So these "jumps" are just apparent accelerated rates of gradation. Gotcha. I tried finding sources on this. My friend gave me a book who states that gradation is not supported by the fossil record. Although I knew facts to back up gradualism, this video really helped clear up the concepts of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. So thank you.
@shawnwilliams77 If you are still looking for a source, Wikipedia's article on punctuated equilibrium quotes Gould himself (Opus 200) "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implications, primarily because they did not think at geological scales"
There is plenty of evidence for "devolution". IT's easy to observe. A genetically robust species (wolf) devolving into many less fit families. All life follows the same scenario. But where do we observe evolution? We don't. There is less intellectual value in evo theory, then nutritional value in a heap of dung. "minor vita ex vita-natura semper scalas descendet". Are a fact of life, get used to it. Prove evolution is science & make 10,000$, at lifescienceprize dot organization.
@EvoBiologist Evolution makes NO testable predictions. Changes in viruses does not accumulate into new species. It just makes more viruses. Mutations, (deformations) does not equal evolution. We observe that bacteria allows random changes to part of it's DNA, that codes for cell wall filtration. Giving it the ability to adapt to environments. A prediction of Intelligent Design. IF that is all we got to prove the Huge claim of common descent. It's time to give up the ghost. It doesn't!
@Howie47 Evolution makes an incredibly huge number of testable predictions, from the order of fossils, to the congruence of animal trees, to a variety of genetic predictions, etc.
Do you claim that viruses are all one species? Otherwise, why would it matter that highly mutated viruses are still viruses?
Intelligent design is compatible with common descent. We are all part of one giant family tree. How it got that way is a separate issue.
@EvoBiologist You should contact all the I.D. scientist and tell them C.D. is not compatible with I.D., because most believe in C.D. The term species is ambiguous and pliable by all who use it. Viruses remain plainly identifiable as viruses. You better re-watch the doc. "Darwin's Dilemma". fossils do not fit the evo predictions. They go from bigger and stronger, to smaller and weaker. They pop suddenly unto the record. It is convenient for you to define evo as change!
@Howie47 You're the one who was arguing that mutations in bacteria are evidence of ID and not common descent. I just pointed out that common descent isn't about mutations, and that it IS COMPATIBLE with ID.
Species SHOULD be ambiguous if they change gradually.
@EvoBiologist Sorry, I mis-read your sentence. If the term species is ambiguous, "Origin of the Species" is meaningless. The oldest single celled life is just as complex as todays. Bacteria are the same. As is insects, horseshoe crabs. infinitum. Their is no complexity gain in the fossil record. Just diversification, specification and devolution (degeneration).
@Howie47 Regardless of whether or not the line between species and populations is fuzzy, there are organisms that no one would dispute are different species. Darwin's point in "Origin" is simply that species arise by splitting from other species slowly over time, and that natural selection is a major driver in this process. That species are ambiguous is something Darwin discusses in the book.
I wasn't aware that "the oldest single celled life" still has DNA or visible organelles.
I have no problem with evolution but my problem is how can earth be some billions years old and from one living organism evolved billions of different species from large dinosaurs to little tiny ants and so on? ... I thjink for this to be true earth should be a couple of trillions years old or more
@IlC4RL0SIl No human alive can conceive of 1 million years, much less 1 billion or 1 trillion. So, I'm not sure what you are basing this belief on. Over the past 100 years, we have measured changes in the size and shape of various structures in various organisms, and discovered that the rates of change are often WAY larger than they would need to be to account for the divergence of organisms we see.
Regardless, we see a genetic family tree of animals - how else could it get that way?
hey you might want to factor in the use of hallucengenic substances in the Homo habilis and homo erectus era. Might explain the shaping of the skulls evolving over time along with abstract thinking. My guess would be Ibogaine -considering where it is found (Africa) and where both Homos are found. "And now ye know the difference between good and evil". Don't think the Bible is wrong, just our interpetation of it.
How do hallucinogenic drugs affect skull shape? In what way could our ancestors taking hallucinogenic drugs permanently alter abstract thinking in a genetic way for us?
Well two factors actually could effect skull shape. This may be viewed as pseudo-science but it is a theory. (1)By forcing open the pineal gland through these psychedelics ones abstract thinking is bound to increase, this may of been where we got the early forms of art from, our ancestors exploring other dimensions and geometric patters. this would been one factor in harnessing energies for genetic change. Another could of been the kundalini energy during sexual intercourse. lot to explain
I'm working on thoughly explaining my point. Got about 3 pages so far but not nearly enough. My theory is in its infant stages, just thought maybe I could get someone to look into it as well, maybe come up with something else, other than everyone repeating Darwin's theory over and over. I figure the ancient part of the brain has to have somehting to do with evolving and psychdelics open the doors of perception wide open.I didnt answer your question but im working on it.
I'm happy to give you my input without simply restating core evolutionary theories. I asked the questions I did because it sounds like you are attempting to use some sort of Lamarkian evolutionary process as the basis of your explanation, and so far (through all sorts of different types of thorough experimentation), it seems pretty clear that such processes are at best very limited in scope.
I do think it likely that early hominids, like many modern animals, experimented with hallucinogens.
Yes, I agree with all of your above statements. It may be limited at first glance but I'm working on developing a mathematical equation for the whole evolutionary thoery on the assumption that there are exceptions to every rule. Just got to figure out what those exceptions are exactly. So anything I stated above would be factored in and not the whole theory it's self. When I come up with something somewhat tabgilable would you like to read it?
2. Evolution is a dogmatic religious belief un-backed by science and supported only by radical atheism. Atheism, a dogmatic belief requires evolution to disprove God, all belief in God, and to attack religion. Atheists will foist any fake, tell any lie, commit any fraud to maintain the evolution hoax. Atheists tell us there are mountains of evidence for evolution and then point to silly drawings of monkeys getting taller or museum plaster statues of so-called early man, and this is their dogma.
3. Take for example the fact the evolutionists shriek and rail against design, but consider this, design presents no opposition to evolution whatsoever! The very concept of evolution is a design. You can see it in their phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Design refutes atheism and that is their real bone of contention.
4. Next, atheists go into a frenzy that evolution is an "undirected process," then they say "evolution predicts" with childish pompous tones, as if it was lost in space, but now knows where it's going (how comic). Evolutionists accuse their opposition of "religious rigidity," this is merely an attack technique, a smoke screen, a logical fallacy used to forestall the argument, because they cannot defeat the science that rejects evolution, they must have this crutch to keep from falling flat.
5. Atheists falsely claim all science to themselves and accuse Christians of being anti-science, yet their inner circles work fastidiously to blackball scientists who are not of the Atheist religion. Their so-called peer review system, as we have seen with Climategate, is scandalously false and dishonest to it's very core. The main purpose is to defeat Christianity.
6. However, the majority of Christians have no doctrine concerning evolution. They are free to believe it or not. They are free to make up their minds with the use of science. Atheists on the other hand have no such freedom. They have no choice but to believe in evolution. For them evolution is a dogma. And all they have is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, crying out "go read your Bible."
7. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fossil record. That is the only real scientific evidence of life and it's progression. They do not have even one series of any fossil showing an extended progression from one type of creature to another completely different creature. There should be thousands that are intuitively obvious to the casual observer without fabrication or storytelling. What do they have to date? They have nothing.
8. Without the fossil record, evolution scientists can lie, cheat, and steal all they want, but they have nothing until it can be proved in the fossil record. They fabricate the theory of transitional fossils, but cannot prove a single one to be transitional. This is embarrassing for them. So here's what they have done. They simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement, "All organisms are transitional. Now everyone can go home. We've proved evolution, whoopee!"
Wow - I don't think I have time to even begin to address the multiple problems with these "problems for evolution". I can't think of the last time I've seen so many logical fallacies in one place. On top of that, it's full of arrogance and bigotry.
Do you realize that reasonable people will be turned off from your message by such arguments as this? Probably not, since you think these are good arguments that I should somehow be concerned about.
Look, are you interested in discussing ideas or simply spamming my video comments with your beliefs?
If it is the former, then we cannot do this unless you make one or two points at a time. We can't hope to have a meaningful debate in this format if I have to refute 8 posts full of tangentially related statements that I disagree with in a variety of ways.
If you just want to spam me with random propaganda points and no discussion, then let me know now, so I can block you.
Why don't you go and preach out on the street instead of wasting your time here on youtube. Your arguements are disturbingly pathetic. I feel pity that your dark ages mindset is being passed by the emergence of scientific thought, but alas the world cannot stop and wait for you to evolve. Best not to argue here unless you have something tangible to offer, your comments erode any credible respect for your cause.
"And point mutations ARE an example of evolution." Nope, only micro-evolution which really isn't evolution. There is no proof mutations can invent an organ or body part that didn't exist previously"
2. Digestion is not a new function. Digestion of different material isn't either. How does this shed light on the evolution of a totally new life form that did not previously exist? If evonauts knew anything about nylon degradation they would know in the bacterium there are three enzymes, EIII (NylC) EI (NylA), and EII (NylB), which are used to digest nylon, and a substitution mutation/point mutation occurred in the carboxylesterase gene which allowed the bacterium to hydrolyze nylon oligomers.
As to nylon eating bacteria. It didn't really evolve. It developed. Evolution has to do with speciation which involves restructuring of the chromosomes. Micro evolution is a misnomer. It really isn't evolution. It is development. Macro evolution is just plain evolution. Evolutionists talk about "evolution" (micro) as if it is evolution. It's not. They play mind tricks with words. That's another reason we know they are all lying.
