Funny/Good video. I honestly never even realized people took this stuff seriously until years after highschool. I thought everyone accepted it as science fiction for like x-men comics or something. I can't say I pay it much mind now even with all the youtube videos and arguing going on.
@Rob7194 Who said God's "own image" was "a white male"? Not the Bible! The Bible says that God made of ONE blood ALL nations of men, but science says that animals that have different colors and tend to mate with their own colors are well on the way to becoming separate species -- but they seem to make an exception for humans. Whew.
You do realize evolve/evolution simply means change. Christianity has evolved to no longer accept slavery as moral, that doesn't make Christianity part of the evolutionary theory.
Hey guys I have some questions and little advice. I have this friend who is a total anti-creationist dude. I try and tell him that scientific theories are just speculation with no real evidence. They are guesses. And he asked me to tell him the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory? Can some one tell me the difference? He says the heliocentric theory and the germ theory proves his point. but how can a theory be proof if its just a guess? I need to show him the TRUTH.
@NekoD3m0n opps I meant I NEED* a little advice. Someone help quick. How do I show my anti-creationist friend the truth and the light? God bless you guys and thanks.
@NekoD3m0n Sorry, but take this as a lesson not to say things when you don't KNOW they are true. Looks like you got in over your head. A hypothesis is a guess, even that is usually based on some evidence. A theory can be anything from a well-developed hypothesis with some follow-up experimental or observational support, to something very well supported. Heliocentric and germ theories are indeed examples of the latter. The question with evolution is, which theory are you talking about?
@TubeNotMe I know what is true. JESUS is true. And what do you mean which theory? The theory of evolution by charles darwin! I told my evolutionist friend that its a not well supported theory and that creationism is. He said charles darwin made predictions that were later confirmed to be true? He said its one of the most well supported theories out there. How do I prove hes lying? I need some hard facts that creationism and intelligent design are well supported.
@NekoD3m0n Darwin's _Origin of the Species_ never formulated a theory with exact and specific wording, such as could be properly tested and supported or disproved. What he did theorize clearly was that there would be changes in populations over generations, influenced by the filtering effect of the difficulties of survival, but this is compatible with changes in animals that were originally created. Other parts of his book/theory have been rejected even by evolutionists.
@NekoD3m0n There are two major fact-groups that I think strongly support ID and creation: 1) Nature does not work in such a way that things increase in organized dynamic complexity. Besides living things reproducing, highly organized dynamically complex things are only created by the most intelligent known beings. Living things are far more complex than anything created by man.
@NekoD3m0n 2) Observed evolutionary changes are not the kind that can accumulate to produce increases or new forms of organized dynamic complexity. The fossil record shows similar variations of basic groups, but does not show major types gradually grading into new forms. The major divisions all appear in the Cambrian. Major groupings within these divisions appear suddenly at various points. The few candidates for transitions do not form time-ordered lines of evolutionary connections.
@NekoD3m0n The order of first appearance of fossil types in general better represents the world at the time of Noah's flood than an evolutionary progression. The lowest forms lived on the bottom of the ocean or were very poor swimmers. Then come primitive fishes (the lighter and better, stronger-swimming fishes first appear later). Then come the first amphibians and plants adapted to tropical swamps. Finally the dry-land animals appear. Mammals and birds able to live high up come last
@NekoD3m0n Of course, there's a lot more to it than that, and not everything works out nice and neat, but as i said, there are whole books on such subjects and I have very limited space here.
@TubeNotMe Several problems with that, problems that even independently make it entirely impossible. 1: Fossils are not sorted according to their collective hydrodynamic principles, if all organisms existed contemporaneously we would expect to see this. Modern marine organisms are completely separate from Cambrian and Silurian organisms 2: There's genetic variability, the biggest problem, if a population is bottlenecked then it's population genetics craps out ; /watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
@TubeNotMe 3: Indirectly, the strata layers are not sorted hydrologically, either. When detritus is mixed in water we get what is known as graded bedding which means denser particles settle on bottom, we don't see this at all either. We have several distinct layers of the same type of layers separated by several other distinct layers of different material with different properties in water. Not only is it not explainable by global a flood, it makes a global flood impossible.
@TheScienceFoundation Both of these responses regarding Flood geology rest on a fixed, simplistic assumption (or assumptions) about the Flood and how it would have created the geological record. The one exception is the genetics point, and that is based on genetics as we know them now. There's a similar problem for evolution, although the Founder Effect depends on a severe bottleneck, doesn't it? Plus, modern attempts to revive species have begun with very few individuals.
@TubeNotMe That's not an assumption, we know how graded bedding works when detritus is mixed in water, we don't see it at all in the geological record. Do you have any evidence that genetics was ever *not* as we know it now? The Founder effect further proves my point, when a small sub-population speciates it leaves distinct genetic signs of reduced variability.
@TheScienceFoundation You're assuming the evidence for the Flood would be detritus mixed in water but the Flood would have produced (many) different effects. What, there's no evidence for massive flooding in the geological record? There weren't any massive floods in hundreds of millions of years? How about the Bretz/Missoula flood? no detritus mix there, or aren't you counting that as part of the geological record? The extinct forms show the previous greater variability.
@TubeNotMe Again that's not an assumption, that's how flood bedding works. There's no evidence for a single flood laying down all the sediment, there are numerous layers *not* sorted according to their collective properties in water. No, the extinct forms show transitional characteristics, genetic entropy/Haldane's dilemma has been thoroughly debunked
@TheScienceFoundation Ah, well, this is degenerating into ipsi dixits. Well, let me put it this way: you're assuming you can scale up simple, local floods indefinitely and, voila, that's what a year-long global catastrophe would produce.
A few somewhat intermediate forms do not an evolutionary transition make.
Yeah, I've seen these "debunked" claims before. Also "scientific facts" that aren't anymore.
@TubeNotMe That's not at all what a year long single flood would produce. A single hydrological event sorts according to the materials collective properties in water, we don't see that at all.
@odinata That's always a possibility, another is that evolutionary progress is the only thing that the current rules of science allows scientists to look for, and they also forbid them from looking for anything that might indicate that natural forces alone can't explain everything.
@TubeNotMe 2: Incorrect, we've observed genetic accumulations from the addition of over 2300 mathematically quantifiable bits of information to new digestive morphological features appearing in lizards in a human lifetime. Again incorrect regarding the fossil record, we have 'fishapods' and bird transitions that literally could not be more half fish/tetrapod and dinosaur/bird respectively. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
@TheScienceFoundation Ah yes, toss in a big number and redundant terms like "quantifiable" to sound impressive. I take it you're refering to the lacertid species _Podarcis sicula_, the one which now has "longer, wider, and taller heads" (like breeds of dogs), and "consume more plant material" (more, as in, not something its ancestors never did) and grew an extra fold (cecal valve) in its stomach, similar to those in other lacertid lizards? Not a new form of ODC.
@TheScienceFoundation The "fishapods" are all clearly either bony-finned fish or footed amphibians, the dinobirds include few that approach the critical transition to flight, and these can be interpreted as flightless forms of an Archaeopteryx-class design theme; there is no line of fossils showing the development of flight, and there is evidence for fully-developed birds in rocks dated much older than the dino-birds. It's all tips, and no iceberg.
@TubeNotMe Ah yes, I tossed out a number derived from a genetic process via information theory mathematics. Yes, I was referring to the wall lizards, and yes it was a demonstrable morphological change produced by mutations.
@TheScienceFoundation I have no problem with morphological change produced by mutations. Creationists have accomodated that since Darwin's day or before, when mutations were known as "sports."
@TubeNotMe That's the problem, creationism can 'accommodate' anything, as it's completely unfalsifiable, therefore useless. No, evolution is the sole empirical explanation, which means it's the only explanation which employs actual testable mechanisms to explain the phenomena of biodiversity. It's not extrapolation and it's not guessing, everything from comparative morphology to comparative genetics is only explicable by descent with modification.
@TheScienceFoundation Evolutionism also accomodates anything and everything -- "descendant" forms before "ancestral" ones, near-instantneous evolution, hundreds of millions of years with no change, comparative morphology that says things are similar because of common ancestry, then it turns out it was "convergent" or "parallel" evolution. It's one theory that hasn't produced any good practical results and has been ("mis")used in needless surgeries and worse, much worse.
@TubeNotMe No, it's not that evolution could accommodate anything or everything potentially found, it's that everything found thus far supports it. If we found a rabbit in the Cambrian or a poodle in the Permian it would be in serious trouble. If we found an amphibian more genetically homologous to mammals than any other amphibians, that would debunk it outright.
@TubeNotMe Again it's not so much compatible with 'created kinds' as 'created kinds' being so vague and useless as not to be rebutted. Increasing complexity does not support creation, as these are natural processes which produce emergence, we don't see the hand of any deity making anything so that's a complete non-sequitur. Complex *artificial* things are produced by intelligence. Living systems are subject to replication with variation, artificiality is not.
