either unaware of the information, or too stupid to understand it. You being a moron does not equal me being a liar. Unless you are willing to actually read what scientists have to say about the subject, please don't try to have a discussion about it.
@chedillychedilly1 Notice two things. I told him to quit his job and try majoring in basket weaving he responds by saying he is not majoring in biochemistry! Duh!
Secondly, notice the fact that the so called "Bio-chemist" completely failed to respond to the bogus unscientific shit he just posted thinking that no one would notice his lies!
Keep on trying bozo, you may yet convince some very stupid people that you are a bio chemist. lmao. Lying bitch
@karamarouge NO stupid. You said that I should "QUIT and try majoring in basket weaving," which LOGICALLY implies that I 'AM' currently majoring in something. I guess along with science, logical-grammatical structure is a problem for you. Genes that are selected for DO already exists. But of course, I never said that NATURAL SELECTION creates new genes. I said that ADAPTATION is the PRODUCT of NEW GENES, or the expression of certain genes that already exists... U r way out of your league here.
@chedillychedilly1 Lol.. you are are moron! when some one tells you to quit and try something else, and you make stupid assumptions about what they mean then absurdities of your assumptions are yours. Own them asswipe!
"Since adaptation is either a product of new genes being selected for" This is what you said you lying wanna be "bio chemist" That statement is utterly bogus, it came from you and it is on record. No legitimate biochemist would say something so utterly false!
@karamarouge I am sorry that you do not understand how my assumption was LOGICAL, NOT stupid. You said to "QUIT" and try "MAJORING," which again implies that I am, say it with me dumb-ass, MAJORING IN SOMETHING! You should have said,'You should QUIT and get a JOB basket weaving. I agree, I made the assumption that you were not a total moron. Thank you for telling me what I said, and what I said IS TRUE. The problem here is that you do not know what evolution is.
@karamarouge Evolution is simply change over time in the broader sense, but in biological terms it is the differentiation of genetics in a population. Adaptation is BOTH the current morphology of an organism and the changes that take place via environmental pressures. So, adaptation is what we call it when there is any effective change that takes place with an organism. Biological evolution is what we call it when there is any effective change that takes place with an organism. CON:
@chedillychedilly1 dude honestly. Shut the fuck up with this bullshit! Neither you or any one in the world have witnessed any organism evolve or adapt (pick or choose whatever idiot term you want to apply to the situation) from a simple form to a more complex one.
NOT ONE!!!. Sure there is variation in genetic populations but absolutely no animal changes from one kind to another. Bacteria stay bacteria and dogs stay dogs!
@karamarouge LOL "Shut the fuck up," really?Actually, we see microorganisms evolve in real time EVERYDAY in thousands of laboratries all around the world, in testable, predictable waysThere have been hundreds of documented speciation events. The theory of evolution is paramount in the regulation of microorganisms in the food industry, as well as in medicine.Evolution is not a process by where one animal changes into another animal in one, or even thousands of generations. CONTINUE:
@karamarouge Since we are talking about POPULATION GENETICS, one would not expect for large changes in the morphology of a complex creature to be visible on the types of time scales that, I think, you are suggesting we should have seen them. When we look at the fossils of ancient bipedal primates, with brains near the size of our own, what conclusion should we come to about those animals? Why, when we calculate the amount of genetic change that should have taken place, and compare it to the:CON
@karamarouge CON: inverse change of other primate species, do we find a PERFECT CORRELATION!! Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you. When we count up the differences between humans and all other apes,(genetically speaking), take the rate by which genes mutate, take the average of beneficial mutations and divide, we get THE EXACT AMOUNT OF GENETIC DIFFERENCES NEEDED FOR US TO BE WHAT WE ARE! Does your tiny little brain get how important that is?
@karamarouge So, "DUDE," of course nobody has witnessed this kind of change; it takes too fucking long! Oh, BTW, the calculations used to determine HOW MUCH change has to have taken place also gives you a time scale. Guess what happens when we line up the, (INDEPENDENT), time scales needed for the appropriate genetic changes to the dates acquired by radiometric dating techniques; THEY LINE UP PERFECTLY! And that is geology and physics. But they're all idiots and liars too, right?
@karamarouge "Sure there is variation in genetic populations, but absolutely no animal changes from one kind to another."That is like saying, 'Sure people can walk a couple of feet, but absolutely nobody can walk a thousand miles.You're a grade-A moron if you really believe that.The problem here is that you don't really understand this stuff.Why don't you ask me some good questions, like, 'HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS; WHERE DID YOU GET THIS FROM?'To prove that I am lying, that is all you have to do.
@karamarouge So, you might be saying, 'Well, why have two different words that mean the same thing, stupid wanna be bio-chemist!" It is actually, more or less, semantics. ADAPTATION and EVOLUTION basically mean the same thing in biological terms. There is a certain context where it may sound ridiculous to interchange them though.EX:You wouldn't say something like, 'The cheetah has evolved to its environment.The cheetah has (evolved) BY (adapting) to its environment. Evolving IS adapting.
@chedillychedilly1 Perhaps you should explain where the "new genes" came from
Or did you think people are so stupid they would over look the fact that you are making claims about new genes whose presence is unexplained, has never been observed or tested by any one.
@chedillychedilly1 Furthermore, adding to the stupidity of your assertion that adaptation is evolution. You also state that adaptation is also expression of genes that already exist.
That is just plain stupid. That would mean that whatever organism you are talking about already had the genes that are now being expressed. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you are arguing for evolution.
@karamarouge You really don't know what you are saying. "NEW GENE" simply means a gene that did not exist in the previous generation. Did you know that you have "NEW GENES?" I don't think that you really want me to explain the mechanisms by which "NEW GENES" arise, but I will if you'd like. The thing you don't get is that even IF new genes were astonishingly rare, WHICH THEY ARE NOT, creatures could still evolve MASSIVELY different morphologies over time.
@chedillychedilly1 oh i fucking dare you to explain how "new genes" arise without employing any speculation or unproven, untested and unobserved hypothesis.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS EVER IDENTIFIED BY ANY SCIENTIST THAT RESULTS IN THE FORMATION OF NEW GENES..
@karamarouge Hmmm, there are literally dozens of genetic mechanisms that we KNOW, empirically,(empirically meaning:derived from observation and experiment), that cause "NEW GENES," ( new genes being NOVEL combinations, or the enlargement of the code), to appear. Here are a few, you lazy dickhead: Exon shuffling, Gene duplication, Retroposition, Mobile element, Lateral gene transfer, De novo origination, etc. Google some of these and learn something for a change.
@karamarouge So, either YOU are lying, or you like to just say things without actually finding out if they are true. You said that no new genes form, I said that gene duplication is ONE well understood mechanism by which NEW genes form, and you said that I need to learn what the word duplication means. Well, you need to learn how genes work. The genetic code is a combination of molecules. If it is enlarged, or changed in its functionality, IT IS NEW YOU FUCKHEAD!! :)
@chedillychedilly1 I know very well how genes work bozo. And duplication of genes can never result in NEW genes bozo! It is that simple. You can never get any new information that didnt already exist by duplicating something. NEVER..
Once again, go and fucking learn the meaning of the word duplication before you embarass yourself on a public forum
@karamarouge Do you realize that the human race actually possesses beneficial genes that we KNOW did NOT exist thousands of years ago?Did you know that the major chromosomal difference between humans and chimpanzees is actually a FUSED PAIR! Did you know that the mutations that we consider to be, probably, the most beneficial have actually been the LOSS of certain genetic functionalities...NOT THE GAIN?This is surface stuff, that I'm sure you are completely ignorant of. And worse, disinterested!
@karamarouge Okay, your display of idiocy is partly my fault this time. When I said, "THE MOST BENEFICIAL" I was talking about a specific genetic mutation. Analyzing the skulls of ancient primate species, we see several lines of apes that share more traits with us, than they do with other ancient ape species, kind of like how chimpanzees share more in common with us than other great apes. A specific line of bipedal ape had destinct change in the way the jaw muscle was formed: CON:
@karamarouge The jaw muscles cause a limiting factor on the way the skull, and subsequently the brain, can form. A single genetic mutation, in the amount of muscle that pulls on the top of the skull, can open up the door for other forms of natural selection to take hold, so that feature is compounded... especially over millions of years. And of course, we see slight differences emerge in skull size as the net jaw muscle retreats, ( as measured in fossils over hundreds of thousands of years).
@karamarouge What I did not mean to convey, (what you daftly believe), that mutations are always negative, and always have a winding down effect. The majority of 'FAST' large scale changes happen by RECOMBINATION and mutation combined. Like when we bread dogs to look different. Humans are the smartest of the apes; what you don't understand is that a GAIN in genetic information is not needed for this to happen. From single celled organisms, the genome obviously needs to increase: CON:
@karamarouge :CON: in order to have TRILLIONS OF CELLS. I think 3.7 BILLION years is enough time. And we are only scratching the surface on how the genome increases. Oh... just for good measure:You fucking suck. Seriously though, learn( AT LEAST )some basic information before trying to debate. Initially I was just trying to give you a little info, and you had to be the biggest jerk on the planet.You keep making yourself look more and more stupid.You obviously know nothing aout science.
@chedillychedilly1 lol.. Looks like you are frustrated because science and simple logic do not back you up. No scientist has ever witnessed any most of the crap you claim and the few testable hypothesis you mention are not being debated by me or any one else. But rather the bogus assumptions you make are the ones being challenged. No one is arguing against variation in dogs for example. That dogs evolved from fish because you saw a short tailed dog is a completely absurd poisition to hold.
@karamarouge I'm the only one presenting scientifically verified information, and all you can say is, "looks like you are frustrated because science and simple logic, BLAH BLAH." LOL-What science and logic are you talking about.I haven't seen anything close to a scientific, or logical argument from you.All you've done is MISUNDERSTAND, or ignore altogether, nearly everthing I've said. I gave you a long sequence of FACTS and your only response is that I don't understand the word duplication: CON:
@karamarouge Do you really think that my position is that dogs evolved from fish becasue I've seen a short tailed dog! LOL That is ridiculous. Did you even read any of the things I wrote about radiometrics, fossils, and genetics? Did you read anything I wrote about speciation?