I would think that evolutionary biologist are the one who define the terminology not some papermill PhD(in christian education) creatiionist drDino making things up
Maybe us evolutionist should define terms in their realm, ah wait I have one:you are not really a monotheist if you believe in the holy trinity" saying you do is just playing with words
/you said:"Evolutionists talk about "evolution" (micro) as if it is evolution. It's not. They play mind tricks with words", that is what is has to do with
Toady said, "I would think that evolutionary biologist are the one who define the terminology not some papermill PhD(in christian education)" You'd think so, but when they are liars you can't trust anything they say.
Development is going from a fertilized egg to a full adult. It involves no genetic changes. Biological evolution is defined as change in gene frequencies in a population over time - this genetic change is what occurred in nylon eating bacteria. 2 new enzymatic functions evolved. Altering genes is how evolution works - that's why genes form gene families.
Chromosomal restructuring is only one way to get new species. New species have evolved in the lab and field through other mechanisms.
Second question, even if it were proved conclusively that birds didn't evolve from theropod dinosaurs and instead both have a common ancestor... well mejc2 seemed to suggest this disproves evolution? All this seems to suggest to me is that evidence may point to birds EVOLVING from something ELSE instead. How is this disproving anything?
I think mejc2 is claiming there's a contradiction in the phylogeny, thus rejecting the nested hierarchy necessary for common descent to have occurred. He's wrong, of course. The nested hierarchy might still hold, even if birds were more distantly related to theropods.
I've always found the notion that science constantly correct its mistakes as being a flaw of science to be an odd notion.
"Ah HA, SCIENCE has shown itself up again. Here, see, Science made a mistake and told us all about it. He then, and can you imagine the indignity of it, went on to CORRECT his mistake. Well, I think we can all agree that Science is a right fucking idiot."
Good video series EvoBiologist, but most of all I enjoyed and learned alot from reading these comments. I must commend you on your patience and your respectful replies without petty insults to counter arguements by mejc2 and others as he made some more pointed arguements. I hope you keep argueing intelligently like this.
Out of interest, when genetic "information" is talked about (E.g the "no new gentic information is ever created") exactly WHAT information is being talked about?
I think the claim about "no new genetic information" is that novel genes are not built from scratch. In fact, new genes are made all the time through gene duplication followed by mutation of the copy. The people who came up with this claim apparently knew nothing of gene families.
Ahh, so this is a little like the "one kind of animal has never given birth to another kind of animal" arguement then? I see...
Personally I come at this topic from the angle of evolutionary psychology. Many discoveries from the fields of neurology have shown that our brain, and by extention our psyche and minds, have developed over time. That we seem to display frequent animilian instinctual behaviours with a higher and newer cognitive structure over this goes a long way to explain...
It would imply further evidence to the already huge base of evidence to support evolution I feel.
Further more, it makes the behaviour of individuals with a strong sense of faith understandable. From a very basic point of view, their arguements are often ones of "common sense", employing numerous cognitive fallacies. I don't think that the behaviour of creationists, or even most commenter here on youtube, is deliberately ignorant or aggresive. I think they are reacting..
naturally based on how a human mind often naturally functions.
A little off topic, but I think its a little sad when people dismiss eachother as "morons" or "idiots" when most of the time people utterly believe their right and, more than just that, that their current way of thinking is the mainstream oppinion of their own society.
Yeah, I was thinking about that "50,000 morphological changes", but I couldn't remember exactly what Berlinski said. I figured that might be what mejc2 was referring to. It's a really stupid claim, and shows a complete lack of biological knowledge. What does he count as a morphological change, and how does that relate to # of important (i.e. under selection) mutations, which is what really matters?
I agree, he pulled that # out of his ass - I don't know whether a formula was involved or not.
It's kind of interesting I did a paper on this but the webbing in flying treefrogs,, fish fins, whales, bats, etc
Are all pretty much modifications done to just a few genes that control programmed cell death.
Normally the cells between your fingers are told to die to separate them. If you inhibit this gene in some way you leave webbing.
Now what I can't explain is how the webbing forms between the limbs in the lemur considering that the limbs start as separate buds. Anyone know the answer?
I actually saw a talk that discussed the cell death of the webbing, and how the genes were shut off in bats. I'm unaware of the genetic pathway for the extra skin in flying lemurs, but I would guess it would act early on in limb bud formation, leaving the limb bud still attached to the torso along the posterior portion of the forelimb. I bet it's another programmed cell death pathway used to differentiate the limbs.
It's really weird though I think the webbing between limbs might have to be coded for by something novel as opposed to the simple pathways used in all these by downregulating appoptosis factors.
It's plausible that first it was digit webbing, then some novel structures emerged that extended the webbing.
This is actually shaping up to be a decent hypothesis that could be tested
Dinosaurs learning to fly? Did you ever see your pet turtle trying to jump off the house wanting to fly? Hell no, it can't think and doesn't have a fukking clue. Same with dinosaurs somebody just made that shit up. I bet your dog hasn't jumped off a bridge lately either has he? Now why would any creature try to fly without wings and then they just suddenly start developing?
"Now why would any creature try to fly without wings and then they just suddenly start developing?"
Ever seen a squirrel? They jump between trees. Ever seen a flying squirrel? They jump BETTER between trees. A simple growth of skin makes all the difference. Powered flight is the next step, though it must be rare to evolve, since unlike gliding it has only evolved 3 times in the whole animal kingdom - differently each time. If bat and bird wings were built the same way, evolution would fail.
""Dinosaurs learning to fly? Did you ever see your pet turtle trying to jump off the house wanting to fly? Hell no,"" Huge Strawman. First off Tetsudines are anapsids, Learn before you open your mouth.
Student: "Teacher, is true that raptors had feathers and quill knobs?"
Teacher: "Yes, indeed they did!" Student: "Does that mean they evolved into birds?" Teacher: "Of course it does!" Student: "so the fossil records show the gradual growth of wings and beaks as we see them today?" Teacher: "of course not! who needs empirical evidence when we're preaching to the sheep!
Actually, we see plenty of empirical evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. In addition to the overall similarities in morphology and the intermediate fossils discovered, there are genetic vestiges in birds. Birds can have their tooth producing genes turned on (why have those to begin with?), their wingtips are made by the fusion of 3 fingers (the same 3 that dinos use), and they grow tails that are destroyed during development - turning off that gene can make them grow long lizard tails.
Student: "Teacher, may I curse?" Teacher: "No, it's a SIN; you must say either YAY or NEIGH"; Student: "Fuck you, teacher". Teacher : "You are supposed to somehow be more christlike by acccepting the christ and his message". Student; " I'm going to destroy the legitimacy of xtianity's message by cursing and using language that is not christlike". Teacher: "You have been EXCOMMUNICATED". Thanks for destroying the legitimacy of the message of xtianity for me. Saved me the trouble! Well done!
Now that we know that birds did not come from dinosaurs. how does that affect your beliefs. OH wait. it doesn't really you'll just add a new chapter to the fairy tale that says birds evolved on their own. LOL. Marcus don't you see this is a Joke being played on you .
Have you seen the relatively new fossil Limusaurus inextricabilis. Yet another link in the dino to bird chain. Creationists argued that dinos couldn't have evolved into birds because the 3 dino fingers are 1-3, while bird wings are a fusion of 2-4. Many scientists had predicted that dino hands were in fact 2-4, and that they had lost 1 and had 2 modified to look more thumb-like. Well, L. inextricabilis has 4 fingers (1-4), and #1 is a little vestigial nub. Dinos & birds use 2-4 as predicted.
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
Thanks mejc2, that is some interesting research that I hadn't seen yet. Apparently the authors believe that their evidence points to birds and theropods evolving from a common ancestor rather than birds evolving from theropods directly. I'm not sold yet, though. It seems to me that these modifications to the leg could have arisen later, though I haven't read the actual paper to see what they have to say about that possibility.
On the page for that article, there is a link to the finger article.
Hi mejc2, I've been very interested in following yours and macus' arguement back and forth and I have this question for you.
Even if it were proved conclusively that birds didn't evolve from theropod dinosaurs (which as yet is still inconclusive with studies SUGGESTING) and instead both have a common ancestor... well you seem to suggest this disproves evolution? All this seems to suggest to me is that evidence may point to birds EVOLVING from something ELSE instead not DISPROVING evolution.
No animal evolved from any other animal. birds did not evolve from anything. they have been birds all along. to claim that they "may have" evolved from some earlier unknown common ancestor is sheer fabrication.
Why is it do you suppose, mejc2, that birds aren't found in the layers among the earlier land animals or with the earlier flying insects? Shouldn't they have gotten buried with these creatures during the flood? Instead, we find many layers and whole ecosystems buried between these animals and the birds.
By your logic, God just thought it would be funny to make theropod dinosaurs resemble birds so much, with transitional feathers, wings, etc. Archaeopterix was just for shits & giggles, right?
I suppose that different animals react differently to natural disasters. worms, clams, etc. have no choice. large animals like dinosaurs probably wereren't as reactive to the warning signs because they normally weren't affected by floods and such. Animals all escaped the recent tsunami. Birds probably escaped for a while before they were burried.However, I don't "KNOW". I'm only guessing.
...with teeth, a long dino tail, multiple fingers, etc. Nice try, mejc - no bird has any of those pretty dramatic things. Would you say it's the same "kind" as other birds? If so, then welcome to accepting macroevolution.
are you kidding evolutionists have tried to link birds to almost every kind of dinosaur that ever lived. All attempts have failed and the latest attempt to link birds to theropods is failing. Don't worry Marcus. The evolutionists will make up some new shit for yo to believe in. Be Patient.
What specific dino groups aside from theropods have birds been linked to?
I still see no evidence that the link to theropods is failing. I don't find the argument of the article you keep citing to be at all convincing, and apparently most paleontologists don't either.