@TheScienceFoundation Created kinds is a category requiring further research. So what? Even our "species" often need to be revised, and other divisions are constantly being changed. The whole concept of "kingdoms" of life has been changed several times just in my lifetime. "Emergence" is just a popular term that is so vague and useless... etc... We wouldn't need to see aliens make something to recognize an alien artifact. There's no absolute bar to artifacts from self-rep.
@TubeNotMe It's not a matter of kinds being studied further, it's used as vaguely as possible so as not to be refuted. The concept of species has become *more* clear not more vague. No, emergence is a term used to describe the production of specified complexity via naturalistic processes. You mentioned the bar yourself, self-reproduction accompanied by modification.
@TheScienceFoundation Apparently you're not familiar with ongoing research into kinds. Last I heard, there's still controversies over species, and that's a much more limited concept from kinds, although it started out as an attempt to define them. I know how "emergence" is used, but it's a place-filler. Self-rep isn't a bar, it's a (current) distinction. There's no theoretical reason why we couldn't create an artificial life form with self-replication and all.
@TubeNotMe There is no research going on into kinds, and species has only been *more* narrowly defined in the past 150 years. Yes, we could create a self replicating artificial life form but the only way we would have determined it was designed is specifically that we designed it with repeatable mechanisms and it would still be subject to replication with variation as opposed to cars, paintings etc.
@TheScienceFoundation Wow, remarkable, you know about all the research going on everywhere, eh? Or is this a new variation of "Nobody who believes in creation is a real scientist"? No research not done by an evolution-loving institution counts as research? what exactly do you mean by "specifically that we designed it with repeatable mechanisms"? We'd only know because we did it ourselves and could do it again? So if we didn't know who did, we wouldn't know it was made?
I mean exactly that, if we produced artificial life then we would know it was designed because we would have the actual mechanisms as opposed to the assertion that ID proponents have now. If we have absolutely nothing indicating it was made and everything indicating it was the result of natural processes, then it would be invalid to conclude it was made.
@NekoD3m0n You can believe in Jesus and accept good science. You can't prove your friend is lying because he's not, he's absolutely correct. Evolution is the most well evidenced theory in science. Here's an example of a find in genetics that left the most prominent ID proponents on the planet completely speechless, presented by a Roman-Catholic even
@TheScienceFoundation Oooh, "Roman-Catholic even"? What's that supposed to indicate? Did Neko say something about being RC? You can "believe in Jesus" and accept all sorts of nonsense, but if you believe in evolution, it creates all sorts of problems with Christianity, or requires it to be watered down to insignificance, or takes some form of mental compartmentalization such as believing there are different kinds of truth.
@NekoD3m0n If you're looking for facts to support ID/creationism, sorry, you're chasing Harvey the rabbit. Instead of trying to find facts to fit what you already wanted to believe, have you tried following the facts to their conclusion, where ever they may lead?
@TubeNotMe I already have, that's why I understand that evolution is the sole empirical explanation for biodiversity. Yes, you can believe in jesus and accept all sort of nonsense such as creationism, or you can believe in jesus and accept and understand actual science, such as evolution. If facts create problems with your personal belief, then the problem is with your personal belief.
@TheScienceFoundation Evolution is the sole naturalistic jump to a conclusion in an attempt to explain all the diverse forms of life. I have no problem with facts, nor any with "actual science" except when it goes beyond it's natural and original bounds and disguises such jumps as "extrapolation" or presents guesses and speculation as "facts" (which later nobody believes) as I have seen many times, most especially in relation to evolution.
@NekoD3m0n CreationISM isn't even a hypothesis, just as evolutionISM is a faith disguised as a theory. The theory of creation is that life was created in a finite number of distinct kinds. The extended theory of evolution is that the changes in generations over time accounts for the origin of all life from a simple form by the same processes as specific evolution. As this video shows, the "theory" of evolution is often extended even more, to include the formation of that first life.
@NekoD3m0n Of course, as the video and the replies show, nobody has ever bothered to officially set forth or endorse the more general versions, let alone the ones that include everything from the Big Bang on, but a big part of our concern as creationists is this sort of sloppy presentation to the public, even in textbooks, which evolutionists themselves should be opposed to. Apparently they're more interested in puffing up their theory to the public rather than honestly educating.
@TubeNotMe Actually what the replies show is that some people understand the difference between biology and organic chemistry, evolution being the purview of the former, abiogenesis of the latter and the big bang isn't even organic, it's cosmogony. When the term 'evolution' is used and not specifically referring to biology it is not referring in any way to evolutionary theory, but only change over time.
@TheScienceFoundation That's just what I said, but you left out the part where the people who apparently do NOT understand the differences include many people who've written about them in textbooks, PBS presentations, popular-level science magazines, etc. We're saying, guys, if you want to keep "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" restricted to changes in ratios of alleles over generations or whatever, tell your fellow evolutionists.
@TubeNotMe Evolution the process is the change in allele frequencies, evolutionary theory is the model that explains common ancestry. No, Darwin's views we're diametrically opposed to that of Lamarck, Lamarck believed that organisms developed traits as needed, Darwin discovered that the traits arose independently and were selected. Yes, creation invokes magic, it offers absolutely nothing useful to explain anything at all, it's a non-answer.
@TheScienceFoundation I was taught in grade school that Lamarck said that giraffes stretching their necks led to long-necked giraffes and Darwin disproved that. Then I read Darwin's _Origin_ and found out that Darwin said that because giraffes stretched their necks over generations, that use over time gave them longer necks. He said cows had bigger udders because they were milked over centuries. If the truth is that things were created, it's not useful to make up stories.
@TubeNotMe No, Darwin said that favorable traits were selected and passed on at a higher frequency, nothing even close to Lamarckian evolution. If the truth is that things were created, the evidence for it has been kept a better secret than for the aliens that make crop circles.
Instead of that, why don't you research the actual positive evidence for evolution, then try to find any data contradicting it.
@TubeNotMe Well you're right that creationism isn't even a hypothesis, you're wrong in that evolution is the most supported theory in science. There's not a theory of creation, either, that's bare assertion with exactly zero substantiating evidence.
@TheScienceFoundation Well, isn't this precious, it seems I've become a special project of The Science Foundation, who apparently has nothing better to do. Sweet. Well, you can say that evolution "is the most supproted theory in science," but that's just sloganeering. Evolution is the theory with the most false starts, revisions, hoaxes, and major blunders associated with it. Again, unless you limit the theory properly to variation within populations as observed.
@TubeNotMe Don't flatter yourself, I correct a lot of creationists on a lot of videos. I say that because it's true. Evolution is the theory with the most evidence and the sole explanation for biodiversity. Everything you mentioned is an egregious misrepresentation or outright fabrication.
@TheScienceFoundation Oh, I had no illusions that I was the only one or anything like that, but when you started to respond to things outside of our ongoing threads, I had to wonder if you'd gone looking for more.
Tell you what, find one other theory that is currently held in high regard and list all the dead ends, "facts" that aren't any more, hoaxes, and big mistakes associated with it since 1860, and I'll do the same for evolution, and we can see how they add up.
@TheScienceFoundation Oh, sorry to hear that. I was wondering what had happened to our nice conversation. Hope I can find all your latest comments again.
@NekoD3m0n Creationism is neither a theory nor hypothesis. For it to be a theory it would require actual testable mechanisms and useful falsifiable predictions which could be used to empirically explain observable data, it has none.
Oh man this is good stuff! Hey I have a couple quick questions for the uploader. Can you tell me what this crazy theory called: 'Abiogenesis' is? What is it supposed to explain? I don't get it. Also can you show me the passage in Charles Darwin's 'The origin of species' that attempts to explain how living organic matter formed from non living matter? Quick, I need to own my crazy scientist friend in debate! Thanks! Your so smart!
@NekoD3m0n Nope, sorry again, but Darwin was very cautious in his book and didn't go nearly that far. He did speculate in a letter to a friend that the first life might have formed from chemicals in a "warm, little pond," but in his book he allowed (just to make it more popular) that the first life or a few simple forms might have been created. . You'd better read some good books. Google Creation Research Society, ICR, and Answers in Genesis.
@NekoD3m0n Nope, sorry again, but Darwin was very cautious in his book and didn't go nearly that far. He did speculate in a letter to a friend that the first life might have formed from chemicals in a "warm, little pond," but in his book he allowed (just to make it more popular) that the first life or a few simple forms might have been created. . You'd better read some good books. Google Creation Research Society, ICR, and Answers in Genesis.
@TubeNotMe But atheists are claiming the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life but this guy wazooloo totally just proved them all wrong with this video. Unless maybe those textbooks were loosely using the phrase 'evolution' and not referencing the exact theory then there must be someplace in charles darwin's book where he attempted to explain the origin of life.
@NekoD3m0n No, he didn't. And modern evolutionary theory rejects much of Darwin's writing.
It's not just atheists. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists. You can believe in God and evolution if you want, but over the years I have found that where science is solid it is compatible with creation, and where "science" seems to contradict it, it is more speculative, inferential, circumstantial, and prone to major revisions, errors, very bad errors, and outright frauds and hoaxes.