@karamarouge I'm frustrated, because you are refusing to accept such a simple concept. The first thing i said to you was that adaptation IS evolution. Adaptation is the product of genetic mutation and natural selection, THAT'S WHAT IT IS... that is not up for debate. Evolution, in the biological sense, is the change over time in the morphology of animals due to mutation and natural selection. YOU LOSE! :CON:
@chedillychedilly1 Once again bozo, mutation and natural selection have never ever been witnessed to change an animal from a kind into another. A fish into a mammal evolution only happen in the depth of your mind. It has never been witnessed cant be tested or falsified. Hence your assertion is nothing but baseless unscientific darwinistic mumbo jumbo!. Sorry but that is FACT>
@karamarouge The theory of evolution does not involve an individual animal giving birth to another different anaimal... "BOZO!" Evolution is POPULATION GENETICS. We have in fact witnessed the speciation of animals. The most basic difference between one "kind" of animal and another is the ability to interbreed. If we have two groups of animals which no longer have the ability to mate with one another, because of NATURAL SELECTION AND GENETIC MUTATION, or geographical distribution, then the: CON:
@karamarouge :CON: potential exists for those two groups to go on changing independently with no GENE FLOW between them. This basically means that their genes can no longer interact, and a sub group is thus created. Saying that this has never been witnessed is just a display of how utterly ignorant you are. Every test that has ever been conducted on microorganisms (IN REAL SCIENCE LABS) bares this fact out. Microorganism are a good way to test the theory of evolution because :CON:
@karamarouge :CON: microorganisms reproduce very quickly. So in essence, we can view BILLIONS of generations of evolution in just hours or days. Large animals, such as lions and tigers and bears... OH MY, should take millions of years to change in as drastic ways as microorganisms do in hours. "Kind" of animal is NOT a scientific term, but I don't, at this point, expect for you to have a scientific argument using appropriate terms that actually take SCIENCE into account. :CON:
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classifications of animals, is a discriptive word that:CON:
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classifications of animals, is a discriptive word that:CON:
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classification terms, is a discriptive word that:CON:
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classification terms, is a discriptive word that:CON:
@karamarouge :CON: discribes features of a particular goup of animals. The mammalian FEATURES begin to appear in animals, who's fossils can be found in ignious rock layers dating back over 270 MILLION yrs ago. So, fish had been around for quite a while at this point, but I wouldn't expect you to accept that either, because you would have to know something about how scientists came to that conclusion... and it wasn't from sitting around and imagining it, I can tell you that. :CON:
@karamarouge :CON: discribes features of a particular goup of animals. The mammalian FEATURES begin to appear in animals, who's fossils can be found in ignious rock layers dating back over 270 MILLION yrs ago. So, fish had been around for quite a while at this point, but I wouldn't expect you to accept that either, because you would have to know something about how scientists came to that conclusion... and it wasn't from sitting around and imagining it, I can tell you that. :CON:
@karamarouge "Once again bozo, mutation and natural selection have never ever been witnessed to change an animal from a kind into another." This sentence is just plain wrong. You don't have to physically watch something take place in order to understand that it has and is taking place anyways. We HAVE fossils of animals who are very much "human like" and very much "primitive ape like," PRIMITIVE being the key word, because humans actually ARE a TYPE of APE. We are OF the great ape family.
@karamarouge So, by your very own crudely stated opinion, a dog is a dog, a bacteria is a bacteria, and an ape is an ape. But of course, saying something like that only shows a LACK in understanding of the theory of evolution. If a dog turned into something else all of a sudden it would VIOLATE the theory of evolution, thus proving it wrong!!! HAHA A Dog is a speciated animal. several sub groups of dogs have formed because of genetic variation, and since genetic variation allows for :CON:
@karamarouge :CON: the genes compatibility to change, GENETIC VARIATION ALLOWS FOR A SUB GROUP OF ANIMALS TO NO LONGER BE COMPATIBLE WITH ONE ANOTHER!! So, if we define a "kind" as being a group of animals that can no longer mate with another group, then evolution (by definition) HAS PRODUCED A NEW "KIND" of animal. And we have "witnessed" this. Just type into google: SPECIATION, and read until you are no longer an idiot... good luck.
@karamarouge Now, somewhere in that pea brain of yours you have formulated that there can be a little change in animals, but not alot, because we haven't seen it. This is fundamentally WRONG! Noticing that small changes can take place over "SMALL" periods of time should suggest to you that LARGE changes might beable to take place over LARGE periods of time. The step from understanding that fact, to realizing the fact of evolution is just a matter of information. Every attempt to falsify:CON:
@karamarouge :CON: to falsify the theory of evolution over the past 100 years has failed. That is a significant fact, because falsifiability is one of the most important features of a SCIENTIFIC theory, and it being unfalsified for such a long period of time, suggest that it is, if not in totality, mostly true. There is no serious doubt about whether or not evolution is a fact in the strictest sense. However, the passage of over 3 billion years has left data collecting about the past a :CON:
@karamarouge difficult task to say the least. So, formulating a perfect understanding of what happened in the past is impossible, but there are some things we have learned that are undeniable. And the only way a person can sit here and say the kind of shit you are saying is if that person is either unknowingly, or willfully ignorant. Do you want to learn something about biology? Why don't you ask some challenging questions instead of asserting that everything I'm saying is false?
@karamarouge BTW: Just thought I'de point out that you admitted that there are beneficial gains from the INCREASE in the genome. "lOL fucking great...Yes dumbass I know that most beneficial gains have been from LOSS of certain genetic functionalities." If you know that MOST have been from a loss, then you know that SOME have been from a gain, and that is all evolution needs. LOLOL!!!
@chedillychedilly1 That is only your pathetic logic trying to convince yourself that you have made even one valid claim thus fur. Conceding that majority of beneficial gains come from loss of info does not in any way mean that I know of any insistance where there was any gain of new info whatsoever. That is your fucking pathetic childish mind trying to formulate an argumentative win so that you can gain back some credibility after posting nonsense that contradicts you and makes u look stupid.
@karamarouge "I know that MOST beneficial gains..." Again, understanding logical sentence structure is obviously a big problem for you. When you said, " "lOL fucking great...Yes dumbass I know that most beneficial gains have been from LOSS of certain genetic functionalities." First you are admitting, without really understaning that you are doing so, that a BENEFICIAL MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE CAN TAKE PLACE, or, EVOLUTION! Second, you are admitting that SOME are NOT A LOSS!!!
@karamarouge Information, in a genetic sense, is the sequence of nucleotides in the genes of a given individual, or population. How then, you fucking moron, is the changing of that (SEQUENCE), through GENE DUPLICATION, not "NEW INFORMATION? Gene duplication is a MISTAKE being made in the building of genetic structures. Once you have some sort of genetic structure, IT IS A WONDERFUL MECHANISM FOR BUILDING "NEW GENES." Are you really this goddamn stupid, or are you just having a laugh?
@karamarouge Let me see if I can say this in stupid person talk..... If I write: 'You are stupid,' that is SOME information. If somebody copies my message, but they make a mistake and write, 'You are stupid stupid, that is a NEW MESSAGE, or NEW INFORMATION. Now, use the modest amount of brain cells that you have and think about how many combinations can be made, or how BIG the message can get if that keeps happening. That is essentially what happens with gene duplication.
@chedillychedilly1 You are indeed a dumb fool. Let me explain why. "You are stupid stupid" has not added any new information to the statement "You are stupid"
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT COULD CLAIM THAT THIS IS NEW INFORMATION!
@karamarouge One last thing. Since information in genes is the COMBINATION of molecules, how is adding the word stupid to the statement: you are stupid: NOT new information? The combination is NEW, and in genes that would mean their functions are new. How about this, can you make new words with those letters that are not already there? You see, this is the problem. You have such a hard time thinking, that I have to go through too much effort just to get you to understand one simple thing.
@chedillychedilly1 "One last thing. Since information in genes is the COMBINATION of molecules, how is adding the word stupid to the statement: you are stupid: NOT new information?"
omg this is the dumbest question on this forum thus far! " go ask a 3rd grade kid if he/she learns any new info from the duplication of the word stupid..Hell in genetics that error spells death in 99% of the cases if not just outright deformity that would lead to death in the natural world
@karamarouge You still don't understand genetic duplication, or what constitutes "NEW GENES." Yes, most genetic mutations are either negative, or neutral. 99% of all species who have ever lived have gone extinct. HMMMM, weird how the average survival rate of species PERFECTLY correlates with the number of beneficial mutations. If you just keep listening to preachers and creationists you will continue to be as confused as you are.
@karamarouge Remember, I asked you if your pea brain could imagine that same process making different words out of those letters. I just re-wrote stupid because I wanted to reiterate that you are stupid. If you would just look this stuff up, instead of continuing to sound totally moronic, you would find out that we KNOW that new genes are created, and that some of them are beneficial, PERIOD! This is NOT a point of debate.You are just plain wrong about this, and you are too arrogant to admit it.
@karamarouge How about I let you hang yourself? You don't seem to even really understand what a "NEW GENE" is. So, why don't you tell me what "NEW GENES" would look like. Apparently, the increase in genetic information and the change in its functionality does not seem to suffice, in your crazy world of biology, as a good definition of "NEW GENES." Go on... I'm waiting for you to turn the whole of biology on its head with your brilliantly tuned scientific mind.
@chedillychedilly1 honestly a person cant be this stupid and post this crap on a public forum.
That statement you just wrong is not only grammatically false, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever ever that can be construed as new information of any kind.
ONCE AGAIN BOZO. THE REPETION OF WORDS CAN NEVER EVER RESULT IN NEW INFORMATION THAT WASNT ALREADY EXISTANT IN THE ORIGINAL (especially when it comes to genes) This destroys the whole evolution argument.
@karamarouge Grammatically false? LOL: Do you even know what you are saying half of the time? First of all, lets deal with this word "information." Information is at best a metaphor for what a genetic code does. Genes are made of molecules. When we talk about information, we are NOT talking about new molecules. What we are talking about is the COMBINATION of the same set of molecules. Gene duplication is what we call it when genes are being duplicated and a mistake is made CHANGING :CON:
@karamarouge :CON: the structure and function of the gene CODE. The function of the genetic code is based on its structure; therefore, the INFORMATION is a product of its structure. If the STRUCTURE is changed, by gene duplication or any other type of genetic alteration, then the function is changed; if the function is changed, THEN THE INFORMATION IS CHANGED. If information is defined as the ways in which genes form creatures and their functions, then you are just plain WRONG! :CON:
@karamarouge Let me try out another analogy: Lets view the alphabet as different types of molecules. Now this analogy will break down because letters are a human invention, used for conventional language, and the genetic code is NOT a language in that sense. Let us suppose that there exist a process that picks out the combination of letters that form any word in the english language, this will be our analogy for natural selection. So, LETTERS=MOLECULES, SELECTOR=NATURAL SELECTION. :CON:
@chedillychedilly1 once again another moron statement from some on who does not understand what the hell he is talking about. Genetic code is language every bit as sophisticated as the alphabet.
@karamarouge No; the only one making 'moronic' statments, (not: moron statement: stupid) is you. I said that the genetic code is not a "language" in the same SENSE as HUMAN "language." Human language exists to transfer IDEAS from one MIND to the next. Genetic "language" is a biochemical structure that transfers a set of BIOCHEMICAL REACTIONS. Evolution is the explaination for the selected COMBINATION of the biochemical structure itself. You are way out of your league here...