You disagree with evidence that contradicts your fairy tale all the time, mejc2.
I was just saying that I don't see how the evidence presented in the article you cited supports the conclusion that birds didn't evolve from theropods. LFP just pointed out that the conclusion isn't parsimonius, which is a cardinal sin in science.
This isn't just arbitrary dismissal - there are genuine concerns with the author's conclusions that have to do with how good science is conducted.
Actually, mejc2, even the guy you cited says that "birds evolved from dinosaurs". The question is really, which dinosaurs? I find the evidence for theropods being the ancestor to birds to be pretty overwhelming and highly parsimonious. They have the same body shape, hollow bones, feathers, the same 3 fingers as birds do, strong connections with archaeopterix, etc. They certainly appear to be related. But then, you believe that God made the Earth only appear to be billions of years old.
In your fairy tale many extinct animals that resemble living animals are precursors. However, resemblence or similarity does not imply ancestry. You impose your presupposition of common ascent on the fossils. Without your presupposition they are just animals that have similar features.
"resemblence [sic] or similarity does not imply ancestry"
You're right, and in fact, most fossils aren't considered direct ancestors of modern organisms. What the nested hierarchy of similarity does is provide evidence of relatedness in the same way that genes and physical features are evidence of human relatedness. This is just one piece of evidence out of many pointing to relatedness (common ancestry) of organisms.
It's not evidence of common ancestry it has just been woven into your made up story. After years of manipulation your fairy tale includes just about everything.
If something is simple you claim it is obviously evolved because of it's simplicity. If something is overly complex you claim it is obviously evolved because in your opinion, a creator wouldn't do it that way. What a system, heads you win tales you win.
Look mejc2, we can argue about whether it is CONVINCING evidence of common ancestry, but we can't argue about whether it is EVIDENCE of common ancestry. It is evidence in the same way that it would be evidence in a paternity case. If you worked for the defendant you might claim that sharing the same blood type is inconclusive, and they could still be unrelated, and you could make the same claims for DNA, but it is still evidence nonetheless, and put together, the case for evolution is strong.
It's not a case. You continue to massage the story to fit the evidence. thousands if not millions of mythological common ancestors. Quadrillions of mutations causing ascent to more complex organisms. Your evidence is "you think it happened" there is no evidence that it "actually" happened.
Evolutionists compare evolutionism to gravity all the time. I can drop a brick and see it fall. I cannot watch a bacteria eventually become a man.
Every explanation can be treated like a case, mejc2. A working mind (and the scientific discipline as well) takes evidence of all explanations and weighs the evidence. This is analogous to a court case.
You can watch a brick fall and you can watch bacteria evolve new morphologies in a beaker. You can't watch Pluto orbit the Sun for a complete orbit and you can't watch large scale evolution of morphological changes. Both take too long to observe, but both are supported by mounds of evidence.
That's a crock. we can measure and plot the position of Pluto. You don't have to imagine it. There is no mythological former position of Pluto. We can know where it was yesterday and where it will be tomorrow. You assume the ascent of organisms from simple to complex. The only evidence is that you Think it happened. There are countless organs, body parts, and systems, that have no reason to exist. You claim mindless accidents caused every one, and your evidence is that animals look alike.
The reason we can predict the future and past positions of Pluto is because we understand the underlying mechanism that causes it's motion. Evolution is the same, only more complex because more forces are at work.
I'm still waiting for a better explanation for how a broken gene forms a family tree of the accumulation of genetic differences in primates, or why birds have the genes to make teeth and long dinosaur tails.
"God did it" just doesn't cut it for me as a reasonable explanation there.
"I'm still waiting for a better explanation for how a broken gene forms a family tree of the accumulation of genetic differences in primates, or why birds have the genes to make teeth and long dinosaur tails."
Every example above shows devolution. Why no examples of animals acquiring new limbs or body plans. After all it happened quadrillions of times filtered by natural selection.
Regardless, it is SOLID evidence of common descent of primates (including humans). Please refute that assertion.
I've already provided you with evidence of the evolution of increased complexity, and you just blew it off because it wasn't big enough for you. Well, mejc2, carry out those same processes for a longer period of time and they become big enough - those time periods just happen to be longer than we've been able to examine these things.
You imagine the changes could become big enough to cause an organism to become a more complex animal. We observe adaptation of organisms. there is a difference.
The changes we're talking about are only different in quantity, not quality. So, fundamentally there is no difference when you stretch it out over a long period of time.
By the way, I've already mentioned several directly observed cases where an organism has become more complex.
minor changes in organisms, is a normal functioin. Even your most dramatic example, lizarsds expressing features that are not novel to lizards. In 200 years Homology, devolution, and imagined millions upon millions of wild chance accidental mutations. You are wasting you time study something that really happened.
I thought the nylon digestion was at least as dramatic as the cecal valve. Are you claiming that all lizards are the same kind? Otherwise, why would it matter if other lizards had them? Do you realize the amount of mutational differences we're talking about here between wall lizards and the nearest relative with cecal valves?
What do you mean by "imagined... mutations"? Millions of mutations happen DAILY - we've measured.
Why would "studying something that really happened" be a waste?
Also are you trying to imply that there was no information in the wall lizard to create a cecal valve, and a random chance mutation just happened to create a cecal valve like that found in other lizards?
I'm saying that like all traits, there was something there already to build from - a digestive tract with muscular tissue that simply had to be modified to create a valve. You'll note, however, that all the required basic tissues and systems are also in segmented worms, so if you're willing to allow that these can simply be modified by evolution, then you should be willing to accept the common descent of all bilaterally symmetrical life.
Of course there is always something to build on. However there is no reason for an organism to mutate a cecal valve. To claim it just happened in the wall lizard and it also just happened in some other lizard independent of each other is preposterous.
Why is it preposterous? Are you familiar with the genetic and developmental basis of the addition of a cecal valve? Can you explain to me how such a change would be impossible through mutation and selective pressure? I wasn't aware that you had such extensive knowledge of biology, mejc2. I'm impressed.
no reason for a cecal valve or any other appendage to appear from mutation. However, you believe that it happened independently in the same way in the same place in different organisms for no reason what ever. that is why it is preposterous. Also without any evidence that your fairy tale is true, you demand an alternative fairy tale and if none is given you claim validity of the original fairy tale. Sheesh Marcus.
It DID appear, mejc2. If not through mutation, then how did it appear in wall lizards?
What do you mean by "no reason"? DNA codes for structures and mutations change DNA. Mutations happen all the time, and the best ones survive. There's no other explanation for the origins of the cecal valves in wall lizards except for "magic".
There you go again Marcus, you make up a fairy tale and then demand a better fairy tale. When no alternative fairy tale is presented you claim that your fairy tale is fact.
I mean no reason. There is no reason for a cecal valve to appear in an organism that doesn't have one.
some scientists hypothesize that the information to create the cecal valve was present in the lizards but just switched off.
I never said anything about "facts". Evolution is far better than a fact, it's a theory. Facts are only simple observations that explain nothing, but theories are overarching explanations, like cell theory, germ theory, and the theories of general and special relativity. These are some of the greatest achievements of the human mind and science.
So you're claiming the genes were already there and a random mutation in just the right spot turned them on? Unlikely mutations do happen all the time.
Evolutionists use facts to create a fairy tale. Wall lizards were found with cecal valves (fact). Random mutations filtered by natural selection caused them to appear from nowhere (fairy tale).
Many different organisms exist with similarities in there dna(fact). Simple organisms changed into more complex organisms by accidents filtered by natural selection(fairy tale)
No one is claiming the cecal valves appeared "from nowhere". Appearance of things magically from nothing is the hallmark of creationism, not science. I would argue that the valve was caused by some simple modifications to to lining of the digestive tract, which already had muscles and membranes. So, it appeared from somewhere, not "nowhere".
We're talking about more than "similarities in there [sic] dna". It's a nested hierarchy - a family tree.
" I would argue that the valve was caused by some simple modifications to to lining of the digestive tract"
oh.....That's right your version of the fairy tale says gradualism. Actually you could argue anything because everything you back up the fairy tale with is conjecture and speculation. The truth is no one "knows" how or why the cecal valves appeared in the isolated wall lizards.
It's true that "no one "knows" how or why the cecal valves appeared in the isolated wall lizards."
I have just made a prediction based on evolution. It is testable. If we find that a few mutations modifying a section of the digestive tract are responsible for the changes, will you accept evolution?
NO. I doubt that you would have any respect for me if such a simple explanation of a simple part of a lizard would change my mind about the mountain of evidence contained in the historical account given in the bible. Not that you have any respect for me now.
Just checking. Actually, I would respect you more if you did finally accept evolution based on such evidence (on top of the mountain of other evidence, some of which I've already pointed out). Such a change of worldview based on a recognition that one was previously wrong takes a real strength of character to pull off, and I respect that in an individual. Anyway, it wouldn't be the first time the Bible was wrong about something (factually or ethically). What's your take on Lev 25:44-46?
My Take? I have no take. The verses are about servants. in the days that this was written slaves were more like indentured servants not like the chattel slavery formed in the US. The Jews were not to take each other as servants.
So you think just because the Bible says so that it was okay to own the people of rival nations, as well as their children. Interesting morality you have there - and you criticize atheists?
It was the social structure of the time. They weren't property, they were indentured. they worked until they paid their price in full and they earned their freedom. Each slave was given a medallion with a word inscribed that literally translates to "paid in full". it is the same word that Jesus uttered Just before expiring. He paid the price for us who were in slavery to sin.
"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" Lev 25:46
So, they WERE property, and they did not work until they paid off some sort of debt - that's what "for ever" means.