@TubeNotMe Not particularly, Darwin was about as accurate as he could be for the time. It's not that science is compatible with creation, it's that creation is the unfalsifiable invocation of magic that can be ad hoc contorted to fit any data.
@TheScienceFoundation Darwin leaned heavily on "use over time" (a sort of generational Lamarkian idea) and viewed inheritance as a "blending" of traits traits. Both of these have been rejected. Mendel, working at the same time, came much closer to the truth of inheritance. Creation doesn't invoke "magic" willy-nilly, it merely accepts that the limits of known physics was relatively recent, not billions of years ago. Most science deals with the current operation of nature.
The single cell evolved from chemicals, which form from atomic combinations of varying protons and neutrons which were created from the great expansion of matter known as "the big bang".
You can't simply judge the way of life and, how we live just because, you don't have an answer to evidently prove that your statements are true. The thing about you is that, you creationist will only use science if it improves and, passes your statements among a principal, that uses science purely and, used science to build the theory in which you despise and, call "unscientific." When, in fact your beliefs are full of logical fallacies and, if one would be to list all, it'd take too much time.
You were obviously, misinformed about the beginning of, time. The single cell of organism, came from a chemical reaction.Just as bread can soon transform to fungus and, just as a filthy particles can turn into mold. All I'm saying is that, the one cell of organism was formed by, none other than a chemical reaction which aged and, soon turned into animals. Then, the animals after time, began to adapt to our environment and, thus changing our physical features. PM me if you want to discuss this.
Abiogenesis violates no natural laws whatsoever. At best, you can say that abiogenesis has never been observed, but that is not the same as violating natural laws.
Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. They are two different propositions.
And no, we don't have to know how life began to understand how life diversified and continues to diversify.
Science is not done in textbooks. It's done in the field or in the lab.
@tylerdurden666able I don't feel when my Host is injured. If my Host gets killed before I'm complete I'll cease to exist but that is to be expected. My Host has weapons and we can drive our body well beyond what our Host would ordinarily be able to accomplish. You keep insisting that I'm human but I have no idea what it feels like to be human. I've never been born. I've never been a child. I was created whole-cloth 10 years ago -__- I have never even taken a breath -__-
@tylerdurden666able let me ask you... is the HeLa cancer human? The human that originally was its host is dead. It is still alive. Is it human? The HeLa cells are immortal. They don't die unless they are killed ;3
The true apples 'n oranges here is the common Evolution argument "micro-evolution + micro-evolution..etc = Macro". Micro evolution is genetic mutation occurring with ALREADY EXISTING genetic material, where the Evolutionary claim is a constant ADDITION of genetic material over time, of which has never been observed scientifically. Science (Intelligence) today cannot create even the simplest cell, yet humans were created by NO intelligence? Ya right fellas.
refer to rant 35. Yes, evolution implies this 'addition' of beneficial genetic material is being added by chance, thus no intelligence. Evolution takes more faith than believing in intelligent design (a lot more).
What is hilarious, but really blows at the same time is how to an evolutionist the scale should be going up on genetic improvements and new species. What we see actually occurring is a genetic downfall (degeneration, just like the minds of each generation) and a decrease in species. Woops, the scale is upside down for some reason.
You refer me to a fundamentalist video that will show that your misconceptions about evolution is true?
You show time and again that you do not have a clue what you're talking about. You think you come up with something that no scientist could figure out the last 150 years.
I've always got a kick out of they way Evo's dodge the whole origin topic. They (just as you state in this video) claim that Evolution is completely different than the Big Bang, therefore lets 'argue Evolution, and not worry about it's origins'. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If the origins can't be explained, then you have no argument.
origin of life is not a no-go zone for many evolutionists. there are theories that have been put forward to suggest the process by which life can arise from none-life through chemical interactions. there is still some uncertainty in the area (for obvious reasons) however my point is that it is being discussed, not ignored
Good job these cry babies don't want to let go of their myths. Its like a kid and santa.Evolution has never been proven. All they do is have fictional drawings & people believe that. It is the most unscientific theory ever. When the Earth started they say, um how do you know you weren't their when time began. How can you say this actually happened. Most of the supposedly evolved fossils were proven all to be fakes. Evolution started from an Indian tribe that thought they came from crows.
@Cactarpus I'm actually in my 30's. How old are you like 15. Read more books, stop watching vids and thinking your smart. This guy actually has degrees.
@Dudex58 Regardless of what degrees Ian may have purchased online, he still has no knowledge of organic chemistry/biology. I posted a response to this video demonstrating such.
@Dudex58 Degrees in what exactly? He has never claimed to have any where is your citation for his degrees. And I don't watch vids and think I am smart, I take classes and think that I am smart. This guy just quote mines, has no understanding of chemistry or biology then he mixes them and declares victory even when he is demonstrably wrong.
most of your video isnt worth addressing. laughing at maybe but not addressing. But i reject eternal life as a premise because unlike YOU i understand the concept of eternity and want no part in it.
Convincing the other 90% of the science community who believe evolution is false is probably the best strategy in trying to convince everyone else wouldn't you agree?
If the evidence against evolution is so obvious, so overwhelming, so irrefutably true then why hasn't wazooloo published his findings to the 90% who can better respond to the objections he has?
But God is alive. If science can only posit natural forces, then it has to explain how nonliving matter (and natural forces, but E=MCsquared) *alone* produced life, even though the process is directly opposite to the course of nature that has always been observed by all humans everywhere -- unless you count miraculous resurrections, but those aren't scientific.
Nothing to debate here. You can't have a scientific theory of life evolving unless it includes how life began in the first place; and indeed, when it isn't being presented as a major problem for the theory, evolutionists usually treat it and teach it as part of the show.
@TubeNotMe a gap in a theory, even a big gap, does not mean the theory is wrong. Frankly 'I don't know' is still far better then 'a magic super man did it'. For example: did you know that gravity and gravitational theory existed far before it was known that gravity comes from mass? If ignorance of the origin of something, invalidates knowledge of its existence why not walk off a cliff? After all we still don't know where mass comes from.
But it's not a gap, it's a claim that nature operated exactly opposite to what we have observed. Even before Newton, people observed that the general tendency was for things to fall down. Not only have we NEVER observed life spontaneously forming, we've observed countless cases of living things dying, and staying dead. Plus, it's not just that we don't know how, but that we do know a number of reasons why it shouldn't happen. It's only blind faith that says it did.
@TubeNotMe well we observe life. We also observe a geological record of a time when life was not. Therefore the material of life must have come from: A. non-living material, or B. always has been and was only 'seeded' here from another world.
@TubeNotMe Also in regards to gravitational theory, people have always observed things falling, but gravitational theory is not about that. Gravitational theory is about gravity, its about why things fall, how the system that produces this effect works, and what other effects it produces. People have always observed life, but we have not always had a theory as to how life works, or how it began. Admitting we do not know everything and working to learn more is far more noble.
But it's not a gap, it's a claim that nature operated exactly opposite to what we have observed. Even before Newton, people observed that the general tendency was for things to fall down. Not only have we NEVER observed life spontaneously forming, we've observed countless cases of living things dying, and staying dead. Plus, it's not just that we don't know how, but that we do know a number of reasons why it shouldn't happen. It's only blind faith that says it did.
@TubeNotMe Actually we can and do. Apparently you're not familiar at all with how theories actually work. A theory is a framework that explains a given phenomena, it doesn't have to explain other phenomena that may or may not indirectly contribute to the function of this phenomena just as germ theory doesn't have to explain nuclear fusion even though without nuclear fusion there would be no germs.
Yes, I know how theories work, but apparently you don't know how analogies work. There's a huge gap between nuclear fusion and germs, assuming there is a connection -- I take it you're referring to the fusion in stars producing the material that life came from, right? With germ theory, we know that germs naturally get into bodies and cause problems, but the start of life/evolution is contrary to nature.
@TubeNotMe There's also a gap between abiogenesis and evolution, abiogenesis is the initial formation of life, evolution is change in living systems.
Your logic was that we couldn't have evolutionary theory because it didn't explain how life began. By that logic we can't have germ theory without the elements germs are comprised of, you can't have it both ways.
@TheScienceFoundation It's possible I was thinking of mathematical proofs, which are more rigorous in their requirements, but another problem here is that we're thinking of two different concepts of evolutionary theory. You apparently are taking it as specifically a theory of speciation, or perhaps of biological variation. I'm taking "evolution" and "theory of evolution" in the grander sense in which it is often presented, e.g. "Nothing in biology makes sense except..."
@TubeNotMe They're the same thing, evolutionary theory is the model that explains evolution, which is changes in allele frequencies, or heritable traits.
@TheScienceFoundation Germ theory is specifically about microbes causing disease, and nobody treats it as anything else. Some take evolution to include much more than change over a series of biological reproduction events, going back to the Big Bang with cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, the evolution of the solar system, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution/the origin of life.