@karamarouge Of course the genetic code is sophisticated, but it is NOT ARTIFICIAL! Languages, in the IDEA sense, tend to be formed in order to transfer information in the simplest of ways.The extreme complexity, regardless of what creationists proponents tell you, is NOT a sign of intentional design; actually, quite the opposite.The cascade of biochemical reactions needed to build and maintain life is NOT what one should expect to see in an intentionally designed system.But, it is evolutionary.
@chedillychedilly1 Only an ignormus who cant grasp the intricacy of DNa can say such dumb things like you say. I dont need to know what phosolipids may be, and it does not matter. Blubbering on about the outside layer of a cell is not evidence of the bogus unseen untestable and unscientific claims you make. No one has seen these so called layers randomly combine to form cells, or attain the ability to reproduce or even evolve to anything. Your entire posts are pure rubbish
LOL! How ridiculous! What have you said that even comes close to having anything at all to do with the way that DNA works? You think that gene duplication doesn't create new genes because it has the word duplication in the title! HAHA! Read something about the half dozen genetic processes I so lovingly provided you and you will then realize just how little you really do know about "the intricacy of DNA." And just answer my question, even you can realize how much of an ass you are.
@karamarouge Molecules are the product of atoms, atoms are the product of nucleosynthesis, nucleosynthesis is the product of hydrogen condensation under gravity, hydrogen condensation in the result of the big bang, and the big bang is the result of whatever you want it to be. Lets just assume it is God, it doesn't matter at this point. I'm saying this to delay a discussion about HOW molecules and the rest come into being, in order to deal with the anaolgy. Moving on:CON:
@karamarouge One other thing to equate here is that the letters making a word is an analogy to molecules making a combination that reproduces BETTER than before. Okay so, whenever two letters come together and make a word the selector selects for them, ;like when an Y and an O come together.The word YO is more sensical than the letter Y, or the letter O by itself... so the selector selects for it. so now we've got the message YO, and by chance the letters are paired with each letter in the:CON:
@karamarouge :CON: alphabet. How long do you think it would take, using that process to create the sentence: YOU ARE STUPID... STUPID? It is pretty simple math, so I will allow you to make the calculation, or should I! Now, we KNOW with a good deal of certainty, that around three billion yrs ago there existed very simplistic organisms. If nature simply selects for combinations of genes that make better and better reproducers, then the process of evolution would have to take place with:CON:
@karamarouge :CON: with organisms! Something would literally have to STOP evolution from happening. Currently, we do not have a full understanding of how the first self replicating molecules formed. But, we really have not been working on the problem for very long. We already know what happens when you have self replicating molecules, SO GET OVER IT! This is not a scientific debate. You don't even know what the issues are.
@chedillychedilly1 "Currently, we do not have a full understanding of how the first self replicating molecules formed."
this is not new.. a dumb darwinist actually citing ignorance of the facts as the basis for his beliefs. I cant say it is shocking. I see this from every single evolutionist.
@chedillychedilly1" Currently, we do not have a full understanding of how the first self replicating molecules formed. "
I cant say I am surprised. I have never in my life met a darwinist or dumb evolutionist who didnt claim ignorance as the basis of their arguments. We dont know shit about self replicating molecules so we shall make bold, stupid unsubstantiated and unscientific claims about them anyway..
@karamarouge LOL: Ignorance isn't the basis of the theory of evolution. How does your twisted little brain take the statement, "we do not have a FULL understanding..." and turn it into, "we don't know shit!?" I'm sorry dumbass, but we do know some things about self replicating molecules. Actually, we keep discovering more and more. Lets argue about one thing at a time. You can't fall back on the things we don't know to refute the things we do know.
@karamarouge When Newton wrote the laws of motion he didn't know everything about gravity. As a matter of fact, we STILL DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND GRAVITY! So why don't you say things like,'We don't know shit about gravity!' Do you see how fucking stupid you sound? We understand the LAWS that effect biological systems AS THEY EXISTS! By your logic, we can't derive the workings of the solar system, because we don't know everything about its formation: utterly retarded...
@karamarouge I've got to say, this really shows just how little you understand even basic philosophy and science. The theory of evolution deals with what happens TO self replicating systems, NOT - HOW self replicating systems formed in the first place. So, once again, you sound like a complete idiot! If anybody is ignorant it's you. We actually know a hell of a lot about self replicating molecules. We've discovered several processes that create MOST of the present organic molecules needed:CON:
@karamarouge :CON: for life to form in the first place. Phospholipids, which are fatty molecules, form bilayers NATURALLY! I'm sure that you are unaware, but phospholipid bilayers are what the outside of the cell is made of. So, the outside of cells FORM NATURALLY; NO MAGIC NEEDED! All of the constituent parts of life form naturally as well. We 'know,' based on the evidence, that life went from simple to complex over a long period of time. So, whatever made up the FIRST life MUST have been:CON:
@chedillychedilly1 And you dont have any evidence that life came from simpler to complex. Only stupid scientists still refer to any life form as simpler than the other. All who understand DNA and molecular biology fully understand the complexity of all life forms. Most importantly NO SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD HAS EVER WITNESSED ANY LIFE FORM EVOLVE FROM A "SIMPLE LIFE FORM" TO A MORE COMPLEX ONE...stop telling stupid lies...
@karamarouge UMMM.... WHAT! Are you serious? The fossil record clearly shows animals evolving in stages from simplistic to more complex life forms. You really think that a bacterium is as complex as a human? You really are a complete moron! The oldest igneous rock layers on earth contain ONLY MICROORGANISMS! And yes, PROKARYOTES are more simplistic in form and function than EURKARYOTES! If you knew ANYTHING about biology you would at least know that. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DNA! CON:
@karamarouge Only scientists who know anything about biology at all, like..... 99%, classify single celled organisms as simpler than multicellular. Think about how stupid what you just said is. What is more complex, a machine with two moving parts, or a machine with four? Most living organisms today possess extreme complexity, but as I already explained to you, THEY ARE NOT ARTIFICIAL! Humans consists of approximatley 150 trillion cells; A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM CONSIST OF ONE CELL.... IDIOT!!!
@karamarouge Of course nobody has witnessed 'simplistic' life forms evolving into more complex; IT TAKES TENS OF THOUSANDS TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS!! Life has been evolving for at least three BILLION years, nit wit. The average human life is well under a century. We know how life has developed because of mountains of evidence. And if you would simply stop making moronic statements like,"There is no evidence,' I will gladly point you to it.
@karamarouge What you don't seem to beable to grasp is that we DO witness life evolving. A continuous process of evolution over hundreds of millions of years can create, in theory, the diversity of life we see around us. Large changes in morphology happen VERY SLOWLY. Analogize the process of evolution to the slow crawling of a slug. In short periods of time the slug cannot get very far, maybe an inch a minute. But, given enough time it could crawl around the entire earth and then some. CON:
@karamarouge This is how evolution works. If we look at the road to humans as some distant voyage from bacteria to us, the distance can never be too great if the process to getting there is continuous and progressive to that end. A slug could travel across the universe if given enough time. And that is what natural selection is. It is the Slug of morphological processes. The less complex and quickly reproducing the organism, the faster this process will act. This is why viruses, which are: CON:
@chedillychedilly1 "A slug could travel across the universe if given enough time."
Seriously, this is your logic? lmao..
I cant believe this shit!!! SOME ON SO STUPID HE BELIEVES A SLUG COULD TRAVEL ACROSS THE UNIVERSE GIVEN ENOUGH TIME!!!
LMAO... Yes sir, given a enough time an elephant could shit a Truck... Given enough time a cow could give birth to a gorilla. She just gotta keep letting enough gorillas fuck her.
@karamarouge What in the fuck are you talking about? Obviously I'm talking over your head here. The slug walking across the universe was an anology to the slow pace of evolution and change that takes place throughout evolution. Do you not understand analogies? Obviously slugs don't live long enough to walk that distance. (D=RT) That is a pretty simple equation, try using it to calculate how many miles a slug could crawl if it started crawling 3billion yrs ago and didn't stop until today. :CON:
@karamarouge I don't actually believe a slug can travel across the universe. But, if we had a slug that didn't stop, and didn't die, I calculate that a slug could crawl 4.38 miles per yr, 4.380 every thousand yrs, and 43,800,000 every ten thousand yrs. What I was trying to get you to understand is that a continuously progressive process can get you very far even if it happens very slowly! Obviously you are just too stupid to understand this.
@karamarouge Given enough time a cow can give birth to a gorilla? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that what your narrow little mind thinks the theory of evolution says? No wonder you are so completely and utterly clueless. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with one animal giving birth to another, or some new completely different animal for that matter, which is probably why you do not understand my slug analogy. Please just answer my question... please moron.
@karamarouge Here I'll re-ask, because I'm sure your ineptitude makes it difficult for you to either remeber it, or find it. What constitutes as a "NEW," or "NEW GENES?" Please just attempt to say something even remotely scientific, so it will be apparent to you, and anyone as dumb as you that YOU have no idea what you are talking about.
@karamarouge extremely replecative adapt so quickly to medication. RNA, which is what a virus is made of, may even have been the precursor to the first PROTO DNA molecule, this we do not yet know. We do however know a lot about the building blocks of life, AND THEY ALL OCCUR NATURALLY!!!
@karamarouge NO EVIDENCE! This is a good ole chestnut. Have you heard of BIOLOGY!!! What about: bio-geography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis. Oh, that's right; you think that the analysis of DNA does NOT support the theory of evolution. This is another thing that I would love for you to explain in great detail. Maybe list some of the scientific articals and books where you are getting your info.
@chedillychedilly1 Funny thing is that all of these studies are of life.. Each and every single one of them. Negating the lie you try to sell that these studies have some how validated your bogus theories of dead lifeless fossils. DNA analysis is exactly what destroyed darwins bogus tree of life. The same shit you are trying to sell on here as real science yet it has been categorically disproven.
@karamarouge All of these studies? What studies are you talking about? I mentioned BRANCHES of sciences, not studies you idiot. Where did you read that genetics has disproven the theory of evolution? Where are you getting this shit! Name one fucking scientifically peer reviewed artical, or one reputable scientist who says this. You can't, because you are pulling this shit out of your ass. Who told you this stuff, your goddamn preacher? Did you learn your genetics from the bible? LOL! U suck...
@karamarouge Only a person who has never read anything at all on this subject would say that genetics DISPROVES the tree of life. Quite the contraray. Why don't you try listening to some of the worlds top biologists and geneticists instead of making things up. Watch the video Ken Miller, (one of the nations top biologists and author of most high school text books AND A FUCKING CHRISTIAN), made called[How to shut up a pesky creationists]. In it, you will get a glimps of not only a way to:CON:
@karamarouge CON: falsify the theory of evolution, but he also shows how, in just one small way(WHICH IT DOES IN EVERY!) that genetics supports evolution. I mean seriously man, c'mon! You have no fucking clue what you are talking about here. And you still haven't answered my question.