It's pretty clear and unambiguous that this is not the sort of relationship you are claiming it is. These are the literal words of the Bible - "possession" "for ever", aka slavery.
There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion, mejc2. The Bible only mandates the freeing of Jewish slaves, not foreign ones. In fact, if you read the passage in context, it is very clear on that point, making a distinction between foreign slaves which can be kept for ever and Jewish ones, which are servants of God and must therefore eventually be released. Also, Exodus 21:20-21 allows people to beat their slaves hard enough that they survive "a day or two" because "he is his money".
The life of a slave in those days was more like the life of someone in a job in which he simply cannot quit today. For example military personnel cannot simply choose to stop working. However their day to day life is not exceedingly harsh. As we watch our society wrap everything into political correctness, such practices are equated with sinful activities. This argument in no way supports the fairy tale of ascent from simple to complex organisms through millions of accidents.
Oh, so you agree that common ascent is nothing more than a fairy tale, and now you want to get to your real mission of denying God. Well Marcus, do you want to discuss slavery during Old testament times? OK. However, do you realize that the most reliable source of information about those times is the very book you wish to disparage?
Just because I wasn't talking about common descent here doesn't mean I won't continue debating it with you in other comments. You claim the Bible is perfect, which is part of your evidence for Genesis 1 & 2 being literally true. I'm simply refuting that argument. Most Christians don't think the Bible is perfect like you do, yet they don't deny God.
Nice dodging, by the way. Care to address my points about slavery?
I believe it is futile to talk to this creationist person. It is like trying to explain the third dimension to a flat lander, quite simply impossible. I would rather have you making more of your excellent videos!
I think someone said its time to move past the hopeless cases and leave them shouting on the hill tops while the rest of us get back to the business of living in reality :).
Reality? the people in the matrix believe they are in reality also. Look, you don't have to swallow the red pill. You can choose the blue pill and stay in the matrix where you are now.
Hey don't blame me. I have no access to these pills you talk about. When they hit the shelves over here in Finland I'm interested in trying them out. Until then I'm afraid I will have to resort to evidence and observation.
BS mejc2 - how do you define "other organism"? We've seen morphological, genetic, and biochemical changes, and speciation. Thus, one organism became a different one. We've seen exactly what we expect to see over the time-scales we've been observing.
lol mejc, you yourself are empirical evidence for organisms that changed into other organisms. if you go back far enough your ancestors are homo sapiens, but somewhere along the line you evolved into ignorantius douchebagium.
you ignore the vast amount of documented evidence for speciation (the bacteria that now can digest nylon is just one of the many examples) also you make douchebag claims that not only you, but no one in the world can defend in the scientific forum.
Wait! you think that bacteria making a minor adaptation to digest a byproduct of nylon is evidence that quadrillions of accidental mutations filtered through natural selection caused the first cells that accidentally came to life to acquire accidental complex systems,body plans, and body parts as to accidentally turn into every living thing on the planet?
Is that what you are really saying is empirical evidence for evolutionism. Wow! what compelling evidence.
its a small piece, and i only brought up the bacteria example to refute your statement that we have never seen one organism change into a different, new organism. it seems this would be empirical evidence for what you say we have never seen.
adaptations within groups of organisms is a natural occurrence and can be observed all the time. It is in no way evidence that a single cell through accidental mutations changed into the innumerable organisms on the planet.
Of course you are right but have a little understanding. We simply lack those pills you mentioned over here. There is no way to break from the matrix without the pill so please send us some.
I don't hope to convince mejc2 - as you said, he's a hopeless case. Maybe I can convince fence-sitters through this discussion, and help others get ideas for their arguments.
I only have a few minutes here and there now - my firstborn son was born on Monday, so I'll get to the videos when I get a chance. Messaging is a more reasonable goal in the meantime.
I think congratulations are in order to both you and your companion! That is a life long commitment you just signed yourself into and I'm sure it will be an enriching one :).
Again, you're wrong mejc2. Nylon digestion is not "devolution" of anything. There is NEW enzymatic activity. Just read the abstract of this article and you'll see that that is the case:
aem(dot)asm(dot)org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020
It is true that novel proteins are often derived from mutating pre-existing proteins, but that's why genes make a big family tree of similarities just like organisms. Most new genes come from gene duplication events, as have been observed countless times.
mejc2, do you agree that there is a divergence within species?
That is to say that birds change over time due to environmental influences and can become quite different from the original ancestors that they came from when they are isolated from the original group?
I'm not talking about a dinosaur becoming a bird. Simply the divergence found in different species of dog for instance.
Ok mejc2, so you agree with my previous statement then.
Then to follow I would ask you this.
At which point would you agree that this divergence that you see within a species is high enough that you could no longer reasonably call it the same species?
But perhaps here we are arguing semantics. Could you also define what you would agree the word "species" to me?
I shall do the same, so that we are not lacking in understanding...
A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen.
To my knowledge we have observed such divergences to have ocured.
I agree that evolutionists have specifically defined species according to already observed changes that occur and pounce upon the opportunity to use their made up definition to support their made up story of evolution. The word species is in on way used to define the creatures that God created.
Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what I would be agreeing to here.
To either agree or disagree I would need to ask you several questions.
What do you mean by "evolutionist"? Do you mean anyone who believes evolution is the most likely explanation for how everything got here? Or do you mean the scientists who have catagorised the different taxonomic ranks?
By evolutionists I mean the poor souls like Marcus that have been brainwashed with a fairy tale. They have been brought up on evolutionists education systems. Entertained by evolutionists movies and documentaries, and duped by evolutionists that have co opted the word science to disguise their faith in the made up story of bacteria changing into everything given enough time.
Second when you say "made up" I assume you mean this negatively. You mean this in the same sense that a child "makes up" a story that isn't true. I am interpreting your meaning correctly?
That "evolutionists" "made up" their definitions is... well, I'm confused. If you were trying to catagorise several things into different catagories, and there was no pre-existing definition to apply wouldn't you HAVE to "make up" a definition yourself? What alternative is there?
The word apple was made up after direct observation of apples. if evolution was made up after direct observation of evolution it would have the same validity.
Species is a word used to describe direct observation of organisms. however it's subtleties make it pretty much useless in defense of bacteria changing into everything.
So these "jumps" are just apparent accelerated rates of gradation. Gotcha. I tried finding sources on this. My friend gave me a book who states that gradation is not supported by the fossil record. Although I knew facts to back up gradualism, this video really helped clear up the concepts of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. So thank you.
shawnwilliams77 9 months ago
@shawnwilliams77 If you are still looking for a source, Wikipedia's article on punctuated equilibrium quotes Gould himself (Opus 200) "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implications, primarily because they did not think at geological scales"
EvoBiologist 8 months ago
There is plenty of evidence for "devolution". IT's easy to observe. A genetically robust species (wolf) devolving into many less fit families. All life follows the same scenario. But where do we observe evolution? We don't. There is less intellectual value in evo theory, then nutritional value in a heap of dung. "minor vita ex vita-natura semper scalas descendet". Are a fact of life, get used to it. Prove evolution is science & make 10,000$, at lifescienceprize dot organization.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Proving evolution is science is simple. It makes testable predictions, so it is science.
We observe viruses evolving all the time.
How do you explain the fact that animal DNA forms a family tree?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Evolution makes NO testable predictions. Changes in viruses does not accumulate into new species. It just makes more viruses. Mutations, (deformations) does not equal evolution. We observe that bacteria allows random changes to part of it's DNA, that codes for cell wall filtration. Giving it the ability to adapt to environments. A prediction of Intelligent Design. IF that is all we got to prove the Huge claim of common descent. It's time to give up the ghost. It doesn't!
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Evolution makes an incredibly huge number of testable predictions, from the order of fossils, to the congruence of animal trees, to a variety of genetic predictions, etc.
Do you claim that viruses are all one species? Otherwise, why would it matter that highly mutated viruses are still viruses?
Intelligent design is compatible with common descent. We are all part of one giant family tree. How it got that way is a separate issue.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You should contact all the I.D. scientist and tell them C.D. is not compatible with I.D., because most believe in C.D. The term species is ambiguous and pliable by all who use it. Viruses remain plainly identifiable as viruses. You better re-watch the doc. "Darwin's Dilemma". fossils do not fit the evo predictions. They go from bigger and stronger, to smaller and weaker. They pop suddenly unto the record. It is convenient for you to define evo as change!
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 You're the one who was arguing that mutations in bacteria are evidence of ID and not common descent. I just pointed out that common descent isn't about mutations, and that it IS COMPATIBLE with ID.
Species SHOULD be ambiguous if they change gradually.
The complexity of fossils increases over time.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Sorry, I mis-read your sentence. If the term species is ambiguous, "Origin of the Species" is meaningless. The oldest single celled life is just as complex as todays. Bacteria are the same. As is insects, horseshoe crabs. infinitum. Their is no complexity gain in the fossil record. Just diversification, specification and devolution (degeneration).
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Regardless of whether or not the line between species and populations is fuzzy, there are organisms that no one would dispute are different species. Darwin's point in "Origin" is simply that species arise by splitting from other species slowly over time, and that natural selection is a major driver in this process. That species are ambiguous is something Darwin discusses in the book.
I wasn't aware that "the oldest single celled life" still has DNA or visible organelles.
Mammals?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
I have no problem with evolution but my problem is how can earth be some billions years old and from one living organism evolved billions of different species from large dinosaurs to little tiny ants and so on? ... I thjink for this to be true earth should be a couple of trillions years old or more
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl No human alive can conceive of 1 million years, much less 1 billion or 1 trillion. So, I'm not sure what you are basing this belief on. Over the past 100 years, we have measured changes in the size and shape of various structures in various organisms, and discovered that the rates of change are often WAY larger than they would need to be to account for the divergence of organisms we see.