@TubeNotMe Evolution in regards to evolutionary theory is specifically about the change in allele frequencies in genetic populations, and no one literate in biology treats it as anything else. When you say 'cosmic evolution' or 'stellar evolution' this is the colloquial use of the term which means more along the lines of general change over time.
@TheScienceFoundation Ah, they don't treat it as anything else when they're seriously applying it, but to the general public they will get as colloquial as anybody in order to impress ordinary folk that evolution is indeed just such a big concept. If evolutionists would stick to "change in allele frequencies in genetic populations," creationists wouldn't have anything to chew on. We're all evolutionists in that sense.
@TheScienceFoundation "Obvious" is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly common ancestry exists. I won't argue that we have a common ancestor, but I don't see any good reason to believe we share a common ancestor with bacteria and everything else. Granted, "good" is subjective, also.
It's a free country, you can believe that if it pleases you. Well, again, "supports" is one of those words that can have a lot more significance in a given case to one person than another. And I wasn't talking "of primates," but of humans. You may believe that you're descended from the same critter that is the ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas, and so forth, but I find the differences, at all levels, more significant than the similarities.
@TubeNotMe I don't have to believe it, it's the only explanation supported by the data. It's actually not just the similarities or differences, it's a combination of the two and the combination when compared to chimps and humans, for instance, is perfectly explained by common descent.
@jeffblue101 You can, but that would only serve to show you have no idea what circular reasoning is. We're more homologous to chimps than any other animal, therefore we share more recent ancestry. It doesn't explain every possible result, it does however explain the culmination we see now
Oh, it's still a matter of belief. Nobody has actually demonstrated that such a creature could actually be the ancestor of apes and humans. You can have mounds of supporting data and still be wrong. I've demonstrated this with an illustration several times, where all the normal data indicate one thing, but it's the wrong answer because the investigation isn't even looking in the direction of the truth. "Perfectly"? Hah, not in this world.
@TubeNotMe No, it's not a matter of belief, it never was. It's a matter of there being a populace that would prefer to remain willfully ignorant of actual biology.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was corresponding with someone who could be truly calm and reasonable. Too bad you turned out to be just another idealogue after all. Well, congrats on restraining yourself previously; it was nice while it lasted.
@TubeNotMe I've tried to explain basic biology to you for two weeks now and you've learned absolutely nothing. Being blunt sometimes kick starts the process of snapping creationists out of denial.
@TheScienceFoundation You haven't explained anything about basic biology, you've pontificated about evolutionary theory and clearly need to learn a few things yourself. That's been the way a number of evolutionists have kick-started themselves into seeing the errors of their way, but you've got your blinders on. Being blunt is one thing, making false accusations and fantasizing is something else altogether.
@TubeNotMe That's what I'm talking about. After over a week you're still not even aware of what constitutes basic biology.
"but you've got your blinders on"
Psychological projection is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
No, it wouldn't be, why don't you try that? Oh, yeah, you're referring to your fantasy where you think you've explained basic biology, and are psychic or a psychologist who actually knows me. This is fun, keep 'em coming.
Great! Yes, but I already agreed with that. It's true that I hadn't learned anything from you, but that's because I already new about it. BTW, it's been years since I graduated from college, but I'd be willing to take any online college introductory (you did say "basic") biology quiz you can find. I found one but I think it was for grade school and I disagree with the answer for the one question I got "wrong".
Yep, all the creationists I know are familiar with all that and have no problem. Ah, although both creationists and evolutionists I've known have quibbled about the term "random." And at least some variation definitely seems to be an epigenetic response to conditions that can be inherited.
. The variation may be random, but vary randomly amongst a set of existing allelles in the population. As various alleles are lost in the isolated populations, more divisions or greater separation is generated, but the overall variation is not significantly greater than that found in the original gene pool.
we can't post URLs here, can we? Try a web search on "established inherited epigentic adaptation." But I can stick with "random"
@TubeNotMe We already know that new alleles can appear via mutation, and even entirely novel functions.
You can't say that you understand separate change occurs in separated populations *and* say that you think there will never be significant change in relation to the original population.
That has nothing to do with a genetic adaptational mechanism, epigenetics in fact deals specifically with non-mutational changes.
@TheScienceFoundation We don't know the variability of the ancestral populations; the "new" alleles and "novel functions" might well be within those limits. I haven't heard of any that couldn't be considered mere degenerate forms of existing morphology (bacterial digestive enzyme generalized) or weren't known in closely-related species (e.g. cecal valves in lizards). Which did you have in mind?
Yes, I was suggesting some variation may be non-mutational and non-random.
@TheScienceFoundation I understand what you're saying, as the valves are still new to the observed line, however, when we're considering the possibility that new mutations can accumulate indefinitely to produce an indefinite amount of novelty, we should consider the possibility that such novel mutations only occur - or are only successful - within genomes amenable to them due to having been present in ancestral populations, i.e. exceptions to Dollo's "law."
@TubeNotMe It's not just a matter of mutation producing novelty, which it can demonstrably do. It's the fact that the mutations cause continual divergence between lineages, two separated populations will only ever become less similar.
@TheScienceFoundation Recombining our threads: It's not just pseudo-genes reactivating, but I think that is indeed relevant in evaluating if a feature is truly novel in a given lineage (and it may be worth noting that pseudo-genes were thought to be almost entirely worthless "junk" until recently, weren't they?). It also weighs on the concept that populations will always become less similar. And what about cases of convergent and parallel evolution, even in unrelated lines?
@TubeNotMe No, pseudo-genes were pseudo-genes, not junk. For populations increasing dissimilarity to halt then, at some point, all mutations in both lineages would have to be identical in every generation. We haven't seen anything close to anything even resembling this.
@TheScienceFoundation Are you saying that there never was a question about pseudo-genes being junk? What links do you get when you do a web-search for "pseudogenes are they junk or functional dna"?
We have seen natural selection working on variations over generations first one way, then the other, e.g. Darwin's finches adapting to drier and wetter periods. If the few cases of novel structures are a deeper form of adaptation... wait, they wouldn't have to be identical.
@TubeNotMe It was never a question over whether they were pseudo-genes, and 'junk' as in junk DNA is a misnomer as transcription does not necessarily correlate to function.
We've seen nothing but separated populations continuously diverge genetically. Yes, they would have to, at some point, become 100% identical 100% of the time. If there were any distinct variation in either population then it would still accrue and accumulate change and differentiation.
@TheScienceFoundation I know that "junk DNA" is a rejected concept, but you seem to be revising the recent history of the science if you're denying there haven't been pseudo-genes that were once thought of as junk. Every time I search, I find (non-creationist) sources saying some (at least) were, none that claim that nobody ever considered any of them junk. Which sources are you thinking of? Or am I misunderstanding you?
@TubeNotMe It's not a rejected concept, it's a misunderstood concept. Pseudo-genes aren't considered traditional junk DNA because they can be reactivated, IE hens teeth.
Funny/Good video. I honestly never even realized people took this stuff seriously until years after highschool. I thought everyone accepted it as science fiction for like x-men comics or something. I can't say I pay it much mind now even with all the youtube videos and arguing going on.
ShinintheLight 1 week ago
#fb
Altermax777 2 weeks ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
Grasshopper Media wants an interview!
finditherefirst 2 weeks ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
Why can't creationism co-exist with evolution? At the end of the day its going to come down to who or what or how put ____ there in the universe.
dug2991 3 weeks ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
God created man of his own image... A WHITE MALE...
But Yet we have black people, Asians and other NON WHITE People.
Care to explain?
Science does.
Rob7194 1 month ago
@Rob7194 Who said God's "own image" was "a white male"? Not the Bible! The Bible says that God made of ONE blood ALL nations of men, but science says that animals that have different colors and tend to mate with their own colors are well on the way to becoming separate species -- but they seem to make an exception for humans. Whew.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
Once again, top stuff.
MandoMohan 1 month ago
You do realize evolve/evolution simply means change. Christianity has evolved to no longer accept slavery as moral, that doesn't make Christianity part of the evolutionary theory.
cappercastro 1 month ago
Hey guys I have some questions and little advice. I have this friend who is a total anti-creationist dude. I try and tell him that scientific theories are just speculation with no real evidence. They are guesses. And he asked me to tell him the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory? Can some one tell me the difference? He says the heliocentric theory and the germ theory proves his point. but how can a theory be proof if its just a guess? I need to show him the TRUTH.
NekoD3m0n 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n opps I meant I NEED* a little advice. Someone help quick. How do I show my anti-creationist friend the truth and the light? God bless you guys and thanks.
NekoD3m0n 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n Sorry, but take this as a lesson not to say things when you don't KNOW they are true. Looks like you got in over your head. A hypothesis is a guess, even that is usually based on some evidence. A theory can be anything from a well-developed hypothesis with some follow-up experimental or observational support, to something very well supported. Heliocentric and germ theories are indeed examples of the latter. The question with evolution is, which theory are you talking about?