Oh btw: just thought I'de mention. Bio-geography, taxonomy, and anatomy do take into account those "dead fossils" you mentioned. So, you are ONCE AGAIN factually incorrect.
@karamarouge It's called....... ARCHEOLOGY YOU MORON. Archeological Taxonomy, Archeological Bio-geograghy, etc, etc, etc. JEEEEZZZZZ, Is there anything you DO know?!
@karamarouge :CON: even simpler than the early prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea). This is pure logic at work, something you probably have a lot of difficulty with. I'm not currently srguing with you about the existence of God; what I'm trying to get you to understand is that, whether or not God started the universe and life, we have a natural explaination for how life changes, and the evidence, if examined correctly, is absolutely overwhelming.This is how I know the level of your ignorance.
@karamarouge I just want to reiterate, I said,"THE MOST beneficial mutations..." NOT,'MOST' beneficial mutations, or as you put it, "the MAJORITY of beneficial mutations." BTW: quit saying things like, "nobody has ever seen it, or NO scientist has ever discovered, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There are libraries (literally) FULL of information that you think doesn't exists, and we're not talking hypothesis here.
@karamarouge Genes can be expressed by being turned on, or by playing an integral role in the functionality of an organism. If a GENE DUPLICATION occurs,(in the belly of a mommy), that is beneficial for the offspring,(the baby), and natural selection selects for that genetic mutation, and or gene combination, then that animal is said to have adapted to an environmental condition. Whether the condition be energetic necessity, preditory pressure, competition, sexual selection, etc.
@chedillychedilly1 The offspring is "adapted" if the mutation and resultant combination leads to the ability for the offspring to ALSO pass its genes on.*
@karamarouge Obviously the animal "ALREADY HAD THE GENES."That does not mean that the genes have ALWAYS EXISTED asshole!Gene duplication is just one of the most appreciated mechanisms for the rise of "NEW GENES," there are several. You are making yourself look stupid and you don't even know it. You're trying to argue about something that you're positively clueless about. I can give you a list of enough research and books about "NEW GENES" to keep you busy for the rest of your pathetic life.
@chedillychedilly1 This is quite revealing. The moron finally exposes himself for the ignorant retard that he really is.
HEY BOZO FIRST LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORD "DUPLICATION" BEFORE RUNNING THAT SMELLY MOUTH OF YOURS. ABSOLUTELY NO NEW INFORMATION CAN BE CREATED BY DUPLICATING INFORMATION THAT ALREADY EXISTED. NONE AT ALL DUMBASS!
@karamarouge I have two questions for you dumb dumb. If go through the trouble of gathering up a mountain of scientific literature on this subject, and send you a list of hundreds of research papers and books, will you fucking read even one of them? When you read affirming scientific research that new genes are created, will you come back on here and tell everyone that you are a complete-know-nothing douchbag? These are not rhetorical questions.
@xChillDude meh. creationists do that as well. actually, as far as I know, no one has evidence for an "intelligent" (because we're not so intelligently designed) designer. Don't you think if there was some hint of evidence for a designer, all science fields would've jumped at the chance to study it?
@DrProfessorMDPhD17 We're not so intelligently designed ? Reproduction works pretty well. Besides are you saying a non-optimal design is not a design ? I think a design that you think you could improve upon is still a design.
@Ear4Beauty yes, the way our body works and the way its wired is suited for us. however, there are some flaws. i'm not saying we're not designed because there may be a possibility that we were indeed designed, but to credit an all-knowing, all-powerful being for our design, which is far from perfect..... i just feel that such a being could've done a better job. i'm not discarding any possibilities for design though, but evolution seems to be a better fit.
@Ear4Beauty "fortunate accident"? For something that has evolved multiple times (the eye for example) can you really call that an accident? More like inevitable.
@Grymyrk I think "multiple times" would have to be a great understatement. And I don't think enough time in the universe yet has made the probability of the eye evolving "inevitable". This, to me, seems a huge leap of something like "faith".
@Ear4Beauty Faith? It takes faith to believe in an invisible man in the sky. It does not take faith to observe that virtually all species that have light in their environment. Have sight.
The default position as posited in 'I D" is an erroneous argument. Just because something is 'irreducibly complex' does not mean that it was created by an intelligent designer. To say that something is, because it cannot be proven at this point, that it evolved(later to be proven accurate) is an argument based upon unsound logic.
A default position cannot be the true position based upon no knowledge or proof.
Thoughtful presentation, but just one question to ponder...You referred to the more recent "upgrade" for sensing color. If there is no "design", by what mechanism would these changes evolve simultaneously among many creatures?
BTW, Dawkins didn't refute or present any evidence for his claim in the clip at the end, he just made fun of the other claim. That is philosophically weak. I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I don't think it's a closed case for the billions claim either.
The "upgrade" did not evolve simultaneously. Trichromacy as humans have it evolved once, in a now-extinct organism that was the ancestor of most living primates.
Most other animals, if they have color vision at all, have different styles of it. Birds have tetrachromacy, lower mammals have a sort of "watered-down" color vision, and so on.
@achzdck Sorry, but your first premise is simply false. Secondly, I'm assuming you're attempting (rather fruitlessly) to claim that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. You're correct because evolutionary theory has NOTHING TO DO with it. Abiogenesis... look it up... You can't claim that a theory is wrong because it doesn't address something separate to the theory! Once again you show quite clearly your lack up general scientific understanding.
Yes, the dating methods HAVE been proved accurate.
When radiometric dating agrees with fossil strata, which in turn agrees with genetic evidence, which in turn agree with other evidence, it is rather convincing.
@DeltaAtheism Which in turn agrees wit carbon dating, which in turn agrees with evolution. It all fits and only with evolution. Doesn't fit with creationism.
@DeltaAtheism This is bullshit!!! There is no radiometric dating that accurate. Even carbon dating relies on other historical date to verify its results. Please dont make up shit and lie to the good people! Secondly there is no fossilized genetic material any where on earth. Only a fool could claim that genetic evidence has been used to verify fossil strata dates.
These kinds of videos are so stupid. The argument in this presentation amounts to "nuh-uh." Well, that's persuasive, why didn't I think of that? First of all, we have no idea how credible this information is because there are no credentials behind them; all we have is a guy commenting over science textbook pictures. Second, if it was really that obvious then there is no reason that heavyweights like Kenyon and Behe would "defect" over the irreducible complexity of structures like the eye.
First off, how could I possibly provide credentials through YouTube? I am not going to disclose my identity.
As for Behe, I have heard from multiple people that he in fact does not agree with the use of Irreducible complexity as used by popular creationists. And I seem to remember him even withdrawing the "eye" argument.
I'm not saying that you should have provided credentials. My point was that you can't and so the whole presentation is suspect. This just isn't the venue for this kind of thing. I wasn't referring to "popular creationists" and I would agree with you that a lot of uneducated response comes from both "popular creationists" and layman alike (they may, in fact be one and the same in may cases). I admit that I haven't heard of the withdrawl of the argument as it applies to the eye.
Granted, YouTube is not a professional nor reliably academic forum, but it IS excellent to distribute content on various things including topics like this. It is free and accessible to nearly everyone, and additionally is rather effective at conveying the message.
If you want more academically verifiable content, you would have to look to the original sources.
No evidence of what? That structures claimed to be irreducible are not? Yes, I did.
And the Dawkins clip at the end is not relevant to the actual issue of Irreducible Complexity; it is a 'coda' that I put at the end of all my "Blown out of the Water" videos.
All videos that claimed to have successfully debunked the irreducible complexity of eyes NEVER discussed the visual cortex and optic nerves, let alone the other mechanisms to sustain the eyes.
hisham031170 1 month ago
Irreducible Complexity is a fantastic point! Rather than trying to immediately disprove it, with somewhat hazardous results ('most evolutionary biologists agree' is not a proof, and the origin of the eye does not disprove 'irreducible complexity'), Atheists should encourage Creationists to find more proofs to back this up.
Cheeso33 4 months ago
You say the eye is not complex. Since your so smart why don't you build a human eye for us. Thats right man can't do this. Maybe you could produce matter from nothing. Thats right man can't do this either. So what can you do? Sin,lie and tell some more lies. I
jsong1974 5 months ago
@jsong1974 Discrediting specified complexity has nothing to do with the eye not being complex. The entire point is that homologies exist on a continuous line from from least complex to human eye complex with no chasm between steps. But thanks for the non sequitur about matter, that's like claiming gravity doesn't exist because you can't explain the Big Bang. By the way,there's a fine line between honest misrepresentation of an argument and blatant misrepresentation(lying). Do well to watch it.
mancannon47 4 months ago
@jsong1974 Yeah but humans have built better than the human eye, see google earth it's pictures from a satellite with such a high resolution you can see individuals from space. Humans like myself are prone to have failing eyes requiring the use of eyeglasses or contacts.
flammingbutter 3 months ago
votebots?
douchlin656 9 months ago
@douchlin656 Back before YouTube have Like/Dislike, they had a 1-5 system and people, Creationist/IDiots, would make bogus accounts and use those accounts to dump low votes on any video they didn't agree with so they wouldn't show up on Featured or Suggested sections of YouTube.
HimesInu 7 months ago
How can we rate if it has been disabled?
MegaParadox69 10 months ago
These movies are dumb and rediculous !! Dawkins is as dumb as his monkey grandfather !!
buschmann69 10 months ago
@buschmann69 Why? What's your argument exactly? And by the way, it's spelled "ridiculous". Not everything is phonetic.
querzer 9 months ago
@querzer thanx for the correction (English isn't my first language) ! We all know the eye NEVER evolved !!
buschmann69 9 months ago
These movies are dumb and rediculous !!
buschmann69 10 months ago
Napoleon Dynamite narrates?
SamcasticAtGmail 10 months ago
Dumb video, nice try though I actually was having hope in this fail video...
samuellis 11 months ago
@Grymyrk
Sure, here's a great video on youtube:
/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw&feature=related
xChillDude 1 year ago
Comment removed
xChillDude 1 year ago
Selective evidence, as usual for people that want to deny an intelligent designer.
xChillDude 1 year ago
@xChillDude No evidence, as usual for people that want to believe in an intelligent designer. See, two can play at that game.
Grymyrk 1 year ago
@Grymyrk
It's not a game, the point is all evidence has pointed to an ID for awhile now. Tell me, how do we even have the capacity to discover elements of evolution if we ourselves are intelligent designers? Read the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an, and side them next to science and you will not only see predictions made thousands of years ago recently discovered today, but also what the content in the bible -really- means. It's said God made us in his image, as in small scale intelligent designers!
xChillDude 1 year ago
@xChillDude Wow really? Is that right? Can we see some examples of this evidence for ID?