Regardless, we see a genetic family tree of animals - how else could it get that way?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
hey you might want to factor in the use of hallucengenic substances in the Homo habilis and homo erectus era. Might explain the shaping of the skulls evolving over time along with abstract thinking. My guess would be Ibogaine -considering where it is found (Africa) and where both Homos are found. "And now ye know the difference between good and evil". Don't think the Bible is wrong, just our interpetation of it.
Indaloman2009 2 years ago
How do hallucinogenic drugs affect skull shape? In what way could our ancestors taking hallucinogenic drugs permanently alter abstract thinking in a genetic way for us?
I'm just trying to understand your point.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Well two factors actually could effect skull shape. This may be viewed as pseudo-science but it is a theory. (1)By forcing open the pineal gland through these psychedelics ones abstract thinking is bound to increase, this may of been where we got the early forms of art from, our ancestors exploring other dimensions and geometric patters. this would been one factor in harnessing energies for genetic change. Another could of been the kundalini energy during sexual intercourse. lot to explain
Indaloman2009 2 years ago
I'm working on thoughly explaining my point. Got about 3 pages so far but not nearly enough. My theory is in its infant stages, just thought maybe I could get someone to look into it as well, maybe come up with something else, other than everyone repeating Darwin's theory over and over. I figure the ancient part of the brain has to have somehting to do with evolving and psychdelics open the doors of perception wide open.I didnt answer your question but im working on it.
Indaloman2009 2 years ago
I'm happy to give you my input without simply restating core evolutionary theories. I asked the questions I did because it sounds like you are attempting to use some sort of Lamarkian evolutionary process as the basis of your explanation, and so far (through all sorts of different types of thorough experimentation), it seems pretty clear that such processes are at best very limited in scope.
I do think it likely that early hominids, like many modern animals, experimented with hallucinogens.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Yes, I agree with all of your above statements. It may be limited at first glance but I'm working on developing a mathematical equation for the whole evolutionary thoery on the assumption that there are exceptions to every rule. Just got to figure out what those exceptions are exactly. So anything I stated above would be factored in and not the whole theory it's self. When I come up with something somewhat tabgilable would you like to read it?
Indaloman2009 1 year ago
Yes
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE PROBLEMS FOR EVOLUTION
1. Spectatio and Maximus Refute the God Deniers. Read it and weep. We can hear the devils screeching now. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
2. Evolution is a dogmatic religious belief un-backed by science and supported only by radical atheism. Atheism, a dogmatic belief requires evolution to disprove God, all belief in God, and to attack religion. Atheists will foist any fake, tell any lie, commit any fraud to maintain the evolution hoax. Atheists tell us there are mountains of evidence for evolution and then point to silly drawings of monkeys getting taller or museum plaster statues of so-called early man, and this is their dogma.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory!
Zoetherat 2 years ago
3. Take for example the fact the evolutionists shriek and rail against design, but consider this, design presents no opposition to evolution whatsoever! The very concept of evolution is a design. You can see it in their phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Design refutes atheism and that is their real bone of contention.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
4. Next, atheists go into a frenzy that evolution is an "undirected process," then they say "evolution predicts" with childish pompous tones, as if it was lost in space, but now knows where it's going (how comic). Evolutionists accuse their opposition of "religious rigidity," this is merely an attack technique, a smoke screen, a logical fallacy used to forestall the argument, because they cannot defeat the science that rejects evolution, they must have this crutch to keep from falling flat.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
5. Atheists falsely claim all science to themselves and accuse Christians of being anti-science, yet their inner circles work fastidiously to blackball scientists who are not of the Atheist religion. Their so-called peer review system, as we have seen with Climategate, is scandalously false and dishonest to it's very core. The main purpose is to defeat Christianity.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6. However, the majority of Christians have no doctrine concerning evolution. They are free to believe it or not. They are free to make up their minds with the use of science. Atheists on the other hand have no such freedom. They have no choice but to believe in evolution. For them evolution is a dogma. And all they have is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, crying out "go read your Bible."
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
7. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fossil record. That is the only real scientific evidence of life and it's progression. They do not have even one series of any fossil showing an extended progression from one type of creature to another completely different creature. There should be thousands that are intuitively obvious to the casual observer without fabrication or storytelling. What do they have to date? They have nothing.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
8. Without the fossil record, evolution scientists can lie, cheat, and steal all they want, but they have nothing until it can be proved in the fossil record. They fabricate the theory of transitional fossils, but cannot prove a single one to be transitional. This is embarrassing for them. So here's what they have done. They simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement, "All organisms are transitional. Now everyone can go home. We've proved evolution, whoopee!"
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Wow - I don't think I have time to even begin to address the multiple problems with these "problems for evolution". I can't think of the last time I've seen so many logical fallacies in one place. On top of that, it's full of arrogance and bigotry.
Do you realize that reasonable people will be turned off from your message by such arguments as this? Probably not, since you think these are good arguments that I should somehow be concerned about.
How about we discuss 1 point at a time? You pick.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Whine whine whine. bellyache, bitch and moan.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Look, are you interested in discussing ideas or simply spamming my video comments with your beliefs?
If it is the former, then we cannot do this unless you make one or two points at a time. We can't hope to have a meaningful debate in this format if I have to refute 8 posts full of tangentially related statements that I disagree with in a variety of ways.
If you just want to spam me with random propaganda points and no discussion, then let me know now, so I can block you.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
@MaximusArurealius:
Why don't you go and preach out on the street instead of wasting your time here on youtube. Your arguements are disturbingly pathetic. I feel pity that your dark ages mindset is being passed by the emergence of scientific thought, but alas the world cannot stop and wait for you to evolve. Best not to argue here unless you have something tangible to offer, your comments erode any credible respect for your cause.
CHAS1422 2 years ago
"And point mutations ARE an example of evolution." Nope, only micro-evolution which really isn't evolution. There is no proof mutations can invent an organ or body part that didn't exist previously"
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
2. Digestion is not a new function. Digestion of different material isn't either. How does this shed light on the evolution of a totally new life form that did not previously exist? If evonauts knew anything about nylon degradation they would know in the bacterium there are three enzymes, EIII (NylC) EI (NylA), and EII (NylB), which are used to digest nylon, and a substitution mutation/point mutation occurred in the carboxylesterase gene which allowed the bacterium to hydrolyze nylon oligomers.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
3. The ability was already present; it simply took a point mutation to cause an alteration in the parent enzymes specificity.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Keep in mind nylon didn't exist until 1935.
Keep in mind no organism was known to decompose/"consume" nylon or the biproducts of nylon production until 1975.
Keep in mind the 3 enzymes are DIFFERENT from other enzymes produced by even other bacteria AND don't work on other chemical substances.
So you can't say "the ability was already present".
And point mutations ARE an example of evolution. Change in the ALLELE FREQUENCIES, obviously done when a NEW ALLELE is "created".
onijester56 2 years ago
As to nylon eating bacteria. It didn't really evolve. It developed. Evolution has to do with speciation which involves restructuring of the chromosomes. Micro evolution is a misnomer. It really isn't evolution. It is development. Macro evolution is just plain evolution. Evolutionists talk about "evolution" (micro) as if it is evolution. It's not. They play mind tricks with words. That's another reason we know they are all lying.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
I would think that evolutionary biologist are the one who define the terminology not some papermill PhD(in christian education) creatiionist drDino making things up
Maybe us evolutionist should define terms in their realm, ah wait I have one:you are not really a monotheist if you believe in the holy trinity" saying you do is just playing with words
Toudiyama 2 years ago
And that has what to do with nylon eating bacteria?
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
/you said:"Evolutionists talk about "evolution" (micro) as if it is evolution. It's not. They play mind tricks with words", that is what is has to do with
Toudiyama 2 years ago
Toady, WHAT???
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Toady said, "I would think that evolutionary biologist are the one who define the terminology not some papermill PhD(in christian education)" You'd think so, but when they are liars you can't trust anything they say.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
@MaximusArurealius So we can trust then
Now if you start your post by on purpose screwing up my nickname, you're already showing what follows has no value what so ever
Toudiyama 2 years ago
Toady said, "you're already showing what follows has no value what so ever" CODE FOR: I don't think I can debate someone smarter than me.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
@MaximusArurealius no rather if you resort to namecalling I do not care anymore what you have to say
Toudiyama 2 years ago
Toady, BYE asshole.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
@MaximusArurealius Bye Fucktard don't let the door hit you on your way out
Toudiyama 2 years ago
Toady, did you think I was leaving? You're the one saying you don't care what I have to say. So I just told you BYE because you're leaving.
bye
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
@MaximusAssholius Wow does that mean you have the power to block me on someone else their video?
Or do you think that your post are the only ones on this video?
Toudiyama 2 years ago
Development is going from a fertilized egg to a full adult. It involves no genetic changes. Biological evolution is defined as change in gene frequencies in a population over time - this genetic change is what occurred in nylon eating bacteria. 2 new enzymatic functions evolved. Altering genes is how evolution works - that's why genes form gene families.
Chromosomal restructuring is only one way to get new species. New species have evolved in the lab and field through other mechanisms.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Second question, even if it were proved conclusively that birds didn't evolve from theropod dinosaurs and instead both have a common ancestor... well mejc2 seemed to suggest this disproves evolution? All this seems to suggest to me is that evidence may point to birds EVOLVING from something ELSE instead. How is this disproving anything?