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe I know what is true. JESUS is true. And what do you mean which theory? The theory of evolution by charles darwin! I told my evolutionist friend that its a not well supported theory and that creationism is. He said charles darwin made predictions that were later confirmed to be true? He said its one of the most well supported theories out there. How do I prove hes lying? I need some hard facts that creationism and intelligent design are well supported.
NekoD3m0n 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n Darwin's _Origin of the Species_ never formulated a theory with exact and specific wording, such as could be properly tested and supported or disproved. What he did theorize clearly was that there would be changes in populations over generations, influenced by the filtering effect of the difficulties of survival, but this is compatible with changes in animals that were originally created. Other parts of his book/theory have been rejected even by evolutionists.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n There are two major fact-groups that I think strongly support ID and creation: 1) Nature does not work in such a way that things increase in organized dynamic complexity. Besides living things reproducing, highly organized dynamically complex things are only created by the most intelligent known beings. Living things are far more complex than anything created by man.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n 2) Observed evolutionary changes are not the kind that can accumulate to produce increases or new forms of organized dynamic complexity. The fossil record shows similar variations of basic groups, but does not show major types gradually grading into new forms. The major divisions all appear in the Cambrian. Major groupings within these divisions appear suddenly at various points. The few candidates for transitions do not form time-ordered lines of evolutionary connections.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n The order of first appearance of fossil types in general better represents the world at the time of Noah's flood than an evolutionary progression. The lowest forms lived on the bottom of the ocean or were very poor swimmers. Then come primitive fishes (the lighter and better, stronger-swimming fishes first appear later). Then come the first amphibians and plants adapted to tropical swamps. Finally the dry-land animals appear. Mammals and birds able to live high up come last
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n Of course, there's a lot more to it than that, and not everything works out nice and neat, but as i said, there are whole books on such subjects and I have very limited space here.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Several problems with that, problems that even independently make it entirely impossible. 1: Fossils are not sorted according to their collective hydrodynamic principles, if all organisms existed contemporaneously we would expect to see this. Modern marine organisms are completely separate from Cambrian and Silurian organisms 2: There's genetic variability, the biggest problem, if a population is bottlenecked then it's population genetics craps out ; /watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe 3: Indirectly, the strata layers are not sorted hydrologically, either. When detritus is mixed in water we get what is known as graded bedding which means denser particles settle on bottom, we don't see this at all either. We have several distinct layers of the same type of layers separated by several other distinct layers of different material with different properties in water. Not only is it not explainable by global a flood, it makes a global flood impossible.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Both of these responses regarding Flood geology rest on a fixed, simplistic assumption (or assumptions) about the Flood and how it would have created the geological record. The one exception is the genetics point, and that is based on genetics as we know them now. There's a similar problem for evolution, although the Founder Effect depends on a severe bottleneck, doesn't it? Plus, modern attempts to revive species have begun with very few individuals.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe That's not an assumption, we know how graded bedding works when detritus is mixed in water, we don't see it at all in the geological record. Do you have any evidence that genetics was ever *not* as we know it now? The Founder effect further proves my point, when a small sub-population speciates it leaves distinct genetic signs of reduced variability.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation You're assuming the evidence for the Flood would be detritus mixed in water but the Flood would have produced (many) different effects. What, there's no evidence for massive flooding in the geological record? There weren't any massive floods in hundreds of millions of years? How about the Bretz/Missoula flood? no detritus mix there, or aren't you counting that as part of the geological record? The extinct forms show the previous greater variability.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe Again that's not an assumption, that's how flood bedding works. There's no evidence for a single flood laying down all the sediment, there are numerous layers *not* sorted according to their collective properties in water. No, the extinct forms show transitional characteristics, genetic entropy/Haldane's dilemma has been thoroughly debunked
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ah, well, this is degenerating into ipsi dixits. Well, let me put it this way: you're assuming you can scale up simple, local floods indefinitely and, voila, that's what a year-long global catastrophe would produce.
A few somewhat intermediate forms do not an evolutionary transition make.
Yeah, I've seen these "debunked" claims before. Also "scientific facts" that aren't anymore.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe That's not at all what a year long single flood would produce. A single hydrological event sorts according to the materials collective properties in water, we don't see that at all.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe
"The order of first appearance of fossil types in general better represents the world at the time of Noah's flood than an evolutionary progression. "
Why doesn't science agree with you?
Is it perhaps because your assertion is pure garbage?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata That's always a possibility, another is that evolutionary progress is the only thing that the current rules of science allows scientists to look for, and they also forbid them from looking for anything that might indicate that natural forces alone can't explain everything.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe
That's a fine CONSPIRACY THEORY.
The boogey man is out ta git ya!
odinata 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Again my last series of replies were censored by some cowardly theist.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe
You point out the "hate" in my comments.
I think the real problem is that YOU hate anyone that doesn't buy into your dogma.
odinata 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe
Hello?
Tube?
Why don't you cite an instance of hate in my conversation with you.
Or, if you want to skip that, I would be GLAD to debunk any YEC fantasies you may have.
Otherwise, I'm not really getting why you popped in....
odinata 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe 2: Incorrect, we've observed genetic accumulations from the addition of over 2300 mathematically quantifiable bits of information to new digestive morphological features appearing in lizards in a human lifetime. Again incorrect regarding the fossil record, we have 'fishapods' and bird transitions that literally could not be more half fish/tetrapod and dinosaur/bird respectively. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ah yes, toss in a big number and redundant terms like "quantifiable" to sound impressive. I take it you're refering to the lacertid species _Podarcis sicula_, the one which now has "longer, wider, and taller heads" (like breeds of dogs), and "consume more plant material" (more, as in, not something its ancestors never did) and grew an extra fold (cecal valve) in its stomach, similar to those in other lacertid lizards? Not a new form of ODC.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation The "fishapods" are all clearly either bony-finned fish or footed amphibians, the dinobirds include few that approach the critical transition to flight, and these can be interpreted as flightless forms of an Archaeopteryx-class design theme; there is no line of fossils showing the development of flight, and there is evidence for fully-developed birds in rocks dated much older than the dino-birds. It's all tips, and no iceberg.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Ah yes, I tossed out a number derived from a genetic process via information theory mathematics. Yes, I was referring to the wall lizards, and yes it was a demonstrable morphological change produced by mutations.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation I have no problem with morphological change produced by mutations. Creationists have accomodated that since Darwin's day or before, when mutations were known as "sports."
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe That's the problem, creationism can 'accommodate' anything, as it's completely unfalsifiable, therefore useless. No, evolution is the sole empirical explanation, which means it's the only explanation which employs actual testable mechanisms to explain the phenomena of biodiversity. It's not extrapolation and it's not guessing, everything from comparative morphology to comparative genetics is only explicable by descent with modification.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Evolutionism also accomodates anything and everything -- "descendant" forms before "ancestral" ones, near-instantneous evolution, hundreds of millions of years with no change, comparative morphology that says things are similar because of common ancestry, then it turns out it was "convergent" or "parallel" evolution. It's one theory that hasn't produced any good practical results and has been ("mis")used in needless surgeries and worse, much worse.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe No, it's not that evolution could accommodate anything or everything potentially found, it's that everything found thus far supports it. If we found a rabbit in the Cambrian or a poodle in the Permian it would be in serious trouble. If we found an amphibian more genetically homologous to mammals than any other amphibians, that would debunk it outright.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Again it's not so much compatible with 'created kinds' as 'created kinds' being so vague and useless as not to be rebutted. Increasing complexity does not support creation, as these are natural processes which produce emergence, we don't see the hand of any deity making anything so that's a complete non-sequitur. Complex *artificial* things are produced by intelligence. Living systems are subject to replication with variation, artificiality is not.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Created kinds is a category requiring further research. So what? Even our "species" often need to be revised, and other divisions are constantly being changed. The whole concept of "kingdoms" of life has been changed several times just in my lifetime. "Emergence" is just a popular term that is so vague and useless... etc... We wouldn't need to see aliens make something to recognize an alien artifact. There's no absolute bar to artifacts from self-rep.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe It's not a matter of kinds being studied further, it's used as vaguely as possible so as not to be refuted. The concept of species has become *more* clear not more vague. No, emergence is a term used to describe the production of specified complexity via naturalistic processes. You mentioned the bar yourself, self-reproduction accompanied by modification.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Apparently you're not familiar with ongoing research into kinds. Last I heard, there's still controversies over species, and that's a much more limited concept from kinds, although it started out as an attempt to define them. I know how "emergence" is used, but it's a place-filler. Self-rep isn't a bar, it's a (current) distinction. There's no theoretical reason why we couldn't create an artificial life form with self-replication and all.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe There is no research going on into kinds, and species has only been *more* narrowly defined in the past 150 years. Yes, we could create a self replicating artificial life form but the only way we would have determined it was designed is specifically that we designed it with repeatable mechanisms and it would still be subject to replication with variation as opposed to cars, paintings etc.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Wow, remarkable, you know about all the research going on everywhere, eh? Or is this a new variation of "Nobody who believes in creation is a real scientist"? No research not done by an evolution-loving institution counts as research? what exactly do you mean by "specifically that we designed it with repeatable mechanisms"? We'd only know because we did it ourselves and could do it again? So if we didn't know who did, we wouldn't know it was made?