Grymyrk 1 year ago
@xChillDude What evidence? I'm a biochemist and I would love to hear about this evidence for a flawed concept being true, or even useful. Biological system functions are selected for by an inferred advantage, as such they can display new functionality based on the environment around them. This is a well established fact that is used by professional scientist each and every day. How am I supposed to use incorrect information about a biological systems functionality?
chedillychedilly1 1 year ago
@chedillychedilly1
What you're speaking of is called ADAPTATION, not EVOLUTION. Evolution, according to Charles Darwin, takes thousands of years to happen, as well as a change in form altogether.
xChillDude 1 year ago
@xChillDude Adaptation is the PRODUCT of the evolutionary process! Evolution is a PROCESS by which living things adapt! You don't separate the two as if they are completely different. What I'm "speaking of" is genetic differentiation(mutataion) and natural selection: THAT IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about. By change in form, I think you mean to say morphology. That can take several thousands of years, or hours if you are bacteria.
chedillychedilly1 1 year ago
@xChillDude Since adaptation is either a product of new genes being selected for, or the expression of certain genes that already exist, ADAPTATION is EVOLUTION. You need to re-learn the basics of biology, and try reading some of Darwin's books. I'm not being rude, I'm serious. I thought you were going to give me evidence for ID, not try and explain evolution to a PHD-research biochemist:-) Try and understand that I am a BIO-chemist, which means I specialize in biological chemistry.
chedillychedilly1 1 year ago
@chedillychedilly1 i think you should quit and try majoring in basket weaving or something more to your mental level. There has never been witnessed any such thing as "new genes". Even the dumbest bio-chemist would know that genes selected for already existed and their expression does not mean that they are new.
(some one is telling silly lies, I am not a bio-chemist and even I can see that bogus lie a mile away)
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge I did not say that I was "majoring" in biochemistry. A professional biochemist is someone who GETS PAID to DO biochemistry. There is so much literature on this subject that it is glaringly obvious that you are either unaware of the information, or too stupid to understand it. You being a moron does not equal me being a liar. Unless you are willing to actually read what scientists have to say about the subject, please don't try to have a discussion about it.
chedillychedilly1 2 months ago
@chedillychedilly1 Notice two things. I told him to quit his job and try majoring in basket weaving he responds by saying he is not majoring in biochemistry! Duh!
Secondly, notice the fact that the so called "Bio-chemist" completely failed to respond to the bogus unscientific shit he just posted thinking that no one would notice his lies!
Keep on trying bozo, you may yet convince some very stupid people that you are a bio chemist. lmao. Lying bitch
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge NO stupid. You said that I should "QUIT and try majoring in basket weaving," which LOGICALLY implies that I 'AM' currently majoring in something. I guess along with science, logical-grammatical structure is a problem for you. Genes that are selected for DO already exists. But of course, I never said that NATURAL SELECTION creates new genes. I said that ADAPTATION is the PRODUCT of NEW GENES, or the expression of certain genes that already exists... U r way out of your league here.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 Lol.. you are are moron! when some one tells you to quit and try something else, and you make stupid assumptions about what they mean then absurdities of your assumptions are yours. Own them asswipe!
"Since adaptation is either a product of new genes being selected for" This is what you said you lying wanna be "bio chemist" That statement is utterly bogus, it came from you and it is on record. No legitimate biochemist would say something so utterly false!
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge I am sorry that you do not understand how my assumption was LOGICAL, NOT stupid. You said to "QUIT" and try "MAJORING," which again implies that I am, say it with me dumb-ass, MAJORING IN SOMETHING! You should have said,'You should QUIT and get a JOB basket weaving. I agree, I made the assumption that you were not a total moron. Thank you for telling me what I said, and what I said IS TRUE. The problem here is that you do not know what evolution is.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge Evolution is simply change over time in the broader sense, but in biological terms it is the differentiation of genetics in a population. Adaptation is BOTH the current morphology of an organism and the changes that take place via environmental pressures. So, adaptation is what we call it when there is any effective change that takes place with an organism. Biological evolution is what we call it when there is any effective change that takes place with an organism. CON:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 dude honestly. Shut the fuck up with this bullshit! Neither you or any one in the world have witnessed any organism evolve or adapt (pick or choose whatever idiot term you want to apply to the situation) from a simple form to a more complex one.
NOT ONE!!!. Sure there is variation in genetic populations but absolutely no animal changes from one kind to another. Bacteria stay bacteria and dogs stay dogs!
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge LOL "Shut the fuck up," really?Actually, we see microorganisms evolve in real time EVERYDAY in thousands of laboratries all around the world, in testable, predictable waysThere have been hundreds of documented speciation events. The theory of evolution is paramount in the regulation of microorganisms in the food industry, as well as in medicine.Evolution is not a process by where one animal changes into another animal in one, or even thousands of generations. CONTINUE:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge Since we are talking about POPULATION GENETICS, one would not expect for large changes in the morphology of a complex creature to be visible on the types of time scales that, I think, you are suggesting we should have seen them. When we look at the fossils of ancient bipedal primates, with brains near the size of our own, what conclusion should we come to about those animals? Why, when we calculate the amount of genetic change that should have taken place, and compare it to the:CON
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge CON: inverse change of other primate species, do we find a PERFECT CORRELATION!! Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you. When we count up the differences between humans and all other apes,(genetically speaking), take the rate by which genes mutate, take the average of beneficial mutations and divide, we get THE EXACT AMOUNT OF GENETIC DIFFERENCES NEEDED FOR US TO BE WHAT WE ARE! Does your tiny little brain get how important that is?
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge So, "DUDE," of course nobody has witnessed this kind of change; it takes too fucking long! Oh, BTW, the calculations used to determine HOW MUCH change has to have taken place also gives you a time scale. Guess what happens when we line up the, (INDEPENDENT), time scales needed for the appropriate genetic changes to the dates acquired by radiometric dating techniques; THEY LINE UP PERFECTLY! And that is geology and physics. But they're all idiots and liars too, right?
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge "Sure there is variation in genetic populations, but absolutely no animal changes from one kind to another."That is like saying, 'Sure people can walk a couple of feet, but absolutely nobody can walk a thousand miles.You're a grade-A moron if you really believe that.The problem here is that you don't really understand this stuff.Why don't you ask me some good questions, like, 'HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS; WHERE DID YOU GET THIS FROM?'To prove that I am lying, that is all you have to do.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge So, you might be saying, 'Well, why have two different words that mean the same thing, stupid wanna be bio-chemist!" It is actually, more or less, semantics. ADAPTATION and EVOLUTION basically mean the same thing in biological terms. There is a certain context where it may sound ridiculous to interchange them though.EX:You wouldn't say something like, 'The cheetah has evolved to its environment.The cheetah has (evolved) BY (adapting) to its environment. Evolving IS adapting.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 Perhaps you should explain where the "new genes" came from
Or did you think people are so stupid they would over look the fact that you are making claims about new genes whose presence is unexplained, has never been observed or tested by any one.
karamarouge 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 Furthermore, adding to the stupidity of your assertion that adaptation is evolution. You also state that adaptation is also expression of genes that already exist.
That is just plain stupid. That would mean that whatever organism you are talking about already had the genes that are now being expressed. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you are arguing for evolution.
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge You really don't know what you are saying. "NEW GENE" simply means a gene that did not exist in the previous generation. Did you know that you have "NEW GENES?" I don't think that you really want me to explain the mechanisms by which "NEW GENES" arise, but I will if you'd like. The thing you don't get is that even IF new genes were astonishingly rare, WHICH THEY ARE NOT, creatures could still evolve MASSIVELY different morphologies over time.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 oh i fucking dare you to explain how "new genes" arise without employing any speculation or unproven, untested and unobserved hypothesis.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS EVER IDENTIFIED BY ANY SCIENTIST THAT RESULTS IN THE FORMATION OF NEW GENES..
NOT ONE YOU LYING BASTARD!!!
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge Hmmm, there are literally dozens of genetic mechanisms that we KNOW, empirically,(empirically meaning:derived from observation and experiment), that cause "NEW GENES," ( new genes being NOVEL combinations, or the enlargement of the code), to appear. Here are a few, you lazy dickhead: Exon shuffling, Gene duplication, Retroposition, Mobile element, Lateral gene transfer, De novo origination, etc. Google some of these and learn something for a change.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 "Exon shuffling, , Retroposition, Mobile element, Lateral gene transfer, De novo origination, etc"
SORRY BOZO... NONE OF THESE ARE "EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES" WHATSOEVER EVER!
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge So, either YOU are lying, or you like to just say things without actually finding out if they are true. You said that no new genes form, I said that gene duplication is ONE well understood mechanism by which NEW genes form, and you said that I need to learn what the word duplication means. Well, you need to learn how genes work. The genetic code is a combination of molecules. If it is enlarged, or changed in its functionality, IT IS NEW YOU FUCKHEAD!! :)
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 I know very well how genes work bozo. And duplication of genes can never result in NEW genes bozo! It is that simple. You can never get any new information that didnt already exist by duplicating something. NEVER..
Once again, go and fucking learn the meaning of the word duplication before you embarass yourself on a public forum
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge Do you realize that the human race actually possesses beneficial genes that we KNOW did NOT exist thousands of years ago?Did you know that the major chromosomal difference between humans and chimpanzees is actually a FUSED PAIR! Did you know that the mutations that we consider to be, probably, the most beneficial have actually been the LOSS of certain genetic functionalities...NOT THE GAIN?This is surface stuff, that I'm sure you are completely ignorant of. And worse, disinterested!
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 lOL fucking great...Yes dumbass I know that most beneficial gains have been from LOSS of certain genetic functionalities.
THIS FUCKING DISPROVES YOUR WHOLE EVOLUTION ARGUMENT OR CLEARLY CONTRADICTS IT.
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge Okay, your display of idiocy is partly my fault this time. When I said, "THE MOST BENEFICIAL" I was talking about a specific genetic mutation. Analyzing the skulls of ancient primate species, we see several lines of apes that share more traits with us, than they do with other ancient ape species, kind of like how chimpanzees share more in common with us than other great apes. A specific line of bipedal ape had destinct change in the way the jaw muscle was formed: CON:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge The jaw muscles cause a limiting factor on the way the skull, and subsequently the brain, can form. A single genetic mutation, in the amount of muscle that pulls on the top of the skull, can open up the door for other forms of natural selection to take hold, so that feature is compounded... especially over millions of years. And of course, we see slight differences emerge in skull size as the net jaw muscle retreats, ( as measured in fossils over hundreds of thousands of years).