Grysham 2 years ago
I think mejc2 is claiming there's a contradiction in the phylogeny, thus rejecting the nested hierarchy necessary for common descent to have occurred. He's wrong, of course. The nested hierarchy might still hold, even if birds were more distantly related to theropods.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I've always found the notion that science constantly correct its mistakes as being a flaw of science to be an odd notion.
"Ah HA, SCIENCE has shown itself up again. Here, see, Science made a mistake and told us all about it. He then, and can you imagine the indignity of it, went on to CORRECT his mistake. Well, I think we can all agree that Science is a right fucking idiot."
Grysham 2 years ago
Good video series EvoBiologist, but most of all I enjoyed and learned alot from reading these comments. I must commend you on your patience and your respectful replies without petty insults to counter arguements by mejc2 and others as he made some more pointed arguements. I hope you keep argueing intelligently like this.
Out of interest, when genetic "information" is talked about (E.g the "no new gentic information is ever created") exactly WHAT information is being talked about?
Grysham 2 years ago
I think the claim about "no new genetic information" is that novel genes are not built from scratch. In fact, new genes are made all the time through gene duplication followed by mutation of the copy. The people who came up with this claim apparently knew nothing of gene families.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Ahh, so this is a little like the "one kind of animal has never given birth to another kind of animal" arguement then? I see...
Personally I come at this topic from the angle of evolutionary psychology. Many discoveries from the fields of neurology have shown that our brain, and by extention our psyche and minds, have developed over time. That we seem to display frequent animilian instinctual behaviours with a higher and newer cognitive structure over this goes a long way to explain...
Grysham 2 years ago
human behaviour today.
It would imply further evidence to the already huge base of evidence to support evolution I feel.
Further more, it makes the behaviour of individuals with a strong sense of faith understandable. From a very basic point of view, their arguements are often ones of "common sense", employing numerous cognitive fallacies. I don't think that the behaviour of creationists, or even most commenter here on youtube, is deliberately ignorant or aggresive. I think they are reacting..
Grysham 2 years ago
naturally based on how a human mind often naturally functions.
A little off topic, but I think its a little sad when people dismiss eachother as "morons" or "idiots" when most of the time people utterly believe their right and, more than just that, that their current way of thinking is the mainstream oppinion of their own society.
Grysham 2 years ago
I agree with your points, and they are well said.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I just can't take Berlinski seriously. In his "calculations" he basically just tries to impress people with math and big words.
He does unscientfic things like says that the difference between a terrestrial artiodactyl and a whale is 50,000 morphological changes.
And he gets an F for not showing his work. How did he come up with that number? I think he used a formula to derive it from his ass
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Yeah, I was thinking about that "50,000 morphological changes", but I couldn't remember exactly what Berlinski said. I figured that might be what mejc2 was referring to. It's a really stupid claim, and shows a complete lack of biological knowledge. What does he count as a morphological change, and how does that relate to # of important (i.e. under selection) mutations, which is what really matters?
I agree, he pulled that # out of his ass - I don't know whether a formula was involved or not.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
It's kind of interesting I did a paper on this but the webbing in flying treefrogs,, fish fins, whales, bats, etc
Are all pretty much modifications done to just a few genes that control programmed cell death.
Normally the cells between your fingers are told to die to separate them. If you inhibit this gene in some way you leave webbing.
Now what I can't explain is how the webbing forms between the limbs in the lemur considering that the limbs start as separate buds. Anyone know the answer?
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I actually saw a talk that discussed the cell death of the webbing, and how the genes were shut off in bats. I'm unaware of the genetic pathway for the extra skin in flying lemurs, but I would guess it would act early on in limb bud formation, leaving the limb bud still attached to the torso along the posterior portion of the forelimb. I bet it's another programmed cell death pathway used to differentiate the limbs.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
It's really weird though I think the webbing between limbs might have to be coded for by something novel as opposed to the simple pathways used in all these by downregulating appoptosis factors.
It's plausible that first it was digit webbing, then some novel structures emerged that extended the webbing.
This is actually shaping up to be a decent hypothesis that could be tested
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
You're criminally under subscribed EvoBiologist, excellent series! *****
RPR1983 2 years ago
Thanks RPR, glad you liked it.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Dinosaurs learning to fly? Did you ever see your pet turtle trying to jump off the house wanting to fly? Hell no, it can't think and doesn't have a fukking clue. Same with dinosaurs somebody just made that shit up. I bet your dog hasn't jumped off a bridge lately either has he? Now why would any creature try to fly without wings and then they just suddenly start developing?
DogFood631 2 years ago
"Now why would any creature try to fly without wings and then they just suddenly start developing?"
Ever seen a squirrel? They jump between trees. Ever seen a flying squirrel? They jump BETTER between trees. A simple growth of skin makes all the difference. Powered flight is the next step, though it must be rare to evolve, since unlike gliding it has only evolved 3 times in the whole animal kingdom - differently each time. If bat and bird wings were built the same way, evolution would fail.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
""Dinosaurs learning to fly? Did you ever see your pet turtle trying to jump off the house wanting to fly? Hell no,"" Huge Strawman. First off Tetsudines are anapsids, Learn before you open your mouth.
AcanLord 2 years ago
Student: "Teacher, is true that raptors had feathers and quill knobs?"
Teacher: "Yes, indeed they did!" Student: "Does that mean they evolved into birds?" Teacher: "Of course it does!" Student: "so the fossil records show the gradual growth of wings and beaks as we see them today?" Teacher: "of course not! who needs empirical evidence when we're preaching to the sheep!
DogFood631 2 years ago
Actually, we see plenty of empirical evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. In addition to the overall similarities in morphology and the intermediate fossils discovered, there are genetic vestiges in birds. Birds can have their tooth producing genes turned on (why have those to begin with?), their wingtips are made by the fusion of 3 fingers (the same 3 that dinos use), and they grow tails that are destroyed during development - turning off that gene can make them grow long lizard tails.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Student: "Teacher, may I curse?" Teacher: "No, it's a SIN; you must say either YAY or NEIGH"; Student: "Fuck you, teacher". Teacher : "You are supposed to somehow be more christlike by acccepting the christ and his message". Student; " I'm going to destroy the legitimacy of xtianity's message by cursing and using language that is not christlike". Teacher: "You have been EXCOMMUNICATED". Thanks for destroying the legitimacy of the message of xtianity for me. Saved me the trouble! Well done!
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Now that we know that birds did not come from dinosaurs. how does that affect your beliefs. OH wait. it doesn't really you'll just add a new chapter to the fairy tale that says birds evolved on their own. LOL. Marcus don't you see this is a Joke being played on you .
mejc2 2 years ago
Have you seen the relatively new fossil Limusaurus inextricabilis. Yet another link in the dino to bird chain. Creationists argued that dinos couldn't have evolved into birds because the 3 dino fingers are 1-3, while bird wings are a fusion of 2-4. Many scientists had predicted that dino hands were in fact 2-4, and that they had lost 1 and had 2 modified to look more thumb-like. Well, L. inextricabilis has 4 fingers (1-4), and #1 is a little vestigial nub. Dinos & birds use 2-4 as predicted.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Nice try Marcus
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
mejc2 2 years ago
Thanks mejc2, that is some interesting research that I hadn't seen yet. Apparently the authors believe that their evidence points to birds and theropods evolving from a common ancestor rather than birds evolving from theropods directly. I'm not sold yet, though. It seems to me that these modifications to the leg could have arisen later, though I haven't read the actual paper to see what they have to say about that possibility.
On the page for that article, there is a link to the finger article.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Don't mention it.
mejc2 2 years ago
Hi mejc2, I've been very interested in following yours and macus' arguement back and forth and I have this question for you.
Even if it were proved conclusively that birds didn't evolve from theropod dinosaurs (which as yet is still inconclusive with studies SUGGESTING) and instead both have a common ancestor... well you seem to suggest this disproves evolution? All this seems to suggest to me is that evidence may point to birds EVOLVING from something ELSE instead not DISPROVING evolution.
Grysham 2 years ago
So my question to you mejc2 is:
How does this discovery at Oregon State University DISPROVED evolution in any way?
Grysham 2 years ago
No animal evolved from any other animal. birds did not evolve from anything. they have been birds all along. to claim that they "may have" evolved from some earlier unknown common ancestor is sheer fabrication.
mejc2 2 years ago
Why is it do you suppose, mejc2, that birds aren't found in the layers among the earlier land animals or with the earlier flying insects? Shouldn't they have gotten buried with these creatures during the flood? Instead, we find many layers and whole ecosystems buried between these animals and the birds.
By your logic, God just thought it would be funny to make theropod dinosaurs resemble birds so much, with transitional feathers, wings, etc. Archaeopterix was just for shits & giggles, right?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Archaeopterix was a bird.
I suppose that different animals react differently to natural disasters. worms, clams, etc. have no choice. large animals like dinosaurs probably wereren't as reactive to the warning signs because they normally weren't affected by floods and such. Animals all escaped the recent tsunami. Birds probably escaped for a while before they were burried.However, I don't "KNOW". I'm only guessing.
mejc2 2 years ago
"Archaeopterix was a bird."
...with teeth, a long dino tail, multiple fingers, etc. Nice try, mejc - no bird has any of those pretty dramatic things. Would you say it's the same "kind" as other birds? If so, then welcome to accepting macroevolution.
Your guesswork leaves something to be desired.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
are you kidding evolutionists have tried to link birds to almost every kind of dinosaur that ever lived. All attempts have failed and the latest attempt to link birds to theropods is failing. Don't worry Marcus. The evolutionists will make up some new shit for yo to believe in. Be Patient.
mejc2 2 years ago
What specific dino groups aside from theropods have birds been linked to?
I still see no evidence that the link to theropods is failing. I don't find the argument of the article you keep citing to be at all convincing, and apparently most paleontologists don't either.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Alan Feduicca thinks that birds are descended from some more generalized archosaur form.