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe What research is going on into kinds?
I mean exactly that, if we produced artificial life then we would know it was designed because we would have the actual mechanisms as opposed to the assertion that ID proponents have now. If we have absolutely nothing indicating it was made and everything indicating it was the result of natural processes, then it would be invalid to conclude it was made.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n You can believe in Jesus and accept good science. You can't prove your friend is lying because he's not, he's absolutely correct. Evolution is the most well evidenced theory in science. Here's an example of a find in genetics that left the most prominent ID proponents on the planet completely speechless, presented by a Roman-Catholic even
/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Oooh, "Roman-Catholic even"? What's that supposed to indicate? Did Neko say something about being RC? You can "believe in Jesus" and accept all sorts of nonsense, but if you believe in evolution, it creates all sorts of problems with Christianity, or requires it to be watered down to insignificance, or takes some form of mental compartmentalization such as believing there are different kinds of truth.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n If you're looking for facts to support ID/creationism, sorry, you're chasing Harvey the rabbit. Instead of trying to find facts to fit what you already wanted to believe, have you tried following the facts to their conclusion, where ever they may lead?
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation have you tried following the facts to their conclusion, where ever they may lead?
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe I already have, that's why I understand that evolution is the sole empirical explanation for biodiversity. Yes, you can believe in jesus and accept all sort of nonsense such as creationism, or you can believe in jesus and accept and understand actual science, such as evolution. If facts create problems with your personal belief, then the problem is with your personal belief.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Evolution is the sole naturalistic jump to a conclusion in an attempt to explain all the diverse forms of life. I have no problem with facts, nor any with "actual science" except when it goes beyond it's natural and original bounds and disguises such jumps as "extrapolation" or presents guesses and speculation as "facts" (which later nobody believes) as I have seen many times, most especially in relation to evolution.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Creationism is a theory right not a hypothesis? My evolutionist friend is calling creationism a "hypothesis thats unsupported"
NekoD3m0n 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n CreationISM isn't even a hypothesis, just as evolutionISM is a faith disguised as a theory. The theory of creation is that life was created in a finite number of distinct kinds. The extended theory of evolution is that the changes in generations over time accounts for the origin of all life from a simple form by the same processes as specific evolution. As this video shows, the "theory" of evolution is often extended even more, to include the formation of that first life.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n Of course, as the video and the replies show, nobody has ever bothered to officially set forth or endorse the more general versions, let alone the ones that include everything from the Big Bang on, but a big part of our concern as creationists is this sort of sloppy presentation to the public, even in textbooks, which evolutionists themselves should be opposed to. Apparently they're more interested in puffing up their theory to the public rather than honestly educating.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Actually what the replies show is that some people understand the difference between biology and organic chemistry, evolution being the purview of the former, abiogenesis of the latter and the big bang isn't even organic, it's cosmogony. When the term 'evolution' is used and not specifically referring to biology it is not referring in any way to evolutionary theory, but only change over time.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation That's just what I said, but you left out the part where the people who apparently do NOT understand the differences include many people who've written about them in textbooks, PBS presentations, popular-level science magazines, etc. We're saying, guys, if you want to keep "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" restricted to changes in ratios of alleles over generations or whatever, tell your fellow evolutionists.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Evolution the process is the change in allele frequencies, evolutionary theory is the model that explains common ancestry. No, Darwin's views we're diametrically opposed to that of Lamarck, Lamarck believed that organisms developed traits as needed, Darwin discovered that the traits arose independently and were selected. Yes, creation invokes magic, it offers absolutely nothing useful to explain anything at all, it's a non-answer.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation I was taught in grade school that Lamarck said that giraffes stretching their necks led to long-necked giraffes and Darwin disproved that. Then I read Darwin's _Origin_ and found out that Darwin said that because giraffes stretched their necks over generations, that use over time gave them longer necks. He said cows had bigger udders because they were milked over centuries. If the truth is that things were created, it's not useful to make up stories.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe No, Darwin said that favorable traits were selected and passed on at a higher frequency, nothing even close to Lamarckian evolution. If the truth is that things were created, the evidence for it has been kept a better secret than for the aliens that make crop circles.
Instead of that, why don't you research the actual positive evidence for evolution, then try to find any data contradicting it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TubeNotMe
Your religious opinions are not scientific facts.
Sorry.
odinata 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Well you're right that creationism isn't even a hypothesis, you're wrong in that evolution is the most supported theory in science. There's not a theory of creation, either, that's bare assertion with exactly zero substantiating evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well, isn't this precious, it seems I've become a special project of The Science Foundation, who apparently has nothing better to do. Sweet. Well, you can say that evolution "is the most supproted theory in science," but that's just sloganeering. Evolution is the theory with the most false starts, revisions, hoaxes, and major blunders associated with it. Again, unless you limit the theory properly to variation within populations as observed.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Don't flatter yourself, I correct a lot of creationists on a lot of videos. I say that because it's true. Evolution is the theory with the most evidence and the sole explanation for biodiversity. Everything you mentioned is an egregious misrepresentation or outright fabrication.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Oh, I had no illusions that I was the only one or anything like that, but when you started to respond to things outside of our ongoing threads, I had to wonder if you'd gone looking for more.
Tell you what, find one other theory that is currently held in high regard and list all the dead ends, "facts" that aren't any more, hoaxes, and big mistakes associated with it since 1860, and I'll do the same for evolution, and we can see how they add up.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe My last volley of comments were automarked as spam by a certain user, you can go to view all comments and view them.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Oh, sorry to hear that. I was wondering what had happened to our nice conversation. Hope I can find all your latest comments again.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n Creationism is neither a theory nor hypothesis. For it to be a theory it would require actual testable mechanisms and useful falsifiable predictions which could be used to empirically explain observable data, it has none.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
Oh man this is good stuff! Hey I have a couple quick questions for the uploader. Can you tell me what this crazy theory called: 'Abiogenesis' is? What is it supposed to explain? I don't get it. Also can you show me the passage in Charles Darwin's 'The origin of species' that attempts to explain how living organic matter formed from non living matter? Quick, I need to own my crazy scientist friend in debate! Thanks! Your so smart!
NekoD3m0n 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n Nope, sorry again, but Darwin was very cautious in his book and didn't go nearly that far. He did speculate in a letter to a friend that the first life might have formed from chemicals in a "warm, little pond," but in his book he allowed (just to make it more popular) that the first life or a few simple forms might have been created. . You'd better read some good books. Google Creation Research Society, ICR, and Answers in Genesis.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n Nope, sorry again, but Darwin was very cautious in his book and didn't go nearly that far. He did speculate in a letter to a friend that the first life might have formed from chemicals in a "warm, little pond," but in his book he allowed (just to make it more popular) that the first life or a few simple forms might have been created. . You'd better read some good books. Google Creation Research Society, ICR, and Answers in Genesis.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe But atheists are claiming the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life but this guy wazooloo totally just proved them all wrong with this video. Unless maybe those textbooks were loosely using the phrase 'evolution' and not referencing the exact theory then there must be someplace in charles darwin's book where he attempted to explain the origin of life.
NekoD3m0n 1 month ago
@NekoD3m0n No, he didn't. And modern evolutionary theory rejects much of Darwin's writing.
It's not just atheists. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists. You can believe in God and evolution if you want, but over the years I have found that where science is solid it is compatible with creation, and where "science" seems to contradict it, it is more speculative, inferential, circumstantial, and prone to major revisions, errors, very bad errors, and outright frauds and hoaxes.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Not particularly, Darwin was about as accurate as he could be for the time. It's not that science is compatible with creation, it's that creation is the unfalsifiable invocation of magic that can be ad hoc contorted to fit any data.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Darwin leaned heavily on "use over time" (a sort of generational Lamarkian idea) and viewed inheritance as a "blending" of traits traits. Both of these have been rejected. Mendel, working at the same time, came much closer to the truth of inheritance. Creation doesn't invoke "magic" willy-nilly, it merely accepts that the limits of known physics was relatively recent, not billions of years ago. Most science deals with the current operation of nature.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
The single cell evolved from chemicals, which form from atomic combinations of varying protons and neutrons which were created from the great expansion of matter known as "the big bang".
SSmotzer 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
Feel free to ask me some questions about evolution so I can refute it ;)
RandomfVideos 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
You can't simply judge the way of life and, how we live just because, you don't have an answer to evidently prove that your statements are true. The thing about you is that, you creationist will only use science if it improves and, passes your statements among a principal, that uses science purely and, used science to build the theory in which you despise and, call "unscientific." When, in fact your beliefs are full of logical fallacies and, if one would be to list all, it'd take too much time.
RandomfVideos 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
You were obviously, misinformed about the beginning of, time. The single cell of organism, came from a chemical reaction.Just as bread can soon transform to fungus and, just as a filthy particles can turn into mold. All I'm saying is that, the one cell of organism was formed by, none other than a chemical reaction which aged and, soon turned into animals. Then, the animals after time, began to adapt to our environment and, thus changing our physical features. PM me if you want to discuss this.