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge What I did not mean to convey, (what you daftly believe), that mutations are always negative, and always have a winding down effect. The majority of 'FAST' large scale changes happen by RECOMBINATION and mutation combined. Like when we bread dogs to look different. Humans are the smartest of the apes; what you don't understand is that a GAIN in genetic information is not needed for this to happen. From single celled organisms, the genome obviously needs to increase: CON:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge :CON: in order to have TRILLIONS OF CELLS. I think 3.7 BILLION years is enough time. And we are only scratching the surface on how the genome increases. Oh... just for good measure:You fucking suck. Seriously though, learn( AT LEAST )some basic information before trying to debate. Initially I was just trying to give you a little info, and you had to be the biggest jerk on the planet.You keep making yourself look more and more stupid.You obviously know nothing aout science.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 lol.. Looks like you are frustrated because science and simple logic do not back you up. No scientist has ever witnessed any most of the crap you claim and the few testable hypothesis you mention are not being debated by me or any one else. But rather the bogus assumptions you make are the ones being challenged. No one is arguing against variation in dogs for example. That dogs evolved from fish because you saw a short tailed dog is a completely absurd poisition to hold.
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge I'm the only one presenting scientifically verified information, and all you can say is, "looks like you are frustrated because science and simple logic, BLAH BLAH." LOL-What science and logic are you talking about.I haven't seen anything close to a scientific, or logical argument from you.All you've done is MISUNDERSTAND, or ignore altogether, nearly everthing I've said. I gave you a long sequence of FACTS and your only response is that I don't understand the word duplication: CON:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge Do you really think that my position is that dogs evolved from fish becasue I've seen a short tailed dog! LOL That is ridiculous. Did you even read any of the things I wrote about radiometrics, fossils, and genetics? Did you read anything I wrote about speciation?
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge I'm frustrated, because you are refusing to accept such a simple concept. The first thing i said to you was that adaptation IS evolution. Adaptation is the product of genetic mutation and natural selection, THAT'S WHAT IT IS... that is not up for debate. Evolution, in the biological sense, is the change over time in the morphology of animals due to mutation and natural selection. YOU LOSE! :CON:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 Once again bozo, mutation and natural selection have never ever been witnessed to change an animal from a kind into another. A fish into a mammal evolution only happen in the depth of your mind. It has never been witnessed cant be tested or falsified. Hence your assertion is nothing but baseless unscientific darwinistic mumbo jumbo!. Sorry but that is FACT>
karamarouge 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge The theory of evolution does not involve an individual animal giving birth to another different anaimal... "BOZO!" Evolution is POPULATION GENETICS. We have in fact witnessed the speciation of animals. The most basic difference between one "kind" of animal and another is the ability to interbreed. If we have two groups of animals which no longer have the ability to mate with one another, because of NATURAL SELECTION AND GENETIC MUTATION, or geographical distribution, then the: CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: potential exists for those two groups to go on changing independently with no GENE FLOW between them. This basically means that their genes can no longer interact, and a sub group is thus created. Saying that this has never been witnessed is just a display of how utterly ignorant you are. Every test that has ever been conducted on microorganisms (IN REAL SCIENCE LABS) bares this fact out. Microorganism are a good way to test the theory of evolution because :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: microorganisms reproduce very quickly. So in essence, we can view BILLIONS of generations of evolution in just hours or days. Large animals, such as lions and tigers and bears... OH MY, should take millions of years to change in as drastic ways as microorganisms do in hours. "Kind" of animal is NOT a scientific term, but I don't, at this point, expect for you to have a scientific argument using appropriate terms that actually take SCIENCE into account. :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classifications of animals, is a discriptive word that:CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classifications of animals, is a discriptive word that:CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classification terms, is a discriptive word that:CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge Not only can the theory of evolution be falsified, or even the sub claim that a fish turned into a mammal, but there are clear and direct ways of doing so!!! Our current understanding of what sequence of features arose in the animal kingdom does not have mammals popping into existence from fish. Let me explain some details to you that you are obviously too lazy to find out yourself. The word mammal, just like all other classification terms, is a discriptive word that:CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: discribes features of a particular goup of animals. The mammalian FEATURES begin to appear in animals, who's fossils can be found in ignious rock layers dating back over 270 MILLION yrs ago. So, fish had been around for quite a while at this point, but I wouldn't expect you to accept that either, because you would have to know something about how scientists came to that conclusion... and it wasn't from sitting around and imagining it, I can tell you that. :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: discribes features of a particular goup of animals. The mammalian FEATURES begin to appear in animals, who's fossils can be found in ignious rock layers dating back over 270 MILLION yrs ago. So, fish had been around for quite a while at this point, but I wouldn't expect you to accept that either, because you would have to know something about how scientists came to that conclusion... and it wasn't from sitting around and imagining it, I can tell you that. :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge "Once again bozo, mutation and natural selection have never ever been witnessed to change an animal from a kind into another." This sentence is just plain wrong. You don't have to physically watch something take place in order to understand that it has and is taking place anyways. We HAVE fossils of animals who are very much "human like" and very much "primitive ape like," PRIMITIVE being the key word, because humans actually ARE a TYPE of APE. We are OF the great ape family.
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge So, by your very own crudely stated opinion, a dog is a dog, a bacteria is a bacteria, and an ape is an ape. But of course, saying something like that only shows a LACK in understanding of the theory of evolution. If a dog turned into something else all of a sudden it would VIOLATE the theory of evolution, thus proving it wrong!!! HAHA A Dog is a speciated animal. several sub groups of dogs have formed because of genetic variation, and since genetic variation allows for :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: the genes compatibility to change, GENETIC VARIATION ALLOWS FOR A SUB GROUP OF ANIMALS TO NO LONGER BE COMPATIBLE WITH ONE ANOTHER!! So, if we define a "kind" as being a group of animals that can no longer mate with another group, then evolution (by definition) HAS PRODUCED A NEW "KIND" of animal. And we have "witnessed" this. Just type into google: SPECIATION, and read until you are no longer an idiot... good luck.
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge Now, somewhere in that pea brain of yours you have formulated that there can be a little change in animals, but not alot, because we haven't seen it. This is fundamentally WRONG! Noticing that small changes can take place over "SMALL" periods of time should suggest to you that LARGE changes might beable to take place over LARGE periods of time. The step from understanding that fact, to realizing the fact of evolution is just a matter of information. Every attempt to falsify:CON:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge :CON: to falsify the theory of evolution over the past 100 years has failed. That is a significant fact, because falsifiability is one of the most important features of a SCIENTIFIC theory, and it being unfalsified for such a long period of time, suggest that it is, if not in totality, mostly true. There is no serious doubt about whether or not evolution is a fact in the strictest sense. However, the passage of over 3 billion years has left data collecting about the past a :CON:
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge difficult task to say the least. So, formulating a perfect understanding of what happened in the past is impossible, but there are some things we have learned that are undeniable. And the only way a person can sit here and say the kind of shit you are saying is if that person is either unknowingly, or willfully ignorant. Do you want to learn something about biology? Why don't you ask some challenging questions instead of asserting that everything I'm saying is false?
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge BTW: Just thought I'de point out that you admitted that there are beneficial gains from the INCREASE in the genome. "lOL fucking great...Yes dumbass I know that most beneficial gains have been from LOSS of certain genetic functionalities." If you know that MOST have been from a loss, then you know that SOME have been from a gain, and that is all evolution needs. LOLOL!!!
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 That is only your pathetic logic trying to convince yourself that you have made even one valid claim thus fur. Conceding that majority of beneficial gains come from loss of info does not in any way mean that I know of any insistance where there was any gain of new info whatsoever. That is your fucking pathetic childish mind trying to formulate an argumentative win so that you can gain back some credibility after posting nonsense that contradicts you and makes u look stupid.
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge "I know that MOST beneficial gains..." Again, understanding logical sentence structure is obviously a big problem for you. When you said, " "lOL fucking great...Yes dumbass I know that most beneficial gains have been from LOSS of certain genetic functionalities." First you are admitting, without really understaning that you are doing so, that a BENEFICIAL MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE CAN TAKE PLACE, or, EVOLUTION! Second, you are admitting that SOME are NOT A LOSS!!!
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge Information, in a genetic sense, is the sequence of nucleotides in the genes of a given individual, or population. How then, you fucking moron, is the changing of that (SEQUENCE), through GENE DUPLICATION, not "NEW INFORMATION? Gene duplication is a MISTAKE being made in the building of genetic structures. Once you have some sort of genetic structure, IT IS A WONDERFUL MECHANISM FOR BUILDING "NEW GENES." Are you really this goddamn stupid, or are you just having a laugh?
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge Let me see if I can say this in stupid person talk..... If I write: 'You are stupid,' that is SOME information. If somebody copies my message, but they make a mistake and write, 'You are stupid stupid, that is a NEW MESSAGE, or NEW INFORMATION. Now, use the modest amount of brain cells that you have and think about how many combinations can be made, or how BIG the message can get if that keeps happening. That is essentially what happens with gene duplication.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 You are indeed a dumb fool. Let me explain why. "You are stupid stupid" has not added any new information to the statement "You are stupid"
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT COULD CLAIM THAT THIS IS NEW INFORMATION!
karamarouge 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge One last thing. Since information in genes is the COMBINATION of molecules, how is adding the word stupid to the statement: you are stupid: NOT new information? The combination is NEW, and in genes that would mean their functions are new. How about this, can you make new words with those letters that are not already there? You see, this is the problem. You have such a hard time thinking, that I have to go through too much effort just to get you to understand one simple thing.
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 "One last thing. Since information in genes is the COMBINATION of molecules, how is adding the word stupid to the statement: you are stupid: NOT new information?"
omg this is the dumbest question on this forum thus far! " go ask a 3rd grade kid if he/she learns any new info from the duplication of the word stupid..Hell in genetics that error spells death in 99% of the cases if not just outright deformity that would lead to death in the natural world
karamarouge 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge You still don't understand genetic duplication, or what constitutes "NEW GENES." Yes, most genetic mutations are either negative, or neutral. 99% of all species who have ever lived have gone extinct. HMMMM, weird how the average survival rate of species PERFECTLY correlates with the number of beneficial mutations. If you just keep listening to preachers and creationists you will continue to be as confused as you are.
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@karamarouge Remember, I asked you if your pea brain could imagine that same process making different words out of those letters. I just re-wrote stupid because I wanted to reiterate that you are stupid. If you would just look this stuff up, instead of continuing to sound totally moronic, you would find out that we KNOW that new genes are created, and that some of them are beneficial, PERIOD! This is NOT a point of debate.You are just plain wrong about this, and you are too arrogant to admit it.
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@karamarouge How about I let you hang yourself? You don't seem to even really understand what a "NEW GENE" is. So, why don't you tell me what "NEW GENES" would look like. Apparently, the increase in genetic information and the change in its functionality does not seem to suffice, in your crazy world of biology, as a good definition of "NEW GENES." Go on... I'm waiting for you to turn the whole of biology on its head with your brilliantly tuned scientific mind.
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 honestly a person cant be this stupid and post this crap on a public forum.
That statement you just wrong is not only grammatically false, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever ever that can be construed as new information of any kind.