It's wholly unparsimonious at the moment. If it ever turns out to be true it would be purely incidental and I don't think his view would be confirmed
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Wow! You're kidding. I don't believe it! Evolutionists are disagreeing with evidence that contradicts their fairy tale.
Now that is surprising.
And specifically I don't remember. Old timers disease you know.
mejc2 2 years ago
You disagree with evidence that contradicts your fairy tale all the time, mejc2.
I was just saying that I don't see how the evidence presented in the article you cited supports the conclusion that birds didn't evolve from theropods. LFP just pointed out that the conclusion isn't parsimonius, which is a cardinal sin in science.
This isn't just arbitrary dismissal - there are genuine concerns with the author's conclusions that have to do with how good science is conducted.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
where is your criticism of the evolutionists that say that birds evolved from dinosaurs?
mejc2 2 years ago
Actually, mejc2, even the guy you cited says that "birds evolved from dinosaurs". The question is really, which dinosaurs? I find the evidence for theropods being the ancestor to birds to be pretty overwhelming and highly parsimonious. They have the same body shape, hollow bones, feathers, the same 3 fingers as birds do, strong connections with archaeopterix, etc. They certainly appear to be related. But then, you believe that God made the Earth only appear to be billions of years old.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
In your fairy tale many extinct animals that resemble living animals are precursors. However, resemblence or similarity does not imply ancestry. You impose your presupposition of common ascent on the fossils. Without your presupposition they are just animals that have similar features.
mejc2 2 years ago
"resemblence [sic] or similarity does not imply ancestry"
You're right, and in fact, most fossils aren't considered direct ancestors of modern organisms. What the nested hierarchy of similarity does is provide evidence of relatedness in the same way that genes and physical features are evidence of human relatedness. This is just one piece of evidence out of many pointing to relatedness (common ancestry) of organisms.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
It's not evidence of common ancestry it has just been woven into your made up story. After years of manipulation your fairy tale includes just about everything.
If something is simple you claim it is obviously evolved because of it's simplicity. If something is overly complex you claim it is obviously evolved because in your opinion, a creator wouldn't do it that way. What a system, heads you win tales you win.
mejc2 2 years ago
Look mejc2, we can argue about whether it is CONVINCING evidence of common ancestry, but we can't argue about whether it is EVIDENCE of common ancestry. It is evidence in the same way that it would be evidence in a paternity case. If you worked for the defendant you might claim that sharing the same blood type is inconclusive, and they could still be unrelated, and you could make the same claims for DNA, but it is still evidence nonetheless, and put together, the case for evolution is strong.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
It's not a case. You continue to massage the story to fit the evidence. thousands if not millions of mythological common ancestors. Quadrillions of mutations causing ascent to more complex organisms. Your evidence is "you think it happened" there is no evidence that it "actually" happened.
Evolutionists compare evolutionism to gravity all the time. I can drop a brick and see it fall. I cannot watch a bacteria eventually become a man.
mejc2 2 years ago
Every explanation can be treated like a case, mejc2. A working mind (and the scientific discipline as well) takes evidence of all explanations and weighs the evidence. This is analogous to a court case.
You can watch a brick fall and you can watch bacteria evolve new morphologies in a beaker. You can't watch Pluto orbit the Sun for a complete orbit and you can't watch large scale evolution of morphological changes. Both take too long to observe, but both are supported by mounds of evidence.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
That's a crock. we can measure and plot the position of Pluto. You don't have to imagine it. There is no mythological former position of Pluto. We can know where it was yesterday and where it will be tomorrow. You assume the ascent of organisms from simple to complex. The only evidence is that you Think it happened. There are countless organs, body parts, and systems, that have no reason to exist. You claim mindless accidents caused every one, and your evidence is that animals look alike.
mejc2 2 years ago
The reason we can predict the future and past positions of Pluto is because we understand the underlying mechanism that causes it's motion. Evolution is the same, only more complex because more forces are at work.
I'm still waiting for a better explanation for how a broken gene forms a family tree of the accumulation of genetic differences in primates, or why birds have the genes to make teeth and long dinosaur tails.
"God did it" just doesn't cut it for me as a reasonable explanation there.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"I'm still waiting for a better explanation for how a broken gene forms a family tree of the accumulation of genetic differences in primates, or why birds have the genes to make teeth and long dinosaur tails."
Every example above shows devolution. Why no examples of animals acquiring new limbs or body plans. After all it happened quadrillions of times filtered by natural selection.
mejc2 2 years ago
Regardless, it is SOLID evidence of common descent of primates (including humans). Please refute that assertion.
I've already provided you with evidence of the evolution of increased complexity, and you just blew it off because it wasn't big enough for you. Well, mejc2, carry out those same processes for a longer period of time and they become big enough - those time periods just happen to be longer than we've been able to examine these things.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
You imagine the changes could become big enough to cause an organism to become a more complex animal. We observe adaptation of organisms. there is a difference.
mejc2 2 years ago
The changes we're talking about are only different in quantity, not quality. So, fundamentally there is no difference when you stretch it out over a long period of time.
By the way, I've already mentioned several directly observed cases where an organism has become more complex.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
minor changes in organisms, is a normal functioin. Even your most dramatic example, lizarsds expressing features that are not novel to lizards. In 200 years Homology, devolution, and imagined millions upon millions of wild chance accidental mutations. You are wasting you time study something that really happened.
mejc2 2 years ago
I thought the nylon digestion was at least as dramatic as the cecal valve. Are you claiming that all lizards are the same kind? Otherwise, why would it matter if other lizards had them? Do you realize the amount of mutational differences we're talking about here between wall lizards and the nearest relative with cecal valves?
What do you mean by "imagined... mutations"? Millions of mutations happen DAILY - we've measured.
Why would "studying something that really happened" be a waste?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Also are you trying to imply that there was no information in the wall lizard to create a cecal valve, and a random chance mutation just happened to create a cecal valve like that found in other lizards?
mejc2 2 years ago
I'm saying that like all traits, there was something there already to build from - a digestive tract with muscular tissue that simply had to be modified to create a valve. You'll note, however, that all the required basic tissues and systems are also in segmented worms, so if you're willing to allow that these can simply be modified by evolution, then you should be willing to accept the common descent of all bilaterally symmetrical life.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Of course there is always something to build on. However there is no reason for an organism to mutate a cecal valve. To claim it just happened in the wall lizard and it also just happened in some other lizard independent of each other is preposterous.
mejc2 2 years ago
Why is it preposterous? Are you familiar with the genetic and developmental basis of the addition of a cecal valve? Can you explain to me how such a change would be impossible through mutation and selective pressure? I wasn't aware that you had such extensive knowledge of biology, mejc2. I'm impressed.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
no reason for a cecal valve or any other appendage to appear from mutation. However, you believe that it happened independently in the same way in the same place in different organisms for no reason what ever. that is why it is preposterous. Also without any evidence that your fairy tale is true, you demand an alternative fairy tale and if none is given you claim validity of the original fairy tale. Sheesh Marcus.
mejc2 2 years ago
It DID appear, mejc2. If not through mutation, then how did it appear in wall lizards?
What do you mean by "no reason"? DNA codes for structures and mutations change DNA. Mutations happen all the time, and the best ones survive. There's no other explanation for the origins of the cecal valves in wall lizards except for "magic".
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
There you go again Marcus, you make up a fairy tale and then demand a better fairy tale. When no alternative fairy tale is presented you claim that your fairy tale is fact.
I mean no reason. There is no reason for a cecal valve to appear in an organism that doesn't have one.
some scientists hypothesize that the information to create the cecal valve was present in the lizards but just switched off.
mejc2 2 years ago
I never said anything about "facts". Evolution is far better than a fact, it's a theory. Facts are only simple observations that explain nothing, but theories are overarching explanations, like cell theory, germ theory, and the theories of general and special relativity. These are some of the greatest achievements of the human mind and science.
So you're claiming the genes were already there and a random mutation in just the right spot turned them on? Unlikely mutations do happen all the time.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Evolutionists use facts to create a fairy tale. Wall lizards were found with cecal valves (fact). Random mutations filtered by natural selection caused them to appear from nowhere (fairy tale).
Many different organisms exist with similarities in there dna(fact). Simple organisms changed into more complex organisms by accidents filtered by natural selection(fairy tale)
mejc2 2 years ago
No one is claiming the cecal valves appeared "from nowhere". Appearance of things magically from nothing is the hallmark of creationism, not science. I would argue that the valve was caused by some simple modifications to to lining of the digestive tract, which already had muscles and membranes. So, it appeared from somewhere, not "nowhere".
We're talking about more than "similarities in there [sic] dna". It's a nested hierarchy - a family tree.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
" I would argue that the valve was caused by some simple modifications to to lining of the digestive tract"
oh.....That's right your version of the fairy tale says gradualism. Actually you could argue anything because everything you back up the fairy tale with is conjecture and speculation. The truth is no one "knows" how or why the cecal valves appeared in the isolated wall lizards.
mejc2 2 years ago
It's true that "no one "knows" how or why the cecal valves appeared in the isolated wall lizards."