RandomfVideos 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
...I'm questioning that you even know the difference between the origin of life and that described in the text book involving a proto-cell
do you even know what a proto-cell is?
GreedyCapybara7 1 month ago
I like how enthusiastically ignorant this guy is.
infinity730 1 month ago
up to the jesus sh!te, great video, thanks.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
Lets say this. Life on earth was created by either a supernatural being or a natural being. How does that disprove evolution?
AWEF321 2 months ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
Abiogenesis violates no natural laws whatsoever. At best, you can say that abiogenesis has never been observed, but that is not the same as violating natural laws.
Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. They are two different propositions.
And no, we don't have to know how life began to understand how life diversified and continues to diversify.
Science is not done in textbooks. It's done in the field or in the lab.
Ian Juby is a huckster.
qabala 2 months ago 2
@tylerdurden666able I don't feel when my Host is injured. If my Host gets killed before I'm complete I'll cease to exist but that is to be expected. My Host has weapons and we can drive our body well beyond what our Host would ordinarily be able to accomplish. You keep insisting that I'm human but I have no idea what it feels like to be human. I've never been born. I've never been a child. I was created whole-cloth 10 years ago -__- I have never even taken a breath -__-
PinkProgram 2 months ago
@tylerdurden666able let me ask you... is the HeLa cancer human? The human that originally was its host is dead. It is still alive. Is it human? The HeLa cells are immortal. They don't die unless they are killed ;3
PinkProgram 2 months ago
The true apples 'n oranges here is the common Evolution argument "micro-evolution + micro-evolution..etc = Macro". Micro evolution is genetic mutation occurring with ALREADY EXISTING genetic material, where the Evolutionary claim is a constant ADDITION of genetic material over time, of which has never been observed scientifically. Science (Intelligence) today cannot create even the simplest cell, yet humans were created by NO intelligence? Ya right fellas.
truthseeker1973 2 months ago
@truthseeker1973
Google ''addition of genetic material'' and you can find scientific articles on the subject at the top of the list.
NO intelligence? Ya right fellas. LOL
MoveOrder 2 months ago
@MoveOrder
refer to rant 35. Yes, evolution implies this 'addition' of beneficial genetic material is being added by chance, thus no intelligence. Evolution takes more faith than believing in intelligent design (a lot more).
truthseeker1973 2 months ago
@MoveOrder
What is hilarious, but really blows at the same time is how to an evolutionist the scale should be going up on genetic improvements and new species. What we see actually occurring is a genetic downfall (degeneration, just like the minds of each generation) and a decrease in species. Woops, the scale is upside down for some reason.
truthseeker1973 2 months ago
@truthseeker1973
You refer me to a fundamentalist video that will show that your misconceptions about evolution is true?
You show time and again that you do not have a clue what you're talking about. You think you come up with something that no scientist could figure out the last 150 years.
Now that is hilarious.
MoveOrder 2 months ago
I've always got a kick out of they way Evo's dodge the whole origin topic. They (just as you state in this video) claim that Evolution is completely different than the Big Bang, therefore lets 'argue Evolution, and not worry about it's origins'. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If the origins can't be explained, then you have no argument.
truthseeker1973 2 months ago
origin of life is not a no-go zone for many evolutionists. there are theories that have been put forward to suggest the process by which life can arise from none-life through chemical interactions. there is still some uncertainty in the area (for obvious reasons) however my point is that it is being discussed, not ignored
daviatu 2 months ago
I am attempting to make a video on the first 3 minutes of the video. Six claims, six instances of bullshit.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
Good job these cry babies don't want to let go of their myths. Its like a kid and santa.Evolution has never been proven. All they do is have fictional drawings & people believe that. It is the most unscientific theory ever. When the Earth started they say, um how do you know you weren't their when time began. How can you say this actually happened. Most of the supposedly evolved fossils were proven all to be fakes. Evolution started from an Indian tribe that thought they came from crows.
Dudex58 2 months ago
@Dudex58 A few fossils were found to be hoaxes by no other than the scientific community. You fail good fight kid.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
@Cactarpus I'm actually in my 30's. How old are you like 15. Read more books, stop watching vids and thinking your smart. This guy actually has degrees.
Dudex58 2 months ago
@Dudex58 Regardless of what degrees Ian may have purchased online, he still has no knowledge of organic chemistry/biology. I posted a response to this video demonstrating such.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "degrees Ian may have purchased online"
please refrain from personal attacks when trying to have a rational discussion
daviatu 2 months ago
@Dudex58 Degrees in what exactly? He has never claimed to have any where is your citation for his degrees. And I don't watch vids and think I am smart, I take classes and think that I am smart. This guy just quote mines, has no understanding of chemistry or biology then he mixes them and declares victory even when he is demonstrably wrong.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
I always look forward to your videos Ian. God bless and keep it up!
9pt9 2 months ago
@9pt9
Young Earth Creationists are idiots.
odinata 2 months ago
Not a single source provided?
Cactarpus 2 months ago
Christard idiot.
DialecticKaos 2 months ago
most of your video isnt worth addressing. laughing at maybe but not addressing. But i reject eternal life as a premise because unlike YOU i understand the concept of eternity and want no part in it.
overlordcacius 2 months ago
beautiful video! Loved this one, God bless!
22complexity 2 months ago
@WilliamTyndale1
You misunderstood my main point.
Convincing the other 90% of the science community who believe evolution is false is probably the best strategy in trying to convince everyone else wouldn't you agree?
If the evidence against evolution is so obvious, so overwhelming, so irrefutably true then why hasn't wazooloo published his findings to the 90% who can better respond to the objections he has?
wazooloo is convincing the wrong people !
Convince the 90% and the rest will sur
johnbgroovy 2 months ago
The only book i have ever read that claims life came from nonliving material is your Bible. Remember God molded us from dirt?
brianhar100 2 months ago
@brianhar100
But God is alive. If science can only posit natural forces, then it has to explain how nonliving matter (and natural forces, but E=MCsquared) *alone* produced life, even though the process is directly opposite to the course of nature that has always been observed by all humans everywhere -- unless you count miraculous resurrections, but those aren't scientific.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@brianhar100 facepalm
allan3141 2 months ago
Nothing to debate here. You can't have a scientific theory of life evolving unless it includes how life began in the first place; and indeed, when it isn't being presented as a major problem for the theory, evolutionists usually treat it and teach it as part of the show.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe a gap in a theory, even a big gap, does not mean the theory is wrong. Frankly 'I don't know' is still far better then 'a magic super man did it'. For example: did you know that gravity and gravitational theory existed far before it was known that gravity comes from mass? If ignorance of the origin of something, invalidates knowledge of its existence why not walk off a cliff? After all we still don't know where mass comes from.
fresheyeball 2 months ago
@fresheyeball
But it's not a gap, it's a claim that nature operated exactly opposite to what we have observed. Even before Newton, people observed that the general tendency was for things to fall down. Not only have we NEVER observed life spontaneously forming, we've observed countless cases of living things dying, and staying dead. Plus, it's not just that we don't know how, but that we do know a number of reasons why it shouldn't happen. It's only blind faith that says it did.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe well we observe life. We also observe a geological record of a time when life was not. Therefore the material of life must have come from: A. non-living material, or B. always has been and was only 'seeded' here from another world.
fresheyeball 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe Also in regards to gravitational theory, people have always observed things falling, but gravitational theory is not about that. Gravitational theory is about gravity, its about why things fall, how the system that produces this effect works, and what other effects it produces. People have always observed life, but we have not always had a theory as to how life works, or how it began. Admitting we do not know everything and working to learn more is far more noble.
fresheyeball 2 months ago
@fresheyeball
But it's not a gap, it's a claim that nature operated exactly opposite to what we have observed. Even before Newton, people observed that the general tendency was for things to fall down. Not only have we NEVER observed life spontaneously forming, we've observed countless cases of living things dying, and staying dead. Plus, it's not just that we don't know how, but that we do know a number of reasons why it shouldn't happen. It's only blind faith that says it did.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe Actually we can and do. Apparently you're not familiar at all with how theories actually work. A theory is a framework that explains a given phenomena, it doesn't have to explain other phenomena that may or may not indirectly contribute to the function of this phenomena just as germ theory doesn't have to explain nuclear fusion even though without nuclear fusion there would be no germs.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Yes, I know how theories work, but apparently you don't know how analogies work. There's a huge gap between nuclear fusion and germs, assuming there is a connection -- I take it you're referring to the fusion in stars producing the material that life came from, right? With germ theory, we know that germs naturally get into bodies and cause problems, but the start of life/evolution is contrary to nature.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe There's also a gap between abiogenesis and evolution, abiogenesis is the initial formation of life, evolution is change in living systems.