ONCE AGAIN BOZO. THE REPETION OF WORDS CAN NEVER EVER RESULT IN NEW INFORMATION THAT WASNT ALREADY EXISTANT IN THE ORIGINAL (especially when it comes to genes) This destroys the whole evolution argument.
karamarouge 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge Grammatically false? LOL: Do you even know what you are saying half of the time? First of all, lets deal with this word "information." Information is at best a metaphor for what a genetic code does. Genes are made of molecules. When we talk about information, we are NOT talking about new molecules. What we are talking about is the COMBINATION of the same set of molecules. Gene duplication is what we call it when genes are being duplicated and a mistake is made CHANGING :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: the structure and function of the gene CODE. The function of the genetic code is based on its structure; therefore, the INFORMATION is a product of its structure. If the STRUCTURE is changed, by gene duplication or any other type of genetic alteration, then the function is changed; if the function is changed, THEN THE INFORMATION IS CHANGED. If information is defined as the ways in which genes form creatures and their functions, then you are just plain WRONG! :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge Let me try out another analogy: Lets view the alphabet as different types of molecules. Now this analogy will break down because letters are a human invention, used for conventional language, and the genetic code is NOT a language in that sense. Let us suppose that there exist a process that picks out the combination of letters that form any word in the english language, this will be our analogy for natural selection. So, LETTERS=MOLECULES, SELECTOR=NATURAL SELECTION. :CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 once again another moron statement from some on who does not understand what the hell he is talking about. Genetic code is language every bit as sophisticated as the alphabet.
every single scientists will tell you this.
karamarouge 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge No; the only one making 'moronic' statments, (not: moron statement: stupid) is you. I said that the genetic code is not a "language" in the same SENSE as HUMAN "language." Human language exists to transfer IDEAS from one MIND to the next. Genetic "language" is a biochemical structure that transfers a set of BIOCHEMICAL REACTIONS. Evolution is the explaination for the selected COMBINATION of the biochemical structure itself. You are way out of your league here...
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@karamarouge Of course the genetic code is sophisticated, but it is NOT ARTIFICIAL! Languages, in the IDEA sense, tend to be formed in order to transfer information in the simplest of ways.The extreme complexity, regardless of what creationists proponents tell you, is NOT a sign of intentional design; actually, quite the opposite.The cascade of biochemical reactions needed to build and maintain life is NOT what one should expect to see in an intentionally designed system.But, it is evolutionary.
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 Only an ignormus who cant grasp the intricacy of DNa can say such dumb things like you say. I dont need to know what phosolipids may be, and it does not matter. Blubbering on about the outside layer of a cell is not evidence of the bogus unseen untestable and unscientific claims you make. No one has seen these so called layers randomly combine to form cells, or attain the ability to reproduce or even evolve to anything. Your entire posts are pure rubbish
karamarouge 2 weeks ago
LOL! How ridiculous! What have you said that even comes close to having anything at all to do with the way that DNA works? You think that gene duplication doesn't create new genes because it has the word duplication in the title! HAHA! Read something about the half dozen genetic processes I so lovingly provided you and you will then realize just how little you really do know about "the intricacy of DNA." And just answer my question, even you can realize how much of an ass you are.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge Molecules are the product of atoms, atoms are the product of nucleosynthesis, nucleosynthesis is the product of hydrogen condensation under gravity, hydrogen condensation in the result of the big bang, and the big bang is the result of whatever you want it to be. Lets just assume it is God, it doesn't matter at this point. I'm saying this to delay a discussion about HOW molecules and the rest come into being, in order to deal with the anaolgy. Moving on:CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge One other thing to equate here is that the letters making a word is an analogy to molecules making a combination that reproduces BETTER than before. Okay so, whenever two letters come together and make a word the selector selects for them, ;like when an Y and an O come together.The word YO is more sensical than the letter Y, or the letter O by itself... so the selector selects for it. so now we've got the message YO, and by chance the letters are paired with each letter in the:CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: alphabet. How long do you think it would take, using that process to create the sentence: YOU ARE STUPID... STUPID? It is pretty simple math, so I will allow you to make the calculation, or should I! Now, we KNOW with a good deal of certainty, that around three billion yrs ago there existed very simplistic organisms. If nature simply selects for combinations of genes that make better and better reproducers, then the process of evolution would have to take place with:CON:
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: with organisms! Something would literally have to STOP evolution from happening. Currently, we do not have a full understanding of how the first self replicating molecules formed. But, we really have not been working on the problem for very long. We already know what happens when you have self replicating molecules, SO GET OVER IT! This is not a scientific debate. You don't even know what the issues are.
chedillychedilly1 4 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 "Currently, we do not have a full understanding of how the first self replicating molecules formed."
this is not new.. a dumb darwinist actually citing ignorance of the facts as the basis for his beliefs. I cant say it is shocking. I see this from every single evolutionist.
karamarouge 4 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1" Currently, we do not have a full understanding of how the first self replicating molecules formed. "
I cant say I am surprised. I have never in my life met a darwinist or dumb evolutionist who didnt claim ignorance as the basis of their arguments. We dont know shit about self replicating molecules so we shall make bold, stupid unsubstantiated and unscientific claims about them anyway..
lmoa... The audacity of ignorance is astounding.
karamarouge 4 weeks ago
@karamarouge LOL: Ignorance isn't the basis of the theory of evolution. How does your twisted little brain take the statement, "we do not have a FULL understanding..." and turn it into, "we don't know shit!?" I'm sorry dumbass, but we do know some things about self replicating molecules. Actually, we keep discovering more and more. Lets argue about one thing at a time. You can't fall back on the things we don't know to refute the things we do know.
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@karamarouge When Newton wrote the laws of motion he didn't know everything about gravity. As a matter of fact, we STILL DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND GRAVITY! So why don't you say things like,'We don't know shit about gravity!' Do you see how fucking stupid you sound? We understand the LAWS that effect biological systems AS THEY EXISTS! By your logic, we can't derive the workings of the solar system, because we don't know everything about its formation: utterly retarded...
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@karamarouge I've got to say, this really shows just how little you understand even basic philosophy and science. The theory of evolution deals with what happens TO self replicating systems, NOT - HOW self replicating systems formed in the first place. So, once again, you sound like a complete idiot! If anybody is ignorant it's you. We actually know a hell of a lot about self replicating molecules. We've discovered several processes that create MOST of the present organic molecules needed:CON:
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: for life to form in the first place. Phospholipids, which are fatty molecules, form bilayers NATURALLY! I'm sure that you are unaware, but phospholipid bilayers are what the outside of the cell is made of. So, the outside of cells FORM NATURALLY; NO MAGIC NEEDED! All of the constituent parts of life form naturally as well. We 'know,' based on the evidence, that life went from simple to complex over a long period of time. So, whatever made up the FIRST life MUST have been:CON:
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 And you dont have any evidence that life came from simpler to complex. Only stupid scientists still refer to any life form as simpler than the other. All who understand DNA and molecular biology fully understand the complexity of all life forms. Most importantly NO SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD HAS EVER WITNESSED ANY LIFE FORM EVOLVE FROM A "SIMPLE LIFE FORM" TO A MORE COMPLEX ONE...stop telling stupid lies...
karamarouge 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge UMMM.... WHAT! Are you serious? The fossil record clearly shows animals evolving in stages from simplistic to more complex life forms. You really think that a bacterium is as complex as a human? You really are a complete moron! The oldest igneous rock layers on earth contain ONLY MICROORGANISMS! And yes, PROKARYOTES are more simplistic in form and function than EURKARYOTES! If you knew ANYTHING about biology you would at least know that. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DNA! CON:
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge Only scientists who know anything about biology at all, like..... 99%, classify single celled organisms as simpler than multicellular. Think about how stupid what you just said is. What is more complex, a machine with two moving parts, or a machine with four? Most living organisms today possess extreme complexity, but as I already explained to you, THEY ARE NOT ARTIFICIAL! Humans consists of approximatley 150 trillion cells; A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM CONSIST OF ONE CELL.... IDIOT!!!
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge Of course nobody has witnessed 'simplistic' life forms evolving into more complex; IT TAKES TENS OF THOUSANDS TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS!! Life has been evolving for at least three BILLION years, nit wit. The average human life is well under a century. We know how life has developed because of mountains of evidence. And if you would simply stop making moronic statements like,"There is no evidence,' I will gladly point you to it.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge What you don't seem to beable to grasp is that we DO witness life evolving. A continuous process of evolution over hundreds of millions of years can create, in theory, the diversity of life we see around us. Large changes in morphology happen VERY SLOWLY. Analogize the process of evolution to the slow crawling of a slug. In short periods of time the slug cannot get very far, maybe an inch a minute. But, given enough time it could crawl around the entire earth and then some. CON:
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge This is how evolution works. If we look at the road to humans as some distant voyage from bacteria to us, the distance can never be too great if the process to getting there is continuous and progressive to that end. A slug could travel across the universe if given enough time. And that is what natural selection is. It is the Slug of morphological processes. The less complex and quickly reproducing the organism, the faster this process will act. This is why viruses, which are: CON:
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 "A slug could travel across the universe if given enough time."
Seriously, this is your logic? lmao..
I cant believe this shit!!! SOME ON SO STUPID HE BELIEVES A SLUG COULD TRAVEL ACROSS THE UNIVERSE GIVEN ENOUGH TIME!!!
LMAO... Yes sir, given a enough time an elephant could shit a Truck... Given enough time a cow could give birth to a gorilla. She just gotta keep letting enough gorillas fuck her.
lmao
karamarouge 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge What in the fuck are you talking about? Obviously I'm talking over your head here. The slug walking across the universe was an anology to the slow pace of evolution and change that takes place throughout evolution. Do you not understand analogies? Obviously slugs don't live long enough to walk that distance. (D=RT) That is a pretty simple equation, try using it to calculate how many miles a slug could crawl if it started crawling 3billion yrs ago and didn't stop until today. :CON:
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge I don't actually believe a slug can travel across the universe. But, if we had a slug that didn't stop, and didn't die, I calculate that a slug could crawl 4.38 miles per yr, 4.380 every thousand yrs, and 43,800,000 every ten thousand yrs. What I was trying to get you to understand is that a continuously progressive process can get you very far even if it happens very slowly! Obviously you are just too stupid to understand this.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge Given enough time a cow can give birth to a gorilla? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that what your narrow little mind thinks the theory of evolution says? No wonder you are so completely and utterly clueless. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with one animal giving birth to another, or some new completely different animal for that matter, which is probably why you do not understand my slug analogy. Please just answer my question... please moron.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge Here I'll re-ask, because I'm sure your ineptitude makes it difficult for you to either remeber it, or find it. What constitutes as a "NEW," or "NEW GENES?" Please just attempt to say something even remotely scientific, so it will be apparent to you, and anyone as dumb as you that YOU have no idea what you are talking about.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge extremely replecative adapt so quickly to medication. RNA, which is what a virus is made of, may even have been the precursor to the first PROTO DNA molecule, this we do not yet know. We do however know a lot about the building blocks of life, AND THEY ALL OCCUR NATURALLY!!!
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge NO EVIDENCE! This is a good ole chestnut. Have you heard of BIOLOGY!!! What about: bio-geography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis. Oh, that's right; you think that the analysis of DNA does NOT support the theory of evolution. This is another thing that I would love for you to explain in great detail. Maybe list some of the scientific articals and books where you are getting your info.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@chedillychedilly1 Funny thing is that all of these studies are of life.. Each and every single one of them. Negating the lie you try to sell that these studies have some how validated your bogus theories of dead lifeless fossils. DNA analysis is exactly what destroyed darwins bogus tree of life. The same shit you are trying to sell on here as real science yet it has been categorically disproven.
karamarouge 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge All of these studies? What studies are you talking about? I mentioned BRANCHES of sciences, not studies you idiot. Where did you read that genetics has disproven the theory of evolution? Where are you getting this shit! Name one fucking scientifically peer reviewed artical, or one reputable scientist who says this. You can't, because you are pulling this shit out of your ass. Who told you this stuff, your goddamn preacher? Did you learn your genetics from the bible? LOL! U suck...
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge Only a person who has never read anything at all on this subject would say that genetics DISPROVES the tree of life. Quite the contraray. Why don't you try listening to some of the worlds top biologists and geneticists instead of making things up. Watch the video Ken Miller, (one of the nations top biologists and author of most high school text books AND A FUCKING CHRISTIAN), made called[How to shut up a pesky creationists]. In it, you will get a glimps of not only a way to:CON:
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge CON: falsify the theory of evolution, but he also shows how, in just one small way(WHICH IT DOES IN EVERY!) that genetics supports evolution. I mean seriously man, c'mon! You have no fucking clue what you are talking about here. And you still haven't answered my question.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
Oh btw: just thought I'de mention. Bio-geography, taxonomy, and anatomy do take into account those "dead fossils" you mentioned. So, you are ONCE AGAIN factually incorrect.
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge It's called....... ARCHEOLOGY YOU MORON. Archeological Taxonomy, Archeological Bio-geograghy, etc, etc, etc. JEEEEZZZZZ, Is there anything you DO know?!
chedillychedilly1 2 weeks ago
@karamarouge :CON: even simpler than the early prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea). This is pure logic at work, something you probably have a lot of difficulty with. I'm not currently srguing with you about the existence of God; what I'm trying to get you to understand is that, whether or not God started the universe and life, we have a natural explaination for how life changes, and the evidence, if examined correctly, is absolutely overwhelming.This is how I know the level of your ignorance.
chedillychedilly1 3 weeks ago
@karamarouge I just want to reiterate, I said,"THE MOST beneficial mutations..." NOT,'MOST' beneficial mutations, or as you put it, "the MAJORITY of beneficial mutations." BTW: quit saying things like, "nobody has ever seen it, or NO scientist has ever discovered, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There are libraries (literally) FULL of information that you think doesn't exists, and we're not talking hypothesis here.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge Genes can be expressed by being turned on, or by playing an integral role in the functionality of an organism. If a GENE DUPLICATION occurs,(in the belly of a mommy), that is beneficial for the offspring,(the baby), and natural selection selects for that genetic mutation, and or gene combination, then that animal is said to have adapted to an environmental condition. Whether the condition be energetic necessity, preditory pressure, competition, sexual selection, etc.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 The offspring is "adapted" if the mutation and resultant combination leads to the ability for the offspring to ALSO pass its genes on.*
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@karamarouge Obviously the animal "ALREADY HAD THE GENES."That does not mean that the genes have ALWAYS EXISTED asshole!Gene duplication is just one of the most appreciated mechanisms for the rise of "NEW GENES," there are several. You are making yourself look stupid and you don't even know it. You're trying to argue about something that you're positively clueless about. I can give you a list of enough research and books about "NEW GENES" to keep you busy for the rest of your pathetic life.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 This is quite revealing. The moron finally exposes himself for the ignorant retard that he really is.
HEY BOZO FIRST LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORD "DUPLICATION" BEFORE RUNNING THAT SMELLY MOUTH OF YOURS. ABSOLUTELY NO NEW INFORMATION CAN BE CREATED BY DUPLICATING INFORMATION THAT ALREADY EXISTED. NONE AT ALL DUMBASS!
karamarouge 1 month ago
@karamarouge I have two questions for you dumb dumb. If go through the trouble of gathering up a mountain of scientific literature on this subject, and send you a list of hundreds of research papers and books, will you fucking read even one of them? When you read affirming scientific research that new genes are created, will you come back on here and tell everyone that you are a complete-know-nothing douchbag? These are not rhetorical questions.
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@chedillychedilly1 If I go through**
chedillychedilly1 1 month ago
@xChillDude Adaptation IS evolution. You are clueless.
chedillychedilly1 2 months ago
@xChillDude meh. creationists do that as well. actually, as far as I know, no one has evidence for an "intelligent" (because we're not so intelligently designed) designer. Don't you think if there was some hint of evidence for a designer, all science fields would've jumped at the chance to study it?
DrProfessorMDPhD17 1 year ago
@DrProfessorMDPhD17 We're not so intelligently designed ? Reproduction works pretty well. Besides are you saying a non-optimal design is not a design ? I think a design that you think you could improve upon is still a design.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty yes, the way our body works and the way its wired is suited for us. however, there are some flaws. i'm not saying we're not designed because there may be a possibility that we were indeed designed, but to credit an all-knowing, all-powerful being for our design, which is far from perfect..... i just feel that such a being could've done a better job. i'm not discarding any possibilities for design though, but evolution seems to be a better fit.
DrProfessorMDPhD17 1 year ago
The brain and the eyeball are a fortunate accident. Who knows what another 10 millions years will yield.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty "fortunate accident"? For something that has evolved multiple times (the eye for example) can you really call that an accident? More like inevitable.
Grymyrk 1 year ago
@Grymyrk I think "multiple times" would have to be a great understatement. And I don't think enough time in the universe yet has made the probability of the eye evolving "inevitable". This, to me, seems a huge leap of something like "faith".
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty Faith? It takes faith to believe in an invisible man in the sky. It does not take faith to observe that virtually all species that have light in their environment. Have sight.
Grymyrk 1 year ago
The default position as posited in 'I D" is an erroneous argument. Just because something is 'irreducibly complex' does not mean that it was created by an intelligent designer. To say that something is, because it cannot be proven at this point, that it evolved(later to be proven accurate) is an argument based upon unsound logic.
A default position cannot be the true position based upon no knowledge or proof.
journeyer58 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FAKE AND GAY
loknloll 1 year ago
Troll and, well, troll.
DeltaAtheism 1 year ago
@loknloll Sounds like your personal description on a dating website.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Thoughtful presentation, but just one question to ponder...You referred to the more recent "upgrade" for sensing color. If there is no "design", by what mechanism would these changes evolve simultaneously among many creatures?
BTW, Dawkins didn't refute or present any evidence for his claim in the clip at the end, he just made fun of the other claim. That is philosophically weak. I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I don't think it's a closed case for the billions claim either.
gruvboy 1 year ago
The "upgrade" did not evolve simultaneously. Trichromacy as humans have it evolved once, in a now-extinct organism that was the ancestor of most living primates.
Most other animals, if they have color vision at all, have different styles of it. Birds have tetrachromacy, lower mammals have a sort of "watered-down" color vision, and so on.
DeltaAtheism 1 year ago
@achzdck Sorry, but your first premise is simply false. Secondly, I'm assuming you're attempting (rather fruitlessly) to claim that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. You're correct because evolutionary theory has NOTHING TO DO with it. Abiogenesis... look it up... You can't claim that a theory is wrong because it doesn't address something separate to the theory! Once again you show quite clearly your lack up general scientific understanding.
crusaders36 1 year ago
@achzdck You fail miserably to understand even basic science. i hope you are still in grade school.
crusaders36 1 year ago
Thank you!
bersa888 1 year ago
The fact your comment is both incoherent and written almost entirely in capitals speaks volumes.
DeltaAtheism 1 year ago 11
@jarlhelvete The dating methods are accurate. You're posting a blatant falsehood.
12stringsforme 1 year ago
Yes, the dating methods HAVE been proved accurate.
When radiometric dating agrees with fossil strata, which in turn agrees with genetic evidence, which in turn agree with other evidence, it is rather convincing.
DeltaAtheism 1 year ago
@DeltaAtheism Which in turn agrees wit carbon dating, which in turn agrees with evolution. It all fits and only with evolution. Doesn't fit with creationism.
stevjen1 1 year ago
@DeltaAtheism This is bullshit!!! There is no radiometric dating that accurate. Even carbon dating relies on other historical date to verify its results. Please dont make up shit and lie to the good people! Secondly there is no fossilized genetic material any where on earth. Only a fool could claim that genetic evidence has been used to verify fossil strata dates.
karamarouge 2 months ago
These kinds of videos are so stupid. The argument in this presentation amounts to "nuh-uh." Well, that's persuasive, why didn't I think of that? First of all, we have no idea how credible this information is because there are no credentials behind them; all we have is a guy commenting over science textbook pictures. Second, if it was really that obvious then there is no reason that heavyweights like Kenyon and Behe would "defect" over the irreducible complexity of structures like the eye.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
First off, how could I possibly provide credentials through YouTube? I am not going to disclose my identity.
As for Behe, I have heard from multiple people that he in fact does not agree with the use of Irreducible complexity as used by popular creationists. And I seem to remember him even withdrawing the "eye" argument.
DeltaAtheism 1 year ago
@DeltaAtheism
I'm not saying that you should have provided credentials. My point was that you can't and so the whole presentation is suspect. This just isn't the venue for this kind of thing. I wasn't referring to "popular creationists" and I would agree with you that a lot of uneducated response comes from both "popular creationists" and layman alike (they may, in fact be one and the same in may cases). I admit that I haven't heard of the withdrawl of the argument as it applies to the eye.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
Granted, YouTube is not a professional nor reliably academic forum, but it IS excellent to distribute content on various things including topics like this. It is free and accessible to nearly everyone, and additionally is rather effective at conveying the message.
If you want more academically verifiable content, you would have to look to the original sources.
DeltaAtheism 1 year ago
He gave no evidence and his Dawkins answer is not an answer. This is a shameful video with no value.
lovejesusallways 1 year ago
No evidence of what? That structures claimed to be irreducible are not? Yes, I did.
And the Dawkins clip at the end is not relevant to the actual issue of Irreducible Complexity; it is a 'coda' that I put at the end of all my "Blown out of the Water" videos.
DeltaAtheism 1 year ago