I have just made a prediction based on evolution. It is testable. If we find that a few mutations modifying a section of the digestive tract are responsible for the changes, will you accept evolution?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
NO. I doubt that you would have any respect for me if such a simple explanation of a simple part of a lizard would change my mind about the mountain of evidence contained in the historical account given in the bible. Not that you have any respect for me now.
mejc2 2 years ago
Just checking. Actually, I would respect you more if you did finally accept evolution based on such evidence (on top of the mountain of other evidence, some of which I've already pointed out). Such a change of worldview based on a recognition that one was previously wrong takes a real strength of character to pull off, and I respect that in an individual. Anyway, it wouldn't be the first time the Bible was wrong about something (factually or ethically). What's your take on Lev 25:44-46?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
My Take? I have no take. The verses are about servants. in the days that this was written slaves were more like indentured servants not like the chattel slavery formed in the US. The Jews were not to take each other as servants.
mejc2 2 years ago
So you think just because the Bible says so that it was okay to own the people of rival nations, as well as their children. Interesting morality you have there - and you criticize atheists?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
It was the social structure of the time. They weren't property, they were indentured. they worked until they paid their price in full and they earned their freedom. Each slave was given a medallion with a word inscribed that literally translates to "paid in full". it is the same word that Jesus uttered Just before expiring. He paid the price for us who were in slavery to sin.
mejc2 2 years ago
"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" Lev 25:46
So, they WERE property, and they did not work until they paid off some sort of debt - that's what "for ever" means.
It's pretty clear and unambiguous that this is not the sort of relationship you are claiming it is. These are the literal words of the Bible - "possession" "for ever", aka slavery.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
The people in general not any specific person. there was no chattel slavery for the Jews in biblical times.
mejc2 2 years ago
There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion, mejc2. The Bible only mandates the freeing of Jewish slaves, not foreign ones. In fact, if you read the passage in context, it is very clear on that point, making a distinction between foreign slaves which can be kept for ever and Jewish ones, which are servants of God and must therefore eventually be released. Also, Exodus 21:20-21 allows people to beat their slaves hard enough that they survive "a day or two" because "he is his money".
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
The life of a slave in those days was more like the life of someone in a job in which he simply cannot quit today. For example military personnel cannot simply choose to stop working. However their day to day life is not exceedingly harsh. As we watch our society wrap everything into political correctness, such practices are equated with sinful activities. This argument in no way supports the fairy tale of ascent from simple to complex organisms through millions of accidents.
mejc2 2 years ago
Oh really mejc2, I wasn't aware that bosses in the US could beat their workers with a rod to the extent that they died 3 days later from the wounds.
Military personnel eventually end their tour of duty. The non-Jewish slaves only ended their service when the Jewish slave owner decided.
I'm not talking about common descent, I'm calling your evidence of the perfection of the Bible into question.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Oh, so you agree that common ascent is nothing more than a fairy tale, and now you want to get to your real mission of denying God. Well Marcus, do you want to discuss slavery during Old testament times? OK. However, do you realize that the most reliable source of information about those times is the very book you wish to disparage?
mejc2 2 years ago
Just because I wasn't talking about common descent here doesn't mean I won't continue debating it with you in other comments. You claim the Bible is perfect, which is part of your evidence for Genesis 1 & 2 being literally true. I'm simply refuting that argument. Most Christians don't think the Bible is perfect like you do, yet they don't deny God.
Nice dodging, by the way. Care to address my points about slavery?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I believe it is futile to talk to this creationist person. It is like trying to explain the third dimension to a flat lander, quite simply impossible. I would rather have you making more of your excellent videos!
I think someone said its time to move past the hopeless cases and leave them shouting on the hill tops while the rest of us get back to the business of living in reality :).
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Reality? the people in the matrix believe they are in reality also. Look, you don't have to swallow the red pill. You can choose the blue pill and stay in the matrix where you are now.
mejc2 2 years ago
If you think swallowing pills makes u see some important truths then by all means keep taking your medication.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
LOL. The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.
mejc2 2 years ago
Hey don't blame me. I have no access to these pills you talk about. When they hit the shelves over here in Finland I'm interested in trying them out. Until then I'm afraid I will have to resort to evidence and observation.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
You mean observation and speculation. There is no evidence that any organism ever changed into any other organism. EVER.
mejc2 2 years ago
BS mejc2 - how do you define "other organism"? We've seen morphological, genetic, and biochemical changes, and speciation. Thus, one organism became a different one. We've seen exactly what we expect to see over the time-scales we've been observing.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
lol mejc, you yourself are empirical evidence for organisms that changed into other organisms. if you go back far enough your ancestors are homo sapiens, but somewhere along the line you evolved into ignorantius douchebagium.
you ignore the vast amount of documented evidence for speciation (the bacteria that now can digest nylon is just one of the many examples) also you make douchebag claims that not only you, but no one in the world can defend in the scientific forum.
frankiep1222 2 years ago
Wait! you think that bacteria making a minor adaptation to digest a byproduct of nylon is evidence that quadrillions of accidental mutations filtered through natural selection caused the first cells that accidentally came to life to acquire accidental complex systems,body plans, and body parts as to accidentally turn into every living thing on the planet?
Is that what you are really saying is empirical evidence for evolutionism. Wow! what compelling evidence.
mejc2 2 years ago
its a small piece, and i only brought up the bacteria example to refute your statement that we have never seen one organism change into a different, new organism. it seems this would be empirical evidence for what you say we have never seen.
frankiep1222 2 years ago
adaptations within groups of organisms is a natural occurrence and can be observed all the time. It is in no way evidence that a single cell through accidental mutations changed into the innumerable organisms on the planet.
mejc2 2 years ago
What?
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Of course you are right but have a little understanding. We simply lack those pills you mentioned over here. There is no way to break from the matrix without the pill so please send us some.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
The pill is truth.
mejc2 2 years ago
Do you need doctors prescription for that or can you buy it freely from the drug store?
omegavalerius 2 years ago
The truth is free. Find it and live. Deny it and die. The great deceiver will acquire many souls, I hope yours isn't one of them.
mejc2 2 years ago
Free pills? I would like to have mine strawberry flavored if that is possible.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
I don't hope to convince mejc2 - as you said, he's a hopeless case. Maybe I can convince fence-sitters through this discussion, and help others get ideas for their arguments.
I only have a few minutes here and there now - my firstborn son was born on Monday, so I'll get to the videos when I get a chance. Messaging is a more reasonable goal in the meantime.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I think congratulations are in order to both you and your companion! That is a life long commitment you just signed yourself into and I'm sure it will be an enriching one :).
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Also, when did I criticize atheists?
mejc2 2 years ago
I thought I recalled you criticizing atheists' morals, but maybe I'm thinking of someone else. I apologize if that's the case.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Apology accepted. I'm the guy that thinks everyone is equally guilty of sin.
mejc2 2 years ago
Nylon digestion also breaks down to a devolution of an existing organism.
Mutations happen. Novel systems, body plans, complex organs, etc. are not the result, except in your fairy tale.
mejc2 2 years ago
Again, you're wrong mejc2. Nylon digestion is not "devolution" of anything. There is NEW enzymatic activity. Just read the abstract of this article and you'll see that that is the case:
aem(dot)asm(dot)org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020
It is true that novel proteins are often derived from mutating pre-existing proteins, but that's why genes make a big family tree of similarities just like organisms. Most new genes come from gene duplication events, as have been observed countless times.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
mejc2, do you agree that there is a divergence within species?
That is to say that birds change over time due to environmental influences and can become quite different from the original ancestors that they came from when they are isolated from the original group?
I'm not talking about a dinosaur becoming a bird. Simply the divergence found in different species of dog for instance.
Grysham 2 years ago
yes I do
mejc2 2 years ago
Ok mejc2, so you agree with my previous statement then.
Then to follow I would ask you this.
At which point would you agree that this divergence that you see within a species is high enough that you could no longer reasonably call it the same species?
But perhaps here we are arguing semantics. Could you also define what you would agree the word "species" to me?
I shall do the same, so that we are not lacking in understanding...
Grysham 2 years ago
My understanding of the word "species" is:
A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen.
To my knowledge we have observed such divergences to have ocured.
Do you disagree with this?
Grysham 2 years ago
I agree that evolutionists have specifically defined species according to already observed changes that occur and pounce upon the opportunity to use their made up definition to support their made up story of evolution. The word species is in on way used to define the creatures that God created.
Do you agree with this?
mejc2 2 years ago
Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what I would be agreeing to here.
To either agree or disagree I would need to ask you several questions.
What do you mean by "evolutionist"? Do you mean anyone who believes evolution is the most likely explanation for how everything got here? Or do you mean the scientists who have catagorised the different taxonomic ranks?
Grysham 2 years ago
By evolutionists I mean the poor souls like Marcus that have been brainwashed with a fairy tale. They have been brought up on evolutionists education systems. Entertained by evolutionists movies and documentaries, and duped by evolutionists that have co opted the word science to disguise their faith in the made up story of bacteria changing into everything given enough time.
mejc2 2 years ago
Hmm... so by evolutionist you mean people who are "brainwashed with a fairy tale".
Before I respond, I will await any further messages you make.
Grysham 2 years ago
Second when you say "made up" I assume you mean this negatively. You mean this in the same sense that a child "makes up" a story that isn't true. I am interpreting your meaning correctly?
That "evolutionists" "made up" their definitions is... well, I'm confused. If you were trying to catagorise several things into different catagories, and there was no pre-existing definition to apply wouldn't you HAVE to "make up" a definition yourself? What alternative is there?
Grysham 2 years ago
Thirdly mejc2,
Do you disagree with the current classification system? What exactly is incorrect, or what does not accurately describe something?
An apple is a word. When we say "apple" we instantly bring to mind the fruit, in whatever form we know it. Its definition is:
the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family.
This word and this definition were "made up". Does that make the word or linguists also suspect?
Grysham 2 years ago
The word apple was made up after direct observation of apples. if evolution was made up after direct observation of evolution it would have the same validity.
Species is a word used to describe direct observation of organisms. however it's subtleties make it pretty much useless in defense of bacteria changing into everything.
mejc2 2 years ago