Your logic was that we couldn't have evolutionary theory because it didn't explain how life began. By that logic we can't have germ theory without the elements germs are comprised of, you can't have it both ways.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation It's possible I was thinking of mathematical proofs, which are more rigorous in their requirements, but another problem here is that we're thinking of two different concepts of evolutionary theory. You apparently are taking it as specifically a theory of speciation, or perhaps of biological variation. I'm taking "evolution" and "theory of evolution" in the grander sense in which it is often presented, e.g. "Nothing in biology makes sense except..."
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe They're the same thing, evolutionary theory is the model that explains evolution, which is changes in allele frequencies, or heritable traits.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Germ theory is specifically about microbes causing disease, and nobody treats it as anything else. Some take evolution to include much more than change over a series of biological reproduction events, going back to the Big Bang with cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, the evolution of the solar system, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution/the origin of life.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe Evolution in regards to evolutionary theory is specifically about the change in allele frequencies in genetic populations, and no one literate in biology treats it as anything else. When you say 'cosmic evolution' or 'stellar evolution' this is the colloquial use of the term which means more along the lines of general change over time.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ah, they don't treat it as anything else when they're seriously applying it, but to the general public they will get as colloquial as anybody in order to impress ordinary folk that evolution is indeed just such a big concept. If evolutionists would stick to "change in allele frequencies in genetic populations," creationists wouldn't have anything to chew on. We're all evolutionists in that sense.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe Evolutionary theory also explains the data which makes common ancestry obvious.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "Obvious" is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly common ancestry exists. I won't argue that we have a common ancestor, but I don't see any good reason to believe we share a common ancestor with bacteria and everything else. Granted, "good" is subjective, also.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe The genetic record supports universal common ancestry as much as recent common ancestry of primates.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
It's a free country, you can believe that if it pleases you. Well, again, "supports" is one of those words that can have a lot more significance in a given case to one person than another. And I wasn't talking "of primates," but of humans. You may believe that you're descended from the same critter that is the ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas, and so forth, but I find the differences, at all levels, more significant than the similarities.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe I don't have to believe it, it's the only explanation supported by the data. It's actually not just the similarities or differences, it's a combination of the two and the combination when compared to chimps and humans, for instance, is perfectly explained by common descent.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "it's a combination of the two and the combination when compared to chimps and humans"
lol, can someone say circular reasoning. if evolution explains every possible result then it explains nothing at all.
jeffblue101 2 months ago
@jeffblue101 You can, but that would only serve to show you have no idea what circular reasoning is. We're more homologous to chimps than any other animal, therefore we share more recent ancestry. It doesn't explain every possible result, it does however explain the culmination we see now
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Oh, it's still a matter of belief. Nobody has actually demonstrated that such a creature could actually be the ancestor of apes and humans. You can have mounds of supporting data and still be wrong. I've demonstrated this with an illustration several times, where all the normal data indicate one thing, but it's the wrong answer because the investigation isn't even looking in the direction of the truth. "Perfectly"? Hah, not in this world.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe No, it's not a matter of belief, it never was. It's a matter of there being a populace that would prefer to remain willfully ignorant of actual biology.
Yes, perfectly, yes in this world.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was corresponding with someone who could be truly calm and reasonable. Too bad you turned out to be just another idealogue after all. Well, congrats on restraining yourself previously; it was nice while it lasted.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe I've tried to explain basic biology to you for two weeks now and you've learned absolutely nothing. Being blunt sometimes kick starts the process of snapping creationists out of denial.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You haven't explained anything about basic biology, you've pontificated about evolutionary theory and clearly need to learn a few things yourself. That's been the way a number of evolutionists have kick-started themselves into seeing the errors of their way, but you've got your blinders on. Being blunt is one thing, making false accusations and fantasizing is something else altogether.
TubeNotMe 2 months ago
@TubeNotMe That's what I'm talking about. After over a week you're still not even aware of what constitutes basic biology.
"but you've got your blinders on"
Psychological projection is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Well, I'd say the same thing about you, but with your canned responses and knee-jerk hate reactions, this has gotten boring enough already.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe It's a hate reaction to try to educate you on good biology and point out your defense mechanisms?
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No, it wouldn't be, why don't you try that? Oh, yeah, you're referring to your fantasy where you think you've explained basic biology, and are psychic or a psychologist who actually knows me. This is fun, keep 'em coming.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Alright, I'll start with the basics.
Genetic populations replicate with variation. Are you with me so far?
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Great! Yes, but I already agreed with that. It's true that I hadn't learned anything from you, but that's because I already new about it. BTW, it's been years since I graduated from college, but I'd be willing to take any online college introductory (you did say "basic") biology quiz you can find. I found one but I think it was for grade school and I disagree with the answer for the one question I got "wrong".
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe The basic premise is;
Replication with random variation
Populations become reproductively isolated
Separate genetic changes accrue in the respective populations
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Yep, all the creationists I know are familiar with all that and have no problem. Ah, although both creationists and evolutionists I've known have quibbled about the term "random." And at least some variation definitely seems to be an epigenetic response to conditions that can be inherited.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe Then you understand that two indefinitely separated populations will continue to diverge indefinitely.
Every claimed adaptational mechanism I've researched has fallen flat at just that, claim.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation
. The variation may be random, but vary randomly amongst a set of existing allelles in the population. As various alleles are lost in the isolated populations, more divisions or greater separation is generated, but the overall variation is not significantly greater than that found in the original gene pool.
we can't post URLs here, can we? Try a web search on "established inherited epigentic adaptation." But I can stick with "random"
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe We already know that new alleles can appear via mutation, and even entirely novel functions.
You can't say that you understand separate change occurs in separated populations *and* say that you think there will never be significant change in relation to the original population.
That has nothing to do with a genetic adaptational mechanism, epigenetics in fact deals specifically with non-mutational changes.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation We don't know the variability of the ancestral populations; the "new" alleles and "novel functions" might well be within those limits. I haven't heard of any that couldn't be considered mere degenerate forms of existing morphology (bacterial digestive enzyme generalized) or weren't known in closely-related species (e.g. cecal valves in lizards). Which did you have in mind?
Yes, I was suggesting some variation may be non-mutational and non-random.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe If they were within those limits, they wouldn't be new.
'I haven't heard of any that couldn't be considered mere degenerate forms of existing morphology'
regarding cecal valves; sciencedaily(.)com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm "Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home"
Whether they were present in closely related species is irrelevant when the valves weren't present in the directly observable parent population.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation I understand what you're saying, as the valves are still new to the observed line, however, when we're considering the possibility that new mutations can accumulate indefinitely to produce an indefinite amount of novelty, we should consider the possibility that such novel mutations only occur - or are only successful - within genomes amenable to them due to having been present in ancestral populations, i.e. exceptions to Dollo's "law."
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation
RE-EVOLUTION OF LOST MANDIBULAR TEETH IN FROGS AFTER MORE THAN 200 MILLION YEARS, AND RE-EVALUATING DOLLO'S LAW
John J. WiensArticle first published online: 27 JAN 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01221.x
Evolution
Volume 65, Issue 5, pages 1283–1296, May 2011
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe pseudo-genes reactivating is not the same as evolution being reversed, even if there were such a thing as directional evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe It's not just a matter of mutation producing novelty, which it can demonstrably do. It's the fact that the mutations cause continual divergence between lineages, two separated populations will only ever become less similar.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Recombining our threads: It's not just pseudo-genes reactivating, but I think that is indeed relevant in evaluating if a feature is truly novel in a given lineage (and it may be worth noting that pseudo-genes were thought to be almost entirely worthless "junk" until recently, weren't they?). It also weighs on the concept that populations will always become less similar. And what about cases of convergent and parallel evolution, even in unrelated lines?
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe No, pseudo-genes were pseudo-genes, not junk. For populations increasing dissimilarity to halt then, at some point, all mutations in both lineages would have to be identical in every generation. We haven't seen anything close to anything even resembling this.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Are you saying that there never was a question about pseudo-genes being junk? What links do you get when you do a web-search for "pseudogenes are they junk or functional dna"?
We have seen natural selection working on variations over generations first one way, then the other, e.g. Darwin's finches adapting to drier and wetter periods. If the few cases of novel structures are a deeper form of adaptation... wait, they wouldn't have to be identical.
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe It was never a question over whether they were pseudo-genes, and 'junk' as in junk DNA is a misnomer as transcription does not necessarily correlate to function.
We've seen nothing but separated populations continuously diverge genetically. Yes, they would have to, at some point, become 100% identical 100% of the time. If there were any distinct variation in either population then it would still accrue and accumulate change and differentiation.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation I know that "junk DNA" is a rejected concept, but you seem to be revising the recent history of the science if you're denying there haven't been pseudo-genes that were once thought of as junk. Every time I search, I find (non-creationist) sources saying some (at least) were, none that claim that nobody ever considered any of them junk. Which sources are you thinking of? Or am I misunderstanding you?
TubeNotMe 1 month ago
@TubeNotMe It's not a rejected concept, it's a misunderstood concept. Pseudo-genes aren't considered traditional junk DNA because they can be reactivated, IE hens teeth.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago